| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:12.23 | Unknown | Thank you and good evening. for the City Council meeting on Tuesday, September 26, 2017. The Council met in, oh, no, okay, hold on a second. Let's have the roll call, sorry. Lily, could we have the roll call? |
| 00:00:35.30 | Unknown | Councilmember Burns. |
| 00:00:36.46 | Unknown | Present. |
| 00:00:37.07 | Unknown | Councilmember Hoffman present base mayor Cox here Mary withy here |
| 00:00:41.76 | Unknown | Here. Council Member Hoffman, will you lead us in the pledge tonight? |
| 00:00:51.55 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:00:51.97 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:01:06.87 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:01:11.89 | Unknown | So the council met in closed session. to discuss the existing litigation with Sausalito versus Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District. There are no announcements from that closed session. Is there any public comment on the closed session item? Seeing none, could I have a motion to approve the agenda, please? |
| 00:01:38.34 | Joan Cox | So moved. |
| 00:01:39.24 | Unknown | Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes. |
| 00:01:40.93 | Joan Cox | Hi. |
| 00:01:45.30 | Unknown | So item number one. is our second of our public hearings on the consideration of the revised ferry landing project plans for the ferry landing project east of the intersection of Bridgeway and Anchor Streets. This was continued from September 12th, 2017. |
| 00:02:16.36 | Unknown | Thank you, Anne. I was a little worried that last time the microphone's too loud, but I will do my, I'll make sure I do my best to speak directly in it. So we're going to start off with a staff presentation, and I'm handing over to our city clerk and assistant city manager, Lily Whalen. |
| 00:02:40.80 | Lily Whalen | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening. Good evening, council members and members of the public and those watching at home. Tonight I will be giving the staff presentation on the ferry landing project. This meeting is a continuation of the meeting that we held here in IDES Hall on September 12th when the district presented the revised plans for the project. The structure of tonight's meeting will be as follows. First, the staff and the district will make a presentation and respond to issues and questions that were raised at the September 12th meeting. Then public comments will be received and then the council will deliberate specifically address the district and public comments regarding the proposed conditions of approval and the staff's recommendation is to direct staff to return at the October 10th City Council meeting with either A resolution approving the project, including conditions as directed by the Council, an amendment to the lease agreement and the pass through agreement, or a resolution denying consent. |
| 00:03:45.38 | Lily Whalen | As before, I'd like to take a moment to introduce the staff team who's sitting here with me tonight. We have Adam Pulitzer, our city manager. Mary Wagner, city attorney, Police Chief John Robacher, Community Development Director Danny Castro, Public Works Director Jonathan Goldman, myself, the city's legal counsel Art Friedman, from Cowie, the city's consulting engineer, we have James Connelly, and we also have Mike McKinley, the city's emergency services coordinator. |
| 00:04:18.98 | Lily Whalen | Just a reminder about the time frame for your review. Under the terms of the city's 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. Therefore, the city must make its determination by October 15th. If the city fails to decide during this period or if the city council deadlocks in a 2-2 vote, the lease provides that the city is deemed to have consented to the project. |
| 00:04:53.45 | Lily Whalen | So first I'm going to go over briefly the list of issues that were raised at the September 12th meeting, including the photo simulations, responses to questions during public comment, and the council's May 5th, 2015 resolution of denial. With regard to the photo simulations, as explained in the September 12th staff report, In June of 2016, the city retained the planning consulting firm Environmental Vision to conduct a peer review of four of the computer generated renderings prepared by the district in 2016. The district prepared revised simulations following Environmental Vision's identification of certain technical errors in two of the district's simulations. The city once again this year retained environmental vision to peer review the district's revised photo renderings for the current project. And at this time, we do not have an update on the consultant's findings this evening. At the September 12th meeting, the council and the public posed a variety of questions and issues, some of which city staff and district staff were able to address briefly at the meeting. Staff divided the questions and issues into different categories, including procedural questions, land side improvement issues, project plans, logistics, emergency questions, construction impacts, and maintenance. Staff responded to several of the questions and written responses to those questions are provided in the staff report. In short, the answer to the procedural question of how could a 2-2 vote of the council mean that the council gives consent to the project is that a majority vote of three members of the council is needed to take an action and therefore a two-two vote results in a non-action by the city council. In this case, failure to take action results in unconditional consent to the project Under the terms of the lease with the district, non-action results in consent to the project. With regard to the two emergency questions, the first question was how many marinas in Sausalito have deep water access that could be used in the event of emergency? The answer was that Sausalito is not a deep water port. A deep water port is usually made up for usage of very large and heavily loaded ships which require water to be 30 feet or deeper. Chartered depths along the Sausalito waterfront vary from 3 feet to 15 feet, mean lower low water. No other marina in Sausalito has been designated by any of the state agencies as an emergency docking facility other than the Sausalito ferry terminal. For the WETA stated purposes of emergency water transportation, no other marina is appropriate. And then the second question was, is the Army Corps of Engineers Pier more appropriate for emergencies than the ferry landing? The answer was, the Army Corps of Engineers Pier is not designated as an initial emergency maritime facility by state agencies due to the Army Corps of Engineers' federal mission requirements. Hence, there is no support from the emergency management system. The district will present the remainder of the responses to the questions at the 9-12 meeting during their presentation. With regard to the Council's May 5th, 2015 resolution of denial, The council did adopt in that month of 2015 resolution number 5512, which denied consent for the project. The city's denial is based on eight findings. Staff has reviewed the eight findings in the 2015 denial and provided comments in the staff report for this evening's meeting on each finding in the context of comparing the March 2015 proposal to the current August 2017 proposal. |
| 00:08:57.99 | Lily Whalen | As discussed in the staff report for this evening, the lease amendment, the pass through agreement and staff's draft conditions of approval are all items discussion for the council tonight. first, the least The lease amendment, the project involves the following items which are outside the boundaries of the leased area. which is one, 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, Two is the permanent construction and installment of two utility trenches and cabinets in lot one, and then also behind the existing ticketing machines. And then the last is the dolphin pile on the permanent float. All of those items are outside of the lease area. Staff has provided a lease amendment for the council's consideration, which modifies the lease to allow for the location of these features. |
| 00:09:58.23 | Lily Whalen | The city intends to make land side improvements to the city's property adjacent to the ferry terminal to reduce congestion and to improve vehicle, 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 grant which was granted to the district. Before the city undertakes these improvements, it will seek community input. Staff has included a draft pass-through agreement for the council's consideration. |
| 00:10:34.02 | Lily Whalen | With regard to the conditions of approval, staff has drafted conditions of approval pursuant to council's direction at the September 12th meeting for the council's consideration this evening. In summary, condition, and this is found in your attachment one of your staff report. Condition one provides that the project shall not include Belvederes. Conditions two through four are standard conditions. requiring the city's compliance with all applicable permits and legal requirements. and requiring that the district defend and indemnify the city in response to any claims that may arise from the city's approval of the project. Conditions five through eight. regulate the district's construction of the project to minimize potential impacts regarding noise, traffic, air quality, parking, as well as impacts to the Sausalito Yacht Club and the Inabubtide. Conditions nine and 10 require the district to obtain all necessary encroachment permits and or lease amendments from the city as may be required for the project. And then finally, conditions 11 through 17 imposed various mitigation measures on the project to minimize impacts regarding vessel usage, noise impacts from the hydraulic voiding system, exterior lighting, birds, land side improvements, and finally, queue management and related crowd controls. Staff and the district staff are in general agreement regarding the proposed conditions with the exception of conditions number 12, which is the simultaneous vessel use of ferry landing. and 17, which is the queue and crowd management. For conditions 12 and 17, we have provided staff's proposed condition and following that, the district's response. And that's in attachment one. Regarding public correspondence, when the staff report was published, it included eight items of correspondence. We have subsequently received an additional 17 items of correspondence as late mail. These items have been placed online and then also provided to the council. With that, this concludes our staff presentation. Our recommendation is as follows. To accept our presentation, then to receive a presentation from district staff, then to receive public comment. than to direct staff to return with either one a resolution approving the project including conditions as directed by the council and amendment to the lease agreement to allow for the items which are outside the leased area, and the pass through agreement or to return with a resolution of denial for the council's consideration. At this point, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to suggest that I introduce Dennis Mulligan, the District's General Manager. Mr. Mulligan will give the presentation on behalf of the District. |
| 00:13:25.25 | Unknown | Yeah, thank you, Lilly. I suggest we follow staff's recommendation on this. Okay, so the next item will be a presentation from the district. Thank you. |
| 00:13:36.34 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, city staff, members of the public. My name is Dennis Mulligan, and I have the pleasure of being the general manager for the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District. This is part of my speech while I stall while we pass the clicker and pull up the slideshow. Thank you for having us here this evening to answer the questions that were presented by the members of the public and council members two weeks ago. So we'll talk through our answers to those. We'll also summarize a site visit that we facilitated with our staff and some members of the community that are very interested in the project. We'll talk about some of the ways we've attempted to address the concerns we've heard during the project and then we'll do a very brief summary in the interest of time. First off from the questions, the first question is how will the landside improvements be addressed? The Bridge District has secured a $2 million grant of federal funds from the Federal Transit Administration. We're the recipient of it and we've made arrangements to pass it through to the City of Sausalito for the landside improvements. Additionally, our Board of Directors has taken an action to provide $400,000 of tolls to help match the $2 million grant. The city will be the lead on those improvements, but we're clearly a stakeholder We'll be involved in the process and we anticipate a very public process similar to this How much further will the new float extend? So we have a graphic here that shows it. The outside edge of the existing float is 291 feet away from the Ferry Plaza. The new one is 62 feet further into the bay. And that's a combination of a slightly longer float, a slightly longer gangway, as well as a slightly different angle on the axis pier. So it does extend 62 feet further out. There was questions about the donut fender and global warming and how long will the donut fender remain operational with global warming and the associated sea level rise. And this facility is designed for a 40 year service life. including sea level rise. So the design will accommodate the anticipated sea level rise over the next 40 years. I might add for those that were in South San Francisco, our donut pile is five feet shorter than the Weta donut pile that you saw in South San Francisco. There's a lot of interest in the hydraulics, which ultimately led to Carolina Wallen and my staff inviting some members of the community to go to South City. But the hydraulics we contemplate are not garbage truck hydraulics. They are hydraulics that are consistent with this application and we provided some data on the exact equipment number that we're looking at. It's anticipated that will operate at 62 decibels and 62 decibels is about the noise level in an office setting. |
| 00:16:20.75 | Dennis Mulligan | So we arranged a site visit that I'll talk about a little bit later. Another question that's come up over the years of the project is will we provide a 3D model? We will not be providing a 3D model of the proposed ferry landing within the context of the existing surroundings. Detailed drawings are required by the lease and we have provided those. Additionally, we've done renderings based on a 3D model of the facility we have. We developed a 3D model facility that's used to generate the renderings, but we didn't go through the expense of developing the surroundings. There is considerable expense, and we don't think it provides any new information. We did photo renderings from various vantage points that members of the community would experience it, and we feel that it showcases it. A 3D model would allow you to look at it from the water in some other perspectives that we don't think are meaningful or fruitful to this conversation. And the vantage points that we selected were developed with members of your community. And we walked the waterfront with them to select where we would do those photo renderings from. And we feel that they provide a good representation of how people will perceive the project. How big would the project be if designed only for Spalding class vessels? It would not change the size of the facility. The size of the facility is driven by the size of our vessels, but Spalding's are our largest vessels. They have the largest capacity of passengers. They're also the longest. They're 165 feet long. Additionally, tied to that though is a controlling dimension of having two doors for boarding passengers. We want to speed up boarding in Sausalito, in San Francisco, and in Larkspur, but in Sausalito so we can get rid of the queue that is quite problematic for the community. And so the float would not be smaller unless we changed those assumptions, and those assumptions were embedded in our 2012 CEQA Environmental Clearance of the project. But so there's operational and accessibility concerns that address it. The width, a lot of it is dictated by the 1 in 12 slope to access the two vessels, and that's what you see adjacent to the vessel. We see 1 in 12 down to the Spalding and 1 in 12 up to the catamaran, and then the center platform goes up and down on those quiet hydraulics. Will boats be parked overnight is a question we get. I do want to state for the record that our existing lease allows us to park boats overnight. However, we're willing to make a concession as part of your approval. We're willing to consent to amending the lease to prohibit us from leaving vessels overnight unless we get the permission in advance of the city manager, which I suspect won't be forthcoming, or if we have an emergency. In the event of the emergency, we would notify the city manager as soon as practical and we would remove the vessel as soon as we can arrange a tow. It is not our intention to keep vessels there overnight. We know it's a concern to some members of the community. So we are willing to, as part of your approval, consent to amending the lease with a condition that would preclude us from parking vessels overnight. Will two vessels be at the landing at the same time? The quick answer is yes, but only one vessel will load or disembark at any one time. It's important to note that we don't have unlimited resources, we only have seven ferry boats in our fleet, we also serve the Tipperon, we also serve Larkspur, and we also go to the Giants' ballpark. So we don't have lots of spare vessels, but when we operate out of Sausalito, we sometimes have regularly scheduled service, which your residents residents rely on we sometimes have a shadow boat to help clear the bicycle queue so sometimes it does result in having two vessels tied up at one time it's more efficient that way and it removes the queue more quickly and it's something that's allowed by the lease but we are willing to consent that we'll only load or disembark one vessel at a time except in a time of an emergency What's the district's plan to mitigate activities during construction associated with pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicular traffic? We will require our contract to develop a traffic management plan and we'll seek input from the city on that traffic management plan. The bulk of the time there will not be impact on the landside or to commuters, but there will be some days where there will be impacts. One impact will arise when we do concrete pours. When we do concrete pours, we'll have a concrete pump truck with a boom parked nearby on land. We won't want people walking underneath it. So we will cease ferry service on those handful of days that we have concrete pours. We'll have bus bridges so commuters can still get to and from work. And if the concrete pour is finished in the morning, we'll resume ferry service in the afternoon. Where taking a boat is much faster getting back to Saus Lido than taking a bus. The gate location will remain about the same during construction, so it won't change where people queue. We won't be moving the queue around and so it should not impact bike or pedestrian flow. We'll also have to close the facility for about a week when we relocate the existing float to the temporary location, and we'll have bus bridges during that activity also. So we do not anticipate significant impacts to commuters except for the week that we relocate the float and those handful of days that we do concrete pours. Not changing the gate location is why there's no impact to bike and pedestrian flows or queuing. What's the district's plan to inform residents about the project construction? We've attended numerous meetings here in the community and we anticipate to continue that going forward. We'll share the contractor schedule with city staff. Your occurrence is an excellent venue to push information out. We'll also share information with key stakeholders like the Yacht Club and Above Tides. We anticipate that you'll wanna take our construction updates and share those. We'll post the construction schedule also on our website. Tentatively, if you were to approve this in two weeks, we would start construction in summer of 2018, and then begin construction on site in winter of 2018, and that's the end of the year, end of the calendar year 2018. How will the district mitigate construction impacts to its neighbors, especially the Yacht Club in and above tide? We met with them on September 20th and we had a fruitful conversation. We need to have some additional conversations. But I do want to highlight a couple of things that we wish to commit to and that we anticipate you will want to include as conditions in your approval of this project. First, we will not use impact hammers to drive piles. We will not beat piles into the ground. We will install piles using vibration techniques. We'll vibrate piles in. The larger piles in, we'll have to drill out the center of those once we get to rock. But we will not use conventional pile hammers that bang them into the ground. Thank you. We will also install vibration monitoring on in above tides and the Saucelito Yacht Club, and I assume they'll give us permission for that. They seem very receptive to this idea. That vibration monitoring will be set with alarms for certain vibration integrals as adopted by the Federal Transit Administration and Caltrans. So when vibrations exceed that, an alarm will sound and construction activities will stop, and the contractor will have to redesign how they want to do their pile insulation. We will also install noise monitoring on the structures during the pile insulation to monitor that activity. Fortunately, the pile driving is not extensive. There'll be two episodes of pile driving, but it won't be like a seawall project where it goes on for months and months. Additionally, for both in above tides and the Saucedo Yacht Club, we will perform pre-construction crack surveys of the structures, and then we'll perform post-construction crack surveys of the structures. So if there's any changes, we know what happened. We feel that's in the best interest of our rate payers at the Bridge District, as well as the best interest of the Yacht Club and in above tides, so there's no dispute with respect to any damage. We know that pile installation is something that people have a lot of angst about. So we're willing to commit to provide at least 30 days notice for pile installation work. And so folks can plan around that. And finally, we will require that our contractor comply with your municipal code sections with respect to time restrictions and noise restrictions for construction. Will the district use municipal lots 2, 3, and or 4 during construction staging? We are not getting any approvals for the use of those lots. Our contractor will need to find appropriate construction staging areas that are environmentally clear that they have the rights to use. If the city is interested in letting them use those lots, our contractor will cut a deal with you, but if you're not, they will go elsewhere to private lots. The contractor will be required to get all necessary permits and approvals for any staging areas, but under no circumstances will parking lot number one be allowed to be used for staging. It will be spelled out in the contract documents that even if you had a change of heart, were interested in letting them do that, they would be precluded from doing it contractually by our bid documents. Does the district have a long-term maintenance plan for maintaining the project? The answer is yes. Several years ago, we acquired an IVM product called Maximo. It's an enterprise asset management system. So today, I could tell you what mechanic put what bolt and what bus on what day. So we will input this new asset in that system, and we will track all work on it. It regularly generates work orders based on predictive maintenance schedules that are factored into it. There was a lot of concern at the last meeting about the sound of the hydraulics. And so the best way to address that we felt was to invite some folks to accompany our staff. So Carolina Whalen, Whalen and my staff set up a visit on September 21st. And I appreciate those members of the public that took the time from their very busy schedules to come and take a look at it. What folks found when they stood on the float next to the hydraulics was that it was the sound of a Tesla, not a garbage truck, not a drag racer. It was very quiet, and that was in an enclosure that was not insulated for sound. They were standing next to the enclosures when the facility operated, and I think everyone agreed that noise is not a concern anymore. They were standing next to the enclosure. They weren't standing 100 feet away where it would be even quieter. And so it's a very fruitful visit to the site. The noise level expected from our equipment will be commensurate with this. It's a similar type installation. Hydraulics is a different brand than what we referenced last time. They're many manufacturers that make this type of equipment. And so, you know, it would be reasonable for you to condition the permit with some maximum noise level DBEs associated with this equipment and the other equipment as opposed to specifying a single manufacturer. We'll get better pricing if we let the market meet the specification with the maximum noise level. While folks were there, though, they had new concerns, or I guess they revisited some prior concerns about the mass and scale. WIDA, the other public ferry operator on the bay, provides weather enclosures for their passengers, something that we do not, something arguably that is first-class customer service. So they have walls and a roof as you walk out there, so visually it makes it appear much, much more massive. I might add that WIDA does not carry a fraction of the passenger loading that we do with that facility. We can, on a single trip out of Sausalito, carry more passengers than they'll board all day at South San Francisco. So there is a scale issue with respect to passengers, but we are not proposing to have a roof, to have walls and to have an enclosure. I might mention though that our lease has already approved that. And so that's something that you may wish to stipulate as another condition because what our lease says is what's shown in that little light blue box. The installation of passenger weather protection is approved in concept by Lesser, which is the city, And any further approval required by law, by law is not the same as other types of approvals. But what we show in that picture with the big X food is something we actually developed early on. It was shared publicly in the community of Sausalito and we heard loud and clear that folks said, no, not here. But it is important to note that we do get complaints from passengers who may not be active in this process who wonder why we don't have enclosures like other facilities on the bay. With respect to the size of the facility, this shows the size of the float. The inner rectangle on the left in gray is our existing float. The slight light green line around it is a WIDA float in South San Francisco, which carries a small fraction of the number of passengers that we do. The blue rectangle is our original proposal, and the yellow is where we are today the principal reason why it's bigger than what they have in south san francisco is we carry more passengers and we will do loading and unloading of passengers through two doors we'll load all at once and unload all at once we won't do both at the same time but we will use two doors that will allow us to operate the service more efficiently in light of our passenger loading i might add that you had your outside consultant conduct a peer review of the methodology and The rationale that went into the side of the float, and my recollection is that they weighed in saying it was appropriate. There's also concerns raised when people went to South City saying these piles are really tall. The piles in South City, well, first the piles that we're proposing for a new facility are about the same as what's out there today. What you see in gray, that inverted V, is today's piling, which you see in the photo on the right. On the right, you'll see a man in a blue jacket standing there. His head comes to basically the bottom of Angel Island, or maybe that's the Belvedere Peninsula. So the existing piles are tall. The existing piles are 19 and a half feet above mean lower low water. Our new piles that will hold the float in place are 18 inches lower than what's out there today. The donut piles are six inches taller. I might add that the Weta donut piles are five feet taller. So basically the piles you have out there today, and you can see the man on the left side next to that left V, you can see the height of it. That's what we have today, and when we're done it will look, it will be the same height within a couple inches. So when people stood next to a pile at WIDA, they'd never gone out on the existing float in Sausalito and stood next to a pile. Granted, the WIDA ones are a little bit taller. People also expressed concern about the heights of the fenders on the WIDA float. The WIDA float has fenders that are three feet taller than what we have and what we will have. What we have is shown on the left. It's seven foot one inches above the float. It's about the same on the new facility, six foot nine inches above the float, but the float is six inches higher, so it's within a couple inches. So what we're proposing for fenders is about the same height as what we have today, and the heights of the piles are about the same. So you see the elevation on the left of 19.5, mean lower low water for the existing piles. The 18 foot is for the ones that hold it inflate, and the donut piles are 20 foot. So it's 18 inches lower or 6 inches higher, and then the bumpers are about the same height. And the WIDA bumpers are three feet higher than our bumpers. So this shows you the elevations for a low tide event. And it would just repeat what I just said about how what we're proposing height wise is about what's out there. We've made a series of compromises. I just want to very briefly touch upon these because we are trying to be a good partner. We're trying to be a good neighbor, while at the same time trying to operate a vibrant ferry service that many members of your community rely upon. The lease that we have with the city has no operational restrictions, and we are willing to concede to having no ferry boats at night, even though there's no such restriction today. We understand why you would want to condition the approval for that, and it's something that we can live with. We've also reduced the size of the facility. The gangway as originally proffered, as originally environmentally cleared, was 21 feet wide. The gangway before you today is 12 feet wide. So significantly narrow than what we environmentally cleared. We've modified the gangway structure type from a truss with round sections that are easy to maintain to an I-beam that will require additional maintenance effort. You know, we modified the gate to be glass, something that I'm sure we'll get lots of requests to clean quite regularly. And we also made other aesthetic changes. Like I said previously, we'll agree to not have a ferry boat overnight, and we will agree to only load or unload one vessel at a time. So summary of the project, I think your staff showed a similar slide, so I don't need to dwell on this very much. It's something that we've shown numerous times. But the 2014 design is shown on the left, and today's design is on the right. So we got rid of the overhead structure to hide the roll-up doors instead of roll-up its transparent panels with some bird-proofing as identified by you. The gangway is significantly narrower. The height of the gangway is much less. On the left is what we environmentally cleared. It was tall, it was above your head as you walked out. What's out there today is similar in height to what we will be constructing. And that is that by the building code, you have to have a handrail 42 inches above the walking surface. And the walking surface will be the same elevation as what's out there today. The length of the float is a little smaller and the width of the axis period will be reduced by 4 feet, from 25 feet to 21 feet as we went through this process, working with the council and working with the community. The gangway size is the most significant change, arguably. What's shown in blue is the 2014 design. It was actually what was environmentally clear back in 2012. 21 feet wide, 12 feet tall, and then we have the 12 foot wide, 6.7 feet tall, about half of which is below the walking surface like today. So what's existing is shown on the left, what's proposed is shown on the right. We want to have a facility that doesn't include overhead enclosures and walls and roofs that minimizes visual impacts, but while also working operationally because we provide vital service to commuters in the community. You know, ferries have been a long part of the history of Sausalito. We're proud to be the current ferry provider, and we want people to love it as much as they did in the past. With that, we're available to answer any questions that you might have. |
| 00:34:03.19 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you. |
| 00:34:03.66 | Unknown | Okay, questions from us to either our staff or to the district staff is I think the next, our next task. So who would like to go first on some questions? Vice Mayor. |
| 00:34:24.72 | Joan Cox | I'd like to lead off with one question. Thank you. So, and this is directed to James Connolly. So, during the district's presentation, they indicated, or Dennis indicated, that he thought that our consultant had done a peer review of the Golden Gate Bridge District's design. We have received correspondence from some of our residents pointing out that your initial review was simply an analysis based on existing assumptions, and that you've not actually done your own Um, you've not had an opportunity to tell us how you would design it if you were designing this from scratch. And so I'm going to put you on the spot. You know, one of the complaints is that the WIDA, landing is 10 feet wide, whereas ours is 12 feet wide. But can you tell us, aside from the peer review, would you still have a 12 foot or would you design a 10 foot wide ferry landing? |
| 00:35:38.99 | James Connelly | I got that one there. All right. So you're correct. We were given a certain set of assumptions and asked to review the design based on some of those set assumptions. The primary assumption that was driving it is the vessels that would use the terminal. And the two vessels we were told that we're going to primarily use this were the Golden Gate Fleet. And so we took that as our starting assumption. It's my opinion as an engineer that is a valid assumption. when we've been doing work for WIDA, We design our terminals for them around WIDA's fleet. and we designed for their particular vessels. So, again, we wouldn't go and look and say, is these the right two vessels? We sort of took that as an assumption to work off of. Based on that, that was the basis of our recommendations of where we think there could have been reductions. In particular with South San Francisco, it kind of goes back to that particular point. South San Francisco was designed around WIDA's vessels, and they're the largest current vessel in their fleet as a passenger count of 400 people. Golden Gate Districts, two vessels with the catamaran and the spalding, I think the catamaran is about 450 and I believe my number is right, it's 750 for the Spalman class. Those passenger, that size of vessels and the passenger counts, we can see how the 12 feet was arrived upon and how it would be bigger than South San Francisco based on the size of the vessels that will be serviced at those terminals. |
| 00:37:05.02 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:37:05.03 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 00:37:17.15 | Joan Cox | And then you said something to me about the center or how it aligns with the center or something, the engineering of it. for the length and width of the |
| 00:37:27.32 | James Connelly | Yeah, and again, a lot of the width and length gets driven by the ADA requirements, which is required at all these terminals. When we're doing our design, we're actually working on the Mission Bay terminal right now and the Richmond terminal for WIDA. The main driver of the walkway system that goes on the float, and then the float then kind of gets driven by that, A lot of it's controlled by the ADA with the vessel sizes and how you're going to board those. So with, again, the two vessels they presented and ADA requirements, we arrived at what we thought was the size that would be appropriate for here and that's how we ended up with our conclusions. |
| 00:38:12.16 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:38:16.03 | Joan Cox | I also wanted to ask Dennis, for comparison's sake, and I'm sorry I'm throwing this at you, cold but can you give us an idea of the size of the San Francisco and Larkspur terminals? |
| 00:38:30.30 | Dennis Mulligan | We carry a lot more people through both of those terminals and Sausalito. We currently, from Larkspur to San Francisco and San Francisco back to Larkspur, we board and disembark from two doors at the same time. The doors are not as wide as this. We're going to be redoing all those facilities to be similar to this, but the floats will be bigger than what's contemplated here. I think the doors are about six and a half feet wide, and feet wide and there's two of them currently and then the facility is kind of a Rube Goldberg contraction that articulates out it's very non-compliant with today's accessibility standards but it funnels down so we could get you the staff the dimensions tomorrow I don't want to misspeak on the exact dimensions but we do use two doors to get on and off those vessels to speed up the boarding and disembarking |
| 00:39:16.09 | Joan Cox | And I know you use two doors in San Francisco. I wrote it a week ago. How does San Francisco compare to Sausalito? |
| 00:39:25.16 | Dennis Mulligan | San Francisco is going to get replaced because it's woefully inadequate for accessibility standards. When we replace it, it will be a float and gangway system, but San Francisco will have 16-foot-wide gangways because of the passenger loading that we do there. Our Larkspur vessels currently sell out in peak periods, and so we are at capacity. And so we don't want to choke down that throughput. |
| 00:39:59.15 | Joan Cox | That's all for now. |
| 00:40:03.22 | Unknown | Any other council member have any specific questions at this point of staff or the district before we start taking public comment? Sorry, and I will try and keep speaking into the microphone. So sorry if I go drifting off at some point. |
| 00:40:27.40 | Unknown | Okay, looks like there's no more questions from us at this point. So our next step is to take public comment. And as you know, that will be limited to three minutes a person. Now, if you want to address the council, then I would ask that you fill in, as usual, a green speaker form. I believe we have already received some, but I have not yet. So as soon as we've got our microphone ready and some speaker cards to start with, then I will start calling the names of folks who wish to address the council. Okay, and here's the first batch. Um. |
| 00:41:26.51 | Unknown | What I'd ask you to do, I'm gonna read out three names, and the first name is gonna be the person I'm gonna ask at talk, And then the next two names are going to be the second person and the third person. And I'll keep doing that so we have rolling three people so we can speed up the time between each individual speaker. So I'm gonna start off with Neil Whitelaw, followed by Edward Murphy, followed by Julie McMillan, I think. So, those are the first. And Neil. |
| 00:42:13.46 | Unknown | Okay, I'm calling this Hasten Slowly into the Future, Progressives in town are not against the new ferry landing. We're very much for it. But I ask you, Mr. Mayor and City Council, to not approve the plan. until we get to see a 3D model. I've got an extensive engineering and management background with a Fortune 100 corporation. And I don't accept the explanation why Mr. Mulligan refuses to show a 3D model. One of my careers, has been as a professional photographer, And I can really fool you with a two-dimensional flat photograph. I could stage a, a murder scene. with about 20 8 1⁄2 by 11 flat photographs And I can do it. convince you of something totally untrue. You can ask Chief John Rohrabacher about how that works. I'm sorry I know that might be unfair, the History has not been fair with the city of Sausli, though. or its residents. For years we faced lies and concealment, I don't know why. The city has not played games with you. but it cannot be said for the other way around. frankly, We don't trust you. |
| 00:43:31.49 | Unknown | So this time, show us the model. And we will honestly decide from the facts. You must know that we demand one, so just do it and let's move on. You don't have to include the whole bay down to San Jose. All you have to do is do a little bit of the shore. and the structures. I also feel it's immensely easy. not costing the taxpayers for the district to compete to create a simple 3D scale model of the proposed alterations to the soft-seedal waterfront. There's no equivalent computer flat screen that equals a simple three-dimensional scale model of the important changes to the soft-seedal waterfront that affects every single resident of our village. Let's not be overly rushed into something that cannot ever be changed back. to a simple structure. Let's take a deep breath. and relax into a well thought out solution. to the next 50 plus years on our Sasteda waterfront. Our waterfront is too important to us to be overly rushed. We all rush too much in our daily lives. So let us quickly relax into the future. Take a breath. Save a positive future. The goal is a better future for everyone. temporarily reject the plan until we can see without doubts. get the whole community behind this. Let's get a consensus. not a division on something so important. If you would have just appeared here in a gracious manner years ago, told the truth and nothing but the truth. the new ferry terminal would have already been built and operating. We've lost the moral fiber of America and it's high time We got back to it. Thank you. |
| 00:45:19.81 | Unknown | Thank you. Edward Murphy, Julie McMillan, and Alex Kesheff. |
| 00:45:32.31 | Edward Murphy | I am Edward Murphy and I, is this working? I'm Edward Murphy, I've lived here for 35 years, I've taken the ferry boat many times. I have one big fat question, I guess two. Why is it necessary for this to extend out into the ocean so much farther than the existing one? I think I can understand some of the widening and lengthening of certain things for ADA, but that's about it. Extending out, it looks like it extends out much farther, and a lot of the presentation from the district tonight played that way down. They're talking about how it's only six inches wider, one foot higher, whatever it is, but the picture that they showed that showed how far out it went was really a cut off short. My other comment is that whoever negotiated the lease on behalf of the city of Sausalito should be arrested because many of the problems that we're hearing tonight stem from the lease. That's it, thank you. |
| 00:46:25.52 | Unknown | Thanks. |
| 00:46:25.57 | Edward Murphy | Thank you. |
| 00:46:25.66 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. Macmillan, then Alex Keshiff and Clayton Smith. |
| 00:46:33.64 | Julie McMillan | I agree with the first gentleman, everything he had to say about the design. And I have a degree in interior design and I also have a certificate in master site planning. And looking at those photographs, the angles really deceive you and make you think it's a lot smaller. Do I think we need some improvement to the ferry landing? Yes, I do. But I also agree with doing the models. We should have a present model of what we have today and a second model of what you're planning to do. And in terms of the lease, I think it's wrong to go ahead and take a vote when we don't have five city council members. And leases have amendments all the time. And it seems in this situation, you could go to Golden Gate and ask them to make an amendment so that we can have proper voting. |
| 00:47:27.43 | Unknown | Alex Kitschev, please. Alex, are you Dr. Kitschev here? here. Okay. I'll put that aside. Then Clayton's. Yeah, sorry, Clayton. I'm not out. No, this is Mr. Smith. So when Dr. Kisheff comes back, Clayton Smith, then Chris Armbrust, and then David Souto, Mr. Smith. |
| 00:47:55.38 | Clayton Smith | Yes, I'm the person I think originally was complaining about the lack of the 3D model, and I would like to ditto again. I continue to complain about it, and I think given the amount of money that's involved here and the deep pockets of the bridge district, I think the excuse they made here is fairly lame. One of my concerns is this rush to increase capacity. My concern is that we're talking not about commuters, we're really talking about weekend tourism to South Salido and the impact that's going to have on the rest of Southern Marin, particularly the bicycle tourism that is now spreading out from Sausalito, and it is heading up into Mill Valley, all the way up into the far ends of Cascade Canyon. And tomorrow night, they're going to have a meeting up in Corte Madera discussing the issue of the reopening the Alto Tunnel. So this is beginning to feel to those of us in Southern Marin that Southern Marin is slated to become a tourist mecca and a kind of Coney Island in the Redwoods. And this is not the place that the people who have come to live here and have lived here for, I came here 50 years ago, came to live in. And this dreadful increase in tourism actually has, I think, a negative impact on much of our quality of life that needs to be thought of in this decision. And finally, the other issue is we have a missing member on the council, and this is a global issue for the people of Sausalito. And as the fellow here was talking about in the celebration of democracy, I'm wondering if it's not possible, since this is a major issue, I think in this coming campaign, that this could not be somehow or another set aside until there were five people on the council. It was a full council. And if they would at least avoid this dreadful thought of two and two, which I think would stigmatize the decision if it were to come to that. Thank you. |
| 00:49:19.53 | Unknown | Redwood. |
| 00:49:32.28 | Jill Hoffman | you |
| 00:49:32.33 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 00:50:37.34 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:50:44.86 | Unknown | Now, I expect there's some people who may want to say possibly positive things about this. So I'd really appreciate if we just keep all the applause till whenever, but we want to get through and hear from you all as efficiently and as carefully as possible. So Chris Armbrust, David Souto, and then Cass Green. Sir. |
| 00:51:14.39 | Chris Armbrust | Great. So, Chris Armbrust, resident of Sausalito for 15 years, tourist for 50, came here in high school, loved to come and take the ferry into the city. I want to commend the district for the work that they've done. I think the initial work that they did was poor in the presentation. It was a poor Photoshop. What you've got now looks much better. Thank you. I think your listening to the concerns of the community have been commendable. I'm an engineer. I'm a boater. I've built my own home. the difficulty in explaining a design to someone who hasn't seen it before and who maybe doesn't work in that domain. And it's a hard thing to do. I think that the 3D model might be an overkill, but listening to the community and the background, maybe that's what we've got to do. I work in technology. There are 3D virtual realities that you could walk around the bridge right now. And there are folks in Marin and in the Bay Area who do that. So basically what I'm saying is, you know, we've been in discussion now on this dock for 10 years on a 40 year lifetime project. I think it's time to move on. And to remember, this is a ferry dock. It's a dock. It floats, and it can float away as our needs and desires change. But what we have today doesn't meet our needs. It's not safe. It doesn't meet the capacity needs that we have. I am not a big fan of the spandex warriors, but they're here. Let's deal with it. Let's not put our heads in the sand. Let's face the problem and move forward. And I recommend moving forward, so thank you. |
| 00:53:33.71 | Unknown | Thank you, sir. David Sudo, Cass Green, and then Willie McDevitt. |
| 00:53:43.53 | David Souto | David Sudo, I agree with much of what the last speaker said. I do think, you know, perhaps a virtual, if you wanted to do a 3D model, a virtual reality or augmented reality solution would be much better than trying to build a 3D model. Because next we would be discussing about how big it needs to be, what scope we want to include, and what features. And there's a whole scope, you know, we could spend months talking about what kind of 3D model we want. I will, you know, I looked at those pictures that were submitted of the South San Francisco dock this weekend. I would say if Golden Gate Bridge District was just going to plop down some design without much thought about Sausalito, that's probably what they would have done. That's pretty much the same ferry landing that's being put in every other community in the bay. The fact that we don't have awnings, that we now have a gangplank that is pretty much, looks like the one we have now in cross-section, you know, speaks to the lengths that the bridge district has tried to meet Sausalito's demands. As our own expert said, there are constraints to that. And I would also note, I was looking at that old document, the bridge district and Sausalito got sued when Ren White wanted to move into the city, and I would remind people that, PUC basically says if we have unmet demand, if we have people standing on the shore and our ferries are not picking those people up, someone else can come and start a new ferry landing. And the PUC will allow them to do that. So for us to limit capacity on Golden Gate Bridge District will only give the opportunity for other ferries to come in and have even more ferry boats there. So that's something to think about. Thank you. |
| 00:55:41.53 | Unknown | Thank you. Cass Green, Willie McDevitt, and Sam Penrose. |
| 00:55:53.65 | Cass Green | Thank you. Thank you. Okay, thanks. Hello again. This will be pretty short I think. So the construction of the district's very proposed plan, it's going to damage the city's tax revenues. It's going to damage the revenues of the Sausenil Yacht Club and of the In Above Tide. And so the Tasasliya Yacht Club and the Inn of Tide, we got together, we met, we came up with a list of conditions that we submitted to the city last week and that we actually discussed with the district also last week. And we urge the council to include these conditions in any approval of the ferry landing project. The conditions that we, I think there are probably about 10 or 12 conditions that we sent in. The ones that are most important to the Inn above Tide are the following, which is minimize the use of the temporary pier and restricts its use to off-season months. And my brother Willie McDevitt will be speaking to that, to the schedule and to a proposed schedule following what I'm saying now. To indemnify the Inn above Tide, Sauskalya Yacht Club and the city for damages which may result from pier construction and operation of the temporary pier. to keep the gate in its current position. And my understanding is this is one of the Sausalito Yacht Club's highest priority items and conditions. And then to provide the Inn and Sausalito Yacht Club with a minimum of 60 day notice. I know that the district has agreed to a 30 day notice We really need 60 days. The hotel is a refuge for people. People book it way into in advance. If we have to walk, if we could even find capacity at Castle Madrone or somewhere else, if we have to walk people down because of the pile driving, the impact is gonna be really horrendous. So we need a 60 day notice. So back to the schedule, which Willie's going to continue on. Why is the schedule so important? Here's a graph of our projected TOT, the In Above Tides projected TOT, the transient occupancy tax over the year of 2017. It's actual through September and then projected. And you can see that in the middle of the year is in the high season, Sausalito's high season, when there are lots of tourists here, that's when we have the highest gross revenue and therefore you get the highest TOT. So if the schedule is changed and adjusted so that the temporary peer is not being used during the summer, spring months, It'll be much better in terms of TOT. It'll be much better for our revenues, be much better for the Yacht Club, and it'll be much, much better for the city because it'll be chaos otherwise. So with that, thank you very much. |
| 00:58:35.28 | Unknown | Sorry, thank you. Willie McDevitt, then Sam Penrose, then John McCorkandell. |
| 00:58:48.27 | Willie McDevitt | Good evening, everybody. I sit in the back because it's more comfortable, not because I don't get along with my sister. Thank you. We've spent a lot of time, as all of you have heard, there have been multiple meetings with a lot of individuals, with the Bridge District team, with the Yacht Club, and we've listened carefully to the requirements that are needed for the Bridge District. And, you know, we did a schedule we presented to you in 2015. We presented one a couple weeks ago, and this is a further revised one, which takes into consideration what we've heard from the Bridge District, and still allows for no construction during the peak summer months. It also provides for the pile driving to occur outside of the Fish and Wildlife Department's window. We've extended some of the duration of pile driving as requested by the bridge district at our meeting. And not to say these dates are perfect by any means, but what we're asking for is a little more than just saying the city should see the schedule. the city should make the condition, which we appreciate that they've got one in there, the condition should say specifically that the bridge district shall incorporate a schedule guideline substantially similar to the one we're presenting here tonight as a requirement of their bidding documents so that every contractor knows it's, you know, it will be very easy for the contractor to come back and say, well, we want to do it differently, or if they're forced to do it in a certain way to charge change orders to the bridge district. So it's really a protection for the city, a protection for the Inn and the Yacht Club, and a protection for the bridge district. So we don't think any of this exists in a bubble, but it's critical to really have a comprehensive condition so that All the stakeholders aren't damaged, including the bridge district. I think that I've covered everything. The other thing is regarding the 60 day notice, as a contractor, the bridge district can give us a 60 day notice. They haven't said they can, and we know that 60 day notice doesn't mean it's not gonna happen on the 59th day or the 61st day. But a lot of these conditions, some of the times these conditions are, the pile driving is at the very beginning of a phase. You can make a condition that says we're not going to drive piles until this date done It's not that hard. So It's going to be better for the city. It's surely going to be better for us I think that the 60 didn't notice really impacts the end above tide above anybody else But we really think that the condition needs to be tightened up for the benefit of the city. Thank you very much |
| 01:01:39.67 | Unknown | Thank you. So Sam Penrose, John McCorkindale, and Dorothy McCorkindale. |
| 01:01:49.95 | Sam Penrose | Thank you. A couple of points about context. One is we've spent a tremendous amount of time focused on the costs of change, and it's been up to a few people to bring out the benefits of change. And I would like to see us weighing costs and benefits together. It feels like we frame the problem sometimes. Speaking of framing, many of the people in this room got an email saying that the proposal was, quote, massive, unquote. I would ask us to say massive relative to what? Relative to the other structures on the waterfront? Relative to the Yacht Club, the Spinnaker, the Inn Above the Tides, Gomas? I think the proposed structure is much smaller than all of those, which makes it hard to know why we would call it massive. The structure also serves a fundamental purpose, the purpose of transportation. Sausalito is Sausalito and not Bodega Bay, basically because of the Golden Gate Bridge and because of Highway 101. And these are new things. My own dear father was born only three years after the Golden Gate Bridge was born. There are probably a few people in this room who are contemporaries to the Golden Gate Bridge. And history is not nostalgia. The history of Sausalito from the 30s, through the 40s, through the 50s, was a history of tremendous change. Change that would never in a million years have survived a process like this, right? Can you imagine trying to build the Golden Gate Bridge in this room with this audience? Forget it, no way. But around the 80s it seems, looking back, I wasn't here, we became very focused on freezing everything and making sure that no one who's currently here suffered because of change and because of the attempt to bring benefits to thousands and thousands of people. There are thousands of people who use the ferry every day, and I would like to see the costs weighed in that context. And if the costs are high, then that's fine. We move on. But if we only look at the costs without looking at the benefits, and if we assume that the right thing to do is to never change anything unless there are problems, I just feel that that's the wrong way to frame the problem. Thank you. |
| 01:03:56.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. John McCorkendale, Dorothy McCorkendale, Stephen Woodside. |
| 01:04:08.05 | John McCorkandell | Thank you. THE FAMILY IS I'm John McCorkandell, a Sausalito resident for 20 years, and I can maybe answer one of his questions. Is this thing ugly? And I think if you have any visitor, and you have him look at Belvedere or San Francisco, look at the magnificent view, and he looks at this big steel gray block out in the middle of the water. And he says, what are you going to get rid of that thing? And you say, no, we're going to make it bigger. I think I think that's sort of wacky. Anyway. Do we need it? How does it help Sausalito? How does it benefit the people who live in Sausalito? Basically, a bunch of people come over on bikes, thousands in the weekends, and What do they buy here? Probably an ice cream cone, maybe a soda. Maybe a t-shirt, a souvenir t-shirt. They're not going to bring home a work of art on their bicycle. They're not going to bring anything big back. Basically, I don't think they benefit the average Sausalito resident or the shop owner. Can we trust the people who want to build this gigantic thing? Well, let's look at the background. First thing they did was they made these scale drawings, which weren't really to scale. They've admitted that they made the thing look smaller than it actually was when they first presented it. We know that. Then they called it a replacement not a new thing. And the float, the main float went from 110 feet to 150 feet. Oh, I'm sorry, they brought that down to 145 feet. Well, they call that a replacement. Now, if you build a house in Sausalito that's 110 feet, and you replace it with a 145 foot long one, Is the planning department going to object to that? Can you call it a replacement? I think that's a bit shifty. They tried to avoid having the city council approve it because of that. Then the ADA, well, they're telling us it's necessary because of the ADA. I believe July 26, 1990 was when ADA was passed. And the float was built, the pre-existing float was built in 1996. And we have two choices. Either of these folks built it. incorrectly, not according to the ADA back then, or Let me see. They're fibbing now and saying that the old one doesn't meet the ADA, but the new one will. Or, |
| 01:07:00.57 | John McCorkandell | Well... I think we have to look at that with a song like John Dostai and ask questions. then you look at the existing flows. If you have a tenant, it's up to the tenant to take care of the It's up to the tenant to take care of the thing that he's renting. |
| 01:07:24.53 | Unknown | Thank you, sir. Could you just finish your sentence and then... |
| 01:07:27.57 | John McCorkandell | It's rusty, it hasn't been painted, and I wonder if they're going to take care of the new one as well. |
| 01:07:33.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:40.21 | Unknown | Dorothy McCorkendale, Steven Woodside, Bill Versace. Mom. |
| 01:07:49.67 | Dorothy McCorkandell | My concern was brought up the last time we had a public hearing and it was that why didn't we follow the direction of the existing pier rather than put it out more away from the land and make it longer. Well, longer, I guess we have to for the ADA. I don't know. But I'm concerned that it's been moved out more away from the land than it was before. Why not just follow the same path and go out straight was my only comment. |
| 01:08:22.90 | Unknown | Thank you. Steven Woodside, then Bill Versace and Tom Aden. Hi. |
| 01:08:30.36 | Steven Woodside | Hi, Mayor Withey and may it please the council. My name is Steven Woodside. I've lived here for five years, for a while on a boat, and I now live in the very southernmost part of town where I can see The North Tower of the bridge, barely. believe it or not, and the ferry terminus. I take the ferry regularly, as did my, particularly my grandparents and great-grandparents. I'm a ferry fan, and I think it's important for the city that you have an up-to-date ferry eventually. The reason I'm here, though, is given my background as a lawyer and working on behalf of public entities for 40 something years. I've sat at the table across from Dennis in some difficult but ultimately successful negotiations and his predecessor, Cecilia, on the smart train. And I can tell you this, These are honorable people. They're doing the best they can to get the product that they need. Their interests, however, are slightly different from the city, and we should just recognize that. Don't disparage them, please. And I think you're in a pickle because there are only four of you right now. And I think there are a lot of people here who feel that either you should by approaching the district and seeking a short extension of time to make your final decision. I've never advised clients to agree to something where a 2-2 vote is deemed approval. It's just bad public policy from my perspective. So I would encourage all of you, to together, whether you like this plan today as it now stands or you would like to see it improved or you would like to reject it, it doesn't matter. Try to get a little bit more time, not six months, because you'd like to get it done. I think most people would like to see whatever's going to happen happen. on a reasonable timeline with the conditions that you've imposed so far, which I think are really helpful. So my suggestion is to, Do your best to get a little bit more time post-election when you have a full council and you can make an affirmative vote one way or the other on the current plan or some, perhaps, modification. If you can listen carefully to a lot of the comments, there may be some avenues for improvement, shortening this, changing the angle here, things like that that might make it somewhat better. It's not gonna please everybody, I recognize that. Anyway, good luck. I appreciate what you're doing, thank you. |
| 01:10:56.80 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:11:01.36 | Unknown | Bill Versace, Tom Aden, Grover Dare. |
| 01:11:06.59 | John McCorkandell | I'm not sure. |
| 01:11:07.80 | Bill Versace | maybe. |
| 01:11:07.97 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:11:08.04 | Bill Versace | I'm Bill Versace. I was a Sausalito resident and I moved back two years later. And I haven't seen a lot of progress on this project, but I am not going to discuss the pier because there's been plenty of other discussion about it. My primary concern is that the land side of the ferry landing is a disgrace to our community, to the Gold Gate Bridge District, and an embarrassment to all the visitors who come see us for whom it's the last impression. The district has consistently refused to take responsibility for the backup impacts of queuing on the downtown. It falsified its CEQA report to declare that there were no impacts because they were off site from the facility. Obviously, I don't understand where off site impacts are, environmental impacts are unless they're off site. The strategy has been for the district to burden the city with a responsibility for a landslide plan, for taking care of its passengers, its bicycles, et cetera, that back up into the city's open space and streets and parking lots, and to pass through a part of a grant to the city to do that. Landside operations are an integral part of this facility. They are not something that the city has control over. They are not something that should be the concern of the city. They are an integral part of the operations, not an afterthought that is the city's responsibility. My background is as the principal architect and a senior project manager for the largest city in the Bay Area. And I think it is ill-advised for the city to take on this project. The city does not have the staff to organize it. It doesn't have the knowledge to analyze the issues. It doesn't have the technical expertise to plan the project. It does not have the management ability to administer the project, and does not have the capability to fund it. And it clearly doesn't have the clout to bring stakeholders to the table and guarantee their performance including the district Before this proposal can be approved, I think the district must present a landside plan that spells out how they propose to relieve the crowding they cause, both physically and operationally. They were there before. There's no reason why that can't, that nothing's going, there's been no progress made on that in the two years that I haven't been here. These are not external impacts. The land side, the land side operations are the primary function of the ferry landing. The peer design is only half a proposal that cannot be approved without knowing what the other half is. Thank you for your consideration. |
| 01:14:10.64 | SPEAKER_15 | Thank you. |
| 01:14:16.40 | SPEAKER_15 | Tullamayden, Grover Deer, Vince Majora. |
| 01:14:21.95 | Tom Aden | Hi, I'm Tom Aiden, Chair of the Executive Board of Saso Yacht Club. We've enjoyed working with In Above the Tide to come up with our joint list of priorities and projects. I'd like to emphasize that those are the most important things. |
| 01:14:38.22 | Tom Aden | I'd like to emphasize, is this better? I'd like to emphasize that we have those conditions responded to, hopefully, and so we can get them included to the extent possible. We also have some operating conditions that we've asked |
| 01:14:51.11 | Unknown | Radio. |
| 01:14:53.76 | Tom Aden | and are expecting to hear from the district on. So hopefully we hear from that soon too. I'd like to talk about a couple of the items in particular. One is the lighting. We wanted the lighting to go off when there are no boats there. In the previous week's discussion or two weeks ago, it was mentioned that when the last boat goes, the lights will go off. But then we've noticed this week a number of boats come in quite late. And so there's no reason with existing technology, and I think the district probably agrees with us, but we haven't seen any response to it yet formally, that the lights should go off when there's no ferry there at night. So that if they can turn on when the ferry's there, it'll go off when it's not. It'll be easy to activate it with radio control. We do that all the time with airplanes. The other item I'd like to mention, which is probably a little more of an issue, is our number one priority now is that we have a problem with that new pier, which is a lot closer to the Saucy Yacht Club than the previous one, which was an elbow. And on the new pier, the gate, goes well beyond where the gate is today so that the people with the bicycles standing there will be closer to the yacht club and gawking at a good portion of the people in the yacht club who'd be sitting on the balcony or even in our bar area. So we would like to see the gate stay where it can. Not sure. You've heard different versions of who cares, and we'd love to get a dialogue going on that or who would make a decision on it. We'd like to see the gate stay where it is. If it can't stay where it is, then at least bring the gate back a little bit. Maybe we can make a compromise, but every bit that the gate comes back would be that much better for us in the yacht club, so we would really appreciate a consideration on that. So with that, thank you. |
| 01:16:39.48 | Unknown | Thank you. Grover Deer, Vince Majora, Robin Parvin. |
| 01:16:51.16 | Grover Deer | There are two slides that I'd like to refer to, if we're able to get those up. There are the slides showing the plan of the existing. Go, go, go, slow, slow, that one. And then there is another one about five slides later. I appreciate the chance to address the issues. I'm an architect for 45 years and licensed in California as well as London and several other parts of the world. I appreciate that the district did answer my question that I raised last time. It does stick out 62 feet approximately further than the existing pier. The new proposal does. I was one of the group that went to the WETA, the South Ferry Terminal this week to review the issues that were the issue of sound that came up. I'm pleased to say the sound is not a problem. What they've proposed is completely acceptable in terms of noise and noise level. And that was a consensus of the four of us that went. I would like to respectfully request that the four counselors do go to the site again. If you haven't been, I know I've heard that one has been. I would be happy to volunteer and I know several of us would be happy to join with you to see it. Because what did come out of the view is the scale and the magnitude of what's there. That float, ignoring the fact that there will not be any covering, no weather protection for Sausalito, that float is four feet larger than the existing float we have here in Sausalito now. We saw the dual-hulled Gemini class pull up and unload, smaller capacity, 250 people. However, my question is, can we at all consider the smaller size that we saw, that we went to see, and have it work. The views of this slide show why the new proposed 144-foot float proposed by the Golden Gate District, why it extends partially further out. It's because the first gangway, the rigid gangway, is constructed at a 45-degree angle from the existing, from the gangway that will be retained. The next slide, if you can go to the existing conditions. shows it will keep going, keep going. It will show the existing gangway, keep going, keep going. |
| 01:19:44.55 | Grover Deer | Okay. It's there. It's in the proposal that Lilly made. And it's got a red star on it. It is the existing gangway that I believe is referred to as the North level gangway. If that could be followed the same alignment there, if it could follow the similar or same alignment with the wider gangways, that solves many issues. It keeps the larger gangways, float back from extending into the harbor, and that is a key consideration. I'd like us to work with that as an option. Do not approve this plan as existing, and please delay the vote. Thank you. |
| 01:20:29.81 | Unknown | Vince Majora, Robin Parvin, Tammy Blanchard. And... |
| 01:20:35.85 | Vince Majora | Many years ago, Can you hear me? Many years ago, the bridge district came to the city council, submitted a plan that the city council didn't understand, the residents didn't understand the massive size of the float. Since then, they've had workshops, the British District listened, made small adjustments, and basically didn't do much. Then the British District at the end was forced into reducing the gangway and a few other things. The dock could be moved in closer to shore with like you just saw on the last slide, and you could extend the peer down longer, which make it 88, I would request that you both of them. your opinion on this until we get more information. Thank you. |
| 01:21:31.54 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:21:35.44 | Unknown | Robin Parvin, Tammy Blanchard, Alice Merrill. |
| 01:21:46.20 | Robin Parvin | Hello, I'm a commissioner with the Sausalito Sustainability Commission, and our commission encourages approval of the existing plan. And also, I am a regular ferry rider. I commute to San Francisco and take BART to Oakland. Greenhouse gas emission reduction is very important to me personally and to our commission. The city has a climate action plan that calls for 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. We believe that the more efficient use of the ferry system will help that. In addition, as a regular ferry rider, I sometimes take my bike to work. And when I do that, on the San Francisco side, it's very, very difficult to take the bike up and down the stairs, and I watch many people struggle with that. I'm over 50 now. Twenty years ago it was a little easier, and so anything that would help people more efficiently and quickly move their bikes on and off the ferry is going to help all of us doing that. And in addition, anybody that is struggling, help them save their body so they're not in pain or in danger of falling. Thank you. |
| 01:23:07.40 | Unknown | Thank you. Before we move on, could I remind you if I've got One, two, three, four, five cards left. So if anybody else does want to speak who hasn't filled in a card, please do so and hand it over to the staff. Uh-huh. OK. two more. So Tammy Blanchard, then Alice Merrill, then Wren Harrington. |
| 01:23:35.55 | Tammy Blanchard | Good evening, Mayor, City Council. I'm Tammy Blanchard, resident of Sausalito. Um... Sausalito is a historic town that is beloved by tourists and residents alike. This community feels strongly responsible to preserve this town. And it's challenging to balance between progress and growth. while trying to maintain the charm of a small town. I and many residents feel that the ferry service to Sausalito is very important, and we also believe that the ferry landing does need an upgrade and some expansion. But I'm hoping that we can, and I think we're close. I really do. I think it's so much better than it was, and I'm very happy that we've come this far, but I'd still like to see it fit the city a little better. It just seems so industrial, especially when you go out to South San Francisco and you see the ferry landing and how it fits in that environment. There's no one that lives there. There's one restaurant and a few boats. There's nothing there. a few dilapidated old buildings. But this is a town and a city that we live in. And so we want something that looks a little nicer and maybe is a little bit smaller and that, |
| 01:24:48.62 | Unknown | Yes, sir. |
| 01:24:51.91 | Tammy Blanchard | really serves our city well for a long, long time. Because once it's there, there's no do-overs. You know, we're not gonna spend millions of dollars and then go, oh, we don't like it, let's float it away. I don't think that's possible. So I agree with Steven Woodside. I think that a postponing, if the district is willing to let us have a full council, that would be wonderful. And I would recommend, I know Steven well, and would recommend that you might enlist him to help in your negotiations. He's got a lot of experience in this area. And he's a level-headed guy, and I think we're close. I don't know. Would you do that, Stephen? I just volunteered him. I just hope that we can all, I think we're getting near, and I hope that we can come together and just do that last little bit to make this something that we can all be proud of, all of you and all of the |
| 01:25:45.74 | Tammy Blanchard | Thank you. |
| 01:25:47.85 | Unknown | Thank you. Alice Merrill. |
| 01:25:53.91 | Unknown | I don't see Alice, but she was here. Okay, so, Ren Herring, Susan Shea, Castor. |
| 01:26:08.62 | Wren Harrington | Hi, my name is Ren Herring. I've been a resident of Sausalito about 20 years and had a boat here for 30. And I want to thank everybody for continuing to work on this and make it. |
| 01:26:13.18 | Unknown | 20 years and how to do it. |
| 01:26:20.10 | Wren Harrington | struggled to make it right for Sausalito. Historically, this is a charming historic town and I just will bring up, as I frequently do, about the attempts to run 101 through downtown Sausalito in the 60s because it moved the traffic, moved the people. And also about the attempts to build an entire community called Maroncello up in the Marin Headlands. So it's communities like this that have to put the brakes on something that is wrong for this very precious place. Also I agree that we should postpone this until you can get five people on the city council. And as Tammy said, I think a lot of progress has been made on the walkway and trying to scale that part down, but the float itself is still 50% bigger than the one that's currently there. It's still massive. As leaseholders, I don't know why you would vote for a project. whose purpose is to bring boats large enough to unload 700 people at a time back to back. So I say vote no on the float as it stands now. And also, as she said, for South San Francisco, they're going to be redoing Larkspur. They're going to be redoing the floats in San Francisco. Those are transit areas. Those are industrial areas. This is not a transit center, and this is the wrong float. So I would hope that we could keep working on scaling that down. It seems like we're making some forward progress, but I would encourage you not to accept this float as it stands. And I like the idea of having five people vote for it because this is, you know, forever. You know, like Marinchello. Thank you. |
| 01:28:15.62 | Unknown | Thank you. Mm-hmm. Susan... Kestor Jock-Roystrom Susan. |
| 01:28:28.21 | Susan Shea | Susan Shea 522 Spring Street. I think we all can agree that the current ferry landing is inadequate if not dangerous. And to enter into the Olympics of ferry riding, I rode the ferry with my bike for 20 years, so I love the ferry. However, instead of going through this list of how big it is and how small it is, I'd like to kind of talk more about the process of how this has all come about. I believe that you've all... read my email about the history of how this process has been so undemocratic, that there was collusion, there was I mean, we had to have a foyer. We had to have a lawyer to get anything done. that came close to what we would regard as appropriate for a small town. And I'd love to say thank you to the Golden Gate Bridge District, because you've given me transportation for most of my career. But this has been a very sleazy, very inappropriate process of we start here, just like lawyers do. And then we and here, and then we all have to negotiate into the middle. Well, I just have to say, I think you do us a disservice to allow a two to two vote to mean that the Golden Gate Bridge District gets their way when we are not even close to where we should be on this float. Thank you. |
| 01:30:15.29 | Unknown | Thank you. Castor, Jock Rostrom, and Alice Merrill. I've got your card, I saved it, so you don't need to submit another one. So, Castor. OK. Chuck Roystrom. |
| 01:30:38.69 | Unknown | then Alice Merrill, and then Sam Chase. there. |
| 01:30:46.49 | Castor | When I first came to Sausalito, it was in 1974. I was out of school and wound up getting a job in a gas station right across from Sally Stanford's Valhalla. In working in that gas station, I noticed on the weekends, traffic would back up all the way to the Golden Gate Bridge because all the people are coming into Sausalito. And after a few years, someone got the bright idea of changing the name from Sausalito at that first essay to Alexander. And all of a sudden, the traffic didn't back up that much. What I'm wondering is why are we trying to build a bigger ferry landing. to handle traffic. when back in 74 they redirected it to the north end of town. Why aren't we redirecting traffic out of downtown Sausalito north to where we could build a bigger ferry landing, get the congestion out of the city, And people can sit there and have a good time and then leave, and it'll be more enjoyable. I just wonder why we aren't looking at other locations instead of putting a big box and a small one. Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:31:56.01 | Unknown | Thank you. Mm. |
| 01:31:58.24 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 01:32:01.21 | Unknown | Alice Merrill, then Sam Chase, then Chuck Schiak. That's pronounced incorrectly, I realize. Alice. |
| 01:32:11.93 | Alice Merrill | Hi. Well, I think we need to get moving on this. I think we need to build it. I think they've done a lot of work. They've put in their time. They have made their mistakes. We've called them up short. We need to get this built. We need to remember that we're moving into this next century. We can't pretend that we aren't. This town has been a hub, and it will be a hub. We need to remember that this is an emergency landing spot, that it is something that we need to have. When we get emails that are misleading, it's no different than the bridge making misleading things. So, I think that's a good question. If we're going to be misleading, let's everybody, either or let's nobody. So, um... And I just, my thing is that I just think we need to get it built. I think we need to be sensible and be forward thinking and And then my one other thing is, If we're gonna... If we're going to clap, we should have that be a plan. But when people spoke for it, My sensibility is that we don't clap. So I didn't. But boy, I'm going to now because everybody else does when there's an against person. And I think we need to, I would prefer that we just didn't clap and that we be respectful and leave it at that. And then one other little thing, I have some time. How many of us here have been tourists in other towns, in small little villages, in places where we make an impact on their lives. How many of us have been there and kind of wandered across the street because we were on vacation We weren't paying attention to the fact that we had to get down the street to work. We've all done it, so why are we so disliking. People who are doing it here. It's a place for people who have been coming. Pretty much. I know for 70 years as a fact, And it's going to happen. And probably a lot of the people who came here, found they loved it, moved here. They were tourists once. I just need, we just need to be more sensible. That's all, thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:34:50.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:34:56.32 | Unknown | Alice, I tried. Maybe they'll listen to you. They don't listen to me. That's for sure. OK. Sam. |
| 01:35:00.15 | SPEAKER_15 | Okay. |
| 01:35:03.14 | Sam Chase | I'm Chase, Sausalito resident. Thank you for your time and effort you put into this thing. As you know, this is our waterfront property. This is the entrance and the gateway to many people who come into this town. It's extremely important that we get this decision right. I'm going to urge you tonight to not vote on this thing. It is, I think it's absolutely, for three reasons. It's absolutely mandatory, I think, that you need to visit the South San Francisco terminal and I'm hoping that there will be an opportunity for you to do that. You need to witness the size and the scale of it. It's smaller than Sausalito from a float size standpoint, but the pile diameters are smaller, significantly smaller, 3 1⁄2 feet versus 5 feet diameter. The mass that's created by this double-hauled vessel with all the boarding platforms and the hydraulics is very significant, has a significant impact on the presence. And I just think that the other thing is the gangway widths. We have two eight-foot wide gangway widths versus being proposed versus what we currently have. And out there at South San Francisco, there's one three-foot wide gangway. There are still obviously a number of unanswered questions and concerns. That's the second reason not to vote for this. There are just way too many issues that are festering out there. The biggest one in my mind is this so-called need for a double-hauled vessel to come into the facility. Granted, there's been some very good reasons put forth, but because it adds so much complexity in mass to this facility, I really urge you to explore every alternative to getting that double-hulled vessel out of the design premise of this facility. It's having a significant impact. Lastly, on reason not to vote, is a 2-2 vote is unacceptable. That just would be a disaster to move forward with a 2-2, a 2-2 vote is unacceptable. That just would be a disaster to move forward with a 2-2 vote, and if that happens, I would encourage you to have some sort of a procedural uh, resolution that would at least incorporate moving forward with all the concessions and considerations that have been made on this landing thus far. The vessel maintenance issue, I have a hard time believing that with 200% backup vessels, with the Spalding Class being first priority for the city of Sausalito. I can't believe the maintenance department couldn't keep one vessel here ready all the time. Lastly, don't believe the business about getting rid of bicycle congestion. These bikes, 142 bikes can go to San Francisco on the boat. Any further, can't go. San Francisco's a bottleneck on bikes. |
| 01:38:12.38 | Unknown | Thank you, Simon. |
| 01:38:12.66 | Sam Chase | Thank you very much. |
| 01:38:13.46 | Unknown | Thank you, sir. |
| 01:38:19.70 | Unknown | Chuck Chuck |
| 01:38:24.98 | Unknown | Sorry, I got your name wrong, sir. |
| 01:38:25.98 | Chuck Schiak | No, no, perfectly done. Thank you very much for hearing me out. I've been a tourist here in Sausalito since 58, and I've been a slip owner for 40 years, and I'm currently rear commodore at the Sausalito Yacht Club, which means in two years I'm going to be the flack catcher for all this fun and games that's going to go on our waterfront. One of the issues that is not really addressed, so we have this landing platform for these behemoths that are going to be coming to the city. And it's commendable that they're trying to get two doors working on these vessels, one off, one on. But we consistently see double vessels parked there with other blue and gold vessels and whatnot lined up one after the other. And so the impact during the day, view-wise, surge-wise to the buildings and our youth sailing program, other boats that use our docks, is significant. So I do believe that the 2-2 vote is circumventing the democratic process, and I would urge a full council to have a clear majority of whether to approve this, to move this, or mitigate other issues. But that is my concern, and I'd like to have you consider that. Thank you very much. |
| 01:39:57.79 | Unknown | Thank you. Is there any more green slits in your area, Lily? No. OK, I had two here that I've previously called, Kastor and Alex Kashif. I don't think either are here. No. Okay. So if there's no other green slips, nobody else wants to say anything, I'm going to close public comment and bring it back up here. So we have a number of things to do and the So to the extent staff has assembled, there were some more questions, right? And I think we've got to ask is the, either staff or the district prepared to make any comments on any of the issues that were raised in public comment. Secondly, I think we should come back and ourselves ask, is there any questions we need to ask staff or the district in light of the public comment. The question I have for my colleagues up here is, when would you like to take a break? Okay? Okay. And it looks like I'm getting signals that the time to take a break is now. So that's what we're going to do. So we're going to adjourn briefly and then come back and ask our questions. Thank you. |
| 01:41:43.85 | Unknown | OK, thank you very much. We're going to resume. Before we resume, I'd like to make one announcement, and I'll make it at the end again. As you're leaving, and when we're winding up tonight, it will probably be later than it is now, we would ask that you try and keep the noise down when you leave in the building because the neighborhood, there's, you know, this is a residential neighborhood, and so we'd like to be respectful of the neighborhood. So... Okay, so our next, the next thing we're gonna do is the staff have worked during the break to sort of come up with five areas of questioning, five questions really, that we're gonna kick off by posing the district, and these are, posing to the district, and these are questions that have arisen from the discussion. There's also I know questions that I have and maybe other council members have in addition to these that we've written down that we're also going to ask and then when we've done that and we've completely got the information that we have we're going to then discuss among ourselves What are the next steps and what is the direction we need to give to staff. And so that's what we're going to move on to now. Now, I've got six questions here, and I want to preface the first question I'm going to ask with some understanding I have that hasn't been brought up, but I know some of you or were asking it among yourselves during the break. The first is there's been a lot of discussion tonight about the consequences of a 2-2 vote. and a deadlock. And at the same time, there's also been a question, and this is the thing that hasn't been even asked tonight, was if the council were to actually deny this project, either tonight or on the 10th of October, or the next meeting, if that was our direction to move the decision to that meeting, what would be the next steps? And it's not been discussed. So I'm going to say what I think the next steps could be, likely. And not knowing what the future is, you can't say with certainty and ask the city attorney to make sure that I'm correct here. So if we deny this project, what are the next steps the next steps it are for the balls in the lease in the bridge districts court so to speak the district will decide whether we have unreasonably denied the project and that's their determination once Once they've decided, if they decided that, hey, we agree, you denied it correctly, then they're not going to do anything. If, however, they decided that we had unreasonably denied the project, then basically the bridge district would, course of action under the lease would be to basically seek first mediation and then arbitration and basically this City Council would then lose subsequent control of these proceedings. So, if we deny the project and the British District thinks we've unreasonably denied it, basically the decision will be made by an arbitrator. Okay, so city attorney, is that roughly correct? And what's inaccurate about that? Obviously we don't know whether the British District would think it reasonable or unreasonable. That's nothing we can opine on. But if they did think it an unreasonable denial, what would be the next step under the lease? |
| 01:46:25.63 | Mary Wagner | Yeah, I mean, I think you've articulated the dispute. |
| 01:46:30.95 | Unknown | These, for some reason, you've got to get really close to the microphones tonight. |
| 01:46:32.97 | Mary Wagner | I think, Mr. Mayor, thank you. I think you've articulated generally the dispute mechanism that's set forth in the lease, which would be one option that the district may consider pursuing if they felt that the city had unreasonably denied their project. |
| 01:46:52.07 | Unknown | Okay, so the other question then I'm going to put directly to the Bridge District is there has been a significant public comment tonight requesting that we seek to extend the 45-day decision period from the, October 15th to some date when we have a five-member council. If we came to you with that request, what is the Bridge |
| 01:47:36.03 | Dennis Mulligan | likely response we would respectfully decline the request this project was environmentally cleared in 2012 we were working with the City Council in the community long before then so we are interested in complying with the agreement we have in place which is for a 45-day period |
| 01:47:53.03 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:47:53.15 | Dennis Mulligan | So, |
| 01:47:53.64 | Unknown | Okay, thank you. So that was one of the six questions that staff identified. The others relate to first the design. There are three questions that relates to the design. And then, so let's do those three first, which is why does the peer float need to extend further out from the existing so I think why does it extend out can the be here be parallel to the short line to address a DA issues and related to that is the change of angle sort of launching down the gangway and this is sort of a little bit of a paraphrase of what the question from the audience was. And the other one, which it seems to be of concern, in particular of the Yacht Club, is the gate location and why the gate location move, and can that gate stay in the same place. So could we have some, see what your response is to those, and then I've got a couple of other questions after. |
| 01:49:03.60 | Dennis Mulligan | Certainly, I'll attempt to walk through those and we can provide additional written responses to city staff in the next couple of days. With respect to why does the float extend further out, there's a variety of contributing elements to that and I'll walk through several of the major ones. One is the existing gangway is 70 feet long and the new proposed gangway is 90 feet long. So the new gangway is 20 feet longer. The reason it's 20 feet longer is we need to maintain a 1 in 12 slope regardless of the tidal fluctuations that occur. So 20 feet of the extension is tied directly to ADA. Another component of it is the float is longer because we are going to have two-door boarding. The vessel that the citizens saw in south San Francisco has a maximum capacity of 250 people, and on a good trip, which is one trip a day, it will carry half that number. So we designed our facility to have two-door boarding, which makes the float longer. Another thing is that, and it's tied to changing the angle, is we didn't want to get closer to the yacht club or closer to the end above tide for the permanent facility. But there's other contributing factors also. Another contributing factor is that the float will be a concrete float, which is deeper than a, a deeper draft than a steel float. and the environmental clearance contemplated that there would be no dredging on this project. Dredging is not just covered under California Environmental Quality Act, California Environmental Law, and not just under federal environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA, but it's also subject to a separate federal law called the Clean Water Act or 404 process. The 404 process is different than CEQA or NEPA. Under CEQA or NEPA, you look at a variety of options that solve your proposed problem. You look at the things society values. You kind of create a matrix and you strike a balance between all of those. The 404 process says that if there is an avoidance alternative, you shall choose it. So in this case, there is an avoidance alternative to avoid dredging, and that is you locate the float such that it's not in an area that would require dredging. We went through an environmental process pursuant to CEQA, NEPA, and the Corps of Engineers 404 process, and so we selected an alternative that does not involve dredging. To move the concrete float in closer would require dredging. Also if the float gets too close to shore, it makes it more difficult for the captains. They can lose steerage and there's not a lot of room, if you wish, to address that. So another ancillary benefit to moving it a little further out is that it does provide for better steerage for the captains. So those are the contributing factors as to why is the float further out. But 20 feet of it is the longer gangway. The float is longer because of the operational concerns. And then like I said I addressed a couple of the other things. I'll come back to that if necessary. With respect to why don't we make it parallel to shore, I guess the question is whose ox do you want to gorge, the Yacht Club or Inn above Tide? Because if you made it parallel to shore, you would put it closer to one of those two. By extending it further out into the water, you're taking the permanent facility further away from the Yacht Club and further away from Inn above Tide. To rotate it so it's parallel to shore would move it closer to one of those two facilities if you wish to maintain those ADA ramps and other operational concerns. Also, if you make it parallel to shore, if you get too close to shore, you have the issue once again of steerage on the vessels on a day with big tides and big winds. In terms of the change of the angle, there's a couple of components that come into that. One is our desire to operate ferry service during construction. So we want to build a temporary trestle and use the existing float and existing gangway and rotate those while we can build the new facility in about the same location but extending further out. So that necessitates that we have the angle that we do. That's one of the contributing factors on the angle. If we said we're going to shut down ferry service for six months to a year, we would have more flexibility with respect to that. But that is not something we're advocating. We are in the transportation business. So that's really the principal issue for that is that dogleg. Also, it's tied to wanting to move the float out deeper. And so in terms of changing the angle, part of the change in angle is driven by a desire to operate service during construction, and part of it is a desire to move the float a little bit further out so we avoid dredging. Also, that angle coincidentally does allow the float to stay within the existing leasehold, which we thought there was some value to staying within the existing leasehold. |
| 01:53:07.54 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:53:43.27 | Dennis Mulligan | The gate location is something that's been contemplated going back to 2010. So the gate location is something that we haven't changed. It's something we've talked about countless times. And at this juncture, the gate location is the gate location that's before you for a decision. It's very important to the BCDC that there be public access out on the water. The fact that you can walk along the waterfront and enjoy the waterfront is a fine thing, but they also want people to get out on piers. There's been several big projects in San Francisco that necessitate that. There's a secondary benefit, though, to the community, and that is by moving the gate further out, which is something BCDC is adamant about. It moves the queue further out and clears up the sidewalk, and it is in keeping with the public trust to have a ferry landing on the water into ferry passengers stage at that location and it gives folks access out over the water. So I believe those were your four questions and that's a very quick, high level answer, but we can provide more detailed written answers to your staff in the next couple of days. |
| 01:54:49.27 | Unknown | Thank you. The other two issues that our staff noted were why can't the landing be moved to the north end of town? I don't remember that one. particularly as I remembered some comment about that. And then, can the lights go off at night when boats are not there? I think that was an interesting question that was posed by the Yacht Club. |
| 01:55:20.00 | Dennis Mulligan | Certainly, if you could pop up my slideshow and go to the second to last slide, |
| 01:55:29.85 | Dennis Mulligan | One back up one. The location that we're proposing this project is a historic ferry landing. It's in keeping with the historic fabric of the community. Ferries have been operating out of this location longer than anyone in this room has been alive. So one facet of it is it is consistent with the existing use at this site. Secondarily, it's a site where ferries can get in. I believe one of the responses that was put forth earlier with respect to the core dock and other locations is you don't have deep water access all along the waterfront. So it's a historic location. It's an existing use. It's not a new use at this location. Any other location would be a new use if a ferry boat could get in there. So I think that's the best way to answer this. It's also a location, in addition to being a long-standing ferry location, it is environmentally cleared. With respect to the lights at night, we currently turn off the lights after the last ferry boat, and it's not a modern system, so basically someone flips a breaker. A new landing could have more flexibility about when lights go on and off, so if there's a long period of time between the second to last boat and the last boat, clearly the lights could be shut off. The private ferry operator that is currently sharing the landing with us is doing some late night service that apparently is of interest to some members of your community coming back to San Francisco later. And so the lights are on later than normal. And we're not sure how long that pilot's going to last, but a new facility clearly could have the ability to, you know, shut the lights off if there's, you know, an hour gap between, you know, late night boardings. |
| 01:57:05.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:57:06.01 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:57:07.51 | Unknown | Okay, thank you. So those were the questions that staff noted. I have one more, and maybe my colleagues have some as well. Let me ask my one more, and then I can... get back to acting as master of ceremonies here or whatever. In Above Tides, both in their mail, in their letters, and I know you've been in discussions with them and the Yacht Club together. The In Above Tides put forward this evening a schedule that I think they've been in discussions with you guys on and are urging us to somehow take that there, the needs for that more flexible schedule in particular, actually less flexible schedule in the sense of trying to minimize the impact in both our downtown and directly with the Inn above Tudge during the summer period. Do you have any comments on that schedule before we direct staffs in that direction? |
| 01:58:19.61 | Dennis Mulligan | Certainly. We appreciate Mr. William McDevitt preparing the schedule. The schedule prepared is something we've been reviewing. It is tight, but we are continuing to review it, and we want to have further conversations about him. We understand their concern, and we think we can come partway to address many of the concerns they have. Okay. |
| 01:58:38.83 | Unknown | Thanks. So those were the questions staff put together. I have no more questions. I'm throwing it out to my colleagues. Vice Mayor, are you going to have some? Yeah. |
| 01:58:53.63 | Joan Cox | Sure. One issue I had that was raised back at the Planning Commission level and was raised quite a bit at our last meeting and was raised briefly tonight is this idea of having two boats at the pier at the same time. So I don't understand operationally that requirement. It's an issue for the neighbors and it's not necessitated all the time by the cue. I observed it personally, when I rode the ferry a week ago Sunday, And I stuck around for an hour and there was no queue. There were less than 50 people and bikes in the queue. So, I want to understand more about your rejection. of that requested condition by Um, by the city and by the residents, because that is a pivotal issue for me in terms of my approval of this project. |
| 01:59:58.43 | Dennis Mulligan | Well, I think you asked an excellent question. The day that you saw an OQ then was a good day on the waterfront. That didn't happen by happenstance. During that time period, we had three vessels leave Sausalito carrying passengers, two Golden Gate and one Blue and Gold. So we were able to avoid having a queue on that specific day. Our current lease has no restrictions on two vessels being parked at once. There are times when operationally it makes sense. In the summer months, if we have two boats tie up at once and we only load or unload one at a time we don't load and unload a vessel at the same time and we don't have two vessels with people moving on or off the same time but we sometimes have a shadow vessel we send over here to help with the queue and that is at expense to our ratepayers that we'll have a vote follow the first boat over it will tie up while the first boat loading. That first boat then is the scheduled boat to go back to the city so that people coming home, including on weekdays, can get home on time. And the second boat takes all the overflow. The benefit of having two of them tie up at once is that the total time for a boat at the dock then is lessened. If we have one boat pulling the dock, it offloads passengers, it loads passengers, then it leaves, and the other one is hovering offshore and then comes in. The total time then for it to tie up, to offload, and to load adds total time for dwell time for vessels at the dock. So operationally it makes sense. Sometimes for safety reasons it makes sense also, but we're willing to commit that only one vessel will load or offload passengers at a time. But operationally it does provide benefit. It gives us greater flexibility in managing a queue. The queue is difficult to predict. Typically when you have nice weather, you have more of a queue. And so we do try to anticipate. We have to call in extra crews for those extra trips or we sometimes bring in the Larkspur boat with a high-speed trip on the weekend to do overflow service. But it's sometimes difficult to anticipate the queue. Sometimes we guess wrong and we don't need the extra boat. Other times we guess wrong and don't have the extra boat there and then the chief's talking to Jim about why the queue is so long. And so it's something that we can't always get right but we want to work very closely with your staff and we want to have the flexibility to help minimize the queue so you don't have folks lined up along the waterfront when we can get them out quickly. |
| 02:02:16.23 | Joan Cox | So operationally, I just want to comment that the manner in which you just described it would operate is not the way I observed it to operate. So on the Sunday that I rode the ferry to the Giants ball game, and I'm not sure. I rode in on the Sausalito at 510. We had barely begun to disembark when the San Francisco came gliding in right next to us. So they weren't waiting offshore, They came in, I think we were still running our engines when they came in, and that's an operational issue because it creates disturbance in the water, it has an impact on neighboring piers, So It's not operating quite in the manner I just heard you describe, where one is hovering offshore. we were sitting there and I took pictures from the pier of both boats there together as we were still disembarking. |
| 02:03:11.01 | Dennis Mulligan | And that's something we've been doing for years. That's not a new condition. And it's something we do on an as needed basis when operational or safety reasons dictate it. And it's something we feel we need the flexibility to continue doing going forward. |
| 02:03:24.53 | Joan Cox | So this was an issue that was raised at the Planning Commission meeting, and my understanding from those meetings was that with the double hull capacity to onload and offload more passengers more quickly, that operational need would cease to exist. |
| 02:03:40.76 | Dennis Mulligan | It's true that we said that we would only load and unload one vessel at a time. We didn't say we would not have two vessels tied up at once. That's in the written record from those meetings as well as our written responses to comments. It is true that with a modern facility, we'll hopefully not have to operate as many extra trips because we do have boats leaving partially full now. But I don't want to enter into a long-term lease that removes that flexibility going into the future. But it is true that financially we are planning on operating fewer total number of trips. I want to thank you. enter into a long-term lease that removes that flexibility going into the future. But it is true that financially we are planning on operating fewer total number of trips once we have the facility. That having been said, we did concede to a 12-foot wide gangway as opposed to a 16-foot wide, and there are certain peak times where 12-foot is suboptimal, but in general it will work well, and in general we hope to be able to carry the same number of people with fewer vessel crossings. |
| 02:04:27.08 | Joan Cox | Thank you for your answers to my questions. you |
| 02:04:33.06 | Unknown | Council member Huffman. |
| 02:04:37.28 | Jill Hoffman | This is, I'm gonna start with a question to the staff follow-up as necessary. So I'm going to go back to the election issue. So if we, our election currently is set for November 7th, When would we likely have that election certified? And would it be faster because this is an off election year? |
| 02:04:59.70 | Unknown | The, can you hear me? Thank you. |
| 02:05:02.98 | Jill Hoffman | I think I have to talk for a minute. Keep going. |
| 02:05:07.41 | Unknown | Bye. |
| 02:05:07.43 | Lily Whalen | Thank you. |
| 02:05:07.53 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:05:08.11 | Lily Whalen | There you go. Okay, great. The county commits to certifying the election within 30 days of the election. |
| 02:05:15.68 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so if we have the election on the 7th, we have a city council meeting on the 28th, which probably wouldn't, may not be certified by then, but then we have another city council meeting on December 12th, which traditionally that would be when we would swear in the new members. We would also have the ability to have a special city council election on either, I'm sorry, a special city council meeting to address this issue from the bridge district plan either on December 5th or December 19th if we didn't want to do it on December 12th. So by my math, it looks like it would be about six weeks, it would, you know, if we wanted to wait, if we wanted to delay and we wanted to ask the bridge district whether or not they would stipulate to you know, a six-week delay in our final action so that we could be at full force, I would think that that would be something that I would like to direct staff to explore further. The second thing being, the reasonableness of our denial of the plan based on the fact that we are a city council, not at full force. To me, that seems to be reasonable, especially given the fact that the Bridge District withdrew their plan a year ago and spent a year's worth or nine months worth of litigation and now has rushed back in with a 45 day clock when they know we're not at full strength. So I would like the staff to specifically look at that issue and have us briefed on that before the next city council meeting. And the question to the bridge district at this point is, is there some sort of, operational necessity at this point, other than the fact that you've had your plan approved for some time, that would be affected by a six-week delay. |
| 02:07:09.19 | Dennis Mulligan | The Bridge District is not interested in entertaining a six-week delay. |
| 02:07:12.95 | Jill Hoffman | Thanks. So then I would also like to say, I would like the staff to specifically look at a denial based on our, that we're not at full strength, and then also holding a city council meeting after our new member is sworn in for the specific purpose of considering the plan again should the Bridge District want to resubmit their plan with a 45 day clock after our denial which I believe would put us squarely in the range of having a meeting after we're back at full strength. |
| 02:07:45.33 | Unknown | Did you have any other questions? Because I realize we're moving into direct in staff. So do you have any other questions specifically? |
| 02:07:52.18 | Unknown | I don't have any questions. No. No. Okay. Thanks. You guys covered them all, actually. |
| 02:07:54.27 | Unknown | No, okay, thanks. THANK YOU. um council member burns do you have anything you want clarification on or |
| 02:08:03.22 | Joe Burns | Thank you. I didn't, but I guess I do in a legal question, as Councilmember Hoppen brings up, the reasonable denial being on a 2-2, yet that that same body is the one, is the body that decided on the MOU that we're currently going through this process. So we were a four person body at that point when we made the decision to be sitting here right now. Would that still be reasonable to then say the outcome changes because we're the same body that made the decision to be here. So I guess that's a legal question. |
| 02:08:46.39 | Unknown | Can I jump in here before I ask our city attorney to make comment, which is we're probably, it's not reasonable to answer legal questions on the fly. So, but Mary, did you want to add anything further to what you previously said? |
| 02:09:06.47 | Mary Wagner | No, I mean, we've heard the concerns raised by the council, and we'll certainly look into it and be able to address it to the extent that we can. |
| 02:09:15.90 | Unknown | Okay, thank you. So what I'd like to do is figure out what our direction of staff is. We've heard Councilmember Hoffman with one suggestion. So there are a number of ways we can proceed and I'm going I think the key question is, If we were on October 10th to move towards a decision to I think we have some serious questions on some of the conditions and I know I don't want to punt this to the vice mayor but I'm going to who has been working through this stuff tonight, so can we perhaps determine whether Um, Because if we're moving towards the resolution of denial, there's no point having staff work on getting the conditions further developed. But if we're interested in having the conditions further developed, I think staff would like to have some general guidance on that. So does anybody have anything to say on that score? |
| 02:10:39.85 | Joan Cox | Well, Mr. Mayor, with your permission, one of the issues I think it was clear from tonight's discussion that is not yet, one of the conditions that is not yet strong enough is the management of the queue. the boarding system at a minimum, I think, needs to be restricted to a certain area. to ameliorate the adverse downtown impacts currently being suffered by the city, I think the Bridge District has indicated some intention to at least start to address that by moving the gate uh, Further down, But I believe that that a condition needs to be enunciated that confines the Q to a certain footprint. The other thing that I think needs to be included with the conditions is consequences for failure to fulfill. the conditions. and whatever those consequences might be. There's a condition not to park overnight, And the Dennis has given his cell phone number, but Simply calling Dennis at midnight is not an adequate consequence. There should be some consequence that. gives the district an incentive respectfully not to park the boat there at night, like $1,000 rent per night for parking overnight, unless there's been an emergency and the city manager has approved it. So those are two conditions I would like to see strengthened. I have to say, For me, I'd like to see a condition prohibiting two boats on the dock at the same time. and If they don't intend to unload and load at the same time, and they can have someone idling out in the bay, I don't see that that creates a tremendous imposition. |
| 02:12:54.99 | Unknown | Any thoughts on conditions? |
| 02:12:56.76 | Joe Burns | I agree. I, you know, The whole thing here really for us is getting congestion management taken care of. We're talking about getting bodies onto boats quickly and getting them out of here if they don't want to be here, which I can't imagine why they don't want to stay. But that is what we're talking about. So yeah, I agree that that would be condition 1A. I would really have to look further at the difference between having a boat idle endlessly out or for a period of time out in the bay in traffic and diesel and that stuff as opposed to tied up. I'm not sure where I feel on that, but The other two areas that I think are concerning are the neighbors. And that kind of is a relationship to the lease and to the neighborhood, how you get along with your neighbors. I'm not sure how much conditions we want to place on that. But I do want to make sure that we have that conversation. In Above Tide has brought up some construction timelines that obviously Dennis has mentioned that they would be considering but I just like to have that a little further but I am on your board with the congestion management condition. |
| 02:14:15.41 | Joan Cox | Mr. Mayor, I thought of one more. I was reviewing the packet and I saw the, um, Draft Appendix A, which is the concerns our performance of our land site improvements. And there's a provision that requires us to accomplish the project in a timely and satisfactory manner. That seems, and I wrote in the margin, according to whom? So. It's our land side improvements I don't want to have our $2.4 million at risk because The district doesn't think we accomplished our land site improvements quickly enough. I'm not sure. who drafted the Appendix A, but I think That's something that should be reasonable in the city's view. since it's, our land site improvements and since the district is not participating in those other than to Thank you. provide pass-through funding. |
| 02:15:28.99 | Unknown | Councilmember Hoffman, I realize that you have, you know, you're leaning in the direction. You've already advised staff as to what you'd like to see. Do you have any comments on the conditions? Do you want to make any comments on those? Yes. |
| 02:15:43.79 | Jill Hoffman | No, I agree with all of the comments that have been made by the other city council members. I think those are appropriate, yeah. |
| 02:15:47.80 | Unknown | I think those are appropriate, yeah. Thank you. I have one that |
| 02:15:49.14 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 02:15:54.27 | Unknown | is and that relates to the construction schedule. I do feel there needs to be some more work done on that and the condition number, I guess, |
| 02:16:14.45 | Unknown | Well, there's five, six, seven, eight. What am I looking at? Okay. What I'm... getting at is that I think the Inn Above Tides and the Yacht Club have made a very good point about the actual driving of piers, the pile driving, and the actual major construction activity in the water near both facility at the peak of our season. And have suggested a schedule in which there's a pause in any sort of freeze on construction not the sort of offsite work, but the work that's being done actually on our waterfront during the time of our highest peak. So what I want to see is staff work on developing a condition that deals with those issues and that may involve our staff in a meeting with both the British District and the in above tides. I don't know what the mechanism is but I'd like to see a condition, that condition on the construction schedule a little bit more flushed out. Because I'm not sure it makes sense for the city. to have a lot of construction activity absolutely in our peak times. It doesn't make sense. Now, I realize we got boundaries either way because of the restriction of building in the water during the months in which we're prohibited from doing so. And then that has to interface somehow with the construction schedule that is optimal for the Yacht Club and the Inn above tides in terms of its peak. So I'd like staff to explore that a little bit more and potentially craft a condition or rework the condition that tries to deal with that issue. That's, I think, and... |
| 02:18:34.73 | Joan Cox | BELL RINGS. I recalled that Dennis, during his PowerPoint presentation, enunciated five additional conditions that the Golden Gate Bridge District would be willing to add which is that they would not use impact hammer methods. They will install vibration and noise monitors on structures during piloting. Installation. They will perform pre- and post-construction crack surveys of structures. They will provide at least 30 days notice. Oh, are you saying those are in already? |
| 02:19:08.48 | Alice Merrill | I love you. |
| 02:19:09.55 | Unknown | I think some version of that has gone in. Okay. But I think it might need to be cross-checked with the slides over there. |
| 02:19:11.94 | Joan Cox | Okay. So they're saying 30 days notice in above tight is requesting 60 days notice So that's still up for negotiation and then comply with our the city of Sausalio's time restrictions for construction Yeah |
| 02:19:30.08 | Unknown | Okay, my question of staff is that sufficient direction? Do you know we're comfortable in what we're doing there? Okay, good. Is there any other comments from up here? |
| 02:19:43.87 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Bye. |
| 02:19:47.31 | Joan Cox | My only comment would be that we've given direction for conditions. Thank you. which assumes that there could be a vote of approval. depending on how the negotiations over those final conditions turns out. I'm not making a commitment one way or the other until I see the final conditions as enunciated. |
| 02:20:07.65 | Unknown | That is my position as well |
| 02:20:09.84 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:20:13.33 | Unknown | Okay, so in that case, thank everybody for coming. This has been another very informative meeting. We still have some other agenda items. I was rightly admonished on September the 12th for forgetting to move on to item number two, but we will tonight. And that is public communications for any matter that's not on tonight's agenda. |
| 02:20:42.97 | Unknown | Mr. Mayor, just before you do that. |
| 02:20:43.99 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah. |
| 02:20:46.42 | Unknown | And before everybody leaves, just hold on one moment, please. |
| 02:20:48.99 | Unknown | Hang on, please, before we're still apparently haven't moved from item number one. |
| 02:20:53.85 | Unknown | We had asked the mayor to pull the council members on the third meeting the costs We've heard thank you for the cost thank you rent the facility and all the staff that you see working the cameras and what have you is pretty significant and We wanted to know if the council Would like to move back to our council chambers for this final meaning potentially final meaning on the 10th |
| 02:20:59.92 | Unknown | WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BE ABLE TO |
| 02:21:00.21 | Unknown | Oh, thank you. Thank you. |
| 02:21:18.79 | Unknown | staff did indeed ask the mayor to pull the members on that issue and he forgot. So, thoughts? Can we get |
| 02:21:27.48 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:21:27.58 | Joan Cox | As I understand it, it's about a $5,000 cost to rent this hall. The whole package is about a $5,000. So we've now spent $10,000 on these hearings. So the question is, do we want to spend another $5,000? |
| 02:21:40.83 | Joe Burns | Right. And what's our capacity at City Hall and what was our attendance tonight? |
| 02:21:46.42 | Joan Cox | and the conference room. |
| 02:21:47.83 | Unknown | Well, we believe that we can comfortably put 70 people, which was tonight's attendance at 8 o'clock, 68 last meeting. These are rough numbers, but pretty accurate. So we feel we can comfortably put 70. There are folks in this room that have been in there when we've had 100 people crammed in standing. So we can look at the reconfiguration of that room to add additional seats, but we think we can comfortably hold 70 in that room. |
| 02:22:26.32 | Unknown | Well, I'm trying to get a sense of the council on this. I'll pull for the council chamber. |
| 02:22:28.15 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:22:28.16 | Jill Hoffman | I'm not sure. |
| 02:22:28.21 | Joe Burns | Council on this one. |
| 02:22:31.98 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, I think if the capacity here tonight was a capacity that we can fit into our council chamber, although a little closer than normal, I think that's okay. Agreed. |
| 02:22:43.37 | Unknown | Okay, I think that's the consensus. Y'all come back though, okay. That's the consensus of the council on that matter. Okay, thanks. So we're moving off of item number one. Is there any member of the public who'd like to address the council on any matter that's not on tonight's agenda? |
| 02:22:44.53 | Joe Burns | Y'all come back. |
| 02:22:58.81 | Joan Cox | . Excuse me. |
| 02:22:59.47 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 02:22:59.50 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:23:00.41 | Unknown | Alex, please, we've moved the microphone. |
| 02:23:22.13 | Alex Kishef | I know it's been a long meeting, but I promise I'll keep this under three minutes. My name is Alex Kishef, I'm the owner of the Valhalla. I like to, just give the city council an update on where the project stands i believe it will be coming up for appeal before the city council somewhere in the near future about three three and a half months ago the planning commission on a four zero vote approved the project for a two-unit residential site a significant decrease from the eight unit condo that was approved when vice mayor cox was the head of the planning commission due cost constraints, basically the estimates were around six to six and a half million for building the condos. Due to the change in the economy and the number of things that were added to the project, the project came in at about 10 to 11 million. And it's just not worth building it at that price. So we went back to the drawing board, decrease the scale, and we're going to make it our family home now with our parents living in the subsequent secondary unit. That's the current banquet hall. The parking lot will become a beautiful grass backyard for my children to play in. And the beauty of the project stays very familiar. All the public improvements that were promised in the condo project will be retained, which include beach access for ADA down to the beach, which is a BCDC request, rebuilding of the Main Street boardwalk, adding a bus pullout, and rebuilding the Bridgeway boardwalk a little bit with the planking. Personally, I would like to thank the Planning Commission for their 4-0 vote of approval. This was not an easy project to look through, but they were able to, it was so meticulously put together that they were able to get through it in one night. And on that behalf, I would like to thank Danny and Calvin. Their attention to detail on this project has really been amazing, and I appreciate that. The project will be coming up for appeal from an immediate neighbor. I have worked tirelessly with this neighbor over the last four years that she's owned her property. Since last November, which is almost a year ago, I reached out to her with the new project. I did not have any response other than her attorney and it was not constructive. She is appealing an existing driveway and some other minor things and the details will come up. I'd like to thank you now in advance for looking at this project when it comes up, but mostly I'd like to invite you to come out to the site. If you would like to come and see the site, I could walk you through it. The interior has been, and there's a perk for you if you're interested in coming, the interior has been completely removed. Under the guide of Kenneth Henry, this was approved by him for me to do that. The upstairs is wide open again. It's an open dance hall, like it hasn't been for a hundred years, so it's kind of a neat little moment in history. So once again, thank you for looking into this project coming up. I will forward it in an email, and if anyone's interested to looking at the site, I'll be happy to host you there. Thank you. Thank you very much. |
| 02:26:28.97 | Unknown | Thank you. Moving on, is there any other public comment on items not on the agenda? Okay, we'll close that public comment. Other council business, they, I do not believe there are any other reports of significance, therefore there will be no public comment. in which case I'd ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Okay, all in favor, aye. Aye. We are adjourned. |
| 02:26:52.38 | Joan Cox | We are. |
Edward Murphy — Against: Questioned why the float extends so much farther into the ocean and criticized the original lease negotiation. ▶ 📄
Julie McMillan — Against: Agreed on the need for a 3D model and argued against voting with only four council members, suggesting a lease amendment for proper voting. ▶ 📄
Clayton Smith — Against: Criticized the rush to increase capacity, linking it to negative tourism impacts on quality of life, and requested delay until a full council is seated. ▶ 📄
Chris Armbrust — In Favor: Commended the district for listening to the community, acknowledged the difficulty of explaining designs, and urged moving forward with the project for safety and capacity needs. ▶ 📄
David Souto — In Favor: Suggested virtual reality over a physical 3D model, praised the district for adapting the design to Sausalito's demands, and warned that limiting capacity could invite other ferry operators. ▶ 📄
Cass Green — Against: Representing In Above Tide and Sausalito Yacht Club, urged inclusion of specific conditions to minimize construction impacts, including 60-day notice and restricting temporary pier use to off-season months. ▶ 📄
Willie McDevitt — Against: Presented a revised construction schedule to avoid peak summer months and pile driving during fish wildlife windows, requesting it be included as a condition. ▶ 📄
Sam Penrose — In Favor: Argued for weighing benefits (transportation for thousands) against costs, criticized the 'massive' label as relative, and highlighted Sausalito's history of change and progress. ▶ 📄
John McCorkandell — Against: Questioned the aesthetic and benefit to Sausalito, expressed distrust in the district's representations (e.g., 'replacement' for a larger structure), and noted maintenance concerns. ▶ 📄
Steven Woodside — Neutral: Recommended seeking a short extension from the district to allow a full council vote post-election, praised the district as honorable, and suggested potential for design improvements. ▶ 📄
Bill Versace — Against: Criticized the district for neglecting landside impacts and burdening the city, arguing the city lacks the expertise and resources to manage landside improvements effectively. ▶ 📄
Tom Aden — Against: As Chair of Sausalito Yacht Club, emphasized conditions regarding lighting (off when no ferry present) and gate location to minimize intrusion on the yacht club. ▶ 📄
Grover Deer — Against: An architect who visited the South SF terminal; found noise acceptable but scale concerning. Suggested aligning the gangway parallel to shore to reduce extension and requested council visit the site. ▶ 📄
Robin Parvin — In Favor: As a Sustainability Commissioner and ferry rider, supported approval for greenhouse gas reduction and improved accessibility for bicycles and passengers. ▶ 📄
Tammy Blanchard — Neutral: Acknowledged improvements but found the design too industrial; recommended postponing for a full council vote and enlisting Steven Woodside to help negotiate. ▶ 📄
Alice Merrill — In Favor: Urged moving forward with the project, emphasizing forward-thinking, the need for an emergency landing, and the historical role of tourists in Sausalito. ▶ 📄
Sam Chase — Against: Requested council visit the South SF terminal, cited unanswered questions about the need for double-hulled vessels, and called a 2-2 vote unacceptable. ▶ 📄
Chuck Schiak — Against: As Sausalito Yacht Club rear commodore, expressed concern about double vessels impacting views and surge, and opposed a 2-2 vote as undemocratic. ▶ 📄