{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-17", "page": 1, "text": "TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - DRAFT\nSPECIAL MEETING\nOctober 17, 2007\nChair Knox White called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:30 p.m.\n1.\nROLL CALL - Roll was called and the following recorded.\nMembers Present:\nJohn Knox White\nMichael Krueger\nRobert McFarland (arrived 7:45 p.m.)\nRobb Ratto\nEric Schatmeier\nNielsen Tam\nMembers Absent:\nSrikant Subramaniam\nStaff Present:\nLisa Goldman, Deputy City Manager\nObaid Khan, Supervising Civil Engineer\nBarry Bergman, Transportation Coordinator\n2.\n2. City of Alameda Ferry Program: Discussion of Senate Bill 976. Outcomes:\nReview SB 976 and receive public comment.\nLisa Goldman, Deputy City Manager, provided background information on SB 976\n(Ferry legislation), which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on Friday, October\n12, and was passed in the last days of the legislative session in September. It replaced the\ncurrent San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority with a new agency known as the\nWater Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA). She noted that it would be charged\nwith operating a comprehensive regional water transit system, and would coordinate the\nemergency activities of all water transportation and related facilities within the Bay Area.\nShe noted that they will coordinate the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service, the Harbor Bay\nFerry Service and the Vallejo ferries under one agency. The Golden Gate Ferry would not\nbe affected by this legislation. She noted that they would appoint a new five-member\nboard for the WETA; the WTA currently has an 11-member board, including Mayor\nJohnson and the Mayor of Vallejo. The new board would include three appointees by the\nGovernor, one from the Senate Rules Committee, and one from the Speaker of the\nAssembly. The new board would start meeting no later than April of next year, and\nwould have until January of 2009 to develop a transition plan for running the ferry\nsystems. They would have another six months to develop an emergency operations plan.\nPage 1 of 8", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-17", "page": 2, "text": "Ms. Goldman advised that the City Council discussed this issue at the October 2 meeting,\nand noted that there would be some clean-up legislation because the bill as passed was\nsomewhat vague. Among the items to be presented by the City for the clean-up\nlegislation were:\n1.\nTo ensure that current service levels for Alameda ferries would be\nmaintained or enhanced for at least seven years;\n2.\nFuture fare increases would be consistent with historical trends for the\nAlameda ferry services;\nShe noted that while some Measure B funding was included in the budget, Alameda was\nfortunate that their boats, terminals and parking lots did not have a lot of City money in\nthem. The City believed that it should be able to be reimbursed the money it had put into\nthese assets, which would be approximately $1.2 million; in comparison, Vallejo has\napproximately $150 million invested in its ferry system. She noted that the City would\nask for a seat on the new WETA board. The City would like the WETA to pick up the\nquarterly rider satisfaction surveys to ensure they were providing adequate service. The\nCity would also like the WETA to prepare an analysis of the on-time performance of the\nferries, as well as provide reports to the City Council on how the ferry service is doing. If\nthere were any proposed fare or schedule changes, the City would like them to bring\nthose proposals forward in Alameda with a public hearing. The City would also like the\nWETA to work with the master developer for Alameda Point to ensure that ferry services\nwould be able to serve that new development once it is operational.\nShe noted that the City would work with the staffs of Senators Perata and Torlakson in\nthe next several months to discuss the interests of the City and the ridership in the new\nlegislation.\nCommissioner Schatmeier expressed concern about the lack of local representation in the\nnew legislation. He inquired whether the clean-up legislation would ensure local\nrepresentation on this new board.\nMs. Goldman noted that she did not know the timing of the new Board appointments\nbefore the clean-up legislation has a chance to move forward. She noted that the State\nlegislature has recessed for the year, and that the new WETA Board must hold its first\nmeeting by April 2008.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that the stated goal of this legislation was to merge all the\nferry services into a single agency to better address a disaster or terrorist attack. He noted\nthat it was strange that the Golden Gate ferry has been specifically excluded without\nmuch explanation, and whether there was any plan to fold it into the WETA, and inquired\nwhy that occurred.\nSpecial Meeting of the\nPage 2 of 8\n10/17/07\nTransportation Commission", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-17", "page": 3, "text": "Ms. Goldman replied that she did not have an answer for that question, which was raised\nwhen they read the final version of the bill.\nRachel Weinstein, District Director for Senator Perata, noted that the Golden Gate Ferry\nwas separate under State law because they were voter approved and created; they did not\nreceive any State money. She added that it would be best to have all of the ferry services\ncoordinated under one agency, and noted that they were still working on incorporating\nthat service into the plan.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that in that case, the urgency of the message had not gotten\nthrough, and he supposed that it was related to some of the negative reaction expressed\nwith respect to this plan.\nA discussion of the legislative process with respect to this bill ensued.\nCommissioner Schatmeier asked about the origin of the ferry consolidation plan.\nAlicia Trost, Press Secretary to Senator Perata, summarized the sequence of events\ninitiated by Senator Perata's request for a report, and noted that the full report was on the\nBay Area Council's website. She noted that an extensive hearing had been held at the San\nFrancisco Ferry Building, and that every elected official in the Bay Area had been invited\nto that hearing. She added that while the bill was amended greatly in the final days of the\nlegislative session, it had not been pushed through at the last minute. She noted that\ncopies of the proceedings at the Ferry Building can be made available to the\nCommissioners, and added that experts had flown in to testify about evacuation after\nHurricane Katrina.\nCommissioner McFarland inquired whether it would be possible to use the existing\nsystem, and to develop a response plan for the time when the emergency may occur.\nMs. Trost noted that the goal was to put the services under one umbrella, and noted that\nthere was no legal precedent in terms of the controlling authority of the water space in the\nevent of an emergency. She added that identifying the legal authority was the impetus for\ncreating WETA.\nCommissioner McFarland noted that by that logic, all the Bay Area transit agencies\nshould be consolidated as well.\nMs. Trost noted that the WTA, not being the direct service provider, would not be eligible\nfor transit monies out of Proposition 1-B, which the WETA would be.\nIn response to an inquiry by Commissioner McFarland regarding the role of the PUC and\nhow they regulate the ferries after this transition, Ms. Trost replied that she did not have\nthat information, and would provide an answer at a later time.\nSpecial Meeting of the\nPage 3 of 8\n10/17/07\nTransportation Commission", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-17", "page": 4, "text": "Mr. Ernest Sanchez, Ferry Manager, replied that the CPUC did not have any authority\nconcerning the Golden Gate ferry service because they were a transit operator. The City's\ntwo ferry services contracted with two private operators (Blue & Gold and Harbor Bay\nMaritime) were regulated by the CPUC; that was the area of oversight by the CPUC.\nChair Knox White noted that there were significant concerns regarding language changes\nassociated with money, as well as consolidation of services into a regional body. He\nnoted that the changes in the Board's makeup and distribution of monies was of more\nconcern than disaster readiness.\nMs. Trost noted that without the Prop 1-B money, she was concerned that the bridge tolls\nwould have to be raised considerably. She would ask Senator Torlakson for further\ninformation. She noted that the Senate Rules Committee would confirm all of the\nGovernor's appointees, which was another opportunity for the Transportation\nCommission and Senator Perata to ensure that Alameda's interests were represented.\nOpen public hearing.\nPatrick Robles noted that he worked as a ferry deckhand, and added that both the ferry\nriders and the operators had little information about the changes that were occurring. He\nlooked forward to receiving more direct information than what he had seen in the media.\nHe wished to remind everyone that the ferry service was about people who depend on the\nferries for safe passage to work or other activities. He was also concerned about the\nexisting crew and other employees maintaining their positions.\nJanet Jones noted that she was a daily commuter on the ferry, and had been taken aback\nby this proposal. She was very pleased with the ferry and used it frequently. She noted\nthat if there are any problems, the Coast Guard was available for disaster relief, and often\nrode alongside the passengers. She understood that the staff members were trained for\ndisaster preparedness. She considered the ferry to be an economical, safe and\nenvironmentally friendly mode of transportation. She was concerned about the quality of\nservice if the State were to take over its operation. She found BART and Muni to be\nunsatisfactory modes of transportation by comparison and did not see any reason to\nchange the ferry operation.\nMary Ellen Smith noted that she rode the Harbor Bay Ferry frequently, and was a very\nhappy ferry rider. She inquired about the effects on the riders themselves, and whether\nthere would be any fare increases. She would like to know where the money would go.\nMaxine Young noted that she rode the Harbor Bay Ferry, and in reading the legislation,\ndid not see a commitment to run the transit system as an integral part of the Bay Area's\ntransit system. She noted that the legislation generally addressed emergency situations.\nShe was concerned that after the new agency took over, it may decide that Alameda did\nnot need the ferry.\nSpecial Meeting of the\nPage 4 of 8\n10/17/07\nTransportation Commission", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-17", "page": 5, "text": "Carrie Boger noted that she rode both ferries four times a week, and noted that it was a\ncrucial transportation mode for her. She inquired whether she would be able to get back\nhome in the event of an emergency, or whether her ferry would be diverted elsewhere.\nShe was also concerned about changes in schedules, as well as whether routes would be\ncut to accommodate the subsidized funding. She noted that if there were major changes\nwith the ferry, she and her family would move back to San Francisco.\nHoward Smith noted that he lived in Harbor Bay, and added that he was concerned about\nthe clean-up legislation. He was also concerned about enhancements, and noted that the\nparking lot filled up quickly. He believed that more riders would be captured if all-day\nand weekend service were to be offered.\nSusan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, echoed the comments made by the previous\nspeakers. She noted that ATA recognized that ferries were an important everyday part of\nthe transportation system, not just for emergencies. She inquired who would be\nresponsible for disbursing information about the ferries.\nClose public hearing.\nCommissioner Schatmeier expressed concern about this legislation and the way it was\npassed. He noted that it appeared to him like it was hurried through without public input,\nand that the motives differed from those that were touted in the media publicity. He\nwould have preferred to see a more fully realized bill that had been developed by\nconsensus, rather than a bill that needed to be cleaned up. He was very concerned about\nthe consolidation proposal. He noted that since the mayor represents Alameda on the\nWTA board, Alameda residents may indicate their ferry-related concerns to the mayor\nand have them brought to the appropriate authorities. He was very concerned about who\nwould be appointed to the new board, and hoped that it would be local representation. He\nnoted that he had not voted for any members of the Bay Area Council. He recalled the\nrole the ferries played following the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, and noted that\nbecause people pulled together, and bureaucracies did not take over, that was an effective\ndisaster response. He would like to see coordinated and better emergency access, which\ncould have been accomplished with the existing structure if properly organized.\nCommissioner Ratto inquired whether the meeting at the Ferry Building was a public\nmeeting where public comment had been taken. Ms. Weinstein replied that it was a\npublic meeting, and noted that copies of the meeting notes were available. Commissioner\nRatto noted that he was disappointed that clean-up legislation had to be enacted. He\nacknowledged Councilmember DeHaan and the Deputy City Manager in the audience,\nand urged City Council and City staff to work as diligently as possible with the\nlegislators for as many years of commitments as they could get. He noted that the ferries\nwere an integral part of this community, and hoped that Senator Perata and the committee\nmembers would take the ferry service seriously.\nSpecial Meeting of the\nPage 5 of 8\n10/17/07\nTransportation Commission", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-17", "page": 6, "text": "Commissioner Tam inquired whether the Commission would receive feedback on the\nlegislation. Ms. Trost replied that there was legal language written into the bill that\nidentified a year-long open process that stated that the Authority needed to work with the\nlocal agencies, \"specifically those that run already existing water transit systems. There\nwas also a 45-day public process of receiving local input. She added that it would have\nseveral hearings through several Commissions, the State Senate and Assembly, and that\nthe hearings would be bi-partisan. She encouraged the Commissioners to come to the\nhearings, and added that Senator Perata was very specific in stating that the local input\nfrom Alameda and Vallejo would be vital in ensuring this program worked. She ensured\nthat it was not a hostile takeover, but that the goal was to make a more efficient system\nfor the ferry riders.\nMs. Trost noted that they had heard many concerns from the Commissioners and the\npublic about any cuts to service, increased fares, and staffing issues. She noted that SB\n976 contained language stating, \"priorities should be given to ensuring continuity in the\nprogram services and activities of existing public transportation ferry services.\" She\nbelieved there was also language about protecting staff, and added that the Senator's\nintent was to enhance service, not cut it.\nCommissioner Krueger noted that with respect to Regional Measure 2, he understood the\nintent to increase service and to increase funding through Proposition 1-B, as well as to\nconsolidate and respond in a disaster. He noted that some of the language choices were\npuzzling to him, with respect to the Alameda-Oakland and Harbor Bay Ferry was\nchanged to Transbay Ferries. He was disappointed that there was not an answer for that,\nand inquired why the language had been changed. He did not want the Regional Measure\n2 funds to be diverted away from what Alamedans voted for, which he viewed as a\nbetrayal. Ms. Trost noted that she did not have an answer for that question because she\nhad never been asked it before. She emphasized that she would be able to find that\ninformation for Commissioner Krueger.\nMs. Weinstein noted that in response to Chair Knox White's question, the term length of\neach Board member was six years.\nCommissioner McFarland believed that the end users of this ferry system had not been\nwell-informed by the State throughout this year-long process.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White whether the City-owned boats would be\nable to be sold for their full value, and whether the partial payment of the boats by grants\nwould affect that sale, Staff Sanchez replied that the City owned four boats, all of which\nwere acquired using public (State or federal) funds. If the boats were to be sold, the City\nwould be required to repay a portion of the money back to the granting agency; a portion\nwould return to the City as well. He added that the Encinal and the Peralta were\npurchased with grants with a local match, half paid by the City of Alameda and half paid\nby the Port of Oakland.\nChair Knox White noted that there was considerable disappointment with this process,\nSpecial Meeting of the\nPage 6 of 8\n10/17/07\nTransportation Commission", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-17", "page": 7, "text": "and that it was unfortunate that the first public hearing in Alameda about taking over\nthese ferries occurred after the law was signed into being. He wanted to ensure that while\nthe clean-up legislation process was proceeding, that it is remembered that more money\nhad been spent than specific grants that could have been used elsewhere than the ferry,\nand that the City does not lock itself into that number early on. He added that depending\non the term limits bill, Senator Perata would not be in the Senate indefinitely, and the\nCity did not know who would be in charge. He believed that in the event of a Tom\nMcClintock governorship, the ferry services may be in jeopardy; the head of the Senate\nRules Committee, the head of the Assembly, and the Governor all may come from\nOrange and Riverside Counties. He did not believe that, in that case, they may not be\nconcerned with ferry service in Alameda. He believed that during the clean-up language\nprocess, the two services being rolled into the new body should have seats on the Board.\nHe agreed with Commissioner Schatmeier's question why it needed to change, and it may\nbe that 11 people were too many.\nChair Knox White noted that with respect to the sustaining services, Regional Measure 2\nhad language for money for Alameda services, in order to increase and enhance the\nservices. He recalled Mr. Smith's comment that the voters of the Bay Area passed that\nmeasure, and he believed the clean-up language and plans going forward should\nacknowledge that. He noted that this was not the continuation of service until three years\nafterwards, and added that this measure, passed three years ago, was being changed even\nbefore money had been distributed. He believed there should be some agreement\nregarding long-term maintenance service, and did not believe anyone expected the\nservice to run empty all day and all night. He believed there should be some good-faith\nassurances with respect to maintaining service, which may be difficult if Alameda were\nto be written out of the funding.\nChair Knox White stated that he had not heard anyone disagree with the need for a\nregional emergency plan, and added that Alameda was an island city that had no lifeline-\nrated links to Oakland. According to Caltrans, all the bridges and tubes connecting\nAlameda to Oakland will go down in a major earthquake. He added that there was no\nmoney to fix that, and noted that the ferry was the only lifeline to Oakland. He noted that\nAlameda was the only large island community in the Bay Area, and must have a priority\nfor emergency service.\nChair Knox White understood that there was a public hearing at the ferry building, and\nthat the issues most critical to Alameda were not the focus of that meeting. He was\nsurprised to see the comment made by Senator Perata in the newspaper, stating that \"no\none should have been blindsided, and that they all knew it was coming. He noted that he\nmade a number of calls, and discovered that they didn't know these discussions were\noccurring until four days before the vote. He believed the residents of Alameda deserved\na better outcome. He hoped that Senator Perata would hold a hearing in Alameda once\nthe clean-up language was written, so that the people affected by the change could give\ninput in Alameda, rather than having to travel to Sacramento.\nCommissioner Ratto concurred with Chair Knox White's comments, and he understood\nSpecial Meeting of the\nPage 7 of 8\n10/17/07\nTransportation Commission", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2007-10-17", "page": 8, "text": "that the hearings would be in Sacramento; he would like to have a local public forum so\nresidents could address these issues. He noted that it was a great imposition for the\naverage working person to have to go to Sacramento to participate in the process. He\nsuggested that the terms be staggered so there would not be a total turnover, and would\nlike there to be some institutional memory in that process. Ms. Weinstein noted that she\nwould investigate that possibility.\nIn response to an inquiry by Chair Knox White regarding the items that required follow-\nup, Ms. Weinstein replied that she would forward the answers to the Commission's\nquestions as an off-agenda item.\nCommissioner Krueger agreed with the previous comments, and believed that staff's\nrecommendations for the clean-up language were very good. When the clean-up language\nis created, he would like to see a road map for the consolidation to include the Golden\nGate Ferry. He believed it would be disingenuous to have the push for a single,\nconsolidated agency, and to cut Golden Gate Ferry out of it. If an exception for Alameda\ncould not be made, he would like an explanation for why the Golden Gate Ferry could be\nexcluded. He thanked the Senator's staff for attending.\nStaff Khan noted that he had a communication related to a special program launched by\nAC Transit and Chevron. The first meeting would be held Tuesday, October 23, at 10:00\nA.M. He noted that he would be attending the meeting and recommended that one person\nfrom the Transportation Commission attend as well.\n3.\nAdjournment:\n8:55 P.M.\nSpecial Meeting of the\nPage 8 of 8\n10/17/07\nTransportation Commission", "path": "TransportationCommission/2007-10-17.pdf"}