sausalito ferry terminal design
TRANSCRIPT
March 29, 2016
City of Sausalito Joint Planning Commission and Historical Landmarks Board Meeting
SAUSALITO FERRY TERMINAL DESIGN
1
SINCE THE MARCH 16, 2016 MEETING….
2
• We received questions during the March 16, 2016 Joint
HLB/PC meeting.
• We submitted responses to those questions to the City
on March 25, 2016.
• We are here today to discuss our responses to those
questions as well as the additional questions that we
received from the City yesterday afternoon.
CAN FLOAT PILES BE REDUCED IN HEIGHT AND SIZE?
3
Could not be reduced:
• Piles socketed into rock to hold float in place during large storms.
• Height accounts for sea level rise & is similar to existing piles.
• Diameter is necessary for heavier float and extreme storms.
Existing – High Tide
Proposed – High Tide – Float in Typical Lowered Position
CAN FLOAT LIGHTS BE LOWERED?
4
We are investigating lowering the height:
• Overhead lighting is best for worker and passenger safety.
• Overhead lighting provides maximum light coverage area.
• Height must not interfere with both float boarding platform conditions.
ARE PARKING SPACES BEING ELIMINATED?
5
• No parking spaces will be
permanently removed.
• Some parking spaces close to
the Ferry Landing may be
requested for temporary
contractor use.
• We’ll continue to discuss options
with City.
PROPOSED NW CORNER OF PARKING LOT #1
LOCATION FOR PROJECT PG&E UTILITIES
7
Proposed
PG&E utility
boxes for
Project.
Will request
Encroachment
Permit from
City.
CITY’S 3-28-16 QUESTIONS
8
1. Does the Table on page 8 of the
March 29, 2016 Staff Report
correctly identify and characterize
the features of the current design
mandated by the ADA and those
desired by the District for
operational considerations?
In general, yes. We’ve made a
few clarifications.
utility box, pile collars,
and a clear path for
employees
See next slide
CITY’S 3-28-16 QUESTIONS
9
2a. Please supply us with the reference
to the applicable regulations and
guidance for accessibility requirements
that apply to the path of travel to and
from the doors.
The proposed design meets the 2013 draft Accessibility Guidelines for Passenger Vessels. Staff Report correctly references this document, but incorrectly cites section V405.
Gangplanks resemble “gangways” – Section V410
Gangplanks are “telescoping” – Section V410.7
“Walking surfaces” – Section V403
CITY’S 3-28-16 QUESTIONS
10
2b. Can only one of the two doors
meet the applicable accessibility
requirements and the hydraulic
equipment furthest from shore be
eliminated.
We chose to have the paths to both
ferry doors to be ADA accessible
The hydraulic power unit at the end
of the float would remain
regardless if one or two doors are
ADA compliant.
Hydraulic
power unit
CITY’S 3-28-16 QUESTIONS
11
2c. What amount of either the length
or width of the float and the
gangway is dictated by use of both
doors?
16 feet minimum clear passenger
path from the float, through the
gangway and through the access
pier is based on using the two
ferry doors at the same time.
8’ min door 8’ min door
48’ door spacing 16’ wide
gangway
56’ for both doors
16’ clear 16’ clear
CITY’S 3-28-16 QUESTIONS
13
2d. Describe the operational
considerations (positive and
negative) supporting your desire to
use two ferry doors for simultaneous
loading and unloading?
Improvements based on using two doors:
• Speed up boarding and disembarking
process; one door for bicyclists and one
for pedestrians. (we will not load and
unload passengers at the same time)
• Increase number of passengers able to
quickly board ferry and maintain
schedules.
• Reduce crowding and confusion in the
vicinity of the ferry landing.
Passengers with
bicycles tend to stay in
a single file line on
existing ferry landing
CITY’S 3-28-16 QUESTIONS
14
3. What are the operational considerations
dictating the 15 additional feet of float length to
provide District employees access to mooring
hardware and fender supports located along the
furthest-from-shore end of the float.
Additional 15’ based on a hydraulic
power unit, maintaining a clear
walking path and guide pile collars.
6’ clear walking path allows for safe
working environment.
Hydraulic
power unit
3’-6”
Guide pile
collar
5’-6”
Clear walking
access
6’-0”
15’-0”
CITY’S 3-28-16 QUESTIONS
15
4. What amount of either the width or length
of the gangway and float are dictated by
any other operational considerations not
addressed above and what negative
consequences, if any, would result from not
installing the design features of the
gangway and float desired for additional
operational considerations?
Width and length of float and gangway
based on ADA and operational
requirements.
All possible size reductions have been
made.
PROPOSED FACILITY WILL IMPROVE OPERATIONS
16
• Two wider access doors to the ferry vessel instead of one
• Wider facility to move passengers more efficiently and faster – Ferries
leave fuller and on time
• More area for staging – Move people off of Sausalito streets
Existing Proposed
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DESIGN
PROPOSED DESIGN
MARCH 2016
FLOAT 145.5’ long x 53’ wide
GANGWAY 90’ long x 16’ wide x 6.7’ high
ACCESS PIER 96’ long x 21’ wide
LANDSIDE PIER No change to existing
BELVEDERES per BCDC will include in application
but with recommendation to delete
GATE Simple transparent swing gate
COLOR Gray
30