| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:02.26 | Unknown | Good evening. |
| 00:00:03.15 | Unknown | Ooh, whoa. Thank you. |
| 00:00:05.03 | Unknown | I don't know. Good evening. We'll try and get the microphones right. |
| 00:00:17.75 | Unknown | So, We are calling the regular meeting of the Sausalito City Council for Tuesday, September 12th. Lily, would you take the role, please? |
| 00:00:35.98 | Unknown | Councilmember Burns. |
| 00:00:38.08 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:38.10 | Unknown | THE PRESIDENT. |
| 00:00:38.49 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:00:38.81 | Unknown | Councilmember Hoffman. |
| 00:00:41.10 | Jill Hoffman | President. |
| 00:00:41.93 | Unknown | Vice Mayor Cox? Here. Mayor Withey. |
| 00:00:45.66 | Unknown | I'm here. Um, I have asked our Vice Mayor to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance tonight. |
| 00:00:57.61 | Joan Cox | I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, |
| 00:00:58.27 | Unknown | Thank you. the flag of the United States of America. Thank you. |
| 00:01:07.13 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Yes. |
| 00:01:12.58 | Unknown | Thank you, John. |
| 00:01:22.52 | Unknown | Give me a little bit of time to get this microphone right. Okay, so closed session announcements. We met in closed session just a little bit before this meeting. We have no announcements. We adjourned the closed session potentially to at the end of this meeting. Is there any public comment on the closed session recognizing the subject of tonight's meeting? But I'm assuming not. Okay, so can we have a motion please? Thank you. |
| 00:02:01.40 | Joe Burns | of |
| 00:02:02.27 | Unknown | Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you. So item number one, really our whole agenda for tonight, why we've reserved this space, is that we get back to a consideration of the ferry landing project. So what we're going to do tonight is quite clear. We've made it, I think, abundantly clear that we're meeting tonight to listen. hear the new proposed project, take public comment, direct staff to move towards then a meeting on September 26th, where we will again take public comment and consider this matter. The way we're going to handle this tonight is that, first of all, we're going to hear from our city staff a report and presentation on an update. Hopefully that it's not going to be too duplicative of the presentation the district will give in which they're going to present us their revised project. At that point, the council will ask the district or if needed, the staff to... any questions for clarification and then we're going to take public comments in here from you all so that's what we're going to go through tonight we will end the meeting by giving direction to staff and adjourning to close session so with that I'm going to hand it over to the way who I believe is going to present our staff report, some background and history of this project. Lily, thank you. |
| 00:04:14.19 | Lily Whalen | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, council members and members of the public. I am Lily Whalen, your city clerk and assistant city manager. And tonight I will be giving the staff presentation on the revised plans for the fair and naming project. Mr. Mayor, you stole my thunder on what will happen tonight. It's all outlined on the screen here, so I won't go over it in detail. But I will be giving the presentation and handing it off to the district. Then there will be public comment, and then the council will review and provide direction, and the next meeting is anticipated to be September 26th. |
| 00:04:52.25 | Lily Whalen | I'd like to take a moment right now to introduce our staff who's sitting here tonight. We have Adam Hollister, our city manager, Mary Wagner, our city attorney, Police Chief John Robacher, Community Development Director, Jimmy Castro, Public Works Director, Jonathan Goldman, myself, the city's legal counsel, Art Friedman, and from Cowie, the city's consultant engineer, who is James Connelly, who's a project manager with Cowie. |
| 00:05:25.30 | Lily Whalen | Regarding the background for this project, staff has prepared a comprehensive timeline of events, which is attachment one to your staff report. which is available online for the public. In summary, in 2015, the district submitted a request for consent of their new ferry landing under the lease that they have to the city. Subsequently, the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmarks Board held four joint meetings and provided a recommendation to the City Council. In May of 2015, the City Council denied consent for the project. Marin County Supervisor Kate Sears subsequently held stakeholder meetings regarding the project at the end of 2015. In March of 2016, the Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Board held two joint meetings to review revised concept plans and provided a recommendation to the City Council. In May of that year, the City retained the engineering of Vern Cowley to peer review of the district's revised project plans. Cowie is an engineer for the Water Emergency Transportation authorities, ferries, and terminals located throughout the Bay Area. How we would determine that the width of the proposed float in Gingway could be reduced from 16 feet to 12 feet without compromising reasonable current and foreseeable operational needs. |
| 00:06:44.27 | Mary Wagner | I'm hearing you. Thank you. |
| 00:06:44.91 | Lily Whalen | In June of 2016, the city retained the planning consulting firm Environmental Vision to conduct a peer review of four of the container generated renderings prepared by the district. Environmental Vision identified certain technical errors regarding two of the simulations. which were inaccurate by as much as 25%. In response, the district submitted corrected simulations. In August of 2016, the district submitted supplemental plans to the city, further modifying the project, and requested that the city make its consent determination. However, in September of 2016, the district withdrew its request for the city's consent to the project. and the city filed a lawsuit against the district in September of 2016. |
| 00:07:36.69 | Unknown | Okay, just... |
| 00:07:37.23 | Lily Whalen | In July of this year, the city and the district entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, or an MOU, staying in the pending lawsuit for six months. And under the MOU, the district agreed to submit revised plans reducing the size of the project for the city's consent determination under release. The city and the district further agreed to meet and confer and cooperate to address other project related issues, as I'll describe further this morning. Before moving forward, I wanted to also mention that all of the background and current materials regarding the project are on the city's website, and you can get there by www.saucietofairylanding.com. |
| 00:08:23.02 | Lily Whalen | Under the terms of the lease, the city has 45 days to review the project. Under the MOU, the parties agreed that the city's 45 day review period under the lease began on August 31st of this year, and therefore the city must make its determination by October 15th of this year. If the city fails to decide during this period, or if the city council deadlocks on a 2-2 vote, the release provides that the city is deemed to have consented to the project. |
| 00:08:53.13 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:08:53.45 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:08:53.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:08:59.29 | Lily Whalen | Here is an aerial of the existing prairie landing following up the locations of the land side pier, the gate, the access pier, the gangway, and the float. There are also photos on this slide that show the current gate and float. |
| 00:09:16.11 | Lily Whalen | This slide shows two aerials of the site with the current proposal overlaid. Their current proposal provides for an option with Belvedere's, which are the seating areas previously required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, or DCDC. And they also provide, the district also has provided an aerial which shows the project without the Belvedere's. |
| 00:09:28.35 | Unknown | Commission. |
| 00:09:28.74 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:28.84 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:28.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:09:40.08 | Lily Whalen | This table shows the different components of the ferry landing, both structures and design elements, and how the district's proposal has been modified over time. This table is found in the staff report as table one. |
| 00:09:56.58 | Lily Whalen | Highlighted changes include the float reductions. The float length has been reduced from 150 feet, which was proposed in 2015, to 144 feet currently. And the float width has been reduced from 53 feet in 2015 to 49 feet, which is the current proposal. |
| 00:10:20.96 | Lily Whalen | With regard to the access pier, the dimensions remain the same, but the district has provided an option to remove the barriers which DCDC is secure. |
| 00:10:32.67 | Lily Whalen | Here's a close-up view of the project with and without development. |
| 00:10:40.42 | Lily Whalen | With regard to the gangway, this slide shows the changes over time. In 2015, the gangway width was proposed at 18.3 feet wide and 8 feet high. The current plans propose the gangway width at 12 feet wide and 6.7 feet high. The height of the railings have also been reduced from the 2016 proposal, as you can see in the photo-renderings. |
| 00:11:06.98 | Lily Whalen | This slide shows the gate changes over time. In 2015, the district proposed a simple swing gate with steel grading. The current proposal is the simple transparent swing gate with bird safety glass, which was included as a response to public input during the 2016 meetings. The revised plans incorporate other changes to design features of the project pursuant to input received in March of 2016. The district is proposing that the color used for the gates, railings, and gangway be a light gray color. With regard to lighting, the district is proposing warm spot lighting along the access pier and the gangway. Additionally, the lighting on the float itself has been reduced in height by one foot from 19 feet to 18 feet. On August 17th of this year, the district submitted revised voter renderings which show various 3D viewpoints of the proposed project in context within the city of the bay. These renderings have been posted online and have been available in the lobby of City Hall and that will remain there through the month of September. We have moved them tonight to the lobby of IDES Hall for the public to view. The city has requested that the professional planning and design consultant environmental visions confirm that the district's revised renderings are accurate. |
| 00:12:31.78 | Lily Whalen | The project also involves the construction and use of a relocated float and gangway to the south of the existing location to serve as a temporary ferry terminal during construction of the permanent replacement terminal. The location of this temporary terminal is shown in sheet CS1 of the district's revised plans. The project also requires the use of an approximately 8,000 square foot temporary construction staging area and the permanent construction and installment of two utility trenches and cabinets. One bumper on the permanent flow, the temporary terminal, the construction staging area, and the utility trenching and cabinets are all located outside the existing lease termists and therefore would require a lease amendment. |
| 00:13:21.17 | Lily Whalen | The city reviews the district's proposed project in three capacities. First, as a landlord under the lease. Second, as trustee under the public trust doctrine. And thirdly, as the responsible agency under California's Environmental Equality Act, or With regards to the lease on December 1st of 1995, the city executed the lease with the district as tenant, authorizing the district's use of the period term rule for a 50 year term. As you're aware, section 5.4 of the city's lease for the Fair District requires that the city give prior written consent to any major alteration. This consent shall not be unreasonably repelled, conditioned, or delayed. Failure to respond within this period is deemed under the lease as city consent to the proposed project. The district is required to present the proposed major alterations in written form with detailed plans and the city has 45 days to act on the district's request. |
| 00:14:21.38 | Lily Whalen | Section 3.1 of the lease defines the district's permitted uses under the lease to include activities customarily incident or convenient to the operation of the district's ferry service, including the approval of the events set forth in section 5.4 of the lease. Under this section, in section 3.2, the city has no authority to regulate either the district's choice of ferry vessels or the schedule of its ferry service. California courts have deemed the following factors reasonable grounds for a landlord's denial of consent under the lease. The landlord's interest in preserving the property, the landlord's interest in obtaining performance of the tenant's obligations, the suitability of the use for the particular property, and the need for alteration of the parents. Factors at California courts have been unreasonable grounds for a landlord's denial of consent includes the personal taste, convenience or sensibility of the landlord, and the desire for a better bargain than the contract with the tenant provides. |
| 00:15:22.81 | Lily Whalen | When California was admitted to the Union in 1850, it acquired ownership of all tidelands and the beds of inland navigable waters within its borders. In 1957, the state delegated the state's trust power over the San Francisco Bay Tidelands and suburbish lands that includes the least premise to the city. The range of public trust uses authorized under the 1957 trust grant is broad, encompassing navigation, commerce, to the city. The range of public trust uses authorized under the 1957 trust grant is broad, encompassing navigation, commerce, recreation, and environmental preservation. The city is responsible for balancing competing public trust uses, such as the needs of public transportation, with recreation, aesthetics, and environmental preservation. In making this assessment and considering competing public trust impacts the city may consider and or rely on information and analysis regarding the proposed project prepared pursuant to C. |
| 00:16:20.57 | Lily Whalen | The district is both the project's sponsor and lead agency under CEQA, and therefore was responsible for analyzing the project's potential environmental effects prior to approving it. In September of 2012, the district published an initial study mitigated negative declaration, or an MND, for the project. In December of 2012, the district's board adopted the MND and approved the project. The city is the responsible agency for this project because it has discretionary approval authority over the project pursuant to the lease and as trustee for the public trust doctrine. |
| 00:17:01.34 | Lily Whalen | As a responsible agency, CEQA requires that the city consider the environmental effects of the project prior to making its discretionary determinations. However, the city's review of the project under CEQA is limited to the substantial project changes, changed circumstances, or new information since the district's adoption of the MND. After the district adopted the MND in 2012, The district made multiple changes proposed project. and new circumstances and information exists at the project site because of increasing Numbers of ferry passengers and bicycles particularly in the summer and on certain weekends. In August of 2016, the city retained the environmental consulting firm, LSA Associates, to analyze whether any project changes, changed circumstances, or new information triggered any obligations for supplemental environmental review under CEQA. However, the district withdrew its project from the city on September 2, 2016, before LSA completed its analysis. On May 19th of 2017, the district notified the city of its intention to approve an addendum to the 2012 MND and authorize the implementation of a modified project. The district's addendum identified various modifications to the project including locating an 8,000 square foot temporary construction and staging area within the city's lot one. which is adjacent to the ferry terminal. and the addition of two public access Belvederes which were requested by BCDC. Subsequently, the city submitted comments regarding the district's proposed addendum including a report prepared by Parisi Transportation Consulting explaining that the use of lot one for the temporary construction and staging area would cause significant environmental effects. On May 26th of 2017, the district's board approved the addendum with the exception of the selection of the location for the temporary construction and staging area. In addition to the district's agreement to submit revised project plans for the city's consent under the lease, the parties agreed under the MOU to meet and confer to address the city's secret concerns regarding the project's proposed temporary construction staging area to work cooperatively in an effort to persuade BCDC to consent to remove the Belvederes from the project. and agree on a timetable to meet and confer about land side improvements in ferry passenger crowd management issues. |
| 00:19:34.03 | Lily Whalen | The city and the district have conferred regarding proposed alternative locations for the temporary construction staging area The district has indicated that it will look to the contractor to make recommendations regarding the need, duration of use, and location of a temporary construction staging area. and parking lot 1 will not be used for this purpose. Regarding the Belvedere's, BCDC has regulatory authority over the district's project and promotes the maximum feasible public access to the bay and its shoreline. BCDC staff reported previously that BCDC required the district to add Belvederes to the project. The Belvederes consists of the two public seating bump outs on the project pier, spanning 130 square feet of bay surface each. The city's denial of the previously submitted project in 2015 was based in part on the significant negative aesthetic impacts of the proposed Belvedere's, consistent with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmarks Board. The district is concerned that the proposed Belvedere's may interfere with ferry terminal operation and concurs with the city that the project would benefit from the removal of the Belvedere's. Additionally, the existing area immediately adjacent to the project provides substantial public access to the waterfront. And this includes all of the promenade adjacent to and south of the project, as well as to the north along the shoreline of City's Gabrielson Park. We contend that the public access to the bay and shoreline is better accomplished through added or improved public access to the current Dunphy Park Rehabilitation Project. In accordance with section four of the MOU between the city and district, The city and district staff met with BCDC last Friday, September 8th, to discuss removal of the Belvedere's. BCDC staff indicated that they would recommend to the BCDC board that the Belvederes be removed. Dunphy Park was discussed as an alternate location for improved public shoreline access, and BCDC board action on the project would take place after city action. |
| 00:21:43.79 | Lily Whalen | The district and the city have agreed to a series of meetings to address a number of land side issues the city has raised with the district. These include the timing and extent of district support, for future land site improvements adjacent to the ferry terminal, and the need for a solution to the ferry terminal's operations previously and ongoing fiscal and environmental impacts on the city. The city intends to make landside improvements to the city's property adjacent to the ferry terminal to reduce congestion and improve vehicular bicycle and passenger circulation at the project site To facilitate these improvements, the district has agreed to pass through to the city $2 million of a Federal Transit Administration, or FTA grant to the district. The FTA grant requires a 20% local match for use of those funds, thus requiring a land side improvement project budget of $2,500,000. The district has further agreed to provide $400,000 towards the local match to directly benefit ferry patrons with the remaining $100,000 of local funds to be provided by the city. Before the city undertakes these improvements, it will seek community input. |
| 00:22:57.64 | Lily Whalen | When the staff report was distributed to the council and the public last Tuesday, we had one letter of correspondence from Mr. Sam Chase. Mr. Chase's letter was sent to the district for a response. The district's response was then forwarded to Cowie for a peer review. We received Cowie's response this afternoon. The district and Cowie's letters have been provided to the council and posted online as late mail. In addition, we have received 11 items of additional late correspondence. All are posted online and have been provided to the council. That this concludes our staff presentation. Our recommendation is as follows. To accept staff's report and review the plans. Receive a presentation from the district on the plans. Receive public comment. and provide direction to staff to return on September 26 with a resolution of consent. conditional consent or denial for the council's consideration. At this point, I'd like to suggest that I introduce Dennis Mulligan. He's the general manager for the district. Mr. Mulligan will give the presentation FOR THE DISTRICT. It may be best to hold council's questions until after Mr. Mulligan has completed his presentation, at which point city staff and the district will be available for any questions the council may have. |
| 00:24:16.58 | Unknown | Super. Thank you, Lilly, very much. And I agree. Let's move straight ahead to the district's presentation. |
| 00:24:32.07 | Unknown | Welcome, Mr. Mulligan. |
| 00:24:34.01 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, members of the public. It's my pleasure to be here tonight to present our project. I'll stall for a minute while he walks across the room with the clicker for my slides. But it's a pleasure to be here to talk about our revised project to replace our Asosito ferry landing. |
| 00:24:58.31 | Dennis Mulligan | I'd like to thank Lily for an excellent presentation. I will skip through my slides that are redundant to hers because she did a wonderful job with portion sealing with the timeline and sequence some of the other facets of the project. I will provide though an evolution of the design because this project has been around for a while. It's gone through an evolution. And then I will present the revised project to you. I will also talk about the proposed schedule assuming that you would look favorably upon it. I would talk about some of the construction issues that people have questions about a little overview of the construction process. And then we'll go through some of the concerns that have been raised over the last few days since this was subsequently posted. The overall change that we've made deals with the width of the facility. And I might mention that the city's presentation did an excellent job of the timeline from 2015 to the present. But by the time we got to 2015, this project was already long in the tooth. It had been around for quite a while. On the left in this slide, you see what we have out there today. The existing gangway is narrow. It is 5 foot 9 inches wide. and the hand railing is 42 inches or three and a half feet high as you walk out. What you see on the right side on top is what we environmentally cleared back in 2012. It's something that we presented to the council as early as 2011 at least, and it showed something that had a large truss structure. It was 21 feet wide. It was 12 feet tall, and it was about a little better than nine feet taller than the walking service. Where we are today is significantly lower profile, significantly narrow. It is 12 feet wide, and it is a 42-inch high handrail, which is the bare minimum required by the building code. Overall changes on the lower on the left side you see the gate as exists today. Arguably not the most hospitable welcome to Sausalito when someone's getting off a ferryboat. On the upper right you see what we environmentally cleared back in 2012. It was a very utilitarian roll up steel grating door with side doors for emergency egress with panic hardware. Today the proposal before you is to have transparent panels glass doors swing doors. Also, we narrowed the width of the access period, which we'll talk more about. This is what you see today standing out on the waterfront near the ferry landing. This is what you see with respect to that classy world famous gate. The existing facility is tired, it's old, it's rusting, it has low freeboard so in storm events waves go across it. It's less than ideal, it moves quite a bit based on its design when people are boarding in rough weather and it's uncomfortable for some of our ferry riders during certain times of the year. It also doesn't meet today's standards for accessibility. What that means is it's too steep. There's federal and state laws that dictate minimum and maximum slopes and the maximum slope can be one inch of vertical rise for every 12 inches horizontally and as you see we greatly exceed that. We also have kinks as you wish where you get on and off. So that is not desirable. It affects those who are mobility impaired and does meet today's standards. Our existing facilities are quite narrow so disembarking and embarking passengers is slow. It's not very efficient. At times, vessels have to leave half full, even though people are lined up, just so we can keep the schedule. While we carry a lot of visitors from afar that come and visit your beautiful community, we have regular commuters who rely upon this to get home on time to pick up kids at daycare and other things. And so we will leave with a half full boat because we haven't been able to board it. It's also unsafe as well as uncomfortable to have it that crowded at times. So the proposed facility is before you is shown on the right side of this slide. On the left it shows the existing. The project does not touch the land side pier. It does replace the access pier. The width of the proposed access pier is the same as the land side pier, and it's at a slightly different angle than what's out there today. The width of it is 21 feet. It was originally proposed as 25 feet. The gangway is 16 feet when we last talked to you. It's now 12 feet wide. It is 90 feet long. The length is tied to accessibility standards. Then the float is longer than what's out there today, but it is shorter than what we previously showed you, and I'll go through that with some detail. So what are the things that we considered when we designed this project? Obviously, we have to meet building codes, which gets into the heights of handrails. We have to comply with ADA requirements. That's the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have to have concern for passenger and employee safety as we design the facility. We want to accommodate our operational requirements. We also need to be cognizant of emergency preparedness and mutual aid obligations that we have as a public agency. And then we have to meet PCDC requirements. With respect to operational flexibility, we have a goal of providing reliable, regularly scheduled transit service. That requires flexibility in our fleet. It'd be such that any of our vessels in our fleet be able to come into this landing to take people to and from home and work so they can get there where they need to be on time. Vessels go out in the wintertime. There's a lot of flotsam in the bay that can impact vessels, take propellers out, take out water jets. Also, we periodically have to do major overhauls. So on the left side, you see one of our Spalding, which is the monohull vessels in a dry dock. And on the right side, you see one of our catamarans, the MV Mendocino tied up at the Sausalito landing. We have seven vessels in our fleet, and we need the ability to use any and all of them so we can get you to and from work on time. Also, we need to be cognizant of the fact, and certainly watching the news last couple of weeks, highlights this point, that emergencies happen. And it's important that as a community, we prepare for them. Here in the Bay Area, we have a Bay Area Regional Emergency Coordination Plan. It was developed by the State Office of Emergency Services under guidance from the Department of Homeland Security. All Bay Area counties participate in it, including Marin County, and we are a part of it. Fairies are an integral part of disaster planning here in the Bay Area. For those that lived in the Bay Area during Loma Prieta, ferries were brought in from all across the western ports and private operators to carry people around. And you'll notice in the logo for this report, there's four transportation methods up there. One of them is a ferry boat, you'll notice it's a catamaran. The other ferry operator, WIDA, who is building 12 new boats for ferry passenger service on San Francisco Bay, has only catamarans in their fleet. They do not operate monohulls. As part of this agreement, there is a transit mutual aid agreement similar to mutual aid that your law enforcement or Southern Marin fire participate in with other agencies. We are signatory to the transit mutual aid agreement in the region contemplates fairies having a significant role after disaster here in the Bay Area. So it's vital that it not just meet any of our vessels, but any vessel, whether we private or public can come into this landing in time of need. We were long in the tooth in 2015, and this photo probably shows that. This is from 2011 when we presented to the city council. At that time, we had the high 12 foot tall arch structure. It was painted white. Go back one. |
| 00:31:58.50 | Dennis Mulligan | Access pier, the gangway was 21 feet wide. I won't go through the environmental process again. Lilly did a fabulous job detailing the various meetings. I will add that when we did the draft environmental document, we held the public hearing for that, a public meeting in Sausalito City Hall, and the city did provide written comments on that document. We came back to you in December 2014, which is right before Lilly's story takes off. At that time, we had what was in the environmental document. So it was actually a bigger structure than what went before you in 2015. We environmentally cleared the gangway that you see in this structure, where the slide on the top, you see it's 21 foot wide. On the bottom, you see it's 12 foot tall. And on the bottom, you see a person walking through that. So it was a large structure, and it would have obscured views. |
| 00:32:26.24 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:32:26.26 | Unknown | Amen. |
| 00:32:46.32 | Dennis Mulligan | This shows you that structure, the top of the truss is about a little better than nine feet above the walking surface. It is a round truss shape, so it's great. Water flows off it. Bird guano doesn't collect on it. From a maintenance perspective, it would have been a very easy structure, but it's a structure we'll never see in Sausalito. So, In December 2014, similar to the environmental document, we had a roll-up gate. It was a metal roll-up gate that was somewhat transparent, but since it's a roll-up gate, you need emergency egress if a boat on fire ties up the dock. So in the sides, we had great gated doors. They had metal grating on them, but they had panic hardware so you can push it, just like you would to evacuate a room such as this. That was December, 2014. We then embarked upon a process with joint meetings of your planning commission and your historic landmarks board in spring of 2015. We made changes based on that. And those changes led to what Lilly showed you, which was the structure with the eight foot tall truss. People objected to the truss being at about head height as you walked out on it. And this was still a wide structure. We did have swing gates instead of the overhead roll-up door based on that process, but it was a metal grading material, and you denied that project. So we then embarked upon a process with Supervisor Kate Sears, then Mayor Tom Theodorus, then Vice Mayor Jill Hoffman, and Lily talked a little bit about that, but we had a series of workshops that led to some changes in the design, primarily as it effected views. We lowered the profile of the facility. What came out of that is something that reduced the height and width of the gangway. A simple swing gate came with transparent panels as opposed to metal grading, and we reduced the size of the float a little bit. Those changes had an impact on views primarily because what we did is we came up with a design that basically is no taller than what's out there today. This design has a 42-inch high handrail, which is the lowest you can have by the building code. But I believe it was the Chair of your Planning Commission who astutely noticed that while we narrowed the width of it from 21 to 16 feet, we were able to maintain the operating This shows you that with the doors closed. I want to highlight a couple things because from this view, what we have before you today is very similar. And that gets into the height of the facilities. The existing pilings out there are a certain height. They're 19 and a half feet. We will have five pilings that hold the float in place. Those will all be 18 inches lower with the proposal for you today. We have two what you would call fender piles. We call them donut piles because there's a float that goes up and down on those. Those are six inches taller than what's out there today. We cannot make them any lower because in storm surge those donuts could pop off. But basically it's about the same height as what's out there today. It is longer. The gangway is longer and the float is longer so it does extend further out into the bay. So this talks about that, and this is the project that we submitted that we withdrew, and Lily went through all that. So here we are today. After we withdrew the lawsuit, we didn't stop working. We continued to meet with city staff. We met with our consultant, Cowie, and we tried to refine things. Then more recently, we made a concession. A 12-foot width is suboptimal. A 12-foot width will work for most of our trips and allow us to meet our schedule. But when times are very, very busy, a 12-foot width will not meet our full operational needs. But when we look across the country, we don't want to follow the example of Washington, D.C. We feel it's prudent to compromise, even though operationally it's suboptimal. We feel it's important to move forward. And so we come to you tonight in that spirit with a desire to move this project forward. So what you see in front of you is the gangway. It is 12 feet wide, and by comparison, it was originally 21 feet wide. The height of it is 42 inches, the bare minimum required by code. It's the same height of the walking surface as you walk out through today. It does not stick up any higher. The gates have been modified slightly also based on comments that came through your process. We've now added bird safety treatments to the gate doors. We lowered the height of that light a little bit and we made some modifications in the size of the float. The changes in the size of the float were based on feedback that we received from your team. But the width of the gangway had nothing to do with the analysis that your consultant did. It had everything to do with a compromise to move this forward. So that brings us where we are today. So the principle change is that the gangway is 12 feet wide. It was originally 21 feet wide when we environmentally cleared it. Instead of being 12 foot tall, it's 6.7 feet tall. And the walking surface and the height of the railings are no higher. The pilings are two of them six inches taller, the others are 18 inches lower. So the pilings are about the same height. When you look out at something a hundred feet away, I challenge you to see whether it's six inches tall or six inches lower. We narrowed the width of the access pier from 25 feet, which was originally environmentally cleared, to 21 feet. The landside pier, there's no changes. And we have reached out to BCDC along with city staff. And we are pleased, as Lily reported, to say that tentatively we have a verbal okay from staff that we won't have Belvedere's. I want to thank your city manager Adam Polliter for helping us with that. And I want to thank supervisor Kate Sears who sits on BCDC, who is instrumental in helping us get to that juncture. The gate has been changed so it's transparent. It's a swing gate. It doesn't have an overhead structure for a roll-up door. And as currently before you, it has bird safety treatment. And then the color of the facility is gray as opposed to the original bright white, so it'll blend in more. We did a variety of new renderings to see how will people experience this as they walk along your waterfront. This is the existing view from Gabelson Park. This is from the far edge, farthest away from the facility. You'll see the new facility sticks a little further out into the view shed. As you get closer to the Yacht Club, as you walk across Gabelson Park, you will not see any difference because you cannot see the facility. The facility is shielded by the view from the Yacht Club. So the Yacht Club obstructs the view from this vantage point. The Yacht Club we know is a very important member of the community. It has about a thousand members, half of whom reside in this town. And so we did several renderings from there. This is the existing facility at High Tide. This is the proposed facility at High Tide. So it extends further out into the bay. At low tide, this is what it looks like today. This is what the proposal will look like at low tide. So it extends a little further out. And I'll talk more about the distance from the Yacht Club in a moment. From the Yacht Club parking lot, this is what you see today. And that's what you'll see with the new facility. We did remove the Belvedere's. If I showed you the Belvedere's, you'd probably jump out of your chairs because you'd have benches that would be looking into the Yacht Club on one side and looking into the Inn above the Tide on the other. From the plaza north end, you'll notice you're looking straight through the facility, and the facility shifts a little bit in this view. That's because the angle of it changes slightly and extends further out. Similarly here, you see Angel Island in the background, and it extends a little further out into Angel Island. But it does not obscure the views of Angel Island or of Belvedere. Here's another view, this is the plaza at the south end, and once again you see it extends further out. This is the before, this is the after. As you get further down bridgeway, this is what you see today, and it extends a little bit further out. So you still see above the facility, you see Belvedere behind it. This is the existing lighting, it's kind of a hodgepodge, there's not a consistent color, but this is what's out there today. This is a view if you go out there today. This is what it's proposed to look like if you were to approve this proposal. This is during the winter time when we're still operating service. So we have lights on the access pier, the gates are open. But once we stop service at night, then the remainder is not lit. So this is what you would see. So summarizing the project, on the left you see what's there today, on the right you see what's proposed. Assuming we were successful in getting approval, we do not have final design for this. We have the conceptual design done, and we've done additional detail design on a couple of key components that are of interest to the community. We've done fairly detailed design on some of the other proposals, so we've learned our lesson. But if you were to approve this this month, our next step would be to get the BCDC and the Corps permits. The Corps permit is ministerial. Once we have the BCDC permit, the mitigation is already in place. The National Marine Fisheries already given us our permit, so that's all done. We would then complete the design documents and that would take approximately nine months. So summer of next year, we would finish the design. Next fall, we would advertise it. We would start construction in winter of 2018. It's about a year and a half to build this project. It's important to note that most of that work is done offsite. So what is the construction impacts? What's gonna happen? The most important thing is the contractor will not be using parking lot number one as a staging area. So that will not happen. The contractor will be responsible to locate another staging area like they have to on many other projects. They'll have to make sure they have all the permits for it's environmentally cleared. So they will not be doing something in your community without your okay. That does affect the price of the project. But we understood and heard loud and clear that parking lot one will not happen. So it will not be allowed. Most of the construction will occur offsite or it will occur on barges adjacent to the ferry landing. Piles will be installed and some work will be done from the water. That new float will be constructed offsite. It will not be constructed in your community. It will then be floated into the site for installation. Similarly, the gangway will be fabricated offsite and it'll be floated to the location. Our contractor will be required contractually to follow the city's noise ordinance. The duration is anticipated to be 18 months. The construction sequence is the first order of work is to build a temporary access pier that you see in the upper left slide as shown in yellow, and then to construct that pier and also to put utility access to it. then the next step is to move the existing float, the existing gangway to that temporary access period. excuse me, and connected to it. a sip of water. then we would operate out of that temporary location while the new permanent access pier is built and then the float is brought into place and the gangway is brought into place. This shows you that. I'll talk more about the location of the temporary during construction location of that float. During construction, we expect to operate ferry service. That's the general statement. There'll be a handful of times, there'll be interruptions. When we need to relocate the existing float and gangway to that new temporary access pier, we'll have to cease ferry service for about a week. We'll have temporary bus bridges that will take people to and from San Francisco during that period of time. And we'll have enough buses to carry the passenger loading that we anticipate. Also, when we're doing concrete work on the access pier, we'll have a concrete boom truck in the parking lot and it'll boom out over that area. So we will not want people walking through that. So when we do concrete pours, which is a handful of days, we will not operate ferry service probably in those mornings. We'll do bus service. And if we complete on time, we'll continue ferry service in the afternoon for people to get home. Going home in the evening, the ferry is much faster than taking the bus for many people. Our contractor will be required to develop a traffic management plan for how to get workers to and from the site. The city will have an opportunity to review and comment on that. It's something we do with the National Park Service for all our construction at the bridge. And also with respect to passenger queuing during construction, the gate's gonna be in about the same location, so we don't anticipate any change in passenger queuing because actually the access gate won't change at all during construction, so people will continue to line up where they do today. Further out on the access, people will have a gate at the end so people don't walk off the end. But so there'll be no change in queuing during construction. We will have some work that will have to occur in parking lot one, and I wanna be candid and forthright and transparent about that. You see a red line through the parking lot on this drawing. That is a utility trench. So we will have to dig a trench, put some pipes in the ground for some utilities that connect our very facility to a PG&E box on shore. So the duration of that is a couple of days. The new PG&E equipment will be located in the northwest corner. No parking will be removed as part of this project. There will be no closures of the entire lot during construction, but there'll be a handful of days where there will be some impacts. On the left, you see an area where the city has an existing utility cabinet. On the right, you see how there'll be a new cabinet next to that. The new cabinet is right there on that drawing. It's not as tall and right there on that drawing. It's not as tall as the city's cabinet, but we'll have a cabinet in the same area as your cabinet. No parking will be lost as part of that, but it's a PG&E cabinet that we need to have. So it'll be co-located with yours. So no parking spaces are proposed to be permanently removed. There will be minimal parking lot one impacts. There's a handful of days for concrete poor operations. And obviously our contractor will want to do that in the morning, like most construction in the city, because that's before it gets crowded. We'll have a handful of days for utility trenching for that one trench through the parking lot. And then we'll have a handful of days in that one corner of the parking lot where PG&E will install their equipment. Parking lot one will not be closed during construction. Now, as we've gone through this process, this journey with you and your staff, there have been many concerns that have come up, so I wanna talk through some of those concerns. Some have come up or been reiterated in the last couple days, and I would be remiss if I didn't talk about them. One is, well, what about the land side improvements? We can see that both the land side and the water side are both important. In fact, in 2013, we went out and we secured a $2 million grant from the Federal Transit Administration. In 2013, we went to our board to seek $400,000 of toll money so we could pass that through to the city. So, we want to work with the city on the land side improvements. We're a partner on that financially as well as an interested party. Pursuant to our lease with the city, the city is the lead agency for the land side and we're the lead agency for the water side. But we have a vested interest and we're working very closely with your team on that. We heard from people that the project is too big. They had concerns about the project size. So we've made it smaller. The gangway was 21 feet wide. Proposable for you today is 12 feet wide. That's a 42% reduction in the width of the gangway. The height of the gangway was 12 feet. Today, the total height top to bottom, and most of that is tied to the current bottom, is 6.7 feet, so it's a 44% reduction. So we've reduced the overall size of things. We've also added transparent panels to the gate as opposed to the original roll-up doors. This illustrates the change in the gangway cross section. What's shown in blue is the envelope occupied by the original design. It was 12 feet tall and it was 21 feet wide. And to scale is the yellow box. That's today's 6.7 feet high and 12 feet wide. So we heard people say the project was too big. That's a significant reduction in size. That 12 foot width works for most of our trips, but it is suboptimal, but we are seeking a compromise. We would like to go forward in an amicable fashion. We heard about the Belvedere's, people didn't like them. Kudos once again to Supervisor Kate Sears and Adam and our teams for working with BCDC. We have a tentative approval and we have alternative public access that we're proposing. So the Belvedere's won't have those benches with people staring into the Yacht Club and in above the tides. We heard concerns about the project being outside the lease area, and I assure you if we could get it all within the lease boundaries, we would have. But we have gone back. We've reduced the size of it some. So today on the water side, there's only one of those what we call donut piles or fender piles that's outside the leasehold. There's no way to get that in. We also have some temporary work in the water that's outside the leasehold. We also have some utility trenching through your parking lot, utility vault buried in the ground, and then we have the above ground utility cabinet by your PG&E cabinet. So there are things outside the leasehold. We're seeking approval of those items as well as the other changes that's before you tonight. So the above ground utility cabinet in the parking lot I previously showed you, that's shown on the left on this slide. The upper red box is your cabinet. The lower red box is our cabinet. unless my eyesight's fading. The middle one shows you a red line, that's a utility trench, will be buried. And then we have some underground, smaller utility work right behind our ticket vending machines. That's all buried in the ground. Once again, this shows you the location of the our proposed utility box right there next to your utility box right there. We also heard concerns about birds hitting the transparent doors, this came up through your process. There's a variety of bird safe glass options out there. We're flexible, you tell us what your pleasure is. One example is fritted glass. On the left side, you see it from far away. So it's slightly, you know, obscured very slightly, but still transparent, but up close you can see it, which is on the right side. So the right side, you get close, you see the dots, far away they fade. If that's what you like, that we will gladly do it. If you don't want bird safe glass, we will do that also. We've also heard concerns about noise, and I would like to state for the record that characterizing the hydraulics in our proposed facility to a garbage truck is akin to comparing a Tesla to a drag racer. It's true, both have four wheels and both are automobiles, but they have significantly different noise profiles. A garbage truck has mobile hydraulics, and it is not insulated, it is not highlighted or separated from its surroundings. So our design will be similar to what you see at the San Francisco Water Emergency Transit Agencies Ferry Landing in South San Francisco. This is some pictures from an existing ferry facility that you can go look at. This is the model of the hydraulic piston that we will be using. It is an Eaton model PVM 045, and we put the model numbers in here. It's all on the website as well as some charts so you can all look it up. The noise level is based on the expected performance, and this chart shows the manufacturer's noise level for this pump. We'll be using a six-pole motor at low RPMs, and we'll be running at relatively low PSI, or relatively low pressure. So according to the manufacturer, this hydraulic piston or pump system in the open produces 62 decibels of noise. 62 decibels of noise is similar to an office environment. That having been said, our hydraulics will not be out in the open. They will be in an enclosed cabinet. They'll have sound insulation and they will be isolated with rubber isolation at the base of them. It'll be a similar system to what is at the wetter facility. It is not a garbage truck rumbling through town waking you up at five o'clock in the morning. The hydraulics will only operate when ferries arrive and depart, which is during normal service hours. We've also heard concerns about the Yacht Club. The proposed ferry location will be similar to the existing location, but will not be the same. There's a slight different angle on the, the peer, and so we want to talk about that. Hang on. Did I go too quick through that? Missing a slide. We reduce the height of the gangway, provides improved views. The piles that are proposed, the tallest two, the furthest two away would be six inches taller than the existing. We got rid of the high truss that would block the view shed. What's missing is the spacing of it from the Yacht Club. I guess we lost the slide. Well, I can't see it. So this slide shows you, get this, the one we had had the numbers popped out on a little bit. So the spacing of a ferry boat today to the face of the club and the spacing for the new location, for the closest part of the ferry boat to your restaurant, it'll be, I believe it's 32 feet further away. It will not be closer. While it will be 32 feet further away, it will be seven feet closer to that dock there. So the boat closest point will be seven feet closer to that. It will be 32 feet further away from that. So we don't believe that we're having a significant impact on the Sausalito Yacht Club. Like I said, we've gotten rid of the high trusses, we've gotten rid of the bright white trusses, we've lowered the profile of the facility. This is the view from the Yacht Club. Also, it certainly pales in comparison to what the view was for the first couple decades the Yacht Club was at this location before the Bridge District removed this timber wall. We also recently heard again about concerns raised by the in above the tides. This is their letter that's shown in the slide and I quote their letter. They said the proposed temporary peer location will place the ferry in approximately the same location as it was prior to the existing pier. That is a true statement. It's also a true statement that we've already compensated in above the tide for any ferry wakes or any damages associated with location of a float, the ferry or the boats at that location. What's shown on the right side of this screen is a recorded legal agreement the British district has with in above the tide where we compensated them for those damages. So they previously were compensated for any wake in any ferry or float location issues that they're now raising. So the overall design changes, we changed the gates from what was originally environmentally cleared shown on the left to no longer having a roll up, but to swing doors that are transparent. We got rid of the tall trusses that were over nine feet above the walking surface with something that meets the bare minimum code for the height of it. We reduced the width of the access pier, and more significantly, we reduced the width of the gangway from 21 feet that was environmentally cleared back in 2012 to 12 feet, which is before you today. This once again shows you the change in envelope of the gangway from the 2014 environmentally cleared design to the 2017 design before you today. So we've made a variety of changes. Our goal is to try to come up with a compromise that works for the community while it allows us to meet our operational needs on a daily basis to get people to and from work, as well as whatever may arise in the case of an emergency. With that, I'm available to answer any questions that you might have. |
| 00:55:25.27 | Unknown | Thank you very much, Mr. Mulligan. Okay, so we've had the presentation, orientation presentation from staff, very detailed presentation from the district, thank you very much. Now is the time for us to ask questions of the district or of staff before we open this up for public comment. Now a lot of questions may actually emerge from public comment, so we should decide what we need to ask now and what we need to reserve to later. So I throw it open to my colleagues. Who wants to go first with questions of the district or staff? |
| 00:56:16.16 | Jill Hoffman | I have a question. And this is one probably for Lily. Lily, I saw in the staff report a couple of places where you did sort of a timeline. And in both of those places, you set forth the eight council points for denying consent in May 5, 2015. I didn't see that in the PowerPoint. And I just went through my slides. Was it in the PowerPoint? |
| 00:56:44.38 | Lily Whalen | It wasn't in the PowerPoint. It was included in. |
| 00:56:46.97 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:56:47.03 | Lily Whalen | the staff report. |
| 00:56:47.97 | Jill Hoffman | Would you mind reading off those eight points so that people in the room understand what they were? |
| 00:56:51.55 | Lily Whalen | that people are not. |
| 00:56:53.68 | Jill Hoffman | And that was when the city council, after HLB and the Planning Commission, Did their review recommending denial, and that was forwarded to the City Council in May of 2015. |
| 00:57:06.85 | Joe Burns | And I'll just say for folks out there, it's essentially page 13 of the staff report. |
| 00:57:15.66 | Jill Hoffman | Or it's page one of the timeline that follows the staffer part. |
| 00:57:18.85 | Joe Burns | Ms. On page one of attachment one. Thank you. |
| 00:57:20.99 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 00:57:21.50 | Joe Burns | which is, |
| 00:57:21.55 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:57:22.03 | Joe Burns | 13th page in and the staff will call it. |
| 00:57:24.94 | Lily Whalen | So the eight points in the May 5, 2015 resolution of denial from the city council was one. The planning for water side and land side improvements should be in tandem. Two, the overall size of the project is too large and should be reduced. Three, the project is not compatible with the historic district. Four, the proposed Belvederes add unnecessarily to the size of the project. Five, the overall design negatively impacts the Saucido Yacht Club and the Inn Above Tide. Six, improvements are outside the boundaries of the leased area. 7. The city cannot yet determine whether the project has been adequately analyzed pursuant to sequence requirements as set forth in section 3. And 8. The project did not consider historic designations in historic context. That's all I have. |
| 00:58:19.23 | Vicki Nichols | Thank you. |
| 00:58:25.88 | Unknown | Any other questions? |
| 00:58:30.10 | Joe Burns | I'm going to defer because I know there are some people here on a timeline, so I'm going to save questions until after we've heard public comment. |
| 00:58:38.00 | Unknown | Is everybody okay with that? Thank you. |
| 00:58:39.75 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:39.78 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:58:39.80 | Unknown | Agreed. |
| 00:58:41.08 | Unknown | Okay, I think our, I mean, it's very well maybe that our questions may be more informed once we've heard public comment. So with that then, we are going to move on and open this to public comment. Um, I have a bunch of green cards, and I'm just going to go in order. Okay. There are more people in this audience than green cards that I have. So either you're being very shy or you just haven't filled in a card, one or the other. |
| 00:59:29.75 | Unknown | I will, as we have, could we have a show of hands? How many people actually want to say something? OK, I've got less cards than this, so fill them in, guys. Good. So I'm going to start off and I'm going to mention, what I'll do is I'll mention three names and then get ready to talk. And then when we're on the third, I'll give you another three names and then we'll move things along a bit. So we're going to start off with Neil Whitelaw. You're right on the top of my pile of cards. So Neil, why don't you go ahead and then we're gonna call on Sam Penrose. And Peter Van Meter, those are gonna follow Sam, follow Neil. |
| 01:00:27.45 | Lily Whalen | Mr. Mayor. |
| 01:00:28.31 | Unknown | Yes. |
| 01:00:28.36 | Lily Whalen | Yes. Sorry to interrupt. Just as a point of clarification for the public about the process for public comment. The public has three minutes to comment, and we have the timer up there for the public. If the public does have questions of staff or the district, please ask those questions. We'll be taking those questions down at the end of public comment. |
| 01:00:33.99 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:00:34.06 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:00:34.55 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:00:34.82 | Unknown | I'm like, |
| 01:00:48.51 | Lily Whalen | We'll answer all the questions that we're able to. We might have to respond to questions in writing, and we'll respond to those by the September 26 meeting. |
| 01:00:59.11 | Unknown | Okay, thank you, I should have said that. Lilly, thank you, you're doing a great job of keeping the mayor out of trouble. So again, to remind you, I'm gonna call you out three at a time, three minutes each. Don't expect an immediate response to a question. We're gonna note every question. At the end of public comments, staff will respond to some questions if they can. If not, we've been informed so we know what to deal with for the next meeting. Okay? So, Neil, it's you for three minutes, sir. |
| 01:01:37.02 | Neil Whitelaw | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. |
| 01:01:38.57 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:01:39.25 | Neil Whitelaw | Um, I might be behind on some things because of a heel injury. I wasn't able to get into City Hall. for seven months, and the elevator was out also. So excuse me if I'm missing something. Um, How on God's green earth can a deadlock of the city council mean that we accept the plan? unless I misunderstood what was up here. And, um, I don't know about you, Oh. but I don't like the diner to table. or someone is shoving food down my throat. And that's why the city of Saasio had to start court proceedings to stop the bridge district from shoving their plans down our throat. uh, I might be misunderstanding that, behind on information. So here we are again watching the same movie for the second time after the cost of four public meetings two years ago in this hall. We definitely, must have a three dimensional model. or we fooled once again. It seems like they don't have a three-dimensional model. It could be. It can be fooled by Uh, a computerized model. that you don't see how it actually looks. So I think we definitely must have a three-dimensional model. or get fooled again. Also, I feel we must have at the same time a landside plan to go along with it so we see how it all looks together. Now I'm gonna paraphrase what I stated May 5th two years ago. in this very hall at the third or fourth meeting. To the mayor, city council, and citizens of Saasli, though, who were supposed to be the prime movers of government, Isn't the quote that is supposed to be the absolute backbone of a republic? and that is we the people. public servants of the Golden Gate Bridge District. have come here to the Saucyida City Council intentionally and knowingly to deceive you by their presentation. I accused them, all of them, because not a one of them has come forward to denounce their knowingly immoral and illegal subterfuge in the statements they have publicly made to the four joint board meetings of the Planning Commission and Historic Site Commissions. Mr. Mayor, Consul, beloved citizens of Sausalito, or I've been for 50 years. If you have closely watched all four of the joint board meetings, and been at the related city council meetings It is extraordinarily clear that these people came here thinking they could put one over on us rubes and suburban dolts. Mr. Mayor. I ask that you instruct Chief Tejada, who was our chief two years ago, to arrest all the employees of the Golden Gate Bridge District, hear of their own free will, and booked them into the new city jail. Well, it's two years older. |
| 01:04:43.96 | Unknown | Thank you, Mr. Whitelaw. Sam Penriths, please. Then Peter Van Meter. |
| 01:04:57.19 | Sam Penrose | My name is Sam Penrose. I'm a long-time Sausalito resident and a ferry commuter. I would like to thank everyone who has worked so hard on this issue, the city council, the district staff, the Sausalito staff, and also all the people who are here because they have a vision of what Sausalito should be. We have a wide range of visions, but all of you are here trying to make Sausalito better, and that's fantastic. Thank you all, number one. Number two, I ride the ferry all the time. It is not safe now. People stumble every day in inclement weather. They often look like they're about to fall. People have to be helped. People of limited means have to be helped up. It is not safe. What I've learned today from the presentation is that we could be two years ahead or three years ahead in this process of getting the ferry landing we need, had it not been for the hard work that everyone's done. And I know the work has been done in good faith, but I really wish we had just basically approved it two years ago, and I would like to ask you Other folks have different views and I respect them and I respect them. their good intentions and their vision that they want to make Sausalito better. That's fantastic. Please approve the ferry landing as quickly as possible. If there are changes that you feel are important and need to be made, Godspeed. I have no quibble with anybody who wants it one way or another. I just want a new safe ferry landing so no one gets hurt. Thank you. |
| 01:06:28.64 | Unknown | Thank you, Sam. Peter Van Meter, then please Sam Chase Castor, after Peter. Thank you. |
| 01:06:39.95 | Unknown | Yes, I am Peter Van Meter and glad to be here. We've gone through a long and rigorous process with a lot of public input and meetings and so on. and come to a conclusion where a decision is going to have to be made. It reminds me of a couple of other contentious projects in Sausalito. For new residents, they may not remember or not know property across from Molly Stones, the willows and the townhomes are located. Took 12 years for that project to be approved. And everybody said, There's going to be massive traffic gridlock if you ever approve that project. Well, I challenge anyone to remember the last time you saw a car coming in and out. of Whiskey Springs. We had spent a lot of money more recently fighting the Cavallo Point Project. Because again, there is going to be massive impacts on the city of Sausalito from that. Well. I guess I say, well, where are they? And I guess I'm predicting when you approve this project now after going through all this process, Two weeks from now, And then it's built. And then we'll look back On that, activity we've gone through today and you see what's there and how it's operating and the improved efficiency that's resulting in terms of the transit in and out of Sausalito, Oh my gosh. What was that all about? So please. Move ahead. It's gonna be a wonderful improvement to town And it's gone through a process that now has resulted in a great design solution, in my opinion. Thank you. |
| 01:08:12.20 | Unknown | Thank you, Peter. Sam Chase, then Castor, then Jen Genari. |
| 01:08:20.60 | Unknown | Yes, Sam Chase, Bonita Street resident. Just before this, I came over here. I noticed we got some very late mail, so my little talk here is based on prior to being able to review it thoroughly. I did manage to skim through some of it, and I'm appreciative of... of the Bridge District as well as Cowley, putting together some comments on that and incorporating it into your presentation. So. We're back for another round of ferry hearings with only notable progress on the gangway width since hearings were suspended two years ago. Why? Why so little progress? This will help answer Sam's question. Concerned residents were stonewalled on the gangway width during the 2015 public hearings, other than some bridge district concessions, reducing the width from a hideous 25 feet to 18.3 feet. Since then, and thanks to Cowley, the city's engineering consultant, we now have what I would propose, what I would consider an acceptable 12-foot width on the main gangway, suboptimal, Hard to believe. Many res too. Many residents have repeatedly, repeatedly requested a 3D model of the proposed landing to have a better visual of the landing side. stonewalled again. Still no model. Many past public hearing concerns were about the size of the float and its projection into the bay. Only minuscule progress on the float size has been made and projection remains unchallenged. unchanged, excuse me. The so-called need for a double-hulled vessel appears to be stubbornly driving the size of this landing. Now, having said that, I have had a chance to read the late mail, and I am hearing some better reasoning on why we absolutely need to have this double hold. I am not going to comment on whether it's absolutely necessary or not, but there appears to be some fairly good justification with it. It still isn't. I still don't get the answer that I'm looking for is how big it would have to be if we were designing for Spalding Vessel only. Let's see. The workshops that were orchestrated by Kate Sears were quite similar to a five-year-old child's birthday party, where resident attendees were treated like children and steered in the direction of using a panoply of facilitator toys and games that ultimately led the children to putting icing on a cake that most of the kids didn't want to eat in the first place. During the workshop, I twice asked Dennis Mulligan to help us understand how much the landing size could be reduced if its design basis was limited to the Spalding class vessel only. thereby eliminating the double-hole vessel. stonewalled on both requests. Now, I don't know what you want me to do right now, Mayor, but I was trying to address the late mail in some of my discussions. |
| 01:11:47.49 | Unknown | Understood. If you could wind up, that would be great. |
| 01:11:49.15 | Unknown | I'm about 30 seconds, okay? The workshop came to a close without discussing hydraulics. It never came to never discussed hydraulics, a taboo subject. |
| 01:12:03.73 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chase. Thank you. |
| 01:12:05.24 | Unknown | Thank you. Okay. Thank you. |
| 01:12:11.25 | Unknown | Castor Gengenori Kassgreen. |
| 01:12:18.71 | Kate Storr | Hi there, I'm Kate Storr. I'm a resident in Sausalito. And I just wanted to thank everybody who worked so hard to reach this compromise. I know it's been a long journey. You've spoken about the new design being suboptimal operationally, but I wanted to just ask a few questions that I hope maybe can be answered, not necessarily at this meeting, but hopefully by the next meeting. And that's about what happens in the event of an emergency. How many people could be evacuated and how quickly, given the new design and the new size of the gang play, Is the new design adequate to allow emergency supplies to be unloaded, which if you've ever worked in a disaster is a big deal. And then finally, again, in the event of an emergency, can two ferries dock at the same time, two passenger ferries to get people in and out? So those are my questions on that. I'd love some detail on how this would be used in an emergency and if it would be adequate. Thanks so much. |
| 01:13:16.37 | Unknown | Thank you. Staff is, I think, noting questions. Yeah, OK. That was Castor, Gen Genori, then Cast Green, then Alice Merrill. |
| 01:13:33.50 | Jen Jenneri | Hi, good evening. I'm Jen Jenneri. This is really tall. So, Thank you. Oh, tilt it this way. OK, whatever. To the council and staff and the bridge district. Now I've screwed it up. Thank you so much for your cooperation. I am a I'm not sure. resident and a daily ferry commuter. And I am pleased to see the progress that we've made on this. I wanna say four things. This design is safer. I'm really excited about the hydraulic lift, which will allow, if any of you have ever ridden the ferry, the workmen have to lift the ramp and kind of shove it into space. And I'm always worried about their safety as well as the safety of the passengers. And we often have to wait until they can get that right. So I'm really looking forward to this new design. And I think it's wider for walking. I can't tell you how many times I've been like this on the gangway and bumped into a neighbor disembarking. This design is equitable. It allows for access for all And that includes people like me as I age, I'm carrying my bike, and I just want to have a safe way of getting in and off the ferry as well as people with strollers, visitors who come from foreign countries, people on crutches, We just need this. This design is more attractive. Really, honestly, the way it looks right now, it's rusty. It's got that hideous gate. And I really think it's time to upgrade our disintegrating terminal. And finally, this design is really smart. Anybody got a friend in Houston? Florida. the lightning yesterday, all of these reasons make me say something that I know may not be very politic, but climate change is here, and the emergency preparedness thing is real. And I am anticipating sea level rise that will make Bridgeway impassable, or an earthquake that will make 101 impassable. And our only egress in and out is gonna be that ferry terminal. And I mean, I'm with you on this. We have to have a ferry system that's part of a regional plan for emergency preparedness. And also, I want to just say that it's important to have a ferry as an alternate transportation choice, and that is vital to the future of our planet. So it's been five years, so I ask the council, please do not delay any more, and I ask you to approve the revised plans. Thank you. |
| 01:16:14.42 | Unknown | The President's office is a very good question. Thank you, Jen. Before we move on, have we been Okay. So. two more. Okay. So the next one is Cass Green, followed by Alice Merrill, followed by Tom Aden. |
| 01:16:34.27 | Cass Green | Oh, I get my own clicker this time? I'm Cass Green. I'm one of the owners of the Inn Above Tide. I'm here with my brothers, the other two owners, Willie and Mike McDevitt. As you guys all probably know, the Inn Above Tide is a family-run firm, and it has been for 25 years in its entire history. So we believe that we bring a lot of value to the city of Sausalito. Last year we paid over half a million dollars in transit occupancy tax, which was 32 percent of the TOT tax for the year and over 5% of all taxes paid to the city. We also welcomed over 16,000 guests to the hotel last year who also spent a lot of money in Sausalito restaurants and purchased goods, which also added to Sausalito tax revenues. We are planning to increase that value to the city substantially in 2018 when we will increase the rooms from 31 to 33 suites, which is required in investment of $1.5 million and which is projected to increase TOT to the city of Sausalito by about $100,000 a year. However, this value is threatened by the Ferry Landing Project. I want to tell you there's some good things I've heard today. The no use of parking lot one I think is going to make a big difference. No Belvedere's is going to make a big difference. I sure hope Dennis is correct on the hydraulic noise. I'd like to learn more about that We still are very concerned about the the impact of the temporary pier especially, and we're very concerned about the construction impact and also the loss of guest privacy. Though getting rid of the Belvedere is a big plus in terms of ensuring guest privacy. So as we've mentioned before, we believe that the temporary periods, it will put the ferries within 90 feet of the hotel, which will mean that we have to close nine rooms during the 18 months of construction. That's going to result in a $400,000 to $600,000 loss by the end above tide. which will translate into a $50,000 to $60,000 loss in the TOT. We have suggested several times how that can be mitigated, which is temporary peer and marineship, no use of a temporary peer, or please move the temporary peer farther away from the hotel so it does not damage the hotel pilings again. And this is a picture I did last year of where the temporary peer is proposed now. And if it just has moved farther out, I think we're going to be safe. And construction, this is up to the city. There's lots of things the city can do. If you're going to do an amendment to the lease, please require that the construction be offsite as much as possible. It sounds like Dennis is going to require that of his contractor. Thank you. That should also be in the lease amendment The construction needs to be off high season, you know, in November to March, not during the middle of the summer. We need at least 60 days notice of pile driving so that we can close down the hotel on the days of the pile driving. And we believe the district really has to work, the city needs to have the district work closely with both us and the Yacht Club to minimize the damage from the construction. Thank you very much. |
| 01:19:47.77 | Unknown | Thank you very much, Cass. So Alice Merrill, Tom Aden, Tammy Blanchard. |
| 01:19:58.82 | Alice Merrill | Hi, my name is Alice Merrill, and I've lived here a long time. And I think we need to do this. I just think we need to go ahead and get this done. And I agree with Peter that everything is always a fluff and a flurry, and then it gets done, and then it kind of becomes invisible. And I think that that's just how progress is. If we can call this progress, if we can call anything progress in the last how many years. But anyway, I do think that we have to get this done. When I take the ferry, which isn't all that often, I tiptoe down that dock. It's scary, it's terrible. And you know, it's just, we can't keep doing that. We're gonna have a lawsuit on our hands for that. So please, please approve this. |
| 01:20:50.36 | Unknown | Thank you, Alice. Thank you. So, I mean, |
| 01:20:55.19 | Tom Aiden | I'm Tom Aiden, I'm the chairman of the executive board of Sassu Yacht Club. We submitted a letter to the council that had unanimous support from the entire governance of the yacht club, which included the executive board and the flag officers. We're concerned along a few lines very specifically. We understand the ferry has to be improved. We're concerned with the mitigation of all the different things that may happen during construction. between damaging our property, which is little We didn't quite get the right pictures that show quite how close it is to the ferry. But we're concerned about the different barges and what's going to protect our yacht club from not having damage. The pilings are very vulnerable. The docks are very vulnerable. The Saasu Yacht Club has over 1,000 people that we represent, majority are social voters. We also sponsor and subsidize one of the most successful youth sales training programs in the Bay Area or Northern California. We wouldn't want them being impacted either by this construction. So we haven't seen the mitigation plan. I think we need to understand how we're going to be mitigated during the construction for all these things. Then at the end is, of course, we're concerned about what to look at the end of the day. One of them, I think I would like to suggest we make a photo We make a big difference. proposed picture of the picture from our deck of the pier. The piers in all the pictures that we saw today were empty. There were no boats and there were no people. appear now with where the gate is, it will have perpetual people holding bicycles looking at Sausalito Yacht Club diners. They won't be Belvederes. but you're gonna see a pile of people there. So I'd love to see a picture. a rendition of what that might look like so we can Understand that and see if there are ways that we can help make that not so imposing on the yacht club. So those are the major elements. You'll hear from some other Yacht Club people today. But we're happy to talk with the Bridge District on the mitigations that are possible. And I look forward to that. I look forward to having you over. Thank you. |
| 01:23:01.50 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you, Tom. So I've got Tammy Blanchard. Christine Balslegel, Melissa Blaustein, and keep your cards coming in. I've got some more here. So Tammy. |
| 01:23:20.84 | Tammy Blanchard | SO TAKE IT. Hi, hi everyone, thank you. Thank you for the presentation. For the record, I am not against the ferry landing upgrade. I agree 100 percent that we do need it. I think we're a lot closer than we were last year, but we're still very, very concerned about the size of the ferry landing as it is right now. The gangway is obviously much better. I'm happy with that. The float has not changed, and it's a very sophisticated float for this town. It's still in the middle of our downtown, and that hasn't changed. There were eight things that were brought up in the Planning Commission meeting which really have not been met. People are concerned about how many people, how many landings, how many people are going to be coming here, how are we going to handle the traffic, how are you going to handle the traffic during construction? I can't imagine construction, and a ferry service at the same time. That's very difficult for me to understand how that will work. As for the Yacht Club, We are concerned about our building, the pilings, during the construction. We are worried about the noise from the hydraulics. We have no idea what the hydraulics were gonna be until today. They didn't even know what hydraulics they were gonna use. I read the letter that they sent in response to Sam Chase's letter from August 23rd, And at that time, they hadn't designed the hydraulics, so they really don't know what those are going to sound like. And we should know, because once it's here, it's too late to ask the question of how noisy they're going to be. And as we know, even if it's protected, Sound over water carries a long, long, long way. I know it because I lived there. So I urge you, to deny this plan AND HAVE THEM GO BACK. and come back with something that fits our town. I want a ferry landing, I want people to be safe, and I want ADA too, but I also want something we can live with for the next 40 years which we were supposed to be able to, this ferry landing that we have right now, we were supposed to have for 40 years, it's only been 20, They haven't maintained it. And what are they going to do with another 50 feet and all this access pier? How are they going to maintain that? And how are we going to enforce this, the maintenance of this project? So that's my feelings for that today. Thank you very much. Thanks. |
| 01:25:42.74 | Unknown | Thank you, Tommy. Christine Wolfslegel, Melissa Blavstein, then Grover Dare. Hi, Kristen. |
| 01:25:53.28 | Kristen Wolfslegel | Hello, City Council and City staff. Thank you for your tireless work on this issue. I was intrigued to hear from the presentations that the first presentations on this issue to Council of War back in 2011, And it is interesting that we've been having these discussions for now going on six years. And in the six years of deliberation since then, it seems to me that there have been numerous accommodations from the Bridge District. such that they will no longer fully meet their operational needs. But they're willing to do that for the sake of getting the project through and I would like to ask everyone in this room What have we conceded? What have we compromised? to get this done. And it's an important question because sound public policy is about compromise between all of the divergent stakeholders with everyone being listened to and brought into the mix. And I beg everyone in this room, to begin to work together to move forward with these plans. As somebody who is fairly new to town, I've only lived here six years, but I'm a recent homeowner, and I plan to live here 60, if I live that long. And I'd like to speak for many of us new folks in town who largely embrace solutions-oriented change. I am deeply invested in the long-term future, vibrancy, and resiliency in this community. the council to seriously consider moving forward with these plans. It's time. And I'd like to offer a perspective that perhaps we can all come together on and that is the perspective of environmental sustainability. I'm a member of the Sausalito Sustainability Commission, and in 2015, we passed Sausalito's very first climate action plan. In that plan, the city set forth a goal of meeting a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of 15% below the levels of 20,005 by 2020. So how are we doing on meeting that goal? This is a goal we have to meet. And I'm asking everyone in this room to rally around that goal. So every five years or so, the county conducts a greenhouse gas emissions inventory. And in 2010, we showed that our CO2 emissions were reduced by 14% over 2005 levels. However, in 2015, the reduction was only 8%. So we are not being as productive in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions inventory. Actually our performance has decreased. Transportation is the biggest contributor. and the new catamarans are more fuel efficient. They meet current EPA and California Air Resources Board requirements for air quality. Thank you. |
| 01:28:59.57 | Unknown | Thank you, Kristen. |
| 01:29:03.48 | Unknown | Melissa Blavstein, then Grover Deer, and then Willie McDevitt. And if you have any more green cards, then please submit them. Good evening. |
| 01:29:16.00 | Melissa Blavstein | Good evening, how are you? Thank you so much to both the city council and the bridge district for all of the hard work that has been done on this plan. I think we all want to work together towards a productive solution to make our ferry landing ADA compliant and continue to keep active ferry service here in Sausalito. However, I just wanna make the point that we're not a transit hub, we're a small waterfront community. So whatever plan we do agree on, it needs to reflect that. I live on the waterfront on a boat, so I share the concerns of everyone here who is living on or enjoys the waterfront on a daily basis. There are some really positive things about this plan, in particular, It's great to see that the Belvedires are removed and the gangly length is reduced, but I have some questions about the construction and the transition period with regards to the temporary pier. We all know about the problem that we're already facing downtown with bikes and tourist bikes. What is the plan around how we'll mitigate the bike traffic with regards to any sort of temporary peer. And also, how are we going to deal with informing residents and citizens about the temporary pier, how they should use it, and how the daily process of parking will work. |
| 01:30:23.98 | Unknown | Thank you. Grover Deer, then Willie McDevitt, then Kay Mitzel. |
| 01:30:33.22 | Grover Deere | Thank you. I'm Grover Deere. I'd like to also thank all the effort that's gone into this, how we're coming together to take action. I am, as an architect for 46 years in California, as well as other parts of the world, I think we're doing the professional way of analyzing it. I also would like to ask the City Council to not approve this plan as listed because of two clear faults or two clear questions that still are eluding an answer. One, the apparent reason that this is required is because of the conversion of Sausalito not becoming the aesthetic and quiet place that is, but having more transportation requirements because of bicycles, because of emergencies, which we all need to take into account. But aesthetics are as important as safety. I am in favor of improving the facility. We do need to be safe. That's one of the key goals of being in the public eye. But aesthetics in terms of where we live is equal to that. I have owned a home here for 24 years. I've lived here now for a year and a half. And I don't want to see something spoiled that will never come back. Second thing is the idea of the size of the facility, the boat servicing the pier, I understood two years ago it was recommended that the larger boats larger than the Spalding class were not suggested, were not approved, were not suggested to continue. I don't want that to be forgotten about. a ruling, a recommendation by the council two years ago. Let's not forget that. or it's going to be changed. The second question, and I would like an answer to this at some point, we've seen slides tonight showing various images and views from different perspectives. The term that the, The pier is a little bit longer than the existing is true. I want to know exactly how much longer it extends out into the bay than the existing one. The statement that it is the 214 proposal of 150 feet is a proposal. The pier existing is not 150 feet long. It's the comparison from 150 to 144 feet is not a valid comparison. So I repeat that question. The existing pier extension into the harbor is X number of feet. Compare that to what is proposed for this new proposal. And the last thing is I'd like a confirmation that there will be no boats parked long-term basis on this pier when it's not in operation for transport. Thank you very much. |
| 01:33:36.98 | Unknown | Thank you. I have Willie McDevitt and Kay Metzl and David Suess. |
| 01:33:44.03 | Willie McDevitt | TODAY. Hi, my name's Willie McDevitt. I'm one of the owners of In Above Tide. and the general partner of the entity that owns the real estate there. Um, Every one of us that's involved in the in and the real estate wants to work collaboratively with the city and the bridge district to develop a great solution to this long, drawn out tangle that is the new landing. Um, Until tonight, I thought we were getting really close to having a solution, but something that Dennis said and I would love to have him please clarify it later is The bridge district believes that they have the right to damage the foundation of the Inn above tide based on a 25 year old settlement agreement. I don't know if that's true or not. but more so that if they do have the right that they would exercise such a right to damage the foundation of their neighbor. I hope that I've misconstrued what I heard Dennis say and I'd love to give him a chance to clarify it. But it's a pretty big concern for us when I and maybe others heard that. So if you could bring that up. And additionally, if that is the case, the city conditioned the approval of the ferry landing upon not damaging the foundation of the NABOF tide. Thank you very much. And thank you all for volunteering. |
| 01:35:11.93 | Unknown | Thank you, Will. Uh, Kay Mitzel? David Sudo? Than ren herring? |
| 01:35:22.46 | Kaye Mitzel | Good evening. I'm Kaye Mitzel. I'm a resident of Sausalito for over 40 years, and I'm also a flag officer with the Sausalito Yacht Club and was part of the letter that we submitted to the council and to the bridge district. Most of what I had to say tonight has been said, and I just want to reiterate a couple of points. We've asked for a 3D model. since day one, and I have been here for all the meetings since day one, and we still have not seen a model. I don't understand why it's so hard. Everyone keeps saying it's really something that can be computer generated and we'd have it. It would really help. because having it be a little close to the Yacht Club, not quite as close, and looking on the slide, wasn't clear to me at all where it's going to be in relation to the club. The club is not the only thing. I think we all have to keep in mind downtown really belongs to all of us. Yes, improvements have been made in town, and everyone has settled down after big discussions. But this is really going to impact the Bay long term. Also, I think that considering having the no catamarans, to Grover's point, should be back on the list. They're really, Not needed, we are a small town, keep reminding everybody of that. And also it goes back to the point that was just made about the pilings. I certainly hope that the Yacht Club has also their city's support or commitment that if the foundation pilings of the Yacht Club are impacted, that that also would be covered under whatever policy you cover those types of things. But again, I thank everybody for your time. I'm glad we had the meetings here. I think you'll continue to hear from the citizens in residence. Thank you. |
| 01:37:16.64 | Unknown | Thank you, Kay. Is there anybody else who wants to submit a green speaker card? I've got. Four left at this point. David Sudo. Ryan Herring, Citizen Cleveland Knowles, and Kito Kempinski. So those are the four cards I've got left. If anybody else wants to submit a card, please do so to staff. And David, over to you. |
| 01:37:53.41 | David Sudo | David Sudo. I'd like to say I think I really think that this latest iteration managed to bring the engineering elements that we see in the San Francisco Weta platforms in town. And then it marries the aesthetic and design elements that are currently in our ferry landing. The gangplank looks very much like our current gangplank, except for the width. The float has been minimized as much as possible in a profile. And, you know, the original design was obviously much different, had a much bigger visual impact and looked much different than what we have right now. So you know, collaboration between the city and Golden Gate Bridge has provided some positive impacts. You know, it's important that we have emergency capability there. If you look at what's happened in the last week in the Leeward Islands in the Caribbean, they've basically been cut off. The only access for emergency supplies personnel right now are boats to that area. And in a large earthquake, we could be a virtual island. Both the Richardson Bay Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge could be structurally compromised and we could be on our own for weeks except for what can be brought in via boat. And that's important to realize. and And I would also note that back in 2011, The original bridge district proposal was actually a double deck float out here with two levels of boarding. And not much was said in the city about that when it was first proposed. We all said, well, that's interesting. Um, And finally, I would agree that the city needs to look at land side improvements, but that's our responsibility. That's not the Golden Gate Bridge's responsibility. Perhaps a joint responsibility would be to look at staging requirements. What can we do to minimize the congestion down there, whether that is additional reservation system, like we had several years ago, reconfiguring where the crowds gather. I would love to see if in a few years we don't need all the parking spots that we reconfigure that landing to provide a nicer space for residents to be rather than for housing cars. That's just my thought. And you know, we have this general plan update and that would be a great time to look at all these items. And finally I would say that, you know, we're looking at improved changes to the downtown that eventually might require a vote. So we shouldn't require the Golden Gate Bridge District to go through another year or two of the city figuring out what it wants to do down there. |
| 01:41:05.51 | Unknown | Yeah. Thank you. |
| 01:41:05.90 | David Sudo | Thank you. |
| 01:41:05.92 | Unknown | Thank you, David. |
| 01:41:08.59 | David Sudo | Thank you. |
| 01:41:08.62 | Unknown | So red herring? then Susan Cleveland Knowles, then Kito, Kempinski, and do I have any other cards? Yes, I do. |
| 01:41:21.58 | Ren Herring | Ready? Hi, thank you. My name is Ren Herring. I've lived here 18 years. We've had a boat here 28. And I've been to all of these meetings, so I just want to thank everybody, the district, everybody for all the work you've done. So, um, In coming to all the meetings, I recall About a year and a half ago, one of the eight points was the Bridge District needed to come back with a significantly smaller plan. And what's happened with that is they presented the Gangway tonight, which looks great, and it was presented with a 42% reduction in the width and a 44% reduction in the length. That's not given at all for the float. The float to me is still, I would like to know what the percentage is for the reduction of the float. In this presentation from 150 feet to 144, So... I'm an art major, what is that, like 8.8%? I'd like to know what the percentage reduction of the float actually is. I would like to see an envelope, one of the envelope pictures, like you showed the new gangway laid over the old one. I'd like to see that for the mass of the... the float. Because I think the float is still way too large for Sausalito and would ask that you vote no on it at this time or ask for further significant reductions. You know something along the lines of 40%. So why do we care? Because at this point, everybody's talking about emergency and commuters and emergency, and that's large on everybody's mind, but what's happening every day is massive amounts of tourists are coming in. There are two ferries parked there at the same time. They're unloading and loading passengers at the same time. They may not be Golden Gate, but they could sublet to anyone else. And That is the real issue, is a massive amount of bringing multiple ferries in to load and unload tourists and possibly parking them there overnight. I'm sorry. Why can't we have a 3D model of the float? And I would ask for that. Also, the There was a line in there that a tie means you approve. I would like to have that removed from the process. I don't think a tie means you approve. I think a tie means we need to keep working on it. And, Thirty-six seconds for hydraulics. Anyone? Okay. No, all right. Let's see if I have anything else on here. you? No, that's it. I just think it's still too large. From the get go, it was make it smaller. Oh, and so what we have now is a really beautiful gangway. The walkway is lovely. It's 45% smaller. It's aesthetically pleasing. It's not intrusive. It's safe. And that's what we want. So put the same amount of reduction into the float. So we'll see. Thank you. |
| 01:44:25.65 | Unknown | Thank you. Susan Cleveland-Knowles, then Keto Kemplinski, then Jeff Bernstein. Susan. |
| 01:44:34.43 | Susan Cleveland Knowles | Hi, good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers, Golden Gate Bridge District, and city staff. My name is Susan Cleveland Knowles. the chair of the Sausalito Planning Commission, but I'm speaking tonight as an individual I did participate in many early proceedings on this issue, and I wanted to just raise a few points that I felt were important. Just as background, I'm a regular commuter and a frequent rider of the ferry, both to get to work and to take my kids into the city for ball games and sightseeing in San Francisco. I believe the ferry landing is integral to Sausalito's history, its charm, and its character. And of course, we need to maintain all of those things through this process. It's also an important public transportation option. for many of us. And it may also be an important emergency transportation option or an emergency option for supplies in the event that San Francisco has such an event, which I think, given our propensity for earthquakes, is likely in the future. I would like to see a renovated, updated, safe, and ADA compliant ferry landing. but one that is right-sized for Sausalito and one that addresses deferred maintenance issue and improves the experience for ferry riders, especially for commuters. The bridge district's initial plans were outsized and oversized by any reasonable standards. And I think that this public process has been incredibly important. It has revealed a lot of important information. The city has taken aggressive steps to hire consultants to challenge some of the assumptions. And I applaud the city council for doing that. think that this is a really important time in the negotiations between the Bridge District and Sausalito. You've taken an important step in reaching the MOU. to have a six month pause to find a viable solution forward. And I really hope that the city council can take this time, take this important pause and get to a sensible solution that a majority of Sausalito residents can get behind. So I want to thank you all for your time. I also did want to note that during the last processes, We at the Planning Commission did think it was very important to address the construction mitigation impacts for the and above tides and for the Yacht Club. And at least from the staff report, those issues still seem to be a little unclear, at least to me, and so I hope that in the next couple of hearings, those issues can be fully resolved. Thank you very much. |
| 01:47:37.60 | Unknown | Thank you. Kempinski, sorry if I got your last name wrong there, then Jeff Bernstein, then Bill Werner. |
| 01:47:49.60 | Kempinski | Thank you very much. I've lived here, worked here, owned businesses here for 45 years. And I got here for the first time in 1970, about the time the ferry started again. Ferry is part of the city, but it's not the major facet. However, given what I've heard tonight. There's so many more questions with regard to the plans, particularly with regard to the hydraulics. and other issues. surrounding the plans. It would seem to me to be appropriate for all the plans to go back to planning. so we can have the people of our community who deal in those THINGS. maybe answer many of the questions that are being posed tonight. Hopefully you'll go along with that. and we can move forward. Thank you. |
| 01:48:45.09 | Unknown | Thank you. I have three cards left. If anybody else would like to submit a card, please do so. Jeff Bernstein, then Bill Werner, then Vicki Nichols. |
| 01:48:58.87 | Jeff Bernstein | Thank you for holding the session. I've been living in Sausalito for 30 years and riding the ferry. Since that time, I've noticed, and everyone has, how much congestion we have, particularly because we're the number one spot in social media for bikes. And if you are a regular commuter on the ferry, as I am, you find that you're always late. And why are we late? Because they can't get all the bikes onto the boats in time, which is one of the problems that we have. We have an inefficient, unsafe landing area. And for loading bikes, you can't load and take commuters off at the same time. It's too narrow, it doesn't work, and obviously we need a new place for landing here. So I'm in favor of this new plan that we have, and I think, yes, we have to have something a little larger, and yes, it's nice to have something historic. But when you have hundreds and hundreds of bikes every day and that many commuters and people intermingling, we need something which is going to accommodate everybody. And it might not be the perfect little historic little float that everybody was hoping for. But I think you need something functional so that, one, we have safety, and two, that we can get the commuting boats on time so everybody doesn't get home 20 minutes late for dinner. Thank you. |
| 01:50:28.73 | Unknown | Thank you, Jeff. Bill Werner, then Vicki Nichols. |
| 01:50:41.09 | Unknown | Bill Werner, 213 Richardson Street. I just want to first of all thank the Bridge to Street. for having made all of the adjustments that appear to have been asked for Bye. the, um, the City Council and the Planning Commission and the HLB Wow. not making any fundamental changes to that design that came before BCDC. in December of 2014. More importantly, however, I would like to thank All of the people here and not here. who opposed the bridge district's initial designs. It's because of them and because of the meetings that were held with the HLB and the Planning Commission. that the British District has made the changes that they have. And in addition to that, I wanna thank all of those people on the Planning Commission and the HLB. that opposed. the original. design. from the British District. And since I'm a sitting member of the Planning Commission and since the actions of the City Council are often unexpected, I'm not going to say anything about what I think about the design because you people could kick it right back to the Planning Commission. and it would be inappropriate for me to do that. Thank you. |
| 01:52:26.96 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:52:26.98 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:52:27.03 | Unknown | Thank you, Bill. Vicki Nichols. |
| 01:52:34.01 | Vicki Nichols | Good evening, Mayor Withey and council members. I'm sure my name is Vicki Nichols, and I'm sure you didn't expect your entire fleet of planning commissioners to be up here tonight, but I'd like to speak to you as an individual, having sat through all the hearings. I want to talk not about... Um, what we've looked at before and what has been done and not done, but I think I'm sitting here trying to imagine that I haven't been involved in this process and I'm trying to give you some good feedback as to what I've just seen. And what I've seen without going into the merits of the project, because I agree with Bill, who knows where this will be, I hope it will be. moved along to the next step, whichever that may be. But there's some information that I think is missing for me if I was a novice. And I think it would be helpful of staff or the Bridge District next time, so this would be one of my questions, to bring back the recommendations of the peer review agencies and what their recommendations were vis-a-vis. reviewing agencies or companies said, you can reduce this portion of this landing only down to such and such feet to be safe. What was that amount specifically, and what has the bridge district done to address that? And I think from scanning some of their initial reports, they have done this. So I think we need to all see that. We need to benefit specifically in the questions in the next presentation, what was recommended to the city, what the loss, lawsuit and this expensive consultation fees gained us and we got out of it. what information we gave to them and how it's being moved forward. Let's not keep talking about what it was. And I was sitting in the meeting in 2012 when the City Council approved that environmental document with a question about pilings and something else. So it was approved in 2002, not by you but by a previous council. Secondly, I think a lot of the things I've been hearing in terms of safety, precautions, mitigations can certainly be addressed in conditions of approval. We know that. It's inappropriate now to bring that up, but there's a lot that that will be addressed I think as this moves forward. So I'm encouraging you without talking about the merits of this project to please move forward this has been long and drawn out and it needs to get finished for all the parties. We have, I think, other pressing issues as well. |
| 01:55:25.28 | Unknown | Thank you, Vicky. So that completes all the speaker cards I have. Sort of like going, going, gone. Anybody else want to say anything before? We close the public hearing. All right, done. So we're going to close the public comment period. And my suggestion at this point is that we take a break. Maybe only five minutes or so. Staff have been collecting questions. I'm sure the Bridge District have been collecting questions. There may be some initial responses they may be able to give to some of those questions, but we have questions then and then direct staff. But at the moment, let's take a five-minute break and we'll resume then. Thank you. |
| 01:56:17.66 | David Sudo | A pair of notes. |
| 01:56:19.02 | Adam Hollister | Thank you. I'm assuming you and I really have various things. |
| 01:56:29.98 | Lily Whalen | on what questions I heard the lady to answer. |
| 01:56:31.97 | Adam Hollister | you want to just make it. |
| 01:56:32.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:56:43.49 | Unknown | Okay, welcome. Wow, this microphone wants to bite me, I think. Welcome back. So, Thank you all for the public comment. We've had, I think, some great presentation. We've got a lot of public input. What we are going to do now is we're moving towards for the city council to direct staff to prepare for the next meeting, because you know, this is a multi-step process. What we did was collect through the course our staff have diligently put together a bunch of issues that perhaps it would be useful to have the bridge district respond to just to give us some initial answers. Some are going to need perhaps some more detailed answers. But what we're trying to do is then prepare so that we can get a bunch of answers together in preparation for our next meeting. Thank you. perhaps some more detailed answers. But what we're trying to do is then prepare so that we can get a bunch of answers together in preparation for our next meeting. Okay? So I'm going to go through some of the issues. The first one, however, I want to ask our city staff, perhaps Mary, if you're going to ask us a question. There is a tremendous amount of confusion about what would happen When we come to make a decision, There's only four of us up here. What would happen if it was a 2-2 vote? Okay, there's a lot of confusion. Let's go over to our city council, our city attorney, who to explain that to you. |
| 01:58:36.94 | Mary Wagner | Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. A 2-2 vote is essentially a non-action. You have a five-member council, although one of those seats is now vacant, you need a majority of the quorum of four or majority of those voting to take an action. So a two-two results in a non-action and there's cases out there that discuss that. In this case, a non-action by the city under the terms of the lease results in consent to the project that's been proposed by the district. So it's a specific lease term that would indicate that a failure take action on the plan that's been submitted by the district. So it's a specific lease term that would indicate that a failure take action on the plan that's been submitted by the district actually results in consent, unconditional consent, to that project. |
| 01:59:25.78 | Unknown | Just for further clarification, the lease provision that does that, that basically says, as I understand it, layman's sort of non-lawyer thing, is that when the district submits, then they have, we have then, under the terms of the lease, 45 days to make that decision. When did the clock start? When does it end? |
| 01:59:50.40 | Mary Wagner | Oh, correct. Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Mayor. We agreed in the MOU with the district that the clock started on August 31st. So the clock stops ticking in 45 days, which would be October 15th. |
| 02:00:04.05 | Unknown | Great. Thank you. |
| 02:00:05.28 | Mary Wagner | Thank you. |
| 02:00:05.30 | Joe Burns | Just to clarify, so although the MOU was for a period of six months, our period of time to act is the 45 days under the lease. Thank you. |
| 02:00:16.40 | Mary Wagner | The MOU stayed the litigation for a period of six months. The MOU also clarified that even if the district submitted their project plans earlier, which we had asked them to do so that we as early as possible so we could get the information out to the public, that we agreed that the clock wouldn't start until August 31st in order to allow people to be back from vacation to hold these hearings during September because the council was on recess during August. Thank you. |
| 02:00:45.08 | Joe Burns | So although the MOU expires in December, Our time to act on this application expires on October 10th. October 15. |
| 02:00:54.04 | Mary Wagner | October 15th. Which is a Sunday. So yes, thank you. |
| 02:00:59.30 | Jill Hoffman | Let me just chime in. Absent a stipulation to some other sort of agreement. The parties can always stipulate to a longer period, correct? |
| 02:01:07.76 | Mary Wagner | Correct, under our current agreement with the district, our clock ends on October 15th. |
| 02:01:14.96 | Jill Hoffman | Right, but we can all the parties can stipulate to a longer period if all the parties agree, correct? |
| 02:01:19.52 | Mary Wagner | Maybe. That's what we did during the last submission. We actually, the district agreed to give the city a longer period of time to review the project, correct? OK, thanks. |
| 02:01:30.98 | Unknown | Okay, thanks. So what we'd like to do is throw out some issues. I'm sort of trying to group them here. Uh, to at least get your initial reaction, because people have been talking about this for a long period of time. I'm going to I'm just going to list them out, and I apologize for the long list, and then at your leisure, try and sort them out. So there's a question about 3D model and what, you know, why we haven't seen one or how we have seen one perhaps is, you know, you could help us with. The land side improvements, how you see that working and their interrelationship with that. Then there's some issues, questions surrounding the core assumptions on the design. Why does this project into the bay further than the existing one? Um, What about the double-haul vessel? I mean, there are some of our residents have wondered why you need that vessel. Why should that vessel be included in this plan? So if you could address that. And then the whole issue about the role of this in emergency, there's concern that as opposed to design for emergency, you really intend to bring two vessels in at a time all the time. Let's understand that. Then the next part moves into, and I think related to design is the question about the hydraulics. You may not have been answered that tonight, but some people want a little bit more clarification on this. Is this going to be noisier than manually doing this? What's the basic thoughts there? Then there's more the construction-related aspects of this. What design you go with, there's going to be construction. and therefore there's going to be you know, issues caused by construction no matter what you're building. So, um, How do we ensure that, for instance, the neighbors in Above Tides, the Yacht Club, are protected during this – what is the mitigation measures going to be during the construction? What's the traffic going to be like? And how do you foresee the development of what will be a significant construction project within our downtown? Um, So finally, the Thank you. Then, during the construction, you know, should we be, is there a option to move the temporary float, as was suggested, further away from the Inn above tides? And, uh, |
| 02:04:49.16 | Unknown | Tell us your thoughts about long term. I mean, do you intend parking boats there? It's obviously very sensitive to folks in our downtown. They don't want boats there. overnight. It's just that simple. So if you could address those issues. I realize that's a long laundry list, but it's a flavor, I think, of what we talked about tonight. And perhaps we could ask you to Give your initial thoughts on what you heard. |
| 02:05:20.69 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thanks to your staff and the council for summarizing the questions that came through the extensive public comment. So I'll give you some initial thoughts. We'll be meeting with your staff as soon as tomorrow to talk through how to package all this. So my initial thoughts will be somewhat short, but we'll be spending more time with your staff to develop more fully vetted responses so that we can have written responses out on the city's website available to the community well in advance if your next time that you get together. With respect to a 3D model, I think there's some misperceptions about what is a 3D model. With respect to our ferry landing, we have a 3D model of our ferry landing. That's how we create the artist renderings from the various viewpoints that we have. What we don't have is a 3D model of the bay and the surrounding area. And there's a considerable expense associated with developing a 3D model of the larger area, which you'd have to then insert your 3D model of our ferry, our 3D model of our ferry landing. So we have not spent money on that because we don't think it's money that's well spent. We spend taxpayers' money when we develop a project, and we feel that the artist renderings take the 3D model of the landing and insert it into the background to scale that you have peer reviewed with an outside firm, and it's my understanding you're gonna do again. And so we feel that that is an appropriate characterization of the site. It's an appropriate characterization of how the project will change the shape of the landscape, and it avoids the expense of trying to create a 3D model of the surrounding bay and inserting it into it. So that's why we have a 3D model, but it's not what people expect. And it is a virtual 3D model of our ferry landing. It's not a physical model like an architecture student 30 years ago might build out of cardboard. With respect to the land side improvements, they are related with respect to our role as a partner. Back in 2013, we received a grant that we actively solicited with the Federal Transit Administration to get $2 million for the city to help with land side improvements. We then took it to our board of directors with the understanding that we would put in $400,000 of toll money and the city would put in up to $100,000 of match money also to bring it to fruition because the federal transit administration requires a 20% match. We went back to our board in 2013 doing that because we are a partner, we want to collaborate with the city, and we are very interested in seeing the land side improvements move forward. So we look forward to working with city with city staff we look forward to trying to pursue additional grants because if you get money once it's you know tempting to go back to the wall again to see what could be done to help facilitate this area it is an intensely used area I anticipate that the public process for that maybe as have as heightened interest as this process has. But it does have separate utility from our project and our need to replace our existing ferry facility. But we want to work collaboratively with the city and we'll have lots of meetings on With respect to the core assumptions, you know, the project does go further into the bay, and it goes further into the bay for a couple of reasons. One is that the gangway needs to be longer than it is today. Tides go up and down, and when tides go up and down, we have to have no steeper than a one vertical to 12 horizontal run on that slope. And so the existing 70 foot long gangway is inadequate to achieve that. The gangway is fixed on land on one end or a pile supported pier, an access pier. The other end goes up and down on the float. So the gangway will be 20 feet longer. Additionally, the float is bigger. The length of the float is increased for operational as well as ADA reasons. And I wanna be very transparent about that. The float contemplates us loading and unloading from two doors, eight-foot wide doors, 48 feet apart. That is one thing that affects the length of the float. So the float does extend further out into the bay, and we'll put together some graphics that highlights that number from a couple different places, so you can post it on the website so people can discuss it and understand it better. But clearly it does stick further out into the bay, but the height of it doesn't stick up appreciably more. Two of the piles are six inches taller, that's about half a foot, and then five of the piles are a foot and a half, 18 inches shorter. And so the intent of the design is to not clutter the view shed. But we will put together some information on that that we'll share with city staff, so you can load that onto your website. There's some residents that have a concern about double-hulled vessels. I suspect the residents that speak to double-hulled vessels are not regular ferry commuters, because if you're a regular ferry commuter, you want us to use any boat we own to get you to work on time and to get you to home on time, and stuff happens. I mentioned in my presentation that there's flotsam in the bay in the spring runoff and in the wintertime. Propellers get damaged. Water jets get damaged. And so it's vital that any of our vessels be able to use a float just to make regularly scheduled service. We have to dry dock vessels for emergency reasons and also for routine repairs and for enhancements. So any vessel in our fleet needs to be able to use this float. Additionally, there's a state order from the California Public Utilities Commission that says we have to let blue and gold use this float, and we cannot, by omission, restrict their use of it. So arguably, they could be bringing catamarans in also. Then the other issue with respect to double hull vessels is that we're not the only ferry operator on the bay, and single hull vessels are an aberration, actually. They're not the most common boat. WIDA, the other water emergency transit agency, the other water transit agency on the bay, is building 12 new boats as we speak. All of them are catamarans. So if we're going to have flexibility after disaster, and the majority of the boats on the bay are catamarans, it's essential that our ferry landing not just accommodate our boats for day-to-day service, Thank you. So if we're going to have flexibility after disaster, and the majority of the boats on the bay are catamarans, it's essential that our ferry landing not just accommodate our boats for day-to-day service so we have a reliable service, but also in the event of a disaster that other boats can easily use it also. So the double-hull vessels is something that's important to our business, and it's something where that if you're a regular ferry commuter, I bet that you would support that. The emergency piece, you know, we'll want to come back to you with more detail on, but we are signatory to the Bay Area Mutual Aid Transit Response Plan, and it is part of the region-wide emergency response program for the Bay, but we'll want to get you some more detail. After Loma Prieta, though, boats came in from the state of Washington and from Long Beach and private operator boats as well as public boats, and we had a lot of extra ferry service on the bay for a while. And not all of it, most of it was not to Sausalito, but when the Bay Bridge was out, we saw how important that was. And so we'll want to get back to it with a little more detail on that. But it's vital that our landing accommodate other people's boats, not just our boats, or not just less than half of our fleet, three of the boats that people seem to enjoy. |
| 02:11:47.45 | Unknown | She's probably not. |
| 02:12:11.13 | Dennis Mulligan | On the hydraulics, we presented some new information today, so we would like to put together a little more detail in writing and post it on your website so people can look it up. They can verify so they don't have to trust me with respect to the acoustic properties of the equipment that's contemplated. But we had some information on our slideshow tonight in response to some questions that we received today from folks. Prior to this presentation, we made modifications to it to provide that information. But we'll put together a little package on the hydraulics and the noise associated with that so there's information out there. But as I said in my presentation, the hydraulics that are contemplated for this are not a garbage truck tearing up your town early in the morning. But that is something that will provide more information. But the equipment we're looking is rated for a noise decibel level of 62 decibels. And that's reasonably quiet. And the chart shows some other things for comparable purposes. But the key thing to know is we will have it in an enclosure. The enclosure will have rubber bearings to isolate it. And it will have sound insulation. And it's similar to what's used at other ferry facilities. And so you might wanna get a second opinion from the city's consultant about how does that work elsewhere and are there noise issues, say in South San Francisco where similar equipment is used today. On the construction related aspects of the project, we wanna be a good neighbor, we've been a good neighbor for a long time. So I would like to suggest, since it looks like we might be nearing a juncture, we're moving forward, that we sit down with our neighbors to go through in detail with the small working group, what is the construction activities. And I think our neighbors, since they're on opposite sides, have opposite or different concerns during construction. But as a good neighbor, we won't damage our neighbors. You know, we're a public agency, we're in a fishbowl, and we're responsible for what we do. I don't enjoy being in the news for bad news. And so I assure you, we will not be putting, my staff will not put me, our contractor will not put me in the situation where you'll see me on the news trying to explain how we damage someone else's property. I think just by the brief conversation with the Yacht Club folks here tonight, their concern is that we're going to have our contractors' barges moored nearby, and if in a storm a barge broke free, it would damage their club. So we want to sit down with them. I want to bring a couple of my key staff and our consultant to talk through what are the construction activities, to understand their concerns, so we can put protections in our contract documents so the mooring plans are adequate, so barges won't have an opportunity to break free. There will be multiple ways that they're restrained. There will be contingency plans in place so that their fear is allayed. I think the fear from the end above the tides is slightly different. I think theirs is less concerned about barges and more about proximity. For about two decades, our ferry landing was where it's going to be. And so I think that in the past, there's some concerns about wave damage from us and perhaps some others also. But we'll sit down with them. We'll go through the construction sequencing, the construction staging and how long we're in that location is something that is up in the air and it is tied to timing and driving piles and when we can install piles and then how long we have to have it out there. But we'll like to sit down with them and walk through that. I know Mr. Willie McDevitt is a contractor, so I think he would understand a lot of that. I would bring Carolina, my senior engineer, Mr. John Everly, who's run a lot of big construction projects on the water and shore side and Ozadeh, our consultant designer to sit down and kind of walk through to understand their concerns and see what we can do to address it. So we'd like to have those meetings next week. I talked to the Yacht Club why I have a conflict later this week, and I think they understand my conflict and will agree to meet early next week. In terms of moving the temporary further away, that is something that's not on the table right now, which is something the Inn Above the Tides would like. We went through an environmental process. We environmentally cleared things on a certain set of conditions and to relocate the temporary would re-trigger a reopening of that environmental process. But I believe based on the fact that we coexisted for 20 years in a location that we could coexist for, you know, sometime less than a year in that same location again. And we need to understand their concerns and talk through the operational things that we can do to help address their concerns because operationally there's probably some things we could do. Long term, it's not cost effective for us to park boats overnight in Sausalito, so we generally don't do it. There's been a few occasions in the past where it's happened. When it last came up at a meeting, I passed out my cell phone number to all those in attendance from the Yacht Club, that if it ever happens again, they can call me at whatever hour it is. We store our boats at night in Larkspur, where we have mechanics and where we have people for security reasons. A boat left unattended at night is a security concern for us. And so it's not our business practice. It's not cost effective. It's not efficient for us to store boats in Sausalito overnight. So it's not something that we're advocating and it's not something that we generally do. I understand it happened in the past for a period of time. And my cell phone number is available to the Yacht Club so that if it ever happens again, they can call me or they can call our ferry manager. But that's a real quick overview of the issues. We'll work with your staff to put together more detailed responses. And then we'll be able to get that out to the citizens well in advance of your next meeting. |
| 02:17:28.63 | Unknown | Thank you very much. That was very helpful and transparent. There is possibly questions from up here, from my colleagues. Vice Mayor would like to... Thank you. |
| 02:17:44.43 | Joe Burns | Thank you. I'm actually going to reiterate a couple that were raised during the meeting. One is long-term maintenance plan. So there was testimony that the last Landing was supposed to last 40 years, it lasted 20. will you provide us with a long-term maintenance plan for maintaining this brand new ferry landing that you're building. |
| 02:18:09.20 | Dennis Mulligan | Yeah, we have a transit asset management system in place. So we track all of our assets. We have management plans. It's a computerized system that deals with preventative maintenance and other items. Also, the design of the new facility is something that is, you know, the float itself is lower maintenance, but some of the items like the hydraulics will be more maintenance. And so we'll have asset management plans in place. For those that are in the industry, we use Maximo as our tool. It's an IBM product. And so we'll have acid management plans in place. For those that are in industry, we use Maximo as our tool. It's an IBM product and it's a very useful product. So I could tell you which mechanic put a bolt, which bolt in which bus or which boat on which day. And so this new acid will be in that acid management system. |
| 02:18:49.01 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:18:52.89 | Joe Burns | I'm The transition period, how will you mitigate bike traffic with the temporary pier? |
| 02:19:00.01 | Dennis Mulligan | With temporary period, there will be a couple of things. First, Jim Swindler, our ferry ops manager and Chief Rohrabacher, will continue to work very closely together like they do all the time on the challenges associated with the volumes of people that come and visit this beautiful town. So that effort will be ongoing and continuing. The gate where people get out on the access pier won't change during construction. It's the same location. And so there won't be a change in the point where people line up to meet. So that won't change. There'll be work on the water, but right now the gate is near shore and that's gonna stay. So the efforts that are underway the last few years will continue. |
| 02:19:35.92 | Joe Burns | And the last thing I had is you mentioned no temporary construction in lot one, but we wanted to make sure that extends to lots two, three, and four as well. I think that's your intention, since you said most of your construction work will take place offsite. |
| 02:19:52.96 | Dennis Mulligan | Correct. So our contractor does not have any legal rights unless you in a week moment give it to them to use any of your lots. And we expressly will not allow them to use lot one for staging in any other city lots unless they get the city's permission. I went through in my presentation some inconvenience that will occur on several days for concrete pours, for utility trenching and the installation of a utility box. But beyond that, we will not be impacting city lots. If the contractor wants to, I assume they could pay to park in the lot like anybody else. But I defer to your enforcement folks on how they manage that. But we will require transportation plans if the contractor will have to disclose how they want to manage their staff, and then the city will have an opportunity to help shape that with us so that it meets your needs. |
| 02:20:38.38 | Joe Burns | So our typical construction staging plan includes construction parking. So I think we would just probably want to take a look at that, make sure that if you have 100 workers a day who arrive at 6 a.m. and take all the parking spaces, that might be an inconvenience for some of the residents. |
| 02:20:54.61 | Dennis Mulligan | Certainly and understood, so that won't happen. |
| 02:20:57.80 | Joe Burns | That's all I had, Mr. Mayor, thank you. |
| 02:21:03.92 | Unknown | Dennis, I had two questions, both about design The donut tubes that you mentioned, and they're only six inches higher than currently, and that is for storm surge. So the donut piles |
| 02:21:18.98 | Dennis Mulligan | 54 inch diameter steel piles that have big donuts that go up and down with the tides on them and they're giant bumpers and with storm surges and high tides and sea level rise we don't want the donut to pop off the top and you have a bare steel pile without the donut or the fender on it and then they are six inches higher and we try to make them as low as possible, but we did a detailed analysis and we couldn't, I assure you, if I could say that nothing sticks up one inch higher, I would love to be able to say that, but I cannot. Two donut piles stick up six. |
| 02:21:38.64 | Unknown | And then that's my story. |
| 02:21:53.03 | Unknown | six inches higher. Well, then that was my question. Then on sea level rise, with that six inch delta, how much time frame is that? looking forward. I don't know. |
| 02:22:01.97 | Dennis Mulligan | off the top of my head, we'll have to get back to you on that. I know we had a number for sea level rise that was given to us, I believe, by BCDC. Right, so we'll get a written response to that question to you. I don't want to misspeak off the top of my head and throw an ember out that's incorrect. |
| 02:22:16.64 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:22:19.78 | Unknown | And then on the bird glass, you kind of threw that back in our court as a potential, you know, if we want or not. What type of decision will we have to make on that and when? |
| 02:22:30.07 | Dennis Mulligan | I'm not sure. |
| 02:22:30.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:22:30.48 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you. You know, you could, as part of your approval, defer to your staff to approve whatever bird glass there is used. And so that way it wouldn't delay this. And then that way your staff could take a look and work with us. The one we showed is a common one. It's one our architect recommended. Our initial proposal did not include it. We didn't think it'd be a major issue at this location. But since it was a comment that came from your joint planning commission, historic landmarks board process, we wanted to be responsive to it. The item we propose isn't very visible from far away. it looks like historic landmarks board process, we wanted to be responsive to it. The item we propose isn't very visible from far away. It looks slightly opaque, and I think you can see that in the slide. We can find examples in the Bay Area, so if you wanted to take a look at it. But in terms of an approval process, I would defer to your counsel, Mary. But I think that you could craft it such that that's something you delegate to staff. Thank you. |
| 02:23:16.75 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:23:16.88 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you. |
| 02:23:16.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:23:20.31 | Unknown | Jill, any questions of staff or of the British District? |
| 02:23:23.61 | Jill Hoffman | the bridge district? I do. Dennis, thanks for coming back. I appreciate you and your team coming back to Sausalito again. So I just wanted to follow up quickly on one of the questions that the vice mayor asked you about the bikes and congestion. So to this point, you know, we've worked for years with the players downtown with regard to congestion. So the bike companies and the ferry companies, not very successfully, I have to say. You know, we still have lines down the sidewalks all the way into Dumpy Park, or not, not Duffy Park, sorry, my apologies, Gabriel from Park and almost down to Spinnaker. And we've talked about different methods for alleviating those lines, and we haven't We haven't been successful in coming up with a solution yet, in my mind. and to Vice Mayor Cox's comment, you know, I see that only getting worse when they're going to be walking through construction and when they're going down a longer pier. My other, the next part of my question is, as part of the MOU, the agreement was that we'd agree on a timetable to meet and confer about Landsat improvements and ferry passenger crowd management issues. To my mind, we haven't met on that yet. We're at our first meeting. Now we have another meeting to go. And this is a significant issue for our town. and the Ferry District is a major player. So can you tell me how we can move forward to actually solve this problem? Because I have some ideas. |
| 02:24:53.83 | Dennis Mulligan | Our staffs meet all the time on this topic. It's ongoing discussions. You know, over the years, different things have been tried. I don't think the same exact same thing's been tried two consecutive summer seasons in the last probably eight years. And so, you know, we keep trying a variety of things. You know, our goal is to make the queue go away, whether it's by us or by others, because we recognize that, you know, that's the expectation of the community but you know Jim and chief or Bacher meet quite regularly you know Adam may want to want to talk about some of the the latest thoughts that the city staff has with respect to this topic but it is an ongoing issue and it's something that we need to work collaboratively on like we have in the past. |
| 02:25:37.72 | Jill Hoffman | When do you expect that we would have our meet and confer on ferry passenger crowd management issues? I believe I'm part of that committee and we have not met, to my knowledge, |
| 02:25:50.93 | Dennis Mulligan | If it's a city committee, I defer to Adam with respect to the timing of meetings and whatnot. |
| 02:25:55.91 | Jill Hoffman | would we be able to do it between now and the next meeting? on this issue? |
| 02:25:59.24 | Dennis Mulligan | on this issue? we're available to meet. |
| 02:26:03.10 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 02:26:03.62 | Dennis Mulligan | We have lots of staff meetings with respect to the various challenges addressing this. |
| 02:26:03.69 | Adam Hollister | Thank you. |
| 02:26:03.71 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 02:26:03.86 | Adam Hollister | THE END OF |
| 02:26:10.41 | Adam Hollister | Councilmember Hoffman, if I can just comment on that. um, Dennis and his staff and I have already had three to four meetings in the last couple of weeks and agreed to continue to set up a series of meetings. And Chief Rofbacher and I have had a meeting or two as well. with the intent that in our future agenda items that are |
| 02:26:35.92 | Unknown | Mm-hmm. |
| 02:26:36.23 | Adam Hollister | are already posted. The intent was the chief was to come forward in October to give a report on the existing program, a recap of this past season, with also a discussion about how to move forward for this next season. So as you saw from the schedule that the district proposed as part of their presentation, We know that nothing's gonna happen assuming that there's approval to move forward. by the council, but assuming that the council gives direction for and consent. The soonest construction will begin will be in the winter of 2018. So we know that we have another season. Thank you. of congestion management improvements that will need to be addressed. So, prior to tonight's meeting, prior to the MOU between the city and the district, there was direction from the council to come back in October work with the pedestrian and bike committee to look at an RFP to go out for proposals for bike parking and crowd management related issues. those conversations have also begun. So is there potential for us to have a meeting with the district prior to the 26th? Yes. I think what we're proposing as staff and our team, our legal team, I think will continue to work with me to advise on how to bring this together to meet the intent of the MOU, which is set up a schedule. So a report and an update, I would imagine, would be in line in October. with another update in January with some concrete actions that will lead us to the winter of 2018. And, you know, that's something that I think we can talk about between now and the 26th. |
| 02:28:46.99 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. However, I think continuing to talk about it isn't particularly helpful. Actually coming up with solutions and a commitment on the part of the major player The Ferry District is crucial in solving that problem and looking at our congestion problems going forward. This is a question for the Chief, I think. There's been a lot of talk about the emergency preparedness of Sausalito and the ferry landing and how important it is. And I'm not saying that it's not. at all, and no one has ever said we don't want a new, better, you know, ferry landing. However, with regard to emergency preparedness, you know, I'm aware that there is at least one other larger more adaptable for emergency services pier in town, and that's the Corps of Engineers pier. So I don't see that the ferry landing is particularly, or should be relied upon particularly as part of, a major part of our emergency preparedness. The Corps of Engineers peer is much more important, in my mind, when you're talking about the ability to offload quickly large supplies of emergency materials. So, Chief, do you want to weigh in on this, or is this maybe something that the staff should respond to at a later time? |
| 02:30:06.57 | Mary Wagner | The chief indicated just now to me that we can come back to you with some information on that. |
| 02:30:11.20 | Jill Hoffman | That's fine. I have some information on that. That's fine. I would also like him to comment not just on the Corps of Engineers Pier, but how many marinas we have in Sausalito. I believe it's seven. I believe we have deep water access at at least three of those piers. I might be wrong on that one. But with regard to the emergency preparedness aspect of driving the size of the ferry landing, I don't find that particularly. I find that an important part of our emergency preparedness plan here in Sausalito, but not the single driver for that argument. |
| 02:30:45.25 | Joe Burns | Jill, if I might just as a follow-on to that. You did, Dennis, quote to us an order from the PUC that requires you to, you know, demonstrate a certain level of readiness. Perhaps you could provide us with more information about what those requirements are of the goals. |
| 02:30:46.92 | Jill Hoffman | Please. |
| 02:31:04.62 | Dennis Mulligan | The CPC requirement is for another operator to share the float with us. Right. And the CPC order, we can give a copy to your staff. And it says that we cannot by omission preclude blue and gold from the |
| 02:31:08.57 | Joe Burns | Right. |
| 02:31:17.23 | Dennis Mulligan | their right to use our ferry landing. |
| 02:31:19.03 | Joe Burns | I think the PowerPoint slide that you provided listed the various other potential operators with whom you might have to share So I'd be interested to know which of those other operators have catamarans. |
| 02:31:31.83 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:31.84 | Dennis Mulligan | as well. |
| 02:31:32.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:32.06 | Dennis Mulligan | Certainly. |
| 02:31:32.50 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:31:32.62 | Joe Burns | Okay, thank you. Thanks, Jill. |
| 02:31:37.04 | Unknown | Any other questions? Okay. You okay? No, I'm good. Yeah, okay. |
| 02:31:44.33 | Unknown | Okay. |
| 02:31:44.41 | Unknown | you Thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:31:47.50 | Unknown | Okay, so what we want to do now is give some direction, overall directions to staff. We are not making any decisions tonight. We're not voting on this tonight. So we need, obviously, answers to questions. We need them written. We need them put on the website, we need to direct staff to prepare us for the next meeting. At some point, we're going to have to do one of the following. We're going to either have to do nothing in which case the project that you've seen as presented tonight will get automatically approved on October 15th. Or at some point before October 15th, we can approve the project and we could approve the project with certain conditions based on all the concerns that we've been hearing. That would seem to be at least a productive use of staff to flesh out and ask what those would be perhaps in light of what we've heard. Or we can decide to deny the project and say, no amount of conditions are going to work. We're just going to have to flat out tonight. That's what we're facing. That's what we have to do either on the 26th, but Certainly before October 15th. So is there anybody who'd like to, I know the Vice Mayor has put a lot of thought into this. you're more prepared than me, so why don't you, and then we'll supplement with |
| 02:33:27.91 | Joe Burns | Why don't? |
| 02:33:31.17 | Unknown | Anything else? |
| 02:33:31.96 | Joe Burns | Thank you. I don't know about that, but in light of the fact that our next hearing is just two weeks away, and in order to ensure the efficiency of this process, I'd like to suggest that perhaps we direct staff to put together a list of conditions of approval that would address the issues that have either already been answered by the Golden Gate Bridge District tonight or that will be answered in the meeting that Dennis Mulligan tells me he has with staff tomorrow or that may be answered at our next meeting. In that way, were there to be a majority of us ready to approve the project, we would have in place conditions to assure that the residents that we have heard their concerns and that we plan to address their concerns either as part of the project that is approved or as part of the process that will unfold moving forward. And I think some of those conditions could also address some of the eight issues enunciated by the City Council two years ago as their reasons for denying the project, including the location of one of the donuts outside of the leased area and the location of the temporary construction outside of the leased area. So I'd like to ask staff, sooner than later, with the approval of the other council members, to take a crack at addressing potential conditions of approval that could accompany an approval of this lease. and to publish those both so that residents have an opportunity to weigh in and also so that the bridge district has an opportunity to weigh in and say, yes, this is something we can do or no. I don't think one of the conditions would be to move the temporary construction area. You've already told us that's not feasible. But I think in this way, we can address a lot of the issues that we've heard tonight and still keep within our very tight timeline. |
| 02:35:45.35 | Unknown | Any other comments for staff? Because we are going to adjourn into closed session as soon as this has ended. Any other comments, commentary, direction that we want to make before we go into closed session? |
| 02:36:06.01 | Unknown | show. No. |
| 02:36:07.93 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, I do have a couple of questions. |
| 02:36:08.93 | Unknown | I can't do that. |
| 02:36:11.82 | Jill Hoffman | Just for a couple of comments. You know, we've had lots of criticism of the City Council about the delay in this project. Let me just say and reiterate that the delay of this project is the ferries' own design for the past year. They're the ones that withdrew their project last August, then necessitated the city to file a lawsuit that the, for declaratory relief that the bridge district was required under the lease to obtain the city's council's approval of the plan. That was their position through nine months worth of litigation It was their position. through two motions. that we prevailed upon. And now when we're down a city council member, they decide to come back. So, If you are cynical, you might say that this is an opportunistic effort on their behalf, to have their plan approved when they put us in a position that a tie vote would mean that their plan is approved. So that those are the facts. So I, I'm disappointed that we're at the spot now. I'm happy that we're here. I'm happy that we have a plan that may actually work. but I'm not happy that we've been put in this position by the Ferry District given the amount effort that the city the city council members and the people of our community has put in to try to get us to the point where we can have a plan that we can all work with. So I hope that we can move forward I hope. that we can rely on the representations of Mr. Mulligan today. that he's going to work with Then above tide. that he's going to work with the Yacht Club, and that he's going to work with us in working and coming up with a congestion management plan that actually works. Those are my comments. |
| 02:38:20.12 | Unknown | Thank you. Anybody else want to say anything? Okay, we are going to adjourn into closed session. I'd just like to end by thanking everybody who's come here tonight. All the comments that have been made. I'd like to thank the Bridge District for coming. I'd like to thank them for their constructive approach. And I'd like to thank staff for all the hard work. There's been a tremendous amount of analysis that's had to get done to do this. So I thank our staff and our consultants as well. So with that, we are adjourning into closed session. Thank you. |
Sam Penrose — In Favor: Supported the project for safety reasons, citing current unsafe conditions and delays due to process. ▶ 📄
Peter Van Meter — In Favor: Urged approval, comparing past contentious projects that ultimately had minimal impact. ▶ 📄
Sam Chase — Neutral: Criticized lack of progress, requested a 3D model, and questioned the need for double-hull vessels. ▶ 📄
Kate Storr — Neutral: Asked about emergency evacuation capacity, supply unloading, and ability to dock two ferries simultaneously. ▶ 📄
Jen Jenneri — In Favor: Emphasized safety, equity, attractiveness, and emergency preparedness due to climate change. ▶ 📄
Cass Green — Against: Raised concerns about construction impacts on Inn Above Tide, loss of privacy, and financial losses. ▶ 📄
Alice Merrill — In Favor: Advocated for approval, citing current unsafe conditions and eventual acceptance of the project. ▶ 📄
Tom Aiden — Neutral: Expressed concerns about construction mitigation, visual impacts on Sausalito Yacht Club, and requested detailed renderings. ▶ 📄
Tammy Blanchard — Against: Concerned about float size, traffic, construction noise, and long-term maintenance; urged denial. ▶ 📄
Kristen Wolfslegel — In Favor: Stressed environmental sustainability, greenhouse gas reductions, and the need for compromise. ▶ 📄
Melissa Blavstein — Neutral: Questioned construction impacts on bike traffic and temporary pier usage, emphasizing community fit. ▶ 📄
Grover Deere — Against: Requested clarity on project size, extension into bay, and assurance against overnight boat parking. ▶ 📄
Willie McDevitt — Against: Concerned about district's right to damage Inn Above Tide foundation and sought clarification on settlement agreement. ▶ 📄
Kaye Mitzel — Against: Reiterated need for 3D model, exclusion of catamarans, and protection for Yacht Club pilings. ▶ 📄
David Sudo — In Favor: Praised design improvements, emphasized emergency preparedness, and urged city to handle landside improvements. ▶ 📄
Ren Herring — Against: Called for further reduction in float size, 3D model, and removal of tie-vote approval clause. ▶ 📄
Susan Cleveland Knowles — Neutral: Highlighted need for right-sized project, addressed construction mitigation, and supported continued negotiation. ▶ 📄
Kempinski — Against: Suggested returning plans to Planning Commission for further review of hydraulics and other issues. ▶ 📄
Jeff Bernstein — In Favor: Supported plan for addressing bike congestion and safety, emphasizing functional needs over historic aesthetics. ▶ 📄
Bill Werner — Neutral: Thanked opponents and commissions for design improvements but refrained from opinion as Planning Commissioner. ▶ 📄
Vicki Nichols — Neutral: Requested clearer presentation of peer review recommendations and noted that safety mitigations can be conditions of approval. ▶ 📄