Lilly Schinsing Dear Millie, I was thinking the

Transcription

Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Donna Bachle [[email protected]]
Sunday, March 29, 2015 10:58 AM
Lilly Schinsing; Millie Amis; Tammy Blanchard; Linda Pfeifer - Internet Mail Account
Re: Ferry Landing Proposal
Dear Millie,
I was thinking the same thing. It's hard to believe that this would pass an environmental impact study with the
massive amount of cement, shadow and lighting at night. It seems quite obvious that all of these things would
impact the birds, fish and mammals.
Regards,
Donna
Donna Bachle
Corporate Meetings and Events
25 Edwards Ave., Sausalito, CA 94965
Office: 415-331-8354
Cell: 415-302-4860
[email protected]
From: Millie Amis <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: Millie Amis <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 12:04 AM
Subject: Ferry Landing Proposal
Unfortunately I will not be able to attend either of the next two meetings on the proposed changes to the Ferry
Landing.
Would you please ask the architects and city if there has been an environmental impact study done to evaluate
the impact of the enlarged structure and increased shadow area as well as the environmental impact of having
additional ferries coming into our dock? It would seem that the shoreline as well as the fish habitat and the
foundation of the yacht club would all be affected by the proposed structural changes and increased number of
ferries.
If this has been dealt with to the satisfaction of all involved, please forgive my repetitive question. If it has not
been discussed, I would appreciate your putting the question forward at the April 1st meeting.
Warm Regards,
Millie Amis
35 Marin Ave.
Sausalito, CA 94965
[email protected]
1
Lilly Schinsing
Subject:
FW: Sausalito Ferry Landing Proposal
March 31, 2015 To: Sausalito Planning Commission Sausalito HLRB CC: Sausalito City Council From: Nancy Osborn 2 Kendell Ct., Sausalito Regarding the proposed Ferry Landing changes: I'm writing out of a feeling of frustration due to the two main issues I see, with a third lending weight to the negative impact of the proposed design for a new Ferry Landing. First is the design that totally ignores the Historic District that it's a part of. Also, it is an environmental abomination due to the proposed size and its resulting removal of soil and blocking of existing views. IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH; SAUSALITO DESERVES BETTER! Second is what the ever‐growing numbers of bikers is doing to the quality of life for residents and out‐of‐town visitors to the downtown area. Plus a number of merchants see few benefits from this situation and have had comments from their customers on their growing reluctance to shop here. An example: At 9:30 AM last Sunday I saw many downtown Bridgeway bikers riding outside the bike lane (which is their right to do), often 2 abreast and resulting in traffic back‐up because they couldn't be passed with a 36" clearance due to oncoming traffic. It seems the Ferry Landing plan is being driven by the effort to accommodate these numbers at the expense of others! My third concern is of equal importance. There is evidence of certain City Council & administration members' efforts in the past to advance this proposed plan with as little public input as possible. Fortunately they seem to have realized the importance of hearing all viewpoints. My husband, Jim Osborn, joins me in hoping our opinions, and those of the many residents in agreement, will result in the plans for the Ferry Landing changes being denied. Thanks for your consideration of these thoughts...and for the time and effort you have put into making these challenging decisions. Nancy Osborn 1
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dina Lawrence [[email protected]]
Tuesday, March 31, 2015 12:32 PM
Lilly Schinsing
Support for proposed ferry landing project
Hi Lilly,
I would like to lend my voice strongly in support of the new proposed ferry landing rehabilitation project.
I wholeheartedly support this plan, for several reasons:
-It is no secret that the current system for loading and unloading passengers and bikes is simply not sustainable.
The crowds on nice days often spill out into the public parking lot (where space is already at a premium), and
into the sidewalks and nearby street. This causes severe safety issues, as well as makes it a general nuisance to
navigate. This is not the experience we want to offer visitors of this town, and we should strive to do better.
Opponents of this plan (from what I have heard) oppose it because they feel that it will bring too many visitors
and bicycles to our town. What they neglect to address is that those vistiors and bicycles are already here. It is
now on us to handle the traffic safely, but there's no putting the genie back in that bottle. We cannot (and
should not) try to reduce the number of tourists visiting Sausalito!
-The current gangway and pier is very small and does not allow efficient room for boarding and disembarking
passengers. It's also not very friendly to the disabled and elderly, of which there are many residents in
Sausalito. We should want to accommodate these visitors and residents in a way that is safe and pleasurable for
all.
-Here in Sausalito, we have very limited means of leaving town, should it ever be necessary. There is the 101,
which already has significant traffic issues on a regular commuting day, and that is about it. The ferry is an
important asset to this community should the 101 ever be unavailable. When the bridge was closed on a recent
weekend, the ferry was integral for those who needed to access the city. We need to maintain that line of access,
and make sure it works for us into the future.
-I myself grew up on an island where ferries were a way of life before adopting Sausalito as my home. I rode
one ferry to college, I rode another one to the beach, another to a nearby city, and others to various outer islands
all over my area. Ferries are an important mode of transportation, and one we have done a poor job of
embracing. I've never experienced a ferry ride like ours; it's singularly beautiful, one that all visitors to our area
should experience. And yet, a significant number of Sausalito commuters (myself included) choose instead to
drive to the city, because of how poorly the experience is managed. We need to do better for our residents!
Thank you very much.
Respectfully,
Dina Lawrence
603 Nevada St.
1
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
William Versaci [[email protected]]
Wednesday, April 01, 2015 1:05 PM
Tammy Blanchard
Lilly Schinsing; [email protected]
Re: Letter re: Ferry Terminal Expansion
Lilly – Would you please include this in the correspondence the Planning Board has received on this subject. Thanks, Bill. From: Tammy Blanchard <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 9:48 AM To: William Versaci <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Letter re: Ferry Terminal Expansion Bill Thank you. I really like your ideas. Do you think that increasing the size if the pier and gangway will actually solve the problems claimed by the GG, without an expanded ferry service schedule? Do you think a smaller pier and gangway, 10' instead of 21', would be sufficient? I wonder if the GG District has done a cost analysis of expended ferry service schedule vs. expanded pier? In any event, it will interesting hear the GG district's response to your suggestions. Did you receive the notice that the venue has changed? The meetings on the 1st and 15th will be held at the IDESST Hall,
511 Caledonia Street. On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:32 AM, William Versaci <[email protected]> wrote: Sorry to be so long in getting back to you. I have been working on my presentation to shorten it to 3 minutes and address the most important issues. But here are my specific responses to the questions in your e‐mail: "Do you think that increasing the size if the pier and gangway will actually solve the problems claimed by the GG (1), without an expanded ferry service schedule (2)?” 1) It is clear that the District has not even looked at the landside impacts. They consider the overloading of the plaza and streets to be a City problem, and their proposal would actually make the onshore crowding worse. Clearly, the GGB planning staff has never seen the operations at this terminal, and the engineers have never seen the site. In any case, it should be the District’s problem to solve and pay for passenger waiting improvements, not the City’s. Security gates at the two other terminals are at the curb and open long before the ferries arrive, so that all the passengers are inside the terminal before the ferries load. The security gate is separate from the boarding control gate. There is no reason why the District could not do the same here at peak hours. I have been looking at the ferry arrivals and departures the last few days, and some patterns are obvious. The morning (commuter) ferry lines are sparsely used and the existing landside easily accommodates the load in what is basically a single line of passengers stretching to the ticketing booth. During the day (in the off‐season) tourists crowd in more closely. The line still stretches half way to the information booth, but remains narrow along the shrubs. Bike riders are as tightly packed as the pedestrians (much more so than the in the diagrams) in their designated aisle all the way to the information booth. They also occupy the entire exit line on the pier, so the (few) arriving passengers come out single‐file against the pedestrian waiting line (separated only by a lane marker line, from which the boarding passengers pull back without effort . In the evening there are 1
few boarding passengers, and the incoming passengers are only constricted by the width of gangway and passing through the gateway that is narrower than the walkway. Note that the incoming and outgoing peaks occur at different times, and the existing landside pier accommodates them differently. The loading time in both directions is the result of stragglers, not the main surge, which is quite efficient. The farther the passengers and bikes are from the gate, the longer the loading time. It would be unreasonable to expanded the pier to accommodate the summer peak outgoing load. That crowd is festive and in no hurry anyway, and no resident would be caught dead anywhere near the Plaza. And let’s remember that tourists standing in line are part of “the Public”, too, and are entitled to the same enjoyment of the views as anyone else. Nonetheless, the pier should be designed to accommodate all of the non‐peak passengers, with an equal area for a smaller number of bikes. The much reduced peak overflow could stay where it is. This means the design should be based on the incoming and outgoing daily loads (morning, midday and evening) in spring and fall and active management of the entry and exit lanes if necesssary. (You can see how well the District does that on the Bridge!). The District counts all the passengers on each trip, so this data is available. On a warm and sunny April 1, it appears it would be possible to accommodate all of the peak passenger bike and pedestrian waiting and all of the exit traffic on a landside pier approximately twice the width of the existing. The increased width of the landside pier would be out of the view line, and only be noticeable because of the new openness of the plaza; and the access pier, which is in the view line. would be about half the width of what the District proposes. BTW, the District is using the inside clear dimensions, not the total width of piers and gangway. You would have to add at least 2 feet on each side for the gangway and 4 feet or more on the pier to get the gross width. The “flap ears” for benches also appear to add 10 feet or more to the pier width than the dimensions the District is using.BTW, the District is using the inside clear dimensions, not the total width of piers and gangway. You would have to add at least 2 feet on each side for the gangway and 4 feet or more on the pier to get the gross width. The “flap ears” for benches also appear to add 10 feet or more to the pier width than the dimensions the District is using. 2) Expanding the ferry service is an operational issue, and would have negligible impact on the design of the ferry landing. The District will add as many trips and as much equipment as is economically feasible. Regardless of any projected increase over 20 years, their landside load calculation is based on the ferry capacity of 715. (Note that the catamaran capacity is only 425.) The District’s peak load is projected at 500, and most of the time the ferry load is much lower. Adding more trips would not make any sense unless the summer traffic increases enough to make it economically viable. As was pointed out at the meeting, the District could add summer weekend trips using the idle catamarans in Larkspur. "Do you think a smaller pier and gangway, 10' instead of 21', would be sufficient?" It would make no sense to narrow the incoming gangway if the District is trying to unload bikes and passengers at the same time. We may as well accept that they need that width at peaks, and use it to advantage for passenger waiting and loading. An equal width is needed on the pier for passengers, and probably bikes. Additional bikes could fill the empty exit lane after the 3 minute unloading, and when the incoming load is minimal. Minor differences in the width of the access pier would be imperceptible, but removing the “flap ears” for viewing benches would make a significant difference, both because they add to the width, and they make the outline more complex and noticeable. Getting boarding passengers off the plaza would contribute more to BCDC’s goal of improving public view access that a few inaccessible benches on the pier. "I wonder if the GG District has done a cost analysis of expended ferry service schedule vs. expanded pier?" The piers and gangway must be expanded in any case. Expanded ferry service is a separate operations and economics issue. I hope you do not mind that I am copying your e‐mail and my response to the Planning Board. Based on the comments at the last hearing, everyone appears to have the same concerns, and I can only suggest these issues in my presentation. Bill 2
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brian Sharp [[email protected]]
Lilly Schinsing
planned Sausalito ferry terminal
Hello. We are residents of Sausalito. My wife and I vote for zero expansion of the existing Sausalito Ferry Terminal. We do not want any changes in the existing ferry terminal. Thank you. Brian and Krista Sharp 1
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Janie Wycoff [[email protected]]
Thursday, April 02, 2015 7:21 AM
Lilly Schinsing
Sausalito Ferry Landing Project
Last night’s public meeting with the Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Board in regards to the proposed new Ferry Landing was well attended. It became very apparent early on that the majority of those in attendance strongly oppose the construction of a MASSIVE ferry landing that will spoil the natural beauty of Richardson Bay and our views of Angel Island, Tiburon and San Francisco. The overall opinion seems to be that YES the ferry landing needs to be updated and repaired but that it should remain the same size. The proposed plan that was presented would allow the simultaneous loading and off‐loading of two ferries capable of holding 740 passengers each onto the streets of Sausalito within a 10 minute time frame. The infrastructure of our small city cannot sustain this. The citizens of Sausalito do NOT want to be a tourist or commercial hub. We do not want the added environmental problems i.e. sewage, trash, noise pollution that this project will impose on our city and on Richardson Bay! I hope that the by sharing this with the larger Marin community, our city leaders will gain enough confidence to just say NO to this proposed construction. Thank you, Janie Wycoff Sausalito Resident 1
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Norman [[email protected]]
Lilly Schinsing
Fwd: Ferry Landing Comments
We were at last night's meeting. Heard two things about the ticket booth and do not know which is correct. It
needs to be moved so that sidewalk is clear. As I mentioned, we use a wheelchair which is why this is
important. There is not a curb for us to get back on the sidewalk even if we did decide to travel in the area used
by cars.
Some of the railings in the design still appear to be large and white - they all need to be designed to match the
railing of the landing area, in color and in shape. We feel the height would be fine at any level if the railings
were not so obvious by their shape and color.
Had heard that a pathway was going to be designed from Parking Lot 4, through all the lots, to have a safe place
for people getting off tourist busses and to have a safe place for ferry passengers to walk. Have not seen this.
We feel that positive progress is being made, the Ferry Terminal needs improvements, still some areas for
decision making.
Gloria and Norman Wohlschlaeger
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Norman <[email protected]>
Date: March 25, 2015 at 1:13:45 PM PDT
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Ferry Landing Comments
We have been studying the ferry landing as we do walking along the railing and have some
thoughts:
The railing the color it is now blends nicely, does not attract attention to itself. So, the new
railing should all be the color of the existing railing.
The landing could be moved to the South and could be somewhat shorter.
The gate can be designed after the project is approved and can be a very attractive gate.
The ticket booth needs to be moved because it interferes with traffic on the sidewalk (we notice
that because we use a wheelchair.
Thank you for this opportunity to share our thoughts.
Gloria and Norman Wohlschlaeger
Sent from my iPad
1
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Peter Van Meter [[email protected]]
Lilly Schinsing
Ferry Landing Project Comments
Dear Chairperson Cox and HLB and PC Members –
Thank you for the professionally run and open public review process underway for the Ferry Landing
Project.
There were several comments last night (April 1) suggesting combining the current review with
landside improvements. While there may be some merit to this in the abstract, it is not a practical
reality. The landside design and implementation will be a far more time consuming and complex
public process, likely to take months if not years to resolve (although any deadline for use of the $2.4
million pass through grant could speed the process.)
In any event, I wanted to remind you of the Harbor and Downtown Action Committee Final Report.
The key element of this extensive study is a community plaza at the ferry landing. This effort can be
a starting point for the extensive community dialog needed to create a final plan for our remarkable
downtown waterfront. You can view the report at
http://www.ci.sausalito.ca.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3929. Obviously, some
circumstances have changed that will affect concepts discussed in the report, including most notably,
the increase in bicycle traffic. The analysis and findings do, however, remain as a valuable baseline.
Regards,
Peter Van Meter, Principal
MyCRE LLC
4 Cloud View Circle
Sausalito, CA 94965
Day: 415/332-2974, Evening: 415/332-5291
[email protected] 1
Lilly Schinsing
Subject:
FW: Ferry - Planning Commission
From: Steve Fabes [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 10:20 AM
To: Debbie Pagliaro
Subject: Ferry - Planning Commission
Debbie, I cannot find Joan Cox's email address anywhere on the City web site - I am sure its there but its very well
hidden.
I attended last nights meeting at IDESST but had to leave at 9pm
Two questions for her.
How will the design address the inevitable landing of sea birds on the surfaces of the new structures?
How will the design address the boarding by sea lions on the surface of the new cement dock?
Thnx, Steve..
Steve Fabes
19 Cazneau Ave
1
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
[email protected]
Thursday, April 02, 2015 12:59 PM
Lilly Schinsing; Jill Hoffman; Linda Pfeifer - Internet Mail Account; Herb Weiner; Ray Withy;
Tom Theodores; Joan Cox
Bridge District and the Ferry Landing
GGFerry Landing Project.docx
Lilly,
Please see attached letter, which is included in the body of this letter.
Please email & include in any packets of information, to the parties involved including from last night
the Planning Commission, the Historical Society and even the Bridge Dist. and City Council. Council
Members and Joan Cox copied here.
Thank you. L Hail
re Last Night April 1, 2015:
I felt the presentation, with all due respect, by the Bridge District was disingenuous last night. They
offered minor fixes, and said they would do "this", but not "that". They arrived with "information"
requested at the last meeting, just prior to the meeting. No chance for anyone to read over and be
prepared. I checked every day for updates. "Same old same old". They are giving us lip service, the
sense I have, is that behind the scenes, it is Sausalito be damned we are doing this the way "we"
want to do. They have not been transparent and I feel they hold back and give us little bits to try to
satisfy us...in reality, little changes.
The Bridge Dist. mentioned a temporary ferry terminal landing while work is done....We have not seen
anything on this or size or structure, location, duration of time, maintenance, efficiency. ADA
COMPLIANT? hmmm leaves me quite skeptical.
It seems that this project lacks and HAS to be completely rethought as it is not only THE BAY
WATER and the ferry/ bridge district WATER project (their) BUT it is the land-side and water-side
long term cause and effect project, a joint project!
As we truly are a tiny town in comparison to the other ferry facilities in the bay area, for example,
Larkspur in its own separate and contained area, San Francisco at the Port, with its contained and
separate facility, etc. Our down town is little more than 2 blocks wide, 1/2 mi long at most with one
main road & access point in and out on Bridgeway. The Bridge District wanting to expand (for their
bottom line $- which is self-centered at best - dangerous at worst) to bring in boat loads of people with
the focus on an average 4% growth increase per year (which is already at 750,0000 people per year
& growing & which includes a staggering 130,000 bikes or more per year). It is their only concern,
their revenue, their shortsighted view that the waterside is their only concern.
As I said last night - "you" (the Bridge Dist.) bear some responsibility to the cause and effect the long
term view and effect.
For example: if you pour 200 people onto a 10 square foot DECK for example, which you built or use,
and it collapses beneath the people, you do bear the responsibility perhaps all the responsibility, if
you don't look at cause and effect whether your property or another's. The city of Sausalito has these
thousands upon thousands of people arrive by ferry now, with little or no concern as to safety,
pollution, noise, litter, crime, health etc. obstructions, view, environment, lack of space that this
1
creates, and the bridge is suggesting we just accept and accept more people, more bikes, more
everything! Not OUR DECISION? THEIRS? How can anyone say - "we" (the Bridge Dist.) are going
to load them on the ferry in SF bring them in and dump them at Sausalito's door , then, it becomes/is
"your" problem. "We" (Bridge Dist.) have the job to collect the money and get them there, that is the
end of our concern?
To suggest we should embrace and be more like other big cities. We are NOT BIG! We are not New
York, Seattle, Coney Island, Staten Island, Japan, China. WE are small. If this were implemented it
would in time, reduce our economic value - residents have invested their sweat, time and MONEY in
the town and the ambiance etc. This will destroy the look, our views, our property, the desire to be
here and the commercial reason to be here, which will lower property values and only increase
danger to person, home, environment and crime, very costly to all.
Please, we need to work in concert with each other! Enough!! of this big government do what we want
attitude! And with no plan on how to handle this many people or long term look at the impact on our
town in the future (ten or twenty or thirty years) or even RIGHT NOW. Shame on the Bridge District
and shame on all of US, the City of Sausalito, the Council, the STAFF, who let this go to this
heartbreaking and costly point!!! This is the time to STOP in our tracks and all of the hurry to
implement this project and take a good hard look.
Why do "they" the Bridge Dist., need / want to have 750,000 per year on the ferry? and grown at 4%
per year? MONEY???
Why not have smaller / faster / more frequent and less polluting ferries with more routes? For all the
money the bridge district is taking with their stimulus package to implement as fast as they can what
THEY WANT, that they talk about, perhaps they could have spent it on new more efficient ferries,
less polluting and have a shorter smaller landing than they are planning, surely, by now. They have
NOT maintained the existing ferry landing - even the ferries are less than well cared for and
maintained....Why would anyone give credence to a notion that this will change? "Leopards don't
change their spots!!" It is not their out of pocket $, it is the tax payer's $ - the tax payer = perhaps to
them, some vague entity - that they do not recognize clearly.
If there is a good reason to continue to prop up and refurbish existing 30-50 year old ferries to get
another 20 -30 years out of them, then ok - but somehow technology is saying very LOUD and VERY
CLEAR!! We need to change this and do OUR part to be less polluting and more energy efficient and
cost efficient, with a hard long term look at the many, causes and effects. We are a small town - the
perfect place to implement newer technology.
Why do ferry passengers with bikes pay the same as pedestrian passengers? Why is there little
patrol and effort on the land-side when they impact our town so much. We have so few police to
patrol and so many reasons to have patrols whether for good will, bikes, or crime, or residential
needs. WE are stretched beyond belief!
I have a bike and I obey the bike safety and vehicle laws- I love to ride a bike- and I love the ferry. I
won't consider riding a bike, in our downtown. It is unsafe! It is unsafe for automobiles, pedestrians
and other bike riders in town, the way things are handled now. I wouldn't want to bump anyone,
walking or riding - my 2000 LBS of metal would be devastating, even on my bike it would be
devastating if I ran into anyone!! I have been HIT by a bicyclist who took a curve too fast on the bike
path in Manhattan Beach years ago. He swung into my lane - hit me on my bike - destroying my bike
and with some injury to me, and he took off, hit and run. (Before cell phones- I had to fend for myself)
This reckless riding is a daily event whether it is the child ahead of "the" parent on a tiny bike wobbly
or the racing group or the casual biking adult who can't or doesn't read the signs is distracted and
2
weaving or "huffing and puffing" along and is all over the place. Each has an issue on the road. These
issues haven't yet been sufficiently addressed, to just pour more each day onto the road.
There is no free lunch. I think we need to go back to the drawing board - square one- start over - look
at the impact and the long term effect. Do we want this in our town a huge new landing and more and
more tourists and bikes? The stimulus money comes from the TAX PAYER - that is us...so I don't
really see that it matters if they use this money and in such a hurry or they do this properly and it
happens in two or even ten years. If they can put in a temporary landing as they say while they build
this new one, then do that, and use that while this is re thought planned and done, the right way.
For example, everyone went silent when I asked last fall: Why not have the ferry terminal come into
Fort Baker around or in "Travis Marina" - which is GOVERNMENT land - a decent area, there - even
Cavallo Point would benefit, and there is parking, the park service, the fishing area, Bay Area
Discovery Museum, trails to hike and bike. It is only 2.0 miles (a 30-40 min walk or a 7-10 min drive
per Google maps) Have a shuttle service to Sausalito for those who would like that, and all those
"downtown" cabs could move there as well, pick up deliver and wait for calls.
WHY NOT Run a Commuter & / or Marin County Resident only, and a smaller, faster, more efficient
Ferry from Sausalito to SF and back. Not the tourist ferry. Have the tourists come in just south of town
and or have the bikes people don't want to use at that point picked up by the BIKE COMPANIES and
returned to SF at their expense.
Has anyone called FORD, GM or GOLD COAST FERRIES, or UC Berkeley or MIT or CAL TECH ??
or other BOAT /FERRY Companies to see what is on the drawing board or even (tongue in cheek)
Elon Musk for a more efficient plan or alternative vehicle instead of the huge inefficient diesel fueled
ferries we have now? WHY THIS HUGE need to RUSH?? No one has said the existing is unsafe just not maintained and not ADA compliant! Well we are still using it - so some maintenance is being
done - maybe ramp (no pun intended) that up for now, and it must be mostly compliant or ADA would
have shut the system down!!
There must be more to this than the BOILER PLATE design being pushed and the Government inept
and inefficient project, money driven, methodology with no vision beyond the tip of their nose, their
taxpayer dollars considered their windfall to spend.
Marin County instituted (due to the last huge drought, years ago) and did not issue any more water
meters to slow growth. THEY (MARIN CO.) said NO. We can say NO. The bridge district is opening
the floodgates with no care or concern to growth, except their own dollar. And they are spending
OURS to do this. WE ARE IN A drought, these district floodgates will drown our town! (Literally and
figuratively).
Please, start this entire project over, and rethink re design - everything.
Thank you.
Leslie Hail
Resident of Sausalito
3
4
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ken Horiszny [[email protected]]
Monday, April 06, 2015 10:09 AM
Lilly Schinsing
Question for the Planning Commision from meeting of 3/11/15
To: Sausalito Planning Commission
I attended the Planning Commission and Historic Landmarks Board Joint Meeting on 4/1/15 and had hoped to
ask a question.
Unfortunately I had to leave at 9:00 pm when there was still a line to speak - and did not get a chance to do so.
Accordingly I am sending my question via email so that it can be answered at the next public meeting.
Question:
The proposed ferry landing is intended to greatly reduce turn around time for ferries in and out of Sausalito and
thus offer the possibility of greatly increasing ridership.
Currently the Transportation District runs additional Ferries on weekends to accommodate additional
passengers.
Given the reduced turnaround time and the possibility of loading and unloading more that one vessel at a time
with the new landing I'd like to know the maximum number of passengers that could be accommodated on weekends - in the event
that the Transportation District chose to maximize ridership by adding as many trips as time and craft
availability would allow based on the new landing.
This calculation should include all Ferries that could theoretically be added to the fleet on weekends based on
using craft within the fleet that are normally idle on weekends.
Simply put:
once you add all this capacity to Sausalito - just how many tourists might be pumped through our town using all
the Ferries that are normally idle on weekends?
Ken Horiszny
Principal HKA Design
33 Monte Mar
Sausalito, CA 94965
Cell (415) 990-4047
[email protected]
1
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
William Versaci [[email protected]]
Tuesday, April 07, 2015 11:47 AM
Lilly Schinsing; Tom Theodores; Mary Wagner; [email protected]
Comments form last hearing
Specific Questions.pdf
Lilly Joan asked me to write up my comments from the last hearing. Would you please distribute these to the Planning Board, Historic Landmarks Commission and City Council members. I have already sent copies directly to the Mayor and City Attorney.
Thanks for your help, Bill William Versaci Vice Versa Media 265 Currey Lane Sausalito, California 94965 415.755.5522 [email protected] 1
William Versaci
STUDIO VERSACI
Post Office Box 1152
Sausalito
California 94965
Ms. Joan Cox, Chair, Sausalito Planning Board
Madam Chair;
You have asked me to submit in written form the key issues I presented at the recent joint
hearing of the Planning Board and Historic Commission. I have framed these as specific
questions to be answered by the District (and some jointly with the City attorney, City staff,
or BCDC). I intend this as a synopsis of the legitimate issues raised at the hearings that
ought to be addressed and resolved, or not resolved, in response to the community’s
concerns.
We must remember that consensus does not mean everyone gets what he, she or they
want, or will be satisfied with the outcome. It means crafting the best solution for the most
stakeholders, in which the District’s service is the most important factor. Our clear, and
clearly stated purpose should be to minimize the adverse impacts of the project on our
community, not to derail the District’s badly needed improvements.
With so many scattered comments, our message tends to get lost in the noise. This makes
it easy, intentionally or not, for the District to parry the community’s legitimate concerns
rather than respond to them. I prefer to believe the District is not engaging with
stakeholders in bad faith, and that the District’s proposal is not a political done deal, on
which local impacts and concerns will have no bearing, and result in no changes.
If our role is only advisory, our effort should be directed toward, and expressed in terms
that will strike a chord with BCDC, who have regulatory authority. It is not unreasonable
to expect the District to explicitly respond to these issues, and is not unreasonable for the
Board and the City to disapprove this application if they are not resolved.
Sincerely,
William Versaci
Cc: John Eberle, Golden Gate Transit District
Thomas Theodores, Honorable Mayor of Sausalito
Honorable Members of the Sausalito City Council
Mary Wagner, City Attorney
BCDC Design Review Board Members
Various interested parties by request
1. GANGWAY DESIGN
Why is it not possible to reduce the height and profile of the gangway using slimmer
truss members and/or adding a center rail? Or is the problem really that it is “not
possible” using the bloated design vocabulary that the community finds objectionable?
The single element that has excited the most community concern and negative comment is
the gangway, which is clumsy, overdesigned, overscaled and out-of-place. Its framework
blocks views from itself and the pier, and is discordant in the panoramic Bay view from the
public waterfront plaza. (Note visual impacts are not included in the District’s inadequate EIR.)
The round tubes of the structure have a wider visual profile than equivalent square ones.
Their large diameter means they will have no effect on perching birds, as the District claims.
The visual impact is complicated by the separate, redundant structure of handrails and deck
that do not contribute to distributing the loads or reinforcing the truss structure.
The overwhelming prevalence of simple, lightweight, open-truss spans with integral decks
and handrails, including many prefabricated in steel or lighter-weight aluminum, confirms
their availability and suitability for this application. The simplicity of their design makes it
easy, not impossible, to add a center support that would carry one third of the load, and
reduce the height and depth of all. In fact, the advantage of the Pratt truss (that both
designs share, and has been in use since the 1840’s) is its simplicity, design flexibility and
economical use of materials.
This would be the easiest element of the project to change at any time since it is
independent of any hard construction, and will be subcontracted and fabricated separately.
District’s gangway design and alternative supported by the community.
1
Gangway and security gate seen from public waterfront plaza
Proposed gangway with arched truss
Alternative “reduced height” straight truss with overscaled round framing members blocking views
2
Prefabricated pedestrian bridge with ‘H’ section, simple truss framing and wire safety rails
Redundant handrail separate from structure
Handrail and deck integral to structure with center truss
Prefabricated ‘H’ section long-span pedestrian bridge with deck and safety rails integral to structural truss
3
2). WIDTH OF ACCESS PIER
•
Why can the Access Pier not be made narrower?
Common sense tells us that a pier leading to a 16 foot wide gangway need only be 16 feet
wide. (Note that all of the dimensions are understated, using interior clear widths rather
than the overall size of the structure.) Why is it not possible to make the Access Pier
significantly narrower than 21 to 24 feet?
Access Pier, “belvederes” and security gate seen from public waterfront plaza
•
Why are the unsightly “belvederes” necessary? Why are they needed on both sides of
the access pier? . (Note that these are not included in the District’s inadequate EIR.)
The flap-ear “belvederes” and benches add to the visual complexity and opacity of the
access pier. They add about 10 feet to the pier width, which is not included in the
District’s measurements. They are also driving the location of the security gate to the far
end of the access pier, at the head of the gangway where it is most visible and
objectionable to the community.
If these flap-ear balconies were required or are supported by BCDC, they have never been
to the site to see their folly. In any case, why would they want them on the near side
facing the shore if their objective is to provide views from the outside, facing the Bay?
If BCDC wants these despite community objections to their appearance and secondary
effects on the pier width and gate location, they should at least be cantilevered only from
the full outside length of the pier, on order to simplify the design, narrow the actual pier
width, and make it look less objectionable from the public waterfront view plaza.
Structurally, these cantilevers are not integral to the pier design, and could be shorn off
without any impact on the engineering or construction of the pier itself.
4
3) LANDSIDE CROWDS
•
What will be the increase in waiting passengers, on a single trip basis, attributable to
the District’s proposal? (Note that this is not included in the District’s inadequate EIR.)
•
Why is the City of Sausalito responsible for accommodating onshore crowds generated
by a private ferry service?
•
Who controls the land and erects and manages the barricades that block public access
to the public waterfront view plaza?
It is the District’s position that dumping all of the existing and increased ridership on the
public plaza and parking lot, blocking public access with barricades, assuming the resulting
crowds are the City’s problem. They further assume this is an acceptable imposition on the
community, and a justifiable environmental impact. A one-time $2 million grant is not
going to make the crowds go away, reduce their impact on the public space or compensate
the public for lost waterfront access.
What is the projected increase in the loads for peak ferry runs, and how does the District
propose to manage the resulting crowds?
Ferry line at boarding time 8:20 AM, 3/9/2015
Ferry line at boarding time 11:20 AM, 3/9/2015
5
Passenger and bike containment before boarding
Barricades that permanently block public assess to the public waterfront view plaza
The small remaining hidden access to the public plaza
•
How much of the ferries’ “normal” ridership could be contained within the property the
District leases from the City of Sausalito?
Both of the other Golden Gate Ferry locations have their security gates “at the curb” and
separate boarding controls near the gangways, containing waiting passengers within the
property they lease or own. It is unreasonable to expect this facility to contain the peak
summer tourist loads. But they are the exception, with different characteristics from the
norm, and demand to be planned for differently. For the rest of the year the District
6
should be responsible for holding as many waiting passengers as possible within its own
leasehold and facility.
Therefore, the design basis for this facility should be “normal” daily loads in both directors.
Peak loads do not occur simultaneously in opposite directions, and the facility can adjust to
them, as it does now. The District records the number of passengers on each trip, so
“normal” use data is available throughout the daily cycle, which can be used to model the
required waiting area for passengers and passengers with bikes under normal conditions.
If the belvederes were removed and the Access Pier narrowed, the width of the Landside
Pier could be doubled with the same amount of “Bay fill” as currently planned. By
managing the lane widths for opposed offloading and loading for various cycles through he
day (as the District manages the lanes on its bridge), it appears the pier could
accommodate most, if not all, of the “normal” (i.e. not peak summer) passenger loads. Any
landside control structures on City property could be removed at times other than the
summer peaks. Even when there is a remaining onshore overflow of passengers and bikes
in normal conditions, they will naturally form into waiting lines in designated areas by
themselves (as they now do here, and throughout the District’s ferry and bus operations).
District ferry offloading and waiting plan
Proposed offloading and waiting on wider pier
Proposed management of passenger lanes during varied incoming and outgoing conditions
7
4) LIGHT POLLUTION
•
What will be the environmental impact of nighttime lighting, particularly its effects on
Bay views from the public shoreline plaza? (Note that visual impacts not included in
the District’s inadequate EIR.)
The proposed pier and gangway lighting would be continuous strips under the handrails.
This is assumed to be LED, which produces a much colder, pure white light than the
existing ocasional incandescent downlights on the uprights of the handrail. The float will be
lit by high-intensity downlights on 6 tall poles, as well as what appear to be 8, 360 degree
pole lights. This will flood the float with light and reflect off the surface of the water,
effectively obliterating that part of nighttime views from the public waterfront plaza.
The lighting from under the pier handrails might be subtle, but some may question why
what appears to be an oil-drilling platform is located 100 yards offshore from the public
waterfront view plaza at the center of a tourist attraction.
Night lighting of Access Pier and float
8
5) TEMPORARY PIER
•
Why has the Temporary Access Pier not been presented to the City and BCDC for
review? What will it look like from the shorefront plaza? How long will it be there?
(Note that this is not included in the District’s inadequate EIR.)
The Temporary Access Pier will be half the distance from the public waterfront park as the
existing one during the entire time the new facility is under construction. It will be built
almost entirely within the BCDC Public Access Easement or on City property outside the
limits of the District’s leased parcel.
•
Who has the authority and/or has granted permission for the Temporary Access Pier to
occupy the BCDC View Easement and City-owned real property?
The City Council has been told that that the findings of the Planning Board and the Council
are merely advisory, because the District is exempt from local land use controls. However,
it is not exempt from landlord and tenant relationships for real property, which gives the
City more leverage to obtain concessions from the District. In this case, that includes the
exclusive private use of public lands for passenger waiting, and construction of temporary
or permanent facilities on public lands. These approvals, and any compensation to the City,
must be determined before the project can be considered feasible by BCDC.
9
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Craig Severance [[email protected]]
Tuesday, April 07, 2015 5:24 PM
Lilly Schinsing
Attractive Nuisance, Life Safety and Cavallo Point
Lilly Can you please forward this email to members of the Sausalito Planning Commission and the Historic
Landmarks Board (I could not find their email addresses on the city website). Thank you!!!!!!!
——————————————————————
To: Sausalito City Council Members, the Sausalito Planning Commission and the Historic Landmarks Board CONCLUSION: I believe that any decision to expand the existing ferry terminal should be delayed until an indepth analysis of developing a ferry terminal at Cavallo Point is undertaken. By Cavallo Point, I am referring
the land owned by the National Park Conservancy proximate to Horseshoe Bay.
ARGUMENT: In my opinion, ferry service to and from downtown Sausalito should be limited to commuting
hours. Ferry service to San Francisco in the morning operates efficiently because very few non-residents travel
to San Francisco early in the day. Similarly, ferry service returning to Sausalito in the evening primarily serves
the needs of Sausalito residents returning home. In both cases, the ferry service and the existing ferry terminal
are more than adequate to service the needs of Sausalito residents.
Recently, the number of tourists renting bicycles in San Francisco and who travel to Sausalito has greatly
expanded. The primary reason tourists travel to Sausalito is not to visit Sausalito. They travel to Sausalito
because riding a bike across the Golden Gate Bridge sounds like fun and because the closest ferry service back
to San Francisco departs from Sausalito. If, during the middle of the day when most tourists are active, ferry
service to and from San Francisco operated out of Cavallo Point, most bicycle riding tourists would be SO
happy. Why? They would be happy because most of them are exhausted by the time they cross the bridge.
The views of the bridge and the city are fantastic from Cavallo Point. Retail focused on the tourist trade could
be made available which would provide substantial income to the Park Service or to those vendors who lease
space from the Park Service.
Those tourists who wish to continue to Sausalito could travel along East Road until it joins with Alexander
Avenue (avoiding some of the dangerous descent into Sausalito). However, if they wish to take a ferry back to
San Francisco, they would have to wait for the evening ferries (which means they might actually spend some
tourist dollars in Sausalito) or peddle back to Cavallo Point to catch the mid-day ferries (or they could peddle
their bikes back to San Francisco). Those tourists who wish to visit Sausalito (but are too tired to make the
round trip by bicycles) could take provided bus service.
Benefits:


No need to substantially improve the existing Sausalito Ferry terminal. A new concrete barge and some
relatively minor improvements will suffice.
Downtown Sausalito can retain the small town character that we all enjoy.
1




Exhausted tourists traveling across the bridge from San Francisco can be accommodated at Cavallo
Point which has plenty of land on which they could relax and where services designed to meet the needs
of tourists could be provided.
Lower tourist bicycle traffic along Alexander Avenue will prevent injuries and save lives. It's just a
question of time before someone (a small child, an exhausted out-of-shape cyclist etc.) veers into
automobile traffic. Those of you proposing an expansion of the existing Ferry Terminals would feel a
sense of responsibility if and when someone is hurt or killed as they descend into Sausalito when a
perfectly good option may be available.
Buses could be provided to shuttle tourists to and from Sausalito. This would be a much safer approach
and reduce the impact of tourist bicycles on downtown Sausalito.
Substantial income could flow to the National Park Service or to local vendors who lease space from the
Park Service.
Summary: An expanded Ferry Terminal in the heart of downtown Sausalito would create an Attractive
Nuisance. The large number of tourist bicycles visiting Sausalito is creating a life safety issue as they descend
into Sausalito along a road that is not designed to accommodate both auto and bicycle traffic. You should only
consider a change to the ferry terminal in Sausalito after you have carefully considered ferry service at Cavallo
Point and concluded that this idea is impossible. And, even so, you should leave it alone.
2
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
SausalitoJoan [[email protected]]
Lilly Schinsing
Fwd: Another letter from Velma via Janet
FYI.
Joan Cox
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dean4fish <[email protected]>
Date: April 7, 2015 at 5:50:56 PM PDT
Subject: Another letter from Velma via Janet
VELMA E. GAMBLE
166 BULKLEY AVE.
SAUSALITO, CA 94965
April 8, 2015
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 10600
San Francisco, CA 94102-7019
Email: [email protected]
Dear BCDC Commissioners,
If it is true that Adam Politzer, Sausalito City Manager informed BCDC that there were a handful of complaints about the
proposed massive increase in size of our ferry landing, then he is not telling the truth.
There are over 1000 signatures, both wet and on line, opposed and many meetings of packed houses opposing this. The
april 1st meeting was held in IDESST hall to try to accommodate the crowds. And, still it was standing room only.
We are not told the reason for this massive project. We are a small town of less than 9,000 population and cannot handle
being turned into a transportation hub.
The environmental impact will be disastrous. Filling the tidal waters is illegal and will damage our herring fishery, along with
other wildlife and birds.
In the name of Sausalito residents please deny this proposal.
Sincerely,
Velma E. Gamble
cc: Sausalito City Council
Sausalito Planning Commission
Sausalito Historic Landmarks Board
Sausalito Citizens at Large
1
William Arno Werner
213 Richardson Street
Sausalito, CA 94965-2422
January 25, 2015
Mr. Erik Buehmann
Coastal Program Analyst
San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission
455 Golden Gate Ave., Suite 10600
San Francisco, CA 94102-7019
Re:
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (GGBHTD) – Sausalito
Ferry Terminal Vessel Boarding Rehabilitation Project, BCDC Permit Application
2014.001.00
Dear Mr. Buehmann:
While it is clearly no longer timely to comment on the District’s Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND) document dated September 2012, it is appropriate and
necessary to report that the document contained gross misstatements of facts leading
to conclusions that obfuscated reality.
The specific instances are found in Section 2.2 Environmental Checklist, Item 5.
Cultural Resources, a) “Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in §15064.5.” The pertinent portion of that
paragraph of the California Code of Regulations is attached as Appendix A.
Pages 2-26 and 27 of the District’s IS/MND for this project, attached as Appendix B,
include the following determinations regarding the historical resources impacted by the
proposed undertaking, which are all false:
1.
“No historical resources are located within the direct (75,000 square foot construction
area) or indirect (visual) Area of Potential Effects (APE).”
This is visibly untrue.
In fact, the project is partially
incorporated within official
boundaries of the Sausalito
Certified Downtown Historic
District and the APE should have
included the many specific
buildings of historic significance as
noted in the extract from the
California Office of Historic
Preservation (SHPO) attached as
Appendix C and the over 60
documented properties on the
“Sausalito Certified District
Property List” attached as
Appendix E-1 & E-2.
f:\waa\waw\corr2015\districtismnd.docx
Ferry Landing
Page 1 of 4 Pages
William Arno Werner
Mr. Erik Buehmann, BCDC - Coastal Program Analyst
Sausalito Ferry Terminal Project: Permit Application 2014.001.00
January 25, 2015
2. “Two historic buildings (P-21-001707: the Northwest Pacific Railroad Express Office,
and P-21-002641: 201 Bridgeway Boulevard) and one historic structure (a pump
station; P-21-002629) are located within the 0.5-mile study radius, at least 300 feet
outside of the indirect APE.”
In fact, both the “Northwest Pacific Railroad Express Office” (now Stroub Construction
located at 300 Main Street) and “201 Bridgeway Boulevard” (formerly the Valhalla and
soon to become condominiums) are over a half mile south of the project site and
beyond the boundary of the Downtown Historic District.
The “pump station” noted is unidentified in the list of historic structures provided for the
Sausalito area by the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical
Resources Information System (CHRIS).
However, as close to the project as two hundred feet and within less than a thousand
foot radius, and fully within the Certified Historic District, there are over 60 recorded
buildings of varying degrees of eligibility for the National Register or the California
Register. All, however, are listed on the local Register and all are included on the
“Sausalito Certified District Property List” from SHPO (see Appendix E-1 & E-2).
3. “None of these resources has been listed on or formally determined eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historic
Resources (CRHR).”
As noted in 2. above, this statement is unequivocally false.
In fact, within 900 feet of the project site and included in the Certified Historic District is
the “William G. Barrett House” at 156 Bulkley Avenue built in 1885, and listed as
#80004490 on the National Register of Historic Places.
More importantly, the remains of 1875 Ferry Landing itself were listed in the 1981
Historical Resource Survey as NPS # 4965-0066-0063 with a Status Code of “2D –
Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR by Keeper. Listed in the CR.”
This designation also applies to the near-by Plaza Vina del Mar (NPS # 4965-00660013) and 54 more individual properties within the Historic District! Had this Survey
been performed today, the Sausalito Yacht Club, built in 1960 and only fifty feet from
the ferry landing, would have been included as a representative of classic mid-century
Bay Region Modern architecture. The Yacht Club and the Inn Above Tide (former
McDevitt Apartments) are properties directly impacted by this undertaking.
4. “The Sausalito Ferry Terminal and all associated facilities were constructed in 1970.”
Based on the District’s own information, this statement is also indisputably false.
“The Golden Gate Ferry landing in downtown Sausalito consists of a leased facility and
GGBHTD-owned floating dock last replaced in 1998. The landing facilities are shared
with a private ferry operator that provides service to Fisherman’s Wharf in San
Francisco”. [emphasis added].1
1
Page 3-10, “Short-Range Transit Plan, Fiscal Years 2008-2017”, adopted by Golden Gate Bridge,
Highway and Transportation District, December 14, 2007.
Page 2 of 4 Pages
William Arno Werner
January 25, 2015
5. “Because no historical resources are located within the direct or indirect (visual) APE,
and none are closer than 300 feet from the indirect APE, no impacts to historical
resources would occur.”
This assertion also plainly misstates the facts.
Page 1-13 of the District’s IS/MND, Paragraph “1.4.3. Permits”, notes the requirement
for: “Compliance with Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act (State Historic
Preservation Office [SHPO])”. On Page 2-2 of the District’s IS/MND, item “10. Other
public agencies whose approval is required: , and California State Historic Preservation
Office. See Chapter 1, Project Description, for details.” No such details are to be found
in Chapter 1, or, anywhere else in the entire IS/MND.
It is also clear from the record of comments to the IS/MND documents made by the
representatives of the City of Sausalito Community Development Department that there
was no attention paid to the presence of the Certified Local Historic District.2
Section 106 compliance is required when Federal agencies directly undertake project
activities and when Federal agencies are involved indirectly through funding, approving,
permitting or licensing. In this case, the $14,000,000 of funding for this project comes to
the District by way of grants from the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
On July 13, 2012, the FTA initiated the 106 consultation with SHPO for the Sausalito
Ferry Terminal undertaking. The “scope of work” and “APE” maps are attached as
Appendix F-1 and F-2. The letter of compliance to Leslie Rogers, Regional
Administrator, FTA, dated September 20, 2013, from the Office of Historic Preservation
(SHPO) is based on the erroneous information provided by the District’s IS/MND and
summarized in the FTA cultural resources report.
The FTA considered the APE to be only the area of construction plus the Sausalito
Yacht Club and what is known as Parking Lot “1”. All of the near-by documented
historic resources were completely ignored.
According to 36 CFR 800.16(d), the “Area of Potential Effects means the geographic
area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in
the character or use of historic properties, if such properties exist. The area of potential
effects is influenced by the scale and nature of the undertaking and may be different
for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.” Determining the APE should
be a process that considers the interplay of the three factors bolded above. Clearly that
has not been the case in this instance.
The project setting, its geographical location and environmental impact, will produce
significant physical, visual, and auditory negative effects on nearby historic properties.
Doubling the size and scale of the ferry landing will impact views both from the land
toward San Francisco, Alcatraz, Tiburon and Angel Island and from the bay toward
Sausalito.
2
http://goldengate.org/board/2012/agendas/documents/BO12.13.12s2_SausalitoProject.pdf. Attachment 1, PA3
and PA3, to Agenda Item No. 2 of the December 13, 2012 Meeting of the GGBHTD Building and
Operating Committee
Page 3 of 4 Pages
William Arno Werner
January 25, 2015
The Golden Gate Ferry website advertises that the 30 minute ride from San Francisco
“…docks in the heart of downtown Sausalito at Humboldt and Anchor. This quaint hill
town, settled in the 1860's, offers unusual shops and great restaurants.” The probable
effect of this massive expansion disguised as a “rehabilitation” will likely eliminate what
quaintness may be left in Sausalito.
Both the CEQA IS/MND and the Section 106 Review are flawed in the extreme because
of the inaccurate representation of the facts regarding the immediate presence of
historic resources in what should have been defined as the APE.
The conclusion that the project undertaking would have “No Impact” should have been
that it will have “Potentially Significant Impact” for which there is no mitigation possible.
Any assertion that the incentive of the $2.4 to $4 Million grant pass-through of FTA and
other federal funds to the City of Sausalito for landside improvements is a mitigation
measure is pure fantasy. Those as yet undefined “improvements” may well further
exacerbate the negative impact of this undertaking on the historic resource and
character of the town.
The District has not justified the functional need for the proposed major expansion of
this ferry landing facility which more than doubles the existing amount of bay-fill. They
have also been less than reliable in defining and addressing the impacts of this project
on the existing historical resources and the fragile fabric of downtown Sausalito.
BCDC should deny this permit application and direct the District to rethink their “one
size fits all” approach to the “rehabilitation” of their San Francisco, Larkspur and
Sausalito ferry terminals. This little town cannot survive becoming the “Gateway to
Marin County”, the transportation hub for Park Service shuttles to Muir Woods, and a
convenient subsidized profit center for Blazing Saddles and private ferry companies
without losing the very essence that had made it so inviting to so many welcome visitors
from all over the world.
Respectfully,
Bill Werner
Vice-chair, Sausalito Planning Commission
Attachment: Appendices A through F
Cc:
BCDC; R. Zachary Wasserman, Chair, Anne Halsted, Vice Chair, Kathrin Sears
CA SHPO: Kathleen Forrest.
Katie Gross, Office of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein
Chris A. Skelton, Esq., Ragghiantt | Freitas LLP
Robert “Perl” Perlmutter, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP
Page 4 of 4 Pages
Appendix A
Excerpt from California Code of Regulations §15064.5
15064.5. Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archeological and Historical
Resources
(a) For purposes of this section, the term "historical resources" shall include the
following:
(1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical
Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).
(2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in
section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an
historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the
Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally
significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless
the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally
significant.
(3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a
lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the
architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social,
political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an
historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by
substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be
considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource
meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources
(Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
(B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
(C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method
of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or
possesses high artistic values; or
(D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
(4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing
in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register
of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources
Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in
section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead
agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as
defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1
(b) A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment.
(1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource
means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource
or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource
would be materially impaired.
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/california%20code%20of%20regulations.pdf
f:\waa\waw\corr2015\districtismndapp.docx
Appendix B
Excerpt from:
“Golden Gate Sausalito Ferry Terminal Vessel Boarding Rehabilitation Project”
“Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration”
“September 2012”
Cultural Resources
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
5.
a)
b)
c)
d)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
CULTURAL RESOURCES- Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
a)
No Impact. No historical resources are located within the direct (75,000 square foot construction
area) or indirect (visual) Area of Potential Effects (APE). Two historic buildings (P-21-001707:
the Northwest Pacific Railroad Express Office, and P-21-002641: 201 Bridgeway Boulevard) and
one historic structure (a pump station; P-21-002629) are located within the 0.5-mile study radius,
at least 300 feet outside of the indirect APE. None of these resources has been listed on or
formally determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the
California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR).
The Sausalito Ferry Terminal and all associated facilities were constructed in 1970, and do not
meet the minimum age threshold (50 years) for consideration for listing on the NRHP or CRHR.
Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that the ferry terminal would meet National Register
Criterion G (exceptional significance for resources less than 50 years old).
Construction would occur either in a designated off-site location (for assembly of the concrete
floats) or within the 75,000 square-foot construction area. Construction staging and parking areas
totaling 5,000 to 8,000 square feet have not yet been identified, but would most likely occur on
paved surfaces that are currently used for parking, delivery, loading/unloading, and similar
activities. Because no historical resources are located within the direct or indirect (visual) APE,
and none are closer than 300 feet from the indirect APE, no impacts to historical resources would
occur.
http://goldengate.org/news/ferry/documents/SausalitoIS-MNDSep2012.pdf
Appendix C
“Certified California Local Districts”
“There are ten Certified Local Districts currently in cities in California. These cities are: Long
Beach, Oakland, Pasadena, Pittsburgh, Redwood City, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Cruz,
Sausalito, and Stockton.” [emphasis added]
“Sausalito Historic District, Sausalito”
“The historic district boundaries were determined to be that of the present and historical central
business district. Within the central area, a variety of architectural styles are evidence of the
city's growth and change since 1868.
District styles emerged between 1885 and 1900 and again between 1914 and 1924. Both periods
represent times of growth and heavy construction in the downtown area. The commercial
architecture in the historic district exemplifies some of the most notable examples of these time
periods. The first period was typified by an Italianate commercial, a variation of Northern
California storefront Victorian. These structures sported false fronts, friezes, bracketed or boxed
cornices, flat windows with hoods or pediments, or bay windows decorated with medallions or
flat columns. The second period was characterized by a more utilitarian approach to commercial
architecture - sturdy brick or concrete construction, recessed entryways, plate glass windows,
transoms, and a reserved exterior decoration except for occasional false-front silhouette, mission
style revival or grand classic revival facade.”
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=27283
Appendix D
Existing Ferry Terminal
Proposed Ferry Terminal
SAUSALITO CERTIFIED DISTRICT PROPERTY LIST
PROPERTY #
001930
001931
001932
001933
001934
001935
001936
001937
001938
001939
001940
001941
001942
001943
001944
001945
001946
001947
001948
001949
001950
001951
001952
001953
001954
001955
001956
001957
001958
001959
001960
001961
001962
001963
001964
001965
001966
001967
001968
001969
001970
001971
001972
001973
001974
001975
001976
001977
001978
001979
DESCRIPTION
SAN FRANCISCO YACHT CLUB, ONDINE / TRIDENT RESTAURANTS
LANGES LANDING, SCOMAS
FERRYBOAT LANDING SITE, YEE TOCK CHEE PARK
OLD PURITY STORE
BECKER BUILDING, SAGA OF FINLAND
PRINCESS THEATRE, GATE THEATRE, TAKAHASHI GIFTS
FIEDLERS GENERAL STORE, OLD DIME STORE
SEVEN SEAS RESTAURANT
SAUSALITO FERRY COMPANY
SAUSALITO HOTEL
NORTHWEST PACIFIC RR EXPRESS OFFICE, MACKES SWEATER SHOP
McDEVITT APARTMENTS
PLAZA VINA DEL MAR
BARRETT, WILLIAM G., HOUSE / CASA MADRONA HOTEL
MASON'S GARAGE / VILLAGE FAIR
MEDICAL / DENTAL BUILDING
NO NAME BAR
GG OF SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO NEWS BUILDING / THE TIDES / UPSTART CROW & CO
TAMALPAIS STABLES / ARCADE SHOPS
PATTERSON'S BAR
SAUALITO CITY HALL, BANK OF SAUSALITO, TOPS N TROWSERS
BURLWOOD GALLERY
BANK OF SAUSALITO, WELLS FARGO BANK
EL MONTE HOTEL, DEL MONTE HOTEL
SAUSALITO NEWS BUILDING, GAMES PEOPLE PLAY
SWENSON'S
PRICELESS SHOP
CAT 'N' FIDDLE BAR
SAUSALITO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, HOMESTEAD SAVINGS AND LOAN
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SAUSALITO, SHELBY GALLERIES
MECCHI & RATTO BUILDING, STEPHENS SHOPS
SCHNELL, JACOB, BOARDING HOUSE / MIKE GREY AND SHOPS
JEAN BAPTISTE MEAT MARKET, GEMINI SHOPS
PRINCESS COURT
THE STORE
TAPIA ART STUDIO
SAUSALITO CITY HALL, UNITOURS
CABANA BONITA
PORTALS OF THE NOOK
LANESIDE / LANESIDE APARTMENTS
APARTMENTS
ZEPHYR COTTAGE
GLEN BANK / SPRING BANK / RICHARDS HOUSE
PORTO BELLO ANTIQUES
SAUSALITO SALVAGE SHOP
KERSTING GALLERIES
GIOVANNI'S PIZZA
VENICE GOURMET
CITY
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
ST. #
558
588
660
664
668
670
676
688
12
28
30
156
777
763
757
755
749
743
737
731
721
715
701
693
687
683
679
675
671
667
4
12
28
36
40
52
62
90
109
48
54
83
21
19
3
639
625
STREET
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
PRINCESS ST
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
EL PORTAL ST
EL PORTAL
EL PORTAL
EL PORTAL
BULKLEY AVE
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
PRINCESS ST
PRINCESS ST
PRINCESS ST
PRINCESS ST
PRINCESS ST
PRINCESS ST
PRINCESS ST
PRINCESS ST
PRINCESS ST
BULKLEY AVE
BULKLEY AVE
BULKLEY AVE
PRINCESS ST
PRINCESS ST
PRINCESS ST
PRINCESS ST
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
NPS #
4965-0066-0001
4965-0066-0002
4965-0066-0003
4965-0066-0004
4965-0066-0005
4965-0066-0006
4965-0066-0007
4965-0066-0008
4965-0066-0009
4965-0066-0010
4965-0066-0011
4965-0066-0012
4965-0066-0013
4965-0066-0014
4965-0066-0015
4965-0066-0016
4965-0066-0017
4965-0066-0018
4965-0066-0019
4965-0066-0020
4965-0066-0021
4965-0066-0022
4965-0066-0023
4965-0066-0024
4965-0066-0025
4965-0066-0026
4965-0066-0027
4965-0066-0028
4965-0066-0029
4965-0066-0030
4965-0066-0031
4965-0066-0032
4965-0066-0033
4965-0066-0034
4965-0066-0035
4965-0066-0036
4965-0066-0037
4965-0066-0038
4965-0066-0039
4965-0066-0040
4965-0066-0041
4965-0066-0042
4965-0066-0043
4965-0066-0044
4965-0066-0045
4965-0066-0046
4965-0066-0047
4965-0066-0048
4965-0066-0049
4965-0066-0050
APPENDIX E-1
CERT. DATE
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/84
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/84
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/84
STATUS
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
6X
6X
2D
2D
6X
2D
2D
2D
6X
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
6X
6X
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
YEAR BUILT
1898
1887
1977
1935
1897
1915
1885
1885
1979
1909
1916
1962
1904
1885
1924
1958
1894
1899
1899
1894
1894
1894
1894
1924
1879
1897
1902
1924
1915
1924
1917
1914
1884
1892
1913
1894
1894
1894
1887
1893
1891
1891
1894
1891
1884
1886
1874
1885
1887
1894
ATTRIBUTE
13
06 . 11
31
06
06
10
06
06
06
05
06
03
31 . 26 . 29
02
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
14 . 06
06
06
05 . 06
06
06
06
06 . 03
06
06
06
03 . 06
06
03 . 06
06
03
02
14 . 16
02
28
02 . 02
02
03
02
02 . 06
06
05 . 06
06
06
SAUSALITO CERTIFIED DISTRICT PROPERTY LIST
PROPERTY #
001980
001981
001982
001983
001984
001985
001986
001987
001988
001989
001990
001991
001992
001993
DESCRIPTION
FLYING FISH RESTAURANT
TOWN & COUNTRY ANTIQUES
MARIN FRUIT COMPANY
LINCOLN GARAGE / KEBAYA COMPANY
RUBY BEGONIA BOUTIQUES
SAUSALITO GEM SHOP
C. FREDERICK FAUDE ANTIQUES
TWIN VICTORIAN COTTAGE #1
TWIN VICTORIAN COTTAGE #2
OLD FERRY GRILL / SWANSON ART GALLERIES
DEXTER'S HOUSE APARTMENTS
FERRYBOAT LANDING
SAUSALITO CENTRAL BUSINESS HISTORIC DISTRICT
CITY
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
SAUSALITO
ST. #
621
605
605
599
595
589
585
579
583
569
565
561
558
STREET
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
BRIDGEWAY
EL PORTAL
BRIDGEWAY
NPS #
4965-0066-0051
4965-0066-0052
4965-0066-0053
4965-0066-0054
4965-0066-0055
4965-0066-0056
4965-0066-0057
4965-0066-0058
4965-0066-0059
4965-0066-0060
4965-0066-0061
4965-0066-0062
4965-0066-0063
4965-0066-9999
APPENDIX E-2
CERT. DATE
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/84
01/01/81
01/01/81
01/01/81
STATUS
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
2D
6X
2D
2D
2S
YEAR BUILT
1910
1924
1912
1924
1907
1904
1914
1886
1886
1908
1940
1889
1875
1874
ATTRIBUTE
10 . 06
06
06
06
03 . 06
03 . 06
06
02
02
06
02
03 . 14
11
02 . 05 . 06 . 13 . 28
APPENDIX F-1
APPENDIX F-2
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Sam Chase [[email protected]]
Thursday, April 09, 2015 3:13 PM
Debbie Pagliaro; Lilly Schinsing
Comments on 2nd Public Hearing regarding newly Proposed Ferry Landing
Commentary on 2nd Public Hearing-Final.pdf
Debbie and Lilly, Please distribute the attached commentary to the following:  Each of the five City Council Members  Adam Politzer, City Manager  Jonathon Goldman, Public Works Director  Danny Castro, Community Development Director  Each member of the Planning Commission  Each member of the Historic Landmark Board  The Golden Gate Bridge District Representatives In order to ensure that the public and the The Golden Gate Bridge District Representatives have access to comments sooner, why not open a folder on the City of Sausalito's website for all to see comments well in advance of the meeting. Unless I'm mistaken, people have to wait until the agenda is posted with exhibit links to see what the comments are. This typically doesn't occur until a day or two before the meeting. Can the City of Sausalito improve on making more people aware of public comments sooner? It would allow everyone to be more prepared for the meeting. Thanks for your assistance. Regards, Sam Chase Bonita Street Resident Right-click here t
pictures. To help
priv acy , Outlook
auto matic downlo
picture from the
A v ast logo
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com 1
Commentary on 2nd Public Hearing on the Proposed Sausalito Ferry Landing
Summary
The second public hearing on the proposed Sausalito Ferry Landing project made insignificant progress from
the 1st public hearing with the following observations:
1) The dissemination of information amongst the Golden Gate Bridge District (GGBD), the City of Sausalito
and the public was both wholly inadequate and untimely and hence all parties did not have access to
and/or the time to read, digest and formulate opinions and presentations on what was a substantial
amount of new information and commentary. It’s hard to say whether this poor communication was
purposeful by City Hall or simply just woefully insufficient knowledge of how to ensure that all parties
are adequately informed prior to a public meeting. In either case, it reflects extremely poorly on
Sausalito City Hall. My concern that it could have been suspiciously purposeful stems from some
particular and now public e-mail communication between the City Manager and the GGBD regarding
the ferry terminal project. The tone of this communication, which took place during the 4th quarter of
2014 clearly reflected a strategy oriented towards partially circumventing public involvement. Is the
ineffective dissemination of material a backhanded continuation by these public bodies of the same
disinterest in public involvement?
2) The City Hall edict that the Planning Commission, the Historical Landmarks Board and the public is only
supposed to be commenting on the scale and cosmetic appearance of the proposed landing is highly
frustrating to many residents who are mostly fundamentally opposed to proceeding with ANY new
replacement terminal. Had the entire process evolved in a timely and more all-inclusive fashion with
substantive workshops addressing all the issues, including landside and seaside integration, rental bike
logistics and condition of the existing terminal, a much more receptive public approval process may
have followed.
3) The GGBD slide presentation continues to be a complete charade of incorrect and deceitful reasoning
to proceed with the project. I hope that the 3rd public hearing will not include a continuation of this
now blatantly obvious deceptive nonsense. Even a cursory review of capacity, ADA compliance and
projected growth rates clearly shows that there is no substantive justification for proceeding with a
new replacement terminal. Further discussion on the most significant design parameters follows in
more detail below. As presented in my commentary on the 1st public hearing on March 11th, any new
installation continues to be demonstrably ill-conceived with no substantive justification. If the GGBD
could present a more detailed discussion about the existing terminal’s condition, including technically
founded engineering and economic reasoning about why it can’t be refurbished to suit continuing
operations, it would be a refreshing step in the right direction for a new terminal design.
4) The huge volume of passengers who use the ferry for returning rented bicycles continues to be at the
heart of the reasoning behind building a new terminal. Understandably, residents are fed up with
current rental bike logistics and in fact some residents are fed up with rental bikes all together. It is
imperative that the problem of rental bike logistics be addressed and mutually agreed upon before
approval of any replacement terminal.
5) The biggest drivers of this project appear to be: a) the GGBD’s continued blind obsession to utilize
federal funds to build a new terminal in Sausalito regardless of whether there is justification for it or
not, and b) the GGBD’s desire that the ferry landing facility not constitute a bottleneck for rental
bicyclists using the ferry for returning their bikes to San Francisco.
I continue to urge the Planning Commission, the Historic Landmarks Board and the City Council to reject the
proposed project in its entirety based on the fact that there is no substantive justification for a new terminal.
Also, there is clearly a need to urgently deal with rental bicycle logistics once and for all. From some of the
comments made by one of the Planning Commissioners, a small survey of rental bicyclists indicates that a
majority of them would rather have the option of returning their bikes in Sausalito rather than in San
Francisco. This makes excellent sense for several reasons and should be pursued on a priority basis!
Underutilization of Existing Ferry Capacity & Potential Operational Efficiency Gain
During 2014, average passenger loading for GGBD ferry boats between Sausalito and San Francisco on each
weekday and weekend/holiday was only 14.6% and 31.1% respectively. This is based on the current schedule
which has 9 departures and 9 arrivals during weekdays and 6 arrivals and 6 departures on weekends. This is
truly an abysmal passenger loading revelation by GGBD which must result in a financial operating loss,
although no such financial statistics have been made available. Most for-profit businesses providing
transportation services, including the airline industry, would quickly recognize that reducing the number of
round trips between two destinations will increase passenger loading rates, especially when the service
offered has little if any competition between destinations. If the GGBD would reduce the number of ferry trips
from 9 to 7 during the week and from 6 to 4 on weekends/holidays, passenger loading would increase from
14.6% and 31.1 % to 18.8% and 46.6% respectively, still leaving plenty of room for growth. By eliminating 2
round-trip ferry runs per day, almost 3 hours of loading/unloading and round trip travel time could be spread
out over the day where it is needed the most, particularly on round trips that are burdened with heavy rental
bicycle traffic.
The reduction of round trips increases the overall operating efficiency of the round trips that remain resulting
in less fuel consumption, less engine maintenance, less boat depreciation and hence longer run times between
boat refurbishment and finally, less air pollution. With improved operational efficiencies like these, operating
losses are reduced or already profitable operating margins are increased. How many businesses have a highly
protected monopoly between two locations and complete freedom to adjust schedules for optimal efficiency?
Any fiscally responsibly run business would relish the opportunity to have this option before them, not only to
achieve improved financial performance but also to demonstrate environmental responsibility.
Why is the GGBD not pursuing this as the most responsible solution to the current loading/unloading
situation? It appears that they are blindly obsessed with spending federal transportation funds at the expense
of operating efficiency gains and green-house gas emission reduction opportunities. The citizens of Sausalito
should not tolerate such a cavalier attitude towards the use of federal funds and demand that these funds be
used where there is a justifiable need for them even if that means transferring them to a more fund-needy
transportation district!
ADA Compliance
I refer readers to my more detailed analysis of this topic in my Commentary on the 1 st Public Hearing but, to
summarize, out of a nominal 5,946 ferry boat departures/arrivals per year, 10 departures/arrivals per year
(0.17%) have ADA non-conformance ramp slope issues and only 3 arrivals per year (0.05%) require steeper
uphill travel. This data is based on 2015 tidal data and a figure of -1.1 feet as being the tide level that results
in ADA nonconformance. Rising sea levels will further reduce these numbers in time. Minor operational
changes along with minor modifications to the existing landing and gangways should resolve all ADA
compliance issues. Excluding some minor low cost changes to the gangplanks, the GGBD is wrongfully leading
the public to believe that the 12:1 ADA requirement is regularly and frequently being violated which it is not.
Ridership Growth
Please refer to the more detailed analysis on this topic in my Commentary on the 1st Public Hearing. To
summarize, the GGBD’s 4% ridership growth rate is based on a myopic view of ridership growth over the past
5 or 6 years which has been characterized by an unprecedented increase in rental bicyclists crossing the
Golden Gate Bridge and then looking for ferry rides back to San Francisco to turn in rental bikes instead of
riding them back across the bridge.
From recent impromptu surveys of rental bicyclists, it appears that the majority of them would prefer the
option of returning them in Sausalito instead of San Francisco. Prohibiting rental bikes on the ferry would not
only significantly reduce loading/unloading times but in most cases would not result in the loss of passenger
ridership as most renters need to return to San Francisco anyway.
Existing Design
Other than some arm waving about the marginal condition of the existing landing which has been poorly
maintained if at all, there has been no discussion whatsoever about performing a substantial refurbishment on
the existing terminal. It would seem that a substantial refurbishment, including making some minor
modifications, would improve operations at an extremely small cost compared to a new multimillion dollar
terminal. A more thorough discussion of how the existing terminal can be refurbished and then comparing
that option with a new terminal using a realistic design premise would be a step towards a better public
understanding of why a new terminal is being proposed.
New Design
The unrealistically high 4% long-term growth rate assumption has resulted in an extraordinarily high passenger
ridership design premise. If the growth rate were adjusted to something more realistic, it is evident that any
properly designed replacement terminal could be significantly scaled down in size compared to what has been
presented including a substantial reduction in walkway width to board/disembark.
Conclusion
So far, there has been no sound justification for a newly designed replacement terminal. It is clear that
passenger loading time issues can easily be resolved by reducing round trips which also improves operating
efficiency and reduces air pollution. ADA compliance issues have been deceptively overblown and can be
resolved with minor operational changes and adjustments to the existing landing. An unrealistically high 4%
growth rate has been used as the premise for the new design which means that if and when a new design is
justified; the size of a new terminal should come down substantially from what has been presented.
I continue to urge the Planning Commission, Historic Landmarks Board and the City Council to NOT approve
the proposed project until: a) a highly credible economic and engineering analysis of any proposed project is
completed and presented to the public which would include comparing any new terminal to different
alternatives including modification to the existing ferry terminal and b) the issue of bicycle logistics, especially
the option of returning rental bikes by bicycle rental company funded trucks, be resolved by the Sausalito
Coalition.
Prepared by Sam Chase,
Bonita Street resident
Date: April 9, 2015
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Joe Paulino [[email protected]]
Friday, April 10, 2015 7:38 AM
Sam Chase; Debbie Pagliaro; Lilly Schinsing
Re: Comments on 2nd Public Hearing regarding newly Proposed Ferry Landing
Dear Ms Schinsing,
I have written to you before to voice my absolute displeasure with the proposed new Sausalito Ferry Landing
terminal.
The Public Hearing on April 1st (the day my wife and I celebrated our 21st year of being Sausalito home
owners) did nothing to make me feel better about this unneeded, unwanted and sadly out-of-scale project.
Rather than go into more detail and continue with many paragraphs of my own negative venting, I would
respectfully refer you, the City Council, the Planning Commission and The Landmarks Board to the most
excellent summary presented by fellow Sausalito resident Sam Chase. He articulates my own feelings quite
well, and provides some interesting statistics that our Council would do well to note.
I hope that our elected local government has the courage and foresight to listen to the will of its residents, and
reject the proposed new landing.
To quote briefly from Mr. Chase's summary:
"I continue to urge the Planning Commission, the Historic Landmarks Board and the City Council to reject the proposed project in its entirety based on the fact that there is no substantive justification for a new terminal" Sam Chase speaks for me.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Joe Paulino
Crecienta Lane Resident
1
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
H. Mattson Austin [[email protected]]
Friday, April 10, 2015 8:50 AM
Lilly Schinsing
Sausalito Ferry Landing proposal petition
FerryPetitionA.pdf
To:LillySchinsing,PlanningDepartment,CityofSausalito
PlanningCommission
HistoricLandmarksBoard
CityCouncil,Sausalito
GoldenGateBridge,HighwayandTransportationDistrict
Ifounditveryeasytocollectover50signaturesfromfellowregularferryridersona
petitionduringmycommutetotheCityyesterdayand
homelastnight.Iregularlyridethe7:10amand5:30pmboats.Iam
surethe8:15,4:00and6:40boatswouldprovideequivalentnumbers.
Pleaseacceptthesepetitionsonbehalfofallofus.
Wepersonallydonotsharetheviewthatthereissomethingwrongwiththeplanstoupgrade
ourFerryserviceandterminal.Infact,25+yearsofstandinginthecoldwindandrain
duringthewintermonths,andsuffering30+minutedelayswaitinginSanFrancisco'sterminal
fordelayed5:30and6:40pmferries,whichhasgottenworseandworse,means
thatsomethinghastobedone,NOW.IfFederalmoneyfromARRAfunds
isavailable,itneedstobecapturedandusedbeforetheyputtheburdenonfares,whichnow
already$11/dayroundtripforregularresidentsandslatedfora5%increaseinJuly.
Speakingformyself,iftheycouldlandtwoboatsatonceinSausalito,thiswouldspeed
turnaroundandminimizethelineupattheFerryterminal.Capitalimprovementspermitting
dualŞlevelloadingandunloadinginSanFranciscoarerequiredaswell,sothatbicyclesno
longerhavetobecarriedupperilousstairsoneatatime,aridiculouslydangerous
situationthatslowsunloadinginSFtoacrawl.
Otherwise,bicyclesshouldbelimitedtothosewithacommuterbicyclepassavailableto
residents.
Iamnotworriedabout"TransitHubs";Iwelcomemoreservice,although
Iconsideritunlikelythiswillcomeabout.Iamnotworriedabout
thesizeorshapeoftheentranceway,orofthesizeofthefloat
platform.Iunderstandtheyhavemodifiedthingssomewhattotakeinto
accounttheYachtClubneeds;fine,aslongasthemainobjectivesofupdatingthestructure
andpermittingfasterloading/unloadingandmultiplevesselsaremaintained,ANDtheFederal
moneyiscapturedandusedtimely.
IagreewithwideningrampstobecomeADAŞcompliant(whyaren'tthey
already?)andsystemsofloadingandunloadingsimultaneously.Maywepleasegetatleastan
awningorsomesortofminimalsizedshelterfromrainatlonglast?
Wearealltryingtodoourpartfortheenvironment,and300orsoofusridewithgreat
regularity.Weareyourneighbors,yourfriends,andtogetherwekeep300carsoffour
streets.
1
ThanksfortakingOURneedsintoconsideration,too.
VeryTrulyYours,
MattsonAustin,
Sausalitohomeownerandferrypatronfor26yearsmaustin@blanningandbaker.com
2
William Versaci
STUDIO VERSACI
Post Office Box 1152
Sausalito
California 94965
[email protected]
10 April 2015
Mary Wagner, City Attorney
City of Sausalito
420 Litho Street
Sausalito, California 94965
RE: City Engineer Approval of Encroachment Permit
Ms. Wagner:
In response to item 5 in my summary of community concerns, a concerned citizen has found the
attached copy of an Encroachment Permit issued by the City Engineer for the Temporary Access
Pier and Float that are part of the Ferry Landing Expansion Project. The Permit is unconditional,
requiring compliance only with the District’s own standards.
Perhaps you could clarify at the Planning Board hearing on April 15 whether the City Engineer’s
permit for this critical part of the most controversial downtown project with the greatest
environmental impact since Proposition B is valid without Planning review, and whether his singular
approval is valid before the required City Council approval of the improvements within the
District’s leasehold, of which it is a part. For how long is the permit valid and what would be the
consequence of construction not starting on or near “1/1/2015”?
The City Engineer should have, and Planning staff, who for some reason were not consulted, would
have recognized the secondary impacts of truck and equipment traffic at the center of downtown,
the need for fenced-off staging areas and construction parking on city property, relocation of ferry
waiting areas on public property, lost public access to the waterfront plaza, and lost parking
revenue. The Planning Board and City Council most certainly would not endorse these
encroachments, and the public impacts and expenses associated with them, before approval of the
entire project. What recourse is available to them?
Thank you for addressing this community concern.
William Versaci
Cc:
John Eberle, Golden Gate Transit District
Thomas Theodores, Honorable Mayor of Sausalito
Honorable Members of the Sausalito City Council
Various interested parties by request
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lockyer, Jean [[email protected]]
Friday, April 10, 2015 12:14 PM
Lilly Schinsing
FW: comments about sausalito ferry landing
I noticed that paragraph 5 of the e‐mail below that I just sent was a little imprecise. I re‐wrote the third sentence. If these comments are distributed, I would appreciate it if you would use this re‐written version. My apologies for any inconvenience. Thank you. From: Lockyer, Jean
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 11:34 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: comments about sausalito ferry landing To: Lilly Schinsing, Sausalito Planning Commission I’ve been a resident of Sausalito for over 15 years. I take the ferry daily for my commute to San Francisco. There is a need to improve the Sausalito ferry facilities to provide more efficient commute services for Sausalito residents. I urge the city to proceed with the improvements proposed by the District. It is self‐evident that there has been a large increase in passenger volume, particularly passengers with bikes, on the Sausalito‐San Francisco Golden Gate ferry runs over the past several years. The commute ferries at 4:00 pm, 5:30 pm, and 6:45 pm from the city to Sausalito are now chronically late as a result. The District’s plan to upgrade the facilities for boarding passengers in Sausalio (wider ramps to allow passengers to board and disembark at the same time, wider ferry doors, alterations to the ramps so that more than one door can be used at the same time) will not only provide for ADA compliance, but will go a long way to addressing the current inefficiencies in loading and off‐loading passengers at the Sausalito side. I also welcome the changes to the dock that will allow two ferries to dock at the same time. If in fact changes to the facilities result in an increase in the number of ferries, the additional service will provide at least some relief for the pedestrian and bicycle congestion in the passenger staging area at the Sausalito ferry landing. I understand that there is federal funding available to help with the costs of the improvements. Please do not allow this opportunity to improve infrastructure pass. I appreciate that there is frustration with the bicycle congestion in Sausalito. I share that frustration. There is, however, no rational underpinning to support that upgraded ferry facilities would be expected to result in further bicycle congestion in Sausalito. Nor do I fear that the Sausalito ferry landing will somehow become a “transit hub”. It certainly isn’t very convenient as a commuting hub for most of Marin and visitors who want to come to Sausalito will come to Sausalito regardless of whether two ferries can dock at the same time. The District plans do not markedly change the water front and have evolved to take into account some of the concerns of residents about the height and appearance of the gates and ramp railings. Please approve the plans. This is an important step in helping to restore Golden Gate ferry to its former status as a reliable, on‐time commuting service for our city. Thank you. Very truly yours, 1
Jean M. Lockyer, Ph.D.
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Eighth Floor | Two Embarcadero Center | San Francisco, CA 94111
office 415 273 4778 | fax 415 723 7086
[email protected] | My Profile | vCard Confidentiality Notice:
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its
disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorneyclient privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information
contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the
original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
2
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
The Inn Above Tide [[email protected]]
Friday, April 10, 2015 2:11 PM
Lilly Schinsing
Tom Theodores; Jill Hoffman; Linda Pfeifer; Herb Weiner; Ray Withy;
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'Kass Green
([email protected])'; ''mike mcdevitt' ([email protected])'; 'Willie McDevitt
<[email protected]> ([email protected])'; The Inn Above Tide
The Inn Above Tide
Proposed GGBHTD Ferry Landing Project.pdf; Proposed GGBHTD Ferry Landing Project Conceptual Schedule.pdf
Dear Lilly,
Attached are two documents which we would like you to forward to Sausalito Planning Commissioner Joan Cox and the other
members of the Planning Commission regarding the proposed GGBHTD Ferry Landing Project. Thank you.
Regards,
Mark Flaherty
General Manager
-The Inn Above Tide
30 El Portal
Sausalito, CA 94965
Reservations 800.893.8433
Telephone 415.332.9535
Facsimile
415.332.6714
www.innabovetide.com 1
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Gail Grossman [[email protected]]
Saturday, April 11, 2015 2:23 PM
Tom Theodores; Jill Hoffman; Linda Pfeifer; Herb Weiner; Ray Withy
Lilly Schinsing
Sausalito Ferry Terminal Expansion
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council members,
I am expressing my concern that you would consider approving the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and
Transportation District's (GGBH&TD) "massive proposed expansion" of the Sausalito Ferry Terminal.
I'm sure we all agree that the ferry terminal is in disrepair and requires work; it does not require an expansion to
the size being proposed. The revised ferry landing presentation on April 1 by the GGBH&TD to Joint Meeting
of Planning Commissioners and Historic Landmark Board Commissioners and the public showed the size
modification changes were negligible.
As our representatives, I believe you should communicate to the GGBH&TD a size that is appropriate for the
Sausalito Ferry terminal and let them know what they are proposing is not acceptable. Sausalito cannot
accommodate the size of the proposed terminal nor two boats simultaneously docking with 1,400 passengers
disembarking into Sausalito.
Your allegiance should be aligned with what's best for Sausalito and its residents and not what the GGBH&TD
proposes. You are our voice and I'm hopeful you will place this project on hold until the District can present a
plan and size that will work for Sausalito.
Please do what's best for Sausalito and its residents by not accepting the proposed ferry terminal expansion as it
is currently presented.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Gail Grossman
33 West Harbor Dr.
Sausalito, CA 94965
415.331.8232
1
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
tessa [[email protected]]
Sunday, April 12, 2015 12:25 PM
Lilly Schinsing
Ferry Landing Project questions
Hello,
I have a few questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
When is the project scheduled to begin (season/year is fine)?
How long is construction (soup to nuts) intended to last?
How many phases would the project have?
How is the work scheduled to be broken down in the phases?
Will the current ferry landing be inoperable the entire time during the building of the new landing?
If so, will the ferry dock move to the shipyard landing?
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tess Lispi
604 Locust Street
Sausalito, CA
1
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Russ Irwin [[email protected]]
Sunday, April 12, 2015 3:45 PM
Lilly Schinsing
New Ferry Landing
Lilly, I can’t find an email address for Joan so you would please forward this question to the PC so that hopefully the GGBD will have an answer at the next hearing? Thanks, Russ ******************** Question for GGBD: Background: The last GGBD presentation stressed the “operational efficiency” of loading / unloading passengers on the main deck as is done in SF. Bikes are currently stored on the lower deck. There were no plans disclosed to change the configuration of the ferries themselves with regard to the allocation of bikes and passengers to the main and lower deck. 1) Are there plans to store bikes on the main deck of the ferries? How many bikes would be stored there, where will the displaced passenger seating be located? 2) Would it be correct to understand that in the absence of storing bikes on the main deck, loading on the main deck in Sausalito will require passengers with bikes to carry the bikes down the stairs to the lower deck, then back up to the main deck when they arrive in San Francisco? 3) If #2 is correct, how does doubling the number of trips carrying a bike up/down the stairs of the vessel contribute to improving operational efficiency”? Thank you. Russ Irwin 1
Patricia A. Zuch
65 Monte Mar Drive
Sausalito, CA 94965
To:
Sausalito Planning Commisiont
Subject:
Proposed Sausalito Ferry Landing Expansion
Planning Commission/Historic Landmarks Board April 15, 2015 meeting
The following are some thoughts relating to certain of the prospective design review findings for
the ferry landing expansion project. First, though, I have some concerns as to the overall scope
of this review, as it has evolved since December 2014.
Per the Staff report to the City Council on 2/10/15, in December 2014, the Bridge District agreed
to a process to review the gate, sign, paint/finish and materials (so-called "discretionary items".).
The staff report indicated, on page 3 of 172, that the "District is requesting feedback from the
PC, HLB and Sausalito community on the proposed project", and the diagram identified the
"components" of the project as 1) Landside Pier, 2) Temporary Pier, 3) Belvederes, 4) Access
Pier, 5) Gangway and 6) Float. However, both the Bridge District and Staff limited study
discussion review by the PC/HLB to Bridge District proposals for minor changes to the truss
shape, gate design and location, pier railing design, colors, and a slight reduction in access pier
width.
Three points for your consideration:
1) Per Staff and City Council, and as agreed to by the Bridge District, this review process has
been "modeled" on our usual Design Review process, which considerations and findings are
focused mostly on housing stock and office buildings. Chair Cox pointed out in the last session
that the process has been successfully applied to shore-side projects, such as boat harbors.
That is true – but the nature of this project is somewhat different than a simple harbor, and its
impacts on the Historic District in which it resides will be influenced by more than the size of a
gate or the materials and colors selected for the pier and gangway. The whole purpose of the
project, as advertised by the Bridge District, is to vastly increase the efficiencies and capacities
of a transportation terminal. This should reasonably be included in your discussions –
particularly as this is a "modeled" procedure, not one restricted by the usual legal constraints.
2) Notwithstanding # 1 above, I hope you will craft your findings to include explicit mention of the
"discretionary items," as well as connecting the dots between those items and the broader
components of the project, and whether or not findings can be made at both levels of
granularity.
3) In the current Staff Report for the April 15 meeting, Staff states that commissioners are "not
limited to discussing the findings only (other recommendations to the council may be provided.)"
Although I have been, and still am, an advocate for comprehensive review of this project, I urge
you to carefully separate your design review findings from other recommendations.
As to the specific findings requested:
Table A: Design Review Findings in the Historic District
A2. The historical context of the original structure or district has been considered during
the development and review of the proposal. (my emphasis added)
If one looks at the IS/MND prepared by Moffet & Nichols, it becomes clear that the design firm
did not even know that the ferry landing is located partially in and/or immediately
adjacent to Sausalito's Historic District. In fact, the District appears to have been ignorant of
the existence of a Historic District. I recall a question by Chair Cox of Bridge District personnel
during the Study Session, asking if anyone had even looked at Sausalito's General Plan. The
answer was "No." At the last hearing, and in the Staff Report for that hearing, there was a
lovely presentation of historical context – but that clearly was an ex post facto inclusion.
It is clear that this finding, as concerns the development of this project, cannot be made in the
affirmative. The finding refers to "development and review," not "development or review," as
implied by Staff's comment in the April 1 and 15 Staff reports.
A6. Alternative uses and configurations have been considered as part of the design
review process.
I note Staff's comment that alternative design options were presented at the Study Session, with
the implication that those "alternatives" would be sufficient to lead to an affirmative finding. The
District "alternatives" related solely to "discretionary items" as mentioned in the second
paragraph above, and were incomplete in their coverage of those items. For example, many
people commented on the un-historic, view blocking, massive gangway truss structure, and the
fact that the materials proposed for the construction were out of character for downtown
Sausalito. The District's "alternatives" retained the same construction materials and format,
claiming that the length and width of the gangway made any other design impossible. Public
testimony by people with legitimate expertise certainly indicated that this response was
unreasonable, misleading and inaccurate.
Looking beyond the "discretionary items", it is crystal clear that the Bridge District has
steadfastly refused to consider alternative footprint configurations. Several configurations have
been suggested by the public – most with the same theme of increasing the width of the current
landside pier while narrowing the gangway and access pier. These suggestions were met with
uniform denial and no reasonable consideration whatsoever.
A8. The proposed new construction or alteration will be compatible with, and help
achieve the purposes of the historic overlay district.
This finding refers back to the intent and purpose of the Historic Overlay District, presented in
the April 1 Staff report on page 4. Item 7 of that list states "To preserve structures that are
unique and irreplaceable assets to the City and its neighborhoods"
I have not seen any analysis addressing the possible impact of this project on the Sausalito
Yacht Club building. The proposed project increases the footprint of the float by about 72% and
more than doubles its height above the waterline. In order to fit the proposed float within the
leased area, the northern edge will be located an estimated 15 feet closer to the Yacht Club.
One might reasonably ask whether or not increased wave action or other impacts could
negatively affect the SYC’s structural underpinnings. Although the float is not itself within the
Historic District, the SYC is within the District. It is over 50 years old. It is owned by the City,
and leased to a private club, The private club is an integral part of Sausalito, used by residents
and locals and, on occasion, for public events. It is a valuable community asset.
I have also not seen any analysis addressing possible impacts of the temporary ferry landing
proposed by the District on the Inn Above Tide structures.
I think it is telling that the Bridge District did not contact the occupants of either of these
properties during the design phase of this project. At this point in time, it would not be
unreasonable to conclude that this project may, in fact, result in damage to structures that are
irreplaceable and assets to the City, and that a finding to the contrary cannot be made.
Table C: Design Review Permit Findings
C2. The proposed architecture and site design complements the surrounding
neighborhood and/or district by either: a. Maintaining the prevailing design character of
the neighborhood and/or district; or b. Introducing a distinctive and creative solution
which takes advantage of the unique characteristics of the site and contributes to the
design diversity of Sausalito.
Regarding the "discretionary" items discussed earlier, specifically gate configuration and truss
design:
Neither the gate nor the truss as presently proposed complies with the conditions of this
finding. The current gangway is low profile, only 5.5’ wide, with guardrails denoting the
highest portion of the structure. And the current gate is similarly minimalist in nature, and
oriented perpendicular to the shoreline, affording little impairment to views from either the
shore or the existing concrete access pier. The overall impact of the current structure – the
prevailing design character of the ferry landing "neighborhood" - is that of a small-town,
funky, local ferry service.
The proposed truss is massive. In size and materials (12” diameter tubular steel "cords") it
is more evocative of the new section of the Bay Bridge than a small town ferry landing. The
District acknowledged that the gangway has been designed to meet CalTrans highway
overpass standards, hardly a precursor to the smallest necessary gangway structure.
Clearly, this was not a "creative" solution to designing a gangway; rather it is an "off the
shelf" solution arrived at with little attention to the context of downtown Sausalito.
Regarding the overall project, inclusive of non-"discretionary" features:
The overall District ferry landing proposal will overwhelm the "surrounding neighborhood" –
the landside plaza, Parking Lot 1, the Sausalito Yacht Club, Humboldt Street, El Portal,
Tracy Way, Vina del Mar – rather than complement it. Nor does this design introduce a
"creative solution." Simply extending our concrete landside pier into the bay by attaching a
21' wide 96' long access pier with “belvederes” is neither a creative nor a reasonable
answer to the problems perceived by the District. The issues of crowd assembly and
management, loading and unloading, would be better served (at least according to most of
the public testimony) with other designs and solutions.
This finding cannot be made for the above reasons.
C4. The proposed project has been located and designed to minimize obstruction of
public views and primary views from private property.
There was some committee member discussion at the prior two hearings concerning the
propriety of including a "private club" in the analysis of view impacts – specifically whether or not
views from the Sausalito Yacht Club should be considered. I sincerely hope the PC/HLB
member majority agrees to do so. Please see my comments above re: Table A Item 8’s finding.
The fact that the City leases this property to the Yacht Club does not remove the underlying
public ownership of this site. Furthermore, if you choose to categorize the SYC as "private" you
should still consider view impacts ("and primary views from private property') on the Club.
Even staff acknowledged that there will be "some" impact on views in its April 1 Staff report –
both public, exclusive of the SYC, and including the SYC. I believe that staff's comments
minimized this potential impact.
Regarding the "discretionary" items:
The truss will certainly impact views from the SYC – its height and mass will be far more
visible and intrusive than the present gangway – and will extend out an estimated 30+ feet
into the bay. Since the truss design is a "discretionary" item, it could have been, and
should have been, designed to minimize view obstruction – as suggested by some publicly
offered alternatives. Staff's comment in the April 1 Staff report that new view obstruction is
in some way justified by the fact that views are "currently partially obstructed in various
locations throughout the Club” seemed disingenuous. Apparently Staff thought better of this
approach. The April 15 report opines that the SYC should be ignored completely as it is a
non-dwelling and a not a “public-right-of-way.” Accordingly, Staff now says, “there are no
view impacts on the Sausalito Yacht Club facility as defined by the Sausalito Municipal
Code.”
This is ridiculous. I hope your comments will echo my sentiment via a denial of this finding
or via other recommendations to the Council.
Parenthetically, Staff’s assertion that the public will attain “enhanced views of San
Francisco… and Alcatraz from the additional public viewing area” does not recognize that
the new security gate, proposed to be parallel to the shoreline, will block views from both
the shore and the current and new access piers, and that the view belvederes face either
the shore or the deck, southeast wall and bar-room of the SYC.
Regarding the overall project, inclusive of non-"discretionary" features:
It has been made abundantly clear that the design of the float was in response to a desire
to deliver uniform facilities to Larkspur, San Francisco and Sausalito, and the ability to
service all types of boats both in and outside of the District's fleet. This design is de-novo –
and should have been required to be responsive to Sausalito's site constraints. Instead, it
was developed to require 15' of depth, which is the primary factor leading to the location of
the float farther out into the bay, and to the addition of the 96’ concrete access pier. In
addition, the profile of the float, and resulting view impacts, have never been adequately
demonstrated in the field. It is certain that the elaborate hydraulic platform and
accompanying lift machinery will significantly increase the float's profile and view impact.
My point is that this design did NOT consider impacts on the Sausalito site or adjacent
structures – and, unfortunately, these impacts have NOT been minimized.
C 8. Exterior lighting, mechanical equipment, and chimneys are appropriately designed
and located to minimize visual, noise, and air quality impacts to adjacent properties and
the general public.
This finding cannot be reasonable made. First, as has been noted most eloquently by Mr.
Versace, the float lighting will be evocative of an off-shore drilling platform. My comparison
would be to the lighting one finds at cargo terminals. Secondly, the uses of continuous lighting
under the handrails will likely results in a "landing strip" effect. Both of these treatments are
offensive and inappropriate.
The project's mechanical equipment is most certainly NOT appropriately located. In fact,
according to Staff’s description, the PGE transformer will be located in one of Parking Lot 1's
spaces. This is not within the project's leased area. At a minimum, it would be reasonable that
the PC/HLB would want to see an agreement between the City and the District before approving
the permanent appropriation of public property for this expansion.
C 9. The project provides a reasonable level of privacy to the site and adjacent
properties, taking into consideration the density of the neighborhood, by appropriate
landscaping, fencing and window, deck and patio configurations.
Even Staff had difficulty with this finding. "Discretionary" items may have little impact on the
SYC's level of privacy, but the overall configuration of the project – particularly the location and
width of the proposed access pier and the inclusion of the belvederes - will significantly impact
the privacy and ambiance of the SYC. The relocation of the access pier appears to be almost
40' closer to the SYC. Instead of looking out over an expanse of open water over to a 5.5' wide
gangway, those in the SYC's bar and on the open deck will look directly out at a 26' expanse of
concrete ringed by guardrails and filled with ferry passengers and bikes. The new access peir
north side belvedere invites access pier occupants to enjoy views of the SYC's bar and deck. I
believe you cannot make this finding.
C 10. Proposed entrances, exits, internal circulation, and parking spaces are configured
to provide an appropriate level of traffic safety and ease of movement.
Staff's comment completely and inappropriately side-steps this issue. To say that this project
does not "impact any parking spaces or vehicular reconfiguration", and that the project's intent is
to "improve overall accessibility" 1) ignores the flaws in the footprint and configuration, 2)
implies "intent" is sufficient justification for approval, and 3) totally avoids discussion of the
impact of more than doubling the size of the ferry landing on user capacity, and the impact of
that capacity increase on the adjacent parking lots and downtown streets.
There has been considerable public testimony in support of the view that the 19' gangway
design (16' clear traffic lanes), connecting to a 21" wide access pier, which itself connects
through two 8' gates to the existing 20' wide landside pier will provide neither safety nor
efficiency. Off-loading and loading pedestrian confrontation will certainly be experienced and
bottlenecks will be created during peak travel, particularly at the gate – where an oncoming
phalanx of off-loading passengers will encounter a mass of oncoming pedestrians and cyclists.
What has not been mentioned is the "choke point" that will be created as passengers load the
ferries. It turns out that the two new 8' wide doors, used as justification for the 16' wide
gangway, feed into boats which have two 3.5' wide stairs to the upper deck on which most
passengers sit.
There has been considerable testimony and uproar over the impact this project will have on
Sausalito's downtown. As I said on the first page, the whole purpose of the project, as
advertised by the Bridge District, is to vastly increase the efficiencies and capacities of a
transportation terminal. The District has claimed that this project is designed to accommodate
4% per annum traffic growth for the next 30 years or so – whether or not the downtown
infrastructure can handle it, and whether or not the community wants it. The scope of this
project ends at the Ferry Landing's door, prospectively dumping the 4% growth, at maximum
speed, into Parking Lot 1 and onto local streets. It has always been reasonable in the past to
require that major projects, sometimes covering more than one parcel, undergo "master
planning" to ensure that one project does not overwhelm its neighbors.
The District and Sausalito Staff have not been ignorant of this consideration. In fact, as the
attached October 2014 e-mail string clearly shows, they, and the Federal Transit Administration
(the source of the federal grant funds), met to discuss landside improvements on October 14,
2014. It is clear from the agenda that the meeting was to review the landside plans needed to
accommodate the ferry facility’s expansion, but the plans have not been made public, they have
not made part of this PC/HLB review and the citizens of Sausalito have been consciously
excluded from the discussion… until further “outreach.”
In light of the above, you do not have sufficient information to determine if this project's
circulation is adequate, and cannot make this finding.
Sincerely
April 13, 2014
To <[email protected]> for distribution to:
All Sausalito Planning Commission Members
and
All Historic Landmarks Board Members
I am Janeane Moody. I have lived at 6 Alexander Avenue, the very last home
on the waterfront in south Sausalito, for over 30 years.
The question is:
Do citizens have the right to determine what is allowed in their communities?
A lack of transparency and behind the scenes decision making by the few, in
countless City decisions, effectively precludes the rights of Sausalito citizens.
It bears looking into that in too many decisions, made through the years, by
some City politicians, some personnel in the Community Development
Department, and the City Attorney, have been essentially lobbied behind the
scenes by some influential citizens and campaign donors in our community.
Ferry Landing Project: With this new project, it also appears that a concerted
effort has been made to dis-empower the citizens of Sausalito.
First we were told, by City officials, that the Golden Gate Bridge and Ferry
District could build this project, and there was nothing citizens could do
about it.
Then our City Attorney issued a statement that the City could do nothing
about what was done on the property leased by the City to the Ferry District.
(This was later retracted when challenged.)
Meanwhile, our City Manager, in a behind the scenes email to Jim Swindler,
Bridge District Deputy Manager, Ferry division, stated that he and then ViceMayor Theodores, “...agreed that it would not be a good idea to have the
District go through the City's design review process voluntarily”.
Further, it was stated to Jim Swindler by our City Manager that, “a handful of
community members think we are bypassing the public process and
destroying the waterfront”.
Well, there we were! The “handful”, a packed hall of citizens at the meeting
of the Planning Commission/Historic Landmarks Board, April 1, 2015, at
IDESST Hall.
Design: So, what is the scope of the input we citizens are allowed? Design!
We are presented with a massive structure, a typical example of the soul-less
functionality of late 20th Century public architecture, which imparts no
feeling of place or history. It could be plunked anywhere. No other design
choices are to be considered.
Citizen input is to be limited to development in the leased tidal area,
predetermined design features only. We are allowed to comment on WHICH
design features and which color we prefer.
No other designs have been obtained by the District, nor other architects
consulted. We have no integrated land and water based plan to consider.
There is no land-side plan available, and the District has said it that that
aspect of the project rests with Sausalito. Sausalito has no land-side plan
either. Nor is the stated purpose of the meetings to decide whether or not
Sausalito citizens want to have the massive ferry terminal in the first place.
The Transportation Hub Plan is not a rumor. At the Sausalito Bus and
Bicycle Update meeting on October 8, 2014 (which I attended), the transit
hub plan, with designated buses leaving the new enlarged ferry terminal to go
to Muir Woods, was presented by GGNRA spokeswoman Andrea Lucas,
discussed at length, and enthusiastically received. Ms. Lucas was thanked for
collaborating with the City of Sausalito. Councilmember Tom Theodores,
listed as MC (master of ceremonies), gave the MC position to Ed Fotsch,
head of the Bicycle Committee.
The agenda I picked up, labeled “Confidential Draft” agenda, was the only
agenda available at the door. It appeared to be the agenda that was followed.
On my copy of this “Confidential Draft” agenda, were:
Topic 3. Bikes
d. Plans Going Forward
i. Vista Point Trail
iii. Ferry Plan.
Presenters listed on the agenda were Tom Theodores, Ed Fotsch, Andrea
Lucas, and Police Chief Jennifer Tejada. Also Jonathon Goldman, spoke
about the Gate 6 Plan.
As I understood it, the GGNRA plans to increase tourism to two National
Parks in Marin. The purpose of the Vista Point Bicycle Trail is to divert more
S.F. tourist bicyclists on their way to Sausalito to the GGNRA Fort Baker
area first. From there, they could ride on to visit Sausalito, and [leaving their
bicycles?] catch buses leaving from the new ferry landing to go to Muir
Woods, thus increasing Muir Woods tourism. Buses would then take
bicyclists back to Sausalito to take the ferry returning to San Francisco.
This plan could result in fewer bicyclists on Alexander Avenue up to the Fort
Baker East Road south of Sausalito, but would do nothing to reduce the
number of the bicyclists entering the two lane bottleneck on Alexander
Avenue at the south end of town; indeed, it would increase the bicyclists
entering Sausalito.
A giant transportation hub would destroy the quality of life for residents, and
perhaps fatally spoil the very essence of the heritage and beauty of our town.
Do we want to look back, years from now, and say that we, the citizens of
Sausalito, allowed this to happen?
Does the proposed ferry project “solve the bicycle problem”. No! It would
increase the staggering number of bikes currently entering the south end of
town, already clearly foreseeable tragedies waiting to happen; it is just a
matter of WHEN. There have already been many bike accidents in this area.
Backing out of my own driveway on the bay side of 6 Alexander Avenue is
already a nightmare. It often involves very long delays for a continuous
parade of bicycles. Sometimes cars and bicyclists stop to enable me to back
out, only to have a “spandex” biker I cannot see whip around on their left to
pass them all. I am very careful, but it is still extremely risky. I don't wish to
hurt anyone, and would be devastated if I injured a bicyclist.
A few years ago, Council Member Amy Belser and Sausalito citizens
challenged a large project at Point Cavallo, on the G.G.N.R.A., that would
have adversely affected Sausalito traffic and quality of life: A project of
FAR smaller impact than the proposed ferry terminal. It was successfully
challenged and, it was not even on Sausalito property.
So, do citizens have the right to determine what is allowed in their
communities?
I urge the citizens of Sausalito not to give up their governance to a few City
politicians and City staff members, or to outside agencies. We need to take
back ownership of our right to determine what is allowed in our own
community.
I would greatly appreciate your consideration of my comments.
Janeane Moody
6 Alexander Avenue, Sausalito
April 9, 2015
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
cottoncarol [[email protected]]
Monday, April 13, 2015 11:23 AM
Lilly Schinsing; Joan Cox
Adam Politzer
Ferry Dock Landing Plan
Hello,
Some feedback re. proposed redo of dock:
The huge volume of passengers who use the ferry for returning rented bicycles continues to be at the heart of
the reasoning behind building a new terminal. As you have heard, many of us we the Planning Commission,
Historic Landmarks Board and the City Council to NOT approve the proposed project until:
1. a highly credible economic and engineering analysis of any proposed project is completed and presented to
the public which would include comparing any new terminal to different alternatives including modification to
the existing ferry terminal!
2. A clear project of dealing with the land side implications of an enlarged dock and no. of passengers resulting
from this expansion.
3. Finding a different way than ferry use for returning rental bikes to S.F. and then re-evaluate the
problem.
Carol Cotton
1
Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund
P.O. Box 151439
San Rafael, CA 94915
415-331-1982
April 13, 2015
By E-Mail
Joan Cox, Chair
Sausalito Planning Commission
420 Litho Street
Sausalito, CA 94965
John McCoy, Chair
420 Litho Street
Sausalito, CA 94965
Re: Ferry Landing Project
Dear Chairpersons:
The Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund, TRANSDEF, is an
environmental non-profit based in Sausalito. Our focus is reducing the impacts of
transportation on climate change. As transit advocates, we seek to offer our opinion on
the question of dredging. The District answered a question about dredging at the March
joint meeting as follows:
Q: Could the area where the float would locate be dredged
to collapse the project down in scale?
A: No, the area may not be dredged to allow the float to be
located closer to shore due to the environmental impacts
associated with dredging. This project was designed to
minimize impacts to the environment.
We find this answer to be both inadequate and deceptive. Clearly, dredging frequently
occurs in San Francisco Bay, as part of marine operations at the Larkspur Ferry
Terminal, Port of Oakland and elsewhere. On that basis alone, an alternative requiring
dredging cannot be considered fatal flawed environmentally. This answer hints that the
project sponsors are unwilling to conduct the environmental review necessary to apply
for permits for dredging, and are unwilling to be upfront with that fact.
Our organization frequently engages in CEQA litigation to protect the environment. We
have absolutely no objection to the District studying an alternative that requires
dredging, and believe there to be substantial public benefits for doing so.
A dredged alternative would have a shorter gangway, resulting in the following:
•
A shorter walk from shore to the ferry, speeding up the loading and making ferry
access that much more convenient for passengers.
•
A shorter walk/roll would be especially convenient for disabled passengers.
•
The shorter length gangway could be supported by a lower-profile truss system,
thereby reducing the visual impacts of the project.
•
Overall, this could reduce the cost of the project while improving its acceptability
to the public.
Our organization has observed public works projects that lengthen the access to transit.
Ridership on the Capitol Corridor dropped substantially when the City of Sacramento
moved the Amtrak passenger platforms a quarter-mile away from the train station. While
the effect of the proposed Ferry Landing improvements in Sausalito will not be
anywhere near that dramatic, we remain very sensitive to any impediments placed
between transit riders and their vehicle. Shorter access is definitely better access.
In short, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we do not believe the impacts
of dredging outweigh the benefits we identified. There may even be a de minimus
permitting procedure for such a small area of dredging.
We ask the Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Board to request the study of
a dredged alternative, and suggest that the City Council enter into a tolling agreement to
stop the 45-day clock while such an alternative is being reviewed.
We appreciate your willingness to consider these comments. Thank you.
Sincerely,
/s/ DAVID SCHONBRUNN
David Schonbrunn,
President
[email protected]
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
H. Mattson Austin [[email protected]]
Monday, April 13, 2015 1:45 PM
Lilly Schinsing
Additional Petitions from regular ferry riders
FerryPetitionB.pdf
Attached, please find additional riders who wished to add their support to the petition I forwarded last week. ‐Mattson Austin 1
Attorneys at Law
1101 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100
San Rafael, CA 94901
telephone 415.453.9433
facsimile 415.453.8269
www.rflawllp.com
Christopher A. Skelton
[email protected]
April 13, 2015
Via E-Mail Only
([email protected])
Sausalito Planning Commission &
Historic Landmarks Board
420 Litho Street
Sausalito, CA 94965
Re:
Ferry Landing Project
Dear Commissioners and Board members:
Our office continues to represent a coalition of concerned citizens regarding the
proposed changes to the Sausalito ferry landing. This letter is sent in advance of the
April 15, 2015 meeting, where the Commission and Board (“Decision Makers”) will
presumably make findings and recommend action to the City Council regarding the
ferry landing project. We respectfully request that the Decision Makers make the
findings to deny the project and recommend the Council also deny the project.
Although there are numerous direct and indirect issues with the procedure and
substance of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, Transportation District’s (“District”)
proposal, this letter will focus primary on the fatally flawed methodology proposed as
the driving force behind the detrimental design. In particular:
1. The 1:12 slope Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) standard does not apply
to this project, so it should not dictate the project’s excessive dimensions.
2. The assumptions used for ridership, Level of Service (“LOS”), turnaround time,
and other factors to dictate the width of the improvements remains unjustified.
ADA Analysis
The District’s responses to the ferry landing project questions from the public state, in
part, “The 1:12 slope of the ramps and gangway are the maximum allowable slopes
according to current federal ADA Guidelines. They may not be steeper.” Presently,
there are no formally adopted guidelines or standards governing ADA compliance
for passenger vessels. The ferry landing changes would be categorized as passenger
April 13, 2015
Page 2 of 3
vessels. The District claims it is bound by ADA standards, but the standards outlined
by the District have not yet been formally adopted, likely will not be adopted for some
time, and may be changed or never adopted. According to correspondence with staff at
the United States Access Board, the guidelines at issue were drafted in 2013, received
significant public comment, and are currently in the process of undergoing revisions. I
was informed that the revised draft of the guidelines would not be prepared before
spring 2016, but more likely sometime in 2017. It is poor planning policy to design
around uncertain future standards, particularly when the result is so detrimental to the
City’s waterfront.
Procedurally, once the guidelines are finalized in 2017, the U.S. Department of
Transportation (“DOT”) and U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) are required to issue
accessibility standards for the construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered
by the ADA that are consistent with Access Board’s guidelines. It is through this formal
rulemaking that the standards become effectively enforceable. The DOT and DOJ retain
latitude in modifying the guidelines finalized by the Access Board, further adding to the
existing uncertainty in any future standards.
There are similar standards to those proposed by the District that are already in place,
but these standards apply to recreational boating facilities. It is possible that the District
is selectively borrowing these unrelated standards to reinforce their claim for an
oversized structure in Sausalito’s historic downtown waterfront. If this is the case,
absent from the Districts narrative are the various exceptions applied to recreational
boating facilities for ADA compliance, in particular gangways.
The community can all agree that promoting improved accessibility for public facilities
is an important consideration in designing for the future. However, it should not be the
only consideration, especially at the expense of the character of the waterfront. The
District has unilaterally decided that the ADA compliance is the single greatest limiting
factor in designing the facility and effectively oriented their plans around absolute
compliance with yet to be adopted standards during the most extreme tides. This
flawed premise needs to be addressed before the City seriously considers the District’s
plans for the ferry landing.
Reasonable Alternatives
The public process has revealed numerous assumptions presented by the District as
parameters for designing the new facility. The District should prepare a revised set of
plans that do not design to these extreme assumptions. Some of the conditions that
should be considered in revising the design include:
April 13, 2015
Page 3 of 3
1. Demonstrate how often the -2.5’ tide will occur during operational activity and
what reasonable design alternative could be proposed if the extreme tidal event
were only -1.
2. Demonstrate what the length of the gangway would be if 1:10 slope were
acceptable for the entire project; what if a 1:10 slope were acceptable standard
during the extreme 20% of tidal action?
3. Demonstrate what the operational efficiencies would be compared to current
conditions if both the access pier and gangway were 16 feet wide (which is the
proposed width for the temporary gangway).
4. Demonstrate what the footprint of the project would be without the belvederes
and the reduced dimensions described above.
5. Review whether an over-engineered truss structure would be required if the
dimensions of the ferry landing were further reduced to the size described
above.
On numerous occasions during this public process, the District has either contradicted
itself or provided sweeping generalizations without any factual support. For example,
during the March hearing, the District stated that the truss structure couldn’t be
reduced because of engineering constraints. At the April 1 meeting, the truss structure
was presented approximately 3 feet lower than before. The methodology dictating the
design of the ferry landing is based on broad conclusions instead of detailed facts. This
prevents meaningful public input on the design, since the design has been dictated by
the unsupportable assumptions. Please recommend denial of this project until the
necessary findings can be made and the public’s input is sincerely incorporated into the
design.
Thank you for your consideration of this very important matter.
Very Truly Yours,
Christopher A. Skelton
CC:
Clients
Mary Wagner
District
BCDC
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
[email protected]
Tuesday, April 14, 2015 9:32 AM
Lilly Schinsing
Jill Hoffman; Linda Pfeifer - Internet Mail Account; Herb Weiner; Ray Withy; Tom Theodores;
Joan Cox
Fwd: Ferry Landing Project Survey for the Meeting on Wed. April 15
on_paper.pdf
Please add to the packets. I took the Sausalito Survey.
L Hail
From: "Open City Hall" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 9:25:36 AM
Subject: Ferry Landing Project
Please find your file attached.
1
What do you think about the Ferry Landing Project?
As of April 14, 2015, 9:25 AM
As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The responses in this record are not necessarily
representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.
Name not available
April 14, 2015, 9:23 AM
Do you use the Ferry to commute to San Francisco?
I don't use the ferry to commute
Do you use the ferry to visit San Francisco?
Yes, Occasionally
Do you think the Ferry landing needs to be upgraded?
Yes
The current unloading/boarding time at peak hours is about 30 minutes. Currently, the pier is 20 ft wide,
walkway is 8.5 ft wide and gangway is 5.5 ft wide. Would you support an increased size of the facility
(including the extension of the access pier) if it reduces the unloading/boarding time by
Even if it reduces unloading/boarding times, I do not support an increased size of the facility
The current gangway has a 3.5 foot tall railing. The proposed gangway requires a 8-foot tall truss, with
the top portions of the truss standing 5 feet above the surface of the walkway. At what height would you
support the proposed new gangway truss?
At the current 3.5 feet only
Please use this box to tell us what you think about the project
I think we need to see the information re the effect at high tide as well as low tide. The effect on the shore (fuel
and water thrust on the shore and the bay environment of both one and two ferries). We need to resolve and
possibly limit how many bikes tourists etc. access Marin each trip and in a day or week or year, and the effect
on noise, pollution (land & water), environment, view, business (too many might not be good commercially
either- people will go elsewhere if too much of a "sardine can". We need to look at maintenance and repair of
the ferry landing. And we need to look at why this has gotten to this point of disrepair/ bad maintenance?
including why the rent is only $600.00 a year with a sublease from the GG Ferry not overseen or approved by
the City to other Ferry Companies? Why has this not been more transparent all along including access to all the
drawings and information. Why did the City give a NOD to the GG Ferry early on without presenting this to the
public? Why not limit Sausalito to Commuters in Marin and residents and put in a tourist Facility at Ft. Baker?
Shuttle any to Sausalito and or take bikes back to SF via exp. to Blazing Saddles and Bike Companies as
desired by truck. Rules of the Road enforced and something more done to educate those on a bike. A fee to
the tourists who come in on foot and by bike for the maintenance of our City and or police presence and the
pollution caused/ from the BIKE Companies and or Ferry Companies who bring them to Sausalito as their
business.
April 13, 2015
District’s responses to comments from William Versaci
A number of comments were received in a letter from William Versaci on Tuesday, April 7,
2015. These comments came under headings numbered 1 through 5. However, within the
comment descriptions there are many additional comments that require a response. Our approach
to providing responses is to identify a specific comment where possible and additional general
information where it helps to clarify any other comments contained in the text.
1. Gangway Design
Comment: Why is it not possible to reduce the height and profile of the gangway using
slimmer truss members and/or adding a center rail? Or is the problem really that it is “not
possible” using the bloated design vocabulary that the community finds objectionable?
Response: A third truss in the center of the gangway would support 63% of the load, not
the one-third (33%) stated in the comment. This is because of how the load is distributed
in the three-truss system. In the current design, each of the two exterior trusses supports
50% of the load, so the center truss, which would carry 63% of the load, would have to
be more massive than the currently proposed design. Adding the third truss in the center
would increase the overall weight of the gangway which would further increase the size
of the center truss. The resulting center truss would have a height at least as tall as the
proposed exterior trusses and would have individual elements which may be heavier than
the exterior trusses.
The gangway has been designed to current code requirements and in doing so the truss
members have been sized to be as small as possible while ensuring they have the required
strength. As the truss height decreases, the member sizes increase. The truss height is
determined through an iterative process to achieve the most transparent design. The truss
height has been reduced to the lowest acceptable to be structurally sound.
Comment: Visual impacts are not included in the District’s inadequate EIR.
Response: The environmental document prepared for this project was an Initial Study,
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Contrary to the comment, the environmental
document covers the evaluation of the project visual impacts, e.g., see pages 2-4 through
2-7 of the document.
Comment: It was stated that the round tubes could be replaced with square tubes because
round tubes have a wider visual profile and because of their size they will have no effect
on perching birds.
Page 1 of 6 Response: A square tube of the same dimensions as the diameter of a round tube would
have a diagonal distance (i.e., corner to corner) 40% greater than a round tube thus it will
look larger. A square tube with a diagonal dimension equal to the diameter of a round
tube would have a similar visual effect of a round tube. Round tubes shed water better
making them the preferable shape in a salt water environment for resisting corrosion.
Regarding perching birds, while both a square tube and a round tube may be susceptible
to perching birds, surely a square tube provides more flat area for birds to sit on.
Comment: It was stated that the guardrails (noted as handrails in the comment)
complicate the visual impact of the gangway because they are separate from the truss
structure. The comment included a photograph of an acceptable gangway titled
“Prefabricated ‘H’ section long-span pedestrian bridge with deck and safety rails integral
to structural truss”.
Response: The truss shown at the bottom of page 3 of comments attached to Mr.
Versaci’s letter, is very similar to the District’s proposed reduced height alternative, but
with rectangular tubes. Note that the horizontal guardrail in the photograph is not integral
with the truss but is mounted inboard of the structural members. It should also be
pointed out that this truss has a height similar to the height of the truss proposed by the
District, even though the gangway in the photograph is narrower than the District’s
gangway. Also note that the truss photographs provided in the letter have their decks
above the bottom chord, as is required by code and as is the case with the District’s
gangway.
Regarding the two gangway elevations shown on page 1 of the comments attached to Mr.
Versaci’s letter, one described as “the District’s gangway design,” and the other noted as
an “alternative supported by the community,” the “alternative supported by the
community” is, in fact, the alternative provided by the District. We are pleased to see that
it is supported by the community, although we believe the original curved design better
reflected the local architecture, rather than being “discordant in the panoramic Bay view”
as suggested in the comments.
Also, note that the flat-truss gangway cross sections shown at the bottom of page 2 of the
comments attached to Mr. Versaci’s letter are not the reduced height alternative provided
by the District, regardless of how it is titled, i.e., “reduced height,” and “proposed
gangway.” Alternatives shown on page 2 are the original taller alternatives.
2. Width of Access Pier
Comment: Why can the Access Pier not be made narrower?
Response: One of the objectives of the design is to increase operational efficiencies and
this requires that certain width of the pier be provided for staging waiting passengers next
Page 2 of 6 to the gate while still allowing the remaining width of the pier for disembarking. This
also helps to reduce the volume of waiting passengers on the landside. The width of the
pier cannot be made any narrower without impacting the ferry disembarking and loading
operations.
Comment: All the dimensions are understated, using interior clear widths rather than the
overall size of the structure.
Response: This is not correct. The District has in all their presentations and material been
clear about the total width. The submitted drawings clearly show both the clear and
overall widths. We do not understand the basis for this comment.
Comment: Why are the unsightly “belvederes” necessary? Why are they needed on both
sides of the access pier? They (BCDC) have never been to the site to see their folly.
Response: BCDC has requested the widened belvederes to allow non-passengers to
remain on the pier during operation and to maximize access to the public. The size of the
belvederes was included in the presentations and on the drawings submitted to BCDC
and the City. BCDC has visited the site multiple times including in 2011, 2013 and as
recently as July 2014.
3. Landside Crowds
Comment: What will be the increase in waiting passengers, on a single trip basis,
attributable to the District’s proposal?
Response: The District’s proposal does not increase the number of waiting passengers.
The District’s passenger count is based on projections of growth in ridership over the
next 20 years of 4% per year. For a trip to San Francisco, this equates to an increase of
234 passengers for an 85-percentile trip in year 2029. The terminal as presented in the
environmental documents was based on these projections in ridership. Note that the ferry
ridership at the existing Sausalito facility has been growing 7% on average per year
during the recent years. This demonstrates that, contrary to Mr. Versaci’s comment, the
need for the proposed replacement facility is caused, among other reasons, by the
increase in ridership and not vice versa as implied in the comment.
Comment: Why is the City of Sausalito responsible for accommodating onshore crowds
generated by a private ferry service? Who controls the land and erects and manages the
barricades that block public access to the public waterfront view plaza?
Response: The Golden Gate ferry service is a public transit service, not a private service.
Per the District’s lease agreement with the City, the landside area is the City’s
responsibility and the water side area is the responsibility of the District. The City has
requested assistance from the District regarding ways to manage the passengers waiting
Page 3 of 6 to use the service. The actual management of the landside crowds, including the use of
barricades and other devices, is handled by the City, with close cooperation of the City
Chamber of Commerce, the District, and bicycle rental companies. The District manages
the passengers within its leasehold area.
With regard to the crowds on the landside, the proposed replacement terminal will lessen
the landside crowding by allowing for more efficient boarding and taking more
passengers per trip out of the landside area. The proposed terminal will provide a
passenger waiting area on the access pier, thereby reducing the number of passengers
waiting on the landside.
Comment: The District should be responsible for holding as many waiting passengers as
possible within its own leasehold and facility. The design for this facility should be
“normal” daily loads.
Response: These two comments contradict each other. According to these comments, the
District is to maximize the number of passengers waiting over the water and at the same
time the District is to design the terminal for a reduced passenger volume. Reducing the
size of the terminal would increase the number of passengers on the landside.
Alternatively, increasing the size of the terminal as it appears is also being suggested,
would decrease the impacts to the landside. The District originally proposed a 25-footwide access pier with the intention to allow more passengers to queue within its own
leasehold area, reducing landside impacts. The District, in response to community input,
reduced that width to 21 feet. Also, note that the Sausalito ferry service has a long peak
season, from June through November, over which ridership is high. This season was used
to develop the design ridership projections. To eliminate ‘peak’ values, the top 15% of
the passenger counts were not used in determining the ridership for design.
Comment: An alternative terminal plan with a greatly enlarged landside pier is shown on
page 7 of the comments.
Response: The alternative plan would reduce the waterfront access by placing a gate at
the land end of the landside pier to create an isolated queuing area. Contrary to the
statements in the comments, the facility as shown would be a massive new structure with
resulting more Bay fill and view impacts much greater than the District’s proposed
terminal design.
Comment: A one-time $2 million grant is not going to…… compensate the public for
lost waterfront access.
Response: The proposed terminal will increase public waterfront access, rather than
decrease public access.
Page 4 of 6 4. Light Pollution
Comment: What will be the environmental impact of nighttime lighting, particularly its
effects on Bay views from the public shoreline plaza?
Response: LED technology has made rapid advances in the last decade. Standard LED
fixtures can be obtained in many light colors or temperatures including the warmer colors
of traditional bulbs. We propose using color temperatures in the range of 3000 Kelvin
which produces warm-white color light. The float will be illuminated by 6 pole mounted
fixtures. There are no “additional eight 360 degree fixtures” in our design as stated in the
comments. The 6 pole mounted fixtures will shine down to illuminate only the float
surface and will cut off at the float edge. Thus very little light will hit the water as
required for environmental reasons, and they will not send light towards land or Bay
sides. This would not only be annoying for the public but would also hinder the ferry
captain’s vision. These lights have 3 settings: off, low and full. Only when passengers
and operators are present will they be on the full setting, which is a normal street light
level. When no vessel is present but the facility is still operational, they will dim to the
low setting to provide security. After hours, they will be switched off, leaving only
navigational safety lighting.
Comment: Visual impacts were not included in the District’s inadequate EIR.
Response: As previously stated, the environmental document prepared for this project
was an Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Contrary to the comment,
the environmental document covers the evaluation of the project visual impacts, e.g., see
pages 2-4 through 2-7 of the document.
5. Temporary Pier
Comment: Why has the Temporary Access Pier not been presented to the City and
BCDC for review? What will it look like from the shorefront plaza? How long will it be
there?
Response: The temporary terminal was presented on numerous occasions to the City. It
was also presented to BCDC for review. Drawings for the temporary terminal were
provided to the City and to BCDC.
Comment: Who has the authority and/or has granted permission for the Temporary
Access Pier to occupy the BCDC View Easement and City-owned real property?
Page 5 of 6 Response: The temporary terminal would be allowed on a temporary basis under the
terms of the encroachment permit issued by the City. BCDC staff has indicated that the
temporary pier is acceptable within the Public Access Easement as it is a temporary
facility necessary to construct the replacement facility. The duration of the temporary
terminal will depend upon when the project goes to construction in relation to the
environmental time window, during which work is allowed to be constructed in the
water. It is intended to minimize the use of temporary pier to approximately 6 months.
Page 6 of 6 Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Doug Lloyd [[email protected]]
Lilly Schinsing
'Mickie Lloyd'; [email protected]; Ray Withy; Herb Weiner
New Ferry Landing
My wife and I are on vacation and unable to attend the April 15 meeting. As Sausalito residents for over 40 years, we do, however, feel very strongly that the existing design and layout of the proposed ferry landing is too close to the yacht club and generally too massive, and too industrial in appearance for our wonderful Sausalito waterfront. We acknowledge that increased ridership requires an upgraded ferry landing. However, the increased width of walkways / ramps should be moved away from the yacht club in order to minimize impact on views of the city. The walkways should also be angled further away from the yacht club. The proposed steel supports (12”to 15” diameter tubes) for the ramp are massive and will block views. Has the potential to use high strength, lightweight materials (typically used in aerospace) been investigated? The amount of material is small and the cost is likely to be modest. Also, cannot the design and materials of the locking gateway be softened to appear less industrial? We hope all representatives of Sausalito will consider the above suggestions. Respectfully, Doug Lloyd 614 Sausalito Blvd. Sausalito, CA 94965 415‐332‐6443 H 415‐782‐5217 B 415‐260‐2626 Cell 1
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
[email protected]
[email protected]; Tom Theodores; Jill Hoffman; Herb Weiner; Ray Withy; Lilly
Schinsing; Joan Cox
Fw: New York Post: Bike rental firm that won Governors Is. contract gets cheaper deal
April 14, 2015
To : Members of Sausalito City Council , Joan Cox and Lilly Schinsing
From: Elaine Conley
Re: Ferry Landing and Landside
The City of Sausalito should not have signed off on the EIR for the proposed Ferry Landing. It is not a repair or replacement, but a 75% expansion. I
do not understand why the City Attorney did not advise City officials not to sign off on the EIR. A smaller footprint in the waterside vs. a big and ugly
one makes more sense environmentally and aesthetically . It seems as if people are being manipulated to focus on the big and ugly plans proposed
by the GGBD, vs an alternative plan more acceptable to the community.
Planning and finding solutions is always a challenge. It would have been best if the City of Sausalito promoted a sound environmental study and
encouraged more community input. The community of Sausalito entrusts the City Council to keep Sausalito quaint while seeking solutions for
increased tourism, especially rental bikes. The walkway along Bridgeway between the Barrel House and towards the bridge is (in my mind) the view
corridor of this town. I came across one vision describing a 16 foot multi use path and a retaining wall engulfing the lower path on the SF Bay. Have
you seen or heard of any such vision or plan? I think that would destroy the charm that the community and guests seek in Sausalito, and increase/
encourage more rental bike traffic.
Also, the Ferry Landing lease being rented for $600 per year is woefully inadequate. When can this issue be addressed? What will the City Council
be doing regarding this issue? This in not a little matter. The City has a fiduciary responsibly to the community, do they not?
In conclusion, I am not in favor of the present plan and believe that an EIR should be mandated. The City should allow enough time to integrate the
landside plan with the Ferry Landing. Lastly, I want to emphasis that the present plan is too big and too ugly and I favor a repair of the Ferry Landing
that maintains the existing footprint and elevations. The Ferry Landing for Sausalito should not be required to be the same design as Larkspur & San
Francisco.
The original plan the GGBD had when it received $3.2 million of stimulus money in 2008 was a shovel ready project. It had a ramp for bicycles and
a ramp for pedestrians. This concept seems to accommodate the 2 door configuration being added to the ferries. This project was advertised as
being achievable for a budget of $4million vs the current $14 million and was supposed to be completed by 2011. What happened?
Elaine Conley
622 Sausalito Blvd
[email protected]
PS I thought you would be interested in the link below. I found it very interesting. (Blazing Saddles/ rental bike contract story in NY Post)
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: New York Post: Bike rental firm that won Governors Is. contract gets cheaper deal
>
>I thought you'd be interested in this story from the New York Post.
>
*>Bike rental firm that won Governors Is. contract gets cheaper deal
>http://nypost.com/2014/12/31/bike-rental-firm-that-won-governors-is-contract-gets-cheaper-deal/
>
>For more on the New York Post and to download our apps, visit http://nypost.com
1
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jennifer Spinach [[email protected]]
Wednesday, April 15, 2015 7:52 AM
Lilly Schinsing
ferry
This is a Horrible proposal...the current Ferry Landing gangways and such need only to be repaired and modestly improved.The plan on the board now is a monstrosity that will encourage even more people to invade our town with no regard to how it all affects the downtown area,the shop keepers and the local neighborhoods.thanks ,Jennifer Spinach 1
#%<?.=;<@
"0 %&"'!!!"
&&"!!'&'"%! %&"%1
!,"("%'"#!!!(&)#( '!&,"(%!"!'%%,
!!#%"#"&,'"!'%&'%'1
)*&%)!&"('"!'' !'!&'(&'"*!",!
'#((',"(%)&'"%&&'"+#%!%1""!'' "')'!
"%&(!%,!'&%%,!!&!.'##%&'''&#!&!
&!&","%5!,68&#,"%"!2'2*'%'%!&#"%'(&!
(%%!')&&&8%'%'!%&&!!"#%"%'&.!(!")%
')!&&.&%)$(',"'"!2'2*'%!!&.&(&'!',.!
##%"#%'!&&"%'".%&#'!'(!$('(%&"(&'"!'
!'%&'&"'%&!'&1
)*&%)&2&!''"%&
")%')!&&&*&"#%'!!,1
'& ,"!(&"!'''#%"#"&&!.!'&%)'&!'!'"
&(##"%'.&!"!&&'!'*''(&'"!%!1&,"(!"*.'!( %<
#%"%',!'!%!&'"05%"''!!!(&'"&&!'
"
(!',61
5")%%!' "'(&'"!%!&'"#%"'''+&'!
%'%.(!$('(%&!$(',"!(&'"16
(&'"!%!
!"% ',&!'&'%'4&&!#%!#1
'&'&'%'4&"')'"
)!%!&".%&#(%.!(&'"'&'& .'")&%
"#%'!"&'!,1''&"&'&"!")%%!#%"%',"*)%.
'&!#%"&&!'!'"!,!"%&'(!$('(%&"(&'"1"
(&'%''%!&."!&%''%&#(%*&%)'56'%!'%.
*(&'"&%)&''"(%&'7%!''%!'%'""(%&'"%
&'%'1&(!$(!&&"( '!&'2##%"#%' !!%.&'&
"'"!!'%&!'&'%"1
+%#'&%" '%&'%'4&%&#"!&'"$(&'"!&9(!%!&:0
• • •
&!'"'&!(%""5!,6.'#%"#"&&'%('(%*"(%'!
)!%'%!&"''!.&(#'"B;;)&'"%&!'%&*"(!(#
"%!%$(!'%%,#%'(%&9"%& %'"!(#"!%%)!)&&&:1&
*"(%'%#%&&(%'""(%"*!'"*!&'%'&.'&.!(&!&&&1
'&.*'*"('" "%')&!3!&*%!&*'
'&%).,!!'%$(!,"&%) "%"&,*'''("*"
'%1
"(!)&"!(&!& %. "%!')&&&"%! "%%$(!'
&%).)!"(%)&'"%& "%+&(&1&*"( "%$(,"
'%"*&*'!&"%"!'"'!+'%%,.&!'"'&*"(%(!
"!'!("(&,/& %$((&*"("% /!'"&*"()!
#"#!&*"("* "%&,1'%. "%!')&&&*"(&"
%( &&"!&"%''%%!*'%$(',.! , '''"*2'
!''##%&('*,&,%1&*"(!'&'%''"
& #, #%")!('-'+&'!#%1
'%'!(!+&&'&'" '# !.(%'% #%") !'
*"('"##,5##6'!"","%)!"!!%&%)'"!&22&'!(&!
#"#!&22!!"#!!!!#"'!''%!')&"!2'%.
#'%!""!&1('%!')& ,!(%$(%!%!'" #!&'"
#'%'(%!&!(&'"."%""%!'!'(&"'%%)#%!"%'
%"%"%#&"!!%&#%'',"1
'##%&'&'%'&& &&&("#'"!&%" '"('&'."(&!"!,"!
'(%%!'&(.*''%.+&'!)&&&!"%%&#"!!")%&-
&'%('(%1
!'&%)"%5"#%'!!,6.'#!&"!"%&'%)!(
&"'$('"!011(&''#%!"''%#'" "%(%',")%'
("&'"&%).%'%'!#!!)%%'%(%!"!''"*!"
(&'"1
%% !,(! ' !'&"'&!)*1
(%,"('""!&%'
#%"#"&#%"'!'& #'*!%&&!'&%'%.#%'""*!
'"%&0
<!(&'%&!&!" #'*''%''(%!&'"%
'(%&"(&'"
="##%!'"!&%'"!"'&'"%"!'+'*&(!%'!
(%!')"# !'"'#%"#"&.&#,)!'&!(%"(&
"!5!,6!(!"% ',*'%&#(%!1
>&'"%")%,&'%'*%'!,','#%"#"&
'%'"!&1
A'%!')(&&!"!(%'"!&)!"'!"!&%.!
#%'(%.& %!')&&&%(!!! "%%$(!',.!!
& %.&"*%!!%1
C&!"(&"!(!"% ',*'%&#(%!&!" #'*'
'&'"%")%,&'%'1
=(&"'+&'!&'%('(%&"(&.#%'(%,(!%
'%!')&&&!%"&
>!!'%!')&)!"'!)('.&(&& %)&&&.
+#%!.'%"!)!%&%)'"!&,&' &'" !"&.'1
<
!"!&&'!'*''!%!.&!"'")
=&!!'& #'*"(#(%'%#%&&(%"!'
&(%%"(!!!"%""
>
!"!&&'!'!&*''!"%""
A&!.,!"%!'!&.*"(!'), #''"
#(!)%"! !'
C'"'&&!*"(!'), #'!"&$(',.)!'
%"*&*'!"%!& %!%" B;;2#%&"!%%,1
D#%"'"&!"'#%")&%&"!)"#%),'"!'
#%"#%'&.)!'")%"*"'%.#"#!&''*"(!&(
%" '&&!1
<; #'"'#%"'*"(&)%,%')"'%
&',!&" ") !'"*!'"*!1
<=)!' #"%'!"'&#%"'!'!'%""(%'"*!.'&"(
&(''"'!&!%)*1!'!'"'&#%")&"!&"(
"!&%!'"!'+'"'#%"'1
<>#%"' #'*%'!,%"*"%")%* &'%('(%&"!
!"%!#%"#%'&.*''!)&"!B;;#"#!&*'!"%
!!%$(!'%%,1
!&'"'&%!&.!,"(%%*"%.*)'"##"%'(!','")
%&!*&!'' '&!&'"#%"%'&8"!''%&#'&'
!'%&'&"%&!'&&*&"(&!&&&!"(%)&'"%&.!''& ' . '&"(%!'%&'&&'+#,%&7'"2#,%&7%%,"
('%&!!'
&%)&1'%'!##%")!&'%('(%&!&",'")"#%'!
!,8*'"('%%"%'"!&$(!&'"(&'"8
)*! '
!&'""&*'!!'%'#!"!&%!&'"%&1
!,"("%,"(%&%).
!,%&
(&'"%&!'
Rebuttal to Answer to Question 18 in Exhibit Q
18. Q: After review of the analysis provided by Sam Chase on page 155 of Exhibit M, what is
the District’s thoughts on Mr. Chase’s analysis compared to the District’s analysis?
A: Mr. Chase provided a comment, but no calculations to review. The District analyzed
15 years of actual tide data (1996 to 2010) recorded by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration to obtain hourly tides. We then analyzed this data to obtain
information of the occurrence of the tides at -1.1 feet relative to Mean Lower Low Water
Level or lower during the ferry operational hours. The results show that the ferry could
be at the terminal an average of 64 times with the tide at or below -1.1 feet per year.
The public comment referred to the year 2015 daily, not hourly, predictions, not actual
recordings, of low tides. The occurrence of low tides will vary by year and we therefore
used the 15 years of recorded data to calculate an average occurrence of low tides,
which provides a more accurate basis for the design.
Also, Mr. Chase’s ferry capacity information does not account for the varying passenger
capacity based on a vessel used or how the passenger capacity is reduced by the ferry
operators depending on cargo conditions. It should be noted that the law requires that
facilities be accessible at all times. It is not acceptable for the facility to not be
accessible at certain times, as individuals with disabilities need to be able to expect that
a facility will accommodate them.
Rebuttal to GGBD Answer to Question 18: Why would the GGBD use old historic tidal data on
a project that is supposed to serve the public into the future? There is accurate tidal information
on the web for tidal data from 2015 through 2037 at The Inn Above The Tides’ peers which is
less than 200 feet away from the landing. You couldn’t ask for better design data than this.
Using historic data makes no sense.
In the interest of putting the matter to rest, I’ve reviewed more detailed tidal data at website:
http://tides.mobilegeographics.com/locations/5652.html which includes detailed information
regarding the duration and timing of tides. I analyzed the next 5 years of tidal data using the
current ferry schedule and developed the attached table below which shows the pertinent
information for years 2015 through 2020. The five-year data shows that the existing landing is
ADA compliant for 99.49% of the departures and arrivals over this 5-year period. Under no
circumstances are there even close to 64 occurrences/year of ADA non-compliance based on
tidal data with respect to ferry arrivals and departures and even if there were 64 occurrences
per year, it would indicate that the existing landing complies with ADA 98.9% of the time! I
would be happy to sit down and have an off-line discussion in front of a computer about tidal
data vs. the number of arrivals and departures at the convenience of any GGBD representative.
To make the existing loading ramp 100% compliant (if it were even applicable to this projectsee next paragraph) for all tide levels during the 5-year period, it would only require
approximately 8-1/2 feet of additional horizontal distance between the ramp endpoints. This
additional 8-1/2 feet could be achieved by leaving the existing landing exactly where it is and
shortening the existing horizontal concrete access platform by 8-1/2 feet. This minor
modification could be performed during a refurbishment of the existing landing. A new ramp
could then be fabricated to span the endpoints using lightweight high-strength materials so as to
minimize structural mass. There are numerous options available for such a ramp as has been
already illustrated in past presentations by Architect, Mr. William Versaci at Studio Versaci.
With respect to ADA issues, the recent letter prepared by Mr. Christopher Skelton at
Ragghianti/Freitas LLP accurately reflects the significance of ADA on this particular
project. He states that:
“Presently, there are no formally adopted guidelines or standards governing ADA
compliance for passenger vessels. The ferry landing changes would be categorized as
passenger vessels.”
This is consistent with the findings of a Certified Access Specialist that I consulted with
on some of my past submittals. This same Certified Access Specialist is also used by
the City of Sausalito’s Public Works Department.
Lastly, the Spalding class ferry boats are rated for 740 passengers plus 13 crew
members. A deck hand is needed for every 100 passengers, according to one of the
deck hands. Any bicycle cargo weight has a minimal overall impact on the number of
passengers that these boats can carry and what little impact cargo weight does have on
capacity does not diminish the crystal clear statistics that these boats are currently
running at less than 20% of capacity during the week and nominally at 31% of capacity
on weekends and holidays. As stated in the past, any fiscally responsibly run business
would reduce the number of round trips to increase: a) passenger loading for
operational efficiency improvements; and b) boarding/disembarking time for the
remaining round trips.
Prepared by Sam Chase
April 15, 2015
Tidal Data Analysis for Tides at Inn Above The Tides Piling
Sausalito, CA (37.8500 degrees North, 122.4833 degrees West)
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Total
Average
# of -1.1 feet or lower
tides during year that
occur clearly outside of
Total # of daily low
ferry operation hours or
tide occurances/year
occurances occur when
where low tide is equal Sausalito Ferry Landing
to or lower than -1.1 arrivals or departures are
feet
not impacted.
19
10
18
7
26
15
31
12
25
8
31
13
150
65
# of arrivals to
# of departures from
Sausalito Landing that
Sausalito Landing that
occur during -1.1 or
occur during -1.1 or lower lower tides (requires
% of departures/year
% of landings/year that
tides (requires slightly
slightly steeper uphill that occur when tide is - occur when tide is -1.1
steeper downhill travel)
travel)
1.1 feet or lower*
feet or lower*
7
4
0.24
0.14
14
10
0.48
0.34
11
3
0.37
0.10
24
18
0.82
0.61
17
10
0.58
0.34
20
11
0.68
0.37
93
56
0.63
0.38
% of landings and
departures/year that
occur when tide is 1.1 feet or lower*
0.19
0.41
0.24
0.71
0.46
0.53
* Based on 2,943 arrivals and 2,943 departures per year as displayed in the current Sausalito Ferry Schedule. Yearly arrivals and departures are based on 10 holidays/year.
0.51
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Pat Zuch [[email protected]]
Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:41 AM
Lilly Schinsing
Mary Wagner; Adam Politzer; Chris Skelton; Robert Perlmutter
Comment on CEQA certification in tonight's resolution
To: Planning Commission Historic Landmarks Board cc: Adam Politzer Mary Wagner Chris Skelton Robert Perlmutter Re: Resolution No. 2015‐XX (Exhibit S to the April 15, 2015 Agenda materials) The Preamble to your recommendation to the City Council contains a series of "Whereas's". The last one, on page 2, is an assertion that "since neither the project nor its surrounding circumstances have changed since the time the district adopted the 2012 Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the Project, nor has significant new information, which was not known and could not have been know with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted been identified, the triggering events listed in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 have not occurred and additional environmental review is not required." Since this proceeding is NOT an official, legal PC/HLB review of this project, but just a procedure agreed to by the District and the City to generate recommendations to the City Council, I was surprised to read that your Commissions are being led by staff to issue CEQA certification. I do not think you can make this certification. First, the original IS/MND was completed by the District as a replacement project. It has since been determined that this Project is not, in fact, mere replacement, but a major expansion of the existing facility. Secondly, the IS/MND was completed, as said above, in 2012. The District has said throughout its presentations that one important purpose for the expansion is more rapid boarding for pedestrians and bicycles. In fact, the whole planned upgrade of the three Bay facilities is in large part built around expediting bike boarding and disembarkation. The District has also said that the Project was developed using 2006‐2009 passenger data, particularly as regards the 4% growth rate selected as the default rate for the next 20 years, and the growth rate is obviously a major component
of capacity design. The District's own data, distributed on pages 13+ of Exhibit Q to tonight's PC/HLB hearing Agenda, reveals a material and significant change in the circumstances surrounding the Project. Bike counts have exploded since 2012 ‐ far in excess of the 4% growth rate selected by the District. They were up 35% from 2012 to 2013, 28% from 2013 to 2014, and 17% from Jan‐March 2014 to Jan‐March 2015. Since 2012 this explosion in bikes using the Ferry has impacted both city streets and parking lots, not to mention downtown streets and sidewalks. Part of CEQA review addresses circulation and infrastructure. Additional environmental review should be required. 1
Pat Zuch PAZ Management LLC 415 464‐4474 work 415 265‐6565 cell 2
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Joan Cox [[email protected]]
Lilly Schinsing
Fwd: Sausalito City Waterfront Rentsand Blockage Dia
chart 3.png; SYC EB City of Sausalito Waerfromt Rents.xls; Angular Obstruction.pdf; Scan
1.pdf; Scan 2.pdf
More ferry landing correspondence -- this one seems to have different attachments.
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: edward mccann <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:57 PM
Subject: Fwd: Sausalito City Waterfront Rentsand Blockage Dia
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
sorry misaddressed original outgoing
-----Original Message----From: edward mccann <[email protected]>
To: pfeiferlj <[email protected]>; saualitojoan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, Apr 15, 2015 2:56 pm
Subject: Sausalito City Waterfront Rents and Blockage Diagram
Ladies:
Regret my mapping task was overtaken by events for the time being, so I have only preliminary sketches.
A summary is attached. as well as a map showing the zone of obstruction, between bearings 166 degrees and 112
degrees.
But I also wanted to forward you some info from the City Finance web -- Charlie Francis -- showing rents of some of the
structures.
I only have leases for SYC and Spinnaker.
But as you see there is very little being charged many of the profitable establishments downtown on the waterfront.
The SYC is a CA non-profit mutual benefit corporation and 501c7. Why is it the third largest renter, compared to
commercial operations like Inn Above Tides, Scoma's, Ondines/Trident?
Have a good meeting tonight.
Look for Dan Rheiner, Chairman of the Executive Board and President of the California 501c7, and the Commodore Dave
Borton, who is the Senior Officer and by virtue of that position a member of the Executive Board.
Best regards
Edward F McCann II
PS: The view blockage cannot be accurately determined with the drawings provided to date.
We will need some "plan" views, which show the height of the floating and rigid structure.
1
The stuff provided so far has only been "elevation" views.
And as Mr. Chase has recently written, this float will go up and down with the tide, and the blockage of view will be a
function of tide.
Yet another variable.
2
CITY OF SAUSALITO RENTAL INCOME 2002‐2014
City of Sausalito, CA
Rental
Export generated on 01/23/2015
Funds Filter
Spinnaker
Sausalito Yacht Harbor
Sausallito Yacht Club
Pelican Harbor
Trident/Ondine/Horizons
Sausalito Cruising Club
Cassis Marina
Edgewater Yacht
Galilee Harbor
Scoma's
Ferry Landing
Inn Above The Tides
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Tidelands Fund
2002‐03 Act
245,494
67,865
52,840
10,398
20,859
8,334
13,546
9,958
5,400
979
0
0
Total
$435,673
2003‐04 Act
2004‐05 Act
265,139
269,170
117,781
123,796
53,124
42,775
10,130
10,461
18,714
19,240
12,000
12,000
12,504
17,877
9,192
9,192
1,800
3,090
1,068
1,246
4,800
685
300
600
$506,552
$510,132
2005‐06 Act
284,010
130,891
86,972
32,648
19,397
12,000
14,118
13,064
2,419
1,068
628
300
2006‐07 Act
310,025
132,963
77,010
31,774
19,666
12,000
14,529
15,550
2,419
1,068
628
300
2007‐08 Act
326,164
135,909
81,455
32,740
20,011
12,433
15,000
16,172
2,419
1,349
628
300
2008‐09 Act
288,194
139,020
79,533
32,848
20,492
14,599
15,517
9,788
2,419
1,222
0
0
2009‐10 Act
288,714
139,796
48,364
29,747
20,987
15,029
3,948
500
2,419
1,270
628
600
2010‐11 Act
278,539
129,504
65,000
33,680
20,730
15,772
0
0
2,419
1,284
0
300
2011‐12 Act
313,147
93,834
50,000
35,182
21,320
9,422
0
0
2,419
1,284
1,257
300
2012‐13 Act
302,645
190,934
124,000
35,182
35,492
8,540
0
0
2,468
1,312
628
300
$597,515
$617,932
$644,580
$603,632
$552,002
$547,228
$528,165
$701,501
Derive Revs from City Adopted/Projected
SYC EB City of Sausalito Waerfromt Rents.xls
1
2013‐14 Act 2014‐15 Adopted 2015‐16 Proj 2015 Proj %
292,536
350,000
350,000
48.69%
231,942
200,000
200,000
27.82%
155,000
85,000
85,000
11.82%
35,182
38,000
38,000
5.29%
33,688
25,000
25,000
3.48%
39,199
16,500
16,500
2.30%
0
0
0
0.00%
0
0
0
0.00%
3,000
2,400
2,400
0.33%
1,361
1,000
1,000
0.14%
628
650
650
0.09%
300
300
300
0.04%
$792,836
$718,850
$718,850
$157,143
$157,143
100.00%
4/15/2015 4:28 PM !
&
!
#
(*
)%
'
"
)*
)*
(
"
)+
)%
)
!
*+
*%
"
,*
Lilly Schinsing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Joan Cox [[email protected]]
Lilly Schinsing
Fwd: Sausalito City Waterfront Rentsand Blockage Dia
Scan 151050024.pdf
Lilly,
More correspondence regarding the ferry landing project.
Joan
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: edward mccann <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Sausalito City Waterfront Rentsand Blockage Dia
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
One more attachment
-----Original Message----From: edward mccann <[email protected]>
To: pfeiferlj <[email protected]>; saualitojoan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, Apr 15, 2015 2:56 pm
Subject: Sausalito City Waterfront Rentsand Blockage Dia
Ladies:
Regret my mapping task was overtaken by events for the time being, so I have only preliminary sketches.
A summary is attached. as well as a map showing the zone of obstruction, between bearings 166 degrees and 112
degrees.
But I also wanted to forward you some info from the City Finance web -- Charlie Francis -- showing rents of some of the
structures.
I only have leases for SYC and Spinnaker.
But as you see there is very little being charged many of the profitable establishments downtown on the waterfront.
The SYC is a CA non-profit mutual benefit corporation and 501c7. Why is it the third largest renter, compared to
commercial operations like Inn Above Tides, Scoma's, Ondines/Trident?
Have a good meeting tonight.
Look for Dan Rheiner, Chairman of the Executive Board and President of the California 501c7, and the Commodore Dave
Borton, who is the Senior Officer and by virtue of that position a member of the Executive Board.
Best regards
Edward F McCann II
1
PS: The view blockage cannot be accurately determined with the drawings provided to date.
We will need some "plan" views, which show the height of the floating and rigid structure.
The stuff provided so far has only been "elevation" views.
And as Mr. Chase has recently written, this float will go up and down with the tide, and the blockage of view will be a
function of tide.
Yet another variable.
2

Lilly Schinsing Dear Millie, I was thinking the

Transcription

Similar documents

There`s tons of things to do in San Francisco and incredible

Race: Sunday, December 13, 2015 5K: 8:30am start • Kidz Run 9

Save at Aldo`s! - Aldo`s Restaurant Block Island

George Lloyd Liverance, 64

1200-1250 BRIDGEWAY

Sausalito Village Newsletter 2016.02

90 Ferry Operators Receive Certification in Customer Service