cbj docks and harbors board regular meeting agenda … · 2019. 7. 6. · page 1 of 2 cbj docks and...

of 2

CBJ DOCKS AND HARBORS BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA For Thursday, November 30th, 2017

I. Call to Order (5:00 p.m. in the CBJ Assembly Chambers) II. Roll (Weston Eiler, Don Etheridge, Bob Janes, David Lowell, Robert Mosher, Mark

Ridgway, David Seng, Budd Simpson, and Tom Donek) III. Approval of Agenda

MOTION: TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. IV. Approval of November 2nd, 2017 Board minutes. V. Public Participation on Non-Agenda Items (not to exceed five minutes per person, or

twenty minutes total time). VI. Special Order of Business VII. Consent Agenda - None VIII. Unfinished Business

1. Urban Design Plan Presentation by the Port Engineer

Committee Questions Public Comment Committee Discussion/Action MOTION: TO BE DETERMINED AT THE MEETING

IX. New Buisness

1. Capital Improvement Projects Presentation by the Port Engineer

Board Questions Public Comment Board Discussion/Action MOTION: TO BE DETERMINED AT THE MEETING

CBJ DOCKS AND HARBORS BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA (CONTINUED) For Thursday, November 30th, 2017

of 2

X. Items for Information/Discussion - None XI. Committee and Member Reports

1. Operations/Planning Committee Meeting- Wednesday, November 15th, 2017 2. Finance Committee Meeting CANCELLED 3. Member Reports 4. Assembly Lands Committee Liaison Report 5. Auke Bay Steering Committee Liaison Report

XII. Port Engineer’s Report XIII. Harbormaster’s Report XIV. Port Director’s Report XV. Assembly Liaison Report XVI. Board Administrative Matters

a. Ops/Planning Committee Meeting – Wednesday, December 13th, 2017 at 5:00pm

b. Finance Committee Meeting CANCELLED

c. Board Meeting – Thursday, December 21st, 2017 at 5:00pm XVII. Adjournment

1

CBJ DOCKS AND HARBORS REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES

For Thursday, November 2nd, 2017

I. Call to Order

Mr. Donek called the Regular Board Meeting to order at 5:03 pm in the Assembly Chambers.

II. Roll Call

The following members were present: Weston Eiler, David Lowell, Robert Mosher, MarkRidgway, David Seng, Budd Simpson, and Tom Donek.

Absent: Don Etheridge and Bob Janes

Also present were the following: Carl Uchytil – Port Director, Gary Gillette – Port Engineer, DaveBorg – Harbormaster, and Matt Creswell – Harbor Operations Manager.

III. Approval of AgendaMr. Uchytil requested a Special Order of Business following Public Participation.

MOTION By MR. SIMPSON: TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED AND ASKUNANIMOUS CONSENT.

Motion passed with no objection.

IV. Minutes from the September 28th, 2017 Regular Board Minutes.

Hearing no objection, the September 28th, 2017 Regular Board minutes were approved aspresented

V. Public Participation on Non-Agenda Items – None

Special Order of Business Mr. Uchytil read the Harbormaster of the year award Mr. Borg received at the AAHPA conference in Petersburg.

VI. Consent Agenda – None

VII. Unfinished Business-1. Urban Design Preferred Plan Presentation

Mr. Gillette said during the last few months Docks & Harbors has been in a planning effort tolook at the area between Marine Park and Taku Dock. An important property within this areais the Archipelago lot south of the downtown Juneau Library. This lot is currently vacant andready for development. Staff requested CBJ purchase this property to meet the needs of thelarger ships coming to Juneau a few years ago, but at the time of the request CBJ did notsupport the purchase. Docks & Harbors is going through this public process and takingcomments from the public, users of the area, and the Board on development of this area. Therewas a Board workshop, a public meeting/workshop, and an open studio. The design teamcame back to the Board with four different concepts. The Board and public indicated whatthey liked the most out of those four concepts and the team developed a preferred master plan.

CBJ DOCKS AND HARBORS BOARD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES For Thursday, November 2nd, 2017

2

The planning consultant for this project has been Corvus Design teamed with North Wind Architects, PND Engineers, and Rain Coast Data.

Chris Mertl with Corvus Design went over the likes and dislikes and how they came up with the preferred master plan shown in a power point presentation

Mr. Gillette said during the process of working on this plan, we have been looking for a private public partner which is a key element for this area because Docks & Harbors does not have enough money to develop this plan. We have our specific needs and mission to serve the cruise ship passengers. In this case, the owner of the property is a developer and they are excited about this project and want to work with Docks & Harbors to make this plan come to fruition. Allen Grinalds who is with Morris Publication Group is here tonight from Augusta, Georgia to let us know their plans.

Mr. Grinalds said Morris has a long Alaska history in Juneau, Anchorage, and Kenai. The family loves Alaska and is invested in Alaska looking at it as their second home. He said his position in the company is director of real estate in charge of real estate development for Morris Communications which has recently been changed from a Media Firm to a Real Estate Company. He said the dock changes in Juneau are impressive and they have been paying attention. He said he is here to provide a face for the developer and let the Docks & Harbors Board know Morris is excited about the potential for this project and what it brings to the Community. Looking at the Archipeligo property, there is a couple of different options for retail in this space. He said the easy answer would be throw up a couple of buildings facing Franklin Street for retail and call it good. However, Morris Group sees this as an opportunity to do something special for Juneau and make an impact for the community which will allow for retail for the cruise ship passengers as well as year around opportunity for downtown. This project will require a lot of diligence and staying focused on the project and creating that opportunity to continue to grow and invest in downtown. The project from a private stand point has to stand on its own economically. With the Morris family, this is not just about the economics of the deal but investing in the community and creating something special and lasting. They are committed to Juneau and won’t put their name on anything that is not a first class presentation. The reason he is here is because of the investment and progress already made on the waterfront downtown Juneau. This is the time to develop this site in a creative, disciplined manner that creates value for all the parties. The Morris group is impressed with Docks & Harbors approach and Corvus Design championing public input and making sure that is incorporated in the design having the public voice heard. They want to capture not just a retail space but also the character in the spirit of Juneau.

Board Questions – Mr. Doneksaid looking at the preferred plan he does not have a problem. It has compromises from what he was looking for but does not have a problem with it. His question is how the partnership is going to work?

Mr. Uchytil said as far as process wise for today this is the unveiling of Docks & Harbors preferred alternative. Now that this is in the public domain we will ask at the next Board meeting on November 30th to approve this as the preferred plan moving forward. This will not


3

require a motion tonight. How do we meet the desires of the owner and the needs of the public side of this project? Mr. Uchytil said there are more details to be worked out, but he is hopeful by November 30th they should be worked out.

Mr. Simpson said he is recusing himself from this discussion.

Mr. Lowell said generally speaking, Corvus Design and team did a good job on this preferred plan and incorporating all the comments from the earlier meeting. He thought there was a lot more food cart activity than what is in the design. Are there other locations in this development that operators would have available space for a food cart?

Mr. Gillette said the food carts currently on the Archipelago lot basically rented a parking space. Some used four or five spaces and some took less which ended up filling the property. It wasn’t necessarily a money maker but we wanted to keep some opportunity. It is not realistic to dedicate that much square footage of that valuable property for the level of development and investment the food cart owners put in. There are some food cart spaces in the plan and can be tweaked a little because we do understand that is an important part. However, it will probably not be to the level there is currently.

Mr. Lowell said he understands that. He also questioned if the 150’ float dock would be a problem for the float planes and if they have been notified on this plan? He asked if there was any consideration to phase the project to try to limit that issue.

Mr. Uchytil said it is important to state that this is a plan. With the reconfiguration plan for Marine Park, the location for the 150’ floating dock may not be the best location. Access to the water is important which was heard from the Board, but the concern from Wings was the float that was previously perpendicular to the shore obstructed maneuverability. However, he did receive an email from Holly Johnson of Wings Airways and she expressed concerns with the new float design. We would like to keep it in the plan but not sure it will be executed. He also said with the expansion of the seawalk it could change this plan again.

Mr. Lowell said he likes the idea of the seawalk expansion. He said in addition to the geometric constraint that Wings had expressed was the promotion of small vessel activity in that location and conflict with their operations.

Mr. Borg said the 150’ float would be used as moorage and not a lightering float.

Mr. Eiler said this is an impressive plan and gives the Board a lot to think about. Is the intention tonight to have full public testimony and comment and those worked into the plan again and then looked at again at the next meeting?

Mr. Donek said we will take public comment and not vote until next meeting.

Mr. Eiler asked if this plan allows for the status quo of Vendor Booths?

Mr. Gillette said yes and in the same locations as currently.


4

Mr. Eiler asked what the reasoning was for positioning of the B-zone in this plan?

Mr. Gillette said he took the four concepts to three Engineers at DOT and their preference is in the location in this preferred plan. The Marine Park location because of the long curve and intersection activity they did not like that location. Another location was next to the parking garage. There was a lot of activity in that location with the pedestrian crossing and people coming and going from the library, road, and Red Dog parking lot. They did not like that opportunity there. The other idea was to just have a pull off South Franklin Street and then back on to South Franklin. With most of the cruise ship activity going away from downtown, the buses would need to turn around in another facility to head back the other way and that would add congestion so that did not seem appropriate. DOT will sign off on the location of the B-zone in this preferred plan.

Mr. Eiler said this is prime waterfront area for the future of the community and something that was said earlier is “if you plan for what the locals enjoy it will also attract visitors”. The positon of the USS Juneau and the expansion of the seawalk are great. He thinks CBJ can look at more ideas for the parking garage.

Mr. Mosher said the Board need s to think about how the 150’ floating dock will affect Wings. He asked if this is approved next month, will construction start immediately? Is this plan a concept or mission?

Mr. Grinalds said we are on a mission.

Mr. Gillette said this is a plan and a concept of the plan. Each one of these buildings is going to be designed and detailed. They may change a little in location and detail as all this is put together. This is a place holder for the different functions. We will move forward once we receive the Board’s approval and the Assembly’s approval. There is still a lot of work to do, but this is the first step. This is a road map and the other details still need to be worked out. The process moving forward is figuring out budget and design costs.

Mr. Mosher asked if there was money to get started from the cruise ship tax?

Mr. Gillette said yes, there are funds identified to start with the next level of planning for this project. This is not a plan to put on the shelf because we have the funds.

Mr. Seng asked what the positon of CBJ is to be able to partner effectively with a private sector to make all this happen? With Morris group being on a mission, what if CBJ isn’t able to hold up its end of the deal? Time kills deals. He wants to feel comfortable making a recommendation to the Assembly that we think we are in a position to move too. You can’t only execute half a plan.

Mr. Ridgway said looking at this design, is it just the parking that meets Docks & Harbors mission? In terms of entering a PPV with Morris Communication, what part of this plan meets Docks & Harbors mission?


5

Mr. Gillette said the bus staging and pick up area for cruise ship passengers. Based on some of the economic trends heard from Meilani Schivens in the beginning of the process, the cruise industry is expected to grow. Larger ships are coming and not less calls which means more people. Some projections for the coming years are 200,000 or more passengers. Just having space for people to mingle, gather and get to their busses for their different venues is the open space that we have heard as a needed area which is in the plan.

Mr. Ridgway said he primarily wanted to know how this relates to Docks & Harbors mission? He asked if Mr. Gillette was saying the mission of Docks & Harbors is to support the cruise industry, open space and B-zone parking for the crew members.

Mr. Grinalds said with decking over the submerged lands, it makes more sense to do this from the uplands. If Morris moved forward with the development on the uplands, it would become more expensive to deck over the submerged lands connecting the seawalk to south Franklin Street in the future. There is value in the sequence in terms of communicating our intentions and understanding the long term desires of Docks & Harbors. Doing the deck over from the uplands will save a lot of money.

Mr. Ridgway said it was indicated that this plan was a place holder and not a design agreed upon tonight but subject to change. He asked for some indication of how much change this plan may undergo?

Mr. Uchytil said staff is working on refining the Archipelago lot with the Morris Group and every week it is more solidified and Mr. Grinalds said time kills deals.

Mr. Grinalds said the geotechnical work has started. Morris is excited and serious about this project. He said now is the time and there is a lot of momentum. He said he won’t say Morris’ situation will be the same in two years. The Morris family is behind this project and they are enthusiastic about it. In terms of timeline, once there is an agreed upon structure for the property we are ready to go. There is a lot in terms of weather and other possible issues but an ideal situation would be to have retail open to the tenants in the summer of 2019. Morris is completely committed to this project. They want to be a part of the future of downtown.

Mr. Uchytil said the Archipelago area of this plan is in reach and a short term goal, but the other parts of this plan are not ready to start immediately.

Mr. Ridgway asked Mr. Mertl if the deck over in Pier 49 in one of the initial four options? He asked if that area was currently under lease?

Mr. Gillette said there are lease areas by People’s Wharf and the Jewelry stores, but they are built on already. The open area where Tracy’s Crab Shack was this year is Docks & Harbors property not under lease and show a potential development there. The piece in front of Pier 49 is under lease and we don’t know what their plans are. That is a potential deck over area for future development put in the plan as a placeholder.


6

Mr. Donek said this planning process for this area started last spring, and the original thought was to have placeholders. Now with the potential partner coming in, the Archipelago property, which is the center area of this plan, has changed. We are now in a different situation than we were when we first started. The other parts of this plan are placeholders. Now we need to figure out how CBJ can work with a private developer.

Public Comment Dennis Watson, Juneau, AK He said he has had the opportunity to have dinner on Holland American ships in the harbor many times over the last few years in front of one of the most unattractive part of the harbor which is where the development is being planned. It is really ugly. This project will solve that problem. He is glad to see the public private partnership because this is a thing of the future and we better get on board. Private enterprise has had a much better track record in Juneau managing and operating businesses than the Borough ever has. There are some things he doesn’t like in this plan but there is still more time to discuss that. Overall he thinks this is a great project and would like to see it move forward. He said he urges the Board to get more serious on what is good for Juneau. Take a look at this area from the waterside and it is not attractive. He said he came to Juneau in 1992 and this lot has been empty since then.

Greg Pilcher, Juneau, AK He wanted it verified that the Vendor tour booth areas are to stay where they are located currently for the foreseeable future.

Mr. Mertl said that is the way they are shown in the plan.

Mr. Pilcher asked if the plan is what we are sticking to?

Mr. Mertl said that is what is in the master plan.

Mr. Gillette said that is the plan.

Board Discussion/Action

Mr. Eiler said there were two previous discussions he wanted to look at in the future –

1- Leaving open water space and not decking over the entire seawalk like in Ketchikan.This could be looked at with continuing the seawalk to Gold Street

2- He also would like to find a place for a playground around the Willoughby area.He suggested saying something to the City Manager to include in future plans.

He suggested to have CBJ put these plans on Facebook for comment. If the food vendor area is going to be limited, it should be communicated to these small businesses. If this is no longer the place for it, maybe develop placeholders between Marine Park & Taku because


7

there are a lot of CBJ owned open space areas. He said he thinks the private public partnership will work but to bring the community along for the rest.

Mr. Mertl said based on the comments heard at the last meeting, the 150’ float provided better access to the water and with the ships farther from the seawalk it provided the visual. As for the playground in the current plan there really is no room but we could put it in as a placeholder where the waterfront attraction facility is because we don’t know when we will find another private partner who would want to take that on and don’t even know what that facility will be. Finding another location may be better.

Mr. Mertl said there are eight food cart placeholders that are roughly 10’ x 20’.

Mr. Uchytil said this will come back on November 30th.

NO MOTION

VIII. New Business1. Resolution 2017-01 in support of full funding ($9,820,141) for the State of Alaska Municipal

Harbor Facility Grant Program in the FY2019 State Capital Budget.

Mr. Uchytil said this was brought before the Board in previous years. At AAHPA annualconference resolutions are drafted on what is important to this organization. The organizationwill then ask Municipalities to sign and have their Assemblies approve additional resolutions.The organization then packages all the communities that put the resolutions together andcommunicates with the Governor and the Legislature for support. This resolution is for theHarbor Facility Grant Program which is a DOT program 50/50 match. In the past, Docks &Harbors has been very successful with the program. With support of CBJ and otherMunicipalities we are hoping DOT funds all the programs for all the Harbors that haveapplied. On page 24 of the packet shows all who have applied for these funds.

Board Questions - None

Public Comment - None


MOTION By MR. SIMPSON: THAT THE ASSEMBLY APPROVE A RESOLUTION INSUPPORT OF FULL FUNDING ($9,820,141) FOR THE STATE OF ALASKAMUNICIPAL HARBOR FACILITY GRANT PROGRAM IN THE FY2019 STATECAPITAL BUDGET AND ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT.


2. Resolution 2017-02 in support of Senate Bill 92: An Act relating to Abandoned and DerelictVessels


8

Mr. Uchytil said this is another resolution that was adopted at the AAHPA October meeting. The Board approved this resolution last year. Senator Micciche from Soldotna proposed SB92 for derelict and abandoned vessel accountability. This will be discussed again in this upcoming Legislative session. This spells out that the State of Alaska has a derelict and abandoned vessel problem which is becoming more of a problem and needs tools to resolve this issue. It adds insurance requirements for commercial vessels over 30’ and a funding stream somehow to resolve the existing abandoned derelict issues that will come forward in the coming years. On page 31 in the packet is a resolution which is SB92 from 1990 acknowledging abandoned and derelict vessel problems and they are a hazard to the environment and the State does not have resources. This resolution of support will help to put pressure on the Legislature to come up with solutions to resolve derelict and abandoned vessels in the State.

Board Questions - None

Public Comment - None


MOTION By MR. RIDGWAY: THAT THE ASSEMBLY APPROVE A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL 92: AN ACT RELATING TO ABANDONED AND DERELICT VESSELS AND ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT.


3. Fund Transfer Resolution $200,000 to Harris Bathroom CIP

Mr. Uchytil said staff is asking the Board to approve moving money that is currently held in a CIP project for the Statter Harbor Breakwater deck project that has $666,000 which has been appropriated over the last two years. Silverbow Construction was awarded that project which is only for two of the openings, and is currently working on this project installing the fiber- grates. Staff would like to move $200,000 of the $666,000 into a Harris Harbor bathroom recommission CIP project. On page 33 in the packet is the renovation design. This will require Assembly action to rededicate this money for this project.

Board QuestionsMr. Seng asked if we did approve moving $200,000 from the Statter Harbor funds. Would the remaining balance be enough to complete the deck over project?

Mr. Uchytil said if Silverbow can do this work at 50% of what was estimated, it will need to be decided if the rest of the openings will be decked over.

Mr. Seng asked if the initial contract is to deck over two of the Statter Harbor Breakwater holes?

Mr. Uchytil said two of the 16.


9

Mr. Seng said so there is 14 left and the current contract for the two is $73,000.

Mr. Uchytil said that is correct.

Mr. Seng said multiplying $73,000 times seven we would still be short to finish all 16 even if they maintained the current rate.

Mr. Uchytil said that is correct.

Mr. Donek asked what other source of funds are available to use for this project or to make up the difference for the Statter Harbor project?

Mr. Uchytil said the Harbors fund balance. If the Board decides to continue with finishing the breakwater open areas, this will need to go back out to bid. Docks & Harbors has lots of needs and finite resources.

Mr. Seng asked where in priority from the Boards priority list is the Harris restroom compared to the Statter deck over?

Mr. Mosher said he would like to see the Harris restrooms completed.

Mr. Seng said from the strategic retreat notes, Statter Harbor breakwater was first on the list under needs and $100,000 allocated which meant it was only for the two that is currently being decked over.

Mr. Donek asked why take out of this CIP and not the fund balance?

Mr. Uchytil said it is the same.

Mr. Donek asked if the procedure was different?

Mr. Gillette said moving it from a CIP to a CIP it is a one meeting transfer with the Assembly. If you move from a fund balance to a CIP it is an appropriation which is two meeting with the Assembly.

Mr. Uchytil said we also want to protect our fund balance. It comes down to what the Board wants to do. If there is value in recommissioning the bathrooms then we should do that. If the will of the body is to live with Port a Potties, then we will move on.

Mr. Donek said the intent on the Statter breakwater project was to do the first two to try it and if it worked to continue on but only do another two at a time.

Mr. Uchytil said with the $1M dollar estimate, staff decided to span this project out over three years setting aside $333,000 per year.


10

Mr. Donek said he wants to see the deck over survive the winter.

Mr. Ridgway said he would like to have restrooms in Harris. He asked what Mr. Borg thought Docks & Harbors would get more utility out of?

Mr. Borg said with the situation going on downtown with the homeless, he is leary about having the restrooms. However,telling transient visiting boaters that they have to go off site for a restroom and shower is difficult. This is the right thing to do and it needs to be done. The Statter Harbor breakwater deck over is a safety issue, but there has been no major incidents with people falling in. Doing the two openings on both ends of the breakwater is a good start and is a great test area. He said the Harris bathroom is a priority.

Public Comment


MOTION By MR. SENG: TRANSFER $200,000 FROM THE STATTER HARBOR DECK OVER CIP TO THE HARRIS BATHROOM CIP AND ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT.


6:40 - 5 MINUTE BREAK

6:48 BACK FROM BREAK

IX. Items for Information/Discussion

1. Statter Harbor ESA Permitting

Mr. Uchytil said Bre Austin is here from PND to go over the challenges and update us on thestatus for Statter Harbor phase III permitting. The dredging portion of the project involvesblasting about 750 cubic yards of rock and dredging about 25,000 cubic yards of sediment andwe have exhausted all realistic opportunities to get any portion of phase III of Statter in thiswinter.

Ms. Austin said she is the Environmental Specialist for PND Engineers. She provided a briefoverview of the permitting challenges. The first phase of this project involves dredging andblasting. PND recommends that CBJ requests an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA)under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) for the Humpback Whales, Steller SeaLions and the Harbor Seal which are the three key species identified as being present in thevicinity. Obtaining an IHA can be a long process, sometimes taking between seven and ninemonths. PND has been in contact with Oceanus Alaska regarding obtaining an IHA. OceanusAlaska biologists are available to assist PND with data acquisitions, analysis and preparationof the IHA. Oceanus Alaska has significant existing data and highly qualified staff memberswho would be able to help move the IHA along quickly with their expertise. The IHA processshould be initiated immediately due to the short time window for construction to proceed byOctober 2018.


11

Committee Discussion/Public Comment

Mr. Ridgway asked if the sound studies completed by Oceanus Alaska were for the blasting or pile driving?

Ms. Austin said the pile driving has become more of a regulatory focal point for the last several years. The sound study was done on the noise associated with pile driving.

Mr. Ridgway asked if different methods and means have been looked at?

Ms. Austin said the study was done on the vibratory pile driving. There are large costs in the studies and don’t reduce the risk enough to avoid the IHA anyway.

Mr. Ridgway asked who estimated the time to obtain the IHA?

Ms. Austin said PND has been in contact with the Alaska Region and Headquarters regarding blasting. They said approximately six months to a year. PND Anchorage office and Oceanus Alaska’s experience has been seven to nine months.

Mr. Ridgway said he was recently told it would take 16 months.

Ms. Austin said going through US Fish & Wildlife Service their process can take up to 18 months for certain animals. We are looking at strictly animals within the National Marine Fisheries Service jurisdiction which is a little shorter process.

Mr. Uchytil said he wanted to bring this information to the Board. The plan is to move forward with an IHA and be in a position to award work commencing October 2018.

2. Notice of Intended Sale of Boat Shelter AG-024 by Stephen CrapoMr. Uchytil said this is just letting the Board know staff received a notice that Mr. Crapo isintending to sell his half of a boat shelter AG- 024. I will let him know he has free will todispose of his boat shelter.


3. Request for Information – Disposal of used Waste OilMr. Uchytil said Harbors has an annual cost to disposal of used waste oil that is taken in atStatter and Aurora Harbors. Staff has a Request for Information out asking the public andbusiness if they have any ideas or proposals to deal with our waste oil. We are hoping to finda contractor to take it, use it, burn it, rather than Docks & Harbor moving it around at aconsiderable expense with Delta Western.


Mr. Donek asked if there was any help from the CBJ Hazardous Waste program?


12

Mr. Borg said the cost is prohibitive and it still has tobe transported. Currently it is $1.50 per gallon to move from Statter Harbor to Aurora and $3.50 per gallon if there is no room at Aurora and they store it for us. We are taking in about 450 gallons per week at Statter Harbor. Aurora Harbor has a burner that burns about 40 gallons per day but we just can’t keep up.

Mr. Uchytil said we are looking for a business that will be able to take this oil and burn it at no cost to Docks & Harbors.

4. Lumberman Status UpdateMr. Borg said the new owner has been sent a letter stating he has until October 18th to removehis vessel from our property. He has failed to remove the vessel. Staff contacted the CoastGuard to find out the overall condition of the vessel and using their pollution inspectors wastheir way to board the vessel. There was significant oil found in the bilges and old stuff found.They will get back to us on the actual amount found. They were on the vessel for seven oreight hours. They will get a report done in the next few days and he will brief the Board at thenext meeting. Mr. Borg said he spoke with the owner and he indicated that he needed 30 moredays and he intended to sell some items on the boat and get towed to Petersburg. He was notgranted the 30 days. Moving forward, if there is a significant amount of pollutants on thisvessel, the Coast Guard would be willing to make this safe. If Docks & Harbors does end upwith this vessel, it will be an approximately $200,000 effort to dispose of it. Mr. Borg has arequest with CBJ Law for an impound process and he is waiting to hear back.


Mr. Eiler asked what is the next step to avoid this happening in the future?

Mr. Borg said the Anchoring Out Regulation is being reviewed by CBJ Law and after thatcomes back it will be advertised for 21 days, have a public hearing and then go to theAssembly for final adoption.

Mr. Simpson requested to bring that back to the OPS for review also.

5. Vessel ImpoundsMr. Creswell said staff has been working on getting vessels moving for about the last eightmonths with the construction coming up. There was a need to get a lot of vessels moved andthere was going to be a crunch for space. Staff was also aware that there were a lot of vesselsin the Harbor that have not moved with some upwards of 10 years. Our regulation requires aboat to leave the Harbor three times per year under its own power. Initially approximately 40letters were issued to vessels that hadn’t moved in over a year. Out of those forty letters, wecurrently have nine boats that have been impounded and one pending which are being storedon H float in Aurora Harbor. Probably eight of these boats will never run again and a coupleof the boats staff did not even go on because of the sanitary conditions. He was happy to seethis process worked as well as it did having 30 run out of the 40. Harbor Officer Mr.Holloway worked with the boat owners to get the boats running. The next process is sendingthe nine boats to auction. Anything sold will be sold with a caveat that they will leave the


13

Harbor. We will move onto Harris Harbor next spring and go through the process all over again.

Committee Discussion/Public Comment Mr. Eiler asked how many boats are currently impounded system wide?

Mr. Creswell said there are several standing impounds. If that boats shows up in the Harbor we can impound it. There are nine currently impounded.

Mr. Ridgway asked if there is a good estimate in terms of what these impounds cost CBJ in terms of time, wages, and costs of disposal?

Mr. Creswell said yes, but he does not have those numbers tonight. They are tracked on an excel sheet. Depending on the size of the boat it runs from $1,000 to $9,000. Clearing these boats out of the Harbor has resulted in seven or eight police calls a week down to zero. Other patrons have noticed and are happy with the results and staff is getting compliments daily.

Mr. Borg said it costs roughly $6,000 per vessel and roughly $60,000 to $65,000 to clean up all of Aurora. These fees will go to collections, but we don’t let anyone in collections come back in the Harbors.

Mr. Ridgway said the cleanup efforts are noticeable.

Mr. Uchytil asked for an update on the vessel Whimsea.

Mr. Borg said the Whimsea is a vessel that caught fire and sank in Statter Harbor recently. The owner contacted me and he is upset that the Coast Guard presented him with $160,000 clean up fee. The owner did not have insurance. Harbors sent him a bill for a little over $4,000 for disposal fees. He was very angry when he called because he has been paying the vessel disposal fee surcharge which is $.25 per foot if you don’t have insurance. When he was staying in Statter which is a transient harbor, you don’t pay that. Only people with permanent assigned stalls pay the disposal fee. He was under the impression he had insurance with us. He is now saying that he had thousands of dollars of snap on tools on the vessel when it sank. Mr. Borg said he disposed of the vessel after the fire and after everyone inspected it. The owner claims he was not given time to recover the tools. Mr. Borg said he tried to explain the process but the owner did not want to listen. This event happened in June and this is the first he has heard from the owner.

Mr. Uchytil said Docks& Harbor incurred a little over $11,000 in fees. We took that to CBJ Risk to run through our insurance and they covered everything except the $5,000 deductible. We ended only billing the owner for $4,000. This was the vessel staff thought the fire was arson. It burned to the water line and sank. Mr. Trucano raised the vessel and took to his yard where it sat until the investigators were done with it and then he was instructed to take it to the dump.


14

Mr. Donek asked if the impound vessels should go out to auction or is it a waste of time and just take to the dump?

Mr. Uchytil said this is required by ordinance to make them available.

Mr. Creswell said these boats will have several thousand dollars for their minimum bid to cover the impound fees.

6. Boat InsuranceMr. Creswell said the vessel surcharge that we currently charge only applies to permanent stallholders. There are 1201 stalls and currently 551 permanent assigned stalls and 120 of thesestall holders are paying the vessels disposal surcharge which ends up to be approximately 20%of our permanent stall holders that do not have insurance. In FY17 $19,500 was collected forthe vessel disposal surcharge. We did see a presentation on boat insurance at the AAHPAConference in Petersburg and it showed us that vessel insurance is difficult. Washington hasmade it easier by having a State Law to fall back on. The Harbormaster and I will continue towork on this and talk with other Harbors to come up with a solution. As you hear tonight,this is very important.

Committee Discussion/Public CommentMr. Eiler suggested increasing the surcharge over time.

X. Committee and Member Reports

1. Operations/Planning Committee Meeting- Wednesday, October 17th, 2017 - CANCELLED

2. Finance Committee Meeting CANCELLED

3. Member Reports

4. Assembly Lands Committee Liaison Report –Mr. Eiler said the Lands Committee met and the primary topic of concern for Docks &Harbors was the land conveyance at Indian Point. The full report is online.

5. Auke Bay Steering Committee Liaison Report – No Report

XI. Port Engineer’s Report – Mr. Gillette’s written report is in the packet.He said the ABMS transfer is pending the final stages of that transfer. The Department ofEducation has issued a quit claim deed to the University of Alaska and working on getting thatrecorded. MARAD is a little behind and MARAD attorney’s and CBJ’s attorney’s need to talk tocome up with a solution on language. After that is finalized it will be a couple of weeks before thequit claim deed is received to be signed and recorded. After that is recorded he will meet with theCDD and work on the subdivision process. He has already applied for a preliminary plat review.Staff is working on addressing comments.

Mr. Eiler asked the timeline on the Little Rock Dump Feasibility Study?


15

Mr. Gillette said staff did receive a preliminary report and he did distribute at the last OPS meeting. He will check in with PND to get an update.

XII. Harbormaster’s Report

Mr. Borg reported;Mr. Creswell is moving to Statter Harbor to be the Supervisor at that location. Mr. Hinton is the Senior Harbor Officer. He took that positon in July.

XIII. Port Director’s Report

Mr. Uchytil reported;• NCS has mobilized for Aurora Harbor phase II, their crane is in the Harbor. The floats

will start arriving mid-December. Their plan is to work six days a week and be complete on the substantial completion date of March 31st.

• Staff submitted three TIGER grants. Results will be known in the spring.o Juneau Fisheries Terminal - $25Mo Marine Services - $25Mo Elevated Seawalk between Statter Harbor & ABMS - $12M

• Working on a RFI for property management at the ABMS.• Docks & Harbors new Assembly Liaison is Rob Edwardson.• Mr. Gillette and I are working on a policy for the 1% for art light guidelines.

XIV. Assembly Liaison Report – None

XV. Board Administrative Matters

a. Ops/Planning Committee Meeting – Wednesday, November 15th, 2017 at 5:00pm -

b. Finance Committee Meeting – Cancelled

c. Board Meeting – Thursday, November 30th, 2017 at 5:00pm –

XVI. Adjournment – The regular Board Meeting adjourned at 7:47 pm.

Taku Dock to Marine Park Urban Design PlanPreferred Master Plan - Phase I

Food trucks/carts

USS Juneau Memorial Plaza

Vendor Area

Vendor Area

Interpretive kiosk

Restrooms

N

0 50 100 FT

150’ float dockGangway

Visitor Center with canopy

Deck over (private)

Seawalk expansion to accommodate float

Potential future seawalk

expansion

Realign stairs with crosswalk

Vendor area

Restroom

Ramp Retail

Retail

Serv

ice

Widened sidewalk

Canopy

Paved plaza

Decked open space

B permit loading (14 stalls)

SOUTH FRANKLIN STREET

SEAWALK

Taku Dock to Marine Park Urban Design PlanPreferred Master Plan - Phase II

Shelter

N

0 50 100 FT

Waterfront Attraction

Food trucks/carts

USS Juneau Memorial Plaza

Interpretive kiosk

Restrooms

150’ float dockGangway

Visitor Center with canopy

Deck over (private)

Seawalk expansion to accommodate float

Potential future seawalk

expansion

Realign stairs with crosswalk

Vendor area

Restroom

Ramp Retail

Retail

Serv

ice

Widened sidewalk

Canopy

Paved plaza

B permit loading (14 stalls)

SOUTH FRANKLIN STREET

SEAWALK Vendor Area

Vendor Area

Taku Dock to Marine Park Urban Design PlanPreferred Master Plan - Sketch

1

Gary Gillette

From: Sally Smith <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 12:23 PMTo: Carl Uchytil; Gary GilletteSubject: Sea Walk and Waterfront DevelopmentAttachments: This is how Big Oil will die perspicacity.xyz.pdf;

ATT00001.htm

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Completed

Hi, Carl and Gary—Though I wish I could attend tonight’s meeting, I have another commitment. As plans are discussed for further development along the Juneau waterfront, please consider the following issues as they impact Douglas Island. Light. It would be marvelous if restrictions could be put on exterior lighting to assure it focuses only on the immediate activity. Too often we get light in our eyes over here in Douglas—the stadium lights from the rock dump, as well as work lights which are not properly positioned. A twinkling of amber light can be warm and pleasant; a blast of white light can be extremely annoying. Noise. OMG. Please limit allowable noise and be infinitely certain that there are restricted times. Outdoor events too often impact Douglas when the band (it’s usually a band) isn’t under control. Water and atmospheric conditions amplify sound. Then, add the mountains and it just reverberates. Though I’ve never called in a complaint, I know of others who have. Traffic. Long an issue in the South Franklin corridor, traffic conditions have been exacerbated since the marine transfer companies consolidated to the rock dump. One of the stated reasons the ferry had to move from downtown was to clear the area of trucks so tourism could flourish, yet truck/container traffic has multiplied in the years since the consolidation. Given increased tourism, conflicts are certain to worsen. As a long term goal (the shorter, the better), relocating the marine lines would have many positive effects.* Park space or Parking? This, of course, is a bit of a conundrum and one which has plagued Juneau for a long, long time, especially since our flatland footprint is so limited. When I was mayor, we envisioned and developed Marine Park Plaza as a drive through, pick-up/drop-off area for tour busses and a recreational area for the community. The plan was to develop activities which would draw people downtown. As soon as I left office, the plaza was opened as a parking lot “to help ease the crunch” until the Main Street parking garage was built. It has never reverted back. My point is that we keep using potential park area for parking, an expensive and questionable use of limited space. Before more land is allocated to parking, please consider the possibility that driverless cars are coming sooner than we think. Perhaps we would be better served by drop-off and pick-up areas. Interestingly, I have learned that revenue losses at O’Hare Airport are directly linked to a decline in airport parking. It is cheaper to

2

take Uber or Lyft. How much cheaper will it be when there’s no need for a driver? This attached article provides interesting insight about the development and horizon for the driverless car.

Science, technology, and navigating an uncertain future

This is how Big Oil will dieMAY 24, 2017 ~ SETH

It’s 2025, and 800,000 tons of used high strength steel is coming up for auction.

The steel made up the Keystone XL pipeline, finally completed in 2019, two years after

the project launched with great fanfare after approval by the Trump administration.

The pipeline was built at a cost of about $7 billion, bringing oil from the Canadian tar

sands to the US, with a pit stop in the town of Baker, Montana, to pick up US crude

from the Bakken formation. At its peak, it carried over 500,000 barrels a day for

processing at refineries in Texas and Louisiana.

But in 2025, no one wants the oil.

The Keystone XL will go down as the world’s last great fossil fuels infrastructure

project. TransCanada, the pipeline’s operator, charged about $10 per barrel for the

transportation services, which means the pipeline extension earned about $5 million

per day, or $1.8 billion per year. But after shutting down less than four years into its

expected 40 year operational life, it never paid back its costs.

The Keystone XL closed thanks to a confluence of technologies that came together

faster than anyone in the oil and gas industry had ever seen. It’s hard to blame them –

the transformation of the transportation sector over the last several years has been the

biggest, fastest change in the history of human civilization, causing the bankruptcy of

blue chip companies like Exxon Mobil and General Motors, and directly impacting

MENU

perspicacity.xyz

https://perspicacity.xyz/2017/05/24/this-is-how-big-oil-will-die/

https://perspicacity.xyz/author/heronscientific/

https://perspicacity.xyz/

over $10 trillion in economic output.

And blame for it can be traced to a beguilingly simple, yet fatal problem: the internal

combustion engine has too many moving parts.

The Cummins Diesel Engine, US Patent No. 2,408,298, filed April 1943, awarded Sept 24, 1946

Let’s bring this back to today: Big Oil is perhaps the most feared and respected

industry in history. Oil is warming the planet – cars and trucks contribute about 15% of

global fossil fuels emissions – yet this fact barely dents its use. Oil fuels the most

politically volatile regions in the world, yet we’ve decided to send military aid to

unstable and untrustworthy dictators, because their oil is critical to our own security.

For the last century, oil has dominated our economics and our politics. Oil is power.

Yet I argue here that technology is about to undo a century of political and economic

dominance by oil. Big Oil will be cut down in the next decade by a combination of

smartphone apps, long-life batteries, and simpler gearing. And as is always the case

with new technology, the undoing will occur far faster than anyone thought possible.

https://www.google.com/patents/US2408298

To understand why Big Oil is in far weaker a position than anyone realizes, let’s take a

closer look at the lynchpin of oil’s grip on our lives: the internal combustion engine,

and the modern vehicle drivetrain.

BMW 8 speed automatic transmission, showing lots of fine German engineered gearing. From Euro

Car News.

Cars are complicated.

Behind the hum of a running engine lies a carefully balanced dance between

sheathed steel pistons, intermeshed gears, and spinning rods – a choreography that

lasts for millions of revolutions. But millions is not enough, and as we all have

experienced, these parts eventually wear, and fail. Oil caps leak. Belts fray.

http://www.eurocarnews.com/4/0/0/1355/bmw-8-spd-automatic-transmission-cutaway/gallery-detail.html

Transmissions seize.

To get a sense of what problems may occur, here is a list of the most common vehicle

repairs from 2015:

1. Replacing an oxygen sensor – $249

2. Replacing a catalytic converter – $1,153

3. Replacing ignition coil(s) and spark plug(s) – $390

4. Tightening or replacing a fuel cap – $15

5. Thermostat replacement – $210

6. Replacing ignition coil(s) – $236

7. Mass air flow sensor replacement – $382

8. Replacing spark plug wire(s) and spark plug(s) – $331

9. Replacing evaporative emissions (EVAP) purge control valve – $168

10. Replacing evaporative emissions (EVAP) purging solenoid – $184

And this list raises an interesting observation: None of these failures exist in an electric

vehicle.

The point has been most often driven home by Tony Seba, a Stanford professor and

guru of “disruption”, who revels in pointing out that an internal combustion engine

drivetrain contains about 2,000 parts, while an electric vehicle drivetrain contains

about 20. All other things being equal, a system with fewer moving parts will be more

reliable than a system with more moving parts.

And that rule of thumb appears to hold for cars. In 2006, the National Highway

Transportation Safety Administration estimated that the average vehicle, built solely

on internal combustion engines, lasted 150,000 miles.

Current estimates for the lifetime today’s electric vehicles are over 500,000 miles.

The ramifications of this are huge, and bear repeating. Ten years ago, when I bought

my Prius, it was common for friends to ask how long the battery would last – a battery

http://blog.credit.com/2016/04/the-top-10-car-repairs-of-2015-141786/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M27KECEL5Zo

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/809952

https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/tesla-battery-degradation/

replacement at 100,000 miles would easily negate the value of improved fuel

efficiency. But today there are anecdotal stories of Prius’s logging over 600,000 miles

on a single battery.

The story for Teslas is unfolding similarly. Tesloop, a Tesla-centric ride-hailing

company has already driven its first Model S for more 200,000 miles, and seen only an

6% loss in battery life. A battery lifetime of 1,000,000 miles may even be in reach.

This increased lifetime translates directly to a lower cost of ownership: extending an

EVs life by 3-4 X means an EVs capital cost, per mile, is 1/3 or 1/4 that of a gasoline-

powered vehicle. Better still, the cost of switching from gasoline to electricity delivers

another savings of about 1/3 to 1/4 per mile. And electric vehicles do not need oil

changes, air filters, or timing belt replacements; the 200,000 mile Tesloop never even

had its brakes replaced. The most significant repair cost on an electric vehicle is from

worn tires.

For emphasis: The total cost of owning an electric vehicle is, over its entire life,

roughly 1/4 to 1/3 the cost of a gasoline-powered vehicle.

Of course, with a 500,000 mile life a car will last 40-50 years. And it seems absurd to

expect a single person to own just one car in her life.

But of course a person won’t own just one car. The most likely scenario is that, thanks

to software, a person won’t own any.

***

Here is the problem with electric vehicle economics: A dollar today, invested into the

stock market at a 7% average annual rate of return, will be worth $15 in 40 years.

Another way of saying this is the value, today, of that 40th year of vehicle use is

approximately 1/15th that of the first.

The consumer simply has little incentive to care whether or not a vehicle lasts 40

http://www.hybridcars.com/toyota-prius-taxi-running-strong-with-600000-miles-and-original-battery/

https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/29/tales-from-a-tesla-model-s-at-200k-miles/

https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2013/long-term-road-test/2013-tesla-model-s-cost-of-gas-vs-electricity.html

years. By that point the car will have outmoded technology, inefficient operation, and

probably a layer of rust. No one wants their car to outlive their marriage.

But that investment logic looks very different if you are driving a vehicle for a living.

A New York City cab driver puts in, on average, 180 miles per shift (well within the

range of a modern EV battery), or perhaps 50,000 miles per work year. At that usage

rate, the same vehicle will last roughly 10 years. The economics, and the social

acceptance, get better.

And if the vehicle was owned by a cab company, and shared by drivers, the miles per

year can perhaps double again. Now the capital is depreciated in 5 years, not 10. This

is, from a company’s perspective, a perfectly normal investment horizon.

A fleet can profit from an electric vehicle in a way that an individual owner cannot.

Here is a quick, top-down analysis on what it’s worth to switch to EVs: The IRS allows

charges of 53.5¢ per mile in 2017, a number clearly derived for gasoline vehicles. At 1/4

the price, a fleet electric vehicle should cost only 13¢ per mile, a savings of 40¢ per

mile.

40¢ per mile is not chump change – if you are a NYC cab driver putting 50,000 miles a

year onto a vehicle, that’s $20,000 in savings each year. But a taxi ride in NYC

today costs $2/mile; that same ride, priced at $1.60 per mile, will still cost significantly

more than the 53.5¢ for driving the vehicle you already own. The most significant cost

of driving is still the driver.

But that, too, is about to change. Self-driving taxis are being tested this year in

Pittsburgh, Phoenix, and Boston, as well as Singapore, Dubai, and Wuzhen, China.

And here is what is disruptive for Big Oil: Self-driving vehicles get to combine the

capital savings from the improved lifetime of EVs, with the savings from eliminating

the driver.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/taxi-cab-statistics/

https://www.irs.gov/uac/2017-standard-mileage-rates-for-business-and-medical-and-moving-announced

https://www.wired.com/2016/09/self-driving-autonomous-uber-pittsburgh/

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/04/waymo-trials-free-self-driving-taxi-service-in-phoenix/

https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/25/15423090/nutonomy-boston-autonomous-car-test-expansion

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-25/world-s-first-self-driving-taxis-debut-in-singapore

http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-supply-200-self-driving-taxis-dubai-2017-2

https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/17/baidus-self-driving-cars-begin-public-test-in-wuzhen-china/

The costs of electric self-driving cars will be so low, it will be cheaper to hail a ride than

to drive the car you already own.

***

Today we view automobiles not merely as transportation, but as potent symbols of

money, sex, and power. Yet cars are also fundamentally a technology. And history has

told us that technologies can be disrupted in the blink of an eye.

Take as an example my own 1999 job interview with the Eastman Kodak company. It

did not go well.

At the end of 1998, my father had gotten me a digital camera as a present to celebrate

completion of my PhD. The camera took VGA resolution pictures – about 0.3

megapixels – and saved them to floppy disks. By comparison, a conventional film

camera had a nominal resolution of about 6 megapixels. When printed, my photos

looked more like impressionist art than reality.

However, that awful, awful camera was really easy to use. I never had to go to the store

to buy film. I never had to get pictures printed. I never had to sort through a shoebox

full of crappy photos. Looking at pictures became fun.

Wife, with mildly uncooperative cat, January 1999. Photo is at the camera’s original resolution.

I asked my interviewer what Kodak thought of the rise of digital; she replied it was not

a concern, that film would be around for decades. I looked at her like she was nuts.

But she wasn’t nuts, she was just deep in the Kodak culture, a world where film had

always been dominant, and always would be.

This graph plots the total units sold of film cameras (grey) versus digital (blue, bars cut

off). In 1998, when I got my camera, the market share of digital wasn’t even measured.

It was a rounding error.

By 2005, the market share of film cameras were a rounding error.

A plot of the rise of digital cameras (blue) and the fall of analog (grey). Original from Mayflower via

mirrorlessrumors, slightly modified for use here.

In seven years, the camera industry had flipped. The film cameras went from residing

on our desks, to a sale on Craigslist, to a landfill. Kodak, a company who reached a

peak market value of $30 billion in 1997, declared bankruptcy in 2012. An

insurmountable giant was gone.

That was fast. But industries can turn even faster: In 2007, Nokia had 50% of the

mobile phone market, and its market cap reached $150 billion. But that was also the

year Apple introduced the first smartphone. By the summer of 2012, Nokia’s market

share had dipped below 5%, and its market cap fell to just $6 billion.

In less than five years, another company went from dominance to afterthought.

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/chart-shows-how-digital-cameras-killed-analog-cameras-and-how-the-selfie-culture-almost-killed-digital-cameras-after-that/

http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/08/17/kodaks_patents_valued_at_5_times_more_than_companys_market_cap

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/09/09/the-nokia-era-comes-to-an-end-and-what-this-means.aspx

A quarter-by-quarter summary of Nokia’s market share in cell phones. From Statista.

Big Oil believes it is different. I am less optimistic for them.

An autonomous vehicle will cost about $0.13 per mile to operate, and even less as

battery life improves. By comparison, your 20 miles per gallon automobile costs $0.10

per mile to refuel if gasoline is $2/gallon, and that is before paying for insurance,

repairs, or parking. Add those, and the price of operating a vehicle you have already

paid off shoots to $0.20 per mile, or more.

And this is what will kill oil: It will cost less to hail an autonomous electric vehicle than

to drive the car that you already own.

If you think this reasoning is too coarse, consider the recent analysis from the

consulting company RethinkX (run by the aforementioned Tony Seba), which built a

https://www.statista.com/statistics/263438/market-share-held-by-nokia-smartphones-since-2007/

https://perspicacity.xyz/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/dde70-rethinkxreport_051517.pdf

much more detailed, sophisticated model to explicitly analyze the future costs of

autonomous vehicles. Here is a sampling of what they predict:

Self-driving cars will launch around 2021

A private ride will be priced at 16¢ per mile, falling to 10¢ over time.

A shared ride will be priced at 5¢ per mile, falling to 3¢ over time.

By 2022, oil use will have peaked

By 2023, used car prices will crash as people give up their vehicles. New car sales

for individuals will drop to nearly zero.

By 2030, gasoline use for cars will have dropped to near zero, and total crude oil

use will have dropped by 30% compared to today.

The driver behind all this is simple: Given a choice, people will select the cheaper

option.

Your initial reaction may be to believe that cars are somehow different – they are built

into the fabric of our culture. But consider how people have proven more than happy

to sell seemingly unyielding parts of their culture for far less money. Think about how

long a beloved mom and pop store lasts after Walmart moves into town, or how hard

we try to “Buy American” when a cheaper option from China emerges.

And autonomous vehicles will not only be cheaper, but more convenient as well –

there is no need to focus on driving, there will be fewer accidents, and no need to

circle the lot for parking. And your garage suddenly becomes a sunroom.

For the moment, let’s make the assumption that the RethinkX team has their analysis

right (and I broadly agree ): Self-driving EVs will be approved worldwide starting

around 2021, and adoption will occur in less than a decade.

How screwed is Big Oil?

****

[1]

Perhaps the metaphors with film camera or cell phones are stretched. Perhaps the

better way to analyze oil is to consider the fate of another fossil fuel: coal.

The coal market is experiencing a shock today similar to what oil will experience in the

2020s. Below is a plot of total coal production and consumption in the US, from 2001

to today. As inexpensive natural gas has pushed coal out of the market, coal

consumption has dropped roughly 25%, similar to the 30% drop that RethinkX

anticipates for oil. And it happened in just a decade.

Coal consumption has dropped 25% from its peak. From the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy.

The result is not pretty. The major coal companies, who all borrowed to finance

capital improvements while times were good, were caught unaware. As coal prices

crashed, their loan payments became a larger and larger part of their balance sheets;

while the coal companies could continue to pay for operations, they could not pay

their creditors.

The four largest coal producers lost 99.9% of their market value over the last 6 years.

Today, over half of coal is being mined by companies in some form of bankruptcy.

http://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/policy-digests/coal-dilemma

The four largest coal companies had a combined market value of approximately zero in 2016. This

image is one element of a larger graphic on the collapse of coal from Visual Capitalist.

When self-driving cars are released, consumption of oil will similarly collapse.

Oil drilling will cease, as existing fields become sufficient to meet demand. Refiners,

whose huge capital investments are dedicated to producing gasoline for automobiles,

will write off their loans, and many will go under entirely. Even some pipeline

operators, historically the most profitable portion of the oil business, will be

challenged as high cost supply such as the Canadian tar sands stop producing.

A decade from now, many investors in oil may be wiped out. Oil will still be in

widespread use, even under this scenario – applications such as road tarring are not as

amenable to disruption by software. But much of today’s oil drilling, transport, and

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/decline-of-coal-three-charts/

refining infrastructure will be redundant, or ill-fit to handle the heavier oils needed for

powering ships, heating buildings, or making asphalt. And like today’s coal companies,

oil companies like TransCanada may have no money left to clean up the mess they’ve

left.

***

Of course, it would be better for the environment, investors, and society if oil

companies curtailed their investing today, in preparation for the long winter ahead.

Belief in global warming or the risks of oil spills is no longer needed to oppose oil

projects – oil infrastructure like the Keystone XL will become a stranded asset before it

can ever return its investment.

Unless we have the wisdom not to build it.

The battle over oil has historically been a personal battle – a skirmish between tribes

over politics and morality, over how we define ourselves and our future. But the battle

over self-driving cars will be fought on a different front. It will be about reliability,

efficiency, and cost. And for the first time, Big Oil will be on the weaker side.

Within just a few years, Big Oil will stagger and start to fall. For anyone who feels

uneasy about this, I want to emphasize that this prediction isn’t driven by

environmental righteousness or some left-leaning fantasy. It’s nothing personal. It’s

just business.

****

1 Thinking about how fast a technology will flip is worth another post on its own.

Suffice it to say that the key issues are (1) how big is the improvement?, and (2) is there

a channel to market already established? The improvement in this case is a drop in cost

of >2X – that’s pretty large. And the channel to market – smartphones – is already

deployed. As of a year ago, 15% of Americans had hailed a ride using an app, so there is

a small barrier to entry as people learn this new behavior, but certainly no larger than

https://www.vox.com/2016/9/2/12757074/coal-bankruptcy-mine-cleanup

http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/05/19/on-demand-ride-hailing-apps/

39 thoughts on “This is how Big Oil will die”

Geoffrey

MAY 24, 2017 AT 10:31 AM

Love the digital camera market analogy.

Reply

Seth

MAY 24, 2017 AT 10:48 AM

Thanks! I worked with someone who was on the executive team that reported the

coming collapse to Kodak’s CEO. He kicked them out of the room. It’s hard to hear

that message when it means the end of all you know.

the barrier to smartphone adoption was in 2007. So as I said, I broadly believe that the

roll-out will occur in about a decade. But any more detail would require an entirely new

post.

Share this:

Like this:

Loading...

< PREVIOUSHow to think critically about Elon Musk’s NeuraLink

NEXT >Will you hire a robot to be your chauffeur?

http://meometer.com/

https://perspicacity.xyz/2017/05/24/this-is-how-big-oil-will-die/?replytocom=65#respond

http://heronscientific.wordpress.com/

https://perspicacity.xyz/2017/05/24/this-is-how-big-oil-will-die/?share=twitter&nb=1&nb=1

https://perspicacity.xyz/2017/05/24/this-is-how-big-oil-will-die/?share=facebook&nb=1&nb=1

https://perspicacity.xyz/2017/05/24/this-is-how-big-oil-will-die/?share=google-plus-1&nb=1&nb=1

https://perspicacity.xyz/2017/04/27/how-to-think-critically-about-elon-musks-neuralink/

https://perspicacity.xyz/2017/06/07/will-you-hire-a-robot-to-be-your-chauffeur/

Reply

Patrick Lagrandeur

AUGUST 8, 2017 AT 8:06 AM

You can decide to deny it or decide to bounce back and reinvent the business

before it sinks

NYA

MAY 25, 2017 AT 9:52 AM

Nice analysis. But can we compare cameras and cars in an apples to apples manner?

Digital cameras did not maker their operators redundant. So people could still enjoy

the experience of operating cameras, But for self driving cars to succeed their

operators will have to be made redundant. People who enjoyed the experience of

driving may still want to drive.

Reply

Seth

MAY 25, 2017 AT 10:02 AM

I agree, people will still want to drive for fun. But gas sales will look a lot like vinyl

records sales – a niche business that serves enthusiasts. I own a Subaru Forrester

and go camping with it several times every summer; but if that was my only

driving for pleasure, I personally would rather sell it, reclaim my garage, and rent a

car for special occasions. I bet I am not that unusual in this regard.

I’ve thought a lot about the best metaphor for the transition, and weirdly digital

cameras fit best. In film cameras, you are using a consumable and have to go back



http://heronscientific.wordpress.com/

to the store to ‘fill up’. And when the film stores start to disappear, it becomes a

harder hobby to maintain. No metaphor is perfect, but that was as close as I could

get.

Reply

Patrick Lagrandeur


I feel the same with my VW TDI I enjoy for vacations. But quite frankly I use it

70% of the time for commuting and 30% really for enjoyment. I would consider

a shared car for work and rent something for fun when I want to explore.

You can extend the digital camera case, to the digital watch case. In early 70s the

Swiss watches dominated the market and presented a pet project to an

international fair: digitial watch. Swiss claimed noboby would really buy a

watch without gears nor complex mechanisms. So they presented their

invention without patenting it. Then Texas instrument and Seiko who were

attendeding, found it was a great idea to propose it to custommers. Result Swiss

watch industry lost its share part and the sophisticated product is now bought

by elite. Simpler and cheaper watches dominate the market now.

Tesla was founded 100 years after GM and Ford. It’s unbelievable Tesla passed

them in the electrical car business. Maybe lack of vision, volontary sight

obstruction mixed with political obstruction, kept these centenial companies

away from EV cars. Of course they tried, but without corporate convictions.

We laughed at first digital camera’s resolution and we laugh at electrical car

autonomy. I hope old fashion car industry will stop laughing and realize ”EV car

in the mirror are closer than they appear”


David Thomas


How about analog, manually-operated, pay-inside gas pumps versus pay-at-the-

pump, digital gas pumps? Although there remains some legacy equipment in low-

volume settings, sales of new pumps flipped very quickly, driven by labor cost

savings.

Reply

Seth

AUGUST 2, 2017 AT 8:35 PM

David, that’s absolutely right. More broadly, there are precious few examples of

both an old and new technology sharing the market for any length of time.

Much more common is for the old to go; after all, if the new was not growing in

cost/performance faster, it never would have caught the old in the first place.

While defenders of oil are focused hard on today’s data, these historical

examples offer a much more ominous picture of the future.

Steve Szabo

MAY 27, 2017 AT 9:40 PM

Nice work on this Seth..

Steve Szabo Rural Energy Group 303-809-3547 [email protected]

>

Reply


mailto:[email protected]


Pingback: Will you hire a robot to be your chauffeur? | perspicacity.xyz

Michael

JUNE 13, 2017 AT 2:18 AM

An interesting analysis. As to the analogy – we have an even close one, albeit in a more

distant past. Just 100 years ago, people rode horses to get from A to B. Today, people

still ride horses, but only for fun. And its a bloody expensive hobby. I think same fate

expects the internal combustion cars.

Although I think the main driver for change is, ironically, the elimination of the driver,

the electric engine will just speed up the decline of oil and car sales.

Reply

Joris De Winter

JUNE 13, 2017 AT 3:46 PM

Nice views, but I think you forget how people love their cars as being… theirs. For

many, they’re their second homes, where they can do whatever they like, leave their

stuff and trash if they so wish etc. Kind regards, Joris (Belgium)

Reply

Seth

JUNE 13, 2017 AT 7:56 PM

Joris, I appreciate your prediction, and thanks for reading. I guess my rejoinder is

that photographers loved film too – I know photographers who were still using film

in 2005, but it quickly became less and less of their business. Culture is difficult to

measure: We will find out the answer together soon.

http://perspicacity.xyz/2017/06/07/will-you-hire-a-robot-to-be-your-chauffeur/

http://smalleuropeancountry.wordpress.com/



Reply

David Figuera

JUNE 14, 2017 AT 11:23 AM

Interesting analysis, sound arguments. Like you, I have focused a lot on the internal

combustion engine, back in the past working as an analyst for the Venezuelan oil

industry.

The only thing about your analysis is that it seems to focus only in the USA. So, how

can we apply it to the whole planet? Not all countries are at the same level in regards to

the set of variables needed for that disruption to happen. Not that it won’t happen, but

the rhythm of incorporation will be very diverse. We could even group countries

based on that rhythm. That would be a thorough and interesting analysis.

Greetings from Venezuela, a country where most people think we are sitting on a

treasure made of oil and do not imagine that it could actually remain there forever

because of a huge disruption like you describe.

Reply

George

JUNE 19, 2017 AT 11:10 AM

No doubt the switch – when it happens – between ICE AND EV will catch many by

surprise. However, replacing a $100 camera with another is not the same as replacing a

$35,000 automobile. If we assume your math is correct and ICE vehicles become

worthless, oil prices drop to the marginal costs of the most efficient producers

(perhaps $10 / barrel), and mechanics have nothing to do (and thus drop their salary

demands), we have a fleet of 350 million vehicles in the U.S. which can be acquired at a

very low cost, will last 15 years +, will be fuelled by very cheap gas, and serviced by

cheap mechanics desperate for work. For this reason alone, ICE vehicles will be with us



for a very long time.

The other concerns surround self -driving vehicles. Even assuming the technology is

tremendous, how many lawsuits will be threatened or succeed based on the coding of

the system? In a silly example, assume a bus full of kids is forced to chose between

going off a cliff or running down a group of nuns? Even if you can prove the system is

better than having people drive – in the aggregate – , lawyers will have a field day

arguing the specific cases when injury occurs.

Also, no doubt there will be problems in the programming. Can you guess what the

reaction will be the day after passengers are killed because they are driven into a truck

carrying mirrors, or their car follows old road markings into a wall? Their will be

errors, and the day after they occur people will be running to their old cars.

Additionally, what about hackers? Does anyone believe the system will be 100% free

from terrorist attacks? Even the threat of an attack would cause chaos.

Reply

Seth

JUNE 19, 2017 AT 11:22 AM

George,

I agree: Many people will keep their ICE cars. But if they are used mostly for

weekend getaways, they won’t contribute much economically. Oil continues to

exist, but nowhere near it’s current volume, and not with its current political and

economic clout.

As far as the corner cases go, including hackers: There are thousands of engineers

already working these issues, and while it’s impossible to solve them all, it is

possible to make them very rare. And I believe they can be made rare enough that

we don’t think about them as we make our purchase decisions. After all, the current

electrical grid is vulnerable to hacking: How much complaining do we actually


hear?

Risks will continue to exist, but if they are lowered by self-driving, the insurance

costs can fall just like other costs do. We don’t have to be perfect, just better than we

were before.

I think your concerns are spot on. But I remain skeptical they will slow things

down.

Reply

John Swallow


George certainly knows more about this subject of vehicles and how they affect

petroleum usage than what Seth Miller presents in his poorly researched article on

oil and vehicles.

Year Cars Produced

2014 87,037,611

2013 65,140,268

*Numbers do not include commercial vehicles

Rank Country 2013 2012 2011

1 China 16,664,502 15,523,658 14,485,326

2 Japan 7,859,320 8,554,219 7,158,525

3 Germany 5,438,155 5,388,456 5,871,918

5 U.S.A. 4,540,985 4,105,853 2,966,133

4 South Korea 4,160,596 4,167,089 4,221,617

6 India 3,212,988 3,285,496 3,053,871

http://www.statisticbrain.com/cars-produced-in-the-world/

Reply




Stella

AUGUST 14, 2017 AT 9:41 PM

Yeah, just like everyone went racing back to horses and buggies once those damn

“horseless carriages” started killing people!

Reply

Linda Sawyer

JUNE 30, 2017 AT 1:27 PM

While I appreciate your analogy it ignores the fact that digital adoption did not require

anywhere near as much of an infrastructure transformation as will be required for EVs

to become mainstream. You replied to an earlier comment with “…when the film

stores start to disappear, [using film] becomes a harder hobby to maintain.” Do you

believe gas stations will disappear more rapidly than charging stations will appear?

Shouldn’t the latter transformation precede the first?

Reply

Seth

JUNE 30, 2017 AT 2:42 PM

Linda, that’s the right question to ask. My assumption is that we won’t need

anything like the existing gas infrastructure, because autonomous vehicles will be

fleet-owned. In that sense, it makes no sense to deploy as a first step charging

stations that serve individuals. Logistically, this has more in common with

deploying cellular base stations than with gasoline stations – you want to optimize

to make sure that all served areas have effective coverage for autonomous vehicles.

How fast can a cell network be rolled out? My recollection was that when 4G



upgrades were done, a town was covered in about 18 months. The capital required

here will be higher – the superchargers cost roughly what a base station might, but

of course you have to buy cars as well. But the revenue will be higher too. It seems

tractable.

Reply

Charan Rawat

JULY 15, 2017 AT 5:25 AM

I am coming in a little late on this as read the article only recently. And this article

followed the other trilogy on Solar Power.

Read together, am absolutely convinced of Seth’s prognosis.

In india, the CEO of M&M, a leading vehicle manufacturer said that he fears

competition from Uber and other cab sharing services. They will dampen the demand

for personal vehicles, even if owning one has certain status sysmbol in India. With our

roads crammed with ever increasing number of vehicles and parking space at huge

premium, shared Servcies are a natural choice. Add to that the revolution in storage

battery technology – that will power your e-vehicles – stage is set for decline in

petroleum demand. On power generation side, India is investing big time in solar

power. With power supply and transmission quality improving, the demand for diesel

fired backup generators is coming down. And Indian Railways have implemented plan

to start installing solar panels on train couches that will generate sufficient power to

light up the cabins and run basic air conditioning – all hatbis today supported through

diesel fired generators in a large number of premium trains in India.

If a low income country like india is investing in alternate energy fornusage in varied

areas, decline in demand for petroleum is not so far fetched.

Reply



Seth

JULY 15, 2017 AT 7:46 AM

Charan, it’s fantastic to see your comments. It was India’s commitment to solar that

got me started down this path. That was not supposed to happen, at least based on

everything I had heard about how solar energy was a first world luxury. When India

announced that it would meet its Paris commitments early, that’s became a sign for

me that maybe the conventional wisdom was not just a little wrong, but a lot.

There perhaps is more hope for humanity than we realize.

Reply

John Swallow

AUGUST 2, 2017 AT 10:08 AM

Seth Miller, the “Scientist, inventor, entrepreneur”, who is “Mostly just trying to

understand the world.” sure needs to get out more and look at the world in a different

manner to really see the big picture of how things actually are.

“The Keystone XL closed thanks to a confluence of technologies that came together

faster than anyone in the oil and gas industry had ever seen. It’s hard to blame them — the transformation of the transportation sector over the last several years has been the

biggest, fastest change in the history of human civilization, causing the bankruptcy of

blue chip companies like Exxon Mobil and General Motors, and directly impacting

over $10 trillion in economic output.”

Seth Miller should know that transportation is a small part of what petroleum is used

for.

Here is another aspect of petroleum that needs to be considered when trying to figure

out why the price of gas and diesel is what it is. I’m reasonably sure that none of you

far left type anthropogenic global warming/ climate change people know just what all


Exxon-Mobil does for your everyday life that you have no idea about, and never will

because of your closed minded approach to this issue.

“A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items)

One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used

to make things like:

Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil

and more than

250 cubic feet of natural gas per day each! But, as shown here petroleum is not just

used for fuel.”

It appears that Seth Miller doesn’t consider all of those aircraft flying around the globe

to be part of the transportation system and just what it is that keeps them aloft.

2015 U.S.-Based Airline Traffic Data

Date: Thursday, March 24, 2016

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)

reported today that U.S. airlines and foreign airlines serving the United States carried

an all-time high of 895.5 million system wide (domestic and international) scheduled

service passengers in 2015, 5.0 percent more than the previous record high of 853.1

million reached in 2014. The system wide increase was the result of a 5.0 percent rise

from 2014 in the number of passengers on domestic flights (696.2 million in 2015) and

4.7 percent growth from 2014 in passengers on U.S. and foreign airlines’ flights to and

from the U.S. (199.4 million in 2015) (Tables 1, 1A, 5).

Passengers on All Scheduled U.S.-Based Flights, Domestic and International, 2003-

2015

SHAPE OF THE MARKET Over the next 20 years, Boeing is forecasting a need for

over 39,600 airplanes valued at more than $5.9 trillion. Aviation is becoming more

diverse, with approximately 38 percent of all new airplanes being delivered to airlines

based in the Asia region. An additional 40 percent will be delivered to airlines in

Europe and North America, with the remaining 22 percent to be delivered to the

Middle East, Latin America, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and Africa.

Single-aisle airplanes command the largest share of new deliveries, with airlines

needing over 28,100. These new airplanes will continue to stimulate growth for low-

cost carriers and will provide required replacements for older, less-efficient airplanes.

In addition, 9,100 new wide body airplanes will be delivered, which will allow airlines

to serve new markets more efficiently than in the past.

One can wonder at the mentality of anyone who would advocate that the

Airline/Aircraft business be eliminated to supposedly keep the earth’s temperature

from increasing. Some people like hard facts and apply logic while some, it seems,

only use useless ideological platforms to show their total ignorance about the climate

and what makes the world worth living in.

Mark Twain was obviously talking about Seth Miller’s kind of “science” when he stated

this: “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of

conjecture out of such trifling investment of facts.” Mark Twain

Reply

John Swallow

AUGUST 2, 2017 AT 10:15 AM

I notice that the links did not show up in my post

http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm

https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/press_releases/bts018_16

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/about-our-

market/assets/downloads/cmo_print_2016_final.pdf

Reply

John Swallow



http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm

https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/press_releases/bts018_16

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/about-our-market/assets/downloads/cmo_print_2016_final.pdf


Those who know nothing about the pipelines or solar energy, seem to have issues with

the oil industry. Do they also dislike Apple?

“Apple’s gains helped it overtake Exxon Mobil Corp. as the company with the biggest

market value. The Cupertino, California, electronics maker said late Tuesday that it

sold 37 million iPhones in its fiscal first quarter, the first period after the death of CEO

and co-founder Steve Jobs. That was coupled with a big jump in iPad sales to 15.4

million, and a more modest increase in Mac sales.

Apple’s net income leapt 118 percent from the same quarter a year earlier. Revenue

soared 73 percent. Both results blew the doors off Wall Street’s expectations.”

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/25/10234870-stocks-heading-up-

after-fed-announcement?lite

I can get by without an iPad easier than without the products that the petroleum

industry produces.

The question is, when will Seth Miller be more open minded than the source that he

relies on, Skeptical Science, and allow other views to see the light of day on his site?

Here are some FACTS about the “big oil” that has made Seth Miller’s life worth living

as compared to, say 50 years, ago.

The oil industry employs 1.9 million people and benefits the retirement accounts of

many millions more. The price of crude oil makes up 70% of the pump price and that

price is set on the world spot market. Refining and retailing add 17% & taxes add 13% to

the pump price. The oil companies are making money. Why shouldn’t they have the

right to do so? Some other industries do much better, for example; 7th; Internet

Information Providers: 23.8%, 8th; Application Software: 22.7%, 12th;Cigarettes:19.8%,

19th; Beverages – Brewers: 16.5%, 27th; Beverages – Wineries and Distillers: 14.9%, 29th;

Beverages – Soft Drinks: 14.3%, 24th; Drug Manufacturers – Major: 15.4%, 26th

Railroads: 15%, 90th; Oil and Gas Equipment and Services:7.9%, 114th; Major Integrated

Oil and Gas: 6.2%.

Incidentally at present: Wal-Mart Stores Profit Margin is 3.03%, In Jan of 2011 it had

been up to 5.3%

In the remote chance that ReduceGHGs might want to see these figures for themselves,

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/25/10234870-stocks-heading-up-after-fed-announcement?lite

here is the link that they were taken from:

Oil Industry Profit Margin Ranks Fairly Low: There Are Bigger Fish

http://seekingalpha.com/article/269679-oil-industry-profit-margin-ranks-fairly-low-

there-are-bigger-fish

Reply

Seth


John,

The argument is not that we will stop using oil. It is that the oil companies, with

large debt overhangs and commodity margins, will suffer a fatal blow when oil use

falls due to the rise of autonomous EVs. We can still use oil for planes; it is Exxon,

along with its political clout, which may not survive the transition.

Best,

Seth

Reply

John Swallow

AUGUST 3, 2017 AT 10:10 PM

“The argument is not that we will stop using oil. It is that the oil companies, with large

debt overhangs and commodity margins, will suffer a fatal blow when oil use falls due

to the rise of autonomous EVs.”

Seth Miller is dreaming if he thinks that anytime soon this number of cars will be

autonomous EVs.

How many cars are produced in the world every year? In 2012, for the first time in

history, over 60 million cars passenger cars will be produced in a single year

(or 165,000 new cars produced every day).Dec 1, 2012

http://seekingalpha.com/article/269679-oil-industry-profit-margin-ranks-fairly-low-there-are-bigger-fish



Total Cars Produced In The World

2015 68,560,00

2000 41,215,653

In 2013 this is the number of cars produced in China and in the US.

1 China 16,664,502

5 U.S.A. 4,540,985


Reply

Patrick Lagrandeur


John Swallow wants us to swallow oil business can be different from companies

who denied the change and collapsed. John Swallow like to discredit people with

bunch of statistics and forecasts representing its interests. One thing John Swallow

can’t do is preventing the change and keeping people from switching consumption

habits. Kodak underestimated the impact of digital cameras, Swiss watchmaking

underestimated the impact of digital watches, Paper and mail industries

underestimated the impact of internet. Same fo music industry. People consume

digital without impacting their comfort, with a gain in overall carbon footprint

because less consumables involved. Who will be against that ? Maybe John Swallow

if it’s his real name.

Reply

Evan Ravitz


This is great. But there is much better: a significant cure for congestion. The

average American car is over three-quarters empty and same for buses. Hauling all that




https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/694300636/

empty space and weight is unnecessary. Bicycles and electric bikes have no empty

seats, and take up 10 or more times less room on the road and parked.

An electric assist ebike eliminates almost all the reasons people won’t ride: distance,

hills wind, age, infirmity, injury and not wanting to arrive sweaty. Faster ebikes can

keep up with traffic and a bicycle rain cape pretty much solves precipitation problems

at city speeds. You get as much or as little exercise as you select, and it’s a great way to

recover from injuries.

Since the average American car only has 1.1 people in it I’m going to guess that more

than half of local commuting and errands can be done on an e-bike. If half of drivers

are instead bicycling you’ve reduced congestion by about 40%.

Imagine parking lots reduced by a half when half of trips are done by bike. Then when

autonomous cars prevail we can eliminate most of the remaining parking. Cities have

some 3 – 30 spots for each car! With autonomous vehicles, each only needs one spot

when idle and there are much less vehicles.

Since the average city is 30% paved for vehicles and LA up to 50%, land cost will go

down and more neighborhood stores will spring up. Cyclists and pedestrians will be in

much less danger and European style street life will flourish in America.

A car, even an electric or autonomous one, is vast overkill for most of our local solo

transportation needs. The bike has been the most efficient mode of transportation in

either the man-made or natural world ever since roads were smoothed. The ebike

makes us all far stronger than Greg lemond.

Another reason to go for lighter vehicles: road damage is roughly proportional to the

fourth power of vehicle weight. So a typical local city bus the Orion 40 foot model is

32,000 lb, about 10 times what a smaller car weighs but doing 10,000 times the

damage! And a car does roughly 10,000 times the damage of a bike. Every person you

can get off a bus and onto a bike is doing something like 10 million times less damage

that way, if the bus carries an average of 10 passengers. That saves a lot of oil in the

form of asphalt or the enormous energy needed to make concrete. A bike path is

basically forever except for intruding tree roots or flood damage.

Since my ebike is instead of a car I got a cargo version. It will carry three big people but

I’ve only taken a passenger, and separately, 150 lbs of compost. But even though it’s 60

lbs to accommodate that I can ride it at an average speed of 20 miles an hour up the

highest paved road in Boulder County climbing 5600 ft in 28 miles, in 1 1/2 hours. A

regular bike takes about 4 1/2 hours.

It cost about $3,000, the same as one 5 times less powerful I bought 5 years ago but

which was stolen.

Ebikes should be subsidized much more than electric cars because the energy savings

of an ebike over an e-car is much greater than that of an e-car over a car. But in most

places they are not subsidized at all.

Reply

Seth


I sat amen to everything you have written. I’ll add that one aspect of autonomous

fleet vehicles that people don’t consider yet is that they can be sized based on the

trip. There will be no need to get a ride in a five-person vehicle unless you are

carpooling. And if the car carries one or two alone, it can be made much lighter

and more energy efficient. A-EVs will, long term, end the curse of unused capacity,

which will benefit us all.

Reply

Evan Ravitz




https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/694300636/

Sure, but it’s fun to ride your own bike especially when there will be no

more drivers on phones or texting. And no waiting for a ride to come.

Riding your own ebike is recreation and conditioning and injury

recovery as well as transportation.

The Sanity Inspector


Where will our plastics come from, or what will take their place?

Reply

Seth


Plastics will still be from oil. I want to emphasize a subtle point: it is Big Oil – the

political and economic power – that will die, and that will happen with a 30% (or

smaller) drop in oil consumption as cars convert to electricity. The petrochemicals

part of the oil business represents 20% of oil use, and it will thrive as oil ceases to be

used as fuel. Which is as it should be; we can burn fuel only once, but properly

managed, plastics continue to provide value well after their initial use.

Reply

Patrick Lagrandeur


I agree,

Good plastic last long ! As per exemple my 9 years old son still play with my

http://atlantarofters.blogspot.com/



Fisher Price toys made 40 years agos. The plastic vehicule for action figures was

molded in Aurora NY in early 70s and still looks good.

New plastics are emerging and stay away from petroleum based polymers. Of

course machine to produce such material will end up dripping in oil but the

goal here is saving oil for long lasting goods and keep renewables for

consumables.

andyhollomandyholloman


bravo seth , truly enjoyed this post and the thought put into it (and the comments

section) , based on reading the comments and looking around for contradictory

opinions, i found your analogies to be quite compelling, it may be plausible to argue

with the “scale” of the change….or even the timeline, but when you combine the

arguments re: huge cost to maintain ICE’s vs. EV, PLUS the fuel costs, PLUS the

inefficiencies of ICE ownership, I say you hit the nail on the head, or rather the nail in

the coffin (of big oil)

Reply

Seth

AUGUST 9, 2017 AT 12:58 PM

Thanks!

Reply

Leo August


http://andyholloman.com/



Forgive me if this has already been touched on but …

The article doesn’t mention one important factor – whether internal

combustion or electric vehicles, it still takes x amount of energy to move people and

goods, If everyone switched to EVs overnight, their vehicles would still need electricity

for their batteries, which is generated by the electric companies, which are powered by

fuels that come from big oil – primarily.

How devastating EVs will be to oil companies seems to hinge on how energy efficient

EVs are. In other words, unless EVs require substantially less energy to move x weight

over x distance, then roughly the same amount of fuel will be required to provide the

energy to do so. Currently, big oil is in the best position to provide that fuel – unless

nuclear power dramatically improves safety and public opinion and/or alternative

energy sources such as wind and solar make significant improvements in distribution.

Reply

Seth


I tried to keep the article focused, but you are right to express concern about what

fuel will be used to generate the electricity. I strongly believe it will be wind and

solar, simply because they are cheaper than fossil fuels already in sunny locations,

and their prices are falling at dramatic rates. Natural gas is improving too, but not

at a rate fast enough to keep up.

The majority of new generation going onto the grid is renewable. All of this

electricity will, by definition, be stored in batteries, and the cars can come back

home to recharge during peak production hours. All told, I think that A-EVs will be

powered by clean energy based on price alone.

Reply



Evan Ravitz


Big power plants are more efficient and better maintained than your car, so there is

some advantage. But as my post above relates, electric bikes are all that’s needed for

probably half of in City trips. Electric bikes use something like 30 to 50 times less

electricity than an electric car. But more important they take up some 10 times less

space, thus reducing congestion and cutting the need for parking lots which are

enormously wasteful of space. This will lower the price of urban land and make

actual destinations closer together without huge parking lots and wider than

needed roads.

Lunacycle.com has single-handedly lowered the price of powerful electric bikes by

half.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Find some good stuff?Subscribe to get the latest content by email.

Email Address

SUBSCRIBE

http://evanravitz.com/


We won't send you spam. Unsubscribe at any time.

Powered by ConvertKit

Like my Facebook page!

Be the first of your friends to like this

Perspicacity430 likes

Like Page

All time favorites

When delivery is free, will ownership survive?

This is how Big Oil will die

Will you hire a robot to be your chauffeur?

How to think critically about Elon Musk's NeuraLink

Experts have massively underestimated solar. Why? (Solar: Part 1)

Search … SEARCH

https://convertkit.com/?utm_campaign=poweredby

https://www.facebook.com/perspicacity.xyz/

https://www.facebook.com/stacy.martin1

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100018525528337

https://www.facebook.com/foundobjectsnewstories

https://www.facebook.com/vol3sub

https://www.facebook.com/amanda.hall.9406




https://perspicacity.xyz/2017/08/10/when-delivery-is-free-will-ownership-survive/

https://perspicacity.xyz/2017/05/24/this-is-how-big-oil-will-die/

https://perspicacity.xyz/2017/06/07/will-you-hire-a-robot-to-be-your-chauffeur/

https://perspicacity.xyz/2017/04/27/how-to-think-critically-about-elon-musks-neuralink/

https://perspicacity.xyz/2017/02/13/experts-have-massively-underestimated-solar-why-solar-part-1/

POWERED BY WORDPRESS.COM.

Blogroll

The Big Picture

Kottke.org

Stratechery

Wait But Why?

Priceonomics

https://wordpress.com/?ref=footer_custom_powered

http://ritholtz.com/

http://kottke.org/

http://stratechery.com/

http://waitbutwhy.com/

http://priceonomics.com/

1

Gary Gillette

From: Deb Bergmann <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 6:34 AMTo: Gary GilletteSubject: Waterfront project

Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Gary, About the new proposal to develop the lot on the waterfront next to the parking garage, I don't see much space to include the shops that have been operating there for several years. Especially the food venders! Our daughter has the Alaskan Crepe Escape for the last 9 years there. Her business has become one of the favorite summer places for local and tourists alike! She opened her business 9 years ago and has followed all the city rules. She employees 12‐15 high school and college aged kids every summer. I understand that the property should be developed and we definitely need more public restrooms downtown but please don't squeeze out all the young people who have opened businesses there in the last several years. They have all been very popular places to go and with all the people who work in the downtown shops we need those options! Please make more space for them! We don't need anymore jewelry stores going into retail spaces! Thank you, Deb Bergmann The Alaskan Fudge Co 195 So Franklin Juneau, Ak Sent from my iPad

* 2 Marine Way, Suite 175 * Juneau * AK * 99801 * * Ph. 907-586-6275 *

* [email protected] *

November 16, 2017 Docks & Harbors Board Docks and Harbors Department Re: Taku Dock to Marine Park Urban Design Plan Dear Board Chair Tom Donek, Wings Airways has worked closely with the Docks and Harbors management and Board to adapt to the new face of the waterfront. In recognition of the safety hazard presented by the previous lightering float the Docks and Harbor Board removed the original lightering float allowing us to continue safe and orderly floatplane operations at our longstanding location. Valuable public waterfront access continued from an extensive facility at 16A and additional access at the new Whale Park. Without question the Docks and Harbors Boards decision to remove the previous lightering float was essential to our operation, and we sincerely thank you for that action. However, elements of the recent Preferred Master Plan- Phase II compromise safety of our operations. Specifically, the 150’ public dock proposed. Please consider the following Wings Airways formal comments on these important issues. Floatplane docking requires maneuvering aircraft in response to seas, currents, and winds. Given our operating parameters, almost all dockings require turning the planes to the west (toward Douglas Island) on final approach to the dock. The side of the dock closest to Marine Park. The current position of the proposed 150’ lightering dock creates a blind approach from both marine vessels and our aircraft. Neither of which can stop with the same urgency as a wheeled vehicle. This proposed dock, which is larger than the removed lightering float, would present a considerable threat to safe and orderly floatplane and vessel operations in an already congested location. Wings Airways is the current user of the Juneau Seadrome, which has been an active float plane base since the 1920’s. We have made considerable investment in both shore facilities and aircraft to become a more professional and community friendly floatplane operator on the Juneau waterfront. We are proud to be a part of this community and want to do our part to enhance the downtown experience. Please note we are willing to continue working with special events such as the Maritime Festival and Celebration to allow temporary use of our dock facilities.

- 2 -

In the interest of continuing the 100-year tradition of safe and efficient seaplane commerce on the Juneau waterfront we respectfully ask for the removal of the 150ft proposed Marine Park public docking facility from the Urban Design Plan. Thank you in advance for your consideration and support, Holly Johnson & the Wings Airways/Taku Lodge Ownership Team President Wings Airways Inc.

1

Gary Gillette

From: Hagevig, Bill (HAP) <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 12:15 PMTo: Gary GilletteCc: Drew Green; Liz PerrySubject: suggested changes for Marine Park/Taku Urban

Design PlanAttachments: Alternative design for Marine Park and Restroom

location.pdf

Gary, We've been going over the proposed plan for Marine Park and the Taku property and have some design suggestions that should address concerns. In the original document a few concerns arise 1. JCVB Kiosk will be inundated with guest queries looking for their tours due to its proximity to the tour loading/staging area. 2. There doesn't seem to be a staging area for guests on excursions (like the current tent) unless that was going to share the kiosk space (problematic for JCVB). 3. Placing restrooms on the upper deck will also add to congestion (suggest eliminating them). Drew Green and I recently met with JCVB and I think they share these same concerns. The bottom line is that they would like to be away from the traffic noise their current location has, but also not too close to the vendor/shore ex operations. Placing all three of these functions on the upper deck may result in guest congestion and confusion unless they are separated out to the best that can be done. Another area of concern is the location of the restroom near the proposed USS Juneau Memorial. That location may also add to congestion if lines form, and that may diminish the experience at the memorial. Adjacent to that proposed deck over is a fairly wide expanse (near the Visitor Center) that would be a better location for a kiosk‐style restroom (similar, but smaller than what is down at Franklin Dock). There seems to be room there to allow for a double restroom kiosk that doesn't impact the visitor center. The attached document gives a couple of options that could address these concerns ‐‐ personally I favor Option A because it clearly defines the location of the CVB kiosk, vendor sales, and shore loading from the guest perspective, and moving the shore ex staging space above the loading zone and closer to the ship will make it easier for tour operators to access the brickyard from both access points (minimizing congestion for vendor sales and the cvb). I'm happy to meet if you want to discuss further (maybe a walk through down at the site. Note that I couldn't tell from the drawing how the revised ramp would be set up, but that section looks wide enough to make space for a nice, inviting kiosk as guests make their way into downtown.

2

Thank you for taking this on, as overall I think this is a good use of the property.

Bill Hagevig, Division Manager HAP Alaska‐Yukon

151 Mill Street Juneau, AK 99801 907‐723‐2430

The information contained in this email and any attachment may be confidential and/or legally privileged and has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not an intended recipient, you are not authorized to review, use, disclose or copy any of its contents. If you have received this email in error please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. Thank you. To the extent that the matters contained in this email relate to services being provided by Princess Cruises and/or Holland America Line (together "HA Group") to Carnival Australia/P&O Cruises Australia, HA Group is providing these services under the terms of a Services Agreement between HA Group and Carnival Australia.

1

Gary Gillette

From: Paul DiCarlo <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 6:59 AMTo: Gary GilletteSubject: Waterfront Development

I believe it would be great if there were large covered areas to get out of the rain but still enjoy the area. Sent from my iPad

1

Gary Gillette

From: craig orsborn <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 8:22 AMTo: Gary Gillette; Craig OrsbornSubject: Water front development

My name is Craig Orsborn I am a 50 year resident of Juneau. So here we go again with the city wanting to build more stuff for the tourist when we cant even take care of the people that live here. Front page of the Juneau Empire Budget Cuts Hit State Prosecutors Hard, in that article it stats that the city does not even prosecute misdemeanor drug crimes so that gives these creeps a free ride , we are all aware of the rampant drug problem ,shop lifting problem,car rifling,burglary and every other problem that goes with a drug use. I am sick and tired of the city telling me thy have no money just to have them turn around and dump millions of dollars on stupid stuff that does nothing improve my quality of living in Juneau. I bet that if you were to give the MILLIONS wasted on that wale to JPD thy would have the resources to take care of the many problems that the people face every day. So instead the city turns Juneau into a lowlife magnet ,behavioral therapist , warming shelters ,free housing ,free food, buss passes just to name a few but me a taxing paying citizen of Juneau that has to pay for all this what do i get for free a big fat (0). So lets get to some facts on just a few things that the City has wasted my money on , 1. spent 255,000 on a 4 wheel steer truck to haul sewage boxes to AML than drove the truck illegally until DOT told them thy could not cross over the lemon creek bridges do to axle spacing and bridge load limits 2. going to spend 500,000 to replace a time keeping system 3.thy chose to spend money to give to none union employees when a contract is set that thy have no legal binding reason to , their around 750 cbj employees of witch only 250 are union . 4 thy just spent 48,000 on a electric car just to make a few people good. These are just a few things that the city wastes MY money on , so when you want to wast more of MY money on crap for the tourist that does nothing to improve the quality of living for a 50 year resident that is a hard pill to swallow .

1

Gary Gillette

From: Jennifer Walker <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 2:49 PMTo: Gary GilletteSubject: Marine Park to Taku Dock Urban Design Plan: public

input

Hello! A few items of input for the master plan for Marine Park to Taku Dock

1. I feel like parking, in general, has not been thought of for this area. In this congested area parking is already slim, tricky, and a pain to find (both for employees of the retail stores and restaurants and for locals or guests coming to our town any way except via cruise ship). By adding more retail locations and an awesome waterfront attraction eventually, where will all the new people park? Especially if tourist numbers go up, as they are projected to do. Marine Park Garage already isn't handling the load of people needing to park, how will it handle an anticipated increase in parking demand? I've always felt that whenI want to visit particularly the end toward Taku Smokeries and the Tram, that parking just doesn't exist and I'm going to have to walk a LONG way to get to any of that stuff. Even the tram parking is so far from the building!!

2. will the "waterfront attraction" include anything for kids? I feel like this area, in general (waterfront from the bridge on down to the commercial area beyond Taku Smokieries) doesn't have much for kids. I've long imagined a park in this area, and I feel both locals and visotors to this area. I realize that complicates point #1, but that's what you and the geniuses on the planning commission are for!

Thank you for your interest. Sincerely, Jen Walker

1

Gary Gillette

From: Liz Perry <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 9:25 AMTo: Gary GilletteSubject: Plan comments

Good afternoon, Gary! We've been looking at the newest images that show the new kiosk placement, and have a couple of questions/comments: Will the staging/excursion pick-up site be moved from the upper terrace, where the tent has been sited for the last couple of seasons? If so, the plans as shown would be acceptable for the new kiosk. If not, there's potential for at least a few visitor service issues:

the canopy as shown on the image can't handle being used as both a staging/pick-up area and a place for visitors to queue for information

there will be a major bottleneck with no clear path to the visitor info site there will be too much noise for volunteers and visitors to communicate.

Would you please clarify the intended overall use of that area? And if the intent is to use that canopy and general area for staging, we'd like to meet and talk about options for moving the kiosk away from that staging area, perhaps closer to its current area, facing the water. Thank you, Liz

Liz Perry / President & CEO Travel Juneau (907) 586-1761 800 Glacier Ave Ste 201Juneau, AK 99801 traveljuneau.com

1

Gary Gillette

From: Donna Pierce <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 11:11 AMTo: Gary GilletteSubject: waterfront plan

Hi Gary, Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I generally like the preferred option, and I appreciate that it preserves the cruise/community compromise represented by the Marine Park Plaza (or "brickyard" as I think it is now referred to.) Two comments on the Archipelago lot: 1. I think that the current lot (underutilized though it is) has served a valuable purpose in providing space for small "incubator" businesses. With better design, these could be attractive, several are successful, and it makes good economic sense to continue to provide space for them. I'd like to see this project help to promote local business, and more diverse businesses in this area. Tracy's is an obvious example of how a local entrepreneur, starting small, can grow a very successful business. 2. If the plan for a mural on the side of the parking garage/library goes ahead, it would be great if the layout of buildings could allow for an unimpeded view. I hear you are going to retire soon. Very best wishes going forward! Donna Pierce

1

Gary Gillette

From: Linda Vallie <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 7:19 AMTo: Gary GilletteSubject: Waterfront planning

Good morning. Quick comment: Locals would be more inclined to visit downtown during tourist season if there were parking places available. I"ve given up stopping downtown because of that. Thanks for your work. Linda Vallie

1

Gary Gillette

From: Lynda Giguere <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 9:10 AMTo: Gary GilletteSubject: New downtown development plans

Hello Mr. Gillette, I was happy to see the plans for improving downtown Juneau's waterfront. I have long felt that the area was primarily for cruise ship passengers, and I haven't felt so welcome there as a resident. I also bemoan the fact thatstores shut down every winter in what should be a vibrant downtown community. The town might have been "seedy" when I moved here in 1975, but it was definitely lively with shops, a cleaners, hardware store, outfitters and grocery store all catering to local residents, and I miss that.

So I support the plans in general; even though the food stalls still look like they're targeting summer businesses. I think giving locals more room to move around with summer visitors and year-round, will be great.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely, Lynda Giguere

1

Gary Gillette

From: Meghan Nelson <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 8:29 AMTo: Gary GilletteSubject: Downtown Waterfront Development

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

To whom it may concern: I am writing in opposition to the city’s downtown waterfront development. I feel that this change is an unnecessary use of city money. CBJ routinely complains of fiscal issues and it seems that this is a waste of city funds. Additionally, I feel that this new plan caters more to the tourist industry and less to locals (who are fine with how our current waterfront functions). Local businesses would have fewer options for operating (in terms of those operating food carts as many have indicated that this new plan interferes with their ability to adequately operate) and it would destroy much of the charm our current harbor and surrounding streets possess. In my opinion we should leave things as they are and only make minor improvements to the parking issues that plague all of downtown. This plan doesn’t even begin to address the real problems many of us locals face when attempting to shop/visit the downtown area. Thank you. Sincerely, Meghan Nelson Juneau, Alaska Sent from my iPhone

1

Gary Gillette

From: Eric Forst <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12:49 PMTo: Gary GilletteCc: Ken KoelschSubject: Archipelego design plan


Hi Gary, I wanted to drop you a note regarding the development of the archipelago lot you are working on. As you and I discussed, I would strongly urge you to keep the “b” zone parking in front of the Red Dog once this project is complete. It currently works well for vendors and visitors alike as they can come see the Red Dog and catch their tour easily. Not to mention that even with the new loading area, there will still be a need for extra space moving forward given the growth we are expecting to see in the coming years. Please keep me in the loop with regards to ANY changes/decisions that may affect the lot directly in front of the Red Dog as any change will impact the operation we have built here. In regards to the actual development, I like what you and Morris have come up with for the site. I can see a lot of thought and planning went into it. The widening of the sidewalk is great. One issue I see arising that I have not seen addressed is the increase in pedestrian traffic that is likely to occur in the roundabout. The design of the lot is naturally going to “pull” people off the dock area and lead them out near the front of the parking garage. While there is a small crosswalk there now, it is often ignored and many people walk directly into traffic in the round about. Increasing that flow of pedestrian traffic is going to compound the problem of people walking in the round about. I don’t see any measures being taken to impede the travel of pedestrians in that area and direct them to the crosswalk. Signage does not work. I see that every day. There needs to be some physical barrier to entering the roundabout. I would urge you to take a look at pedestrian traffic flow through that area with the design you are considering as that would be the ideal time to deal with it. Thank you. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Eric Forst General Manager/Partner Red Dog Saloon and Mercantile 278 S. Franklin St. Juneau AK, 99801 (907)463‐3658 ext. 1 (907)723‐1275 cell [email protected]

www.reddogsaloon.com

1

Gary Gillette

From: Carl UchytilSent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 2:09 PMTo: Gary GilletteCc: Chris MertlSubject: Fwd: Tidelands Leasing


Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message:

From: penny tripp <[email protected]> Date: November 21, 2017 at 1:47:57 PM PST To: Carl Uchytil <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Tidelands Leasing

Hello Mr Uchytil Thank you for taking the time to answer my email. I have looked at the waterfront development options and I agree that using the space for the Juneau Memorial and utilities is the best use for it. I would support that concept all the way. To clarify my request a bit. In the event that this space was not used for the Juneau Memorial and utilities and instead was leased in part or in total to private individuals, then I would be interested in extending my currently leased area to include the portion of the open area that is directly behind my building. I would imagine that would also increase the time duration of the existing lease to whatever the new lease or extended lease would be. If the open area along the waterfront is not parceled out, and the space is used as currently illustrated, I am very content with the situation. I will certainly take note of the November 30 meeting and the comments offered at that time. Again, thank you for your time and letting me clarify my thoughts on this. I appreciate the opportunity to converse directly with you. Best regards Penny Tripp On Nov 21, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Carl Uchytil <[email protected]> wrote:

2

Ms. Tripp, Thank you for your continued involvement in the planning process along the Juneau Waterfront. We typically identified the undecked/open area in the vicinity of the waterfront seaward of the buildings as "Peoples Wharf". This should not be construed as any proprietary relationship with the owner of the People Wharf Building, it is simply a landmark we have historically used. As you'll see in the proposed sketches, this 4700 sf area is currently be designated as an area for the Juneau Memorial with public restrooms. When you state below: "I am absolutely interested in obtaining an extension of my existing tidelands..." Are you inquiring about a time extension or property extension? At the November 30th meeting, the Docks & Harbors Board will consider the public policy implications in making leased land available along the waterfront properties which is managed by the Department. Please continue to stay abreast of the public process as it unfolds. Here is a link to the plan: https://beta.juneau.org/newsroom-item/docks-harbors-wants-public-feedback-on-waterfront-development-plan Sincerely, Carl Uchytil, P.E. Port Director -----Original Message----- From: penny tripp [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 4:34 PM To: Carl Uchytil Subject: Tidelands Leasing Hello Mr Uchytil This is Penny Tripp writing regarding the current developments along the seawalk behind my building at 428 S Franklin St. As a fast reminder, I have an existing tidelands lease in that area, as do others. The last time we had contact on that area was early this year when Tracy’s Crab Shack was being permitted. At that time there was some conversation regarding decking over the open area behind People’s Wharf in the future by private users. Now, I may be leaping to conclusions here, but in looking at the various options presented, I see that the approximately 4700 square feet of open space behind the

3

buildings occupied by Diamonds International, Effy (my building), and Peoples Wharf are all lumped into one unit, titled “Peoples Wharf”. As a property owner, I have not seen any public notices speaking to the possibility for private individuals leasing space in the open area. Please let me be very clear here, in that I am absolutely interested in obtaining an extension of my existing tidelands lease when or if that becomes possible. I feel that continued free access to my building and the company that occupies it is critical to our future. I have seen the concepts and various options being considered for the Urban Design plan and find them quite positive in the general sense. I would sincerely appreciate being brought up to date on the current status of this area and the requirements to formally request an extension of my leased area. I would normally have telephoned you regarding this, but I felt that emailing would allow some research prior to answering. I understand that you and staff are quite busy and I appreciate the attention to my request. In case my contact information is not current, I have included it below. Thank you Penny Tripp 1710 Shine Road Port Ludlow, WA 98365 206 300 6196

1

Gary Gillette

From: Leslie Eagle <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 4:15 PMTo: Gary GilletteSubject: waterfront plan

I would like to make the following comment on the proposed plan for Juneau's waterfront: Having lived in Aurora Harbor for five years now, I don't think Juneau needs another small boat harbor. The harbors we already have in the downtown area are never full. Even when a third of the harbor was torn out, the remaining slips were not completely full. I think a better option would be to build a small float house/houseboat community so the houseboat owners can opt to be separated and treated as a community of real estate owners instead of being lumped in with people living an entirely different lifestyle. Floating home owners are investing as much as 100 thousand dollars or more into their homes Separating floating homes allows for a clearer separation of rules which govern them. For instance, I currently can't rent my houseboat out to someone else because it is treated like a vessel and falls under specific harbor regulation against it. A float house community should have different rules with the understanding the people who live there own their homes and consider their homes to be permanent home which will always be homes, and not vessels being used as homes temporarily. A float house community would also add charm and a point of interest for tourists and citizens. Think of the Seattle waterfront. Management of a float house community could be separated from the City of Juneau at some point via various avenues such as by home owners association, or sale to a private management company, or by selling off the slips into individual private ownership. Consider that floating homes offer affordable housing and any project expanding upon Juneau's affordable housing may be able to become a joint effort across multiple funding sources rather than just the waterfront project. Sitka, Alaska promoted house boats as affordable housing option in the recent past. The fact that we are surrounded by water should really be considered when looking for affordable housing opportunities. An affordable housing project and a waterfront beautification project need not be mutually exclusive. Thank you for taking the opportunity to collect feedback on the current proposal. Regards, Leslie Eagle

CBJ Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2019

Enterprise Division Priority Amount

Docks & Harbors 1 $150,0002 $120,0003 $7,000,0004 Downtown Restrooms - Construction City Marine Passenger Fees $500,0005 Security Checkpoint Shelters City Marine Passenger Fees $300,0006 Auke Bay Passenger For Hire - Cost Share Dock Funds/Harbor Funds $690,000

Docks Total Funding: $8,760,000

Harbors 1 $333,0002 Areawide Annode Installation Matching Funds $300,0003 $350,0004 Harbor Funds $500,000

$1,483,000

Visitor Information Kiosk Replacement - Const.

Harbors Total Funding:

Harbor FundsStatter Harbor Breakwater Safety Improvments

ABMS D&H/UAS Cost Share AgreementHarbor FundsHarbor Funds

City Marine Passenger Fees

Cost Share w/ ACOE for Breakwater Feasibility

Archipelago Property (Acquisition/Development)

FY19 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

Project Funding Source

Marine Park Sheet Pile Coating - Phase III of IIIDocks City Marine Passenger Fees

State Cruise Passenger Fees

CBJ Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2019 - 2024

Project Priority FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Future

Docks & HarborsDocks

Marine Park Sheet Pile Coating - Phase III of III 1 150,000$ Visitor Information Kiosk Replacement - Construction 2 120,000$ Archipelago Property (Acquisition/Development) 3 7,000,000$ Downtown Restrooms 4 500,000$ Security Checkpoint Shelters 5 300,000$ Auke Bay Passenger for Hire - Cost Share 6 690,000$ Shore Power at Cruise Ship Berths 7 25,800,000$

Docks Total: 8,760,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 25,800,000$

HarborsAurora Harbor Rebuild-Phase III 1 7,000,000$ Area Wide Annode Installation Matching Funds 2 300,000$ Statter Breakwater Safety Improvements 3 333,000$ Amalga Harbor Fish Cleaning Float 4 300,000$ Auke Bay Net Repair Float 5 300,000$ Aurora Harbor Dredging 6 350,000$ Wayside Float Maintenance Dredging 7 350,000$ ABMS D&H/UAS Cost Share Agreement 8 350,000$ Cost Share w/ ACOE for Breakwater Feasibility 9 500,000$ Aurora Harbormaster Building and Shop 10 3,000,000$ Douglas Harbor Uplands Improvements 11 2,000,000$ North Douglas Boat Ramp Improvements 12 1,000,000$ Juneau Fisheries Terminal Development 13 10,000,000$ Fish Sales Facility/Seaplane Float 14 1,000,000$ Marine Services Center 15 10,000,000$ Taku Harbor Stockade Point Float Replacement 16 300,000$

Harbors Total: 1,483,000$ 8,300,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 27,300,000$

Docks & Harbors Total: 10,243,000$ 8,300,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 53,100,000$

10,243,000$ 8,300,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 53,100,000$ 6 Year Improvement Totals:

SIX-YEAR DEPARTMENT IMPROVEMENT PLANS

Division

PORT ENGINEER'S PROJECT STATUS REPORTGary Gillette, Port Engineer

11/21/2017 Page 1 of 2

Project Status Schedule Contractor NotesBoat Yard at ABLF

Construction Complete ACC Contract Close-OutConstruction Admin & Inspection In Progress MRV Contract Close-Out

Auke Bay Loading Facility - Phase II

TIGER Grant Close-Out On-Going Sept. 2018 Annual equipment depreciation reportStatter Harbor Launch Ramp

Construction Complete MillerStatter Tidelands Survey In Progress PDC Awaiting Final Plat Mylar

Port of Juneau Cruise Berths

1% for Art - Install Sculptures Complete Garten Contract Close-OutNorth Berth - Construction Administration In Progress PND Project Close-Out

Vibration Monitoring Services Complete AS&E Awaiting Final ReportDNR Tidelands Survey In Progress DOWL Awaiting preliminary plat

Archipelago Lot Easement In Progress Staff Preparing MOA for ownerAurora Harbor Re-Build - Phase II

Fabrication Inspection In Progress PND Floats and Steel in ProductionOn Site Construction In Progress NCS

Substantial Completion Hold 3/31/18Final Completion Hold 4/30/18

Statter Master Plan Phase IIIPlanning In Progress PND

Army Corps of Engineers Permit In Progress PNDArchipelago Property Improvements Hold Staff Awaiting Board DirectionArchipelago Property Procurement Hold Staff Awaiting fundingAmalga Harbor Fish Cleaning Station Hold Staff Re-visit in Jan 2018Aurora Harbor - Dredging on A Float Hold Awaiting fundingAurora Harbor - Annodes on Piling Hold Awaiting fundingAuke Bay Marine Station Acquistion

Acquisition In Progress Staff Awaiting MARAD Quit Claim DeedSubdivsion In Progress Staff Completed After Receipt of Quit Claim Deed

Survey of Tidelands In ProgressNorway Point to Bridge Master Plan Complete Corvus Presentation to Planning Commission-no dateMarine Park-Taku Dock Urban Design Plan In Progress Corvus

Final Plan Presentation to Board 11/30/17 Corvus Seeking Board Approval

PORT ENGINEER'S PROJECT STATUS REPORTGary Gillette, Port Engineer

11/21/2017 Page 2 of 2

Harris Harbor Restrooms and Showers In Progress JYL Design in progressCruise Dock Decking Repair In Progress ACCMarine Park Cathodic Protection In Progress Tinnea Reviewing Drawings and SpecificationsADOT Grant Application - Annodes Hold PND Awaiting Legislative ActionLittle Rock Dump Feasibility Study In Progress PNDStatter Breakwater Safety Improvements In Progress SilverbowFisheries Terminal Completion Hold PND & Staff TIGER Grant ApplicationMarine Services Yard Hold PND TIGER Grant ApplicationPedestrian Link - Statter Harbor to ABMS Hold PND TIGER Grant Application

cbj docks and harbors board regular meeting agenda … · 2019. 7. 6. · page 1 of 2 cbj docks and...

Documents