WCCTAC
West
Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee
MINUTES
March 31, 2006
The
regular meeting of the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee was
called to order at 7:30 A.M. on Friday, March 31, 2006 by Chair Sharon Brown in
the City Council Chambers of the City of San Pablo, 13831 San Pablo Avenue, San
Pablo, California
Call to Order / Self Introductions
PRESENT: Janet Abelson (El Cerrito), Ed Balico
(Hercules), David Cole (Pinole), Bob Franklin (BART), John Gioia (Contra Costa
County), Jerrold Parsons (WestCAT), Maria Viramontes (Richmond), Joe Wallace
(AC Transit), and Chair Sharon Brown (San Pablo)
ABSENT: Irma Anderson (Richmond) and Tom Butt (Richmond)
STAFF: Lisa Hammon, WCCTAC Managing Director
Linda Young, WCCTAC
Transportation Project Specialist
John Rudolph, WCCTAC
Management Assistant
Nancy Cuneo, WCCTAC
Administrative Analyst
Bryan Otake, Attorney –
Meyers Nave
Paul Maxwell, Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (CCTA)
Hisham Noeimi, Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (CCTA)
Chair
Brown took this opportunity to congratulate Janet Abelson who had been honored
in Sacramento on March 20 as one of California’s Women of the Year for
2006. She had been selected by
Assemblywoman Loni Hancock to receive that honor.
Chair
Brown also congratulated Tom Butt who was the new Vice Chair of the Local
Government Commission.
Public Comment
On
motion by Joe Wallace, seconded by Janet Abelson and carried unanimously, the
WCCTAC Board adopted the Consent Calendar, as follows:
3.
Approved Minutes, Sign-In Sheet and
Meeting Summary from the February 24, 2006 Meeting.
4.
Accepted Employee Staff Reports from
the Managing Director, the Management Assistant, and the Transportation Project
Specialist for March.
5.
Approved the applications for 511
Contra Costa – West County Projects for FY 06-07 and directed staff to forward
the applications to the CCTA.
6.
Received West County Bus Shelter
Program Update.
Transit Summit (“Go I-80”)
Draft Outline
Managing
Director Lisa Hammon reported that the “Go I-80” Transit Summit had been
scheduled for Thursday, May 11 at Maple Hall in the City of San Pablo. The draft outline and schedule for that event
was presented to the WCCTAC Board for review and discussion.
Ms.
Hammon advised that the summit would begin at 5:30 P.M. with an Information
Fair and refreshments, and with table participants that would have information
that members of the public could pick up and have discussions with staff
followed by a welcome from the WCCTAC Chair, a discussion of upcoming projects
and a prioritization exercise to help feed into the Strategic Plan to be
developed for Measure J. She noted that
Summer Brenner was helping on the project.
Ms.
Hammon added that there had been a discussion of a youth focus since youth were
the next generation that would use transit more and more. Time would be spent on Building for Tomorrow
– Youth Transportation. A keynote
speaker had been proposed along with a presentation on transportation,
transportation funding, transportation’s relationship to housing, land use and
the economy, how to get involved, and the schedule for local and regional
transportation meetings, followed by next steps. The summit was scheduled to end at 8:00
P.M. She sought comments and suggestions
for the planning for the next Transit Summit.
Chair
Brown recommended that the youth commissions from all cities be contacted.
Janet
Abelson suggested that the high schools also be contacted.
Ms.
Hammon reported that the item would be returned to the agenda for the next WCCTAC
meeting in April.
Managing Director Hammon reported
that this year the conference would be November 4 to 8 in Chicago, which
conference would focus on all modes of transit and transportation. She noted that last year the WCCTAC covered
the conference registration fees. She
sought direction on who would like to attend the conference and what fees would
be covered by WCCTAC.
Ed Balico and Joe Wallace
expressed an interest in attending the Rail-Volution Conference while Bob
Franklin noted that he had already been scheduled to attend the conference
representing BART at BART’s expense.
On
motion by Maria Viramontes, seconded by Janet Abelson and carried unanimously,
the WCCTAC agreed to pay for the registration of those members planning to
attend the Rail-Volution Conference in Chicago from November 4 to 8, 2006.
Update on the Subregional Transportation Mitigation
Fee Program (STMP)
Managing
Director Hammon presented the update on the Subregional Transportation
Mitigation Fee (STMP) Program. She noted
that comments from Richmond were anticipated.
Comments had been received from all other jurisdictions in the
County. Final comments and the final
draft of the STMP Program would be sent out within the next ten days or so and
the documents would be ready for action by the WCCTAC Board at its April
meeting, to then be forwarded to the cities and the County for adoption.
Bryan
Otake reported that feedback had been received from most agencies, including
the County, and most changes had related more to form than substance. He stated that the proposed final draft would
be circulated for final comment and review to be able to be submitted to the
WCCTAC at its April meeting. He added
that things were on track in terms of legal comment and review.
Ms.
Hammon clarified, when asked, that the documents had not been included in the WCCTAC
packet at this point pending final comments.
She referred to the Ad-Hoc Working Group Report which had discussed
specific language regarding casino projects, which language would also be
included in the final draft.
With
respect to the advancement of funds prior to the finalization of projects and
the funding strategy with STMP projects, Ms. Hammon advised that she was
preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for consultant assistance to prepare
that strategy. While there had
previously only been three West County projects and no strategic plan was
needed, in this case there would be eleven projects requiring more cash flow
analysis over the 25 years of the program and requiring a description of each
of the projects. The process of actually
developing the strategic plan could be funded once the fees were collected. There
would be no impact to the WCCTAC budget other than fronting the money pending
collection.
In
response to Ed Balico, Ms. Hammon clarified that the item related to the
developer fee program although there was an overlap with Measure J
programs. As such, the timing from both
developer fees and Measure J would have to be addressed. She reported that the WCCTAC Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) would develop a list of projects when there were overlapping
funds. The first draft of that project
list had been presented at the last WCCTAC meeting.
Measure J Items: (A) Policies approved by the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority and Circulated to the Regional Committees for Comment;
(B) West County Project Priorities in Measure J/Developer Fee Program: (C) Meetings
and/or Discussion with Legislators Regarding West County Projects (Follow up
from the February 24 meeting)
Managing
Director Hammon stated that the first part of the item related to what had been
approved by the Authority at its last meeting.
Paul
Maxwell reported that the draft policies that the CCTA had adopted at its March
meeting had been submitted to the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs)
and the transit agencies for review and comment. Those draft policies had been included in the
Draft “Measure J Financial Framework
and Associated Policies.”
Mr.
Maxwell noted that this was the first time that there had been an opportunity to
look at how to implement Measure J programs.
Three issues had been discussed; how the CCTA was proposing to
differentiate between programs and projects, how to do any advance planning in
advance of Measure J taking effect in 2009, and how that advance project funding
would be implemented.
In
the first category, Mr. Maxwell stated that the WCCTAC Board had elected for
Measure J to put more sales tax revenues into programs rather than
projects. He explained how those
revenues would be accounted for on an annual basis. The policies suggested that every year when
the CCTA received sales tax revenues it would immediately put the appropriate
portion of the revenue into each program into a separate account at the CCTA.
As
far as the projects were concerned, the CCTA committed to a $300 million bond
issue in 2009 with a subsequent bond issue of $150 million in 2012, so that a
portion of the revenue for projects would go into separate accounts to pay the
debt service on the bond issue and to pay for the projects. He stated that there were some hybrid programs
that could have an operational element and a capital element, such as the
Express Bus program, where the funds could be conceived of as being allocated
annually for operations or using the money initially to buy the buses to run
the service.
Mr.
Maxwell highlighted the table included in the WCCTAC packet, “Element
Classifications – Measure J Transportation Expenditure Plan: Categorization of
Elements.” He stated the policy envisioned
that prior to 2009; each RTPC would look at those hybrid elements to determine
whether or not to allocate a portion of those programs to capital
acquisition. He stated that the CCTA
needed to determine between now and the middle of Measure J whether or not the
hybrid programs had a capital element required up front that would be set aside
separately.
As
far as the other two policies, Mr. Maxwell explained that advancing studies for
Measure J programs had become an issue because in southwest county there was a
new school transportation bus program and the CCTA had been asked whether to
not it would be willing to reimburse them for advance planning to put their
buses on the street in 2009. That request had caused a debate as to whether or
not funding could be advanced for those jurisdictions. He noted that proposed policies did not allow
that but allowed under special circumstances to permit a proponent of a Measure
J program to come to the CCTA and ask ahead of time for the CCTA to approve an
advanced funding planning study to be reimbursed in 2009. He added that the amount of money to be
reimbursed could not exceed 25 percent of the annual expected allocation of
that program.
With
respect to the third area of project development, Mr. Maxwell stated that
because the large bond issue had been committed in 2009 and under federal IRS
rules that money had to be spent down in three years, it was important that
enough projects were ready to be able to spend the money between 2009 and
2012. He and Hisham Noeimi had been
working with several projects ready to go out to bid. He stated that the large projects; i.e. the
Caldecott Tunnel and Highway 4 represented a greater effort and there was
advance work in those cases using money other than Measure J funds.
Mr.
Maxwell added that the Managing Director and El Cerrito staff had discussed the
advancement of I-80 projects and looking at ways to use Measure C funds and
federal demonstration money to get those projects ready to be available to use
the bond proceeds if there was capacity to do that.
Mr.
Maxwell stated that had caused the CCTA to consider “metering” the funds for
advance development. He noted that a
planning effort would require a local component to get the concurrence of the RTPC
to seek an appropriation of funds to do the advanced project development work,
using either Measure C money or with a policy where the CCTA would borrow money
on a short term basis to do the project development work prior to 2009. In that case, reimbursing the local
jurisdiction or doing the work themselves to advance the projects.
Stating
that those were the three areas in the policy, Mr. Maxwell added that clearly there
would be policies to address with other programs such as school transportation
for children, BART programs, paratransit, and Express Bus, all of which would
need additional policies for implementation.
In the next one to two years the RTPCs, transit staff and transit
agencies would work together to figure out how that would work.
Mr.
Maxwell raised the issue of reserves under Measure J and the discussions that
had proposed a 3 percent reserve in years where there were significant revenues
exceeding CPI that could be used in years when revenues were less than
anticipated. Another area would be the Livable
Communities Program and how that would be implemented, which were issues to be
addressed over the next couple of years.
He explained that this policy would begin that process. He noted that the CCTA was actually in the
process of expanding staff that would be responsible for managing the Measure J
programs.
Ms.
Hammon advised that the April meeting of the WCCTAC TAC would consider the
hybrid projects. With respect to the program side and the allocation
of funds over the life of Measure C, she asked whether there was any room to
negotiate something different from a set of funding every year.
In
response, Mr. Maxwell noted that would probably not be prudent as a general
rule given the need for funds on an annual basis to fund transit programs. While not recommended, if there was a
specific program that needed more money earlier than later, that possibility could
be explored. As a general rule, the
funds would be secured annually and disbursed annually. He stated that the way the program was being
developed the funds would be guaranteed to be available and waiting to be used
on an annual basis, although a particular project and a particular need could
be considered.
Ed
Balico recommended the use of a program manager to treat programs like projects
in terms of management. With respect to
reimbursement, he stated that some cities such as Hercules were waiting for a
couple of projects, in Hercules’ case the train station and the bus depot. Because of the expense, he recommended that
when a project was ready for construction there be no delay in funding.
Ms.
Hammon stated that the train station was a good example of using developer fee
funds because if ready to proceed those funds could be used prior to Measure J
funds, which was the balancing act and the timing issue between the funds in
the developer fee program and the funds in Measure J.
Mr.
Maxwell added that the policies anticipated advancing money for project
development. While possible, if that
happened, funds would be borrowed in advance of Measure J and there would be a
cost to do that. As long as a proponent
was willing to shoulder the cost and the RTPC was supportive, the CCTA would
likely be willing to consider that on an individual basis. He noted that did not make sense for every
project. He suggested that would be a
good comment for the RTPCs to make.
John
Gioia suggested it would be useful to have some sort of intent and purpose
about the advancing of some of the projects.
To the extent an advancement would save money with some projects more
than others, and with the need to alleviate congestion, he stated it made sense
to reflect that policy in the document. A
comment to that effect, to save money by having capital projects completed
earlier, was recommended. He recommended
that the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) be spelled out for clarification.
Maria
Viramontes asked for a clarification of which projects in West County would be
advanced under the reauthorization of Measure C, which had been approved and
which would be considered under Measure J and whether or not everyone would get
street funds.
Mr.
Maxwell advised of the status of the projects in question, to which Ms.
Viramontes acknowledged that all the major issues of funding had been settled.
Mr.
Maxwell added that there was enough money in the program for 2009 to fulfill all
requirements under 18 percent return to source funds and all programs were
fully taken care of, although there might be a cash flow issue. If that were to occur, he explained that a short
term note or line of credit would fulfill those commitments. Between now and 2009 there would be enough Measure
C funds available to fill the requirements.
In
terms of the Central Avenue project, Mr. Maxwell stated that there was federal
demonstration money for the CCTA to take the lead in conducting a Project Study
Report (PSR) followed by the environmental impact studies and the final design
of that project. For San Pablo Dam Road,
he added that Caltrans had already done a PSR and environmental studies would
be done using Measure C funds now, to be repaid in 2009. He noted a slowdown in that case given some
issues related to Caltrans rules and procedures. An RFP for that work should be undertaken in
May.
Hisham
Noeimi stated with respect to the Hercules Train Station project that there was
agreement to provide $2 million to cover the shortfall in that project. For the parking structure, the project was
now fully funded and $5.9 million from Measure C had been put into that
project, to be constructed in 2007/2008.
For Central Avenue, some Measure C funds had to be fronted for the 20
percent demonstration fund match.
Ms.
Viramontes asked for information as to how Richmond could file for its 18 percent
for streets and roads from past years.
Janet
Abelson commented that since most of the funding had been placed into programs,
there was a need to make sure that those funds had been secured. She stated it was the intent in the
development of Measure J that those would be for operating programs so that in
the bus category the bus operators would get funds to operate the buses, with
the funds to be needed on an ongoing reliable basis through the life of Measure
J. She suggested that was an underlying
strategy to be addressed. As an
exception, she suggested looking at paratransit in Measure C to set aside a reserve. She did not know if there was a reserve to
enable the continued operation of the paratransit programs at the current level
over time. She urged a process to ensure
that high priority programs would be appropriately funded to allow functional
operation over time.
Mr.
Maxwell referred to Page 12 of 15 of the Framework
report related to the reserves where some of those issues had been
discussed. He sought comments to the CCTA
on that report.
WCCTAC Budget, Dues, and Scope of Work for FY 06-07
Managing
Director Hammon presented the staff report for the WCCTAC Budget.
Ms.
Hammon highlighted the differences between the Fiscal Year 05-06 and 06-07
budgets. She stated that the budget was
essentially the same as last year and that the dues would remain the same.
Ms.
Hammon stated that comments and revisions would be returned to the June meeting
for adoption. She recommended action to
authorize the submittal of the budget to the agencies for comment, with
comments to be returned by the end of May to allow final action by the WCCTAC
Board at its June 30, 2006 meeting. She
noted that there would be a request that the budget be placed on the same
agenda as the developer funds presentation to expedite the process.
On
motion by Maria Viramontes, seconded by Ed Balico and carried unanimously, the
WCCTAC Board directed staff to forward the documents to the member agencies and
request comments by May 31 to allow final action by the WCCTAC Board at its
June 30, 2006 meeting.
Taxi Safety in West County
Managing
Director Hammon reported that since the last month, Sheriff Rupf had met with
West County Police Chiefs. It was her
understanding that the Sheriff and police chiefs had discussed the item, to
consider the issue of taxi safety and to work on it potentially with support
from the Sheriff’s office. She presented
a draft memorandum to Sheriff Rupf to ask for a timeline of when and how to
move the item forward. The memo had
explained that the WCCTAC had opportunities to apply for grants and other
funding mechanisms to help pay for security shields and cameras in all
taxicabs, including a Lifeline Transportation grant that was due April 28. She noted that the WCCTAC Board had
authorized an expense of $10,000 last month for safety equipment and additional
information. She asked the Board to send
the memo to Sheriff Rupf and sought comments and feedback from the Board.
When
asked about the Lifeline Transportation grant, Ms. Hammon noted that a
determination of whether or not the grant would become available would be in
the June timeframe with the funding potentially available in the fall of 2006.
In
response to Maria Viramontes as to the training course for taxi drivers and the
model taxi ordinance discussed at the last meeting, Ms. Hammon stated that
would come from the police chiefs and the Sherriff. She noted that all of the taxi issues line by
line would get a timeline, to be returned to the WCCTAC for discussion at the
next Board meeting.
Maria
Viramontes noted her desire to place the item in Richmond’s budget to provide
some funding since Richmond had more taxis than other West County
jurisdictions.
Ms.
Hammon stated that she would work with Ms. Viramontes individually to prepare
something to be submitted to the Richmond City Council.
When
asked, Bryan Otake explained with respect to the use of public funds for
private purpose, that in this case the public purpose was to facilitate safe
transportation even though there was a service used publicly albeit through a
private company or entities. He
clarified that the taxis were used for a public purpose as part of the overall
transportation system.
Janet
Abelson noted that the taxi she had recently used had a shield. She verified with staff that the program
would only install shields where there were none.
Joe
Wallace asked who would monitor the program.
He noted some of the problems with the taxi system and asked who would
make sure that the cabs getting the shields on public funds would serve the
public and not just the private interest.
Ms.
Hammon stated that if the WCCTAC was submitting the grant, the WCCTAC would
have some responsibly in conjunction with law enforcement.
John
Gioia emphasized the public interest in support of taxi safety given that taxis
served people who used a taxi as his/her only means of transportation. He urged care to ensure that linkage to the
public purpose.
Janet
Abelson agreed that some taxi drivers were selective as to the fares his/she
would accept. As such, she emphasized
the need for an agreement, to be posted in the taxis, to ensure that taxi
drivers who received money from the WCCTAC would truly serve the public.
Jerrold
Parsons emphasized the need that the taxis serve the entire West County area.
On
motion by Maria Viramontes, seconded by John Gioia and carried unanimously, the
WCCTAC Board approved the memorandum to Sheriff Rupf.
San Pablo Avenue Vision Project
Ted Droettboom presented an update on the Regional
Vision, which included focused implementation efforts along San Pablo
Avenue. He explained that the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) were coordinating
the regional planning.
Mr. Droettboom described the general program of focusing
the vision which took off from Smart Growth strategy, the Livability Project in
2002 and the Shaping Our Future Project in Contra Costa County at approximately
the same time. He emphasized the focus
on housing given the public priority in the Bay Area. He explained that people were moving out of
the region and there was difficulty attracting people to the region because of
housing costs.
Mr. Droettboom stated that compact development
around the Bay with transit oriented development (TOD) would offer significant transportation
benefits, reducing congestion from not only housing but a transportation
perspective as well, while also saving resources. He described the regional and local government
objectives for development and the collaborative effort to address the San
Pablo Avenue corridor.
Christy Riviere, ABAG, distributed maps of the San
Pablo Avenue corridor and explained that many cities, public agencies and
community groups were working to improve San Pablo Avenue as both a destination
and a gateway to their communities. She
described the challenges of what to do given the developments proposed and the many
issues involved. She sought comments and input from the public
with respect to integrating new design features to improve overall usage and
enhance the appearance of the corridor.
Joe Wallace expressed his hope that the program
would not be used to favor developers given the need for people of low and no
income to be able to continue to live in areas that would become too expensive
for those people to remain. He
recommended that ABAG partner with the local communities.
Ms. Riviere agreed that was a huge issue and a
concern that would have to be addressed.
She stated that they had been communicating with local groups and with
the individual jurisdictions.
The following comments were offered:
·
Include the
North Richmond Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) (Gioia)
·
Include
WestCAT (Balico)
·
Include the
requirement for inclusionary Housing Elements (Viramontes)
In response to the comments, Ms. Riviere advised
that part of the program was to learn what other cities were doing given the
great solutions and programs available. She stated that information would be
shared so that all could benefit.
Ms. Hammon stated that she had been working with groups
on the issue and there were ongoing meetings on a technical level. More information would be brought to the Board.
AC Transit Schedule and Route Changes
and West Contra Costa County Service Plan
Robert
Del Rosario, Transportation Planner, AC Transit, distributed information on
service changes implemented on March 19 to 50 service routes along with a map
of three new lines and an All Nighter service which AC transit had implemented
with other services in the Bay Area.
With respect to the West Contra Costa County Service
Plan, Mr. Del Rosario described the efforts to improve service, make service
changes, clean up the network, and expand service. Phase I would be implemented in August 2006. He described Phase I as a cost neutral plan
with few changes. Phase II looked to
expand service, to be expanded based upon available funding opportunities and
Measure J operation funds.
With respect to the proposed changes, Janet Abelson
commented that the whole area of the Richmond Parkway Transit Center was marginally
accessible given a lack of sidewalks surrounding that center. She did not believe that the buses should be
placed in areas where access was marginal.
She emphasized the need for infrastructure connections to the new lines.
Ms. Hammon stated that was a project that the WCCTAC
had been working with others to address.
She stated that issue could be returned for discussion.
Charlie Anderson of WestCAT clarified that the
projects would start with the implementation of Measure J.
Jerrold Parsons recommended that WestCAT and AC Transit
work with Ms. Abelson to address some of her concerns. With respect to the area not being served, he
expressed his hope for a collaborative effort to work with WestCAT to serve
undererserved areas, particularly the El Sobrante area.
Correspondence/Other Information
Incoming:
TRANSPAC
meeting summary; 2.22.06
City
of San Pablo letter to Governor Schwarzenegger; 3.2.06
SWAT
meeting summary; 3.15.06
CCTA
meeting summary; 3.16.06
TRANSPAC
meeting summary; 3.22.06
Newspaper/Internet Articles:
(all
articles from West County Times unless stated otherwise):“Poll finds majority
support school, transportation taxes;” 02.27.06
“Ferry
service challenge;” 02.27.06
“$20
million Indian casino bill passes Assembly;“ 02.28.06
“Your
commute is shrinking” San Francisco Chronicle; 02.28.06
“Old
Town redevelopment puts focus on community;” 03.01.06
“Traffic
stalled by Fastrak, study says;” 03.01.06
“Richmond
picks paver to work on Greenway trail;” 03.01.06
“Making
it worse so it gets better;” 03.02.06
“Voters
polled approved of state bond issue;” 03.02.06
“Governor
seeks more funding for levees;” 03.02.06
“District
condemns Breuner Property to build park;” 03.04.06
“Fare
increase considered for ACE commuter trains;” 03.06.06
“GOP
split over bond proposals as deadline for June vote nears;” 03.07.06
“Carquinez
Bridge is coming down;” 03.07.06
“Lobbyists
scramble to get bond proposal on June ballot;” 03.08.06
“Report
on casino details positives;” 03.09.06
“State’s
largest borrowing plan hinges on support from GOP;” 03.09.06
“Leaders
disagree over bond specifics;” 03.10.06
“Contra
Costa looks to bond for road repairs;” 03.10.06
“Urban
limit line not yet on June ballot;” 03.10.06
“Schwarzenegger’s
clout put to test;” 03.11.06
“Rules
of Fastrak enrollment explained;” 03.12.06
“Governor,
others working to salvage bond measure;” 03.13.06
“Cities
ask agency to keep bus service;” 03.13.06
“Bond
measure unlikely to appear on June ballot;” 03.14.06
“Clearing
skies a reason to take a hike;” 03.16.06
“Bond
failure could slow county road projects;” 03.17.06
“Citizens
address outline for Pomo Indians casino;” 03.17.06
“Comments
sought for transit draft plan;” 03.17.06
“Race,
poverty and neglect dominate casino hearing;” 03.17.06
“Governor
plans to revive bond for November ballot;” 03.17.06
“Carquinez
Bridge deconstruction gets under way;” 03.18.06
Handouts Available at the Meeting:
Capitol
Corridor Draft Business Plan (FY 2006-07 – FY 2007-08)
Information
packets on Flex Car, City Car Share, and Zip Car
Board Member Comments/Reports
There
were no comments or reports.
Other Business
There
was no other business.
Adjournment
With
no further business to come before the WCCTAC, Chair Brown adjourned the
meeting at 9:24 A.M. to the next meeting set for April 28, 2006 at 7:30 A.M. at
the San Pablo City Council Chambers, 13831 San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo,
California.
Respectfully
submitted,
Anita
L. Tucci-Smith
Minutes
Clerk