| Time | Speaker | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 00:00:07.05 | Joan Cox | Good evening. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Sausalito City Council for Tuesday... October 10th 2017 um Lily, could we call the roll, please? |
| 00:00:26.80 | Unknown | Councilmember Burns. |
| 00:00:27.89 | Joan Cox | PRESENT. |
| 00:00:28.70 | Unknown | Council member Hoffman. Present base mayor Cox here. Mayor Withey. |
| 00:00:34.74 | Joan Cox | Here, we have been going in some sort of order with the plight of allegiance. And so this evening I'm gonna ask Council Member Burns to lead us in the pledge this evening. |
| 00:00:50.28 | Joe Burns | I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. |
| 00:00:50.57 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:00:50.59 | Joe Burns | I pledge allegiance to the flag. |
| 00:00:52.31 | Joan Cox | THE END OF THE END OF THE That's it. |
| 00:00:53.03 | Joe Burns | United States of America. |
| 00:00:54.98 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:00:54.99 | Joe Burns | and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
| 00:00:58.05 | Joe Burns | One nation. Indivisible. with liver cancer. |
| 00:01:01.95 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. |
| 00:01:02.08 | Joe Burns | I'm sorry. |
| 00:01:02.38 | Alice Merrill | I'm just going to go. |
| 00:01:02.77 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:01:04.76 | Joan Cox | Thank you, Joe. |
| 00:01:10.16 | Joan Cox | We had a closed session meeting. on one matter, which was the Sausalito versus Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District. We did not discuss the second matter, item D2. Is there any public comment on the closed session items, remembering, of course, that our major topic of conversation this evening is the ferry landing? Okay, seeing none, before I ask for a motion to approve the agenda, I need to announce that item 5B, which is an appeal of a Planning Commission decision, has been withdrawn by the applicant. The City Council will not be holding a hearing on this matter tonight. Therefore, I'd like to suggest that we move approval of the agenda, removing item 5B. |
| 00:02:13.72 | Joe Burns | So moved. Second. |
| 00:02:15.57 | Joan Cox | All in favor. |
| 00:02:16.60 | Joe Burns | Aye. |
| 00:02:18.17 | Joan Cox | Thank you. That motion carries. Item number one, special presentation, Mayor's Announcements. I'd just like to say a few words about the fact that we are, at the moment, our neighbors in Napa, Sonoma, our neighbors to the north of us are undergoing a tremendous ordeal. And the whole state, but in particular the North Bay and Northern California has responded with enormous vigor and comradeship. So our hearts, thoughts are going out to everybody who's suffered, including our own employees, many who live in this area. Our emergency responders, some of the coordinators, even from Sol Solito, have been helping with the emergency response. So Adam, is there anything of a media update? I know we had a very thorough report in the currents, but is there anything that you'd like to add at this important time? |
| 00:03:37.36 | Adam Politzer | I'll just add that we'll be sending out, hopefully the public received the current article that we put out on Monday. And we'll be putting out more information on Friday during the normal occurrence. Obviously, the news is providing a broad coverage and giving a lot of detailed information faster than we can get information out. So I think that it's really important that we at least provide the community a variety of links for information. And if you don't already have access to the various links that Sonoma County, Napa County, their emergency operations centers have created. We'll make sure that those are available for the public via our website. As the mayor said, not only do our hearts go out to the folks that are affected, it's a devastating event. It's a reminder that this event can happen anywhere. The combination of the fuel that's accumulated over the years, a 50-mile-an-hour windstorm that happened at the same time, you know, makes all of our communities in Marin County and the Bay Area vulnerable to this same type of event. So please protect yourselves. Look at your yard waste opportunities to improve your own vegetation management. Work together as a community. Join Sausalito Beautiful. Lots of opportunities to help protect our community from experiencing what they are in Napa and Sonoma counties. We have firefighters from the Sausalito station, including our HR manager's husband, Doug Patterson, who's a captain with Southern Wind Fire out of Station 1 here in Sausalito. Several other firefighters representing Sausalito are working tirelessly. The resources, as you hear in the reports, are still at a minimum staffing level. When you look at the size of the fire, last report that I heard was up to 100,000 acres have burnt. They are still working on saving lives and rescue missions versus saving property. So that's telling us that we are still at zero containment and still in harm's way as we look forward. Proud of our Sausalito Police Department, part of the Marin County Safety Security Group team is up there also helping. As we know, there are people during this time that go up there and look at opportunity to do bad things. And law enforcement is really important. So proud of our folks for participating in that. We have 22 employees that live in Napa and Sonoma County. We have seven that are actively involved, either being evacuated or their homes are still in harm's way. And so I know that we've had already some kind gestures from our public to house some of our employees that have been removed from their homes due to the evacuations, and I appreciate those kind gestures very much. I'll leave it at that, and we'll continue to update the public through our current articles. |
| 00:07:11.41 | Joan Cox | Thank you very much. Okay, item number two is communications and this is the time for the City Council to hear from you regarding matters that are not on the agenda. And as you know, except in very limited situations, state law precludes the council from taking action on or engaging in discussions concerning these items. I have two cards. The first is Alex Kacheff and then followed by Alice Merrill. So these are the two cards I've received for items that are not on the agenda. I may have a third here. And I will have a third here, which is Ian Sobieski. And so start off with Dr. Keshav. |
| 00:08:08.81 | Unknown | Good evening, City Council members. I'm happy to be here tonight to speak with you about a non-agenda item. As you know, the Valhalla was, the appeal was removed earlier today, about three hours ago, over a couple of trash cans. But we're glad to be at this point. What I wanted to do was, I'm joined by my wife, Hania, our little one, Cleo, our older one, Ava, Hania's grandmother, and my parents, and my sister. I wanted to take a moment and thank everyone for all the hard work they did on this project. they really went above and beyond, and I'm so impressed with the team that we had. And, you know, I want to start off by thanking Calvin Chan and Danny Castro. Their attention to detail was amazing, and it allowed us to put together a very solid package. You know, Mary has worked tirelessly on this, and even Adam met after hours with us to help us find a time that worked. And then, you know, today, you know, the city council members who met with me that weren't familiar with the project, I mean, due to my tight schedule, city council member Hoffman met with me at 7 a.m. today. The sun wasn't even out yet. We saw a beautiful sunrise over the bay. It was just amazing. So thank you for, and I know you worked very hard on putting the packet together for tonight, and I'm glad we don't get to use it. And I'm getting mixed reviews from friends. A lot of people are calling me to congratulate me, and a couple of them are calling me saying they really wanted to come and talk tonight, and they're upset they couldn't use the speech they wrote. But it's a great place to be, and thank you for everything everyone's done, and we're looking forward to rebuilding that property and saving it. So thank you everyone. |
| 00:09:54.17 | Unknown | Thank you. Congratulations. |
| 00:09:57.05 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Thank you very much. Alice Merrill. |
| 00:10:08.21 | Alice Merrill | Hello, I live at 200 Johnson Street. It's come to my attention recently, and this is something that my friends both agree with me and disagree with me on, but I've been going to some general plan stakeholders meetings. It occurs to me that we are going to be facing drones all over this city in just a few years. And I would love it if part of the general plan got on top of thinking about that before we have them and then don't know what to do. So that's all I wanna say is I, Some people think they should just let them be and other people say, I don't particularly like them, We should at least think about it before we have to react. That's my comment. |
| 00:11:00.45 | Joan Cox | Thank you, Alice. Ian? Sorry if I got your last name a little off. I apologize. |
| 00:11:08.25 | Unknown | I will keep coming back until we get it right. I won't threaten you with that. I'm just here because I own a property up in Glen Ellen, a six unit property that thankfully has not burned down. All the tenants had to evacuate at midnight on Monday night. And it was scary for them. But thankfully they're all okay and the property is all right even though the neighbors are not. I offered up my downstairs to one of them to come stay. And it put me in the frame of mind of thinking again about how we define and manage our housing here and particularly short-term rentals. I got an email from Airbnb saying that they're offering all their hosts the opportunity to list their properties for free to people who are in need of housing because of the crisis and anyone who takes advantage of that as long as they in turn are offering the property for free would be covered under Airbnb's protection, their insurance policy, their liability waivers and so on and so forth. We, of course, don't have very many air beings. are offering the property for free would be covered under Airbnb's protection, their insurance policy, their liability waivers, and so on and so forth. We, of course, don't have very many Airbnb listings here in Sausalito because it's prohibited under our local ordinance, and so can't use that particular platform to respond. But I thought I would highlight that for the council as a sort of unintended small consequence of our prohibition on short-term rentals and also point out the still incongruity of our ordinances. The section 10-22030 prohibits transient occupancy in residential zones and transient occupancy is defined as any occupancy less than 30 days, whether it's paid for or not. So in point of fact, though I'm sure I won't be hearing from the police for doing this, letting someone stay in my house for a short term is breaking that ordinance so at the very least i'd like to point that out to the council as far as i can tell as a citizen that's a problem that i'm sure you'd like to remedy at least in the definition of transit occupancy to have some sort of exception for emergencies such as this but also the next time the considerations of short-term rentals come around you may want to factor this as one of the potential ancillary benefits that that kind of flexibility. It's a modern capability made possible by a modern world. come around, you may want to factor this as one of the potential ancillary benefits, that kind of flexibility. It's a modern capability made possible by a modern world to respond to disasters. Thank you. |
| 00:13:29.58 | Joan Cox | Thank you very much. Is there any other member of the public who'd like to comment on any item that is not on tonight's agenda? OK, seeing none, we'll close this item. Item three is action minutes of the previous meeting. We've got one, two, three meetings minutes to approve. Any suggested changes? Any corrections? |
| 00:13:55.17 | Joe Burns | I reviewed them I have no suggested revisions and I move approval of all three sets of minutes. Thank you. |
| 00:14:02.31 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:14:02.35 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:14:03.38 | Joan Cox | All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No, that carries. Consent calendar. Matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine, non-controversial, require no discussion, or expected to have unanimous Council support. So we're going to enact this in one motion, if we can. Is there any member of the public who would like to comment on any item from the Consent Calendar? Yes. Casey and none. Do we have a motion? Is there anybody who'd like to move anything around? |
| 00:14:46.37 | Joe Burns | I have one comment, which is item F says, receive and approve development impact fee. It's actually an impact fee report for fiscal year 2016 to 2017. With that typo, Corrected, I'm prepared to move approval of the consent calendar. Thank you. |
| 00:15:03.18 | Jill Hoffman | Okay. |
| 00:15:03.22 | Joe Burns | Okay. Yeah. |
| 00:15:04.63 | Jill Hoffman | Mr. Mayor, I would like to abstain from item C, which is road maintenance and rehabilitation because of the six streets, my streets, one of the streets is listed there on that report. So I would like to abstain. approve the minutes but I would like to abstain from C. |
| 00:15:22.27 | Joan Cox | Okay. |
| 00:15:23.41 | Jill Hoffman | I mean, approve the consent calendars. |
| 00:15:24.46 | Joan Cox | Consent cylinder, okay. Well, why don't we take in two separate votes then? So, Madam Vice Mayor, would you amend your motion accordingly? |
| 00:15:35.50 | Joe Burns | Yeah. Yes, so I move approval of consent calendar items A, B, and D through G with the correction to item F that it should say impact fee report. |
| 00:15:49.05 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:15:49.18 | Unknown | seconds. |
| 00:15:50.11 | Joan Cox | All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? |
| 00:15:51.09 | Joe Burns | Bye. |
| 00:15:53.98 | Joan Cox | And then the second motion, |
| 00:15:56.02 | Joe Burns | I move approval of consent calendar item C. |
| 00:16:01.37 | Joan Cox | Second. Okay, all in favor? Aye. |
| 00:16:04.20 | Joe Burns | Hi. |
| 00:16:04.84 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:16:05.82 | Joan Cox | And one abstention? Okay. And staff, you have that noted? Okay, super. Thank you. So that deals with the consent calendar. Okay. So our major topic of this evening is Item 5A, Consideration of Revised Ferry Landing Project Plans for the Ferry Landing Project. And this has been continued from September 26th. I'm going to hand it over to Lily Wayland, our city clerk and assistant city manager, to tee up this presentation. Thank you. |
| 00:16:42.81 | Lily Wayland | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening. Good evening, council members and members of the public. I AM. Lily Whelan, your city clerk and assistant city manager, and I'll be giving the staff presentation on the ferry landing project. As you are aware, this meeting is a continuation of the September 26th meeting that we held in IDES Hall. The structure of tonight's meeting will be as follows. First, staff and the district will give presentations. Then public comments will be received, and we do have the speaker's cards out in the hallway. It's a green card. If you haven't filled one out and you're planning on speaking, please do so and turn it in to me. After public comments are received, the City Council will deliberate and consider adopting the resolution which is in your packet, which approves the project, including conditions an amendment to the lease agreement to allow for the temporary relocation of the gangway and float during construction Also the location of the donut fender outside the leased area. And the location of the utility cabinets and trenches. IN ADDITION, THE LEASE AMENDMENT HAS RESTRICTIONS ON OVERNIGHT DOCKING AND UNLOADING TWO VESSELS AT A TIME. The resolution also contains the pass through agreement and the city's proposed second addendum dated October 4th to the district's initial study mitigated negative declaration and supplement to the mitigation monitoring reporting program for the project to add mitigation measure AES-1. |
| 00:18:18.56 | Lily Wayland | You've seen this slide before, under the terms of the lease, the city has 45 days to review the project. Under the MOU, the parties agreed that the city's 45 day review period under the lease began on August 31st. And therefore, the city council must make its determination by October 15th, which is this Sunday. |
| 00:18:40.99 | Lily Wayland | As explained in the September 12th and the September 26th staff reports, in June of last year, the city retained the planning consulting firm Environmental Vision to conduct a peer review of four of the computer-generated photo simulations, which were prepared by the district. The district prepared revised some simulations following the consultant's identification of certain technical errors in two of the district simulations. The city once again retained environmental vision this year to peer review the resubmitted photo renderings. On October 3rd, Environmental Vision provided a report summarizing their findings of the 2017 peer review. Environmental Vision's report concludes that the results of the comparison between Environmental Vision's 3D computer modeling and the visual simulations indicate that the simulation images generally show proposed structures in the correct location and at the correct scale. The visual simulation images generally appear to be accurate. At the September 26th City Council meeting, the public posed a variety of questions and issues, some of which district staff responded to orally at the meeting. Attachment 2 provides the district's responses in writing for the council. One of the questions asked of the district was whether or not they would agree to extend the 45-day review period under the lease until after the election of a new council member to fill the vacant seat. The district responded that they would not be willing to grant such an extension. And staff was also asked to respond to this inquiry. As stated in the staff report, there are five seats on the South Slita City Council. Each position is filled by a majority vote of the city's electorate. There are no district elections. The City Council has been lawfully conducting the city's business with four members since Councilmember Weiner resigned in April of this year, including entering into the MOU with the district. It's also important to note that the lease does not provide for or allow the city to suspend the 45 day review period if there are less than five seated council members. |
| 00:20:51.57 | Lily Wayland | As discussed in the staff report for this evening, the lease amendment, the pass through agreement, the city's second amendment to the MND, and staff's draft conditions of approval are all items of discussion for the council this evening. With regards to the lease amendment, the project involves the following items which are outside the boundaries of the lease area. So that one is the construction and use of a relocated flow and gangway to the south of the existing location to serve as a temporary ferry terminal during the construction of the permanent replacement terminal. The second is the permanent construction and installation of two utility trenches and cabinets in lot one And behind the existing ticketing machines and then third item is one dolphin pile on the permanent float. Staff has provided a lease amendment for council's consideration which modifies the lease to allow for the location of these features. The proposed lease amendment also incorporates conditions 11 and 12 into the lease, prohibiting the district from docking vessels overnight at both the temporary and permanent facilities absent city consent in writing or an emergency, and then also prohibiting the district from loading or unloading more than one vessel at a time, except for emergencies. Additionally, the district will be required to submit a written report to the city annually describing the number, dates, and reasons for each incident that more than one vessel at a time was docked at the float. |
| 00:22:23.30 | Lily Wayland | We are also recommending that section 1A of the lease amendment be revised to add in language requiring that the temporary gangway and any other improvements put in place by the district at the temporary location. be removed as soon as practicable. given environmental constraints and limitations on when work in the water can occur. but no later. than one year from the commencement of operations at the permanent location. |
| 00:22:52.83 | Lily Wayland | The city intends to make land side improvements to the city's property adjacent to the ferry terminal to reduce congestion and 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 federal transit administration grant to the district. Before the city undertakes these improvements, it will seek community input. Staff has recommended certain revisions to the originally proposed pass through agreement in Appendix B scope of work to clarify that the authorized scope of the city's landslide improvements. And to limit the district's right to terminate the agreement for good cause, which is reflected in appendix A, section nine of the revised pass through agreement. Staff proposes a condition of approval for the project that the district execute this revised agreement prior to commencement of construction. |
| 00:23:55.22 | Lily Wayland | regarding the addendum to the MND. The city is a responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act because it has discretionary approval authority over the proposed project. As the city's review of the project under CEQA is limited in this case to substantial project changes, changed circumstances or new information since the district adopted the MND for the project in 2012. and were not adequately analyzed in the district's addendum to the MND. The city retained an environmental consulting firm, LSA Associates, to determine whether any conditions existed that triggered CEQA's requirement for additional environmental review of the proposed project. As set forth in the city's second addendum, which is in your packet and dated October 4th, while the project could potentially cause new and significant environmental impacts, In light of changed circumstances at the project site arising from substantial increases in southbound ferry passengers, primarily tourists. With bicycles and resulting crowd control impacts, these potential impacts are less than significant with the adoption of mitigation measure. AES 1. And AES 1 is on your screen. It states that commencing with permanent operations and continually act thereafter, the district shall maintain the queue for the ferry landing, which may span from the ferry landing pier southward along the side of the existing hedge towards Elportal Street, terminating at Elportal Street. The district shall implement all reasonable and necessary measures to prevent any queue for the project from extending beyond or outside the queue area. |
| 00:25:42.49 | Lily Wayland | Staff has drafted conditions of approval pursuant to the council's direction for the council's consideration. In summary, condition one provides that the project shall not include Belvedere's. Conditions two through four are standard conditions requiring that the district comply with all applicable permits and legal requirements, including all CEQA mitigation measures 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 on the Sausalito Yacht Club and the Inn above tide. Condition 8D in particular was revised to reflect the district's discussions with the Inabov Tide and the Sausalito Yacht Club and what the district agreed that they would do. Conditions 9 through 16 require the district to obtain all necessary encroachment permits and or lease amendments from the city as may be required for the project. These conditions additionally require lease amendments to one, prohibit the docking of vessels overnight absent city consent or an emergency. Two, impose limitations in annual reporting requirements regarding the docking of more than one vessel. at a time. And three, relocate the district's ticket vending machine to a mutually agreeable location. Condition 17 requires that the district execute the revised pass through agreement as recommended. and before commencement of construction. And lastly, condition 18 provides that prior to the commencement of construction and continually thereafter, the district shall manage the queue for the project to a specified queue area, which is depicted in exhibit B to the proposed conditions and shown on the screen here. The queue area may span from the ferry landing pier extending southward along the side of the existing hedge towards Elportal terminating at Elportal. The district additionally shall implement all reasonable and necessary measures to prevent the queue from extending beyond or outside the queue area. This condition is consistent with the proposed mitigation measure AES 1. |
| 00:28:08.80 | Lily Wayland | When the staff report was published, it included ten items of correspondence. We have subsequently received additional items of late correspondence which have been sent to the council, provided to you in front of you this evening and posted online. |
| 00:28:26.95 | Lily Wayland | And with that, this concludes our staff presentation. Our recommendation is as follows, to receive a presentation next from district staff, then to receive public comment, and then to determine whether or not to grant consent for the project, per person to the lease, and make findings regarding the project as a responsible agency under CEQA and trustee under the public trust doctrine. And that concludes our staff presentation. We're available for any questions. I know that the district is prepared to provide a presentation for the council, so it might make sense to have them give their presentation at this moment. |
| 00:29:00.91 | Joan Cox | Thank you, Lily. I suggest we proceed accordingly, have the district give their presentation, and then we can ask questions either of staff or the district. OK. So with that, I will hand over to Dennis Mulligan, General |
| 00:29:17.04 | Dennis Mulligan | of the British District. Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the council, city staff, members of the public. My name is Dennis Mulligan and I had the pleasure of being the general manager for the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District. I want to thank the council, city staff, and the public for being here tonight and to hear us on this matter. As always, Lily did a very thorough and complete presentation, so I will be brief in order to avoid repeating many of the things she said. If this clicker doesn't work, I may have to. Oh, it did work. Oh, you clicked it for me. Thank you, Lily. We presented the project previously, but just to highlight that the proposed project is in the general vicinity of the existing project. It does extend a little further out into the bay, 62 feet to be precise. The gangway is 20 feet longer, the float is longer and wider. And this shows you the various components of the project that are contemplated. We've made significant changes from what was originally environmentally cleared in 2012 and was discussed with the city numerous times subsequent to then, including as recently as 2014. The original gate design was a roll up gate that had an overhead structure that hid the grillage when it rolled up and was less than transparent. The design before you tonight is a glass or transparent material swing gates with no overhead structure. That will have a bird treatment that meets your requirements. The original gangway design was tall and wide. It was originally 21 feet wide. What's before you tonight is a width of 12 feet, so significantly narrower in order to reach, you know, hopefully a favorable vote from you. We've also reduced the height of it. What was originally proposed was a curved truss. It was quite high above the height of people walking out on it. What's proposed before you tonight is a handrail that's the minimum height required by the building code. And it's the same height as what's out there today, a 42 inch high railing. We've made other changes. The access pier is originally environmentally clear. It was 25 feet wide. It's now 21 feet wide. We modified the float slightly. This shows you in blue the footprint of a cross section of the original gangway design at 21 feet wide and 12 feet tall. What's before you tonight is 12 feet wide and 6.7 feet tall. And most of that structure is below the walking surface, just like it is today. So it's about the same depth as what's out there today. So what's existing is shown on the left. What's proposed is shown on the right. It does extend further out into the bay. That's our project in a nutshell. At your last meeting, several questions were raised. So near the conclusion of the meeting, I provided verbal answers and subsequently provided written answers to all those questions that are part of attachment two to your staff report. I could go through with slides those, but it may be redundant. So with this, I'll pause and I'm available to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you very much. |
| 00:32:10.73 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Okay. So before we open this for public comment, why don't we take this opportunity for questions, clarifying questions and so on, and then we'll open it up for public comment. So Vice Mayor, I know you have something you were ready to go with. |
| 00:32:30.51 | Joe Burns | Okay. I had written just a very few questions down. Lily, could you, in your presentation, turn back to Exhibit B? And while you're doing that, I'm going to ask a couple of questions. The diagram that's part of Exhibit B. During our, I'm going to direct these to Dennis Mulligan. During our first hearing, we had asked, would you have any objection to, I don't know, 13 conditions? you pretty much assented to most of them. One of them didn't make it into the conditions of approval, which is that you would add this project to your computerized maintenance system upon its completion. So we have a number of conditions under 8D you know, install vibration monitors, monitor noise and vibration. Would you have any objection to adding to 8D a clause that says something to the effect of prior to commencing operations, the district will provide the city with a long-term maintenance plan for this project. |
| 00:33:34.40 | Dennis Mulligan | I would gladly consent to include that because we will have a long-term plan and we'll gladly share it with you. |
| 00:33:40.14 | Joe Burns | Appreciate that. I had written down the name of your computerized system |
| 00:33:45.40 | Dennis Mulligan | Currently we use enterprise asset management software program called Maximo. |
| 00:33:50.30 | Joe Burns | Maximo is what I had written down. |
| 00:33:51.49 | Dennis Mulligan | It's an IBM product, but we'll share, that's just the vehicle. Whatever the system is. We'll share with you and your staff what that maintenance plan is. |
| 00:33:54.30 | Joe Burns | Whatever the system is. |
| 00:33:59.42 | Joe Burns | Thank you. In your conditions, I say yours, in our condition 8D, the first one is, during the operation of the temporary pier, the district shall limit ferry vessel speeds to no more than five knots unless weather conditions or safety considerations require otherwise. I seem, as a sailor myself, I seem to recall that's already a... requirement the five knots so i'm wondering if you have any objection to having that as a permanent condition that your vessels unless due to weather conditions or i understand if you have you know currents and winds that may not always be feasible but i'm wondering if you're willing on a permanent basis to typically limit your vessel speeds to no more than five knots and And the reason I ask is that, as you know, some of your neighbors have concern about the impact on their peers of your landing operations. |
| 00:34:59.86 | Dennis Mulligan | This one won't have the same answer as your first proposed change to the conditions. We feel it's a very appropriate condition for the temporary float because the temporary float gets much closer to in above tide. And in above tide is very concerned about the impact of the vessels operating for that short period of time in close proximity to their structure. And so it felt very appropriate to us in addition to crack monitoring and vibration monitoring, but to place that restriction for the temporary. The permanent facility will actually be 62 feet further away from shore than what is out there today. And we've been operating out there for several decades. We would prefer not to overly encumber the lease with lots of little terms. We will continue to operate in a seaman like manner like we have for 45 years here in Sausalito. And so we would prefer not to see this amended. |
| 00:35:49.77 | Joan Cox | Any other? |
| 00:35:50.43 | Joe Burns | Yes. |
| 00:35:50.85 | Joan Cox | Question. |
| 00:35:50.87 | Joe Burns | you So, Lily, on this, so I know where the queue area is because I know the streets, but I can't see where it's depicted on this chart. |
| 00:36:05.40 | Joe Burns | And the one in my packet either. |
| 00:36:09.09 | Dennis Mulligan | She probably needs a pointer. So the area goes along here. |
| 00:36:11.89 | Joe Burns | Yeah. Yep. |
| 00:36:15.94 | Dennis Mulligan | Is that correct? |
| 00:36:16.99 | Joe Burns | So there's like a double pencil, a double pen line. |
| 00:36:19.54 | Dennis Mulligan | It's a double pen line on the printed copy that's hard to see on the slide, but that depicts the proximity. Basically, it parallels the vegetation on both sides in this area. And the description that's in writing just puts the outer bounds and limits with respect to how far it goes towards the street. |
| 00:36:35.59 | Joe Burns | So may I suggest like a Sharpie? that we use so that when this is duplicated for the 15th time, the queue area is still clear? |
| 00:36:46.34 | Dennis Mulligan | We concur completely. |
| 00:36:47.69 | Joe Burns | Okay. Um... I know these are small, but okay. Referring to the amendment to the lease, I see that the revised language gives you a year. to remove the temporary pier. I think you know our neighbors would prefer that you not take a year. I understand that you're going to have some constraints since you plan to commence operations during the fishing season. How long, given no constraints, how long would it take you? Well, first of all, how are you going to remove it? The temporary pier. |
| 00:37:28.19 | Dennis Mulligan | Well, we have to remove the piles and that's subject to the environmental work window when we can work in the water of June 1st through November 30th. Right. And so we've placed restrictions on ourselves to not work in the water during certain time periods. And so our goal is to remove it as quickly as possible. That reduces the cost for our construction contract, for the contract to be mobilized on site. So we have a strong financial incentive to get it out of there as soon as possible. But because of the environmental work windows and because we've agreed to further restrict those beyond which the regulatory agencies have, we feel we need some latitude, but we'll get it out of there as quickly as possible. |
| 00:37:34.57 | Joe Burns | Right. Thank you. |
| 00:38:00.20 | Joe Burns | Do you require a separate BCDC permit to remove the temporary pier? |
| 00:38:05.72 | Dennis Mulligan | No, the permit we get from BCDC will include all the work that's before you. |
| 00:38:06.95 | Joe Burns | Temporary Gangway. And what is the actual duration of the work to remove it? |
| 00:38:14.30 | Dennis Mulligan | It's a couple of weeks. It's a very short duration work, but we do have to remove the piles that hold the temporary pier in place. We have to remove the gangway, and then we have to remove the temporary access pier. The temporary access pier will have wood decking, but it'll have piles, 24-inch piles that'll have been vibrated into the bay that will have to vibrate out of the bay at the bottom. And we can't do that 12 months of the year because of the environmental windows. |
| 00:38:38.96 | Joe Burns | So what if the condition were something like three months after November 30? |
| 00:38:45.49 | Dennis Mulligan | It depends on when the other work gets completed. So we don't want to get too cute on the schedule, because if the contractor finishes the work on the permanent during the winter months, in terms of attaching the float to the piling, then we can't remove it for nine months, and we'd like to remove it as soon as possible. So if they complete that work in late winter, we'd like them to, as soon as June 1st hits, to remove those piles that hold up the temporary access pier and the temporary float. |
| 00:39:19.90 | Joe Burns | What if we were to phrase this so that it's within a certain period of time allowing for the constraints of the no work period. |
| 00:39:29.45 | Dennis Mulligan | That's the intent of what's before you. The intent of what's before you is that once the permanent facility is in place and there's an environmental work window that allows us to do the work in the water, that we will remove it as quickly as possible. |
| 00:39:42.76 | Joe Burns | Okay, I understand. I may revisit this, but thank you for answering my questions. |
| 00:39:50.48 | Joan Cox | Council Member Holtman. |
| 00:39:50.64 | Joe Burns | . Thank you. |
| 00:39:51.49 | Jill Hoffman | I had a question about the lights. Mary, do you want to Let me pose this question now or wait until after public comment because it may come up. Sure. Go ahead. So we had a letter from the Yacht Club with some questions about some of the conditions. And one of them was the lighting. And so that's under condition number 15. Under mitigations, all exterior lighting shall be shielded downward facing to reduce glare. Lighting systems on the permanent ferry landing shall remain off when not in use allowing however for their use for a reasonable period of time prior to vessel docking and after vessel departures from the dock as required for safety Mr. Mulligan, the question from the Yacht Club was whether or not instead of just reasonable period, you would agree to... periods of time, I believe it was, you know, the lights would go on for certain period of time. I think it was, anybody had the letter out, the Yacht Club letter? It was, oh there it is, okay hold on. |
| 00:41:01.47 | Jill Hoffman | Yeah, I'm sorry, my apologies. |
| 00:41:06.36 | Dennis Mulligan | The lights on the. the lights on the gangway and the float are to be off when there's no vessels there. Our design has not been completed because we're awaiting your approval before we invest a lot of money in the design. But the intent is we'll have pendants when a vessel pulls up that they can reach out, grab the pendant, which will operate the gangways. We'll also have that operate the lights. With a modern lighting system, we'll have a lot more flexibility than what we have today. It's not our intention to leave the lights on. We know that recently Blue and Gold has started a late night ferry trip out of Saucelito because some of your residents are interested in it. And because of that the lights are staying on late and with the new facility we would be able to turn them off after the second to last trip. Because there's quite a time period between the second to last trip and the last trip and we think that's completely reasonable. |
| 00:41:54.62 | Jill Hoffman | Would you be, would there be any problem with you you know, the Yacht Club requests that the lights be turned on from 10 minutes prior to docking and then turned off five minutes after leaving the dock. Is that within a reasonable period for you guys or no? |
| 00:42:09.09 | Dennis Mulligan | It depends on the schedule. For the current situation where there's a large time gap between two vessels, it is. But if you have two boats coming in relatively close proximity in the winter months, when it gets dark very early, that may not be as reasonable. It may be better just to leave them on because it's dark at 530. And so if you have a couple of boats coming in, it's prudent to leave them on. But if you're going to have a gap between two boats of some time period, then it would be prudent to have them go off between the vessels leaving and the next one coming. |
| 00:42:38.23 | Jill Hoffman | Does that time period, though, seem like within a reasonable requests you and is there a way that we can incorporate that somehow into the conditions? |
| 00:42:45.96 | Dennis Mulligan | I'm not sure. You know, we're receptive to, we've been going through lots of language with your staff on all the conditions. And so, you know, perhaps you could defer to staff to come up with some language that's workable, that meets your desire. That's something we can work out that satisfies that. Because it's not unreasonable to say the lights should go off if the next boat's not coming for an hour and a half. We completely understand that, and we concur with that. But how it's written, it's not clear in terms of what's the appropriate language. |
| 00:43:09.94 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:43:09.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 00:43:19.02 | Joe Burns | Well, as a point of order, I would point out that we're being asked to approve a resolution this evening with conditions of approval. We don't have the luxury any longer because our 45-day approval period is ending. So we need to... |
| 00:43:31.84 | Dennis Mulligan | So you wanted to find a reasonable period of time. |
| 00:43:33.53 | Joe Burns | Yes, from the dais. Yeah. |
| 00:43:39.82 | Jill Hoffman | I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE How about this? |
| 00:43:42.41 | Joe Burns | Well, hold on. |
| 00:43:43.37 | Jill Hoffman | is |
| 00:43:44.03 | Joe Burns | consultant says. |
| 00:43:45.04 | Dennis Mulligan | I was looking at my ferry operations manager because we can all create these rules but we operate 365 days a year and others operate at this landing too and we have limits on how we can regulate them and that's one of the concerns we have is the CPUC says that others can use our landing. It's not unreasonable to say that if a |
| 00:43:46.49 | Joe Burns | Yeah. |
| 00:44:02.28 | Joe Burns | If a What? |
| 00:44:05.80 | Dennis Mulligan | If it's going to be more than an hour between ferry boats coming and going and it's dark out that the lights go off within, I don't know, 10 minutes, you can't put it on a timer. It has to be something that's operated remotely. Right. And it has to be operated by lots of vessels. And so we want to work with it. We just don't want to, you know, have too much minutia in the lease. We want to have the ability to work with the city going forward. |
| 00:44:17.78 | Unknown | Right. |
| 00:44:29.27 | Joe Burns | Okay, I think all we're looking to do is define the word reasonable. So if you think reasonable, I mean, I'd even say 15 minutes. |
| 00:44:37.13 | Dennis Mulligan | 15 minutes, sure. |
| 00:44:37.37 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Okay, great. |
| 00:44:40.03 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. |
| 00:44:40.05 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:44:40.15 | Jill Hoffman | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 00:44:41.03 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:44:41.06 | Jill Hoffman | So 15 minutes prior to docking and 15 minutes after leaving the dock? |
| 00:44:45.30 | Joe Burns | Well, this says shall remain off when not in use, allowing, however, for their use for a reasonable period of time prior to vessel and after vessel departure. So I would just say reasonable period of time, paren, |
| 00:44:45.80 | Jill Hoffman | It is. |
| 00:44:56.32 | Joe Burns | i.e. 15 minutes. Okay. Yeah. Who's gonna start now? Thank you. |
| 00:45:03.71 | Dennis Mulligan | So in the winter time when it gets dark early though, would we want to have lights flicking on and off from five o'clock to eight o'clock? Or would we want to just say after a certain time that this would be triggered? |
| 00:45:16.05 | Jill Hoffman | I think that goes back to as required by safety. Yep. As required for safety at the end of the thing. At the end of the thing. |
| 00:45:21.24 | Unknown | As required for safety. |
| 00:45:24.75 | Jill Hoffman | At the end of the, sorry, sentence. I think that gives you your flexibility is what I'm |
| 00:45:30.05 | Joe Burns | And we could say the lighting systems on the permanent ferry landing show remain off when not in use for more than one hour. |
| 00:45:38.47 | Dennis Mulligan | Okay. Yeah. |
| 00:45:39.01 | Joe Burns | Okay. All right, so after the words use, I'm gonna say for more than one hour, comma, allowing, however, for their use for a reasonable period of time, i.e. 15 minutes prior to vessel docking and other vessel departures from the dock as required for safety. |
| 00:45:51.47 | Dennis Mulligan | That's reasonable. |
| 00:45:52.18 | Joe Burns | Okay, great, thank you. |
| 00:45:59.11 | Unknown | No, I think that's it. |
| 00:45:59.26 | Joe Burns | you |
| 00:45:59.53 | Joe Burns | No. |
| 00:45:59.82 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:45:59.85 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:45:59.90 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:46:00.04 | Cass Green | Thank you. |
| 00:46:00.14 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:46:00.22 | Cass Green | I can't stand. |
| 00:46:01.07 | Joe Burns | Joe. |
| 00:46:08.26 | Joe Burns | Okay. |
| 00:46:08.97 | Cass Green | Yeah. |
| 00:46:10.03 | Unknown | Public comment. |
| 00:46:11.19 | Joan Cox | OK. |
| 00:46:11.43 | Unknown | I'm good for it. All right. |
| 00:46:11.80 | Joan Cox | All right, so with that, we will probably have more questions after public comment. Thank you for now. So we will now open this up for public comment. And could I remind you to fill in, please, a green poll. |
| 00:46:12.20 | Cass Green | Thank you. |
| 00:46:30.80 | Joan Cox | card, slip, and I will call your names. You have three minutes. And... We have about... Okay, we're good. 10 or so cards. So I'm going to open public comment. Why don't we start off with Neil Whitelaw. |
| 00:47:00.76 | Neil Whitelaw | The Press. read about the letter from Sam Chase. |
| 00:47:08.67 | Joan Cox | Excuse me one second, Neil. Could we get a microphone please to |
| 00:47:20.89 | Neil Whitelaw | Before I start, I'd like to get permission to read aloud Sam Chase's letter after my presentation. He can't be here for some reason. I don't know what. I don't even know him. But I think it should be... heard so it can be seen on television and be seen again, seen by the public watching. |
| 00:47:38.23 | Joan Cox | I'm sorry. Neil, you have three minutes. Sam has written us many letters. We've got his most recent letter. So I'm not inclined to have people read other people's comments. So please go ahead, sir. |
| 00:47:48.17 | Neil Whitelaw | All right. Okay, the goal is a better future for everyone. I urge our councilmen, |
| 00:47:50.97 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 00:47:56.09 | Neil Whitelaw | and council women. to temporarily reject the plan until we can see without doubts the Let's get consensus, not division on something so important. I can count at least six times the Golden Age Bridge District has lied to us. It's one lie after another. To me, this whole issue comes down to sovereignty. shallow sovereign entity, the incorporated city of Sausalito, known as citizens, determine how its city shall look and function in its destiny. beauty and environment. or shall other outside entities determine these things? entities such as tour operators, Tourists on bicycles, bicycle coalitions, ferry services, tourists, bridge districts, whose directors include an appointed director from Del Norte County, so he can be a determining factor in the affairs of Sausley Donne. bus operators, bicycle rental operators, San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau, counties, federal states, Washington DC, residents of Pittsburgh, the dictator of Cuba, and the list goes on and on to infinity. Well, what do you want? Personally, I think it's the citizens of Sausli who get to choose what they desire for our waterfront. It's nobody else's business. But our elected city council. all five of them. determined to interpret what we the people desire. And it's obvious that again, two years later, 80% of the residents are against this. It's too big. We don't want to become the Disneyland of Marin. If counsel is wrong in implementing what we the people demand, then we will simply vote them out of office next year but the damage will already have been done. It could not be more obvious that the Ferry Channel project in its present form is against the will of the people, we the people of our village. Always remember, in the United States of America, it is our God-given right to rule ourselves. This is what's met by sovereignty. Again, I urge you to reject the district's plan for now, be prepared to take whatever the voters give you November 2018 There's also something called a recall election and recall petition. If city council does not follow the will of the people. I believe 80% of the people consacred or against the district's plans. as we were two years ago. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, that's City Council. and beloved citizens of Sausalito. |
| 00:50:47.55 | Joan Cox | Thank you Neil. Next is Nick Sands followed by Alice Merrill. |
| 00:51:00.09 | Nick Sands | Good evening. I'm Nick Sands. I'm a director on the executive board of the Sorceleto Yacht Club. First of all, I want to thank the City Council for several meetings that we had with the Council and with the Bridge District. We really appreciate the discussion that we had with both groups in discussing this project. I just want to reiterate, we are part of the community in Sorceleto. We have over 1,000 members and significant others that are... you know, many hundreds of whom are residents in the city, and the club itself is part of the fabric of the town. THE CITY IS GOING TO BE We have a big stake in the character of the waterfront in Sausalito. This project, we're one of the two most immediate neighbors of this project, the other being the Inn Above Tide. So we've got a huge interest in how this project is configured. In addition, The clubhouse is the city's asset. The clubhouse belongs to the city. We are tenants. And so as part of that, we are trying to protect our experience at the Yacht Club and the impact from the ferry landing. But also we're trying to protect the asset of the city and to safeguard it from damage to the facility from ferry operations. There was a list of conditions that were put in. Some of the items that we thought were agreed prior to this did not make it under the conditions of approval. A couple of those have been brought to your attention this evening. In addition, we have some other operational concerns. in particular the scouring and dredging that's been observed by ferries causes a lot of wash and has the potential to cause damage to the pilings and disturb the fill in the bay. We also want to endorse this idea of a speed limit to promote safe operation of the ferries in this area. Um, In addition, we celebrate not mooring the ferries overnight. Thank you for doing that. And the single vessel loading constraint. And lastly, I want to say that even though the decision may be made tonight, we don't need to close off discussion at this point. We are still open to discussing the details as they become. We'd like to work with the bridge district and the city on the details of the lighting, for example, if that's appropriate. We are willing to help and the door is open to have further discussions. Thank you. |
| 00:53:45.70 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Madam Vice Mayor. |
| 00:53:48.13 | Joe Burns | Mr. Sands. Can I ask you a question? So you heard me ask Dennis Mulligan about a five-mile, sorry, five-naught speed limit and... well, the five-mile speed limit because of the scouring and dredging concerns. And his response was, well, we're now 62 feet further out in the bay. So does that response alleviate your concern about scouring and dredging? And if not, why not? |
| 00:54:22.32 | Nick Sands | Well, I think in large part, 62 extra feet is probably enough. One of the things that's been observed is ferries being tied up, operating with a lot of wash at long periods of time. And that was the thing in particular we were trying to address with that particular item. |
| 00:54:35.70 | Joan Cox | Yes. |
| 00:54:35.97 | Unknown | of the world. |
| 00:54:42.00 | Nick Sands | So this is what seems to me that this is intentionally operating ferries to pick up mud. while they're moored, and that's something we would... |
| 00:54:50.72 | Joe Burns | You mean to kick mud off of the ferry? |
| 00:54:52.14 | Nick Sands | the fairies. or you had to sweep it away from where the landing is. And that's something we, we think could be very damaging to the area. |
| 00:55:02.62 | Joe Burns | I just want to be clear. So I think you all mentioned this to me individually, but you believe that once docked, the ferries are not cutting off their engines. They are continuing to run their engines at high speed, which has a scouring effect. |
| 00:55:16.39 | Nick Sands | Yes. This has been observed, yes. |
| 00:55:18.45 | Joe Burns | as, OK. So I'm going to keep a note on that. I'll refer that back to Mr. Mulligan after public comment. Thank you. |
| 00:55:29.13 | Joan Cox | Okay, thank you. Alice Merrill followed by Grover Deer. |
| 00:55:35.49 | Alice Merrill | Hello again. Hi. |
| 00:55:36.17 | Joan Cox | Hi, Alison. |
| 00:55:36.89 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. Mm-hmm. I keep coming up here as a pro-ferry person because I know that there are a lot of people who are against it and I... I know that most of the pro ferry people don't keep coming back, and a lot of the against people do. So I'm going to be one of the coming back for pro. So, um, All right. I think we have to proceed. We really do. They've done a really big job and we won't want the consequences if we don't proceed. And that sounds like a threat from them, or from you, or from me, or whatever. But this is life. This is how things proceed. I'm a member of the Sasslater Yacht Club. And I greatly appreciate being one. It was sort of a special thing that I have. And I think that I'm one constituent who thinks that the ferry landing should go in and that the yacht club is not really look at the fairies. For the most people, it looks out toward Belvedere, and it's just... You have to really look for the ferries to have them really impact you. for the most part. And I'm also a constituent in town. And I would like to say that of the people I talk to, maybe 80% are for the ferry, who knows? So it's possible that there are more people for it than against it, or certainly not such a huge division. And... I don't know, I just try to go for reasonable, but I really want this to happen. And the last thing is I keep hearing two to two and this whole big sort of threat of two to two, and there's no really good reason why you couldn't all vote for it tonight. I mean, it doesn't have to be two to two. So I'm hoping that something in that order happens, thanks. |
| 00:57:48.25 | Joan Cox | Thank you, Alice. Could I remind, before I call up the next set of folks, could I remind folks that if you want to address the council to fill in a green card and see what we got here. So the next one is Grover Deer then followed by Bill Versace. |
| 00:58:15.11 | Grover Deere | My name is Grover Deere and I've said for the last two meetings the feelings on why I am not in favor of this proposal. I'm up before you tonight to simply say, even though the bridge, the Golden Gate, refused to extend the possibility of voting on this. I still think it is inherently wrong that the city council of four people, which is not its full five, is voting on something of this magnitude. I'm here to say if there's any way at all that a vote could be had with a full council, then you can stand up against division. This is divisive. I can understand the previous speaker using her percentages of who might be for it or might not be, but it is a divisive and there is a strong outpouring against something of this magnitude. I think it's a major, major mistake for the city council that is not in full force to vote on something of this magnitude. And I respectfully ask that even what the MOU and the lease says in some way could be amended, even though last meeting the general manager said they would not accept a delay. I'm requesting some way, somehow we work together so that we can have a full city council vote on this measure properly. Thank you. |
| 00:59:22.24 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 00:59:42.26 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Bill Versace, then Dennis Fafette, Denise, sorry, Fafette. |
| 00:59:53.22 | Bill Versace | I'm Bill Versace. You'll notice on my card I didn't do for or against because I think that the district has worked on this proposal long enough and that we've heard it enough. The district's going to get more or less what it's already proposed regardless of what we find tonight. Last week I talked about the land side improvements and it's still my concern. The LSA report, thank you very much for it very succinctly and clearly and comprehensively covers the issues that I was talking about two weeks ago. So I appreciate that. There are two items though. One is there within that report and what's been adopted in the conditions is that the district limits align to the yellow intestine there. And the current area, which is this area for bikes and pedestrians, is the whole, according to the report, is the entire pink area there. I think it's inherently unreasonable to expect that. The condition here is that it be reasonable effort and it's unreasonable for us to expect that the district's really going to do that. So I think there is a conundrum there. I think that what it does is it goes right back to making it incumbent on the district to come up with a landside plan for operations and for people management and crowd management and how the lines are going to be controlled, et cetera. And that is covered by the, can you, Lily, next slide. That's covered by the scope of work in the transfer agreement. It basically says that the area will be expanded to include the parking lot. That will be the area occupied for ferry passengers and bicycles will be increased, as well as access to the public space. Larger enhanced score line. I can't read it from here. But you get the idea. Lillard, can you go back to the other slide? Is that possible? Really what that means is that what the city's committing to is to doing something in the pink area there, in addition to the city's blue bike lot, which I think is legitimately the city's responsibility. I don't know how you resolve that. Somehow you're signing two documents which are contradictory, as far as I can see. And again, I think it makes it incumbent to do a comprehensive plan for the landslide. Beyond that, I want to thank the council, actually the entire city staff, who have been incredibly patient with everyone involved here, from both mayors down to Russell, who's not here tonight. Particularly like to thank Joan Cox, who has made a career of listening to complaints around this project, about this project, for as long as I can remember. And for Lily, who's just been handling all of this so professionally, so capably, and putting up for all of us. Thank you. |
| 01:03:19.25 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Denise? Fafette followed by John Burke. |
| 01:03:34.02 | Denise Fafette | Hello. I want to thank city council and the city staff and the Golden Gate Bridge District, a lot of work has been put in. I've attended meetings since the beginning. I haven't been able to attend every meeting. The proposals made have been significant in change, in response, repeatedly, from the beginning to the end. The proposal that we're looking at today is in alignment With the ideal that came as a result of the consulting report. If I had my druthers, it would be bigger, frankly. But... That's my opinion and there are other people in the city of Sausalito, and we compromise. And this plan is a significant compromise to represent everyone. And it needs to be safe. In addition to that, We approve it now, we maintain control, |
| 01:04:45.53 | Denise Fafette | We take care of the congestion. According to the Marin IJ article, every single prospective City Council member is an agreement to move forward with the ferry plan. So there's no need to wait. But what is at risk if we do wait is our safety. The city of Sausalito has a duty to take care and to maintain and to not put any Undo. postponement. What I find very interesting and telling is how much rust there is on the entire existing facility. It is throughout. I've been on the ferry, it's narrow. and there is waves that rock over it. So There is a legal responsibility of the city and the Golden Gate Bridge to maintain the safety. It just is. And We need to look at everybody. The people that I have run into, They support it. They support this plan, but the sad fact of the matter is, there's a significant population of Sausalito who do not feel safe to come to city council meetings. They do not feel safe to express their viewpoint because they feel |
| 01:06:18.38 | Denise Fafette | that their livelihood or their housing. will be put at risk. or their ability to enjoy a cup of coffee. And I can't even speak without people muttering underneath their breath. this has been a regular occurrence and at some point in time the city council needs to make it clear that we can disagree with each other I smile and I jog by a gentleman who works at the Yacht Club. I enjoy the Yacht Club. And the very fact of the matter is, even though we disagree, I hope tomorrow morning when I jog by, we smile at each other. |
| 01:06:58.61 | Joe Burns | Thank you. Thank you. |
| 01:06:58.81 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:06:59.42 | Denise Fafette | Because I care about the Yacht Club. Thank you, Denise. Thanks. |
| 01:07:00.95 | Joe Burns | Bye. |
| 01:07:00.97 | Joan Cox | Thank you, Denise. Thank you. Next is John Burke, followed by Bill Werner. |
| 01:07:15.40 | John Burke | Thank you very much for your time and I know safety and thank you and thank you. But as it goes for the past month and a half, I don't know who does the EPA water samples out by the ferry terminal, but I have filmed the leakage of some sort of chemical. |
| 01:07:18.00 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:07:18.03 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:07:18.07 | Unknown | So, |
| 01:07:34.87 | John Burke | between the ferry dock and Sausalito. I have the evidence to prove it, and I would like to know if that has anything to do with the impact of the 164 seals that were euthanized at our Marine Mammal Center. Now, if anybody's interested in checking that out before you make an amendment or agreement this evening, I think that would be an excellent Excellent idea. And I just want to thank you for your time. And if you need to see that evidence, you can call me at 415-250-5178. So... you Enjoy your evening, and I hope you don't make any bad decisions. |
| 01:08:11.70 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Bill Werner followed by Cass Green. |
| 01:08:23.44 | Bill Werner | Good evening Mayor Withey, Council members, my name is Bill Werner. I want to clarify a recent article that quoted me as saying, I would vote for this ferry landing proposal out of frustration. I did say that. AND I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THEM. rather no-nonsense person, it was out of frustration. WITH THE PERCEPTION THAT, BASED ON the proceedings of the September 26th meeting of this group that tonight's vote would take the expedient way out to avoid further legal expenses. to be clear and for the record I do not now, nor have I ever, supported this ferry landing proposal. and I would not vote for it even in its latest incarnation. City records since 2014 will show that I have consistently raised concerns and oppose this ferry landing proposal on fair and logical grounds, as have many others in the community. We're here because on December 4th, THE CASE OF THE CASE OF THE The British District went to BCDC expecting to get their final permit. A lot of folks from here went down there and stopped that. BCDC said, get the approval of Sausalito first. They have to go back to get that approval. You can bet if you approve this tonight, there will be a lot of people at the next BCDC meeting. I believe that the Conditions for approval in the staff report do little to mitigate the impact of this design on our waterfront, and are meant mostly to justify the council's approval. I suspect many in the public will agree. I urge the Council to vote no on this ferry landing proposal and to direct the district to revise their design premises and assumptions and engage the public for a change. in a meaningful process to produce a more suitable and functional addition scaled to our waterfront. and no vote. is the courageous thing for you to do. |
| 01:10:52.43 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Cass Green, followed by William McDevitt. |
| 01:11:03.95 | Cass Green | Good evening. No slides this time. I want to thank you, the council and the staff and the district for all the work that they've done on this project. It's really impressive, the changes are significant and we really appreciate that. Um, However, we are still really concerned. I was less concerned when I read the Exhibit D Amendment which held the temporary period of six months. And totally flabbergasted and surprised when I heard Lily read off the the revised Exhibit D Amendment, which held the location of the pier to a year. was a big surprise because I thought I'd looked at the most recent stuff before I left home today. So I want to make really, really clear. Our concern, the Inn and Above Tide's concern, is with the operation of the temporary peer. not how long it's sitting there. We don't care how long it's sitting there. We're worried about when it is operated. It can't, if it's operated, for six months, we can live with that. If it's operated from October, It needs to not be operated I'm going to do this backwards and Willie will kill me. THE END OF Um, I'm not. We need to not operate it in the summer months. We need to not operate it from April through September. That is critical for our revenue stream, and it's critical for our net revenue, and it's really critical for the TOT, for the city's revenue. So again, we're not... concerned with how long the pier actually is in place. We are critically concerned with when and how long the pier is in operation. That's what's going to impact us the most, both the structure and our revenue. Thanks very much. |
| 01:12:55.58 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Willie McDevitt, then Susan Cleveland Knowles. |
| 01:13:05.45 | Willie McDevitt | Good evening everybody. I'm gonna continue on Cass' theme which is schedule. I've got one other topic. We've been working with the district on schedule for, well since I think about April of 2015. We've had gone back and forth numerous times recently, made I've created schedules. I've changed at the behest of John Eberly, one of the engineers at the bridge district, It seems to me that From everything I can see, the schedule should be adopted in some form, not that this schedule exactly should be adopted, but the The condition should be that the city require the bridge district to require their contractor to meet a schedule substantially similar to the one we've presented on numerous occasions. One of the main parts of that is that the temporary ferry dock only be used between approximately October 15th and March 31st. These are conditions that can be met by the district with no added expense, for the benefit of the city, the Yacht Club being above tide. It's a big win-win-win. And quite frankly, if they don't, the blowback of not meeting these is to be using it in the summer months, which is going to cause more bike congestion. and all kinds of other negative things that the city doesn't want. I don't know why the British District isn't embracing what we've worked with them on and saying, yes, we will include this in our contract documents for the benefit of themselves, and the city. It's an easy condition that should have been agreed upon at a staff level, and I'm shocked that it hasn't been. Uh, On the second topic, and I think this is very important to the city, You know, we asked with the Yacht Club to include a condition in a condition for an exhibit D to include the indemnity agreement to include the Yacht Club, Excuse me, the Inn Above Tide, and the entity that owns the real estate that houses the end above tide. The reason for this is that If any damage occurs of any kind, and the city does not require a condition indemnifies us they're putting the city at risk, in my opinion, by that any the only thing we have as recourse to damage is then TO GO TO THE CITY. and say, you approve this, you fix it. We don't think that's the right thing to do. We want to partner with the city, You know, I'm in a business that writes, you know, I've signed hundreds and hundreds of indemnity agreements a year through our company. A path through indemnity is very common in its standard business practices, and it should be included in that condition. Thank you very much. |
| 01:16:13.09 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Susan Cleveland-Knowles, followed by Doreen Gurnard. And then that's the end of the... green cards I have. So if anybody else wants to talk, please fill one in. Susan. |
| 01:16:27.23 | Susan Cleveland-Knowles | Hi, good evening, Mayor, Council Member, Susan Cleveland-Knowles. I urge you to unanimously approve the Ferry Landing Project with conditions tonight. While I know not everyone is completely comfortable with the results, and I respect all of those views, I believe that the public process has resulted in a ferry landing. that is in scale for Sausalito. and that the conditions that the council has negotiated Protect the city. and address the majority of concerns of the important neighboring uses such as the Inn Above Tides and the Yacht Club. And it sounds like those conditions might continue to be under some discussion tonight. the main concerns of the majority of people have been addressed. And in fact, for reasons I won't bore you with, I've been having a lot of conversations with a lot of people recently. And in those conversations, there is an overwhelming sense that the process has worked and it's time to move forward. As I've said before, our town needs an upgraded ferry landing that is safe, ADA compliant, and can serve us in an emergency. The upgrade also provides operational capacity to load bikes, which will relieve congestion and keep the ferry running on time so that those residents who use it could get home from work on schedule. The city has devoted significant time, significant financial resources, and energy to this project, and you've gotten a good result. I urge your approval and hope the vote is unanimous and includes all of the conditions. Thank you very much. |
| 01:17:58.88 | Joan Cox | Thank you. And the final card I have is Doreen Gurnard. |
| 01:18:10.17 | Doreen Gurnard | Hello, you guys, it's good to see you tonight. I just got back from Napa on my catamaran with this discussion of double-hulled boats being tied up at the pier there at that landing. I wanna say something about that going forward. There's gonna be a lot more double-hulled boats around. Having just ridden the Larkspur Ferry recently, I don't see why that's not something that we have coming into Saucedo, because actually you have a lot less wake with those boats. I want to say this, it's time. We have had a real process here in this town regarding the ferry landing. I know myself having been on the Park and Rec Commission, what we did with Robin Sweeney was the same kind of process. Lots of people weighed in. There's lots of change that's happened. From the original plan to where we are today. It's not as if nothing has happened in these two and a half years. Actually, there's been a lot of progress and There's a point where you've all got to say, it's time. This plan is doable, it's very similar to what we already have, and I think it's just time for the rest of the town, because we could fight about this for years. We know, because we already have, but we could go on and on and keep spinning and making a I don't think, just a bad It's like the smoke in the air. That's what ends up happening when a town's just fighting with itself about something. It's time to make a decision. And unlike the Republicans, I don't think you need to have all the justices sitting up here to make a decision. I know you four can do this. And I look forward to your answer. |
| 01:19:50.71 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:19:50.79 | Doreen Gurnard | Thank you. |
| 01:19:53.34 | Joan Cox | Thank you, Doreen. So one last chance. Is there anybody else who'd like to say anything before I close public comment? OK, with that, seeing none, I'm closing public comment. and bringing it up here. So any more questions of staff, of the district, and then we need to figure out how to proceed with discussion of conditions. |
| 01:20:21.45 | Joe Burns | All right, so I have a couple more questions. |
| 01:20:21.88 | Joan Cox | I have a couple more questions. Please. |
| 01:20:23.82 | Joe Burns | Thank you. I promised I would come back to you on this. Mr. Mulligan, so There was the Sausalio Yacht Club says that sometimes your boats rev their engines up quite a bit at the dock and scour a whole bunch of water. |
| 01:20:45.86 | Dennis Mulligan | Yes, council member, to the concern raised by, I believe it was Nick Sands representing the Yacht Club. We don't turn the engines off at the dock, because if you turn them off, they may not come back on. But we do not rev engines. We're not trying to drag the float someplace. If we rev engines and it's awake and we're tied up to the float, then we will be trying to carry the float someplace. But sometimes we do have to use the engines to bring the boat safely against the dock for the last little bit. But we do not rev engines when the boats are there. And I think you asked him about moving it 62 feet further away. And I think he conceded that that should, quote, pretty much address the concern that he had. And so we feel that moving the float 62 feet further away, we feel that our current operation at this location for many decades indicates that it's not necessary nor appropriate to add this condition to the permit. |
| 01:21:37.09 | Joe Burns | So operationally, would you object to a condition that requires you not to that once you're docked, that you don't create a wake at the dock until you depart. |
| 01:21:51.47 | Dennis Mulligan | You can't say not create a wake because the engines are still running. While the engines are running, there is some wake created. I think we're getting into the weeds here. We've been a neighbor and a good partner for 45 years here in Sausalito. And if we were doing things that cause damage, then all the structures along the shoreline would be in the water by now. We're moving further away from the shore, and so we feel that we don't want to have a condition that is vague and is subject to interpretation. That's why your clarification on the lighting was helpful, because it has something that's measurable, that's quantifiable. To say you're not going to have a wake, there's always some wake. |
| 01:22:28.71 | Joe Burns | I was trying to craft a condition that would address what you said does not happen, but which I've heard from several Yacht Club members does happen. Thank you. |
| 01:22:39.20 | Dennis Mulligan | I think there's a wake when the vessels, well, I think... |
| 01:22:39.24 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:22:43.24 | Dennis Mulligan | COUNCIL. |
| 01:22:46.31 | Joe Burns | Thank you. I'm sorry, but I think I can clarify something. |
| 01:22:51.42 | Dennis Mulligan | Anyway, so when vessels are tied up, we're not getting engines. And so if that's the perception, that's an incorrect perception. But as we bring a vessel to the dock, particularly when there's currents there, we do have to use the engines to bring it the last couple of feet. And that's what we do. To have a condition that could be nebulous and misinterpreted, we think is problematic for all parties. |
| 01:23:16.58 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:23:22.40 | Joe Burns | A question for the city attorney? |
| 01:23:27.47 | Joe Burns | I'm not sure. In above the tide. If an issue occurs to in above the tide and they sue the city of Sausalito, the city of Sausalito can then turn to the Golden Gate Bridge District for indemnity if there's an issue caused. Correct. Or that the city is sued for that. And the Golden Gate Bridge District owes the city a duty of indemnity. Correct. And when a municipality has to defend itself against a third party claim, the municipality can sometimes recover attorney's fees for that defense. Correct? |
| 01:24:10.50 | Joe Burns | So in above tight is not left without a remedy, simply because they're not named as a named indemnitor in this agreement. |
| 01:24:20.29 | Mary Wagner | I mean, correct. So the Inn above Tide indicated that they felt that their recourse was against the city from the city's approval of this project. And as you clearly indicated, the city has a condition of approval requiring indemnity from the district. And in addition, our lease requires that the district indemnify us from their operation of the ferry landing. So the Inn above Tide potentially has recourse directly against the district. And to the extent that they seek recourse from the city, we would also seek indemnity from the district. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. |
| 01:24:50.65 | Joan Cox | Okay, any other questions? Okay, so can we see where we are with |
| 01:25:06.96 | Joan Cox | the conditions of approval. Is there any comments on Any of the, on the conditions of approval, any suggested modifications? that we can start discussing before we take a vote. |
| 01:25:30.11 | Joe Burns | Mr. Mayor, I already enunciated two revisions to condition 15, which I hope staff will captured, which is after the comma after use, it will say for more than one hour. comma, And after the word time and before the word prior, there will be a parenthetical that says IE 15 minutes. |
| 01:26:03.98 | Joe Burns | then I have proposed and I believe that this is |
| 01:26:07.88 | Joan Cox | Is there, before you proceed, is there any other commentary on that particular condition? |
| 01:26:12.74 | Joe Burns | Mm-mm. |
| 01:26:13.11 | Joan Cox | Staff, you have that... in particular and, okay. |
| 01:26:19.85 | Joe Burns | Then I requested of the district, and I believe I received their assent, to adding a new bullet to condition 8D, on page two. which will read Prior to commencing operations, comma, provide city with long term maintenance plan for the project. |
| 01:26:44.65 | Adam Politzer | Correct. So, |
| 01:26:49.12 | Mary Wagner | Mr. Mayor, may I ask a question of the Vice Mayor? My notes reflected it was prior to commencing permanent operations. Is that accurate? Correct. And that they would submit? |
| 01:26:51.45 | Adam Politzer | Vice Mayor. |
| 01:27:00.08 | Mary Wagner | the long-term maintenance plan to the city. Correct. |
| 01:27:04.14 | Joe Burns | Thank you. I say, |
| 01:27:04.85 | Mary Wagner | THE FAMILY. |
| 01:27:04.92 | Joe Burns | provide city with long-term maintenance plan for this project? Okay, and then, Um... A condition I did not receive the district's assent to, but which I believe is eminently reasonable, is to render the condition the first bullet. to have that apply both to the temporary peer and the permanent project. |
| 01:27:43.98 | Jill Hoffman | So may I comment on that? Yes. So would you find it |
| 01:27:46.01 | Neil Whitelaw | Yep. |
| 01:27:51.26 | Jill Hoffman | acceptable that the warning be during ferry operations. the ferry limit Vessel speeds to no more than five knots unless weather conditions or safety considerations require otherwise. Yes. So, Is it past time to ask follow-up questions? No. |
| 01:28:10.39 | Joan Cox | I'm not. |
| 01:28:10.48 | Joe Burns | No. |
| 01:28:10.97 | Jill Hoffman | Okay, so I'm not clear, Mr. Mulligan, about why |
| 01:28:11.07 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:28:11.19 | Unknown | you |
| 01:28:16.59 | Jill Hoffman | that condition would be unacceptable. you have the qualifier there unless weather conditions or safety considerations require otherwise. To not agree to that seems to imply that you're planning on coming in at more than five knots to the pier. And I don't believe that you said that operationally you're going to be doing that. |
| 01:28:39.05 | Dennis Mulligan | Our captains are all licensed by the Coast Guard and we've been operating at this location for 45 years and we don't come screaming in and tie up the dock. My interest is not overly in coming the lease. The current lease has no operational restrictions from the city. In the spirit of compromise, we're agreeing to a lot, such as no overnight boats, loading and unloading one at a time. And so we're trying to limit how much you get into the weeds of our business. That's my interest in not overly conditioning this, because today the current lease you have no say on operations. But we will continue to operate from this location using licensed captains that are exercising appropriate and safe seamanship. I just didn't want to overly condition the permit because I think it is problematic and that's why I declined to embrace that condition. |
| 01:29:27.26 | Jill Hoffman | Well, I understand your position on that. Well, I really don't understand it, actually. Because if you're saying that you're going to operate safely, and safely is five knots, but you don't want to over encumber yourself to not operate safely. that seems to be a contradictory |
| 01:29:46.13 | Dennis Mulligan | I'm not saying that we're not going to encumber ourselves to operate safely. I'm saying that we don't wish to encumber the lease with lots of language that gets into how we operate our business. Today the lease has no language that deals with how we operate our ferry business. And in the spirit of compromise, we're agreeing to lots of language that is of interest to your constituents that gets into how we operate our business. And some of those are things that we're agreeing to do that are new and some are things that we already do. There are lots of things that we already do that we would rather not see listed in a lease. We feel that it's inconsistent with the relationship that we've had with the city of Sausalito that goes back a generation. And so we feel that it's inappropriate to overly load up the lease with lots of conditions that deal with just how we operate our business on a safe fashion. So we don't think it's necessary, nor do we think it's appropriate. We will continue to operate in a safe fashion as we always have, and we will continue to do what's necessary from a safety perspective. Our interest though is not to have a lease with lots of conditions. There are some things we are agreeing to because you're of great interest to your community and they're a change in what's allowed. This is not a change from what we're doing, so we think it's redundant and it's additional conditions that get into the operations when there are none today. |
| 01:31:08.71 | Dennis Mulligan | And also the yacht club said he didn't need it. He conceded that moving 62 feet further away addressed the concern about the wakes from the vessels. So if the yacht club representative that spoke said that it addressed the concern, it just seems that we're adding additional language to the lease when it's not necessary other than perhaps the exercise of control. |
| 01:31:37.38 | Joan Cox | Any other questions, comments on the conditions? |
| 01:31:43.74 | Jill Hoffman | I do have a comment on conditions. So I have a comment and this is on condition number 18. And this is addressing public comment that we've had regarding public, sorry, condition 18 has to do with management of the queuing. |
| 01:32:00.94 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:32:01.07 | Jill Hoffman | and it |
| 01:32:01.13 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:32:02.90 | Jill Hoffman | limits the queuing to necessary measures to prevent the queue from extending beyond or outside the queue area. We've had some written public comment, and we also had public comment here tonight about more specific criteria for managing the queue. I just wanted to point out that Um, This hearing is to take action on a plan presented to the city by the Bridge District under the existing lease for a major alteration, the ferry landing. Our action tonight is to define the conditions of approval of that plan, including responsibilities of the ferry district for the effects of their operations. and ways to address them by way of conditions. Specifically, under condition 18, management of the queue is limited to a defined area. By doing this, we have set a standard and the district's responsibility to comply. This queue management criteria applies to permanent operations and continuing thereafter, after the construction of the new ferry is done. This is a first step. in a comprehensive plan by the City Council for congestion management in Sausalito. we will be taking further steps for congestion management, such as the monthly meetings with the bridge district for greater coordination and effectiveness and potential negotiations among all the players in that congested area. This is the first step to define a district's responsibility and limits to a certain area for their operations and hold them accountable. Keep in mind, the city and the British District will address the periodic renegotiation of terms under the lease, which may include compensation for areas of use for their operations, which is a different question than the one we are addressing tonight. This is only step one of our overall efforts to better congestion management in this area. So keep that in mind. And that is specifically to address public comment with regard to more specific requirements for congestion management by the bridge district in that area. |
| 01:34:05.23 | Joan Cox | Thank you. The one area that I was a little confused on tonight was The construction schedule, I thought that we'd sort of worked all this out with the Inn Above Tides and the Bridge District. Cass Green seemed to think otherwise. So staff, could you help us out here? It seems that our language, or the language that I thought everybody had agreed upon, was around the time... where the time period where we would prohibit the heavy construction, which is the pile driving It seems that the... In Above Tides was also asking for non-operation of the temporary landing. Is there a misunderstanding here? Could it help me out? |
| 01:35:17.05 | Dennis Mulligan | The end of both tights has a strong interest in seeing us not operate the temporary facility at all, to be blunt, because it does impact their operations because it'll bring boats closer to the rooms. We worked very closely with them, as Mr. William McDevitt said. He and John Ebbly, my staff, have been trading schedules back and forth for quite some time. We made significant concessions to agree not to do pile driving or pile installation from July 1st to September 30th, which greatly impacts the construction schedule. That ties our hands somewhat with respect to the construction. And so we acknowledge that and we made that concession because it's very disruptive to their operations. It's by far the most disruptive thing that we will be doing as part of the project. The temporary location operation is less intrusive to installing large piles, but it is a concern to In Above Tides. We have not finalized the schedule nor will we be able to until we get the contractor on board. But we'll continue to work with In Above Tides and the Yacht Club as we develop the final plans and drawings as part of the conditions that we'll have a contractor meeting. will involve all those parties as well as city staff to see what we can do. But we cannot overly encumber the construction contract, otherwise we won't be able to build this. And so we need to be able to build this in a fashion that is responsive to the community, but we can't meet all the demands from all the parties. But restricting the installation of piles is something that addresses the most significant impacts, but we will have to operate out of the temporary location. And I think they wanted us to not operate from, I think, April through October. And I think that is something that is overly restrictive. And so it is problematic. But we'll continue to work with them. We will continue to refine the schedule. We understand their concern and we'll try to minimize how long the temporary terminal is in operation. Thank you. And so it is problematic. But we'll continue to work with them. We will continue to refine the schedule. We understand their concern and we'll try to minimize how long the temporary terminal is in operation. Because it's clear as how long it's in operation, not how long it's sitting out there that impacts Yenobov Tide. |
| 01:37:13.45 | Adam Politzer | Okay. |
| 01:37:13.53 | Joan Cox | Okay. |
| 01:37:14.04 | Adam Politzer | I'm going to go ahead and get the vote. |
| 01:37:15.32 | Joan Cox | Yes. |
| 01:37:25.95 | Adam Politzer | in the conditions What is it? And you know, I think what we tried to accommodate based on the request I've been above tide is a variety of of other opportunities to continue meeting with the stakeholders, both the yacht club and above the end above tide to look at the schedule, have a rolling schedule, looking over, you know, a longer period of time. And just really the intent of those multiple bullets there is to improve the communication with the stakeholders. So to take a look once the contract has been approved by the district and they have a contractor on board is meet with them, you know, so there's a variety of tools in here to improve communication and try to reduce the impacts to to both the end above tide and the act club as we get into the construction project itself. |
| 01:38:26.60 | Joan Cox | Madam Vice Mayor, you had more questions or? |
| 01:38:28.64 | Joe Burns | Yeah. I don't have another question. I did want to address this same thing of the temporary gangway, so the removal of the temporary gangway. I do believe that we can edit this condition so that if your so that you have at least three months after the commencement of the period of time when you actually can do the work. You said it would take roughly two weeks, so. |
| 01:39:10.58 | Dennis Mulligan | So if we, meet the in above tide desire to minimize how long we operate at the temporary location, then the temporary location will likely sit out there longer, depending on how that plays out time wise. Because if we install the permanent facility at the end of the work window, which is say late November, and we finish it, which is when they want us to install the piles for the permanent, then we can start operating out of the permanent location. But the temporary will sit there because we can't pull the piles until the following June. And I think the schedule that Willie has would like us to do that and we would like to do that. So I think if we overly restrict this language, it means we will, well we can't do what you want and do what they want, I guess is what I'm saying. So we can tighten the language some, but it has to respect the fact that there's an environmental work window. The schedule that works best for the Inn above tides has us installing the permanent in November. And then once we install the permanent, the boats will start operating out of the permanent, but we then can't pull the temporary until the following June, and so that's more than three months. |
| 01:40:06.40 | Joe Burns | So we |
| 01:40:06.97 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:40:26.45 | Joe Burns | What I'm suggesting is that it would be three months after the commencement of the window when you can remove. So I'm just suggesting a slight revision of that last sentence that simply says. |
| 01:40:35.46 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you. |
| 01:40:39.34 | Dennis Mulligan | So that would work if we had, say, 90 days of environmental work window. Because if, say, the end of November is when it gets installed, say November 20th, we have ten days in November, but if we can't get the work done in those ten days and we can't do it again until June, and so would it be, would it be 90 days of environmental work window time as opposed to 90 days of time? Because if the clock starts ticking mid November, we will only have 15 days, and then the remainder of the 90 day period we can't work in the water. So we're trying to work with what the Inn above tide wants in terms of doing the permanent insulation. And it sounds like they don't mind if the temporary sits out there longer. They would want us to do that. So if you change your wording to be so that we had 90 days of environmental work window after we've started commencement of service at the permanent, that would work. Because that way if it's like November 15th or November 20th, then we have through the following June to do the work. |
| 01:41:40.80 | Joe Burns | Yeah. That's exactly what I had in mind. And you are correct. Both of these requests, of course, came from in above the tide. Well, one from Sausalio Yacht Club, one from in above the tide. But I think 90 days of an environmental work window following commencement of permanent operations. |
| 01:41:57.08 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 01:41:57.10 | Joe Burns | I'm going to move the powers there. |
| 01:42:00.04 | Adam Politzer | against their schedule. Just the... you |
| 01:42:06.10 | Joe Burns | Okay, that was my last. |
| 01:42:16.27 | Alice Merrill | Did you still need to talk to him? |
| 01:42:17.96 | Joe Burns | No. |
| 01:42:17.99 | Alice Merrill | Thank you. the state. |
| 01:42:18.97 | Joe Burns | you |
| 01:42:19.12 | Alice Merrill | See you. |
| 01:42:22.85 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:42:31.44 | Dennis Mulligan | Could we? So that, well. Thank you. you |
| 01:42:36.27 | Unknown | as we consult it a little. |
| 01:42:37.30 | Dennis Mulligan | you |
| 01:42:37.35 | Unknown | Thank you. |
| 01:42:38.56 | Dennis Mulligan | I think what you proposed is okay, can we have like 30 seconds here to make sure we're not tripping over ourselves? |
| 01:42:42.80 | Joe Burns | Can we actually take five minutes, Mr. Mayor? If we're done with our questions, You have more questions? Okay, can we take- |
| 01:42:50.75 | Dennis Mulligan | Yeah, could we have five? Because give us a few moments. Because we want to get it right. We don't want to agree to something that we can't meet. |
| 01:42:54.27 | Joe Burns | And I'd like to confer and make sure I've got the language right. |
| 01:42:58.58 | Dennis Mulligan | Thank you. |
| 01:42:58.59 | Joan Cox | We're going to adjourn for five minutes. |
| 01:43:12.97 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:43:14.19 | Joan Cox | Okay, we're back on the record. Sorry about the length of that break. So I think we were going to check on some language. And... Vice Mayor. |
| 01:43:26.15 | Joe Burns | Thank you, Mr. Mayor. During the break, the district and our city attorney agreed on the following revision to Section 1A of the First Amendment to Lease. So the last two lines of condition A are stricken and replaced with the following. practicable but no later than the 90th day of the environmental work period, June 1 to November 30, following the commencement of operations at the permanent location. |
| 01:44:09.92 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:44:14.04 | Joe Burns | And I'm going to hand this back to staff just so they have a record of it. |
| 01:44:19.91 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 01:44:23.98 | Joan Cox | Okay. |
| 01:44:25.31 | Joe Burns | And Mr. Mayor, I mentioned one other thing about the five knots. I'm gonna wait to seek resolution of that after we hear from each of us on our comments on this project. |
| 01:44:25.92 | Joan Cox | Yeah. |
| 01:44:38.81 | Joan Cox | Okay, who wants to go first? Anybody got anything else to say? |
| 01:44:43.79 | Unknown | . |
| 01:44:47.67 | Jill Hoffman | All right, since we're in discussion. No secret, I'm still concerned about the size and scale. I think that we've done, made significant improvements with regard to the gangway, with regard to the truss, with regard to the gate. But the overall size of the float, I still have a concern that that's required and that's within the scale and fits in with the scale of Sausalito. My preference would be to do a little bit more work on that, especially have our engineers test the operational assumptions. We did the engineering assumptions from the bridge side. It was always thought that we would then do a further review on the operational side with regard to the size, but we just the way that the timing and the presentation of the bridge district coming back with our plan, we didn't have time to do that. So I'm sorry that we didn't have time to do that. And with regard, especially with regard the way the size may impact the volume, not just leaving Sausalito, but coming into Sausalito, which is something that we looked at very carefully on the last go-round, and where we were, frankly, a year ago when the plan was withdrawn. So, But the reality is that I'm only one vote, and I don't think I'm in the majority on that issue. And so... I'm sad about that. I wish that we could wait, as I said in the last meeting, until we had a full city council. I think this is a very important vote. I think this is a vote that's going to affect our town for a long, long time. and that the people of Sausalito you know, it should have been afforded the ability to have a full city council look at it and vote on it. It may have been, it may have had the same outcome, but I think the credibility of the plan and the project would have been much better if we had had a full city council. With that, um, With that, I don't think I have any further comments at this time, other than to acknowledge the fact that you know, I don't think that we would have had... majority to address those issues. I'm sorry for that. |
| 01:47:03.28 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:47:03.92 | Unknown | Yeah. |
| 01:47:04.04 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 01:47:04.12 | Unknown | Thank you. Thank you. I don't know where to begin. So many things have happened since we started this discussion. I'm one of the people on this dais, or the only person on this dais, that came to the process later than the others. The Park and Rec Commission that I was sitting on during these initial discussions in 2014 and 15 didn't hear this, appropriately so. So my first real exposure to this from the public level, being up here, was through this discussion after the litigation had started. So a lot of what we're doing in this last month has been a normal public hearing discretionary process as well as what you've been hearing us talk about with the MOU and how we're dealing with that. And with that, you know, we kind of look at it. A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY. AND AS I LOOK AT THE DESIGN THAT WAS IN PLACE WHEN I CAME ON BOARD, AND LILLY, IF YOU HAVE THE PICTURE OF THE EXISTING FLOW WITH THE PROPOSED FLOW WITH THE PROPOSED FLOW MOST RECENTLY, I THINK IT'S ON THE DISTRICT'S SLIDE, ACTUALLY. I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT There we go. So. A LOT OF THE WORK, THE MAJORITY OF THE WORK HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE WHEN THE COMMUNITY BROUGHT WHAT WE SAW BEFORE WITH THE 12 FOOT HIGH GANGWAY AND THAT DOWN This proposed design, That was a lot of work, and that was a great community effort. And I think a lot of people should be very proud of that. Then as we got into this process of nailing down conditions and all of that, to me it was kind of supporting this process to get something built. I don't think we went through all these conditions to say, yeah, but I still don't like that. I have a hard time looking at that picture right there and coming to the conclusion that it's going to change the character of my town. I simply cannot see that character change. And if somebody can, then maybe you're doing things differently in this community than I am. But that is a fairly... close replica of the one to the left. And with my glasses on right now, I can't really tell which is which. So I think the design really worked. And I think we got to an area aesthetically that supports what the community was looking for. The thing that we didn't hear a lot about, especially from the people who don't want this project to go forth, is the efficiency, safety, and legal compliance. And those things we have to take very seriously. And as we deal with congestion management on a daily basis, and as on a committee and on a council, the efficiency of a ferry landing is extremely important to that congestion management. And I think the people who have supported, a few of them tonight, mentioned efficiency. Some of them mentioned safety. Those are important elements that, were brought into this design and they were part of the process that we looked at every foot of every proportion of it. And I didn't hear evidence or at least reasonable evidence to say the size can be brought down yet maintain those three areas that I think are important for us that are looking at the greater good of the entire community. So, When we got to the point of these conditions, I think there was a lot of opportunity for the groups to kind of continue to almost bifurcate or split themselves in what they want to see here. And again, I see a ferry landing that I think works for the character of my town. I think it works for the efficiency of the people that I want to get on boats and off boats efficiently and safely and legally compliant. When it came to the conditions, I've got to tell you, what I've watched our staff do and our council up here do WAS ABSOLUTELY AMAZING. I WANT TO THANK AND CONGRATULATE THE STAFF FOR ALL THE WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE, WHAT YOU'VE SEEN, BUT THEN THE TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK THAT YOU DIDN'T SEE. WHERE THEY WOULD COME BACK TO US WITH INFORMATION AFTER COUNTLESS HOURS OF MEETINGS WITH THE DISTRICT, WITH LEGAL COUNCIL. IT WAS A TREMENDOUS EFFORT TO GET US TO THIS POINT. as knots and lights and all these things. Those are solutions that I think came about from the process. And a process that I was a part of, only part of, but I got to tell you, THEIR FAMILY. THEIR FAMILY IS A GOOD PATH. AND I AM ACTUALLY PROUD. AND SOME PEOPLE SAID YOUR NAME IS GOING TO BE ON THAT. AND I HOPE SO. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO PEOPLE GETTING ON A FERRY That does not mean that we're taking our eyes off the ferry district. And I think one of the key things I wrote down here is tonight does not close this discussion. And that was one of the things that we are trying to button down as many things as possible into the writing and that's for the safety of all the parties involved. But this is just the start of a long process, and we know what we want the outcome to be. We want the outcome to be the character that I think truly is Sausalito, which is what's happening on our land side and not the difference between those two structures. So this is a commencement of an opportunity to go forth with a district, the bridge district, a council, staff, and the community to look at how we're going to manage our congestion, how we're going to get people on and off boats safely, how we're going to make this construction process. DISTRICT, A COUNCIL, STAFF, AND THE COMMUNITY TO LOOK AT HOW WE'RE GOING TO MANAGE OUR CONGESTION, HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET PEOPLE ON AND OFF BOATS SAFELY, HOW WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS CONSTRUCTION PROCESS OVER THE NEXT COUPLE YEARS WORK WELL AND OUR LANDSIDE PROJECT WORK WELL. SO I GUESS YOU PROBABLY CAN GATHER WHERE I'M HEDGING ON THIS. BUT AT THIS POINT I DEFINITELY WANT TO SAY THAT I WAS IMPRESSED AND THANKFUL OF ALL THE WORK THAT'S GONE INTO THIS PROCESS SO FAR. I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT INDIVIDUAL PORTIONS OF INDIVIDUAL PORTIONS OF At this point, I definitely want to say that I was impressed and thankful of all the work that's gone into this process so far. I know we're going to talk about individual portions of this. We've kind of ironed out the pass through agreement. The proposed conditions, again, things were working well tonight. The only one I'm really not on board with is the requirement of us to dictate the knots. TO THE DISTRICT SIMPLY BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT ANY OF US ARE SKILLED SEA CAPTAINS THAT SHOULD PUT INTO A LEASE SOMETHING THAT MIGHT OVERRIDE SOMEBODY WHO'S DONE HOURS AND HOURS OF TRAINING ON VESSELS TO MAKE THAT DECISION. SO THAT'S ONLY THE ITEM THAT I'M PROBABLY NOT IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT, BUT THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. |
| 01:53:48.21 | Joe Burns | Okay. |
| 01:53:49.44 | Joe Burns | Well, I've been involved with this since the time that we first went to BCDC to object. And the Bridge District has seen me more times than they would like to count, I'm quite sure. I spent hours and hours and hours with the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmarks Board, And I crafted from the dais many of the findings upon which we relied when recommending denial of the initial project. To be honest with you, I still I would like the project to be smaller. I still would like to be smaller. I would have liked our consultants to take a different approach at looking at this. I would still like to test the assumptions upon which the the parameters of this project were forged. I too would like to have five of us up here, although I will say we've heard from two of the city council candidates here tonight, and so we know how they would vote if they were sitting up here. So I would like to have that opportunity, but the truth is we don't. That's not a luxury that we have under the lease that we are subject to. And I agree with staff that it would not be reasonable of us to deny this project solely on the basis that we want more time to consider it under the lease. I'm not sure. I am a litigator on behalf of municipal agencies. And so I'm very mindful of litigation risk. And we, as most of you know, entered into a memorandum of understanding by which we delayed our litigation. We put it on hold so that the district could come back with revised plans. If we deny this project tonight and we go back to the litigation, the question for the judge will be, were we reasonable in our denial? And that is something I have to weigh in. regardless of my personal preferences. So the city has already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the litigation. I think that was worthwhile because, as Council Member Burns pointed out, we reduced this from a 22-foot wide landing to a 12-foot wide landing. We reduced this from you couldn't reach the top of it down to a six-foot handrail. The THE the outline now of the site is far more consistent with what we now have. Although, again, I don't fully agree with the size and scale even today, but it's not up to me. We hired an expert, Cowie Engineering, and you heard me ask Cowie Engineering at our last meeting if it was up to them to design a ferry landing based on the constraints that we face, the size of the boats that we're required to accommodate, the depth of the bay, the ADA requirements, what would they design? And their answer was they would design something very similar to what the district has now presented to us. And so for me, I believe it's very risky to proceed in the litigation with our own expert consultant saying that what has been presented to us is reasonable. Um... |
| 01:57:55.97 | Doreen Gurnard | I don't know. |
| 01:57:57.09 | Joe Burns | other constraints that we are facing is the district's choice to use a concrete instead of a steel hull. A steel hull would have allowed them to have a shorter |
| 01:57:57.12 | Doreen Gurnard | Thank you. |
| 01:58:11.72 | Joe Burns | GANGWAY. that we have to make. We have to make a decision as I understand it because of the dredging requirements but that is not our decision to make. The lease requires us to So, I'm proud of the work that we have done and that we have accomplished. I, frankly, a couple of years ago would have been surprised to learn that the district accepted a 12-foot wide landing area. We've addressed hydraulics and the noise emissions. We've addressed the height. We've addressed the width. We've precluded overnight docking. We've addressed simultaneous loading. We've addressed lighting. We've addressed construction staging and schedule. We've addressed the various concerns that the residents have brought to us. And by the way, I want to thank the residents who have stayed so on top of this and have really provided us with their creative ideas and their perspective that have really enabled us to make a stronger and better agreement with the district. So, Again, we have obtained a lot of concessions, as Dennis Mulligan stated earlier tonight. We're still not exactly where I'd like to be, but I'm proud of the work that we've accomplished thus far. Thank you. |
| 01:59:40.55 | Joan Cox | Thank you. I agree with some, not all, of the comments that have been made collectively. I actually believe that we now have a project that is appropriately sized for Sausalito. It is, and I'm making that judgment. based on the job that we have to do here tonight. And the job that we have to do here tonight is to actually decide Um, as one party to a lease, whether the other party can actually do something. And that is essentially the nuts and bolts of what we're doing. The lease actually says that the bridge district can come to us with a project, and under the terms of the lease, we have 45 days to make a decision. Just in case we memorialize that in an MOU, because we wanted some other things, And we wanted to make sure the timing was right. So for instance, we were not going to be doing this in the middle of August, for instance. But the lease says we have 45 days to make this decision. And what's the decision we've got to make? The decision is to either approve or deny the project. But we cannot unreasonably deny it or unreasonably condition it. And what's reasonable? I mean, we all probably have different views as to what's reasonable. But the one thing that, as my lawyer colleagues up here will tell you, this is not something that's at all confusing in law. This is something for which there is agreement all the way up to the California Supreme Court with definition of commercial reasonableness, and this is a commercial lease, is very, very well understood. And basically, what it means is, to cut to the chase, as I understand it, an amateur, is that In making this decision whether to approve the project or not, we cannot try and get something out of the lease, some new right that we don't already have. It's that simple. If we try and do that, we are unreasonably conditioning or unreasonably denying. That's my reading of it. That's my understanding of it. That's my understanding of working for 20 years with commercial agreements of every single kind. So with that in mind, we're making a decision a reasonable decision under a lease. We're not making a land use decision. Okay, so I am in favor of the project presented. I'm in favor of conditioning the project. I think we have a good set of draft conditions, and we've talked about them tonight. So I am going to make a motion that we can then discuss, basically to approve the resolution that's in the packet, which basically um uh can then discuss. Basically to approve the resolution that's in the packet, which basically grants consent to the project, makes the findings regarding the project as responsible agency pursuant to CEQA and as trustee pursuant to the public trust doctrine. And so this is the motion. We have the resolution in the packet with all the attachments. And the only issue is to make to, as part of that motion, to ensure that the amended conditions of approval that we've discussed tonight are incorporated. So let's discuss those perhaps before we move to a second on that motion. And I know the Vice Mayor has been collecting them all for us, so maybe I could hand over to her. |
| 02:04:09.28 | Joe Burns | Okay. All right, so with respect to the First Amendment to lease of public tide and submerged lands, we agreed to revise language for Section 1A. And does city staff have that memorialized? I'm seeing heads shaking yes. Okay. Then for the conditions of approval, we added to condition 8D as the last bullet language that prior to commencing permanent operations, provide city with long-term maintenance plan for the project. I'm seeing yes from the Golden Gate Bridge District and yes from the city attorney. Then for the condition 15, we added language, that says that the lighting systems on the permanent ferry landing shall remain off when not in use for more than one hour, allowing, however, for their use for a reasonable period of time, i.e., 15 minutes prior to vessel docking and after vessel departures from the dock as required for safety. I'm seeing yeses from the bridge district and from the city attorneys. |
| 02:05:32.74 | Joe Burns | I think those were, and then I was proposing Keeping in mind, we don't need the district's assent to impose a condition of approval as long as it's reasonable. So I was proposing that condition the first bullet under 8D be revised so that it doesn't only apply to the operation of the temporary peer, but that it permanently applies to all district operations. I know that the district prefers not to have us micromanage their lease conditions, but that was my proposal. And we've heard from Councilmember Burns that he's not, he doesn't see the necessity for that. |
| 02:06:15.39 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:06:15.57 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:06:15.64 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Yeah, and neither do I. |
| 02:06:20.23 | Jill Hoffman | I'll all the way in. I do. And I think by definition if it's I think Mr. Mulligan has testified here today that it is reasonable because that is his operation and it makes me suspicious when he when he neglects to agree to something that they're already doing and that he already thinks is reasonable and what they are is already part of their operation so it to me that's nonsensical. |
| 02:06:48.04 | Dennis Mulligan | For the record, we believe it's an unreasonable condition because of my prior statements with respect to the lease as currently exists. It's not to deal with our operational issues. We're willing to make a series of significant concessions that affect our operations. We don't overly wish to encumber it. We also believe it's unreasonable since the speaker from the yacht club said that moving it 62 feet away basically addresses the concern that he expressed. |
| 02:07:14.47 | Joe Burns | Okay, so I don't have consensus on that. And so, Mr. Mayor, those are the conditions of approval and the other, and the amendment to, the revision to the lease amendment that I have recorded. |
| 02:07:25.10 | Joan Cox | Okay, so... Those are then incorporated into my motion. |
| 02:07:32.59 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:07:33.42 | Joan Cox | Okay, do I have a second? Second. Okay, Lily, would you call the roll, please? |
| 02:07:40.15 | Unknown | Councilmember Burns. |
| 02:07:41.11 | Joan Cox | Yes. |
| 02:07:41.99 | Unknown | Councilmember Hoffman? Thank you. |
| 02:07:43.29 | Doreen Gurnard | Yes. |
| 02:07:43.48 | Unknown | you Yes. Vice Mayor Cox? Yes. Mayor Withee? Thank you. |
| 02:07:49.72 | Joan Cox | Yes, I'd like to thank everybody for that unanimous decision. I'd like to thank the staff for all of their hard work. I'd like to thank the Bridge District for all of their hard work. All of our residents who over the last number of years have actually helped us move this project along and make it better. So to all of those who even from the very beginning has helped here, thank you very, very much and thanks to my colleagues. |
| 02:07:50.31 | Unknown | I'd like to thank you. |
| 02:08:15.82 | Joe Burns | And Mr. Mayor, may we also please direct staff to prepare and release a press release regarding this action that the council has taken this evening. |
| 02:08:29.80 | Joan Cox | Yeah, consensus on that? Yeah. So we are done on this matter. Thank you very much. |
| 02:08:35.55 | Joe Burns | Can we take a five minute break to |
| 02:08:37.09 | Dennis Mulligan | May I say thank you on behalf of the Bridge District, I'd like to thank the council, I'd like to thank city staff, and I'd like to thank all the members of the public that helped shape the project as we move through this process, and thank you very much. Thank you. |
| 02:08:48.29 | Joan Cox | A five minute recess. |
| 02:08:49.59 | Joe Burns | FOR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE |
| 02:08:53.12 | Joan Cox | We're ready. Okay. folks we're back on the record um there is no business items um as we indicated item 5b was removed from the agenda so we're now jumping to item number seven which is city manager reports at al is there any public comment on items number seven seeing none uh we move to the city manager report. Thank you for giving it earlier. |
| 02:09:28.18 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 02:09:28.30 | Joan Cox | Thank you. |
| 02:09:28.49 | Adam Politzer | Thank you. |
| 02:09:28.61 | Joan Cox | Move. |
| 02:09:30.04 | Adam Politzer | I would concede that really the most important item of the evening, other than the business of the city, was the report out of what's going in the North Bay. I just wanted to add a couple points on there. There's obviously going to be a significant rebuilding effort in the North Bay, and they've already put out a request, obviously, for support from our police department and fire department in the active event that's going on now but they've also are looking for building inspectors building officials to go up there and look at sites that may have been damaged or not quite damaged enough are they livable so for people wanting to return to their homes once the fire is out you know so the next round of requests that for for support from local communities will come from the building engineering and planning uh divisions of the various cities so you know we have a long haul um in front of us uh and i know that you as council members working with the north bay division mcc mc and the league of california cities will also put your weight behind whatever cooperation MCCMC, and the League of California Cities will also put your weight behind whatever cooperation that we can lend as the city of Sausalito in helping our fellow towns and cities in their hour of need. That concludes my report. Happy to answer any questions. |
| 02:10:51.34 | Joan Cox | Thank you. Earlier when we talked about the Napa and Sonoma fires, I actually just wanted to say that I know most of the mayors in Sonoma and Napa, and I've actually contacted over half of them in the last 24 hours. They have been contacted over half of them in the last 24 hours. are very appreciative of all of the support that we and all of the citizen marine are given so um i should have mentioned that earlier Okay. Council member committee reports. Do we have anything that we? want to talk about tonight. Finance Committee is tomorrow, or Thursday. So we've got no Finance Committee report. |
| 02:11:47.99 | Joe Burns | The GPAC committee continues to meet every other week, although I think it's a good question. We heard a presentation on sea level rise. We continue to host stakeholder meetings to ensure that the maximum numbers of members of the public as possible are included in the process. |
| 02:12:14.35 | Joan Cox | anything else? no okay I don't think we have any action tonight on appointments to boards, commissions committees future agenda items there was nothing in the packet I I We will be publishing, I think, the next meeting is the 17th. I think we're going to have a special meeting. I realize you will not be able to make it, but I think we've agreed to the 17th for a meeting. |
| 02:12:44.36 | Joe Burns | Yeah, I think we did promise to transmit an agenda, so we're going to make sure we do that before we finalize it. |
| 02:12:51.01 | Joan Cox | Right. |
| 02:12:51.68 | Joe Burns | Oh, you did? Yeah. It's acceptable to you? |
| 02:12:52.84 | Joan Cox | Yeah. |
| 02:12:54.43 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:12:54.53 | Joe Burns | . |
| 02:12:54.70 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:12:54.72 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:12:54.75 | Joe Burns | Thank you. |
| 02:12:54.80 | Joan Cox | Okay, good. And I'd like to next time also make sure we spend a little bit of time talking about future agenda items because agenda setting committee, our ad hoc committee has been meeting. We've been talking a lot. There's a lot to do. So let's talk about that during this part of the meeting next time. |
| 02:13:17.50 | Joe Burns | Right. |
| 02:13:18.76 | Joan Cox | Anybody else have any questions, comments on that? I'm assuming there's no other reports of significance, in which case, motion to adjourn. |
| 02:13:28.28 | Unknown | Yeah, motion. |
| 02:13:30.61 | Joan Cox | We're adjourned. |
Alice Merrill — Neutral: Raised concern about future proliferation of drones in the city and urged the council to proactively address drone regulations in the general plan before it becomes a reactive issue, noting mixed opinions among residents. ▶ 📄
Ian (last name unclear) — Neutral: Discussed housing and short-term rental ordinances in light of Glen Ellen fires. Noted Airbnb's offer for free listings to fire victims, but Sausalito's ban prevents this. Highlighted that the city's ordinance defines transient occupancy as less than 30 days even if unpaid, potentially prohibiting emergency housing. Suggested amending the ordinance for emergency exceptions and reconsidering short-term rental bans for disaster response flexibility. ▶ 📄