{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-09-30", "page": 1, "text": "Transportation Commission and Planning Board Minutes:\nMonday, September 30, 2013\nCommissioner Jesus Vargas called the Transportation Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.\n1.\nRoll Call\nRoll was called and the following was recorded:\nTransportation Commission Members Present:\nJesus Vargas (Chair)\nChristopher Miley (Vice Chair)\nMichele Bellows\nThomas G. Bertken\nEric Schatmeier\nAbsent:\nSandy Wong\nGregory Morgado\nPlanning Board Members Present:\nDavid Burton (President)\nDania Alvarez-Morroni\nStanley Tang\nMike Henneberry\nJohn Knox White\nLorre Zuppan\nKristoffer K\u00f6ster\nStaff Present:\nAlex Nguyen, Assistant City Manager\nGail Payne, Transportation Coordinator\nVirendra Patel, Transportation Engineer\nAndrew Thomas, Alameda City Planner\n2.\nAgenda Changes\nNone.\n3.\nAnnouncements / Public Comments\nCommissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments for Item 3. He also stated that he met\nwith Brian Kelly, the California Transportation Secretary. He said one of Mr. Kelly's goals is to\nenhance Caltrans and make the organization more efficient.\nPage 1 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-09-30", "page": 2, "text": "Denis Carole, Marina Village resident, said he was concerned with vehicular access to the island\nthrough the tubes. He thought the bike and vehicle access by the estuary should be planned for\nthe long term. Also, he felt the approaches coming in and out of the City are bottlenecks.\nAdditionally, he pointed out there are a lot of alternatives working around those issues, but the\nnature of the infrastructure needs to be reviewed. Moreover, he felt the City had a patchwork\nsystem in place and he resents the amount of pressure that is being put on development within\nthe City.\n4.\nDraft Regional Transit Access Study\nStaff Payne presented an overview of the study.\nColin Burgett, Nelson Nygaard Consulting Principal and John Atkinson (subconsultant)\npresented the outcome of the study.\nNathan Landau, AC Transit Project Manager, appreciated the City and consultants' work. He\nsupported the consultants and staff's choice to not move the route from Santa Clara Avenue to\nLincoln Avenue because Lincoln Avenue has a mixture of business and residential traffic. In\nterms of Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, he was glad that the city is looking at dedicated\nbus lanes, but the options should include two-way lanes. He felt two-way lanes were needed in\nboth directions because Alameda Point would be developing further. He cautioned the Board\nand Commission on the use of shuttles, especially as Alameda Point builds out over time.\nCommissioner Vargas asked Nathan Landau if he was referring to the letter attached to the\nexhibit dated September 13th He then opened the floor to public comments.\nJon Spangler, Alameda resident and a League of American Cycling Instructor, said he was\nhappy to see the Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway corridor being reviewed and he was happy\nto see Nathan Landau responding to the study. He believed access to the island was a big draw\nfor businesses looking at locating to Alameda Point. Furthermore, he was glad staff\nrecommended to stay with Santa Clara Avenue.\nCommissioner Bellows stated that when reading the West end Corridor Comparison and the\npreliminary cost estimate if it includes the cost of buying the right-of-way and she was curious to\nknow if the City did include eastbound and westbound bus only lanes would there be room to do\nit.\nColin Burgett replied the cost estimate is based on current right-of-way and there is room for a\nwestbound bus only lane along with the eastbound lane. The original concept was a median way,\nbut that is very expensive. He said that the cheaper option is carving out a westbound lane closer\nto the sidewalk. The trickier question posed was related to the bike lane if they can fit both a bike\nlane and bus lane. Overall, he felt the reason of focusing on a bus lane in that direction is related\nto how the traffic operates.\nCommissioner Bellows asked about the right-of-way costs.\nColin Burgett replied that the right-of-way is currently public. He explained further west on\nPage 2 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-09-30", "page": 3, "text": "Atlantic Avenue closer to Main Street there could be a future need for a bus lane; there is a right\nturn lane that could be converted to a bus lane.\nCommissioner Bellows asked if the common thing to do was to have a long eastbound bus lane\nand start the westbound lane later.\nColin Burgett replied that this is somewhat usual because it is essentially a very long queue jump\nlane. The flip side is that it is less than a mile between Webster Street and Main Street so it\nwould not be a long median transit way. Furthermore, he said this Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is\nnot the typical system that we would see in other cities.\nCommissioner Bellows asked if there is a way to further study the westbound phase. She was not\ninterested in piece-mealing, but if there is a plan, the City should not exclude it for later\nparticularly when we expect development.\nColin Burgett replied that they could incorporate some elements that would keep the cost down\nlater.\nBoardmember Alvarez-Morroni pointed to the schematic illustrative shown on the screen and\nreferred to the bicycle lanes on the street and to the right another bicycle lane. She was not quite\nclear as to why there is redundancy within the space. Also, she wanted to know if there would\nbe a bicycle connection from Jean Sweeney Park to Alameda Point.\nColin Burgett replied the bicycle lanes were Class 2 lanes on the street and then a facility\nproposed off the street also is proposed. The idea was to separate the more experienced cyclists\nfrom the less experienced ones.\nStaff Payne replied that the path shown is part of the Cross Alameda Trail, which is also\nproposed to go through the Jean Sweeney Park.\nCommissioner Schatmeier stated that he had some objections to relocating the east and west\ntransit corridor across the island from Santa Clara Avenue to Lincoln Avenue and he is relieved\nto see that the staff recommendation is not to make the change. Overall, he would like staff to\ncontinue to be cognizant of proposed trunk lines and service demand.\nDirector Knox White asked if the Lincoln Avenue Rapid Bus proposal is in addition to the\ncurrent bus system running on Santa Clara Avenue.\nColin Burgett replied that the original idea was a new service on Lincoln Avenue and that would\nbe a rapid service from Alameda Point to Fruitvale BART Station, but that new service would be\ntoo close to the AC Transit Line 51. AC Transit staff members did not want to see redundancy if\nthe Line 51 was running along Santa Clara Avenue. Thus, the recommendation was if the City\nwanted to make Lincoln Avenue a transit corridor, it should be in conjunction with AC Transit\nservice.\nBoardmember Knox White asked why is there a financial discrepancy of the proposed shared\ntravel lane between the Clement Street corridor, which is $10 million and the Santa Clara\nPage 3 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-09-30", "page": 4, "text": "Avenue corridor, which is $3 million.\nColin Burgett replied Clement Avenue has narrow sidewalks and tracks in the middle of the\nstreet whereas Santa Clara Avenue has finished curb and the improvements can be within the\nexisting curb line.\nDirector Knox White asked if transit were to be placed on Clement Avenue it would need to be\nwidened.\nColin Burgett replied yes including other improvements such as lane restriping, changes to the\nmiddle tracks, sidewalk widening and pedestrian crossing improvements.\nDirector Knox White said AC Transit voiced concerns of running a line parallel to Lincoln\nAvenue next to its existing Santa Clara Avenue line. Yet, staff did not consider Clement Avenue.\nColin Burgett replied that AC Transit had similar concerns of duplicating service along Clement\nAvenue.\nBoardmember Knox White referred to page 115 of the staff report and noted projected ridership\ngoals by full build out including Alameda Point and Alameda Landing would be roughly 160\npassengers per day, per bus or 75% vehicle capacity. However, that does not line up and he\ncannot figure out what it is saying.\nColin Burgett said that could be related to the separate shuttle line, but the estimate was 4,000\npassengers daily and when you factor in the Northern Waterfront that could potentially be 6,000\npassengers per day.\nCommissioner Bellows referred to page 114 and said that the statistics refer to the Alameda\nLanding Shuttle.\nBoardmember Knox White said if these were short-term operation parameters, he would suggest\nre-writing that part because it suggested that Alameda Point and Alameda Landing are fully built\nout. He also referred to page 125 of the report regarding short-term shuttle service. The\nstatistics show a cost of $4,000 annually for peak period only, but operational costs showed\nshort-term costs of 16 hours a day for 252 days a year for two buses at $266,000. He wondered\nwhy it jumped 62 percent.\nJohn Atkinson explained that there were two scenarios and the information is related to shuttle\nacquisition meaning if the City owned and operated the shuttles or if they decided on turnkey\noperations. However, he would look at the exact information and get back to Boardmember\nKnox White.\nBoardmember Knox White referred to page 47 and said the report outlined 6 percent of daily\nperson trips would be to and from Alameda to San Francisco. He wondered if the percentage\nwas for all the internal trips as oppose to commute trips.\nColin Burgett replied if you have a job intensive development like Alameda Point, the people\nPage 4 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-09-30", "page": 5, "text": "commuting would not be City residents going to work, but people coming in.\nDirector Knox White mentioned the study highlighted 15 percent of commuters to Alameda jobs\nwere made by residents of San Francisco.\nColin Burgett replied that is 15 percent of San Franciscans commuting by transit to Alameda.\nPeople to and from San Francisco have a higher rate of public transit usage.\nCommissioner Miley said he would like to see a BART station in Alameda addressed or\nmentioned in this study.\nAndrew Thomas, Alameda City Planner, explained that the study was focused on public transit\nand shuttles. However, they are in constant dialogue about a proposed BART Station.\nSpecifically, BART was at a recent Planning Board meeting and they are involved in this\nconversation. However, he pointed out that this requires many years of planning. Additionally,\nhe and his staff are having regional transit conversations with the Water Emergency Transit\nAuthority (WETA), which is the ferry service provider. He explained that the department would\ndo a better job to give up-to-date information to both commissions regarding conversations.\nDirector Burton said transit placed along Clement Avenue needs to be wrapped in some how\nwith the development along the Northern Waterfront, especially within 5 to 10 years. He\nreferred to the map shown on Figure 2.2 regarding the walking distance to transit lines and the\nillustration showed the Northern Waterfront is poorly served. He urged staff to evaluate the\nregional access needs and how new developments are served. Also, he pointed out that regional\nserving retail at Alameda Point has a different transit need than jobs and housing. Staff should\nstudy what is needed for that corridor. He supported option 2b, which is the line along the edge\nrather than along the median of Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway. Yet, he felt staff should\nstudy the option more to know how we can include the plan in the existing right-of-way and then\nmake sure that it can happen.\nCommissioner Vargas asked staff when the report would be revised and what actions are\nrequired from the Commission.\nStaff Payne replied staff would like feedback from the Commission on how to proceed with\nPhase II with the construction monies and staff is hoping to focus on west Alameda. She said\none option is beginning the bus only lane at Webster Street and Atlantic Avenue. She also wants\nopinion from the Commission on whether staff is on the right track with Phase I. Staff will come\nback to the Transportation Commission for an action.\nCommissioner Bertken said that the current study hits on the issues of concern to the\nCommission. He also explained that Plan B focused on the serious issues that are facing the\nCity. He mentioned that the study is a good starting point for access in the Northern Waterfront\nwithout disturbing the existing transit patterns that are working well.\nCommissioner Schatmeier wanted to know what kind of modifications to transit service do they\nenvision.\nPage 5 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-09-30", "page": 6, "text": "Nathan Landau said that there are possibilities of modifying existing routes. Alameda Point will\nneed a whole new route and it is clear there will be a need for operating dollars to start it.\nAlameda Point properties may be able to generate dollars, but the City needs a robust transit\nservice to make it work.\nAndrew Thomas said from the City's perspective would be for AC Transit to modify their\nservices and expand to Alameda Point, but the game plan is to require all Alameda Point housing\nand businesses to fund additional transit services annually. So, if AC Transit does not provide\nservice then they will be running additional supplementary services from Alameda Point. We\nhave a 70-foot public right-of-way that we are not using south of Ralph Appezzato Memorial\nParkway. As Alameda Point develops out, then we could have a dedicated lane or queue jumps\nand phase in a single transit lane. Alternatively, we could be planning a good 20-30 feet of the\n70 feet to provide lanes going both ways.\nCommissioner Bellows said on page 79 it showed a construction cost comparison in the west end\nonly. She thought the Commission was planning to talk about an option to pursue in the future.\nCommissioner Vargas said staff is not looking for an action, but only consensus and comments.\nBoardmember Henneberry asked staff what funds are used to build the Bus Rapid Transit on\nInternational Boulevard in Oakland.\nNathan Landau replied there is a mix of capital funds. He explained there is a large percent of\nfederal funds and some Measure B funds. However, the funds are not coming from the city of\nOakland or San Leandro. Also, when the last Measure B3 was proposed, Alameda said some of\nthose funds would be used for the BRT system and unfortunately that measure failed narrowly.\nBoardmember Henneberry said the City is headed in the right direction in general, but we need\nto keep the right-of-way flexible and make the system user friendly to get people out of their cars\nand onto public transit.\nBoardmember Knox White said when he was part of the Transportation Commission and helped\nwrite the Transportation Master Plan that became part of the Transportation Element, they\nidentified two corridors on the island. He said the idea was not for the corridors to be exclusively\nused for public transit, but available for whenever there was a time then those corridors could be\nused. He was concerned that the City would take Lincoln Avenue off the plan if they decided\nnot to run BRT. His opinion is the fact that Lincoln Avenue is a historical exclusive right-of-\nway and the corridor has never been fully discussed for public transit development. Moreover,\nhe felt the Clement Avenue alignment for BRT would be four minutes shorter and cheaper\noperations than the alternative alignments. He went on to say there are a lot of North Shore\ntransit needs that are coming through the pipeline and a transit element that ties all of them\ntogether can help leverage the planning at Alameda Point and provide better service to Alameda.\nIn addition, he worried that the work being done is serving Alameda Point and then down the\nWebster tubes is a missed opportunity and serves hardly anyone. He mentioned that the City\ncould use the money for proposals on park-and-rides and ferry terminals that are not being done\nand he proposed to use the monies to look at the Clement Avenue and Town Center\nimplementations. Finally, he believed the multimodal redesign of Broadway and Jackson Streets\nPage 6 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-09-30", "page": 7, "text": "would have to coincide with the BRT proposal and it now seems the proposal will get done\nwhether the redesign gets done or not. He proposed that the plan be its own separate priority\nproject, especially since it is a huge priority for moving people around the west end.\nBoardmember Burton said he seconded Boardmember Knox White's comments about Lincoln\nAvenue. He felt we do not know what is going to happen 20 to 30 years out. Also, he asked\nabout the $1.5 million dollars used for the proposal and wondered how it should it be spent. He\nfelt the report did not refer to great projects of that scale and it is not fair for the Commission and\nthe Board to ask for direction when they had not received concise options for projects that would\nfit within that framework. He would like to see more work done there.\nBoardmember Zuppan referred to the illustration and neighborhoods that are within the outer\nboarders of the City that have no transit service. She said the Clement Avenue option should be\nconsidered more and staff should look at pockets where the City is developing. Moreover, she\nwas concerned about the lack of examples shown for the money that would be used. Lastly, she\nagreed with AC Transit's opinion to reserve or set aside lanes in both directions and it is hard for\nher to believe that there would not be a need, especially at major intersections.\nBoardmember Tang said he was concerned with the bus only lane and wondered if the City\nwould implement limited service hours within the BRT lanes.\nColin Burgett replied the BRT lanes would be open 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.\nNathan Landau replied limiting the hours of bus only lanes, similar to San Francisco would\ncreate tremendous enforcement problems.\nBoardmember Alvarez-Morroni said she was concerned with the funding deadline.\nJohn Atkinson replied that the remaining section of the grant is being passed through by BART\nand consolidated until November 2014. It should go through the construction process by that\ntime, but they could go to the federal agencies to extend the deadline. He explained that Phase I\nwas extended twice, so there is a possibility.\nPage 7 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-09-30", "page": 8, "text": "5.\nTransportation Demand Management Plan\nJennifer Ott, Alameda Point Chief Operating Officer, presented an introduction of the plan at\nAlameda Point.\nJim Daisa, Kimley-Horn and Associates, presented the plan.\nCommissioner Vargas opened the floor to public comments.\nEthan Cliffton lives on the Annex and presented the Alley Cat Project before the panel.\nJon Spangler said he appreciated the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan;\nhowever, the plan depends on the land use planning that precedes it. Firstly, he explained the\nTDM would work if there is high density housing built along the Ralph Appezzato corridor and\nthe Town Center area. Secondly, he said single-family housing could not be built until the TDM\nis in place and works. Lastly, he felt the City needed to implement the TDM policy Citywide.\nLucy Gigli, President of BikeAlameda, explained that there are a couple of TDM plans within the\nCity and she wondered how do we factor them all in so that they are not duplicating programs\nand implementing shuttles that overlap each other. Regarding public input, she heard comments\nmade at the annual reporting to the City Council, but she wondered if that is the only opportunity\nfor public input. Additionally, she wanted to know if the programs would benefit everyone\nliving and traveling within the City. Moreover, she wanted to see biking and walking\nopportunities similar to the Estuary Crossing Feasibility Study in the TDM plan.\nBoardmember Alvarez-Morroni asked if the study was a collaborative effort with other groups\nworking on transit plans within Alameda.\nJennifer Ott explained that Jim Daisa has reviewed all the plans and documents for the City.\nBoardmember Alvarez-Morroni said she was happy to see that parking was brought up because\nshe is on the Waterfront Subcommittee and the topic was brought up.\nCommissioner Miley asked how would the TDM plan work if we were just looking to do this on\none section and not citywide. He also wanted to know if there are other examples of TDM plans\nthat focus on one district. He felt if we do not focus citywide then other districts will have a\ncompetitive advantage.\nJim Daisa replied that the City has a TDM plan that is robust and comprehensive. He was not\nsure how it is being implemented on a regular basis, but he is just taking aspects of that\nframework and applying it to the development area.\nCommissioner Miley asked staff how effective is the City's TDM plan.\nAndrew Thomas replied the vast majority of traffic is generated in the morning from residents\ndriving through the tubes. The Bayport development added a little traffic back in the year 1999\nPage 8 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-09-30", "page": 9, "text": "when the project was approved and essentially the City had no real transit strategy for that\nproject. He said since then every residential project approved has some form of a TDM program\nand the key is paying for transit. He said it is handled in a number of different ways such as\nhaving shuttles or buying Easy Passes from AC Transit in perpetuity. Moreover, the City\nrequires that the Home Owner Association (HOA) cannot vote the TDM policy out. He\nexplained based on the long-term strategy for the west end that Alameda Landing would go first.\nThey have to setup a Transportation Management Association (TMA) and Target is paying\nannually towards public transit services. He went on to say that eventually it might make sense\nfor Alameda Landing and Alameda Point to merge as one TMA. Also, he said part of the\nstrategy is to insert businesses and HOA members into the TMA board and they can adjust the\nprogram as necessary. Essentially, they are building a citywide TDM through each project that\nthey approve. Regarding parking around businesses, he felt as a community, we could decide to\nadjust because business parks at Alameda Point have to pay for parking, whereas older\ndevelopments do not.\nJennifer Ott stated that there are examples of area TDM plans such as Stanford University and\nBay Meadows and Joe Daisa could provide more examples.\nStaff Payne explained that the City has a preliminary TDM/TSM plan in place and the City has\nan abundant supply of free parking making it difficult to implement the measures.\nBoardmember K\u00f6ster asked how much population is needed to support a true TDM plan.\nJim Daisa replied there is not a rule of thumb because the program would be tailored towards the\npopulation. However, the employment is just as important as the residents. He said Jon Spangler\nmade a good point on how high density residential attracts self-selective people who want to\nmove towards public transit services.\nBoardmember K\u00f6ster asked who is responsible for educating the public about the transit\nservices.\nJim Daisa replied that the TMA deals with the promotion.\nBoardmember Zuppan said she is concerned with the economic impact of the plan. Since there\nwould be 1,425 units and 25 percent of them are low-income, plus three housing collaboratives\nat most 1,000 people would fund the TMA. Yet, the City would be looking for a catalyst project\ndriving development and limiting or providing costs for parking is not an attraction. Ultimately,\nshe felt parking is a component, but since the City has low traffic and high street parking, it is\nnot smart to outline the parking component. Also, she mentioned the City needed a balanced\nperspective to create an effective and friendly TDM plan for visitors and pet owners.\nBoardmember Knox White said he agreed with all three recommendations and appreciated the\nidea of not trying to design the perfect TDM plan and requiring everyone to do it. He suggested\nthat staff look at adding a trip cap and a way to gauge the early capacity issues. He highlighted\nthe city of Cambridge as an example and mentioned that unbundling parking is a good\nmechanism to reduce the hidden costs of parking.\nPage 9 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-09-30", "page": 10, "text": "Boardmember Henneberry referred to Andrew Thomas' statement regarding the policy of\ncharging employers parking through the TDM plan and the disadvantage for Alameda Point, but\nnot for Harbor Bay and Southshore. He wondered how could that be if the City was\nimplementing a policy that would apply for everybody.\nAndrew Thomas replied that based on the development of parts of Alameda Landing, the City\nrequired certain conditions based on the entitlements and it is very difficult to go back to the\nHarbor Bay Business Park Association and change the rules.\nBoardmember Burton said in terms of the three discussion questions posed, the Environmental\nImpact Report used as a base line makes sense. What struck him was that the strategy in both\ncases focused on employers and residents. He did not see the City focusing on the retail\ncomponent with varying transit choices that would need to be integrated in the strategy.\nJoe Daisa replied that there are strategies applied to retail and they are developing a retail\ncomponent.\nBoardmember Alvarez-Morroni asked who oversees the Citywide TDM/TSM ordinance.\nVirendra Patel, Alameda Public Works, replied the TSM ordinance is in flux, as part of the\nLewis Bill and the City cannot go after the employer on some stringent requirements. They are\nwaiting for the next assembly bill to be finalized and they will institute the ordinance. He noted\nthat the City does have parking in-lieu fees and the fees go towards up keep of bus shelters and\nparking meters.\nBoardmember Alvarez-Morroni asked if that falls under Alameda Public Works department.\nVirendra Patel replied yes.\nBoardmember Tang wondered if there are any studies conducted to see if running a smaller,\nagile, and frequent shuttle rather than a standard bus would benefit the City. Also, he noted there\nis a big parking lot near Jackson and 12th Streets that has never been opened to the public and it\nseemed like a waste.\nCommissioner Miley replied that parking lot is used for the Alameda County building around the\narea such as the courthouse and administrative building.\nBoardmember Tang stated that it would be good to utilize this space, but a parking garage would\nhelp to withstand leakage.\nCommissioner Vargas said Boardmember Tang's first question would be passed over to staff\nfrom AC Transit.\nCommissioner Vargas said staff should be careful when moving forward with parking policies.\nCommissioner Bertken said the City has to consider the aggressiveness of the TDM to the\nenvironmental document based upon the forecast of traffic reduction that it is going to be\nPage 10 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf"}
{"body": "TransportationCommission", "date": "2013-09-30", "page": 11, "text": "achieved by the TDM.\n6.\nAnnouncements/ Public Comments\nCarol Gottstein, 3rd Generation Alameda resident, said that one way of decreasing car usage is\nto restripe the parking lots more like Mastick Senior Center along Santa Clara Avenue, which are\nwide and diagonal. Also, she made a plea for a formal disabled parking space in the City Hall\nparking lot and striping wider spaces so fewer cars are accommodated. Additionally, she went to\nthe library to obtain the documents for the meeting and the library staff could not open the links.\nCommissioner Schatmeier said he has been using the Harbor Bay Ferry since it was created and\nhe noticed a spike in ferry demand and the loss of representation of Alameda within the\ngoverning board. He proposed this topic should be placed onto the next agenda.\n7.\nAdjournment\n10:15 pm\nPage 11 of 11", "path": "TransportationCommission/2013-09-30.pdf"}