WCCTAC

West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee

Minutes

June 22, 2007

The regular meeting of the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee was called to order at 7:36 A.M. on Friday, June 22, 2007 by Chair Sharon Brown in the City Council Chambers of the City of San Pablo, 13831 San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo, California, 94806.

1. CALL TO ORDER/SELF INTRODUCTIONS

PRESENT: Sharon Brown, Chair (San Pablo), Janet Abelson (El Cerrito), Maria Alegria (Pinole), Ed Balico (Hercules), Tom Butt (Richmond), Bob Franklin (BART), Joe Wallace (AC Transit)

STAFF: Lisa Hammon, WCCTAC Managing Director

Linda Young, WCCTAC Transportation Project Specialist

John Rudolph, WCCTAC Management Assistant

Nancy Cuneo, WCCTAC Administrative Analyst

Bryan Otake, WCCTAC General Counsel

Jeremy Hughes, WCCTAC Administrative Clerk

EXCUSED: John Gioia (Contra Costa County)

Gayle McLaughlin (Richmond)

Jerrold Parsons (WestCAT)

Hisham Noeimi, CCTA Staff

Maria Viramontes, Vice-Chair (Richmond)

*Arrived after Roll Call

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Lisa Hammon announced that June 30 would be part-time contract employee Jeremy Hughes’ last day. She thanked Mr. Hughes for his time as an employee of WCCTAC.

Nancy Baer, Injury Prevention Project Manager for Contra Costa Health Services thanked WCCTAC for sponsorship of the April 6th forum on interconnections of health, land use, and transportation planning. Ms. Baer thanked Maria Alegria for her participation on the panel and Supervisor Gioia for his assistance in shaping the forum. Ms. Baer distributed an article summarizing research conducted on the impact of land use and transportation planning on public health. The article as well puts forth some best practices for communities to consider in their planning.

On motion by Janet Abelson, seconded by Maria Alegria and carried unanimously, the WCCTAC Board voted to adopt the Consent Calendar with Item 6 pulled as follows:

3. Approved minutes, Sign-In Sheet, and Meeting Summary from the May 25, 2007 Meeting.

4. Approved Staff Reports.

5. Approved Call for Projects – 2008 Transportation Improvement Program.

6. Update on the West County Taxi Program.

7. Update on Financing of Developer Fee Projects

8. Resolution Extending the Managing Director’s Current Employment Agreement through September 28, 2007 or Until a New Employment Agreement is Negotiated.

Item 6: Update on the West County Taxi Program

Ms. Hammon noted that she had recently attended the Richmond Public Safety Committee meeting where the draft taxi cab ordinance for the City of Richmond was on the agenda. She noted that the ordinance was discussed at length and is moving up to the City Council. Ms. Hammon noted that WCCTAC has been working with the Richmond City Attorney’s office, members of the Richmond City Council, members of the Richmond police department, and John Rudolph to get the ordinance up to date and implemented. As well, action is being taken to get taxi drivers in Richmond registered, safety equipment installed, and an accessible taxi cab for disabled residents of Richmond. Ms. Hammon expressed hope that once implemented, the ordinance could become a model for taxi cab ordinances in other West County jurisdictions.

Joe Wallace expressed concern about an incident at del Norte BART, where a Richmond cab driver asked for fare up front. The cab driver stated to Mr. Wallace that he had done so according to direction from the City of Richmond. Mr. Wallace expressed his opinion that the driver was lying. Mr. Wallace stated that he would not ascribe such conduct to the City of Richmond. Mr. Wallace continued by stating that after the first cab refused service a second cab did the same which required him to wait an hour and a half for the bus. Mr. Wallace noted that taxi drivers are frequently demanding inflated fares up front at the del Norte BART station and Richmond BART. He added that a number of cabs do not have meters in their vehicles; as well, some cab drivers are rude and display bias in their selection of clients.

Mr. Wallace stated that this kind of conduct has been ongoing for some time and he expressed that it needs to stop due to the fact that this kind of behavior adversely affects the most vulnerable members of the community.

Ms. Hammon stated that the issues of charging fares up front and refusal to provide service to certain areas of Richmond are addressed in the draft of the Richmond taxi ordinance. She noted that she presented language relative to these issues to the Assistant City Attorney at the Richmond Public Safety Committee meeting.

Tom Butt asked if any of the stated activities are inconsistent with language included in the existing ordinance.

Ms. Hammon replied that her understanding is that the language in the existing ordinance is so out of date that it had to be rewritten entirely. She stated that she could not answer Mr. Butt’s inquiry about the contents of the current ordinance and how it is being monitored; however it is known that there are two separate departments, the city clerk’s office and the police department, that are responsible for monitoring and registering the cabs. She noted that currently taxi cab drivers are operating with temporary permits and that the new draft ordinance proposes that all aspects of taxi cab oversight fall under the jurisdiction of the police department.

Mr. Butt stated that if there is language to curtail unethical activates in the current ordinance perhaps action could be taken at this time. He stated that he would take a look at the existing ordinance.

Ms. Abelson stated that disabled persons are as well refused service and charged excessive fares.

Ed Balico noted that in areas such as Washington D.C. a fare-zone map has been implemented so that the exact fare may be known prior to service. He stated that the same should perhaps be in use in the City of Richmond.

Chair Brown asked if a fare-zone map is being considered.

Ms. Hammon stated that she believes that the fare-zone system replaces meters in areas such as Washington D.C. She remarked that at this time the meters will continue to be the primary means by which fares are calculated. She noted that she had given consideration to a rate sheet that would provide patrons with an approximate amount for services requested prior to their rendering.

Ed Balico stated that the rate sheet would be a beneficial accompaniment to the metering system.

Item 9: Board Member Comments/Announcements

Mr. Wallace thanked the WCCTAC Board for their understanding of issues related to transportation and expressed his good sentiments for having the opportunity to serve as a member.

Chair Brown thanked Mr. Wallace for his service.

Item 10: Legal Counsel Comments

Mr. Otake thanked Chair Brown and made note of two bills that are working their way through the state senate and the state assembly related to Item 11, proposition monies and their usages, Assembly Bill 1053 and Senate Bill 46. These bills are proposals related to how to spend the $850 million earmarked for infill development e.g. Smart Growth. Mr. Otake stated that given the structure of West County it may be prudent to consult with city attorneys in Board members’ individual jurisdictions as these bills provide significant amounts of money for which most cities in West County should be eligible.

He noted that while monies provided by AB 1053 are earmarked for specific kinds of development those monies available through SB 46 are at the discretion of governing bodies in Sacramento. He concluded by stating that at this time the League of California Cities has not established a stance, e.g. support, neutral, or opposed, relative to the stated bills.

Ms. Abelson requested clarification as to whether or not the bills are under consideration or have been passed.

Mr. Otake stated that the bills are under consideration.

Chair Brown requested that upon approval of the proposed bills, Mr. Otake distribute an email to inform the individual jurisdictions of their status as approved.

Item 11: WCCTAC FY 07-08 Budget and Related Items

Ms. Hammon directed the Board’s attention to a separate attachment to agenda Item 10. The staff report contained therein is the same as was put forth at the April meeting with changes to the budget sub-committees’ recommendations as follows: to keep the dues structure the same as was in the past, not revised to the relative population and road miles of individual jurisdictions and to pay the San Pablo Avenue O&M costs from the Developer Impact Fee Program Project. The second item in the packet is a new memo regarding the WCCTAC dues and the developer fees for San Pablo Avenue.

Ms. Hammon noted that she has had several discussions with WestCAT General Manager, Charlie Anderson, regarding the increase in the dues and his agency’s status as one of the smallest WCCTAC member agencies, as well as one of the smallest transit operators, and how the increase in the dues was a significant issue to WestCAT, Ms. Hammon commented that she understands that the increase in dues is as well significant to all the other WCCTAC member agencies; however, WCCTAC was trying to determine ways in which to soften the impact on WestCAT.

Ms. Hammon noted that to accomplish this, WestCAT would continue to pay their portion of the San Pablo O&M directly to the AVL/GPS provider; however, WCCTAC would pay the amount of $14,560, the average amount paid by the other jurisdictions to the San Pablo O&M, back to WestCAT. The WCCTAC cities/county are receiving this benefit, as well, as San Pablo Avenue O&M will be paid from the STMP program.

Ms. Abelson asked how this system would affect the amount being paid by the other member agencies.

Ms. Hammon replied that it would have no effect. She noted that all of the jurisdictions would not be paying their portion of the San Pablo O&M this year as those funds will be extracted from the STMP Program, as noted earlier.

Ms. Abelson asked why WestCAT is being treated differently.

Ms. Hammon replied that WestCAT is being treated differently because they are paying their San Pablo O&M costs directly to their GPS provider while the other jurisdictions are paying their portion to the Alameda Congestion Management Agency who is responsible for the maintenance and operations of San Pablo Avenue. Ms. Hammon noted that the total San Pablo Avenue project paid for the GPS services for WestCAT; however, as part of the maintenance of that system WestCAT is paying their portion directly to the GPS provider.

Ms. Hammon continued by directing the Board’s attention to the next section of the FY 07-08 Budget, the WCCTAC Comprehensive Budget and the TSM Budget. She noted Resolution 07-03, the adopting resolution for the dues structure and issues related to the budget in addition to the employment agreements for the Program Manager, the Transportation Project Specialist and the Administrative Analyst/Office Manager position.

The final item in the packet is the letter of agreement with Michael Bernick for the continuation of consulting services, the majority of which will be paid for out of the Richmond Intermodal Station Project in the Developer Impact Fee Program. The total is not to exceed the amount of $27,000 for the year.

Ms. Hammon noted that upon approval of the aforementioned items WCCTAC will commence hiring for the Senior Project Administrator position.

Mr. Butt asked if in the past year the City of Richmond paid their O&M costs separately.

Ms. Hammon replied no, that the City of Richmond paid their San Pablo O&M costs in addition to the dues directly to WCCTAC which was in turn paid directly to the Alameda CMA. She noted that this is approximately the same amount the City of Richmond will be paying for FY 07-08.

Mr. Butt asked how the O&M costs that Richmond pays is different from the O&M costs that WestCAT pays.

Ms. Hammon replied that it is not necessarily different except that it is paid to a different entity and that WestCAT paid substantially more than the $14,560 for their portion of the maintenance of the GPS system last year.

Bob Franklin remarked that BART is the only member agency that is not paying O&M costs; however, they do benefit from being involved in WCCTAC and therefore wanted to participate.

Chair Brown stated that WestCAT has similar sentiments.

Ms. Hammon noted that AC Transit pays $300,000 a year out of Measure B funds for maintenance and operations along San Pablo Avenue. She stated that BART is not really a member of the San Pablo Avenue group in terms of the O&M and does not directly benefit from funds allocated for maintenance and operations along San Pablo Avenue.

Mr. Franklin remarked that this system was a way to offset the increase in dues and BART is happy with the manner in which things have worked out.

Ms. Abelson asked if items such as post-employment healthcare are being accounted for in the budget.

Ms. Hammon replied that “post-employment benefits” is a line item in the budget.

On motion by Maria Alegria, seconded by Joe Wallace, and carried unanimously, the WCCTAC Board voted to adopt the FY 07-08 Budget and Resolution 07-03.

On motion by Maria Alegria, seconded by Joe Wallace, and carried unanimously, the WCCTAC Board voted to adopt the WCCTAC Employment Agreement for the Transportation Project Manager, Transportation Project Specialist, and the Administrative Analyst/Office Manager positions in substantially the same form as attached.

On motion by Ed Balico, seconded by Janet Abelson, and carried unanimously, the WCCTAC Board voted to adopt the letter agreement for consultation services with Michael Bernick.

On motion by Maria Alegria, seconded by Joe Wallace, and carried unanimously, the WCCTAC Board voted to adopt commencement of hiring for the position of Senior Project Administrator.

On motion by Maria Alegria, seconded by Joe Wallace, and carried unanimously, the WCCTAC Board voted to adopt direction of staff to invoice the member agencies for the WCCTAC dues.

Item 12: Presentation on Trade Corridors by Carolyn Cleavenger of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission

Ms. Hammon introduced Carolyn Cleavinger, Goods Movement Planner for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, who would be giving an update presentation on the $2 billion trade corridors program as provided through Proposition 1-B.

Ms. Cleavinger provided a brief background of the trade corridors plan. Approximately two years ago, Governor Schwarzenegger set up a working group headed by businesses, Transportation and Housing as well as the California E.P.A. to look at goods movement across the state. This was prior to passing of the infrastructure bonds and it was in large part due to the volume of goods received in Southern California ports. The result was the Goods Movement Action Plan (GMAP). Ms. Cleavinger noted that the focus of the GMAP was primarily on Southern California; of the initial 10.98 Billion dollars allocated for goods movement projects only $930 million was allocated towards Northern California ports.

Ms. Cleavinger noted that GMAP identified four primary California trade regions: Southern California ports and the Inland Empire; San Diego border crossings; the Central Valley and finally, the Bay Area. She noted that trade influx to California is projected to increase three-fold and therefore the impacts need to be assessed and addressed. The passing of the infrastructure bond included $2 billion for trade corridor improvements and $1 billion for air quality management. She noted that the air quality monies are being viewed by state officials as funds to address short term issues which require immediate action while the trade corridors monies are being viewed as funds for long term infrastructure improvements for the manner in which goods move through the state.

Ms. Cleavinger noted that both bills, drafted by Senator Lowenthal, are being worked through the legislature as separate trailer bills; the air quality portion, oversight for which is provided by the Air Resources Board (ARB), as Senate Bill 19 which should be resolved as part of the budget process within the next month or so. The ARB has identified five areas to which the majority of funds will be allocated:

· Truck retrofit and replacement programs primarily related to ports

· Rail switcher engines to reduce locomotive pollutants

· Cold ironing/electrification of ships to reduce pollutants while idling in port

· Harbor craft; tug boats, etc.

· Cargo handling equipment on port docks

Ms. Cleavinger noted that approximately half of the monies will be allocated for truck retrofitting and replacement. She stated that the Bay Area is at somewhat of a disadvantage due to the fact that is has better air quality than a number of the effected Southern California areas; however, local agencies have been proactive in lobbying to procure funds for localized problems which exist nonetheless.

The $2 billion for the infrastructure program is being worked through Senate Bill 9 in a manner so that monies are not allocated in the absence of a specified framework. To achieve this, every proposed project must have a one-to-one non-state funding (federal or private) match, in order to request funds. This was done primarily as leverage to get the shippers and railroads to the table, as it were. Ms. Cleavinger noted that there have been efforts to procure funding for highway improvements; however, there has not been much headway in this regard as it must be demonstrated that the highway improvements would directly benefit the movement of goods.

She noted because the bonds did not give very specific criteria for the allocation of monies provided, the CTC created a criteria working group to put together a more detailed framework of how projects will be evaluated. She noted that MTC has been meeting with the working group to ensure that Northern California’s needs are met. She remarked that the working group has been debating three frameworks with an expected decision on a specific framework for how monies will be allocated by sometime this summer. She noted that one of the proposed frameworks is based upon the metrics of the volume of goods coming through a given port which will consequently provide for the bulk of the funds going to Southern California ports.

She noted that MTC has been arguing for the second framework which would divide the monies by region based on critical corridors with the regions deciding wherein their individual priorities lie. She noted that the CTC working group has responded favorably to this proposal as it looks at transportation as a system as opposed to shifting bottlenecks around the state.

The third framework examines how to integrate operational improvements as part of the bonds, i.e. pier pass or night gates, which keeps ports open later to reduce traffic congestion associated with import traffic.

She noted that the two billion dollar bond will likely not be part of this budget cycle; however, there is a great push towards getting the air quality monies flowing as impacted areas of Southern California are in a state of emergency with regard to public health.

Ms. Cleavinger continued by noting Senator Lownthal’s proposed container fee bill, SB 974, which would affect the Ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles, and Oakland. She noted that of the money that would be generated from the container fee half would be allocated for infrastructure projects with the other half going towards air quality mitigation. She noted that due to the bills’ previous incarnation being rejected by the governor, the current proposal is being drafted with high attention to detail regarding allocation of funds generated by the container fees. She noted that SB 974 will likely go as part of this years’ budget cycle.

Mr. Butt remarked that of the member agencies the Port of Richmond would be the only jurisdiction to experience any benefits from the proposed legislation.

Ms. Cleavinger replied by stating that rail traffic impacts West County due to the Union Pacific and Amtrak lines as well as the Martinez subdivision. She noted that Capitol Corridor has been lobbying for the upgrade of the aforementioned lines.

Mr. Butt remarked that mile long trains and the resultant back-up presents the largest problem in West County and the money required for grade crossing improvements is substantial and unobtainable given the preallocation of funds characteristic of the language written in the bills.

Ms. Cleavinger replied, that the way in which monies have been allocated has not given much attention to bulk ports such as Richmond, San Francisco, Redwood City, and Benicia and unfortunately the section of the bonds that went towards grade crossings was $200 million for the entire state. She noted that this is unfortunate given the need for grade crossing improvements and she expressed hope that greater dialogue in the future would lead to better articulation of related needs.

Mr. Butt asked what WCCTAC’s role should be as he views the issue as relating primarily to the City of Richmond.

Ms. Hammon remarked that all of West County is affected and therefore WCCTAC’s involvement is warranted. She noted that increases in rail and truck traffic may lead to increases in traffic on I-80 as goods movement increases relative to the Port of Oakland. She remarked that it should be examined whether or not there will be any mitigation measures relative to the proposed bond projects particularly in local communities that will be impacted by increased truck traffic and ships idling in port. Ms. Hammon asked if MTC is looking at any additional ways to fund grade crossing improvements.

Ms. Cleavinger noted that MTC is not currently; however, they are formulating the Regional Transportation Plan which she believes will examine regional needs more closely. Regarding mitigation, she responded that it is not known how far off port monies can be spent due to the nexus argument but a portion of that money is being set aside for mitigations. She noted that mitigations that are required for project approval will not be funded by bond monies.

Ms. Abelson remarked that increased asthma and cancer rates in the Richmond area are not indicative of good air quality. She noted that based on information she has been exposed to the increased asthma and cancer rates in parts of West County are related to goods movement and therefore is there some way to utilize these statistics in arguing for funds from the bond monies.

Ms. Cleavinger replied that the good air quality classification for West County stems from federal attainment requirements for the entire region. Therefore in that regard, the region is in attainment; however, it is anticipated that by next year air quality will be outside the federal attainment requirements for diesel particulate matter (PM). She noted that the Air District’s argument is and has been that within localized areas within the Bay Area there are problem areas in particular with regard to diesel PM. She noted that ARB does recognize this and will work with the Air District to mitigate these problems.

Mr. Butt again asked what WCCTAC’s role is in this regard and expressed that WCCTAC should take action to attempt to garner funds to deal with West County-specific issues.

Ms. Hammon asked if Ms. Cleavinger would keep WCCTAC apprised of when things are happening and if there are specific issues on which WCCTAC can act; similarly if there are meetings at which WCCTAC representatives can provide testimony. Ms. Hammon noted that she will stay current on the progress of the legislation.

Ms. Cleavinger stated that as the issue moves more closely to the local level it will be much easier to engage. She noted the Supervisor Gioia is on the Air Quality Board which is a good place to advocate for local allocation of funds.

Maria Alegria asked if Chair Brown would advocate for the formation of an ad hoc committee to work with Ms. Hammon on the issue as it is a time sensitive matter.

Ms. Hammon remarked that as it becomes more time-appropriate, with aid in determining this factor from Ms. Cleavinger, an ad hoc committee could be formulated when it is warranted.

Chair Brown remarked that she does not want to appoint a sub-committee at this time.

Mr. Balico thanked Ms. Cleavinger for the presentation and stated that he would like to see the rail lines and truck companies create a comprehensive solution to reduce emissions and congestion. He noted that some of the largest implications will be along the I-80 corridor and he expressed his disappointment with CCTA’s failure to mention the I-80 corridor at a recent discussion regarding the CTC.

Ms. Abelson stated that I-80 was mentioned at a pre-meeting.

Item 13: I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project in the State Infrastructure Bond Program

John Rudolph stated that he would be presenting part three in a series of informational items regarding the I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project which is funded primarily by the CMIA account in Prop 1-B. Mr. Rudolph directed the Board’s attention to the document entitled, “Toward a More Detailed Analysis: Project Development.” He remarked that he would be meeting with the ACCMA to review proposals from firms in response to the RFP for implementation of phase one of the ICM Project. He expressed hope that the firm which is selected will implement some of the ideas contained herein.

He directed the Board’s attention to the first item entitled, “Some Goals of the Intelligent Transportation System” which are as follows:

· Integrating Loop Detectors in arterial and cluster roadways with intersection signals

· Integrating signals with adaptive ramp meters and freeway changeable message signs

· Integrating roadway and transit information with personal computers and PDA devices

· Integrating electronic toll collection with congestion management and transit demand

· Optimizing traveler, flow both motorist and transit

· Minimizing incidents and expediting incident response

· Reduced/predictable travel times

· Improving air quality

Mr. Rudolph noted that the goal of I-80 ICM is to admonish traffic incidents and fatalities; the ultimate is goal is safety and movement.

The project development would proceed according to the following steps:

a. Arterial analysis which would examine the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on local arterial and collector streets

b. Models and visual simulation

Mr. Rudolph continued by addressing ITS components, some of which are currently being utilized and others that can be attained to in the future. They are as follows:

a. 511, which is currently in place and is expected to expand as a part of the ICM Project.

b. Automated crash notification system.

c. Advanced travel information systems, which are currently in place in some form through the “Next Bus” and 511 systems.

d. Advanced traffic management systems: the heart of the system which employs detectors, cameras, and communication systems to monitor traffic, optimize signal timings on major arterials, and improve the flow of traffic.

e. Changeable message signs.

f. Commercial vehicle information systems and networks which could be developed through the ICM system to aid in moving goods more efficiently.

g. Electronic toll collection/ open road toll collection, which could be integrated later as it is not currently part of the existing system.

h. The intersection collision avoidance systems (not currently part of the system).

I. The Mayday system.

j. Rear-end collision avoidance system.

k. Road departure collision avoidance system.

l. Transit signal priority, which is already in place with the 72 Rapid and other bus systems.

Mr. Rudolph noted that the preceding informational items are to keep the Board apprised in general, of ICM systems in terms of mobility along the I-80 corridor as well as to inform the Board of the different phases being implemented as a part of the ICM Project.

Chair Brown commented regarding in-ground toll collection that there has been a number of concerns voiced that the system is similar to “Big Brother” in that it could be utilized for purposes of monitoring the movements of its subscribers. She remarked that she has no idea why people are concerned with the government monitoring people’s actions given that safety is the primary objective of these systems.

Maria Alegria remarked that Shea Street in Pinole could be a candidate for some of the components of the ICM project.

Mr. Butt again voiced his concerns about the unintended consequences of ICM being the encouragement of higher volumes of traffic through increased mobility. He stated that it is contrary to the big picture that WCCTAC is working towards. He expressed his opinion that there is nothing in the ICM Project which encourages people to work where they live or use public transportation; as it provides a quicker way to get from point A to point B using their automobile. He voiced his opinion that it is counterproductive and expressed his view that consideration should be given to the unintended consequences.

Ms. Hammon replied that Mr. Butt is perhaps looking at the ICM Project in a vacuum. She noted that this particular strategy does not take into account every other kind of transit improvement that WCCTAC is trying to implement within West County.

Mr. Butt agreed that it does not take into account these measures and will make it easier for Solano County residents to travel through West County via automobile. He stated that if auto transit is made more efficient why would anyone want to take public transit.

Ms. Abelson remarked that the ICM Project makes things better for transit. She noted that a number of the items are already in place and are currently making things better for public transportation e.g. 511 and signal priorities. It as well makes buses a much more viable mode of transportation.

Mr. Balico reiterated Mr. Butt’s sentiments about commuters from Solano County.

Regarding Mr. Butt’s concerns, Mr. Rudolph put forth that perhaps in the future open road tolling could be used to essentially charge vehicles for travel outside of the jurisdictions in which their vehicles are registered.

Item 14: FOCUS Priority Development Areas (PDA’s) – Draft Application for the San Pablo Avenue Corridor

Ms. Hammon directed the Board’s attention to a memo and the first draft of the Focus Priority Development Area application for the San Pablo Avenue Corridor Project that were brought before the TAC prior to the WCCTAC Board meeting. The corridors proposed, encompass an area from the southern end of El Cerrito to Crockett. As the local jurisdictions have not looked at the application yet, Ms. Hammon noted that she will be contacting the local jurisdictions to verify and potentially add to the existing application.

She stated that there are questions about what will be contained in the application in particular with regard to applications for corridors versus applications that some of the jurisdictions will be putting in for a specific area within a city. She noted that she has contacted the ABAG staff to insure that WCCTAC is proceeding in the right direction. The final draft will be submitted on June 29; a GIS map will as well be drafted which highlights the nodes that will be called out with regard to the application.

Maria Algeria asked if it would be possible to receive the information contained in the survey regarding the Developer Impact Fees Program once that information becomes available.

Ms. Hammon stated yes.

With no further business to come before the WCCTAC Board, Chair Brown adjourned the meeting at 9:15 A.M., until the next meeting to be held on August 10, 2007 at 7:30 A.M. in the San Pablo City Council Chambers, located at 13831 San Pablo Avenue, San Pablo, California, 94806.