SAUSALITO FERRY TERMINAL DESIGN

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.

EXISTING NW CORNER OF PARKING LOT #1

6

Existing site

for proposed

PG&E utility

boxes for

Project.

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


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


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


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

TWO 8-FOOT DOORS LESS THAN HISTORIC

DOOR WIDTH FOR SAUSALITO FERRIES

12


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


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”


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

PROPOSED DESIGN – MARCH 2016

17


SIMPLE STEEL GIRDER GANGWAY

18

19


SIMPLE TRANSPARENT SWING GATE

20


SIMPLE TRANSPARENT SWING GATE

21


COLOR – GRAY (GALVANIZED STEEL)

22

FLOAT – LOWERED FOR ARRIVAL OF SPAULDING CLASS

23

FLOAT – RAISED FOR ARRIVAL OF CATAMARAN CLASS


LIGHTING – WARM TONE WITH SPOT LIGHTING ALONG RAILS

24

PROPOSED LIGHTING – EYE LEVEL: DOORS OPEN

25

PROPOSED LIGHTING – EYE LEVEL: DOORS CLOSED & LIGHTS OFF

26

PROPOSED LIGHTING OVERVIEW WITH NO BELVEDERES – DOORS CLOSED

27

PROPOSED LIGHTING – NO BELVEDERES: DOORS OPEN

28

PROPOSED LIGHTING – NO BELVEDERES: DOORS CLOSED & LIGHTS OFF

29

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

GUIDE TO RENDERINGS:

VIEW POINTS REQUESTED

BY COMMUNITY

31

VIEW 1- EXISTING (EDGE OF GABRIELSON PARK)

32

VIEW 1 – PROPOSED (EDGE OF GABRIELSON PARK)

33

VIEW 2 – EXISTING & PROPOSED (GABRIELSON PARK)

34

VIEW 3 – EXISTING (YACHT CLUB)

35

VIEW 3 – PROPOSED (YACHT CLUB)

36

VIEW 4 – EXISTING (YACHT CLUB PARKING LOT)

37

VIEW 4 – PROPOSED (YACHT CLUB PARKING LOT)

38

VIEW 5 – EXISTING (PLAZA NORTH END)

39

VIEW 5 – PROPOSED (PLAZA NORTH END)

40

VIEW 6 – EXISTING (MID PLAZA)

41

VIEW 6 – PROPOSED (MID PLAZA)

42

VIEW 7 – EXISTING (PLAZA SOUTH END)

43

VIEW 7 – PROPOSED (PLAZA SOUTH END)

44

VIEW 8 – EXISTING (BRIDGEWAY)

45

VIEW 8 – PROPOSED (BRIDGEWAY)

46

Creating a better tomorrow, together.

SAUSALITO FERRY TERMINAL DESIGN

47

SAUSALITO FERRY TERMINAL DESIGN

Documents