FILED

04/05/21 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 04:59 PM OF THE STATE OF

Application of Prop SF, LLC (VCC94) to amend its Vessel Common Carrier Authorization to Add Application A.19-09-011 Unscheduled Prearranged Service Between Points (Filed September 11, 2019) in , Marin, the Peninsula, and the , Establish Rates and a ZORF for Unscheduled Service, and Request a ZORF of 20% for Both Scheduled and Unscheduled Services.

REPLY COMMENTS PENINSULA AQUATIC CENTER JUNIOR CREW

George S. Duesdieker Attorney 1837 Camino de los Robles Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: 650.533.7437 Email: [email protected]

Counsel to Peninsula Aquatic Center Junior Crew

Dated: April 5, 2021

1 / 6

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of Prop SF, LLC (VCC94) to amend its Vessel Common Carrier Authorization to Add Unscheduled Prearranged Service Between Points Application A.19-09-011 in San Francisco, Marin, the Peninsula, and the (Filed September 11, 2019) East Bay, Establish Rates and a ZORF for Unscheduled Service, and Request a ZORF of 20% for Both Scheduled and Unscheduled Services.

REPLY COMMENTS PENINSULA AQUATIC CENTER JUNIOR CREW

Safety.

The Proposed Decision in this matter does quite well in addressing safety, and the

Applicant PROPSF’s comments regarding safety in the Proposed Decision are not well

placed, and should be largely disregarded as a review of the matters in the public record in

this matter will prove. Provided that PROPSF’s SUGGESTED EDITS are not adopted

(with the exception of providing additional notice to the public of unscheduled service

through a governmental or entity landing site’s website), party PACJC in this matter will

not pursue its due process (and other) arguments on re-hearing or in the Court of Appeal.

In PROPSF LLC COMMENTS ON DECISION GRANTING PROPSF, LLC

AUTHORITY TO OFFER UNSCHEDULED VESSEL COMMON CARRIER SERVICE

(“PROPSF COMMENTS”), PROPSF’s comments that Peninsula Aquatic Center Junior

Crew (“PACJC”) should not directly receive 24 hours notice of any unscheduled service by

PROPSF is not well taken and should be disregarded as the facts and record in this matter

1

2 / 6

prove. In response to PROPSF’s generic proposal to give 24 hour advance notice to others engaged in on-water activity, PACJC has no objection to PROPSF being required (in addition to directly notifying PACJC) to notify other on-water users through such things as websites or bulletin boards of harbor authorities or landing sites. Further, the duration of

PROPSF’s service is well stated in the Proposed Decision as two years, and PROPSF’s comments regarding the discard of this two year time limit do not warrant any extension of the two year limit.

On page 6 of PROPSF COMMENTS, PROPSF makes the assertion that it has no way to obtain the contact information (email addresses, home addresses or telephone numbers) of recreational users. The Proposed Decision only specifically required that

PROPSF notify PACJC – 24 hours in advance of unscheduled service. PROPSF does have email and USPS service addresses (& a telephone number) for PACJC inasmuch as

PACJC’s heretofore granted Motion for Party Status contains that information regarding the undersigned counsel. Thus, through counsel, PROPSF and PACJC can work out the means by which PROPSF provides 24 hours notice (via email) to PACJC. If PROPSF wants to provide information to other recreational users, it can do so within the 24 hour notice requirement outlined in the Proposed Decision, whether by contact with various local government agencies which have bulletin boards, or other means that PROPSF sees fit to provide 24 hours notice of its unscheduled service. To reiterate, PACJC objects to

ANY alteration of the concept or actual wording of the Proposed Decision’s requirement that PROPSF directly provide 24 hours notice to PACJC regarding unscheduled service.

Besides tinkering with the notice of unscheduled service to PACJC, PROPSF

COMMENTS make three other points. First, PROPSF would remove the limitation of two

2

3 / 6

years on its unscheduled service. Second, PROPSF, for some inexplicable reason, brings up the issue of 48 hours notice on amendment of its scheduled service. Third, PROPSF’s

SUGGESTED COMMENTS would limit notice of its unscheduled service to use of “the

Redwood City navigable channel”. These three points are addressed below. As to the first and third points, the transcript of the October 20, 2020 Status Conference in this matter provides the context for PACJC’s objection to PROPSF’s proposals to remove the two year limitation on unscheduled service and PROPSF’s limitation on notice of unscheduled service to “the Redwood City navigable channel.”

As to the first point of the two year limitation on PROPSF’s unscheduled service, during the October 20, 2020 Status Conference, PACJC’s comments included presentation of information regarding its pursuit of the constitutional right of due process, in the Court of Appeal, if that’s what it took. (Oct. 20, 2020 Status Conference transcript page 17, lines

6-18 and page 39, line 13). (As a party in this matter, PACJC has the right to pursue such appeal – Public Utilities Code sec. 1756.) Also during the October 20, 2020 Status

Conference, the ALJ asked whether PACJC would be satisfied, without an opening of the record, regarding the arrangement of a protocol similar to that of and their interaction with recreational users in Marin. As acknowledged, the “fair and honest” response of the undersigned counsel was that consultation with the client would be required. (Oct. 20, 2020 Status Conference transcript page 24, line 21 to page 25, line 2).

Let PACJC make clear that it did not offer comments regarding the Proposed

Decision, because it is satisfied how safety is addressed in the Proposed Decision. First, regarding the stricture of two years on unscheduled service, PACJC is thus satisfied, without an opening of the record.

3

4 / 6

As to the second point, PROPSF’s suggestion that 48 hours notice would be acceptable for change of an amended schedule, that suggestion by PROPSF is completely unrelated to its current application for unscheduled service and does not warrant consideration in the current proceeding.

Thirdly, moving on to PROPSF’s suggested limitation limiting 24 hours advance notice to PROPSF’s use of “the Redwood City navigable channel.” What is “the Redwood

City navigable channel”? PACJC submits that the neither the record in this matter nor

PROPSF offer any evidentiary, legal, statutory or administrative definition of “the

Redwood City navigable channel.” PACJC assumes that from PROPSF’s previous contact with the Stanford crew coach and boat manager, as specified by PROPSF during the

October 20, 2020 Status Conference in this matter (Oct. 20, 2020 Status Conference transcript page 31, line 21, page 33, line 25, page 38, line 11) has informed PROPSF that crew rowing / recreational use begins in Redwood City but goes on not only in the “the

Redwood City navigable channel,” but also the and even as far as halfway (or further) from Redwood City to the San Mateo – Hayward Bridge. And whether in the “navigable channel,” “slough” or “halfway” to the bridge, PROPSF could not dispute during the October 20, 2020 Status Conference that safety, particularly to

“boaters,” remains an ongoing issue. As acknowledged by PROPSF’s counsel, "[t]he main issue was really the wakes that was produced by the vessel, which caused boaters to be rocked. So as a result, Prop would slow down whenever it sighted a boater and would continue at a very slow pace until it had passed the boater." (10/20/20 Transcript page 30, line 28 to page 31 line 5.) Environmental and effects on a particular boat aside, the major impact of the wakes of PROPSF’s ferries in and/or about Redwood City is reflected in the

4

5 / 6

YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-L-lAww3_w which PACJC

included in its September 2, 2020 Motion for Extension of Time in this matter. Whether in

the Bay, “the Redwood City navigable channel,” or Westpoint Slough, wakes remain the

same problem. For boaters/crews/recreational users originating their activities in Redwood

City, wakes remain a severe concern. Moreover, if PROPSF operated in Westpoint Slough

(on its way to Westpoint Harbor LLC), it would still be going to Redwood City and leave

the same boaters/crews/recreational users in the same potential danger. With respect to

using Westpoint Harbor as a landing site, PROPSF’s SUGGESTED EDITS - on Ordering

Paragraph 6 (PD at 20) provides for notice to recreational users regarding “landing sites”.

Presumably PROPSF would have the right to consider Westpoint Harbor LLC on

Westpoint Slough as a landing site for unscheduled service.

To summarize, all unscheduled service to Redwood City by PROPSF in the two

years to be allowed undoubtedly warrants 24 hours notice to PACJC, as specified in the

Proposed Decision, as well as the addition of a requirement of “public notice” of additional

public communication on 24 hours’ notice as the Commission may warrant.

Safety. PACJC respects and is grateful for the Proposed Decision’s approach to

Safety.

Respectfully submitted at Menlo Park, California,

George S. Duesdieker Attorney 1837 Camino de los Robles Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: 650.533.7437 Email: [email protected] Dated: April 5, 2021

5

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 6 / 6