| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:02.36 | Unknown | Good evening, everyone. Can we take our seats? Welcome everyone to the regular meeting of the Sausalito City Council. for Tuesday, May 5th, 2015. We're meeting at the IDES Hall at 511 Caledonia Street for those viewing on either live stream or on TV. Debbie, can we have the roll, please? |
| 00:00:26.37 | Unknown | Council member Weiner. |
| 00:00:28.06 | Unknown | President, |
| 00:00:28.58 | Unknown | Council member Pfeiffer. Councilmember Withey. Here. Vice Mayor Hoffman. |
| 00:00:31.54 | Unknown | here. |
| 00:00:33.92 | Unknown | President, |
| 00:00:34.22 | Unknown | Thank you. Mayor Theodores. |
| 00:00:36.35 | Unknown | Present. May we have our County Supervisor Kate Sears is here tonight, so can we have her lead us in the pledge, please? |
| 00:01:05.94 | Unknown | Thank you. Moving on to... On the agenda. We did not have a closed session, so there are no closed session announcements, and therefore, Public comment on closed session. Moving on to item E. Can we have approval of our agenda, please? So moved. |
| 00:01:23.66 | Unknown | Second. |
| 00:01:25.03 | Unknown | All in favor? Aye. |
| 00:01:26.25 | Unknown | Aye. |
| 00:01:27.34 | Unknown | 5-0. I want to remind everyone, and I think many have already, We will get into public comment Shortly after our presentations, I want to make sure everyone fills out a speaker card if they would like to speak during public comment. So you can do that during some of the presentations. THE FEDERAL COMPANIES ARE So we move right into, we have one agenda item tonight. the ferry landing project and our Administrative analyst Lily Shinsing will lead us actually before we do that I Let me get prepared, but we should go and do our ex-party communication disclosures. So can we start from? |
| 00:02:01.48 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:02.97 | Unknown | Councilmember Weiner, any? |
| 00:02:06.51 | Unknown | I haven't spoken to anybody anyway. |
| 00:02:10.05 | Unknown | Ms. I've spoken to numerous people around town about the ferry. |
| 00:02:12.18 | Unknown | Yeah, well, and that I, I'm sorry. Sure, go ahead. I, every day, every morning, I've spoken to people. Yeah, so. I can't walk my dog more than 20 feet before a man, so. |
| 00:02:20.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:20.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:20.35 | Unknown | So, I can't. |
| 00:02:24.56 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:24.58 | Unknown | All right. The same. We've had a variety of conversations with residents regarding the project. Same here. |
| 00:02:25.21 | Unknown | The same we've had. |
| 00:02:33.88 | Unknown | Yes, same here. |
| 00:02:33.93 | Lily Shinsingh | Thank you. |
| 00:02:34.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:02:35.57 | Unknown | So moving on, can we, Lily, |
| 00:02:38.74 | Lily Shinsingh | THE FAMILY. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, good evening, council members and members of the public who are here this evening and watching from home. My name is Lily Shinsingh and I'm your administrative analyst for the city of Sausalito. The purpose of the meeting tonight is for the council to review the Golden Gate Bridge District's project and request for consent and to make a determination on whether or not to grant consent for the project or grant consent with conditions. And this is the last in a series of four meetings that have been held on this project to date. So as far as the agenda tonight, we'll first have a presentation from the district themselves. Then we'll have questions from the council. They'll be opened up to public comment. and then public comment will be closed and the council will have a discussion and a decision. In terms of the process, in order to determine whether or not to grant consent for the district's projects in accordance with the lease that the district does have with the city, the council at your February 10th meeting this year directed a public review process which simulates a design review process for the district's project. The council directed this public process because the format is similar to the decision makers and the community as well, and it will allow the council to make a well-reasoned and informed decision as a lessor. The first meeting was held on March 11th And it was a joint study session with the Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Board. It was an informal study session with those two bodies to receive a detailed description of the project and to comment on the project and provide feedback for the district. The second meeting was held on April 1st, and this was after the district subsequently submitted a formal application to the city, and that was done on March 24th, and that began the 45-day review period that the city has in accordance with the lease. So the meeting on April 1st was held and they received a presentation from the district and those two bodies provided comment. Then there was a third meeting that was held on April 15th That was another formal joint hearing with the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmarks Board. That meeting was continued to April 29th for those two bodies their final recommendation. And on April 29th, there was a meeting that was the, Fourth meeting. and the commission and board made a recommendation to the council in the form of a resolution The bodies voted on each of the 24 required findings for a design review permit. They did that vote independent as two different bodies. And that resolution is provided in your packet this evening as attachment one. Next slide, please. The district's project consists of a new concrete float, a steel gangway, and a new pile-supported concrete access pier that will connect to the existing landside pier. The district will be providing a presentation this evening to you with more details on their project's design. There are components that the district is proposing that are outside of the lease area with the city. And this is a new transformer a portion of a fender pile, and new ticketing machines. If the council grants consent for this project, the lease will need to be amended to add this area or an encroachment agreement will be required for the location of these equipment types. Additionally, during the construction of the new ferry landing, a temporary landing would be constructed southward of the existing ferry landing to provide service during construction. that location of the temporary landing is outside of the lease area that the city has with the district and therefore an encroachment permit was issued to the district for the temporary location of those facilities. And that encouragement permit would either need to be Ratified or withdrawn by the council this evening with your decision |
| 00:06:47.23 | Lily Shinsingh | In terms of public comment, the city has received to date 149. We just received one at five o'clock this evening. So that information is updated, 149 pieces of correspondence and heard from 86 speakers during the public comment period from March 11th to April 15th. |
| 00:07:11.04 | Lily Shinsingh | After receiving the district's presentations and public comment, the Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Board adopted Resolution Number 2015-8 on April 29th, which provides the reasons why those two bodies could or could not find for the 24 required design review permit findings. We've summarized some of the major issues that were repeatedly mentioned at the meetings from March 11th through April 29th. and are also in the adopted resolution, and that includes the feeling that the planning for water side and land side improvements should be done in tandem, that the overall size of the project is too large and needs to be reduced. the project's incompatibility with the historic district in which it partially is located, that the Belvederes which are proposed add unnecessarily to the size of the project and that the proposed Belvederes negatively impact views and privacy from the Sausalito Yacht Club and the Inn Above Tides. the fact that there are improvements outside of the leased area, And finally, that new facts and circumstances that could have significant environmental impacts were not addressed in the district's mitigated negative declaration. including the omission of the fact that the landing is partially located in the historic district and that there are class 2D2 structures which qualify for the National Register in the vicinity of the project. Also that there are issues with the bicycle data relied on by the mitigated and that the project description in the mitigated negative declaration is inaccurately characterized as a replacement project. |
| 00:08:53.60 | Lily Shinsingh | Staff has provided the council with a supplemental staff report this evening. outlining options for your decision this evening. The first option is if the council determines that consent should not be given under the lease to the project. And we've provided some language that the council could use in making this motion, including many of the recommending reasons why the commission and board could not fine for the project. Next slide, please. The second option is if the council determines that consent should be given under the lease to the proposed project. And we've provided some language that the council could use in making that motion. The information regarding those two motions that could be made tonight, including the draft resolutions, one for denial and one for approval, was provided to the council as a supplemental staff report, and it's also available at the front, the entrance of this room for the public to view as well. So with that, staff is recommending that the council review the district's proposed project this evening and their request for consent and to make a determination on whether or not to grant consent for the project or grant consent with conditions. |
| 00:10:07.02 | Unknown | Thank you, Lily. And now we'll turn it over to the Bridge District for their presentation. |
| 00:10:12.39 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, members of the public. My name is Dennis Mulligan. I'm the general manager for the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District. I'd first like to introduce my colleagues that are with me here tonight, so you know who we all are. To my left is Ms. Ava Bauer. Ava is the chief engineer for the bridge district. She's responsible for all of our engineering and construction projects at our bus, bridge and ferry facilities. On my right is John Eberle. John is our deputy district engineer Behind me is Jim Swindler. He's our deputy general manager for our ferry division. Jim runs our ferry business that serves your constituents here in Sausalito. Also with me tonight is Carolina Whalen. She's a senior civil engineer. She was surprised they introduced her. Also with me tonight is Michael Conneran. He's an attorney representing the Bridge District. He has expertise in environmental law and real estate matters. Also with me tonight is Priya Clemens. Priya is the face and voice of the Bridge District. She is our public affairs officer. And finally, I'd like to highlight that Bo Jensen is also with us. Bo is our consultant with Moffitt and Nichols. They're a firm that specializes in maritime and waterside developmental work. Before I turn it over briefly to my staff for a short presentation, I would like to thank the City Council for developing a cooperative process to give us an opportunity to try to move this project forward. I know that the recent changes in the volume of tourists, particularly bicyclists, coming to town has caused a lot of consternation and angst. We want to work with Sausalito on solving that mutual problem that affects the community. It affects us at the bridge also, I might add. All those folks that are coming through your town on Bridgeway got there by our sidewalks on the bridge. So we're very cognizant, and we share your concerns with the volumes that exist, and it's something that we share in common, so hopefully there will be some recognition that we're very sensitive to this topic. With respect to the process that we embarked upon, it's a cooperative process, and we're real pleased that it's been successful. We believe in that we embraced it, and we have made changes. We listened to what we heard, and the submittal we made on the March 24th after sitting down with your, informally, your two advisory groups resulted in changes. So I'd like to have John Eberle briefly kind of walk you through the changes from what project we originally environmentally cleared. And we're proceeding through the final permitting process through up until a few weeks ago, if you wish, to where we are today. So with that, John. |
| 00:12:40.28 | John Eberle | Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers. Thank you for having us back here again today. So as Dennis stated, I'm just going to give a very brief presentation. Most of you have seen many of these slides before, but I just want to talk about where we were at, where we've been, and where we are at today. |
| 00:13:02.66 | John Eberle | Oh. I could get the, okay. So the Golden Gate Ferry provides public transportation service between San Francisco and Larkspur and San Francisco and South Salido. We are the largest ferry provider on the bay, having over 2.3 million passenger trips last fiscal year. |
| 00:13:26.39 | John Eberle | But we've been operating since 1970, and since that time, our facilities have aged. They are at the end of their design life, and they are in need of repair and replacement. So the reason for the project is to replace our aged ferry boarding structures to keep them structurally sound, and while we're doing that, to bring access to the vessels into compliance with ADA regulations. |
| 00:13:56.66 | John Eberle | Other benefits of the project, improve operational efficiencies and increase vessel capacity utilization. Currently, we have loading from two different levels at our different ferry facilities, main deck loading and upper deck loading. With this project, we're not just working on South Salido, but also our San Francisco and Larkspur facilities. So what we are planning to do is to standardize main deck loading at all of these facilities. That will allow us to have better management of our passengers and better loading and unloading of those passengers from our ferries and our facilities. In addition, the new facilities, the float in particular, will allow other ferry providers, in case there is an emergency, where other ferry providers are looking for someplace to board, berths, unload passengers, the facilities will allow that. Currently, our facilities do not allow all ferry boats to use them. So here is the existing South Salida Ferry Terminal. So again, the existing float is a steel float, 42 feet wide by 110 feet long. The existing gangway, 70 feet long, about 5 and 1 half feet wide. The pier is a dogleg shaped, about 96 and 1 half feet by about 8 and 1 half feet wide. And that connects to the land side pier, which is about 20 feet wide. |
| 00:15:23.58 | John Eberle | Here you can see our existing facility. And one of the reasons for the project, as I mentioned, was ADA compliance. We did analysis of the existing facility, the existing tides, and we have determined that for certain tides of negative 1.1 or less, we are not in compliance or we will exceed a 1 in 12 slope. |
| 00:15:50.58 | John Eberle | Similarly, our gangplanks, which are the platforms The devices which allow people to walk across from the float onto the ferry vessels themselves, they're very short, the transitions are very abrupt, and they exceed the 1 in 12 slope requirement. |
| 00:16:12.62 | John Eberle | And then operations, you can see here the narrow, Gangway, the narrow peer. and the narrow boarding and single door Boarding on the vessels itself leads to operational inefficiencies, operational problems. We only have room on the float for single-door boarding, and we're trying to improve that with this project. So I wanted to go back when we were in the design and environmental phase of this project and what our project design elements were. So in the 2011 conceptual design and in the environmental document, we were proposing a 53-foot wide by 150-foot long float, 19-foot wide by 90-foot long gangway, 96-foot long by by 25 foot wide access pier. Our color scheme was blue and white, yes, blue and white, and we included a temporary facility to be used during construction to allow operations to continue during construction. So here is the conceptual design, which was in the environmental document in 2011. You can see we called out the 25-foot wide pier, the gangway, and the float. It also depicts the temporary access pier and the relative location of it with respect to the existing facility. |
| 00:17:38.77 | John Eberle | Thank you. These renderings were included in the environmental document showing the view from approximately just to the north of the existing facility looking south. showing the trust that we were proposing at that time in the white color. Similarly, from the Ferry Plaza, looking to the north, top shows the existing and the bottom is the rendering that was included in the environmental document. |
| 00:18:11.76 | John Eberle | So I want to talk a little bit about ADA. There's been lots of comments about the size of the facility and why is it the dimensions that they are. And a lot of this is driven by ADA requirements. So for gangways, Again, it's just shown here, Gangway Run shall have a running slope of not steeper than one in 12. We did analysis of the facility, of the tides that are present at the facility, and that's how we determined that for our gangway, we needed to have a 90-foot-long gangway so that we would not exceed that one in 12. |
| 00:18:48.92 | John Eberle | And if I could get the clicker to work, there we go. So here you can see the gangway, and in the low tide configuration, we never exceed the one in 12. In addition, on the float itself, we have to have a boarding apron. for the different vessels that are going to be using the platform and Thank you. DEBT. required a length of 30 feet from the fixed landing onto the float. So this drove the length of the gangway and contributed to the length of the float also. Similarly, access to the vessels from the float provided by the gangplanks, we want to ensure that the slope never exceeds 1 in 12. We have two different types of vessels, two general types, a high-speed class and a Spalding class. The Spalding class has a low freeboard on their main deck, and the high-speed has a higher freeboard. In order to comply, our analysis determined that we need to have gang planks that are approximately 16 feet long. So with 16 feet gang planks on either side, then the framing for the boarding platform and a similar boarding platform width of 16 feet, that drove the width of the float to be the 53 feet that we have proposed. So the ADA contributed to a large part to the size of these facilities. So now I want to jump ahead to 2014. After 2011, 2012, we finalized our environmental document. We completed CEQA in December of 2012. In 2013 and 2014, we worked with FTA to complete our NEPA documentation and clearance for the project. And then in 2014, we were moving forward with BCDC on getting our construction permit for the project as required by BCDC regulations. So at that time, we presented at the December 2nd City Council meeting, similar to what we presented to BCDC, the 53-foot foot float, the 19 foot by 90 foot gangway. Here's where we have the access pier, still 25 foot wide, but we added Belvedere's. This was with our discussions with BCDC staff regarding public access onto the facility, It was Um, determination that The public access without Belvedere's was insufficient due to the size of the project and was recommended that the Belvederes be included. The color scheme at that time remained blue and white, and the temporary facility remained in the project. And here is the layout of that design. You can see here the access pier extension with the Belvedere's included. The gangway and the float remain the same. |
| 00:21:50.63 | John Eberle | Again, here it was a rendering that was presented at that meeting in December. The top is the existing and the bottom shows the truss. And at this time we had the white and blue and we showed the gate and all the railings white. And we also showed it, this is looking south. We had a similar rendering looking north. So at this meeting in December, there were concerns voiced that the size and scale again appeared to those present at the meeting and some of the city council member also, that the size and scales seemed inappropriate and wanted the district to look into possibly making modifications to this as the district felt could also continue with their operations, but to listen to the members of the public and see what could be done about the size, about the color, and about the gate feature, which I'll show. |
| 00:22:54.57 | John Eberle | So December 2nd was when we had the presentation. Thank you. The City Council then had another meeting in February, at which time they approved the public review process for the project. included in that review process, In addition to the March and April meetings that Lily mentioned there was a February 17th meeting, preliminary meeting with city staff and the district and two members of the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmarks Board. So we made presentations at a number of these meetings. There was much public comment Um, We also listened to the Planning Commission members, Historic Landmarks Board members, and taking all of that into consideration, but also taking into consideration our operational needs and our need for ADA compliance, we looked at making modifications to the facilities. So the changes to the design we reduced the width of the axis pier from 25 feet to 21 feet. We determined that we need that 21 feet for our operational needs for the facility. The height of the gangway truss, the gangway truss is that large truss structure. I'll show you some more photos of it that you could see from the shore. We originally had a 12 foot overall height. We reduced it to eight feet and that resulted in the height above the walkway being reduced from nine feet to five foot one. We originally had roll-up gate, roll-up doors, and we had an overhead structure. So we changed that to simple swing doors and we removed the header above the gate. And we changed the color scheme from the white-blue to a gray, galvanized gray, dark blue, to blend more with the background and color of the sky. Thank you. So here you can see our plans as submitted. We changed from a 25 foot wide pier to a 21 foot wide pier, but we kept the Belvederes. |
| 00:24:50.11 | John Eberle | Thank you. The truss itself, which is the outside structural member which holds up the gangway, the upper shows the original truss. We lowered that so that it's eight foot overall and five foot one above the walkway. Here you can see a better view of if you're actually standing on the walkway, the difference in height between the two designs. Here was the original proposal where we had the 25-foot wide access pier, and we had the roll-up gates with the header structure above. We eliminated the overhead structure. We went to simple swing gates, and we reduced the pier width from the 25 feet to 21 feet. Here was the rendering in 2014, which showed the white color and the truss looking to the south. And we, came to revise that to the galvanized gray color on the railings and lowered the truss. Similarly looking to the north, the original white truss and the overhead structure at the access gate And that was, again, reduced to the lower truss, the simple swing gate, and we looked at blue colors, and also, I'm sorry, the gray galvanized color. So those are the changes that we made through this process. It was... It was a good process that we went through. We did hear lots of comments and we did seriously look at our design. but as I noted before we do need to comply with our ADA requirements as Was mentioned as a reason for this project and also our operate operational needs We've determined that we just cannot reduce the width of the facility Any more than we have so with that all I'll end my presentation |
| 00:26:50.23 | Unknown | Thank you. We'll bring it up to Council for questions. Who would like to start? |
| 00:26:57.47 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:27:00.86 | Unknown | Okay. Thanks, and thank you for coming. I know everybody's done a lot of work on this. So my first question is about the ADA requirements. There was some discussion, and I have watched all of the, I either attended all four of the Planning Commission HLB meetings or I watched them. Uh, I watched the videos. And Mike, you might want to answer this, the current ADA requirements, because I think Thank you. punned to you on one of the last ones, My understanding is, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that there are no current ADA requirements. There's a draft. requirement out. At least, go ahead. |
| 00:27:38.05 | Dennis Mulligan | Certainly. So the project is designed to current state and federal standards. In the accessibility community, the 1 in 12 maximum slope is a standard design feature. The U.S. Access Board, the agency that promulgates the rules, if you wish, or regulations on the Americans with Disabilities Act, only more recently promulgated a draft regulation. They have not finalized the notice of proposed rulemaking. They put a draft regulation out there that is 1 in 12. When you design a project, you're supposed to design it for the current standards in place, and so since there's a draft regulation, we're obligated to design for that. Additionally, the California Building Code requires for accessible walkways, like here in Sausalito, that they be no steeper than 1 in 12. So we have designed the project for the current standards. It is true that the feds have not adopted a final rulemaking, but it's not anticipated that it'll be different than the draft rulemaking. And if we designed it for something different than the draft rulemaking, we would be appropriately subject to legal challenge. |
| 00:27:38.32 | Unknown | That's my question. |
| 00:28:37.60 | Unknown | Thank you. So I have a question about the concrete configuration. You're proposing a concrete float that's 72% larger than our existing float That's going to be extending 75 feet further into the bay. closer to the yacht club and it's going to have hydraulic machines on the concrete float that sit eight and a half feet high. So my question is, has this hydraulic system concrete float configuration been used before? |
| 00:29:10.27 | Dennis Mulligan | Yes, numerous installations. |
| 00:29:12.80 | Unknown | where, I'm just curious, |
| 00:29:17.80 | Unknown | for passenger ferries. |
| 00:29:20.99 | Bo Jensen | Well, number one, I would say each and every ferry terminal that's designed has its own particular features, and they're not all identical. But what we have done is used a hydraulic design on this, which is, for lack of a better word, common, and used throughout the industry, and they've been used on a number of different facilities. The district and myself included visited facilities in the state of Washington. Those are a combination of automobile and ferry, rather end passenger. Thank you. And so they use hydraulic systems. Do we have an example of something exactly like Sausalito No. Not that I know of because we don't have another facility. We haven't seen another one that's exactly like this. But the features, the design features, are common throughout the industry. |
| 00:30:19.58 | Dennis Mulligan | I might add also that we have hydraulic features at our current San Francisco and Larkspur ferry terminals. The existing ramps at Cantilever out are somewhat Rube Goldberg type contraptions, but they're hydraulic based. So we do operate hydraulic systems over the water in San Francisco Bay, and we've done that for over 40 years. |
| 00:30:36.01 | Unknown | So I have a couple follow-up questions to that. So the concrete float, obviously that's not an ADA requirement to have a concrete float or the hydraulics. |
| 00:30:46.68 | Dennis Mulligan | Correct. |
| 00:30:47.78 | Unknown | Okay, so, Because you went with the concrete float design, you have to go deep. And that's why it's going deeper, it's going further out. Because, right, it's my understanding that right now we have a steel float. Why aren't we using a steel float? |
| 00:31:03.32 | Dennis Mulligan | A steel float, like the current one demonstrates when you take a look at it, don't last very long in a maritime setting. And so a concrete float has a much longer service life. A steel float has to be basically taken away to a dry dock about every 15 years and removed from the site, and it shuts down the operation, and the lifecycle costs associated with that and the disruption to our customers are quite severe. So a concrete float was selected because of its superior lifecycle features as well as its much lower ongoing maintenance costs and the lack of a need to dry dock it periodically. |
| 00:31:27.70 | Unknown | No way. |
| 00:31:39.03 | Unknown | Aren't the ferries made out of steel? |
| 00:31:40.98 | Dennis Mulligan | Our theories are actually aluminum holes. all of our seven ferry boats in service are. The only steel hull we had was the original Golden Gate, which unfortunately we had to get rid of because the hull was in poor condition. |
| 00:31:53.98 | Unknown | Could you buy two steel floats and have one on dry dock and the other and then switch it out? I mean, wouldn't that be an elegant and cheaper solution and you'd be able to build it closer in? |
| 00:32:05.38 | Dennis Mulligan | It's a solution that was considered and not carried forward when it was evaluated because it's not a cost-effective solution. |
| 00:32:12.88 | Unknown | It's not a what? |
| 00:32:13.77 | Dennis Mulligan | cost-effective solution. |
| 00:32:18.06 | Unknown | So it's my understanding the hydraulics will be at their lowest point 100% higher than we have today and at the highest point 250% higher. Is that correct? |
| 00:32:33.18 | John Eberle | If you're talking about the elevation of the float right now, the new float will be approximately a foot higher than the existing float out of the water. And the hydraulic, the platform will be on top of that, about another two feet on top of that. And when it's raised up, it will be approximately another four feet on top of that. |
| 00:32:34.17 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:32:49.87 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:32:50.20 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:32:54.09 | Unknown | Yeah. I have some questions about ADA, but I'll yield to the rest of the council. |
| 00:33:00.36 | Unknown | to the council. go around. |
| 00:33:04.06 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:33:05.48 | Unknown | Sure, I'd like to probe a little the basic core assumptions in terms of capacity, growth, projected ridership, and understand also the lifetime of the lifespan of the project you're building for. So, you know, what is been described is that you've planned for a 4% growth rate, which seems over, Thank you. Thank you. 10, 20, a decade to several decades, if you think about it, is going to compound into a very large number. some point a doubling of the congestion which the residents here already feel is too great. So could you comment on the validity of the assumptions and whether those assumptions were included in the environmental studies that were done? |
| 00:34:04.34 | Dennis Mulligan | Those assumptions don't affect the fundamental size of the float or the gangway. Those are, as Mr. Ebley said in his presentation, dictated by the geometry of the Americans with Disabilities Act with respect to getting from the pier down to the float and then from the float onto the boats to comply with accessibility standards. And so if there was no growth or if there was a doubling, it wouldn't affect the fundamental size of the float and the gangway. Today's operational needs as well as accessibility standards indicate that these dimensions are appropriate. |
| 00:34:42.19 | Unknown | I'd like to follow on. First of all, thank you for coming. And also, thank you for acknowledging some of the issues we have downtown with the transit, with the bicycles, and the problems we're facing as well as wanting to make sure that we have a beautiful ferry landing because it's the heart of our downtown. But I do want to follow up. My understanding, Council Member Withee's, So my understanding was that some of the width was because of the, for operational needs, but was based on the growth in ridership, which is, 4% over 4%. 20 years and 80 percent. And you're saying that without any growth whatsoever, you would require this larger, wider gang, we're not talking about the ADA length issue, but the width, we're concerned of it because our understanding is that The width, the larger width drives a larger trust and a more bulky trust. So may you comment on that? |
| 00:35:45.37 | Bo Jensen | Well, it's correct that we did look at a 20-year time span, and we used a past history of passenger counts provided by the district to assess what might be, what we thought would be a reasonable growth projection Granted, we used a lower number than what the district has seen. And therefore, we felt that would be appropriate and use that over the 20 year time span. Once you have that number, and that's what was used in the environmental documents, that growth, the increased growth. And then we use that to calculate the time required to unload and reload passengers in Sausalito. And so that volume of passengers does enter into the equation of the width of doors and that that information. Yes. Does that answer your question? |
| 00:36:39.69 | Unknown | Yes, and that was my understanding from the other meetings. And my question is, If we, The population of Sausalito is not growing. Our last census we've gone down, so we're flat. And so the 4% is increase in tourism and our understanding in bicycle tourism. We have a program we're starting looking at ways that we can manage that to keep these bikes from inundating our downtown area and having to go on the ferry. if we were able to reduce that future projection of the 4% per year My understanding is we would not need Uh, the gangway and the size of the ferry landing that you're proposing, and I think that's the heart of what we're looking at here. |
| 00:37:25.86 | Unknown | If I may, this is Eva Bauer. In all our presentation, the Volumes projected volumes that we use were so called 85 percentile. So we already Decrease the projected volume that we use to design the size of facility we did not use the projected maximums. However, if you look at the, increase in passenger volume that we are experiencing currently during the last three years, we saw 7% increase. So what happens, even our new facility, the volumes that are used, it's like 512 passengers for boarding, What you have right now at our ferry landing in a high season, In many instances, though, the volume of passengers that we have to board. it's over 500, it's close to 600. Um, In addition to it, the reason for the size of the facility, like John mentioned in his presentation, is need for two doors for boarding and disembarking. And the reason for it is that we currently experiencing a great dilemma we max our efficiencies in boarding through one door on a narrow pier, And we are facing situation where the boat has to leave to be on time in San Francisco. has to leave not fully accommodating all passengers waiting. So the WIS is a key critical element for us to be able to use capacity of our boats and accommodate all the passengers waiting to be taken to San Francisco. |
| 00:39:27.12 | Dennis Mulligan | So we will be very interested in your meeting in two weeks in the 19th to see what creative ideas you have, because it affects us in the bridge sidewalks. Because folks, all of them that are in your town came across our bridge sidewalks, and so we're very interested in what you come up with. We're very excited about the recent ambassador program that you've launched also. But fundamentally today, we have boats leaving the dock with people lined up waiting to get on just so we can get back to San Francisco on time to take your constituents home. And so that's not a good way to operate and spend the public's money to leave the dock with people waiting because you have to go pick up people on the other end and so having a more efficient boarding process would allow us to meet our schedules more regularly for your residents. |
| 00:39:33.53 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 00:40:08.28 | Unknown | I understand that and I appreciate that. But the current situation is untenable and a growth of 4% per year over 20 years. is untenable. particularly for the land side of us, for our downtown. So that's why we're taking all these steps for bicycles. It would be, we're looking at reversing that trend. And therefore, we might be building a ferry landing that was much too large for what we hope to be the bicycle volume in the near future. So thanks. I'll pass on to you. What may they say? Oh, yeah, go ahead. |
| 00:40:38.16 | Susan Kirsch | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:40:39.87 | Unknown | When you considered this. and Thank you. You considered the bikes also in that? because I'm I'm asking you, because you plan to do San Francisco and Larkspur. And if you really look, I believe Laksper, what's the amount of bikes you have? They're minimal. |
| 00:41:00.41 | Dennis Mulligan | It's actually growing and we've received complaints. We've dry docked one of our catamarans and the replacement catamaran doesn't have enough bike storage so we're leaving bikes behind on certain trips, the 630 trip leaving San Francisco to Larkspur. So we do have increased growth there. And Jim Swindler, our ferry manager, is engaged in Naval Architect to look at how we can modify our high speed catamarans that operate to Larkspur to carry even more bikes. A lot of our customers who are commuters are using bikes to access our ferry facility in Larkspur. |
| 00:41:28.84 | Unknown | What do you figure your percentage? is going to be in the future of Laxbury for bikes. Do you know? |
| 00:41:35.56 | Dennis Mulligan | I think that's a good question. Your Ouija board is as good as mine. |
| 00:41:38.22 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:41:38.59 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you. |
| 00:41:44.33 | Unknown | I have a question about the the loading deck and so right now, the passengers load and offload on the main deck in Sausalito. Do you have that right? And then, so you're changing the configuration in San Francisco because right now, for those of you that don't ride the ferry, a long time ferry rider. you load on the bottom level, and then you have to walk up the stairs to offload in San Francisco. And so when then do you expect the offloading in San Francisco to be online, to offload on the main deck? |
| 00:42:17.53 | Dennis Mulligan | That's a couple years behind the Sausalito project. |
| 00:42:19.74 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 00:42:19.94 | Dennis Mulligan | And then Larkspiel will be a couple years after that. |
| 00:42:22.37 | Unknown | So my experience was riding the ferry, was that the main problem on the San Francisco side and the delays were people that had to carry their bikes up those stairs. and there's no way that you can get more than one person at a time on a bike off the ferry on the San Francisco side So, I'm not sure. It's correct then that no matter what you do right now, the delays are still gonna be in place in San Francisco because that's where the San Francisco Currently there's a delay. |
| 00:42:46.89 | Dennis Mulligan | Currently there's delays at both the San Francisco and Sausalito ends on those trips. |
| 00:42:50.60 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:42:50.87 | Dennis Mulligan | There's delays loading the boat in Sausalito, and there are clearly delays in San Francisco offloading the boats also. |
| 00:42:56.45 | Unknown | So that brings me to my next question, which is the main problem in loading and leaving passengers behind in Sausalito is because of the bikes trying to load. Is that correct? I'm not. |
| 00:43:07.05 | Dennis Mulligan | Bikes or people with strollers, but mostly bikes, and people that may be elderly. We all slow down as we get a little older, but it's primarily the bicycles. |
| 00:43:09.92 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:43:14.70 | Unknown | Okay. Okay. |
| 00:43:17.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:17.26 | Dennis Mulligan | Thanks. |
| 00:43:23.34 | Unknown | So just to be clear, does ADA require all gangways to be 16 feet wide? |
| 00:43:29.66 | Dennis Mulligan | No, the width is not an accessibility requirement, the length is. |
| 00:43:32.86 | Unknown | So does ADA require all access piers to be 21 feet wide? |
| 00:43:37.73 | Dennis Mulligan | No, it does not. |
| 00:43:39.96 | Unknown | So when I look at what we have today and I compare it to what you're proposing, I look at our, we've got a 70-foot long gangway and a 50-foot fixed boarding ramp. That's 120 feet. You're proposing a 90-foot gangway and a 30-foot boarding apron platform And that's 120 feet. Both. I mean, when you look at the current proposal, But the gangway that attaches to the cumulative impact of the gangway with the 50 foot boarding ramp, you do have that one in 12 slope. And both would compensate, or both do compensate for the 10-foot tidal differential. So my question is, help me understand I mean, in 1998, when you upgraded the the theory. terminal. you were required to meet ADA compliance, correct? |
| 00:44:44.72 | Dennis Mulligan | The law was in effect. The Americans with Disabilities Act passed about seven years earlier. But at that time, the Access Board had not promulgated any draft rules for ferry boarding facilities. Today, they have promulgated draft rules. And today, the California Building Code for Accessible Walkways is quite clear. |
| 00:45:01.95 | Unknown | Yes, it is quite clear and we are currently meeting that 1 in 12 slope if you look at the cumulative gangway with the boarding ramp. |
| 00:45:12.05 | Dennis Mulligan | Today we do not meet it many times during the year from getting from the platform to the, from the fixed pier down on the gangway to the float and from the float going into the boats, we currently do not meet it at many times. |
| 00:45:24.40 | Unknown | you're referring to the gangplank. |
| 00:45:26.57 | Dennis Mulligan | The gangplank, but also the gangway. The gangway at certain times of the year, certain times of the day exceeds the accessibility standard. |
| 00:45:33.70 | Unknown | I'm talking about not just the gangway, but the cumulative gangway with the with the boarding room. because From what I understand, Looking at the gangway with the boarding ramp, you do meet that 112 slope. |
| 00:45:49.05 | Dennis Mulligan | No, we do not. |
| 00:45:55.87 | John Eberle | You're talking about the existing facility? Yes. Yes, the existing facility, as was shown before, that length, when we have a tide of minus 1.1 or greater, that 70-foot length does not comply with the one in 12. |
| 00:45:57.37 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 00:46:11.66 | Unknown | I'm not talking about the 70 foot, I'm talking about the 70 foot with the 50 foot. I'm talking about the cumulative. |
| 00:46:18.36 | Dennis Mulligan | Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. The Americans with Disabilities Act doesn't allow an average. At no point in the path of travel can exceed 1 in 12. So today's facility does exceed the 1 in 12. It's not an average along the length. It's situational at each moment. |
| 00:46:32.98 | Unknown | Okay. So the gangplanks were the other thing you raised with the ADA compliance. Have you considered lengthening the gangplanks? |
| 00:46:47.10 | Dennis Mulligan | The length of the game planks affects the width of the float. As I think Mr. Eberle explained, we can call that slide up again if you wish to kind of walk you through that one more time. |
| 00:46:57.67 | Unknown | So no, I get that impacts the width of the float, Could you replace the float? I guess increase the free board in the float? Have you looked at other configurations that would |
| 00:47:09.87 | Dennis Mulligan | We looked at a variety of configurations to come up with something that's as small as possible, as economical as possible, that meets the requirements that we're confronted with. Thank you. |
| 00:47:17.97 | Bo Jensen | up. |
| 00:47:18.03 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you. |
| 00:47:18.05 | Bo Jensen | Thank you. |
| 00:47:18.07 | Dennis Mulligan | pass it to |
| 00:47:18.56 | Bo Jensen | Thank you. |
| 00:47:19.05 | Dennis Mulligan | BOGEN. |
| 00:47:19.97 | Bo Jensen | Well, in fact, we did. It's an interesting dynamic. It's kind of an iterative process. And the issue is the district has the Spalding class vessels as well as the high speed. And the Spalding class vessels have a lower freeboard. So increasing the freeboard on the float actually hurts and makes it more difficult to reach the Spalding, which has a low freeboard. So we did do that, and it just simply |
| 00:47:42.03 | Dennis Mulligan | work. |
| 00:47:43.87 | Bo Jensen | Thank you. |
| 00:47:43.89 | Dennis Mulligan | Additionally, the California Public Utilities Commission can license other ferry operators, whether we like it or not, to use our facility. So we have to be cognizant of that as part of our design so that we don't preclude them. |
| 00:47:50.27 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:47:50.74 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:47:57.13 | Unknown | I have more questions but I'll yield to cancel. No more? Thank you. |
| 00:48:03.06 | Unknown | On the float, my understanding is that you will have the same floats in Larkspur and San Francisco when you complete those projects. Is that correct? |
| 00:48:03.07 | Unknown | And the flow. |
| 00:48:12.57 | Unknown | And you're trying to standardize them so that when the boats come in, the operations will be the same, correct? |
| 00:48:16.84 | Dennis Mulligan | They'll be similar. Currently our facilities aren't standardized, but they're also standardized because we've optimized them for the tidal fluctuations and the variety of different vessels that will access those floats. |
| 00:48:26.38 | Unknown | and just Because Sausalito, because you'll be moving the others from loading on the top level and moving down to this to the lower level. And Sausalito's the only the only one at this point, that loads at the lower level. I guess the question is, Why did you start with Sausalito as opposed to the others? Because you would have operational efficiencies quicker if you had started with one of the others. That's what it would seem to me. |
| 00:48:50.54 | Dennis Mulligan | your float is not in as good a condition as our facilities in San Francisco and Larkspur. So it was driven out of the level of deterioration and the need. |
| 00:48:59.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:48:59.10 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you. |
| 00:49:04.60 | Unknown | How often during the year is there a negative one-on-one tide during a ferry operation? |
| 00:49:13.64 | Dennis Mulligan | I believe we provided a written response to that. My recollection from memory is there would be 64 ferry trips a year that would not comply. |
| 00:49:24.56 | Unknown | I have a follow-up question. |
| 00:49:27.74 | Unknown | Yeah, how far below the negative slope is it during those times when it's out of compliance? And that would be, you know, in the current configuration. |
| 00:49:39.46 | Dennis Mulligan | In the current configuration, I think it's 64 times a year. |
| 00:49:42.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:43.03 | John Eberle | Thank you. |
| 00:49:43.04 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:49:43.41 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you. |
| 00:49:43.51 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:43.63 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you. |
| 00:49:43.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:43.82 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you. |
| 00:49:44.04 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:44.31 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you. |
| 00:49:44.32 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:44.44 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you. |
| 00:49:44.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:44.54 | Dennis Mulligan | you |
| 00:49:44.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:49:44.64 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you. |
| 00:49:45.99 | John Eberle | The slope would be about 1 in 9.5 rather than the 1 in 12. OK. So that's how much steeper it would be. |
| 00:49:51.19 | Unknown | Okay. Okay. |
| 00:49:57.88 | Unknown | I noticed that on your, one of the slides that showed the float with the hydraulic configurations, And I'm wondering why you can't just raise the hydraulic floor of the float up that however 16th of an inch or whatever it is that you would be out of compliance if you shorten because it seems to me what I'm hearing tonight is the whole bulk of this is being driven by the by the ADA slope. I have that right, Craig? |
| 00:50:30.38 | John Eberle | Yeah. If you look at this slide here, if I may. |
| 00:50:33.75 | Unknown | Sure. This is what I was talking about. |
| 00:50:35.88 | John Eberle | So you have the access pier, which is a fixed elevation, Thank you. |
| 00:50:39.57 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 00:50:39.88 | John Eberle | And then you have a variable elevation depending upon the tide of the float. Yep. So we looked at the different tides at this facility and determined that in order to have that 1 in 12, we needed the 90-foot. Now, there's other rules besides just the 1 in 12 slope on ADA. So once you come off of the gangway, you have to have a fixed landing or a flat landing. So that's what that fixed landing is. And then you come to the boarding apron. So the boarding apron is there because of our different vessels. So as we mentioned, the vessels, the Spalding vessels have a low freeboard. So in order to get to the right configuration on your our gang planks you need to either go up or down so for the spallings you need to go down your boarding platform will be as low as possible when you have a catamaran the boarding platform has to be elevated because you have to be up high enough so that the gang planks going into the vessel meets the 1 in 12. So as Bo mentioned, it's an iterative process, and with our different vessels and our different vessel configurations, we had to go through this process to determine the different lengths so that we would always comply with that 1 in 12. So you see, for instance, on the bottom one, the boarding apron has a 1 in 36 for that particular configuration, but it just meets 1 in 12 on the top configuration. So we looked at all of the different possible potential configurations with the different vessels and the different ties to determine these lengths. |
| 00:50:45.14 | Unknown | Yep. |
| 00:51:07.21 | Unknown | Fixed. is. |
| 00:52:20.59 | Dennis Mulligan | I might add one other thing also. By switching all of our vessels to main deck loading, we lowered the overall height of the facility. So that was a design feature that if we boarded at the upper levels, this facility would be much more grandiose, much larger, much more intrusive. So we looked at all three of our facilities. One of the things that drove the main deck loading was to lower the profile here in Sausalito. |
| 00:52:20.64 | John Eberle | I'm sorry. |
| 00:52:44.53 | Unknown | So, okay, so it's driven by the float that you've chosen and how you've chosen to comply with the ADA requirements. |
| 00:52:54.03 | John Eberle | So if you look at this here, you can see the boarding platform elevation, and you can see it has to be elevated to the 6.7 in order to, again, comply with the 1 and 12 on the gangplank to make it into the high-speed class freeboard, and then it would have to be lowered down as far as possible, and the gangplank itself would then extend down to the main deck loading location on the spalding. |
| 00:53:22.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:53:28.14 | Unknown | Okay, so we're looking at a 16 foot wide gangway that is not an ADE requirement, going into a boarding apron that narrows to two eight-foot wide doors. But then once inside your vessel, you've got a three-and-a-half-foot wide staircase. And in that three and a half foot wide staircase, you have a wheelchair lift that when in operation, blocks the entire staircase. when you use the argument for operational efficiency When I'm looking at this, It seems that the real bottleneck is your vessel. I mean, you're going from 16 to... to aid. and then a three and a half staircase. |
| 00:54:26.98 | John Eberle | When you're boarding and unboarding from the main deck, you're not using the staircases. So you need to get people onto the vessel from the boarding platform. And then when they're on the location on the vessel, when they're coming off, they're not in a stairway. You use the stairways when you want to move between the different levels. |
| 00:54:47.82 | Unknown | Well, but most of the, I mean, for ADA compliance, you need to provide accessibility to all the levels, correct? |
| 00:54:55.67 | Dennis Mulligan | And that is not correct. We need to have all the amenities on the level that is accessible. |
| 00:54:55.89 | Unknown | That's not correct. |
| 00:55:00.55 | Dennis Mulligan | So if they get on and off the same level as restrooms that are accessible as well as the concessionaire that serves beverages and snacks, it complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. |
| 00:55:08.80 | Unknown | Thanks. But most of the tourists want to go up to that highest level. And so don't you have, I mean, I've experienced a bottleneck right there. |
| 00:55:20.10 | Dennis Mulligan | The Spalding-class vessels, the Marin was completely refurbished a couple years ago. It has an actual elevator separate from the stairwell. The MS San Francisco, the other Spalding-class vessel is now at a shipyard in Chula Vista. It will be coming back later this summer, a complete refurbishment. It, too, will have an elevator, and we're talking to the federal government about grants to redo the MS Sonoma. So it will have an elevator that is separate from the stairways. But regardless of that, the the vessels are in compliance with ADA if we access the main level at both ends of the trip |
| 00:55:56.13 | Unknown | I have a question on the, do you have a picture, an overhead view. |
| 00:56:00.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:56:04.01 | Unknown | So, The configuration that comes out and cuts over Why is it done that way versus a straight configuration rather, rather than having the dogleg that it does. Can you explain that to us? |
| 00:56:20.14 | John Eberle | Are you asking why we didn't put the dog leg back |
| 00:56:26.98 | Unknown | Sorry, why wouldn't it even be straighter? Could it be moved and made even straighter yet? Would that help at all? |
| 00:56:33.68 | John Eberle | We were actually locating the float in what was determined from our pilots, what they felt was the best location for them to land at this facility. So the float was first located in depth of water, as Council Member Pfeiffer mentioned earlier. So we had to put it out into a depth where it could fit. But then due to the tides and the winds and the other other factors out there we had meetings with our pilots to determine where would the would they find the best location and that's how we located at this location |
| 00:57:09.42 | Unknown | where you located the float. Correct. On the land side though, it's off center from the float, so why wouldn't it be directly in line with the float? |
| 00:57:25.53 | John Eberle | Yes. I'm trying to understand which portion you're talking about. The gangway or the... |
| 00:57:28.51 | Unknown | about the gangway or the? a portion that comes out from the land, |
| 00:57:32.03 | John Eberle | the existing land site portion, which we're not |
| 00:57:33.97 | Unknown | chain, yes. Right. Okay. So and then you have the ramp. So |
| 00:57:34.48 | John Eberle | Right. |
| 00:57:38.14 | Unknown | There's no change to the land side portion is the main part of it. |
| 00:57:42.73 | John Eberle | Correct, we're not touching the land side at all. |
| 00:57:44.25 | Unknown | Thank you. And then I do want to have one follow-up question from Council Member Pfeiffer's question. How much higher in total will this, the new float be than the old float? |
| 00:58:00.57 | John Eberle | The existing float itself is approximately one and a half feet higher out of the water than the top. The new float is approximately one and a half feet higher out of the water than the existing float. So right now you look at the steel surface out there, the new one will be approximately one and a half feet taller. And if you look at the fixed location, it's about seven feet above the existing deck. |
| 00:58:31.47 | John Eberle | So let me find that here. |
| 00:58:36.31 | John Eberle | I'm just... So you can see that fixed landing, and you see the top of the concrete float. So that top of the concrete float is approximately one and a half feet higher above the water than the existing steel float. And that fixed landing, the bottom of it is approximately seven feet above the existing float. We do have a fixed landing now, which we use to board the catamaran vessels. So if you look at that, relatively speaking, it's about the same. As Bo mentioned, our piles will be about one foot lower than the existing piles. So if you look at the height of those blue piling that are out in the water, the new piling will be about one foot below that. |
| 00:59:07.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:59:24.49 | John Eberle | Thank you. |
| 00:59:28.52 | Unknown | The President. with the approximately where you're You're next to the Sassalido Yacht Club, and I believe that some of their concerns are about I believe in 2010, redid their configuration of their windows that looks towards the city and I think there's some concern about the idea that A VESSEL WOULD be forced to stay overnight or a period of time. We'd like some assurance on what would happen. |
| 01:00:00.73 | Dennis Mulligan | We do not lay over vessels in Sausalito at this location. We have not historically, it's not our intention to going forward. There's a whole host of reasons why it doesn't make sense operationally to have vessels spend the night here. |
| 01:00:13.76 | Unknown | I have a follow-up question. So you just said we do not lay over vessels. We don't leave them overnight. Just last, I think it was just last week, during the last HLBPC review, Didn't you have a boat that was docked overnight? |
| 01:00:37.86 | Unknown | did recently laid a photo |
| 01:00:39.97 | Unknown | Can you speak into the microphone, please? |
| 01:00:40.00 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. We did recently lay a boat over several times, and actually I wasn't aware of it. It was done due to some logistical problems we had delivering our service to the ballpark. Once we were made aware of that, that stopped. Typically we don't. I know the last time we did it on a regular basis was a number of years ago when we had a lot of maintenance dredging going on in Loxburn. We need it in another location, but typically we do not lay vessels over there. |
| 01:01:08.59 | Unknown | It's my understanding it happened in four nights in a row. |
| 01:01:14.93 | Dennis Mulligan | Shame on us. We have historically at various junctures leased space from the Army Corps to layover boats at that location when we needed additional layover space because of operational needs at Larkspur, as opposed to leaving them here. We've been in business 40 years, and there's not been that many nights that we've had a boat over there. And if there is, you should contact us immediately so we inform staff of what the operational rules are. |
| 01:01:38.15 | Unknown | We maybe one more question open to public comment, then we can come back. |
| 01:01:41.38 | Unknown | I have multiple questions that I think will |
| 01:01:42.95 | Unknown | that I can |
| 01:01:46.00 | Unknown | I think are important Thank you. With regards to framing. |
| 01:01:49.24 | Unknown | with regards to framing. Do some, but we may want to do it afterwards as well. |
| 01:01:53.97 | Unknown | Can I jump in? Okay. On the October 6, 2014 presentation, the district made to BCDC Design Review Board Um, the district said, quote, so with the additional width we'll be able to do queuing on one side, offloading on the adjacent side to eliminate the queuing that's occurring in the street right now. And, quote, with is what's necessary for operations to get our turnaround time and avoid queuing into the street. The BCDC Design Review Board one member responded, well one of the reasons you're widening it is to create additional queuing, which in theory would be something you do on the land side. So you're filling the bay to create queue space. So it was the opinion, at least, of certain board members, this is the design review board at BCDC, that this was a design that was basically to accommodate queues of rental bikes over the bay. And frankly, looking at that, in listening to that, I thought that was interesting. And can you comment on that? |
| 01:03:06.21 | Dennis Mulligan | We have subsequently narrowed the width in response to comments we heard from the public. |
| 01:03:12.08 | John Eberle | And as we mentioned at the last meeting with our 21-foot width, we do intend to cue people on the pier. We showed that in all of our presentations and showed for our operational needs that we will be cueing folks on even the 21-foot wide pier. |
| 01:03:12.59 | Dennis Mulligan | AND AS WE |
| 01:03:29.73 | Unknown | I have some questions regarding the historic district. |
| 01:03:34.89 | Unknown | but some of them might be due after. |
| 01:03:35.27 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. Real quick, yeah, yeah, real quick. So this title 106 is a title. |
| 01:03:36.53 | Unknown | Real quick, yeah. |
| 01:03:46.57 | Unknown | is something the district created. Smart, confidential, not for public distribution. And of course, it just came to light last week. And of course, you based your ISMND off this. And can you share with us why it was not shared with the public or even council for that matter? |
| 01:04:06.70 | John Eberle | First of all, 106 is a federal requirement. FTA is the lead federal agency on this job. Our CEQA document, our ISM&D, that is the district's responsibility. So it is true that the district prepared that cultural resource assessment. And in our response to the question on this it's common practice for these type of reports to list them as confidential because they may include information on cultural resources that you don't want people going out and digging up things that you may not want them to be digging up but regardless the FTA had this document |
| 01:04:55.37 | John Eberle | Correct, there's all kinds of historic and cultural resources. FTA did submit this document to the SHPO, and at that time it appears that even some members of the community were able to get a hold of this document. It's not that we were hiding it from anyone, it was FTA's document, and we were not requested to supply it, but when we were, we did supply it. |
| 01:05:19.82 | Unknown | Can you tell me what historic designation the Ferry site carries? |
| 01:05:33.27 | Unknown | Okay, it's 2D2, which means it's eligible for the Federal Registry. It's not mentioned in your Title 106. Can you share with me the historic sites within 300 feet of the ferry landing, which is what Title 106 is supposed to include? |
| 01:06:01.27 | Unknown | Okay, Venia Del Mar has 2D2 status. In fact, Venia Del Mar is also listed as a California point of historic interest in Marin County. In fact, it's number two after the Frank Lloyd Wright Civic Center. It's not in your 106. Does your Title 106, which was what you based your ISMND on, does it acknowledge the downtown historic district? |
| 01:06:30.34 | John Eberle | Yes, it does. |
| 01:06:32.50 | Unknown | Well, from what I've seen, it acknowledges it in Hurricane Gulch In Main Street, |
| 01:06:38.87 | John Eberle | The ISM and D states in there that The project is located in the historic district. It's in the ISM and D. |
| 01:06:51.00 | Unknown | Is there any reason why why the historic designations for the site itself The Saucyutu Hotel, which is designated 2S2, Vigna Del Mar, which is designated to D2, all of that was missed. |
| 01:07:14.61 | John Eberle | As I'm... I think. |
| 01:07:17.90 | Bo Jensen | Well, number one, it wasn't missed. We have the direct. |
| 01:07:22.64 | Unknown | Well, where is it? It's not in Title 106. |
| 01:07:25.63 | Bo Jensen | Well, if I can answer the first question, We have a direct and an indirect area that's looked at. And the direct area was defined and accepted by the agencies that review that. The indirect is the area that's viewable from uh, outside the area and it was determined that those areas that you're talking about would not have a visual effect on the ferry terminal. |
| 01:07:52.59 | Unknown | We're talking about the ferry site itself, sir, is a 2D2 designation. Thank you. |
| 01:07:59.06 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you. I think that's the original ferry facility. |
| 01:08:03.76 | Unknown | It's a sight. |
| 01:08:06.45 | Dennis Mulligan | I believe the reference is to the original ferry facility. We have consulted with the preparers of the document. And for clarification, 106 does not refer to anything in the California Environmental Quality Act. That's a federal process that we did go through. And as part of that, as Bo said, certain things were acknowledged. And there was determined that there were no effects on the properties that were eligible. |
| 01:08:28.87 | Unknown | Thank you. I understand that Title 106 is not associated with the MND, but you base the MNDIS on this. I mean, it guides it. |
| 01:08:39.79 | Dennis Mulligan | No. No, it guided the- |
| 01:08:40.89 | Unknown | It's a federal requirement, we know that, because you're getting a federal grant, and it should have been included, and these sites were not |
| 01:08:43.28 | Dennis Mulligan | Correct. And it should have been included. |
| 01:08:46.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:08:48.64 | Unknown | And the title 106, it's my understanding, you mentioned the direct area and the indirect area. That's a separate. circumference, isn't it? It's 75 feet, whereas the title 106 is 300 feet. So Vigne Del Mar should have been mentioned. |
| 01:09:00.60 | Dennis Mulligan | Delmar should have been mentioned. There's an area of a potential effect. The various resource agencies, in this case, the State Historic Preservation Officer and others, an FTA, get together. They determine the area of potential effect, and there's, as Bo stated, there's two levels with respect to that, and there is documentation that we can share with the city staff regarding this matter. |
| 01:09:21.51 | Unknown | MAKING A LITTLE BIT OF THE MAKING A LITTLE BIT OF THE Yeah, I'm done with that. Thank you. |
| 01:09:26.92 | Unknown | So what I'd recommend, unless we have any other burning questions for now, we'll open it up to public comment, then we'll bring it back here for further questions and then our comments. So at this point, I'd like to open up to public comment. move the microphone down and can we get the speaker cards and if anyone else who hasn't filled out a speaker card would like to speak, please fill out a speaker card and hand it to staff, and we can go from there. |
| 01:09:54.33 | Unknown | Kirby, can I get the glasses? |
| 01:09:56.19 | Unknown | It's a little piece of paper. Thank you. Can you get Neil a card, please? And what I'll do is I'll... Name three people at a time so you can line up so that we can move through. We'll, because of the sight of the crowd, And as we typically do, we'll limit comments to three minutes, please. So, I will already shine. Ibram? James Gebert. Thank you. And Leslie Hall will be the first three. |
| 01:10:40.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Mm-hmm. |
| 01:10:42.10 | Unknown | um, Hello. Since I have three minutes, I'm going to, it's only three minutes, I guess. Yeah. So I'm a Sausalito resident and ferry commuter. I'm also a designer and an engineer. I'm against the project because it's not an integrated plan that considers both land side and water side. Basically, the project rankles me because the design choices and constraints chosen are wrong. They're trying to solve the wrong problem. A glaring example of this is the bad design choice of the 21 foot GAM Plank. San Francisco has wider gangplank but does not use dual loading or exit. What makes us think they will operate both entryways here? Choke points is not the 21 foot width gangplank, but the land site loading procedure. Furthermore, the boat configuration makes loading difficult. Loading on top makes it worse. Imagine 70 bikes going downstairs, compounded by tourists who do not know their way around the boat. Furthermore, In the last meeting, the ferry company stated that they're aiming for loading speed of 700 people every 10 minutes. That's 70 people a minute. That's one per second. I don't know who can run that kind of marathon in the boat. Finally, if we are thinking of commuters, I observed no more than 200 Sausalito commuters go on the ferry every morning. This morning it was 1.50. So, I think we can improve operational efficiency with use of better technology, better ticketing, better mobile apps for bookings, moving ticketing away from the ferry landing. Finally, without land side changes, the water side ferry development makes no sense. Must design for an integrated use case, not design in isolation. In design, there are many constraints that must be taken into account. ADA, loading efficiency, user mix, size of historical town. My guess, they design for funds available. I hope the council will reject this ill-planned project without an integrated plan. Thank you. |
| 01:12:48.44 | Jim Gabbert | My name is Jim Gabbert. I've lived in Sausalito since 1960, and with the exception of a while back where they were gonna build this great big public safety building going across Caledonia, I have never seen such opposition. |
| 01:13:01.40 | Unknown | I, |
| 01:13:04.39 | Jim Gabbert | to a project as this. Number one, I have a credibility problem. We had I think we heard that they've never Parked a boat overnight. We had, sometime in the past year, one of the Spalding votes, in front of the yacht club at that dock for two months. Two months, and I just heard someone say, oh, we've never done that. We just did it overnight. At the time, I think Kirby was mayor. We tried everything we could to get it out of there. And the reason we were given was there was some kind of conflict with the Corps of Engineers, and they couldn't put the boat there. So now we look at this project. When you look everything I have read, when the BCDC permits, the city council, It was a replacement or repair. This thing is a monstrosity for Sausalito. It's way too big. I have seen some architects in the city here of Sausalito come up with plans, achieve the same thing, yet. where it fits in with Sausalito. This does not fit. This is like putting the Sutro Tower in the middle of Sausalito. Or in a park. I mean, it just doesn't fit. And what I would urge you tonight is to vote no. I know we need part of it, I know they need work on it, but let's get together and work together with the community. A lot of this has been way down just very secretly And when I read everything I've read, it's devious and it's just, It's not. What? they got the permits for. It's not what they called it. is just way too big and out of proportion for Sausalito. And I thank in the long run, We have this nice village. That's why tourists come here. You start building these things, you're going to ruin what Sausalito is. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. |
| 01:14:53.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:14:53.59 | Unknown | you know. Good. In respect to all the speakers, and we'll have speakers who have opinions on both sides, so I would ask everyone to refrain from applause if possible. Thank you. |
| 01:15:04.95 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:15:05.25 | Leslie Hale | I'm Leslie Hale, and I've been a resident off and on since 1959. |
| 01:15:05.27 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:15:11.24 | Leslie Hale | Council members, please vote against the current design and proposal for the ferry landing in Sausalito. Please keep in mind this very small town where you reside as well as we reside. and the residents who elected you to office, as you make decisions regarding our town and our future, this huge out of scale proposal would ruin our downtown. We are a truly a tiny footprint, 2.25 miles square, and less than 8,000 people. Our main downtown area is really about three blocks long, two and a half football fields, and have been quite generous to the tourism distance It is less than one mile from the Golden Gate Market in Old Town at Second Street to Salido's Restaurant north of downtown. to allow the thousands of people to cross the bay each day on the ferry in 2015 by foot or bicycle and going forward in time, is transit that needs to be carefully planned and well executed. before any expansion is even considered. Transit that needs to consider the water transportation, the effect on environment, noise, health, people, safety, pollution, landscape, waterscape, even animals, the land use, and the safety. Government should never be so entitled and so big that they skirt or neglect to answer these important questions as they implement plans with taxpayer money, just because they have it, whether a grant or taxpayer stimulus or a private donation. It is important to answer the questions both by the bridge district and the city which have been asked. Why is the existing footprint and improvements not sufficient for the bridge district? Why is the existing footprint and the improvements not sufficient for the city to insist upon? When a shovel-ready plan has been proposed, why has it grown to this monstrous project? Why has the bridge district not taken into account all of the questions that over and over are being asked? Why is landslide not a concern? Why is the view, the charm, the look, and the feeling of this beautiful small town not a priority? Without it, Sausalito becomes a disaster waiting to happen, and both commercial and residential life is put in jeopardy. Why has it been so difficult to be transparent and forthcoming on any and all levels? These questions need answers and need to be honestly and openly discussed, not mandated or threatened by anyone on either side to reach a common workable ground that benefits both. |
| 01:17:59.87 | Unknown | And? |
| 01:18:07.77 | Leslie Hale | Thank you. |
| 01:18:09.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:18:09.49 | Unknown | Thank you. Bill Versace. Joan Proctor. David Suto, and Marv. Have a turn, pardon me for I can't quite read that one. |
| 01:18:23.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:18:23.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:18:24.01 | Unknown | Can you read here? Thank you. |
| 01:18:27.67 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:18:30.60 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:18:30.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:18:30.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:18:31.18 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:18:31.90 | Unknown | Mara Hoverture, do we have... Okay, so let's go. Bill? |
| 01:18:38.40 | Bill Versace | Thank you. Hi, I'm Bill Versace. I think you've read my substantive questions with the project. And I think the district has tried to game the review process, as a lot of you have heard. But I think its hubris has finally caught up with it at this meeting and the previous meeting. My greatest concern right now is the landside plan. First of all, what it is it is second of all why does the city of Sausalito have the responsibility for it? I don't know where that came from. It's not true in San Francisco. It's not true in in in Larkspur The district is assuming that its exemption from local regulations means the city must consent to a deficient project as a landlord and consequently the city must remedy those deficiencies of public agency. but that linkage does not exist and if it did, would be unlawful. City Council cannot casually commit the city to open-ended risks it cannot assume. As a steward of public funds and public lands, the city is entrusted with a fiduciary responsibility that it cannot breach. Building a garage, as an example, building a garage requires a curb cut. The landlord cannot consent for its tenant to build a garage without a curb cut. This is because the curb cut is needed to access the garage and the city's land use code requires it. The city does not provide the curb itself, even though it is necessary and within the public right of way. If the district exempt from local regulations and the city consents to its plans as a landlord, is the city as a consequence assuming the responsibility for the offsite improvements made by the tenant that the city otherwise would not have been made. Which leads to my second issue. What exactly does consent to the project mean? I cannot find in the agenda package or on the city's website the written request for consent that is required by the lease that states what action is required and what would have triggered the 45-day deadline. Let me repeat that. I cannot find in the agenda package or on the city's website any written request for consent as required by the lease that states what action is required or would have triggered the 45-day deadline. Property development is a merger, not a contest that you can win by intimidation. The district wants to game the project, the city can game the project too. The most prudent strategy for the city would be to find that it cannot make any determination, and rescind the temporary encroachment permit. That would send a clear message to BCDC And the district's lawyers can trip all over themselves trying to find find out and prove what the consequence of that and what they have won by default. most productive strategy for the district would be to withdraw the submission and work with the community in good faith to find an acceptable design alternative and to develop a land side plan for which costs can be determined and be equitably shared with the city. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:21:44.35 | Joan Proctor | I am Joan Proctor. I am a resident of Sausalito and have been a commuter both by foot and by bicycle. Um, Much of the design being presented here seems to be about something else other than upgrading our ferry terminal. And that's what I wanted to address because it hasn't been addressed. we seem to be one little piece in a big plan to develop a transportation circle around the bay Ringing. tourists from San Francisco to the Northern Peninsula. for more usage of the state parks whatever else. I'd really like to have that. intention for our ferry train terminal eliminated. I don't want Sausalito to become a transportation hub. somebody else's interests. The second issue I'd like to have separated somewhat is the bicycle issue. It is in fact a real problem, but there are other plans afoot to deal with that bicycle problem. So hopefully on the long term it will not be the issue it is now. and our ferry terminal will last way beyond that problem. |
| 01:23:03.45 | Joan Proctor | The particular proposal that we're looking at, even though I acknowledge all of you in the company for making the changes you've made so far, I also agree it's just not enough. The footprint of this thing is still He can't. enormous. as far as I can tell, the size of the is designed for two ferry boats to be able to arrive simultaneously. The size we're being recommended for the gangway and the um, PEER. Some statistic was given of 10 square feet per person. That blows my mind. When we stand in a line at the theater or at the grocery store or at the movie, People don't have 10 square feet of space around each person. So that clearly comes from somebody else's yardstick. It's not Sausalito's best interest to have a a role in that big plan of being a transportation hub I would like to see the pier upgraded. I'd like to see the safety increased. The longevity increased. and perhaps the efficiency increase for ADA. but I don't think that requires a pier that's as big or as long, and I don't think it requires a footprint, which is so huge. if we just look at what Sausalito needs as transportation between San Francisco and Sausalito for our residents and for our visitors. Thank you. |
| 01:24:38.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:24:42.65 | David Sudo | Hi, I'm David Sudo. I'm both a commuter and a bicyclist, depending on which day it is. First, I'd like to, you know, thank City Council for the work they've been doing. You know, they're some of the hardest working volunteers in the city. And I'm glad that so many people here are interested in what's happening in the city. that I would really encourage all this interest and all this time and effort that's been put into this, to maybe people coming to regular city council meetings or the bicycle and pedestrian committee, which regularly sees two or three residents and get a lot more input into what people think should be happening in town. You know, there's a lot more vital interest in, more important things happening in this town that don't get nearly as much interest as this ferry. Um, You know? uh... I'm generally in favor of this. My wife is in favor of this. Plenty of people I talk to ride the ferry. are in favor of this, but they don't want to either put themselves out to come here, spend the time to do it. They'd rather just stay home and, you know, lie low, as the case may be. You know, I'm not particularly happy with the size of the gangplank, but if you go on Google Earth, you can go and look at lots of gangplanks all over the world, both pedestrian and cars. And although this one is much larger than the one we have now, it is not out of scale for other locations in the world handling similar boats and similar crowds. You know, I think primarily the whole issue we have here is that the bridge district has not managed the flow of information to us well. You know, simple fact is that the reason why they need to loading docks is because during tides, depending on the tide, flow of the tide and the wind, Spalming boats are extremely difficult to land on one side of the float, so they need two locations. And they've never discussed that here. And it's let people think, well, they want to do two boats all the time. That's not the fact. Um, you know, And in passing, I think it's interesting that 93 years ago, when the Golden Gate Ferry Company was trying to put in a ferry landing to compete against the existing ferries that we had a very similar meeting and in Sausalito news of that year, there's an old lady who had lived here for probably 50 or 60 years. And what she had to say was, says Mrs. M.H. Belknap said that for over 50 years there had been a fence around the town and that she believed in helping the Golden Gate Ferry Company to remove it. and, I would just say it seems to be that we're still trying to keep up those walls, and we need to bring them down. |
| 01:27:49.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:27:49.76 | Unknown | Thank you. Kale Store. Kate, I'm sorry, Storr. Oh. Willie McDivitt. Rich Conley. And Sam Penrose. |
| 01:28:10.97 | Unknown | I'm sorry. |
| 01:28:14.55 | Unknown | Oh, Marv. I was, Marv, please get in line if we missed you. My apologies. I didn't. Oh. Marv. Go ahead. Oh, well, let him go. |
| 01:28:28.23 | Unknown | I, I'm going to say, |
| 01:28:29.78 | Unknown | Well, either one. Okay, Marv, then you're next. Thank you, and my apologies. General. |
| 01:28:39.98 | Kate Storr | Well, now we've got that sorted. I'm Kate Storr. I'm a resident here, a Willow Creek parent, and a commuter on the ferry with my bike. And I just wanted to say that I would like to thank the Golden Gate Transit Authority for all of your hard work on this. It is an incredibly laborious project, made more laborious by some confusion. And I want you to know that most Sausaledans support this project and support the work that you've done on it. And thank you for the changes you've made. I also want to thank the city council. Please, let her speak. |
| 01:28:54.39 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 01:29:11.99 | Unknown | Please let her speak. |
| 01:29:14.37 | Kate Storr | for having additional meetings. There are a lot of Sausalenians who don't get out and speak and you're not hearing them. I think you are hearing a vocal minority. And I would just like to say that as somebody who has rebuilt after disaster for more than 15 years, We really do need to address the issue of our ferry terminal landing. It is unsafe. If we were to have a disaster here, we would not be able to load and unload quickly enough. We would all be very glad to have this project done. In addition... More and more people are commuting, and more and more people are commuting by bike. So although I understand that many people in this room Don't bike to work every day. future South Swedes And I think that that's going to be a growing number. Finally, although you are here today making this decision, I just want to remind you you're making the decision not for the residents who are in this room today, but for the Sausalenians who are going to be living here decades from now. and an increasingly number of whom will prefer to take public transit. So please approve this very needed upgrade. Thank you very much. |
| 01:30:28.16 | Unknown | Thank you. That's... Thank you. Yeah. My apologies for passing you over. |
| 01:30:35.67 | Unknown | I'm a 25-year resident and a former ferry rider. Um, To start with, I share Jim Gapert's comment that took my breath away when this gentleman just said, The ferry was there once overnight and we didn't know about it. The ferry last year was there for two months. and we tried to get rid of it and nobody would even respond. So for you to say you had a ferry park somewhere and didn't know where it was Thank you. It's a little disturbing to me. I think that Councilman or Commissioner Cox said it very eloquently. This is a red herring. on how you can move more people and more bicycles in and out of the city. I think the city council needs to address how we're gonna deal with the upcoming tourist increase, how we're gonna deal with this bicycle situation, and address that first, and then maybe we can tell you how wide your gangplanks need to be. Because if I read your letter correctly that went around this afternoon, you're pushing to get this federal grant that's coming. And perhaps maybe the US taxpayers ought to know that you're getting federal taxpayer money to ship bicycles back and forth to San Francisco to subsidize your bottom line. I'm appalled at that. I think we need to address the bicycle issue first. And then we can help you address your issue after that. Thank you. |
| 01:32:12.20 | Rich Conley | Hi, I'm Rich Conley. And someone made, I think you made a comment about Google Earth. And I think as I was watching this for about the fifth or sixth time, I think that's one of the problems, is that this whole process has been a Google Earth look. There's no souls. in any of this. There is no feeling for what this town is and how unique it is in the Bay Area. probably the world, but we're just talking about the Bay Area. And I think that when you got the stimulus money, meaning gold, you got the $4 million, $3.2 million and then put in another $800,000. to fix the Sausalito ferry landing. This should be History. not a controversy. This should have been completed in 2011. Thank you. We have been trying for months now Well... beginning of February. to get working drawings that we were told didn't exist. And now there's tons of working drawings that do exist that were dated back in July. Finally, the city is getting some of those working drawings. The fact of the matter is getting information about what was the proposal that was sent to the federal government to get stimulus money to fix this ferry landing, which does need paint. AND THE PEERS ARE OKAY. the thing's sort of been rotting away because of neglect, it does need to be fixed up. You could have done it six years ago for $4 million. Today we're looking at $10 to $14 million. And the reason is you looked at this from a Google Earth view and you said Larkspur, San Francisco, Sausalito have to be the same design. No, they don't. it. I think that we need to unhook that requirement for the sensitivity of what it is we're trying to preserve. I think that this is optimized toward a rental bicycle problem that that ought to be dealt with on a policy basis. And I think that Another look. at how this could be done in a more sensitive way to Sausalito should be done and integrated with the land side plan, and we got a great opportunity to do it. Finally, we went over to the Golden Gate Bridge, which is a beautiful monument. You never get tired of looking at it. and the pathway that's available works for the last 75 years. for everybody to come over here by bike and by foot We took our tape measure and it's nine foot, nine inches wide. and the railings four feet tall. And in order to get a bicycle, Underneath the bridge to get back, you get a 2x12 plank that's rotting away. So I think we could look for some better inspiration on this. Thanks a lot. Thank you. |
| 01:35:28.65 | Sam Penrose | Hi, Sam Penrose, another commuter. I've only owned a home I've only owned a home here for 14 years, so I'm pretty much brand new. Let's pretend that someone is trying to stretch a bridge across our beautiful Golden Gate. Can you imagine the environmental destruction the loss of the beautiful natural view and the thing is going to be bright orange, rather than steal. What a disaster that would be. What, to use one word that somebody else used, a monstrosity. I don't think this is a disaster or a monstrosity. I'm not a civil engineer or a marine engineer. I do have some good faith in the people who are running the ferry district that they have a reason for doing it. I would like the whole tone and tenor of the approach to change in this town to change I would like to see us think of the future more than the past, Echoing Kate Storrs' comments, I would like us to think of people who Maybe... actually don't even own a home here. as having interests in Sausalito and that they might be somebody we want to concern. Several of the public comments have been to the effect of this is our town darn it and This is my view, darn it. don't you go changing it. And I really would like you to think, in terms of Sausalito as a place that everyone can enjoy, people who have owned a home for more than a decade, as I have, and everyone else. Thank you. |
| 01:37:13.52 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:37:13.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Willie McDivitt? Oh, I'm sorry. |
| 01:37:20.01 | Willie McDevitt | Hi, my name's Willie McDevitt, I'm one of the owners of In Above Tide, and I thank you so much for putting this slide up here that pretty much says everything that I wanna say, which is we have grave concerns about the |
| 01:37:21.06 | Unknown | one of the owners. |
| 01:37:31.81 | Willie McDevitt | We know that the ferry landing is going to be improved in some way. At some point, there's going to be a project, and we want to make sure that the project is done, its timing is done to avoid the peak tourist season for crowding of the town as well as the... experience of our guests and our income and the city's income for TOT. And we have written a letter on April 10th in it. We included a schedule that we worked with some marine professionals to develop. And we want to continue in the spirit of collaboration with both the bridge district, who've been very accepting of our our comments and past discussions and the city. And in that Jonathan Goldman said I owe him a thank you because today I figured out that there was an encroachment permit on the public documents and in it it says, that the workshop coordinate with the neighbors essentially. So it sounds like at least from the standpoint of making the work happen, everybody wants to work in the same direction. So whatever approval happens and whenever it does, we look forward to being part of the solution. Thank you. |
| 01:38:45.13 | Unknown | Susan Shea, Chris Skelton, Kito, My apologies, Rempirsky. and David Schoenbrunn. |
| 01:39:00.93 | Unknown | Good evening, Council, Bridge, and fellow neighbors. Excuse me, I have to put my glasses on. I'm up here to participate and enter the Olympics of credibility. that has been going on for I don't know how long. |
| 01:39:20.64 | Unknown | going on. |
| 01:39:24.11 | Unknown | Um, There was one email between the district staff that, noted that it's really the old residents that have the most concern about this. |
| 01:39:34.00 | Unknown | RESIDENTS. |
| 01:39:37.80 | Unknown | Well, Here's a news flash. The older residents of this town Are the ones... that exposed your deception of trying to tell us that this was a replacement. and not a major improvement. Shame on you. I mean, seriously, you think that we can just stand around here and look at this and say, this is a replacement? Which brings me to my second question. |
| 01:40:12.46 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:40:13.81 | Unknown | comment. And I do sound angry tonight. because I've had it up to here. I would like... the council to ask the district how this which is not that old, got to the shape that it is in in such a short amount of time. And what assurances do we have that they will maintain this new landing any better than they have the old one. And third of all, I'd like you to ask them why They would not start at Larkspur that only carries 15 bicycles a day. for commuters. Now, if you look at the map of where San Francisco is in relationship to Larkspur, and Sausalito, the congestion in that parking lot at, the ferry landing in Larkspur could be decreased by probably 75% if they built boats or had boats that took more commuters so that those people are not trying to be carpooled, et cetera, et cetera. 15 bicycles a day for commuters. Well, sorry, 36. I'm just reading off your documentation on your website. So if your webmaster's around, perhaps that he can take note of that or she. |
| 01:41:36.19 | Unknown | THROUGH THE COURT OF THE |
| 01:41:44.31 | Unknown | to that. |
| 01:41:46.37 | Unknown | At any rate, I hope that you will deny this project. I know that that will lead to legal ramifications, but I think we need to do land side and water side together. Thank you. |
| 01:41:57.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:42:11.29 | Chris Skelton | Good evening, council members. My name is Chris Skelton. I'm appearing this evening on behalf of a coalition of concerned citizens. It's been almost six months to the day since I last appeared before this council regarding the ferry landing project. Admittedly, the council composition has changed a little bit since then. In November last year, I requested that the council present a unified opposition to BCDC regarding the district's proposed plans for three reasons. First the lack of public process. Second the piecemealing environmental review and third the absence of a holistic planning planning approach regarding waterside and landside improvements. Three months after my request and in the face of the threat of litigation against the city for failure to comply with the Public Records Act, a public process was set by the council The ferry landing project has generated more public interest in town regarding a land use decision since probably the fair traffic limits initiative in 1985. Unfortunately, the public input has seemingly fallen on deaf ears at the district. The district's responses were only made available hours before meetings. defeating any meaningful opportunity for public review, Despite local architects, engineers, and other professionals in the community proposing reasonable alternative changes Nothing has changed with the district's plans. The district has become so entrenched in its project design that it threatened to cancel service. at the HLB and PC meeting. The district is apparently willing to cut off its nose despite its face, which is kind of ironic considering its mission is public transportation. Academically, this can be expressed in terms of externalities. The district is externalizing the costs of its own activities by imposing those costs, circulation, parking, transportation management, increased fill, obstruction of views upon the residents who must bear the burden of those costs. The district has claimed during recent meetings that the land side improvements are the city's business, and that a separate process can be done in response to those improvements. The express language of the district's grant program narrative from November of 2012 states, and I quote, The city will partner with the district to coordinate their waterside and our shoreside improvement projects to ensure design, construction continuity, efficiency, and cost effectiveness. present planning climate could be no further from the truth. This evening we respectfully request that the council withhold its consent for the district's request to make the described improvements upon the city-owned leased property. Fundamentally, The district cannot accomplish the basic purpose of docking boats wholly within the property area it leases, which is an obvious indication that the design is fundamentally flawed. If you'll entertain me for 30 more seconds, The PC and the HLB, through a majority decision, could not make the findings to support the process. The district made it clear it's exempt from that design review process, it's true. However, the findings are informative for the council to justify withholding consent under the lease for the proposed project. Namely, one, the project exceeds the minimum size necessary to accomplish the reasonable objectives for both the city and the district, and two, Reasonable alternatives have not actually been considered. Again, Engineers, architects, and other professionals in the community have put forth reasonable alternatives. Alternatives should go beyond simply dropping the Belvederes and should consider reorienting the project without the arthritic knuckle, better integrating the land side and access pier to reduce the overall length of the project, modify the length and width of the gangway, among other considerations. So in sum, and consistent with my request six months ago, Please withhold consent from the district's plans and present a unified opposition to BCDC that such improvements shall not be permitted on city owned property unless less impactful alternatives are accomplished. Thank you very much. |
| 01:46:45.32 | Unknown | Thank you very much. OK, please withhold. Can we stay within the three minutes if we can? Thank you. |
| 01:46:54.29 | David Schoenbrunn | I'm David Schonbrunn. I'm a Sausalito resident, I'm a ferry rider, and I run an environmental nonprofit that is all about sustainable transportation. With that perspective, I said on my speaker card that I support a future ferry landing project but not this one. And so what I'll be asking the council to do is give the district direction of how you'd like them to go in preparing another design. In particular, I have noticed I'm not sure. that this design is drawn drawn It's entirely about ADA requirements. And ADA has been the cause of great ugliness in our country since it was enacted It's something that could be handled sensitively, but wasn't in this case and in many, many others. And so I would like to offer two ideas. One is that... On the slide that showed the ADA exemptions, it looked like exemption two actually applied. I didn't have time to study it in depth, but this is a gangway that is being replaced. And so that question immediately comes up. Does that exemption apply? Number two, The length of the gangway is is determined by this ADA requirement. If that gangway were instead folded it would become one third the length. And as a result, it would be far less unwieldy. It would reduce the size of the overall project. It would require dredging, which in my opinion is acceptable. I run an environmental nonprofit. We sue public agencies. I don't have an issue with dredging here. And I think it's appropriate if it can help create a Project that does meet the community's needs the idea of loading quickly or unloading and loading at the same time is a very valuable thing to do. You get much more service for the same amount of money if done that way. This is what they do in Vancouver with the C-Bus. I would like to suggest that people who are able to walk be able to walk directly rather than having to walk on the ADA ramp. So I'm suggesting essentially four lanes of travel THE WITH A the predominant one being for people able to walk. And I believe that that kind of a design could be far less imposing and far, far more appropriate for the sensibilities of Sausalito. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:50:12.36 | Unknown | you, We have Kito Nampirsky, and then from there afterwards, we'll have Wendy Richards, Tammy Blanchard, and I'm sorry, Steve-in. Frasier? I think friendship. Give that a shot. Go ahead, please. |
| 01:50:30.64 | Keto Nampirsky | Hi, my name is Keto. I've been here since the early 70s, either living, partying, or owning and running businesses. And the issue that I've been listening to and dealing with since we discovered it, has been met by the bridge district to be kind. a great deal of disingenuous responses, threats, And dishonesty. Most of the things they've said have been debunked by others who've come and spoken over the course of these meetings. And we're right back to the same issue. this is out of character, out of scale, And the only thing that really needs to be done is to fix the barge. their landing spot. That doesn't take much. That was what they were supposed to do in the first place. So why have we gone beyond that? because there's money out there. and the engineering firm. wants some money. And so they just contrive everything. to justify what they're going to do. when the real issue right now for those of us who live here and deal with South Lido on a day-to-day and have experience of seen the way sauce is. as the rental bikes. The rental bikes. And the rental bikes have Since 2011, which ironically is the same time The ferry district got rid of humans taking tickets on board the ferry and put the machines, Most people that I know can't even operate. that the two of them combine to create the hell that we deal with right now. And the bike guys seem to have included in their business plan using Sausalito And using the ferry district, to promote what they do. without any regard for the impact it has upon us, nor on the ferry district. And so to me, This whole plan goes back to what it should be. Just fix the float. And the question as to why it suddenly expired when it was supposed to be good for 40 or 50 years, is a question that they need to answer as well. But in addressing the other issue, We need to deal with the bike agencies and get them to come to the table and come up with a solution because they've dumped these people on us. They want to be rid of their bikes when they get here. They don't get to hang out, spend money, and have a good time. and we have to deal with the mess they create. So tonight, I hope, that all of you will respect The majority of South Sudol people who are opposed Completely and absolutely to this whole project. And let's go back to square one. get the float fixed. and we'll get the bicycle situation to take care of it. Thank you. |
| 01:53:22.49 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:53:31.09 | Steve Frazier | Members of the City Council and staff, my name is Steve Frazier, and I have the distinction, I guess, of being the only councilman here that voted for the start of the ferry boat about 40 years ago, or 45 years ago. I supported it then, the whole council did, and I support it wholeheartedly today, and I'm going to tell you why. Because the ferry boat, the size of the landing, I'm sure there are details that need to be addressed, but the basic size of the landing is a complete red herring. The problem with downtown Sausalito, it was before and it is now, is that we have managed to pave over 90% of the Sausalito waterfront. It's all concrete. Parking lot one, parking lot two, parking lot three, parking lot four, the walkway along bridgeway up to the barrel house, it's all cement. It's as if Mother Nature never existed. And I would like you to do what you have to do on the ferryboat landing. But the ferryboat landing will bring in more people without their cars. By bringing in more people, more people will spend money. By doing such, the need for people to come in by car is greatly reduced. And that leads you to the ability, the unique ability, to use this increase in people coming by boat to eliminate one half of parking lot one, all of parking lot two and one half of parking lot three and create a lovely, beautiful, expansive walkway that people can use and walk and enjoy. Then you have room. The reason that downtown Sausalito is incredibly ugly and has been for 50 years, is that when you come down there, all you can do is walk along Bridgeway, hang around four or five tourist junk stores, and that's the downtown of Sausalito. And there's no reason for it to exist. And I that this council and I would get off the focus on on on the the the dock and start to address the question of the whole downtown make it more expansive and tourist friendly that we can all use and enjoy walking downtown and don't worry about people coming in by boat or car, by boat or bicycle. Get rid of the cars and turn that space into green space. That, to me, is the only solution and one that would work. It would be very difficult to do, which is why it's very easy to get all hung up on how many, I don't know what on how many people can come in by boat. That's not the concern. Maybe the design is a concern. That's fine. I trust you to take care of that. Thank you very much. Thank you. |
| 01:56:43.38 | Wendy Richards | Good evening, Wendy Richards. As I wrote in my comments, and as Danny presented at a prior council meeting, the first item in the general plan of Sausalito, the first of 10 items, the first priority is the residents. And thank you for your insightful questions of the district tonight because we, the residents, are at the top of the list. We have experienced a lot of disingenuous actions on the part of the staff of the bridge district. And we have experienced collusion of the bridge district with our city staff. I would like to... draw a line in the sand tonight. that it's clear from now on that we have integrity in our government, and I would invite you to please decline this request of the Bridge District. Create a common plan that addresses the land side, the bicycles, looks at the proposals that you heard recently for other ferry services from the Park Service, that looks at the possibilities at the Bay Model, and most importantly, to please restore the integrity of our government and to bring service back into our public servants. Thank you. |
| 01:58:23.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:58:28.15 | Tammy Blanchard | Hello, I'm Tammy Blanchard. Hello, counsel. Thank you. I think pretty much everything has been said at this point. And so I urge you to deny this consent tonight and take care of the asset that we have here, which is the Bay of San Francisco. the waterfront and our historic downtown. And yes, we are slow to grow. And that's because we're preserving this for future people, for the future generations. If we build something like this, we're stuck with it forever. So take our time as we do. get together with the district, plan the land side, and do this in a cohesive plan so that We can handle the bicycles and they can help. And there's a lot of great minds in this town and I'm sure at the district that could come up with a plan that we can all live with. So please. It's your town. |
| 01:59:28.97 | Unknown | Thank you. We have Neil Whitelaw. Can someone, Neil, do you want someone to bring a mic to you? And, After Neil, we'll have John Farrell, Jacques Ullman, and Vicki Nichols. |
| 01:59:49.88 | Neil Whitelaw | I'm Neil Whitelaw, resident of 48 years. Um, We want our downtown back. That has to be taken into account. We've damaged it by having too much retail business down there. I know that the Chamber of Commerce supports that because that's what Chamber of Commerce is for. |
| 02:00:03.88 | Unknown | you |
| 02:00:04.00 | Unknown | you |
| 02:00:10.41 | Neil Whitelaw | but there's the people. Uh, It's a, Side note. to my knowledge, from my friends of the Coastal Mewoc tribe, the area where the ferry landing is is all filled so I don't think there's any Indian artifacts there. somewhere else. I might be wrong about that. My friends that host me might be wrong. Somebody clue me in if it's wrong. To the mayor... City Council. especially citizens of Sausalito, or are supposed to be the prime movers of government. as in the quote that is supposed to be the absolute backbone of our republic. and that is we the people. what we the people want. public servants of the Golden Gate Bridge District come here to the Saucydo City Council intentionally and knowingly, to deceive you by their presentation. I accuse them. all of them. Because not a one of them has come forward denouncing their knowingly immoral and illegal subterfuge in the statements They have publicly made the four joint meetings of the Planning Commission and Historic Sites Commission. Mr. Mayor? Console. beloved citizens of Sausalito. If you have closely watched all four of the joint board meetings, and been at the related city council meetings, is extraordinarily clear. that these people came here thinking they could put one over on us rubes and suburban dolts. Mr. Mayer, I ask that you instruct Chief Tijana to arrest all the employees of the Golden Gate Bridge District who are here of their own free will, and book them into the new city jail. |
| 02:02:07.85 | Unknown | Thank you. We'll take that under consideration. Well... |
| 02:02:08.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:02:08.25 | Neil Whitelaw | Thank you. |
| 02:02:15.10 | Unknown | John Farrell, please. |
| 02:02:16.56 | Neil Whitelaw | Lieutenant, what do you like to do? |
| 02:02:18.12 | Unknown | . |
| 02:02:26.23 | John Farrell | We aren't. Is this on? Sounds good. Thank you. Regardless of how all this turns out, I'd like to make an observation which I think needs making. The principal government parties involved in this matter, meaning the bridge district, the city administration, and the city council, all got way too far ahead of the public in their thinking in their planning and especially in their spending. Particularly in a small town like Sausalito, citizen buy-in is crucial on issues that are sensitive or that have a reasonable likelihood of becoming sensitive. I recognize that it is awfully difficult for agencies and councils to get the public's attention, and to get that attention focused on what the agencies and councils might have in mind. Unfortunately, initial public hearings and meetings very often fail to arouse public sentiment. That fact is all the more reason to be extremely cautious about committing large amounts of money to a project until a community is generally on board. I'm sure all of you remember the controversy over the public safety buildings. I do. Because the ferry landing issue was not managed as effectively as it could have been, We now face a polarizing situation. in a rancorous atmosphere, in which several million dollars have been spent for detailed construction drawings, on a project with a significant number of this town's leading citizens are very unhappy with. There is a lesson here for the City Council. That being, as difficult as it may be to engage the public, you must try harder to stay in touch with what Sausaledans are feeling and Good representative government depends upon the elected listening carefully to the electors. A civics lesson taught in school that I'm sure each of you will Recall. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:04:43.98 | Jacques Ullman | . |
| 02:04:44.16 | John Farrell | Thank you. |
| 02:04:45.06 | Jacques Ullman | Thank you. |
| 02:04:45.09 | John Farrell | Thank you. |
| 02:04:45.11 | Jacques Ullman | Sean. Jacques Ullman. I came to Sausalito in 1970 because of the ferry service. I worked in downtown San Francisco and it seemed ideal to live here and take the ferry to the city. I don't have an office there anymore, but my wife and I love to travel on the ferry, and also we take the bus, and if people have trouble with the ticketing system, get yourself one of these Clipper cards. They're great. So we must encourage the ferry service to continue, and we must encourage it to be efficient. However, it should be serving the residents of Saucedo and Southern Marin. It's fine to have tourists come as well, but I think that where we've gone wrong is trying to accommodate this absurd bicycle situation that we have growing, and we need to think that through with a different solution. Also, we don't need to have a transportation hub here, and we don't need to accommodate emergencies. We have the Marin ship as an area where that could be done, and also where perhaps the bicycles could be dealt with. We have Fort Baker to deal with that situation. The best way for people to enjoy Sausalito is to walk along the shore. The bicyclists who are trying to take their iPhone photograph and going like this along Bridgeway, we don't need that. They should walk with the rest of us, and then everything will work out fine. |
| 02:06:19.94 | Unknown | Thank you. Vicki Nichols and then Sandra White. |
| 02:06:27.45 | Vicki Nichols | My name is Vicki Nichols and I'd like to speak to you tonight, Mayor Theodorus, and counsel as a private individual, even though I am on the Planning Commission and has gone through this project. So these are my personal comments. I feel after having access to all the public information that we've had, which has been exhaustive, that it's only fair to say that there's been some, I think, misrepresentations tonight about the environmental review that's been done on this project. This project came before the council in 2009, I believe, initially. and in 2011, you received a briefing. I was at that meeting. In 2012, as an adjacent entity, you were asked, among others, as we all had the right to respond to their project. Their project has not changed at all. This has been the consistent size, the consistent footprint. This was all clarified in our meetings with the HLB and the Landmarks Board and with the Bridge District. So I'm just trying to be fair here about what's being said. At that time, the council had an opportunity to comment on all kinds of things. The council did not comment at all on scale, location, Closeness to the historic district, which by the way, just because a building has a status code, it does not mean that it carries that designation. It just means that you can get it reviewed. That's all that means. Thank you. Those codes were signed in 1980 when the district was formed it's generally accepted that they're reviewed every five years. argument I don't think holds water here. The council did, in their letter, respond with concerns about construction areas, piling, and... I forget the third part. subject, but it did nothing to address what you are now hearing the community is very upset about, which is scale and design. And when I'm, hoping will happen tonight after giving people the opportunity to be as emotional and passionate as they've been about this. And I understand that. is that rather than starting from scratch, that the city Thank you. can work with whatever the ADA codes are. We can't have something be built that does not comply with ADA. Our mothers are, my sister has MS. You know, people have to have walkers and ADA accessibility. Not on a day that the tide is right, but every single day. It's the law and it's right. So whatever is driving those calculations, as I said, I'm not an engineer, so I can't figure this out. I would urge the council to check these things. But I hope that we can find a way to work with the district, in a reasonable way to develop a project that we don't have to start from scratch, that we have a facility that works, and that basically, as you're hearing, this is now a design issue. We've got some great design ideas and people that can do that. Please counsel, I hope no litigation. We don't want to not be able to have our library open because we're spending money on litigation. These are not our enemies. We should work together and let's get this approved, please. |
| 02:09:59.52 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Sandra? I think it's McLeon White. And then we have Susan Kirsch. And Bill Werner? |
| 02:10:13.97 | Unknown | and Sandra Silley. And then, actually, we then have Paul Rowan Okay, third |
| 02:10:21.58 | Susan Kirsch | Good evening. My name is Susan Kirsch. I'm here as a neighbor from Mill Valley. I'm a 35-year resident of the Mill Valley and what we know is that as bicyclists come into Sausalito and get off the ferry, Many of them are biking into Mill Valley. So how you end up deciding this issue for Mill Valley is going to have impact, or how you decide this issue in Sausalito is going to have considerable impact on us in Mill Valley as well? And it's a part of understanding how all of our decisions these days are not operating just in one single vacuum. So as you look at the possibility of being a bigger transportation hub That has a ripple effect on Mill Valley, and I think what we have in common is that Our language in Mill Valley is that we are working so hard to preserve what we call small-town character, And I expect that's a part of what the charm of Sausalito is as well. I urge you to withhold consent so that you both are doing a service for what I hear for the majority of people speaking tonight, as well as your neighbors in communities like Mill Valley. Thank you. |
| 02:11:33.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:11:33.62 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:11:38.78 | Unknown | Bill, I think you're next. Then we have Paul Rowan after Bill. |
| 02:11:48.67 | Bill Werner | My name is Bill Werner. I live at 213 Richardson Street, and I've been here for 30 years. And I am speaking as a private citizen, not as a member of the Planning Commission. And I'm not gonna speak about what I wrote down to speak about it, I'm gonna speak about the fact that I spent the first eight years of my professional architectural career working for a international architectural firm called Skidmore Owens & Merrill. And if I learned nothing there, other than if your engineer tells you there is only one answer to this question, fire him and hire a real engineer. |
| 02:12:31.02 | Bill Werner | the controlling element in this proposal is the concrete float. It requires deeper water than is required by the fairies themselves. It created the need for the extra 100 foot long access pier. It is dependent on the vast array of electromechanical equipment Thank you. necessary to operate the hydraulic systems that raise and lower the loading platform, the gangplanks, and even the hose reels. All of this equipment is sensitive, of salt, air, and water. Given the district's past negligence in maintaining their terminal equipment, we should probably expect them to demand the right to build a protective roof over this entire float shortly after it's installed. about three and a half millennia ago. a group of well-funded mercenaries arrived at the harbor of a small, prosperous, gentle community on the western shore of Asia Minor. They brought with them a very large gift gift. and the promise of a lot of money to follow. the majority of the resident citizens of that town warned against accepting the gift and the promise of the money. but the elected and hired leaders of the town being greedy and short-sighted. consented to open the city gates to accept the gift. We all know the fate of that little town called Troy. Consent must not be given for this proposal. This plan is the result of an unexamined exercise in engineering arrogance. There are many appropriate alternatives that could have been explored, and there are no conditions the City Council could devise which would resolve the conflicts inherent in this assault on Sausalito's waterfront. |
| 02:14:46.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:47.29 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:14:51.39 | Unknown | We have Paul Rowan, then Janine Moody, Sam Chase, and Pat Suck. And that's all the speaker cards we have for tonight. Thank you. |
| 02:15:00.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:15:00.20 | Unknown | . Oh, before, pardon me, just, we have an announcement. If cars have been parked illegally or on private property, they may be towed. You may want to move your car. We got some indication that there's some problems. So. That's an issue. So anyway, pardon me, sir. Continue. |
| 02:15:21.11 | Paul Ronan | It's okay. |
| 02:15:21.33 | Unknown | How much is that? |
| 02:15:22.04 | Paul Ronan | I took it. Bye. Thank you. Might have to go out there. My name is Paul Ronan. I've lived here about 40 years. And I've sat on a few of the boards here over the years. and we spent a lot of time trying to keep the town What it is is which is why a lot of tourists like to come here. |
| 02:15:41.59 | Unknown | here. |
| 02:15:42.71 | Paul Ronan | But I've just got two issues. And I don't want to get too personal about it, but I used to be an embarkation officer in the Marine Corps. And we used to load 1,200 men a battalion of men on ships, And all they had were packs and rifles. It took us probably pretty close to five to six, maybe seven hours to load this ship. And I'm hearing over here, They're going to The reason they want this big terminal is they want to be able to load 600 or 700 people. I'm not sure exactly what the number was. but do that in 15 to 20 minutes. out. having a little experience in doing this, I'm trying to figure out, How the heck are they going to get 600 people, say even 500 people. with bicycles, with carts, with kids, with taking pictures. they're gonna have to put on another five or six ferries to keep this scheduled. Why don't they change the schedule and load the people that way instead of making this enormous terminal. So we don't need this terminal. We need something a lot smaller. And you just don't need it. We don't need it in this town. And my other point, I'll be brief on it, but is bicycles. And we all go in and out of this town and we go up by Alexander. I'm scared to stiff coming down Alexander or even going up the hill. And there are people that, half of them don't wear helmets, I don't know where the liability is, is the city of Sausalito because they don't provide proper, bike path because you don't have it on Alexander, they're up on the sidewalk. And the sidewalk is, I don't even think it's three feet wide. And these are kids, and it's just the most ridiculous thing. And the city is letting a big terminal going to take care of more of these people that are going to come into on bicycles. Why wouldn't they? It's a beautiful town. So I think Jacques Gallman. hit the nail on the head is that you really should deal with these people in the city that run these bike companies sending them over here and throwing them on the city of Sausalito. And there's a lot of liability. I don't know if the city's ever been sued bicyclists because the city didn't provide a bike path. There's a sign right up at the top of Alexander, it says, Welcome to Sausalito, the city limits. Well, you're liable if somebody gets hit. How many times do the EMTs go running up Saturday and Sunday, up to Alexander. I mean, this is a bike issue. and they're providing all the services because they're going to bring more, all the bikes back. So, Let's have a little smaller ferry. I love ferries, but not this size. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:18:35.05 | Unknown | Janine Moody. |
| 02:18:44.96 | Jeanine Moody | Is that okay? Thank you. All right, my name is Jeanine Moody. My husband built our home, the very last home on the waterfront in Sausalito, South Sausalito. We've lived at 6 Alexander Avenue for 37 years. Our family has raised children here. Our grandchildren live at our house. and two of them attend Willow Creek Academy. We care very much about our community and the waterfront and the future. Oops, popped out. Um, |
| 02:19:24.95 | Jeanine Moody | I am looking toward the future when I think of my grandchildren and what Sausalito will be. And there's another way to look at it than just looking at modernization and more ferry, a bigger terminal. |
| 02:19:42.92 | Jeanine Moody | The main problem really is the bicycles. I live at the end of Alexander, and it's really frightening to try to get in and out of the driveway. I have no problem whatsoever, and I think very few people here may have any problem with commuter bikes using the ferry. That's fabulous. The problem is too many tourist bicycles trying, rented one way and expected to go back on the ferry. a lot of them would not like to take their bicycles back. They would like to just leave them somewhere in Sausalito. which could be arranged. And the bike company should be responsible for checking them in and shipping them back. that would greatly eliminate the need for all of the space and the size of the ferry terminal, what they need on the ferry, if the bicycles from the tourists didn't have to go back. There is a plan with the national parks. They want to have more visitors to bike over the bridge to Fort Baker and enjoy that. They plan to develop that somewhat. then go on to ride into Sausalito, then leave their bikes and take buses to Muir Woods. Well, this entails buses waiting to go to Muir Woods. And then where are they going to put the bikes meanwhile? They're going to park them somewhere downtown. Then the bicyclists are bused back, and there have to be buses there waiting then to take them Um, |
| 02:21:24.11 | Unknown | I'm, |
| 02:21:26.37 | Jeanine Moody | to go on to the ferry terminal. So... |
| 02:21:28.59 | Unknown | I wonder. |
| 02:21:33.98 | Jeanine Moody | It seems to me that if Fort Baker and Muir Woods weren't more visitors, they need to do something on their land, perhaps to have ferries come in there. And I know it's a different condition, but perhaps it can be engineered. I urge Sausalito City Council members to reject this ferry terminal project. The plan is fatally flawed. You have a letter from me that is far more extensive than this. The process has been less than transparent. And the citizens of this town do have the right to determine what goes on in their community. |
| 02:22:06.67 | Unknown | Thank you. I think we had Sam chased then Pat, but Either way. |
| 02:22:16.99 | Sam Chase | Okay, I'm Sam Chase. I've written and commented on this project ad nauseum, so I'm gonna try to be brief. Just remember, These boats are running at 14% of capacity during the week and about 25% of capacity on the weekends. This business of cars off the bridge unpaving parking lots or having to pave more parking lots because more cars are going to not be able to is total nonsense. These boats have plenty of capacity. I'd like to see it used more. Uh, If you cut two runs out of the day, two runs during the week, two runs in the weekend, You can increase your operating efficiency, the boats will be fuller, They're still. tons of room to grow, I think you wind up with 48% of capacity my memory serves me correct, on the weekends and about 22% of capacity during the week. It makes no sense to load Empty Boats Faster. Number one. Number two. ADA compliance, using their own numbers, They're at 98.5% compliant on all the landings over the course of the year. 64 landings, winds up out of 5,000 some odd landings, you know, this ADA business has been totally overblown. |
| 02:23:44.07 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:23:48.37 | Sam Chase | I've looked forward in time with title data and come up with a little bit less. I think they're about 95% or 90, excuse me, 99.5% compliant. I can tell you that by shortening the uh... access pier by about 10 to 12 feet or existing access peer beginning to slope Of that ramp. 10 to 12 feet sooner than it currently does. Totally. be 100% compliant on all title conditions. So this has been totally overblown. I really, and finally, I've said enough about growth. I think the growth issue has been covered. It's astronomical growth. It's unrealistic. It's not going to happen. I urge you to vote against this project. I realize that the existing landing needs some refurbishment and we can probably also make some ADA improvements to it to make us 100% on ADA. Uh, Minor stuff. We don't need this big project, and I'm hoping we don't squander federal funds building something in our own front yard that looks way beyond what we need. Please vote against it. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. |
| 02:25:15.44 | Patsook | Hi, I'm Patsook. Thank you. Is this mic on? This has been a long and exhausting and exhaustive process. And I'm just, you know how I feel about this project. I'm here to ask you now, I guess I'm the last speaker. Many of us have spent a lot of time and quite a bit of money, some of us, working to find out information about this and to organized with members of the community. I hope each of you will share your opinion and your position on whether this project should be consented to, or whether or not consent should be withheld. I do not think an abstention would be appropriate on the part of any of you as you've been at all meetings and participated at various times in creating this process and hearing the information that has been developed by it. So I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say now. |
| 02:26:20.92 | Unknown | Thank you. We did get one more card afterwards. Clayton Smith. |
| 02:26:29.78 | Clayton Smith | Thank you again. I want to go back and again reiterate, I was able to speak to your committees about this. but the lack of a three-dimensional model of this particular project, as I've said before, is inexcusable. And I talked to Kate Sears about this, and she agreed with one thing that I had to say, which is an insight that came to me. which is that without a three-dimensional model, you have really very little ability to audit what the result is against what has been asserted to be what they plan to do. Without a three-dimensional model, how can you audit the final product? And this, I think, should be a sufficient reason to table this and send it back to the Bridge District to rethink what they're doing and to come back with something that would be an adequate presentation that would honor the intelligence of the people of the city of Sausalito. The second thing I wanted to say as you're closing on this, There's a very basic choice that we are making in Southern Marin right now. Here. in Mill Valley. in Tam Valley, up on Mount Tam, over in Tiburon. Is Southern Marin going to become an amusement park, or is it going to remain a home for the people who live here? Increasingly, these large entities, such as the Bridge District and the Park Service, with their very big federal push and mandates, seemed to view us as kind of a residential version of marine world. And we need to stand up and reject this. And this is a moment for you, the people who have the power at this moment, to make a decisive statement of rejection. to send the message that Marin, this part of Marin, is going to remain a place suitable primarily. for people who live here, to live here in safety, comfort, and with a sense of dignity. Thank you. |
| 02:29:17.30 | Unknown | Thank you. So, We are currently of speaker cards and so with that I will close public comment. We'll take a break in a minute. But before we do, what we found in our other planning commission and, um, HLB meetings, the other three that we lost a large part of the audience at that point, given the hour and the break time. So I do want to take the opportunity to thank everyone that's at this meeting and it's been at all the other the other three meetings, all those who have sent in emails, letters, information, It's really made a huge difference to, I know, to the Planning Commission and HLB, and to this council, and, understanding. the, um, direction and wishes of Sausalito in forming its voice on this issue and in providing a lot of technical detail. Most of us, I've been at every single one of the meetings, read everything, and when you print it out, it's about this big. And it's all been useful. So I want to thank everyone. Of course, right now we're going to take about a five minute break, then we will come back. and the council will begin its deliberations. for what it will do. So we encourage you to stay, but I know we lose some at this point. So thank you. |
| 02:30:51.85 | Unknown | Okay, with public comment being closed, we'll now bring it back up. Are there any other council questions before we move into council comment? Okay. Seeing none, we'll now move on to council comments. Who would like to start? |
| 02:31:12.01 | Unknown | I would... |
| 02:31:12.81 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:12.86 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:12.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:16.39 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Would you? |
| 02:31:17.25 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:17.26 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:17.28 | Unknown | YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO Thank you. |
| 02:31:21.11 | Unknown | Shall I stay? Council Member Weiner, would you? |
| 02:31:21.14 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:21.19 | Unknown | Shall I start? |
| 02:31:24.23 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:24.25 | Unknown | Oh, okay. No, that's all right. |
| 02:31:24.26 | Unknown | Thank you. All right, then you will go. |
| 02:31:29.97 | Unknown | Thank you all for coming. |
| 02:31:30.12 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:35.59 | Unknown | I moved to Sausalito 39 years ago. Started my businesses here in 1978. 79. I was in the, I had the shell stations, and I was there for 33 years. I was smart enough or lucky enough for Sausalito being very good to me in my business, So I was able to retire. And I thought, In said, was elected on the city council I've been mayor twice. In 2008, And we then started seeing a lot of bikes coming into Tarsalito. I have spent I'm not sure. every summer. since then. almost every day in the summer, working down there. to understand our problem. You see, because in 2000. 14. 18 million people visited San Francisco. And out of that, 2.3 million come to Sausalito. So when we say that we want our town back, It's a nice idea. But you're not going to stop these people from visiting. We can maybe attempt to remedy the bikes easier. but And I've said it a few times. the reason that they come over here, because they can't see San Francisco from San Francisco. they have to come over here to see San Francisco. And that's what they do. They ride over the bridge. and they take the ferry ride back because it's advertised as the second most beautiful ferry ride in the world. There's another element here that I see. But I first want to start off with |
| 02:33:43.16 | Unknown | There's some truths I look at. I'm a positive person. I wouldn't work every day like I do if I didn't. but there's truths on both sides. And we've got to find, and there's a greater need to find the solution. We need the ferry. There's no dispute. The ferry needs to be able to serve the city. |
| 02:34:11.12 | Unknown | The ferry needs to conform to the federal standard, ADA, and things like that. Thank you. Or else, if we don't, the one thing that we do, or I want to try to avoid is arbitration, because nobody wins then. |
| 02:34:34.85 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:34.97 | Bo Jensen | Thank you. |
| 02:34:34.99 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:35.17 | Unknown | No, no. Could we... I'd like to not have a timer for any of the council comments. And so, yes. So we... But let me... Yeah. |
| 02:34:35.22 | Unknown | No. |
| 02:34:35.63 | Bo Jensen | Thank you. |
| 02:34:35.69 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 02:34:45.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:34:45.04 | Unknown | Thank you. Just finished. |
| 02:34:46.97 | Unknown | Okay. So let me go to clarify some statistics. because those are what we were really looking at. In 2004, Golden Gate Ferry transported approximately 400 and 50,000 people on the ferry. I don't know what the numbers are for the blue and gold at that time. for that period. Now let's come forward 10 years later. Last year, the Golden Gate Ferry brought over 900,000. Not brought over, I shouldn't say that. 900,000 people took the ferry. Because if you really look at the makeup of this, There is not a tremendous amount of people coming over on the ferry. And when you see it in the busy days in the summer, three, 400 coming over, the amount going back is tremendous. It isn't just bikes. We also have 275,000 people coming in this town by bus. All right. And most of them now, I wouldn't say most, but a tremendous amount of them are now doing the same thing as the bicycles advertised. come over to Sausalito, or the buses will take you up to wine country. Take you to Mule Woods. and then drop you off at Sausalito when you take the ferry back. Right. That's not. As long as this economy keeps on improving, in San Francisco. We... this is not going to go away. We have to learn. to, And that's why I'm there down there every year. being down there every year. I know one thing. I read this book twice. Okay? I'm not a lawyer. And you've got to be a lawyer to read this. So I'm glad we have two lawyers up here. Okay? I'm not an architect. But what I do is I work hard so I can apply my common sense. what what allows us to See your head. how to stay in the present. All right. So I'm going to just kind of go over some facts with you. that some statistics that I compiled over the time, Mmm. One thing that I'd like to clarify is We do have a tremendous amount of bikes coming in. But according to the police statistics, last year in the year 2014. their word. Approximately 12 reported accidents with bicycles to the police. And at the south end of town, three. That's down from six the following year. The only assessment I take on that is kind of except for the spandex warriors. And we know in all major cities. Bicycle riders like that are very arrogant and they're very aggressive. It doesn't matter what city, as long as it's a major city, and we know that is a problem. The tourist goes, it's kind of like Commuter time. The tourists basically are going so slow. that we're not incurring any major accidents. up till now. So I'd like to have people realize that when you hear those ambulances were roaring up, they're not going to Sausalito, they're going up further Alexander, or like Mr. Mulligan said, up to his territory up there on the bridge. Um... We have over the time last year, and we have evolved. We saw the bike bikes population increasing and coming over because You'd do the same thing if you read how they sell it. I mean, drive over the bridge, which is the icon, and go back on the ferry ride, and that's why we are, so to speak. That's why so many people come here. Last year, when you talk about the 4%, You might be accurate. But Last year, 2014, It couldn't have been a better weather year than we had. Winter never came. except this last week. All right. Day after day after day, the weather was Spectacular. So, I'd be really surprised, unless the weather stays exactly like this is, that you will do the same number. Okay? I'll be surprised. |
| 02:39:50.77 | Unknown | So, just |
| 02:39:57.23 | Unknown | As I said, the numbers are that, and I'll repeat it again, in 2000, what I figured out was that in 2014, there were 900,000 people took the ferry. and that's Golden Gate Ferry. That doesn't count blue and gold. And blue and gold is approximately around 400,000. The amount of bikes that come in or went on the ferry in the year 2014. where 185,000 bikes went back on the Golden Gate Ferry. That's over 20%. Not me, not saying that that's a small number, because it's a difficult, it's a high number. when you have such a small area to be able to manage that. but If you remember, last year was the first year that we closed Tracy Way. to accommodate that because we felt that the minute they get into town, just get them off and get him on the ferry. We also went into a reservation system. Well, when you came in, You made a reservation. The idea of that was we didn't want the long, long lines of people panicking. We wanted them to know that they could get on a certain ferry, so they had two, three hours to be able to go spend money. in Sausalito. That seems to have worked. And we still plan, as this is an involvement, as it involves, to be able to handle even the possibility of people leaving their bikes here and going back by ferry and a return that will work, and I feel very confident in the future. and when I say future, the next year or two, that I think we can get it where we can almost diminish that with as much as 500 people going back on the ferry without their bike. . You'll have to excuse me, I put my notes all over the board. So I think I'm going to cut it, but I also want to, at this time here, saying, I think at this time here, If we were wise, like we did with the police and fire departments. We form a steering committee made up of the bridge, the ferry, residents in us, or people representing the city here. And let's sit down on the table. in an attempt to figure this out before we go to arbitration and let anger step in. And that isn't the type of people that we are in Sausalito. or we shouldn't be. We live in paradise. We should be setting the example. Our next move should be how we can be better human beings. not going backwards fighting with each other. So I'm going to leave it that way. Because I think I've had enough time now, and if I can have some later. |
| 02:43:13.86 | Unknown | Well, I think we're going to wrap up. |
| 02:43:15.73 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:43:20.15 | Unknown | Thank you. I want to thank all the residents who have shown up not only tonight but throughout this process. I want to thank our Historic Landmarks Board and our Planning Commissioners and those outside who showed up. I saw Susan Kirsch here, co-founder of Friends of Mill Valley, and Citizen Marin. I saw Clayton Smith from Town Valley. I want to thank the district because I know this has not been an easy road for them. So a little bit of history. I want to stress that in 2009, this was presented to council as a simple replacement. It was just a switch out of the float. Between 2009 and 2014, council was told we had no jurisdiction. I personally did not know about the lease until a resident called and told me in the fall of 2014, at which point I emailed city staff and said, is there a lease? Could you send it to me? So in 2012, in November, I was assured that the ferry design would go through a full public review process with planning commission. In 2011, stepping back, I've been very distressed when that it has been misrepresented that council approved this design. Nothing. We did not do that. This was not agendized in 2011 as approval for a project, not agendized as a lease consent item. There was no staff report, no handout beforehand for the public or council. Mr. Swindler with the district said, we have a proposed concept We were told this is a little graphic, shows the new float would look like, it's about the same size of what you have today. Well, today we know that little float is 72% larger than what we have right now. In the fall of 2014, when I discovered that this was not going through public review, I got very, very, very concerned and very upset, and I'm just absolutely relieved it has gone through a full public review. I want to say that Looking at this, to me it looks like Bayfill for rental bike queuing over the bay. I know that since they did the MND, the rental bike population has increased. And from 2012 to 2013, the increase in rental bikes was 30%. From 2013 to 2014, the increase was 28%. No. Thank you. you Mm. So, you know, clearly we've seen an increase in rental bikes, and this is unsustainable. There's a photo I have of someone on the ferry perched atop a bench with rental bikes blocking all emergency exits on that ferry up and down the aisle. So this is just unsustainable. I have used the Saucido ferry as a commuter. Oh, and just to close that thought, to build a design to accommodate a model of rental bikes that is unsustainable, to me, is just untenable. We are, again, it's a design based on Bayfill to accommodate queuing for rental bikes over the bay. I have used the Saucido ferry as a commuter, and I know everyone in Sausalito loves our ferry. The Saucido ferry is in the heart of our historic district, and I have grave concerns about the proposed ferry terminal design. It seems a one-size-fits-all approach has been taken for the ferry terminal in San Francisco, Larkspur, and Sausalito. But Sausalito is not San Francisco or Larkspur. We are a small town of 7,200. We have constraints with capacity. We cannot add more land. As landlords, with looking at this leaf I strongly believe our council must withhold consent for this very terminal proposal and we must be clear on our stand. This design as presented, it cannot be tweaked beyond aesthetics, beyond removing the Belvedere's, beyond tweaking the color, beyond that, this design is baked. The choices, the design choices the district made of a concrete float and hydraulic system require the massiveness that we're seeing, require the large size, require the design elements in the 12-inch diameter industrial tubes on the five-foot-high truss and is so close to the yacht club. And it's so wrong for this side in Sausalito. It gives me great cause for concern for so many reasons. As landlords, there are multiple reasonable grounds to withhold consent. beyond CEQA. Um, Number one, the district's design did not include, consider, or even acknowledge Saucido's historic district and its context. The historic 2D2 site designations of the ferry site or Viña del Mar, or the 2S2 status of the Saucido Hotel, both within 300 feet of the ferry site, were not pointed out. Vigna del Mar, the California point of historic interest, has designation within 300 feet. That was not included. or considered. As a landlord, it is not unreasonable to withhold consent for a design that ignores official federal and state historic designations and cannibalizes the historic integrity and preservation of our cherished downtown historic district. Another reason to withhold consent, this design did not fully assess potential impacts to the Sausalito Yacht Club. The Sauce Little Yacht Club was never consulted during this design process. The club was not aware of the full scope and scale of this new design. The new design uses a concrete float that is 72% larger than what we have today and extends 75 feet beyond what we have today, and boats will be closer to the yacht club. The Yacht Club sits on city land. It is leased from the city too. The Yacht Club is therefore a public asset. As a landlord, it is not unreasonable for me to be concerned about potential negative impacts to the value of adjacent city property that is historic and a valued public asset. If these boats are undermining the underpinnings or the structural integrity of the yacht club, that is an impact on valued public asset. Another reason, the design did not consider the land side improvements necessary to accommodate an expanded ferry landing. This order of business puts the cart before the horse. We need to look at the impacts and the improvements that will be necessary to accommodate this project. The bridge district is proposing reconfigurations of our downtown parking lot in plaza areas, which we may not want to approve. These are linked projects that must be considered in tandem. This design would increase capacity with no alignment to landside configurations If we put a regional airport in Sausalito, We would not do that without considering capacity flow. The same applies to this mega terminal. |
| 02:50:53.48 | Unknown | Another reason, design did not fully explore alternative options that would accommodate ADA mandates in ways appropriate to the historic context. To use an analogy, if I wanted to make my kitchen ADA compliant, and here's my kitchen counter. I could lower the counter, or I could come in and pour concrete on my floor and raise the whole floor up. One design is elegant, one approach to ADA mandates elegant, and one is intrusive. What I'm seeing here is an intrusive solution. ADA, in my opinion, is not driving this ferry terminal design in the end. The district's choice of a concrete float with eight and a half feet tall hydraulics is driving this ferry terminal design. A concrete float is not an ADA requirement. An 8.5-foot hydraulic system is not an ADA requirement. A 16-foot wide access pier is not an ADA requirement. A 21-foot wide access pier is not an ADA requirement. And 12-inch wide diameter steel pipes on a 5-foot high truss is not an ADA requirement. It is not unreasonable as a landlord . to object to a design that did not fully explore ADA mandates in ways appropriate to the historic context. The design extends beyond the leased area, and machinery requires a parking lot space that represents 7,200 a year. That is another thing I object to. Another reason, the designing increases bay fill to accommodate rental bike queuing over the bay. I've already quoted quotes from the October 6, 2014 comments that the district made in their presentation. And BCDC Design Review Board concurred, they said, What you're saying, District, is one of the reasons we're widening this is to create additional queuing over the bay, which in theory would be something you do on the land side. So we're filling the bay to create queue space. That doesn't sound like Sausalito. Another reason, well, I think at this point, I will just say that I encourage, oh, I do have a comment about the steering committee really quickly. It's very, very important that we stick to this lease. We need to stick within the terms of the lease. The lease is clear. Give consent or withhold consent on reasonable grounds. If the district were to sue the city and we went to mediation, well, there's your subcommittee. There's the process where you talk things through. But we need to stick within the legal framework of the lease. And frankly, I look at this design, as I said before, when they made that decision on a concrete float Everything else became untenable with respect to scope and scale for Sausalito's historic district. A subcommittee or a steering committee is an unofficial, unsanctioned negotiating platform under which citizens will have no ultimate redress. This thing could be wrapped up, you know, behind closed doors. That's not what we want to see. Tonight is not political window dressing. Tonight we take action according to the lease. So that is all I have to say, and I encourage and urge and implore my fellow council members to withhold consent for this very terminal proposal. |
| 02:54:40.43 | Unknown | I would also like to add my great appreciation to the members of the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmarks Board. The members, the chairs of those groups had a very difficult job to do. We had asked them to give us a recommendation on the design of this project using as if they were deliberating for a design review permit. Now we know that We don't have the authority to either issue or deny a design review permit, but it was a very useful process that we asked them to go through, and I personally found at times the excruciating detail and discussion about each of the findings actually very much helped me form a decision. So to all of them, thank you very much. And of course, thank you also to all the members of the public. I've listened and read everything. And I'd like to reiterate what the mayor said just before the break. It's so impressive to see The amount of detail, great detail that our residents came up with, and again, that helped inform our planning commission, our Start Landmarks Board, and it certainly helped inform me. Now, There's no question that the ferry dock needs upgrading. I think everybody's in agreement with that. Um... I Even though we have at these meetings, the vast majority of people who've attended have been against the project. There have been some who've been in favor. And it was actually refreshing to see them bravely tonight in the face of opposition make their points of view. So thank you for letting them do so. But nonetheless, even though the ferry does need upgrading, the ferry dock does need upgrading, our commuters want more efficiency of turnaround. Trust me, in the times I've ridden the ferry, there's nothing more frustrating than waiting in San Francisco to actually come back home and find that it's taken forever for all the bicycles to get unloaded off. So I can understand our commuters are frustrated and need and want to see some upgrades there. When I ran for office back in 2012, I promised the community I would do three things in terms of a process. First of all, to listen to all points of view, |
| 02:57:31.06 | Unknown | I don't even know. |
| 02:57:44.49 | Unknown | to analyze the facts, the facts, not the conspiracy theories, not the imaginations of underhand, perhaps deals that are allegedly being done because there's a vacuum of information. Not to listen to any of that, but to actually listen to all the points of view, analyze the facts objectively, and make decisions for the whole community. Not just those who come to meetings like this and make a noise. But, but. I think it's important that Having gone through this process of listening to all the facts, analyzing objectively, and thinking of the whole community, Unfortunately, I couldn't am forced tonight, will be forced tonight to vote to withhold consent for this project. |
| 02:58:53.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:58:57.32 | Unknown | When I followed this process, not I haven't... been an elected official, so I started really paying attention to this. Maybe 2011. and thought it was a great idea. Everybody seemed to nod that it was a good idea that we needed to do this. And I must admit I did have in my head the the fact that we were replacing a much-needed degraded facility. But when it eventually came back to us, and I found myself sitting at the dais, now a council member, I've also come to recognize that one of the most important things to do is to actually listen to your gut about, and my very first reaction was, Wow, this seems rather big. You know, it was a first impression, and I've learned that those first impressions often are correct ones. But I stuck through it, trying to listen to the facts, trying to remember back what I thought had been decided or not decided in the past. And then I realized it came to me as the public were helping us understand what was going on, I realized that the fundamental core assumptions, the fundamental design concept was not the right one for Sausalito. That, that I think a lot of people And, uh, angst has arisen because even though there's been, yes, productive discussions with the district about aesthetics, about color, about the size of the gate, all of which has made improvements, fundamentally, I came to realize that the district has not made its case for the fundamental size of this project. And, related to this, So the growth projections in particular that the district has assumed, while on the surface may seem very reasonable, when you actually start compounding it and realizing, those growth projections are completely unsustainable. And because our downtown cannot absorb the growth projections as you start projecting them out a decade, it's impossible. And no matter what land side improvements you might think, you know, or imagined were needed, nothing was ever gonna contemplate destroying our parking lot. in any major way changing the configuration of that system. So the fundamental logic just fails. And it's been, I must confess, rather disappointing that throughout this process, the bridge district has essentially refused to consider modifications to the core design. And that's what's driving the boat here, so to speak. Couple of things. |
| 03:02:24.06 | Unknown | THE END OF THE END OF THE |
| 03:02:25.09 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:02:25.16 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:02:27.45 | Unknown | Because of that, I don't think a proper environmental review has been conducted. The very fact that in the documents there was very little, if any, acknowledgement of our historic district, the fact that we do have constraints about the size of our downtown leads me to believe that it would be actually quite irresponsible to vote to give consent while we have these environmental issues for which there is to sit the least considerable uncertainty. I didn't think we'd actually end up here. I honestly thought that in the last six months we would end up in a process where the community and the district would find a design that worked. But it didn't happen, and it didn't happen in part because even though everybody was talking to each other, they were sometimes talking past each other. So I've told you how I'm going to vote. It's with some degree of reluctance, because we do need a new ferry terminal, but we do need to also protect downtown Sausalito. Thank you. |
| 03:03:59.77 | Unknown | You know, I echo the comments of my fellow council members thanking the members of our HLB and our Planning Commission and the Bridge District in working together for the last four months with the joint review that's gone on. There were four meetings. I went to all the meetings or I watched, I went to three of the meetings in person and I watched the fourth one. I agree with some of the comments tonight, especially Jim Gabbert's comments that this is, I don't agree that this is a small vocal minority that's opposing this ferry. I think this is clearly an overwhelming majority of the people that live in this town. are opposed to the scale of this ferry. Conversely, everybody's in favor of a new ferry landing. So that's the good news for the ferry district. We're all motivated for a new ferry landing. We just feel that this is out of scale and character with our town. One of the comments, you know, and I along with the other council members, we actually read the written comments and we listen to people who come and talk. One of the written comments said that the design overwhelms the waterfront and diminishes the charm of our town. And I think that succinctly puts this project in perspective. There were over 100 speakers that have appeared, 148 written comments, the vast majority of those in opposition to the current design. Um, I feel strongly that one of the findings of the Planning Commission and the HLB is that there needs to be water side and land side planning done simultaneously is imperative. We can see that in the plan, the ferry landing project renderings that were submitted by the Bridge District. on March 11, 2015. Exhibit 7. has the plan of bikes backing up into parking lot one as a queuing spot. As anybody will tell you, especially Chief Tejada, I'm sure that makes the hair on, the back of her neck rise up when you're talking about bikes queuing to get onto the ferry into an operating parking lot. So. You know, we have had to close street in our town to accommodate queuing of the parking and queuing of bikes. Right now, I see park bikes queuing across streets into Gabrielson Park all the way through the park and down to the other side of the waterfront So clearly the current situation is bad enough. If you're talking about increasing that without further planning, I think is directly a health and safety issue that is within the parameter |
| 03:06:33.71 | Unknown | THE FAMILY. |
| 03:06:39.33 | Unknown | and prerogative of this council to vote on when you're talking about whether or not we consent to an expansion of this size under the lease. Clearly, I think under the lease, this is a major alteration, not a replacement. Alternative solutions that haven't been discussed include additional ferries runs during peak times. You could have other ferry services. We have other providers that have smaller, more ecologically sustainable boats that could possibly. potentially served that purpose during peak times only and that wouldn't necessitate the size of an expansion. It seems the ADA requirements have been the main driver. I'd like to see more engineering to address the 2% of the runs that would be affected by the low tide. So I don't think that's been adequately explored. And I think that that, That low of a number of runs that would be necessitated by the low tide doesn't sustain this large of a project. we have a problem with congestion and specifically rental bike congestion in our town. and the British District has this same problem. And I would like to see a better partnering between our town and the British District to try to address the volume of bikes that are coming into town. Some of the solutions might be drop off points earlier along the route, specifically the south end of the bridge and the north end of the bridge both have potential staging areas where people could drop their bikes and the bike companies could pick them up. But that will take a concerted effort between us, the bridge district, encouraging the bike companies to offer that service for the bike riders. I'm convinced that most of the bike riders that actually end up in town As our bike and pedestrian committee chair says, it's an albatross around their necks once they get here. I'm convinced that given the alternative, They'll choose to get rid of their bikes at some earlier point along the way. The bridge district has asked for direction. Here's the direction. It needs to be smaller in scale, less industrial design, fits in with the scale of our adjacent historic district The planned deterioration of the current float is an unconvincing reason for design of this scale. The bulk is driven by design and engineering choices. I'd like to see some different choices. In addition to this, the operational requirements of the current design require areas outside the lease lines to operate the ferry. And this, to me, indicates that there needs to be an amendment or renegotiation of the lease, not a project of this size. So in closing, I would agree also with my fellow council members that with their comments on the environmental issue, and I would also vote to deny consent for this project at this time. I believe though that we can work something out in a reasonable scale. Like I said, we're motivated, so let's do it. |
| 03:10:07.65 | Unknown | I also have to take |
| 03:10:13.44 | Unknown | I also have to take the time to thank our Planning Commission and our Historic Landmarks Board for all the work they put in at the four meetings. It turned out to be four meetings on this issue. They did an amazing job and stayed quite late. It closed this hall down one night and went past curfew. Uh, I also want to thank the staff for all the work they've done. I mean, it took someone to compile all your input and all the various reports to set up this room. I think we've done it three times. and Russ there has worked hard and we are streaming. And so I really want to take the time to thank the staff because Along with all their other Along with all their other duties, this was in addition to it, to get this together. And they've done a great job on that, so I have to thank them. Again, I want to thank you, and thank you for making me a liar. I thought everyone was going home after break, You're all here, and I really appreciate that. And all the work, we've said it over and over, that, you know, We wouldn't be here tonight with the information and the and the direction we had without all the input that we've had, all the information, all the help that we've had, And I finally want to thank the Golden Gate Bridge District because not only they've had us sit through all these meetings, but I also want to thank them for all the day-to-day work that they do. because they help us every day these fairies in. They struggle with the bikes. They help us in every way they can, in moving it back and forth, and they have for a long time. And we... have a disagreement on this particular issue. We hope we work through it. We need to acknowledge that. They really assist us in every way and we'd be in bad shape without them. And you know, our ferry is a core part of our identity. We have a lot of people who not only commute, but use it for other reasons. And so it's a very important part of our community. So we want to thank you for that. |
| 03:12:19.80 | Unknown | Um, When we started this back, and I think it was December and it started moving on in January and two things that were very clear. Everyone says we need and want a new and updated and functional ferry landing on one hand, and the second part is, But this particular program I'm not sure. project and proposal is too large and doesn't fit in with our community. There are a few other ancillary issues, That's really the core. And so we need to fill our want of having the updated and functional ferry landing, but we need to work with the bridge district for having a project that fits in with our identity and the size. I do want to make a note that Um, the bicycles, and without going into the details, By the way, on all these issues, I want to echo what my council members have said. and particularly the issues relating to the bike, But, I want to also... echo what David Soudo said is people should come to our bike and pet committee And our next two city councils will be talking about a lot of these issues, enforcement, I'm not sure. of bike parking downtown and various issues relating to it. So that that issue drives this one and is very important. We're making a lot of there's a lot of momentum on the issue right now. And so I encourage you to Visit those meetings. Bike and Ped is on the third Monday of the month, and they are streamed as well, so you can take a look at them. as well. I'm not sure. In a moment I'm going to go through some specific, well actually a few things that I want to go through on specifics. The main thing is that the overall project is too large and needs to be reduced. We've heard that over and over. I think the core of that problem is the 4% used and the 80% growth over 20 years. I think that has to be looked at. Uh, is needed. It's simply not, we can't accept that growth. It's not going to be, it's not justified and it will not be tolerable for us. The scale of the proposed ferry doesn't fit into our downtown historic district. That was one of the key findings. There were many findings the HLB and the Planning Commission made, but one of them that they all agreed on was that the scale does not fit into the downtown historic district. Um, the, um, Planning and water, planning for waterside land sign improvements should be done in tandem. Um, Let's see. And in that case, the other part is in our general plan, and this is something that was addressed Planning Commission, HLB. Our general plan is the constitution for our our city, and it's done with extensive public input. The last time we did the circulation element was, I believe, in 95, but it says, THAT It specifically addressed our ferry system. And ferry system is important enough to be in our general plan and be addressed. And on the part of the ferry System, it says, promote increased patroness patronage of the ferries while still protecting the area near the ferry terminal from overly intensive use. And that's a key part of our general plan that we need to protect And I think that needs to be addressed in any future plans. I also want to... talk about the proposed Belvederes, again the Planning Commission and HLB found that they were unnecessary for the size. and they negatively impact the Sausalito Yacht Club and in above the tides. And I think I know that the Bridge District mentioned that this has been imposed by BCDC, and we know that, but we need the Bridge District to go back, and we will support you in that, that we want these Belvederes. No one, I believe, I don't recall anyone supporting the Belvederes in all our hearings and such, so we certainly support you in having those removed. And I also want to say that we have, that CEQA concerns have not been adequately addressed. The city cannot yet determine whether the program has been adequately analyzed pursuant to the secret requirements at this point, and we need to have further study on that. I think I... I also agree that we need to find a way that we can work this out with the Bridge District. They call it the second most beautiful ferry ride in the world. upgraded to number one with a nicer ferry landing. And it's important to all of us. It's important to the bridge district. We know that. And It's not for tonight that we're going to do that, but I hope tonight is the end of one phase and that we move into another phase, that we can find something that is all agreeable. And I will. entertain a motion right now to, Unless anyone has anything further, can we have a motion? Can I just make one? All right. |
| 03:17:19.55 | Unknown | Yeah, just also, first of all, the Belvedere's, I think we all agree that's a mistake. There's no question about it. When BCDC talks about public access, well, welcome to Sausalito. The whole frontage is public access. So I think that was, I don't know why they didn't see that, but it's a negative. The other thing is just so, you know, and I'm very concerned this year because it's May already. And that season is already starting. And I'm already thinking more looking at that is how we're going to handle it this year. But I will tell you, A couple of things have changed. If you remember 12 years ago, nobody in this town. thought of going downtown with their automobile. That's changed. The only thing that slows you down when you go through downtown now is the pedestrians going across the street. There's no question that there's less cars coming in because they're coming in by very bike and bus. And by the way, the reservation system has not started yet. And that's why we did that last year, because we knew the lines would be just... If you were here Easter, on the Saturday before Easter, the lines were all the way down. But hopefully when the reservation system starts, that should hopefully decline. And one other thing that I will say is that last year working down there, There's a ferry every 35 minutes. It's tough to get another ferry in between that. And I can tell you that not one person that was turned away. If they wanted to get back, it might not have been the time that they wanted to get back Thank you. but everybody was able to get back. |
| 03:19:18.97 | Unknown | We have a motion. All right. Sure, you want me to move it? Yeah. I'll do it. I move that we adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Sausalito denying consent for the major alterations to the Sausalito ferry landing proposed by the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation. district as set forth in the attached resolution. Second. |
| 03:19:49.28 | Unknown | I second. |
| 03:19:50.14 | Unknown | AND THEN, |
| 03:19:50.24 | Unknown | And |
| 03:19:50.44 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:19:50.66 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 03:19:51.62 | Unknown | I do have a couple edits to kind of what we've been given here. |
| 03:19:51.66 | Unknown | Right. |
| 03:19:52.05 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:19:56.79 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 03:19:57.57 | Unknown | Is now a good time to discuss? |
| 03:19:57.63 | Unknown | Is now a good time to discuss? |
| 03:20:00.74 | Unknown | Oh, didn't I say that? Sorry, hold on. Oh, yeah, sorry. |
| 03:20:05.40 | Unknown | I think we have. |
| 03:20:09.80 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:20:09.85 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:20:09.88 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:20:10.63 | Unknown | Resolution should not adopt. Should not adopt. Right. Wait. That was right. Denying consent. Mr. Mayor, if I may. Oh, yeah. There is an addendum. |
| 03:20:14.83 | Unknown | Right. |
| 03:20:15.47 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:20:15.50 | Unknown | No one should have done. |
| 03:20:16.84 | Unknown | Thank you. There is an addendum to your staff report that was provided. |
| 03:20:23.27 | Unknown | Yeah, it says denying consent. |
| 03:20:24.70 | Unknown | Yeah, I said that right. It's right here. I accept your apology. |
| 03:20:25.09 | Unknown | Thank you. It's right there. |
| 03:20:30.22 | Unknown | I said the right way. I'll read it again. Adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Sausalito denying consent for the major alterations of the Sausalito ferry landing proposed by the Golden Gate Bridge District Highway and Transportation District as attached in resolution. See the resolution amendment one. So there's an attached amendment. Yeah, Mr. Mayor. |
| 03:20:46.40 | Unknown | So, |
| 03:20:46.74 | Unknown | Yeah, Mr. Mayor, there is an attachment number one in your addendum, and I believe that that's what Vice Mayor Hoffman is referring to. That's what I'm referring to. |
| 03:20:50.11 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:20:50.13 | Unknown | That's right. That's what I'm referring to. So that's what I thought I was seconding. |
| 03:20:54.62 | Kate Storr | Mm-hmm. Bye. |
| 03:20:56.61 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:20:56.63 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:20:56.65 | Kate Storr | OK. |
| 03:20:57.18 | Unknown | Do you have a second? Well, yeah, I second, but I have some tweaks up here to the wording, the bullets. So the first one is the bullet that says the proposed Belvederes negatively impact the Sauselot Yacht Club and the Inn Above Tides. I would like to change proposed Belvederes to the design. |
| 03:21:25.23 | Unknown | Sure, that's fine. |
| 03:21:26.38 | Unknown | Yep. See what I'm saying? The overall design. Yep, okay. And the other thing is, |
| 03:21:30.01 | Unknown | Okay. Yeah. |
| 03:21:35.49 | Unknown | I would like to |
| 03:21:44.59 | Unknown | I'd like to add another bullet that just says the project did not consider historic designations and the historic context. It says it's not compatible with this historic district, but I want to add that the project did not consider historic designations and the historic context. |
| 03:22:09.80 | Unknown | Any issue with that? Yes, sir. Ray, is that okay? I think so. Okay, all right. Anything else? |
| 03:22:21.39 | Unknown | Um... |
| 03:22:27.11 | Unknown | I'm wondering if the last bullet, if we can just say that just flat out the project was not adequately analyzed pursuant to CEQA's requirements. |
| 03:22:38.77 | Unknown | I think we need to. I think this is probably fine as that is. |
| 03:22:45.32 | Unknown | And if I may, Mr. Mayor, the aspect set forth in section three refers to section three of your draft resolution, which includes an additional paragraph. |
| 03:22:46.40 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 03:22:51.77 | Unknown | Great. |
| 03:22:51.97 | Unknown | RESULT. |
| 03:22:55.75 | Unknown | on CEQA. |
| 03:22:57.99 | Unknown | Yeah, no, I saw that. OK. |
| 03:23:01.47 | Unknown | Anything else? |
| 03:23:02.65 | Unknown | Um. No, I think that's all I have. |
| 03:23:05.74 | Unknown | So we... We have a motion and a second on that. Can we take the roll? Debbie, would you take the roll? |
| 03:23:11.26 | Unknown | Thank you. And Mr. Mayor, if Vice Mayor Hoffman could just accept those amendments to her motion. |
| 03:23:14.77 | Unknown | Yeah, I make the motion with the amendments proposed by Councilwoman Pfeiffer. |
| 03:23:21.87 | Unknown | Can I second that again? |
| 03:23:28.87 | Unknown | We Okay. Debbie will take the roll in a minute. |
| 03:23:38.46 | Unknown | Councilmember Weiner. |
| 03:23:41.26 | Unknown | I've been on the council for eight years. And this will be the first time I abstain. |
| 03:23:48.85 | Unknown | Council member Pfeiffer? Council Member Withey. |
| 03:23:53.82 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 03:23:56.21 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Hoffman. Yes. |
| 03:24:01.70 | Unknown | Mayor Theodore said, |
| 03:24:02.76 | Unknown | Yes. So that passes 4-0 with one abstention. |
| 03:24:19.36 | Unknown | Thank you all. We have about another five to 10 minutes of Uh. procedural things we have to do. This particular issue is closed. If you want to stay, It'll just take us a minute. I will now move on to public communications on, oh, I'm sorry. No, no, no. But we'd say we're going to close in five minutes or so, but you can everyone can and. |
| 03:24:43.26 | Unknown | We can't. |
| 03:24:45.18 | Unknown | What have we got left to do? |
| 03:24:48.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:24:48.10 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 03:24:48.51 | Unknown | if someone wants to do that too. |
| 03:24:50.13 | Unknown | Oh, OK. |
| 03:24:50.84 | Unknown | So we could, let me, let's do that. Is anyone here to speak on an item not on the agenda? Okay, seeing none, I would take a motion to adjourn. |
| 03:25:02.87 | Unknown | I move to adjourn. |
| 03:25:03.97 | Unknown | Okay, all in favor? Aye. It's adjourned. |
| 03:25:05.26 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:25:05.28 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 03:25:21.70 | Unknown | you |
Jim Gabbert — Against: Criticized the project as too large and out of scale for Sausalito, citing past issues with ferry operations and lack of transparency. ▶ 📄
Leslie Hale — Against: Urged denial due to project size, impact on downtown, and insufficient consideration of environmental and community concerns. ▶ 📄
Bill Versace — Against: Raised concerns about landside planning, legal responsibilities, and recommended withholding consent to force better collaboration. ▶ 📄
Joan Proctor — Against: Opposed project as part of a larger transportation hub plan, advocating for a smaller, more appropriate design for Sausalito. ▶ 📄
David Sudo — In Favor: Supported project, noting that the scale is comparable to other ferry facilities and emphasizing the need for improved efficiency. ▶ 📄
Kate Storr — In Favor: Supported project for safety, future commuter growth, and thanked the district for their work, urging approval. ▶ 📄
Willie McDevitt — Neutral: Expressed concerns about construction timing impacting tourism but emphasized collaboration with the district. ▶ 📄
Susan Shea — Against: Criticized district's transparency and maintenance, urged denial to address bicycle issues first. ▶ 📄
Chris Skelton — Against: Represented a coalition requesting denial due to lack of public process, piecemealing environmental review, and externalized costs. ▶ 📄
David Schoenbrunn — Against: Opposed current design, suggested alternative approaches like folding gangways and separate walking lanes for a more sensitive design. ▶ 📄
Kito Nampirsky — Against: Criticized district's dishonesty, urged fixing only the float and addressing bicycle rental issues separately. ▶ 📄
Steve Frazier — In Favor: Supported ferry upgrades to reduce car traffic and advocated for transforming parking lots into green space. ▶ 📄
Wendy Richards — Against: Called for denying consent to restore government integrity and develop a comprehensive plan including landside improvements. ▶ 📄
Tammy Blanchard — Against: Urged denial to preserve waterfront and historic downtown, advocating for cohesive planning with the district. ▶ 📄
Neil Whitelaw — Against: Accused district of deception and called for arrests, emphasizing community opposition. ▶ 📄
John Farrell — Against: Highlighted lack of public engagement and urged council to listen to residents, noting polarizing effects of the project. ▶ 📄
Jacques Ullman — Against: Supported ferry service but opposed project due to bicycle congestion, suggesting alternative solutions like using other locations. ▶ 📄
Vicki Nichols — In Favor: Urged approval with design adjustments, emphasizing ADA compliance and avoiding litigation. ▶ 📄
Susan Kirsch — Against: Opposed as a Mill Valley resident, citing impacts on small-town character and regional transportation hub concerns. ▶ 📄
Bill Werner — Against: Criticized design as engineering arrogance, urged denial and exploration of alternatives. ▶ 📄
Paul Ronan — Against: Opposed due to unrealistic loading expectations and bicycle safety issues, advocating for a smaller terminal. ▶ 📄
Jeanine Moody — Against: Urged denial, suggesting bicycle rental companies manage returns and exploring ferry alternatives at Fort Baker. ▶ 📄
Sam Chase — Against: Opposed due to low ferry capacity utilization, overstated ADA compliance, and unrealistic growth projections. ▶ 📄
Patsook — Against: Requested clear council positions on consent, opposing the project. ▶ 📄
Clayton Smith — Against: Criticized lack of 3D model for auditability and urged rejection to preserve Southern Marin as a residential area. ▶ 📄