Chair, Bob Johnson, City of Lodi Commissioner, Bob Elliott, San Joaquin County Vice Chair, Steve Dresser, City of Lathrop Commissioner, Leo Zuber, City of Ripon Commissioner, Debby Moorhead, City of Manteca Commissioner, Scott Haggerty, Alameda County Commissioner, Christina Fugazi, City of Stockton Commissioner, John Marchand, City of Livermore

Executive Director, Stacey Mortensen

SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION

This Agenda shall be made available upon request in alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12132) and the Ralph M. Brown Act ( Government Code § 54954.2). Persons requesting a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission staff, at (209) 944-6220, during regular business hours, at least twenty-four hours prior to the time of the meeting.

All proceedings before the Commission are conducted in English. The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission does not furnish interpreters and, if one is needed, it shall be the responsibility of the person needing one. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Director located at 949 East Channel Street, Stockton, California, 95202 during normal business hours or by calling (209) 944-6220. The Agenda is available on the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission website: www.acerail.com.

October 6, 2017 – 8:00 am Robert J. Cabral Station Heritage House South Hall Meeting Room County of Alameda 949 East Channel Street 4501 Pleasanton Avenue Stockton, CA 95202 Pleasanton, CA 94566 1 Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, Roll Call Chair Johnson

Roll Call: Haggerty, Marchand, Elliott, Fugazi, Moorhead, Zuber, Vice Chair Dresser, Chair Johnson

Ex- Officios: Agar, Chesley, DeMartino

2 Public Comments Persons wishing to address the Commission on any item of interest to the public regarding rail shall state their names and addresses and make their presentation. Please limit presentations to five minutes. The Commission cannot take action on matters not on the agenda unless the action is authorized by Section 54954.2 of the Government Code. Materials related to an item on the Agenda submitted to the Board of Directors after distribution of the agenda packet are available for the public inspection in the Commission Office at 949 E. Channel Street during normal business hours. These documents are also available on the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission website at www.acerail.com/about-ace/sjrrc-board.html subject to staff’s ability to post the documents prior to the meeting.

949 East Channel Street Stockton, CA 95202 (800) 411-RAIL (7245) www.acerail.com 3 Presentations and Recognitions

4 Consent Calendar

4.1 Minutes of September 1, 2017 ACTION 4.2 Rail Commission/ACE/SJJPA Monthly Expenditure INFORMATION 4.3 ACE Monthly Fare Revenue INFORMATION 4.4 ACE Ridership INFORMATION 4.5 ACE On-Time Performance INFORMATION 4.6 Washington Update INFORMATION

5 Approve Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin ACTION Regional Rail Commission Authorizing a Four-Year and Nine-Month Contract with Two One-year Options for On-Call Controller Services to Infinity Accountancy Group LLP for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $325,352 total from October 6, 2017 through June 30, 2022, and Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute the Agreement (Angela Miller/Autumn Gowan)

6 Approve Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San ACTION Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Authorizing a Contract with CHS Consulting Group for Short Range Transit Plan Consulting Services for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $75,004 and Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute the Agreement (Brian Schmidt/Manny Caluya)

7 ACEforward EIR: Schedule, Summary of Comments, and Ceres INFORMATION/ACTION Inclusion for Near-Term Project in EIR (Dan Leavitt)

8 Update on AB 758 (Eggman/Baker) INFORMATION/ACTION (Stacey Mortensen)

9 Project Delivery Update on SB1/SB132 INFORMATION/ACTION (Kevin Sheridan)

10 Update on Parking Issues at the Lathrop/Manteca Parking Lot INFORMATION/ACTION (Brian Schmidt)

11 CLOSED SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - DISCUSSION/ACTION ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: Multiple Potential Cases

12 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-EXISTING LITIGATION DISCUSSION/ACTION (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9 Name of case: Said Jallad v. San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 17CV306410

13 Commissioner’s Comments

14 Ex-Officio Comments

15 Executive Director’s Report

2 of 45 16 Adjournment The next regular meeting is scheduled for: November 3, 2017 – 8:00 am Robert J. Cabral Station 949 East Channel Street, Stockton

3 of 45 SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION Meeting of October 6, 2017

Item 4.1 ACTION Minutes of September 1, 2017 The regular meeting of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission was held at 8:00 am, September 1, 2017 at the Robert J. Cabral Station, 949 East Channel Street Stockton, CA 95202. 1 Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance/Roll Call Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 8:00 am and led the audience in the pledge of Allegiance. Commissioners Present: Haggerty, Marchand, Dresser, Elliott, Fugazi, Moorhead, Zuber, Chair Johnson Commissioners Absent: None Ex-Officio Members Present: Mr. Dumas, Mr. Knodt, Mr. Chesley

2 Public Comments None.

3 Presentations and Recognitions None.

4 Consent Calendar 4.1.1 Minutes of August 4, 2017 ACTION 4.2 Rail Commission/ACE/SJJPA Monthly Expenditure INFORMATION 4.3 ACE Monthly Fare Revenue INFORMATION 4.4 ACE Ridership INFORMATION 4.5 ACE On-Time Performance INFORMATION

M/S/C (Haggerty/Marchand) Approve the Consent Calendar. Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission on the 1st day of September 2017 by the following vote to wit:

AYES: 8 Haggerty, Marchand, Dresser, Elliott, Fugazi, Moorhead, Zuber, Chair Johnson NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0

ABSENT: 0

4 of 45 5 Approve Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin ACTION Regional Rail Commission Awarding an Emergency Public Works Construction Contract to Jim Thorpe, Inc. for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $177,947 for the Demolition, Deconstruction and Salvage of the Western Pacific Depot and Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Necessary Documents Related to the Contract

Mr. Pennino presented on the emergency public works construction contract for the Western Pacific Depot.

Chair Johnson asked if the priority list for items to preserve is supported by the preservationist groups. Mr. Pennino responded that the preservationists made the priority list.

Ms. Mortensen noted that the vote will take place amongst the San Joaquin members of the Commission.

Commissioner Elliott asked about the Express Room and how it will be preserved. Mr. Pennino said the Express Room is on the north end of the building and will be given a new roof. Commissioner Elliott asked how the Room would be secured. Mr. Pennino said this will be worked out with the contractor, but will most likely involve some sort of steel reinforcement of the door.

Commissioner Elliott asked if the contract includes the cost for storing preserved artifacts and inquired into where the items will be stored. Mr. Pennino said the contract does not include storage, and that storage will most likely take place at the Rail Maintenance Facility.

Commissioner Elliott asked when the 35-day comment period ends. Mr. Pennino responded a week from today (9/8/17).

Commissioner Fugazi inquired into the timeline of the demolition. Mr. Pennino said the demolition could start as early as late September.

Chair Johnson asked why the Express Room is being saved. Mr. Pennino said the Save Downtown Stockton Foundation wished to preserve the Room for a potential future use. Chair Johnson asked when the station would be rebuilt. Ms. Mortensen said the environmental work that would involve the station will be taking place in Spring 2018, and more will be known then.

Commissioner Elliott asked how the Express Room will be secured from trespassers. Mr. Pennino said a number a tactics will be deployed, including securing the entrances with steel. Ms. Mortensen said once the temporary parking lot is built at the site, the presence of passengers will help to deter trespassers.

Vice Chair Dresser asked if the Express Room will need a new wall to be fully enclosed. Mr. Pennino described how the Express Room will be supported

5 of 45 and enclosed. Mr. Sheridan explained the procedure for demolishing and preserving parts of the building, including shoring up the wall for the Express Room. Vice Chair Dresser voiced his concern about trespassers continuing to try to break into the Express Room. Mr. Sheridan explained how the Express Room will be secured after the demolition is complete. Ms. Mortensen discussed how the Express Room will be easier to handle than a larger structure.

Commissioner Marchand asked where the funding will come from for securing the Express Room. Mr. Pennino explained that the proposal includes the cost of securing the Room, but the scope of work needs to be finalized.

Commissioner Elliott asked if it’s been determined that the facility will be rebuilt. Mr. Pennino said this option is included in the ACE Draft EIR, but the final determination has not yet been made. Commissioner Elliott asked if storing the Express Room at the RMF has been considered. Mr. Sheridan said multiple options have been explored, but it was determined that securing it in place would have the lowest cost and be the quickest to complete.

Vice Chair Dresser asked for the clarification that the Express Room will eventually be moved. Mr. Sheridan responded that the Room could be moved or renovated in place. Mr. Pennino explained that the Draft EIR contains a number of alternatives, none of which have been formally selected.

Commissioner Fugazi asked if the Express Room is currently falling down. Mr. Pennino responded that it is not, but the structural engineer was concerned about its viability.

M/S/C (Fugazi/Zuber) Approve Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Awarding an Emergency Public Works Construction Contract to Jim Thorpe, Inc. for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $177,947 for the Demolition, Deconstruction and Salvage of the Western Pacific Depot and Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute Any and All Necessary Documents Related to the Contract. Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission on the 1st day of September 2017 by the following vote to wit:

AYES: 8 Haggerty, Marchand, Dresser, Elliott, Fugazi, Moorhead, Zuber, Chair Johnson NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 0

6 of 45

6 Approve Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin ACTION Regional Rail Commission Adopting Fiscal Year 2017/2018 Budget Amendment #1, Adding Two Capital Projects to the Capital Budget and Increasing the Capital Budget in the Amount of $275,830, from $54,242,943 to $54,518,773

Ms. Mortensen presented on the Fiscal Year 2017/2018 Budget Amendment #1.

Commissioner Haggerty asked for clarification on the source of the funds. Ms. Mortensen said the funds are identified out of the “unassigned fund balance” line item in the budget. Commissioner Haggerty asked if this is from the ACE or SJRRC budget. Ms. Mortensen responded the SJRRC budget.

M/S/C (Zuber/Elliott) Approve Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Adopting Fiscal Year 2017/2018 Budget Amendment #1, Adding Two Capital Projects to the Capital Budget and Increasing the Capital Budget in the Amount of $275,830, from $54,242,943 to $54,518,773. Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission on the 1st day of September 2017 by the following vote to wit:

AYES: 8 Haggerty, Marchand, Dresser, Elliott, Fugazi, Moorhead, Zuber, Chair Johnson NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 0

7 Approve Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin ACTION

Regional Rail Commission Authorizing a Four-Year and Ten-Month Contract with Two One -year Options for On-Call Rail Engineering Support Services to RailPros Inc. for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $250,000 total from September 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018, and Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute the Agreement

Ms. Mortensen and Ms. Gowan presented on the solicitation process for procuring on-call rail engineering support services.

There was no Board discussion on this item.

M/S/C (Dresser/Fugazi) Approve Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Authorizing a Four-Year and Ten-Month Contract with Two One-year Options for On-Call Rail Engineering Support Services to RailPros Inc. 7 of 45 for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $250,000 total from September 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018, and Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute the Agreement. Passed and Adopted by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission on the 1st day of September 2017 by the following vote to wit:

AYES: 8 Haggerty, Marchand, Dresser, Elliott, Fugazi, Moorhead, Zuber, Chair Johnson NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0

ABSENT: 0

8 Update on ACE Service Parking Lot and Train Capacity INFORMATION/

ACTION Mr. Schmidt presented on ACE parking lot and train capacity.

Vice Chair Dresser asked if the Tracy parking lot expansion will have more exit points. Mr. Schmidt confirmed that this is correct.

Commissioner Moorhead described the congested situation that exists in the Manteca/Lathrop parking lot. Mr. Schmidt said the initial 22 parking spaces will be a short-term solution, but other options will be examined to expand the parking lot in the long-term.

Mr. Dumas asked if van pool solutions have been pursued. Mr. Kay mentioned the discussions underway with Dibs, the new name of SJCOG’s van pool program, to provide solutions to ACE’s parking lot capacity issues.

9 ACE Participation in Community Events for September INFORMATION/ ACTION Mr. Kay presented on ACE’s participation in upcoming September community events. Ms. Payne, from Supervisor Haggerty’s Office, invited everyone to the “ Stroll and Roll” on September 30th, where non-motorized activities will take place. There was no Board discussion on this item.

10 Recap of ACE Commuter Story in the New York Times INFORMATION/ ACTION Mr. Kay presented on a New York Times article on an ACE commuter.

Commissioner Fugazi mentioned the community involvement of Sheila, the ACE commuter featured in the article.

11 Commissioner’s Comments

Commissioner Fugazi discussed ACE’s presence at the recent Pride Festival.

Chair Johnson requested staff explore utilizing van pools to address parking capacity issues.

8 of 45

12 Ex-Officio Comments

Mr. Chesley discussed the Measure K Bicycle and Pedestrian and Smart Growth Incentive Program that is currently open for applications.

Mr. Knodt discussed the phasing in of all electric buses on some of the RTD routes.

13 Executive Director’s Report

Ms. Mortensen reported:

There was a recent Select Committee on Rail meeting at the State Capitol which was strongly attended by many leaders throughout the Valley, including Commissioner Elliott.

There was meeting between CalSTA, SJRRC, and regional RTPAs to discuss how the future ACE service expansion will be funded.

The comment period for the ACE Draft EIR closed on August 31st. A discussion of the preferred alternatives will likely take place in early 2018.

14 Adjournment –

The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 am. The next regular meeting is scheduled for: October 6, 2017 – 8:00 am Robert J. Cabral Station 949 E. Channel Street, Stockton CA

9 of 45 Item 4.2

San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Altamont Corridor Express Operating and Capital Expense Report August 2017 17% of Budget Year Elapsed

SJRRC EXPENSE % ACE EXPENSE % FY 17-18 TO SPENT FY 17-18 TO SPENT OPERATING EXPENSES ALLOCATION DATE TO DATE ALLOCATION DATE TO DATE

Project Management, Services & Supplies Subtotal 687,019 90,613 13% 4,715,405 639,073 14% Contracted Services Subtotal 441,811 60,729 14% 16,431,128 1,578,843 10% Shuttle Services 1,262,232 211,643 17% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 1,128,830 151,342 13% 22,408,765 2,429,558 11%

CAPITAL EXPENSE % FY 17-18 TO SPENT CAPITAL PROJECTS ALLOCATION DATE TO DATE

1 SJ COG Loan Repayment 1,118,012 1,118,012 100% 2 A1 & A2 Bond Repayment 3,035,912 - 0% 3 UPRR Capital Access Fee 3,242,516 1,621,258 50% 4 UPRR Capitalized Maintenance Projects 4,000,000 - 0% 5 Platform Extension Projects 3,000,000 - 0% 6 ACE Forward (Project Manager approves invoices for ACEforward - Project funded directly by State) 8,600,000 500,651 6% 7 ACE Expansion 250,000 - 0% 8 Cabral Station Boiler 75,000 - 0% 9 Locomotives (5) 15,000,000 - 0% 10 Mid Life Overhaul of 1 Locomotive 875,000 - 0% 11 Cabral Track Extension 5,000,000 134 0% 12 eTicketing 844,623 - 0% 13 Positive Train Control 3,726,880 13,298 0% 14 Capital Spares/Upgrades for Passenger Cars and Locomotives 1,125,000 - 0% 15 RMF - Wayside Power 200,000 - 0% 16 Sunol Quiet Zone Project 800,000 46,269 6% 17 SJJPA - Mid-Corridor Layover Facility 1,750,000 1,032 0% 18 San Joaquin Intercity Minor Capital Project (Funded by State of California) 1,600,000 5,256 0% TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 54,242,943 3,305,911 6%

10 of 45 Status of Capital Projects 1 SJ COG Loan Repayment - Annual payment made July 1, 2017 per SJCOG amended loan agreement.

2 Bond Repayments - Bond repayments are made bi-annually. The first payment for FY17/18 is due in October 2017.

3 UPRR Capital Access Fee - Annual payment for trackage rights is due January 2018.

4 UPRR Capitalized Maintenance Projects - Multi-year project is budgeted at $4,000,000 for the year.

5 Platform Extension Projects - Multi-year project to extend the existing Lathrop/Manteca, Tracy and Pleasanton platforms.

6 ACE Forward – For FY 17-18, the primary tasks for ACE forward between July 1 and July 31 have been public outreach to support the ACEforward program/Draft EIR, project-level engineering and environmental analysis for the extension between Modesto and Ceres, the project description, environmental analysis, and planning work for the potential ACE extension to Sacramento, and project management.

7 ACE Expansion - Engineering and project support for the expansion of ACE service to Modesto, Ceres and Merced

8 Cabral Station Boiler - New boilers for Cabral Station, no expenditures to date.

9 Locomotives (5) - Multi-year project to procure up to five Tier 4 locomotives for ACE service.

10 Mid Life Overhaul of 1 Locomotive - Project is currently in the preliminary phase.

11 Cabral Track Extension Phases 1-3 - Cabral Track Extension is currently under negotiation with Union Pacific for final design and is scheduled to be completed over several fiscal years.

12 eTicketing Project - SJRRC is in the final stage of the RFP development.

13 Positive Train Control -Multi-year project is currently ongoing.

14 Capital Spares/Upgrades for Passenger Cars and Locomotives - Preventative Maintenance is currently ongoing. 15 RMF Wayside Power - Construction of two wayside power panels is currently ongoing. 16 Sunol Quiet Zone - Project has transitioned to a Quiet Zone project sponsored by Alameda County and is in the design and approval phase. 17 SJJPA Mid-Corridor Layover Facility - Project will allow the San Joaquins to initiate an early morning train in Fresno to serve Sacramento bound commuters. 18 San Joaquin Intercity Minor Capital Project (Funded by State of California) - Agreements have been executed with .

11 of 45 San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority Operating Expense Report August 2017 17% of Budget Year Elapsed

SJJPA EXPENSE YTD FY 17-18 TO PERCENT OPERATING EXPENSES ALLOCATION DATE EXPENDED

Project Management, Services & Supplies Subtotal 1,888,664 242,619 12.8% Contracted Services Subtotal 50,205,035 7,189,863 14.3%

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 52,093,699 7,432,482 14.3%

12 of 45 Fare Revenue Item 4.3 900,000

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000 FY Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 TOTAL FY 17-18 Fare Revenue 762,515 858,809 ------1,621,324 FY 16-17 Fare Revenue 646,429 826,273 861,289 748,351 726,178 664,632 831,621 607,406 809,833 740,133 727,026 712,791 8,901,962

% of Budget Year Elapsed: 17% FY 17-18 % of Budgeted Fare Revenue Received to Date: 18% Projected Annual Fare Revenue: $9,000,000

13 of 45 Ridership Item 4.4

130,000

120,000

110,000

100,000

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

- Jul-17 Aug-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18 May-18 Jun-18 FY TOTAL FY 17/18 Ridership 99,462 128,439 ------227,901 FY 16/17 Ridership 99,371 120,142 115,172 118,580 107,241 90,720 107,595 74,701 119,288 103,205 126,309 117,393 1,299,717

14 of 45 ACE ON TIME PERFORMANCE

100

90

80

70

60

50

OTP% 40

30

20

10

0 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 Jul-17 Aug-17 Monthly OTP % 90.11 91.07 89.88 84.31 80.63 83.85 77.68 85.25 91.25 85.71 94.22 92.86 92.93 YTD OTP % 88.86 89.11 89.19 88.78 88.13 83.85 81.32 82.71 84.93 85.1 86.74 88.01 88.55

15 of 45

San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Monthly Report – September 2017

SJRRC and VSA Items • VSA participated in several conference calls with SJRRC. • VSA conducted research regarding the disposal of excess Army Depot property. • VSA spoke with and provided guidance from Army Depot experts regarding best practices for the potential purchase of property at Sharpe Army Depot. • VSA provided information regarding transportation amendments filed and made in order to the House-passed omnibus bill. • VSA provided information regarding the TIGER Notice of Funding Agreement. • VSA provided information regarding a proposed tax package being developed by the Administration and Congressional Republicans.

DOT Leadership • Elaine Chao was nominated by the President to serve as Secretary of Transportation. Chao is a former Secretary of Labor (President George W. Bush) and a former Deputy Secretary of DOT and former Chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission. She is also married to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. • Her nomination was reported out of the Senate Commerce Committee on January 24, 2017, by a voice vote. She was confirmed by the full Senate on January 31, 2017, by a vote of 93-6. • On May 16, 2017, the Senate confirmed Jeffrey Rosen to be Deputy Secretary of Transportation. Rosen was previously general counsel at DOT under President George W. Bush. As Deputy Secretary for DOT he will be second in command to Secretary Chao. • The President nominated Derek Kan to be Undersecretary of Transportation for Policy. His nomination was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee on June 29th by voice vote. Kan was a Lyft general manager working in Los Angeles and a member of Amtrak’s board. From 2008 to 2010 he was a policy advisor for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. • Additionally, Michael Britt has been tapped to be senior advisor for FAA modernization and James Ray (previously a principal at KPMG) has been tapped to lead DOT’s task force on infrastructure. Geoff Burr will replace Britt becoming acting chief of staff. Matt Kopko will be counselor to the deputy secretary. • Heath Hall, former president of Strategic Marketing Group, has been sworn in as FRA Deputy Administrator. He is currently serving as Acting Administrator.

16 of 45

• The President nominated Ron Batory, formerly President and COO of Conrail, as Administrator of FRA. Batory has over 40 years of experience working for Class 1 freight railroads or enterprises owned by them. His nomination has been approved by the Senate Commerce Committee, but has not been agreed to by the full Senate. • VSA will monitor for additional DOT nominations. DOT remains lightly staffed, especially regarding political appointments.

Fiscal Year 2018 Budget and Appropriations

FY18 Congressional Budget: • The House Budget Committee passed an FY18 budget resolution out of committee on July 19th by a party line vote of 22-14. Passage of the budget resolution is a step toward a major tax overhaul as the budget resolution includes reconciliation instructions for tax reform. • The resolution sets a limit on discretionary spending for FY18 of $621.5 billion for base discretionary defense programs and $511 billion for nondefense discretionary spending. It would allow up to $75 billion in war funding for the military and $12 billion for the State Department and other civilian agencies. The war funds are outside of the constraints of the statutory caps which are $549 billion for defense and $516 billion for nondefense. • The budget includes reconciliation instructions directing 11 authorizing committees to craft legislation to reduce the deficit by at least $203 billion over 10 years. The Ways and Means Committee is expected to produce both a comprehensive tax overall as well as legislation to cut mandatory programs. • The House has yet to consider the budget resolution on the floor. Leadership believes that they still lack the votes for successful passage of the measure. However, the ability to use the budget resolution as a method for passing tax reform under reconciliation is attractive to many Republicans and may keep the budget resolution relevant. • The Senate has yet to consider a budget resolution in committee or on the Senate floor.

FY18 Congressional Appropriations: • The Congressional Appropriations process is underway for FY18, despite the lack of a budget resolution. • The House Appropriations Committee marked up and passed out of committee the FY18 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations bill on July 17, 2017. The bill includes the following items that may be of interest: o $17.8 billion for discretionary funding at DOT ($646 million below FY17 level and $1.5 billion above the President’s request) o The FRA is funded at $2.2 billion ($360 million over FY17 level and $1.1 billion above the President’s request) . $1.4 billion for Amtrak, of which $328 million is for the northeast corridor grants and $1.1 billion is to support the national network

17 of 45

. Prohibits funding for HSR in CA, the CA High Speed Rail Authority and for FRA to Administer a grant agreement with the Authority that contains a tapered match. . Federal-State partnership for State of Good Repair program is funded at $500 million and will go toward the $38 billion backlog for state of good repair improvements in the Northeast Corridor. o $11.75 billion for the FTA ($662 million below FY17 level and $526 million above the President’s request) . Transit formula grants total $9.7 billion, $4.75 billion of which is for Capital Investment Grants . Core capacity projects receive $145 million . “Small Starts” receive $182 million . $400 million is for new projects that provide both public transportation and inner-city passenger rail service . The federal match for New Start projects is limited to 50% o The bill eliminates the TIGER grant program ($500 million in FY17) • The Senate Appropriations Committee marked up and passed out of committee the FY18 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations bill on July 27, 2017. The bill includes the following items that may be of interest: o $19.47 billion in discretionary appropriations for DOT ($978 million above FY17 levels) o The FRA is funded at $1.974 billion ($122 million over FY17 level) . $1.6 billion for Amtrak, continuing service for all current routes . $250 million for FRA safety and operations and research and development activities . $92.5 million for the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure Safety Improvement grants program, of which $35.5 million is for initiation or restoration of passenger rail, $26 million is for Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair grants and $5 million is for Restoration and Enhancement grants o $12.129 billion for the FTA ($285 million below FY17 enacted level) . Transit formula grants total $9.733 billion, consistent with the FAST Act . $2.133 billion for Capital Investment Grants (New Starts), fully funding all current “Full Funding Grant Agreement” transit projects o Funds the INFRA grant program (new FASTLANE grant program) at $900 million (level authorized in FAST Act) o The TIGER grant program is funded at $550 million ($50 million over FY17 levels)

• The House passed a “security-bus” on the floor before adjourning for the August recess. This package of bills includes four appropriations bills – Defense, Military Construction/VA, Energy and Water, and Legislative Branch (member security) – along with $1.6 billion in funding for the southwest border wall.

18 of 45

• While this package of bills passed in the House, it is unlikely to pass in the Senate as drafted. The measure defies the statutory spending levels, includes funding for the border wall, and removes language in the defense spending bill that would have sunset the existing authorization for military operations abroad (which passed with broad bipartisan support in committee). All of these issues will be problematic for getting the package through the Senate. • On September 14th, the House passed a spending package that will include the remaining 8 spending bills. It is unlikely that the Senate will consider this legislation in its current form. • In early September, Congress passed and the President signed into law a Continuing Resolution that keeps the government operational until December 8th. We expect Congress to continue working on an overall budget deal in the hopes of advancing an omnibus or Consolidated Appropriations package before December 8th.

FY18 Administration Budget: • The Administration released their full budget proposal to Congress on May 23rd. This is in follow up to the release of the “skinny” budget that was submitted to Congress from the Administration in March 2017. • The President’s $4.1 trillion budget for the federal government proposes to eliminate the federal deficit in 10 years through spending cuts and new revenue generated by economic growth. The budget also proposes a $54 billion increase in base discretionary defense spending in FY 2018, offset by an equal cut to nondefense discretionary spending. • The President’s budget includes $76 billion for the Department of Transportation (DOT). In total, this is roughly the same funding level as FY 2016. However, DOT’s discretionary budget would be $16.2 billion which is a 12.4% decrease from the FY17 enacted level. The FY 2018 budget request also includes $200 billion to support President Trump’s infrastructure proposal. This funding was not included in the DOT request, but was included in the overall budget request. • Below are some items contained in the FY18 DOT budget proposal that may be of interest: o Eliminates the TIGER grant program o The President’s budget requests $1.05 billion for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which is $802 million below FY 2017 levels. . $199 million for FRA safety and operations. This includes resources to monitor compliance with the implementation of positive train control, and enable FRA to improve its automated track inspection program. . $39.1 million for research and development . $760 million in subsidies for Amtrak, $735 million less than FY 2017 levels. This includes elimination of subsidies for all long-distance routes, and $235 million for the Northeast corridor, which is $93 million less than the FY 2017 level . The budget request eliminates funding for restoration and enhancement grants which were funded at $5 million in FY 2017 o The President requests $11.2 billion for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). This includes the full $9.733 billion in spending from the mass transit account (MTA) of the HTF, but drastically reduces spending from general fund transit programs.

19 of 45

. $9.7 billion for transit formula grants, this is equal to the FAST Act funding level . $1.2 billion for Capital Investment Grants, which includes New Starts, Small Starts, and Core Capacity projects. This is a decrease from the FY 2017 level of $2.4 billion. The budget request only funds projects that currently have a full funding grant agreement (FFGA) and proposes to phase out the program stating that “future investments in new transit projects would be funded by the localities that use and benefit from these localized projects”. . The budget eliminates funding for transit research programs. . The budget proposal eliminates general funds for the FTA’s technical assistance and training account.

Tax Reform • Tax reform has been slower to come to fruition than originally anticipated, largely due to the delay in dealing with healthcare. • As a result of ongoing meetings between the “big 6,” senior Republicans (McConnell, Ryan, Hatch, Brady, Cohn and Mnuchin) a framework for tax reform was released in late September. The framework includes an outline of principles and concepts that the group would like to see included in a comprehensive tax reform package. It will be up to the Congressional Committees to actually draft legislation to reflect (or not) this framework. Below, please find some of the general principles included in the framework: . 20% corporate rate (down from 35%) and a new special rate of 25% for pass-through businesses that pay taxes through the individual system . Consolidate the current seven tax brackets into three (12%, 25% and 35%) . Top tax rate for individuals would be 35% (down from 39.6%) and the bottom rate would increase to 12% (from 10%) . Standard Deduction would go up dramatically . Estate Tax eliminated . Alternative Minimum Tax eliminated . Eliminates most itemized deductions, but keeps mortgage interest and charitable contributions • The “big 6” framework differs somewhat from the Trump Administration’s principles for tax cuts outlined on Wednesday, April 26th. Most notably, the Administration’s April proposal calls for a 15% rate applied to both large corporations and small businesses (versus a 20% rate in the “big 6” framework). • VSA will continue to follow developments on tax reform and will keep SJRRC updated as more information becomes available.

Infrastructure Investment • There is no significant infrastructure investment proposal being considered by Congress. While the Administration and Congress continue to discuss the issue publicly, most in DC expect infrastructure to be congressionally-driven and considered in the fall, at the earliest.

20 of 45

Administration: • The Trump Administration has made bold promises to invest $1 trillion in infrastructure over ten years. The President’s budget request does include a blueprint for a $1 trillion infrastructure investment funded through a combination of $200 billion of new federal funding, incentivized non-federal funding, and newly prioritized and expedited projects. • Key principles of the infrastructure proposal include: o Make targeted federal investments – focusing federal dollars on the most transformative projects (stresses the use and benefit of taxpayer funds) o Encourage self-help – support more communities moving toward a model of independence o Align infrastructure investment with entities best suited to provide sustained and efficient investment – Administration will look for opportunities to appropriately divest from certain functions, which will provide better services for citizens, and potentially generate budget savings o Leverage the private sector – P3s will not be solution to all infrastructure projects, they can help advance the most important, regionally significant projects • In addition to the $200 billion in federal funding, these proposals are also included in the FY 2018 budget to support the infrastructure initiative: air traffic control (ATC) corporatization; increase infrastructure flexibility at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); divestiture of the Power Marketing Administration’s (PMA) transmission assets; reform laws governing the inland waterways trust fund. • The infrastructure proposal includes the following policy proposals: o Expand the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) – increase TIFIA subsidies by $1 billion annually for 10 years, leveraging $140 billion in credit assistance and expand TIFIA eligibility o Lift cap on private activity bonds (PABs) and expand eligibility to other non- federal infrastructure o Incentivize innovative approaches to congestion mitigation – this includes congestion pricing, enhanced transit services, increased telecommuting and flex scheduling, and deployment of advanced technologies o Liberalize tolling policy and allow private investment in rest areas o Fund the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program o Encourage the use of Army Corps of Engineers contributed/advanced funding authorities o Establish a federal capital revolving fund – this mandatory revolving fund would help finance federally-owned civilian capital assets o Partnership grants for federal assets – a private partner may wish to build or improve a federal facility and donate it to the government in exchange for the right to retain revenue from the associated activities. The Administration is developing a proposal to offer those partners grants in lieu of loans to buy down the cost of a federal asset improvement. o Environmental review and permitting process enhancements

21 of 45

• Secretary Chao made comments in April about moving an infrastructure package more quickly than previously suggested. Chairman Shuster and others in Congress still think that a late fall timeframe is more realistic.

Congress: • Over the August recess, several Senators have begun talking publicly about working in a bipartisan manner to push some infrastructure bills through Congress. These are primarily Members of the Senate EPW and Senate Commerce Committees. While there is no formal package being pushed by these Members, it’s clear that they are growing impatient with the lack of focus from the Administration on the issue. • In late January, Senate Democrats outlined an ambitious proposal to spend $1 trillion on a broad range of infrastructure projects over the next ten years. Since the announcement, neither the President nor Congressional Republicans have responded in any significant way to the Democrats’ offer. • The proposal suggests the following investments:

Reconstruct Roads & Bridges $100B Improve Airports $30B Revitalize Main Street $100B Address Ports & Waterways $10B Expand TIGER $10B Build Resilient Communities $25B Rehabilitate Water and Sewer $110B 21st Century Energy Infrastructure $100B Modernize Rail Infrastructure $50B Expand Broadband $20B Repair & Expand Transit $130B Invest in Public Lands & Tribal Infrastructure $20B Vital Infrastructure Program $200B Modernize VA Hospitals $10B Rebuild Public Schools $75B Provide Innovative Financing Tools $10B

• Congressional Republicans continue to discuss a desire to provide more funding for infrastructure, but have not offered a formal proposal or a specific time as to when they may draft a proposal. Some continue to look at repatriation of corporate foreign income as a (at least partial) funding source, while others suggest those funds should be used for tax reform. There is little to no talk of Congress simply using deficit spending to fund infrastructure.

FY17 Appropriations • On May 5th, the President signed into law an omnibus package for the remainder of FY17. The omnibus included legislation for the remaining 11 appropriations bills (Military Construction/VA was enacted in September). • In terms of DOT, the bill includes $58.58 billion for FY17 (the FY16 enacted level was $57.60 billion). Below are some items that may be of interest to SJRRC: o $2.4 billion for Capital Investment Grants for subways, light rail and transit systems ($236 million more than FY16 enacted level) o $1.5 billion for Amtrak ($105 million more than FY16 enacted)

22 of 45

o $500 million for TIGER grants (level with FY16 enacted) o $218 million for FRA Safety and Operations ($19 million more than FY16 enacted) o $199 million for PTC on commuter railroads o The bill does NOT include a rider that prevents the FRA from administering a grant agreement for high speed rail in CA

23 of 45 SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION Meeting of October 6, 2017

STAFF REPORT

Item 5 ACTION Approve Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Authorizing a Four-Year and Nine-Month Contract with Two One-year Options for On-Call Controller Services to Infinity Accountancy Group LLP for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $325,352 total from October 6, 2017 through June 30, 2022, and Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute the Agreement

Background:

On August 22, 2017, SJRRC released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the solicitation of On- Call Controller Services with proposals due on September 08, 2017. As a result of the solicitation, eleven (11) firms requested the RFP and the Rail Commission received proposals from the following firms: Infinity Accountancy Group LLP SJRRC staff reached out to the firms that did not submit a proposal requesting feedback on why they did not submit a proposal. Six (6) firms responded citing “Other obligations – cannot take on new clients at this time” or “Required services are not available and/or performed” as the reasoning behind not submitting proposals.

A panel consisting of Nila Cordova (SJRRC), Angela Miller (SJRRC) and Brian Schmidt (SJRRC) reviewed the proposal. Based on the proposers’ responsiveness to the scope of work, Infinity Accountancy Group LLP was selected as the most responsive proposer.

Infinity Accountancy Group LLP’s price proposal for the initial four-year and nine-month period is $325,352 of which $171,432.00 is for SJRRC/ACE and $153,920.00 is for SJJPA. The Two, One-Year options are at the sole discretion of the Rail Commission and the cost for the option-year will be negotiated in advance.

Fiscal Impact

Costs associated with the first year of this Agreement are identified in the approved SJRRC/ACE/SJJPA Fiscal Year 2017/2018 Operating Budget in the Salaries/Benefits/Contract Help Category and will be reallocated to the Project Management Category under the Professional Services – General Reporting line. Future year’s costs will be brought before the Board as part of the annual Budget approval process for consideration.

Recommendation

Approve Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Authorizing a Four-Year and Nine-Month Contract with Two One-year Options for On-Call Controller Services to Infinity Accountancy Group LLP for an Amount Not-To- Exceed $325,352 total from October 6, 2017 through June 30, 2022, and Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute the Agreement.

24 of 45 RESOLUTION SJRRC-R-17/18-

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE SAN JOAQUIN RAIL COMMISSION AUTHORIZING A FOUR-YEAR AND NINE-MONTH CONTRACT WITH TWO ONE-YEAR OPTIONS FOR ON-CALL CONTROLLER SERVICES TO INFINITY ACCOUNTANCY GROUP LLP FOR AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $325,352 TOTAL FROM OCTOBER 6, 2017 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2022, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT

WHEREAS, SJRRC requires On-Call Controller Services; and

WHEREAS, a Request for Proposal for On-Call Controller Services was issued on August 22, 2017 with a due date of September 8, 2017; and

WHEREAS, on September 8, 2017, one proposal was received for On-Call Controller Services; and

WHEREAS, the one proposal received was deemed responsive to the RFP and evaluated as part of the procurement process;

WHEREAS, the Rail Commission came to agreement on the terms and price with Infinity Accountancy Group LLP for On-Call Controller Services;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Authorizing a Four-Year and Nine-Month Contract with Two One-year Options for On-Call Controller Services to Infinity Accountancy Group LLP for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $325,352 total from October 6, 2017 through June 30, 2022, and Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute the Agreement

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the Board of Commissioners this 6th day of October 2017, by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION

______STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary BOB JOHNSON, Chair

25 of 45 SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION Meeting of October 6, 2017

STAFF REPORT

Item 6 ACTION Approve Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Authorizing a Contract with CHS Consulting Group for Short Range Transit Plan Consulting Services for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $75,004 and Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute the Agreement

Background:

On August 01, 2017, SJRRC released a Request for Proposals for the solicitation of Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) Consulting Services with proposals due on September 06, 2017. As a result of the solicitation, the Rail Commission received proposals from the following firms:

AECOM CHS Consulting Group

A panel consisting of Brian Schmidt (SJRRC), Kevin Sheridan (SJRRC), Jordan Peterson (SJRRC) and Kevin Lee (SJRRC) reviewed the proposals. Based on the proposers’ responsiveness to the scope of work, CHS Consulting Group was selected as the most responsive proposer. The interview process was waived due to the Rail Commission’s existing experience and great working relationship with CHS Consulting Services.

The contract is to be awarded from October 15, 2017 and shall continue upon completion of the scope.

Fiscal Impact

Costs associated with of this Agreement are identified in the approved SJRRC/ACE/SJJPA Fiscal Year 2017/2018 Operating Budget in the Contracted Services – Professional Services/Operations Category Line. Future year’s costs will be brought before the Board as part of the annual Budget approval process for consideration.

Recommendation

Approve Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Authorizing a Contract with CHS Consulting Group for Short Range Transit Plan Consulting Services for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $75,004 and Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute the Agreement.

26 of 45 RESOLUTION SJRRC-R-17/18-

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH CHS CONSULTING GROUP FOR SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN CONSULTING SERVICES FOR AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $74,004 AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT

WHEREAS, SJRRC requires Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) Consulting Services; and;

WHEREAS, a Request for Proposal for SRTP Consulting Services was issued on August 01, 2017 with a due date of September 6, 2017; and

WHEREAS, on September 6, 2017, two proposals were received for SRTP Consulting Services; and

WHEREAS, the two proposal received were deemed responsive to the RFP and evaluated as part of the procurement process;

WHEREAS, the Rail Commission came to agreement on the terms and price with CHS Consulting Group for SRTP Consulting Services;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Authorizing a Contract with CHS Consulting Group for an Amount Not-To-Exceed $75,004 from October 15, 2017 and shall continue upon completion of the scope and Authorizing and Directing the Executive Director to Execute the Agreement

PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the Board of Commissioners this 6th day of October 2017, by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION

______STACEY MORTENSEN, Secretary BOB JOHNSON, Chair

27 of 45 SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION Meeting of October 6, 2017

STAFF REPORT

Item 7 INFORMATION/ACTION ACEforward EIR: Schedule, Summary of Comments, and Ceres Inclusion for Near- Term Project in EIR

Background:

San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for ACEforward in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The DEIR studies potential environmental effects of the proposed ACE enhancements and identifies ways to avoid or mitigate them, and was released to the public on May 31, 2017. The public comment period was open from May 31, 2017 to August 31, 2017. The public review period is complete, and SJRRC is preparing a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) that includes responses to comments received on the DEIR and any necessary revisions to the DEIR. The Final EIR, which will include the preferred alternative, is expected to be approved in early 2018.

Schedule:

The schedule for the next steps in the EIR process is included below: • October 2017 o Review and prepare responses to ACEforward Draft EIR comments th o October 6 2018 Board Meeting . ACEforward EIR – schedule & summary of comments . ACEforward EIR Staff Recommendation: Ceres to be considered for near-term project level • November 2017 o Publish Recirculated Draft EIR for Ceres Extension rd o November 3 2018 Board Meeting . ACEforward EIR Staff Recommendations Preferred Alternative Part 1: Improvements for Additional Daily Round Trips, & Service Extension • December 2017 o Public comment period for Recirculated Draft EIR for Ceres Extension starts st o December 1 2018 Board Meeting . ACEforward EIR Staff Recommendations Preferred Alternative Part 2: South San Joaquin County Alternatives & Parking at Existing Stations . Ceres Extension Draft EIR Recirculation update • January 2018 o Public comment period for Recirculated Draft EIR for Ceres Extension closes th o January 5 2018 Board Meeting . ACEforward EIR Staff Recommendations Preferred Alternative Part 3: Tri-Valley ACE - BART Connection • February 2018 o Review and prepare responses to Recirculated Draft EIR comments nd o February 2 2018 Board Meeting

28 of 45 . Ceres Extension Draft EIR Recirculation summary of comments • March/April 2018 o Publish Final EIR nd th o March 2 / April 6 2018 Board Meeting(s) . Certify Final EIR / approve project (ACTION)

Summary of Comments:

Comment letters received on the DEIR included: 1. Total: 353 2. Agencies: 54 a. Federal: 5 b. State: 8 c. Regional: 10 d. Local: 31 3. Elected officials: 2 4. Organizations: 16 5. Private companies: 20 6. Public: 261 Note: Some parties submitted multiple comments.

Below is a summary of comments received on the DEIR by location. • San Jose & Santa Clara Segment (3 individual comments + organization comments) o Noise & Vibration in Santa Clara o Great America – need for station improvements to handle more riders. o City of SJ – Could Tamien layover be shared with CCJPA and o Bike and pedestrian impacts and mitigation o Guadalupe River bridge hydrology impacts o Air quality – Diridon to Tamien yard o Alviso Baylands . CCCR/Ohlone Audubon/ Audubon – question legal adequacy; hired environmental consultant to comment. . Coordination with Shoreline Study Levee . Habitat/species/hydrology impacts . CCJPA urges 3rd track through Alviso . Drawbridge – cultural resources • Fremont (City comments, a few individuals) o Fremont station improvements (move station east to avoid Fremont traffic; transit connectivity, bike parking/improvements) o Individuals advocated that a Shinn transfer station from BART to ACE should be added to ACEforward o Also see below for Centerville-Niles-Sunol • Union City (City comments, a few individuals) o City of Union City . Make Ace connection to Union City a near-term improvement instead of a longer term improvement . Run trains to UC during midday layover, move station platform, impacts on proposed grade separation at Decoto Rd. . Also see below for Centerville-Niles-Sunol • Centerville/Niles/Sunol (~30 comments, organization comments, agency comments)

29 of 45 o Many comments assert that the project will cause freight increase. o Niles for Environmentally Safe Trains (NEST) opposes all build alternatives; hired train expert who made numerous comments on safety issue. o Safety of freight (especially hazardous cargo), ACE, and new bridges o Hydrology/water quality o Biological resources, cultural resources (historic railroad bridges and other features), and aesthetics in Niles Canyon o Impacts on planned regional trail in Niles Canyon o Niles Canyon Railway (NCRY) opposes alternatives using the railway used by NCRY (CNS-2a and 2b); notes that NCRY owns tracks and County owns land o Most comments (including City of Fremont and Alameda County) opposed all build alternatives but see CNS-1c as least harmful. o However Union City opposes CNS-1c, which would allow freight to use the through the middle of Union City, and favors CNS-1a which would allow freight to use the Niles Subdivision through the Niles community • Tri-Valley (19 comments, City comments, agency comments) o Various opinions on BART connection and BART extension – no clear leading proposal o Noise/Vibration in Pleasanton and Livermore o SF Water Board –opposes Greenville Road Station re: Maintenance Facility; asserts ACE should rely on BART EIR mitigation measures o City of Livermore – housing plans for parking garage at Vasco Road Station, request for grade separations o City of Pleasanton– does not support parking south of tracks at Pleasanton Station, concerned about traffic, advocates for more support for transit, bike, and pedestrian linkages to station • Altamont (1 organization, agency comments) o Habitat effects of tunnels and siding • Tracy (~160 individual comments, City comments, agency comments) o Largest set of comments concerning stations o Mountain House/West Tracy – most advocating for West Tracy Options B1, A1, or A2. o Downtown Tracy vs. Existing Tracy – most favor existing station; few favor downtown o Noise, traffic, air quality concerns o Biological resource concerns at West Tracy Station Options A1 and A2 o DWR states that Lammers bridge design over aqueduct needs to be clear span o City of Tracy would like ACE to study a maintenance facility in Tracy; expressed no preference on station locations; asked for more comparison of stations. o Banta-Lyoth crossover – Opposition by farm landowner and developer of rural residential zoned land. • Lathrop o SR 120 crossover: Opposition due to land use, traffic, ROW impacts (landowners, City of Lathrop) o Relocated Lathrop-Manteca supported by City of Manteca o Support for River Islands Station (Lathrop, River Islands developer) • Manteca

30 of 45 o Concerns about flooding re: SB 5 (200 year) and cumulative flooding (applies more broadly) o Concerns about Station • Stockton o No comments • Manteca-Modesto o City of Modesto – station concerns o Noise, traffic • Modesto-Merced o Ceres Station – landowner and City concerns about ROW acquisition o Turlock – concern about Stanislaus County Fair displacement o Agriculture impacts – farmland/confined animal facilities o Merced: Support project • Alternatives o Electrify ACE o EMU/DMU connection from BART Dublin/Pleasanton to Tracy and Lathrop

Ceres Inclusion for Near-Term Project in EIR:

In light of available funding through SB 132 for the ACE extension to Ceres, staff wants to advance the extension to Ceres along with other potential near-term improvements in the CEQA process. In the Draft EIR released in May 2017, the analysis of the Lathrop-Modesto extension was at a project-level and the extension from Modesto to Merced, including the extension from Modesto to Ceres, was analyzed at a programmatic level. In order to allow more near-term progress, SJRRC is completing the additional environmental analysis to allow a project-level evaluation of an extension to Ceres. Revisions to the Draft EIR, including project-level details and project-level environmental analysis concerning the Ceres extension, are being prepared. Staff proposes that revisions be released for public and agency review at the end of November in the form of a Partial Recirculated Draft EIR. A 45- day public comment period will be started when the Partial Recirculated Draft EIR is released. Responses to public comments on the Draft EIR and the Partial Recirculated Draft EIR will be provided in the Final EIR expected in March/April 2018.

Fiscal Impact

Funds for this contract are provided through Proposition 1A. Including Ceres as part of the Project EIR will be less costly and take less time than having a separate Project EIR for the extension from Modesto to Ceres.

Recommendation

There is no action being requested for this item.

31 of 45 SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION Meeting of October 6, 2017

STAFF REPORT

Item 8 INFORMATION/ACTION Update on AB 758

Staff will provide an update on AB 758 and BART/ACE connection planning efforts. Please see AB 758 (Eggman/Baker) attached.

32 of 45 Assembly Bill No. 758

Passed the Assembly September 16, 2017

Chief Clerk of the Assembly

Passed the Senate September 15, 2017

Secretary of the Senate

This bill was received by the Governor this day of , 2017, at o'clock m.

Private Secretary of the Governor

33 of 45 AB 758 Ð 2 Ð

CHAPTER

An act to add Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 132651) to Division 12.7 of the Public Utilities Code, relating to transportation.

legislative counsel’s digest AB 758, Eggman. Transportation: Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority. Existing law provides for the creation of statewide and local transportation agencies, which may be established as joint powers authorities or established expressly by statute. Existing law establishes the District, which is authorized to acquire, construct, own, operate, control, or use rights-of-way, rail lines, bus lines, stations, platforms, switches, yards, terminals, parking lots, and any and all other facilities necessary or convenient for rapid transit service. This bill would establish the Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority for purposes of planning, developing, and delivering cost-effective and responsive transit connectivity between the Bay Area Rapid Transit District's rapid transit system and the Altamont Corridor Express commuter rail service in the Tri-Valley, that meets the goals and objectives of the community, as speci®ed. The bill would require the authority's governing board to be composed of 15 representatives. The bill would specify the powers and duties of the authority and would require the unencumbered balance of all local funds programmed for completion of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District's Livermore extension or that have otherwise been identi®ed for the connectivity to be transferred to the authority, except as speci®ed. The bill would authorize the authority to pursue any and all sources of funding, but would prohibit the authority from applying for funds available under the Transportation Development Act for which any member entity of the authority may also be an applicant or for which any member entity of the authority is charged with approving applications for funding under that act, without the express written consent of that affected member entity. The bill would require the authority by July 1, 2019, to provide a project feasibility report to the public, to be posted on the authority's Internet Web site, on

94

34 of 45 Ð 3 Ð AB 758

the plans for the development and implementation of transit connectivity and to submit that report upon completion to speci®ed entities. By imposing new duties on local governmental entities, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. The Legislature ®nds and declares all of the following: (a) Commute patterns throughout northern California, and in particular through the Altamont Pass Corridor, traverse the boundaries of traditional metropolitan planning agencies. The Altamont Pass Corridor, located in the center of the Northern California Megaregion, connects the San Joaquin Valley to the Tri-Valley and is a vital node in the megaregion's economic ecosystem as well as a key megaregion transportation route. Strategic and planned interregional mobility throughout the Altamont Pass Corridor is essential to sustained economic vitality in the megaregion. (b) The Interstate 580 freeway serves the Altamont Pass Corridor and ranks as one of the most congested freeways in the megaregion during peak hours due to a high volume of regional and interregional commuter, freight, and recreational traf®c. It is estimated that traf®c on portions of Interstate 580 in this corridor will increase by up to 60 percent between 2013 and 2040. (c) Connecting the Bay Area Rapid Transit District's rapid transit system and the Altamont Corridor Express, and providing expanded passenger rail connectivity between the San Joaquin Valley and the Bay Area, as recommended by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's regional rail plan, would increase interregional mobility and provide much-needed highway capacity

94

35 of 45 AB 758 Ð 4 Ð

for expanded goods movement to the Bay Area's ®ve seaports and the inland Port of Stockton. It would also relieve pressure on Interstate 580 and other transportation systems, given the large exponential population growth in the San Joaquin Valley. (d) The Department of Finance projects that San Joaquin County, along with other counties in the San Joaquin Valley, will be among the fastest growing counties in the state. Between 1990 and 2013, the number of people commuting daily from the northern San Joaquin Valley to the Bay Area more than doubled, growing from 32,000 to nearly 65,000 commuters. This trend is expected to continue with the San Joaquin Valley's rapid population growth combined with the increasing high housing costs and strong job growth in the Bay Area. (e) Because transportation is the major contributor to ozone precursors, increasing auto travel threatens improvement in air quality throughout the megaregion. Growing congestion will add to potential problems because of increased emissions of vehicles operating in stop-and-go traf®c. Shifting commuters and other travelers to rail transportation between the San Joaquin Valley and the Bay Area is highly desirable as a means to partially offset the effects on air quality produced by the growth in auto travel. (f) Taxpayers in Alameda County have voted to tax themselves to achieve expanded transit services to the Tri-Valley region. (g) The State of California supports enhanced public transit services that improve connectivity between transit operators and provide seamless and convenient travel for public transit passengers. SEC. 2. It is the intent of the Legislature to establish the Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority to plan and help deliver a cost-effective connection from the San Joaquin Valley to the Bay Area Rapid Transit District's rapid transit system and the Altamont Corridor Express in the Tri-Valley, to address regional economic and transportation challenges. SEC. 3. Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 132651) is added to Division 12.7 of the Public Utilities Code, to read:

94

36 of 45 Ð 5 Ð AB 758

Chapter 8. Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority

132651. As used in this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) ªAuthorityº means the Tri-Valley-San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority created under this chapter. (b) ªBay Area Rapid Transitº (BART) means the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. (c) ªBoardº means the governing board of the authority. (d) ªConnectivityº means one or more projects necessary to achieve transit connectivity between BART's rapid transit system and the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission's Altamont Corridor Express commuter rail service, and to provide quality, seamless service to riders using the services operating between the Tri-Valley and the San Joaquin Valley. (e) ªTri-Valleyº means the Cities of Danville, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon. 132652. The authority is hereby established for purposes of planning, developing, and delivering cost-effective and responsive transit connectivity, between BART's rapid transit system and the Altamont Corridor Express commuter rail service in the Tri-Valley region of California, that re¯ects regional consensus and meets the goals and objectives of the San Joaquin Valley and Tri-Valley communities, consistent with the project feasibility report adopted pursuant to Section 132661. 132655. The governing board of the authority shall be composed of one representative from each of the following entities to be appointed by the governing board, mayor, or supervisor of each entity: (a) The Bay Area Rapid Transit District. (b) The City of Dublin. (c) The City of Lathrop. (d) The City of Livermore. (e) The City of Manteca. (f) The City of Pleasanton. (g) The City of Stockton. (h) The City of Tracy. (i) The County of Alameda. (j) The County of San Joaquin.

94

37 of 45 AB 758 Ð 6 Ð

(k) The Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority. (l) The Mountain House Community Services District. (m) The San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission. (n) The City of Danville. (o) The City of San Ramon. 132656. The authority has all of the powers necessary for planning, acquiring, leasing, developing, jointly developing, owning, controlling, using, jointly using, disposing of, designing, procuring, and constructing facilities to achieve transit connectivity, including, but not limited to, all of the following: (a) Acceptance of grants, fees, allocations, and transfers of moneys from federal, state, and local agencies, including, but not limited to, moneys from local measures, as well as private entities. (b) Acquiring, through purchase or through eminent domain proceedings, any property necessary for, incidental to, or convenient for, the exercise of the powers of the authority. (c) Incurring indebtedness, secured by pledges of available revenue. (d) Contracting with public and private entities for the planning, design, and construction of the connection. These contracts may be assigned separately or may be combined to include any or all tasks necessary to achieve transit connectivity. (e) Entering into cooperative or joint development agreements with local governments or private entities necessary to achieve transit connectivity. These agreements may be entered into for purposes of sharing costs, selling or leasing land, air, or development rights, providing for the transferring of passengers, making pooling arrangements, or for any other purpose that is necessary for, incidental to, or convenient for the full exercise of the powers granted to the authority. For purposes of this paragraph, ªjoint developmentº includes, but is not limited to, an agreement with any person, ®rm, corporation, association, or organization for the operation of facilities or development of projects adjacent to, or physically or functionally related to, achieving transit connectivity. (f) Relocation of utilities, as necessary to achieve transit connectivity. 132657. For an initial 18-month period, the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority's administrative staff shall, if that authority has appointed a member to the board in accordance with

94

38 of 45 Ð 7 Ð AB 758

Section 132655, provide all necessary administrative support to the board to perform its duties and responsibilities. At the conclusion of the initial period, the board may select the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority or the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission to provide administrative support, or may alternatively hire an executive director for those functions. If an executive director is hired, the executive may appoint staff or retain consultants as necessary to carry out the duties of the authority. 132658. (a) The unencumbered balance of all local funds programmed for the completion of the BART Livermore extension or that have otherwise been identi®ed for the connectivity shall be transferred to the authority and be considered resources available to effectuate the authority's purposes pursuant to this chapter, except that local funds controlled by the Alameda County Transportation Commission to be used for completion of the BART Livermore extension or that have otherwise been identi®ed for the connectivity shall continue to be programmed and allocated by the Alameda County Transportation Commission pursuant to measures approved by the voters of Alameda County pursuant to Division 19 (commencing with Section 180000). (b) The unencumbered balance of all local funds programmed for the completion of the BART Livermore extension shall be transferred to the authority and be considered resources available to effectuate the authority's purposes pursuant to this chapter, except that local funds controlled by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission that have otherwise been identi®ed for connectivity shall continue to be programmed and allocated by the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission pursuant to measures approved by the voters of San Joaquin County pursuant to Division 19 (commencing with Section 180000). (c) The authority is eligible to apply for and receive state and federal funds to perform its duties pursuant to this chapter. (d) The authority may pursue any and all sources of funding to achieve connectivity except that the authority shall not apply for funds available under the Transportation Development Act (Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 99200) of Part 11 of Division 10) for which any member entity of the authority may also be an applicant or for which any member entity of the authority is charged with approving applications for funding under that act, without the express written consent of that affected member entity.

94

39 of 45 AB 758 Ð 8 Ð

132659. (a) The authority may enter into agreements with the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, or any other entity to address any and all issues necessary to achieve transit connectivity, consistent with the project feasibility report's ®ndings, conclusions, and recommendations adopted pursuant to Section 132661. (b) If the project feasibility report includes a recommendation for an extension of BART's rapid transit system, the governing board of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District shall have the authority to approve or deny the recommendation. (c) If the project feasibility report includes a recommendation for an extension of the Altamont Corridor Express commuter rail service, the governing board of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission shall have the authority to approve or deny the recommendation. 132660. The authority and any entity contracted with to serve as the operator of any transit connectivity developed and delivered pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to all of the following: (a) The Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 3500) of Division 4 of Title 1 of the Government Code). (b) The California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code). (c) The Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code). 132661. (a) On or before July 1, 2019, the authority shall provide a project feasibility report to the public, to be posted on the authority's Internet Web site, on the plans for the development and implementation of transit connectivity in the Tri-Valley region. The report, at a minimum, shall include the following elements: (1) Recommendations for expediting the development of cost-effective and responsive transit connectivity between BART's rapid transit system and the Altamont Corridor Express commuter rail service in the Tri-Valley region. (2) The identi®cation of a preferred entity or entities to deliver transit connectivity, including the role each entity will play in planning, designing, ®nancing, constructing, operating, maintaining, and the leasing, developing, or disposing of land,

94

40 of 45 Ð 9 Ð AB 758 facilities, or equipment, necessary to deliver and operate transit connectivity. (3) A funding plan describing any grants, loans, allocations, fund transfers, or awards of local, regional, state, federal, or private funds that are proposed to be made available for achieving transit connectivity. (4) A description of any plan to ®nance the development of transit connectivity, including a description of any revenue source or sources to be pledged for ®nancing, the duration of time to complete the ®nancing, and the estimated total cost of ®nancing. (5) A proposed schedule for the completion of transit connectivity. (6) A preliminary design for the project or projects to complete transit connectivity, including the identi®cation of right-of-way, routes, stations, equipment, and any other facilities necessary to achieve transit connectivity. (b) The authority may use any relevant environmental review documents previously completed by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District or the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission to prepare the report speci®ed in subdivision (a). (c) Upon completion and approval by the authority of the project feasibility report required under subdivision (a), the authority shall submit the report to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the governing board of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, the governing board of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, the policy committees of each house of the Legislature with jurisdiction over transportation policy matters, and the Transportation Agency. SEC. 4. (a) Nothing in this act is intended to disrupt or interrupt related environmental review processes underway at the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) or the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, or to infringe upon the Bay Area Rapid Transit District's process for planning, development, and delivery of a BART extension within the I-580 Corridor freeway alignment to the vicinity of the I-580/Isabel Avenue interchange, as identi®ed in measures approved by the voters of Alameda County pursuant to Division 19 (commencing with Section 180000) of the Public Utilities Code. (b) This section shall become inoperative on July 1, 2018, if the governing board of BART fails to adopt a preferred alternative for

94

41 of 45 AB 758 Ð 10 Ð

a BART extension within the I-580 Corridor freeway alignment to the vicinity of the I-580/Isabel Avenue interchange by June 30, 2018. SEC. 5. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

94

42 of 45 Approved , 2017

Governor

43 of 45 SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION Meeting of October 6, 2017

STAFF REPORT

Item 9 INFORMATION/ACTION Project Delivery Update on SB1/SB132

Since the State Legislature enacted SB1 and SB 132, staff has been coordinating with CalSTA and Caltrans on delivering specific projects in conjuction with the service goals required by the legislation. In addition to the State agencies, coordination is underway with the (UPRR), in order to understand and address UPRR’s requirements for service expansion south of Lathrop on the UPRR Fresno Subdivision. Staff is currently developing a Project List for specific improvements anticipated along the corridor, which includes platforms, parking, structures, track, signals, and grade crossing improvements.

44 of 45 SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION Meeting of October 6, 2017

STAFF REPORT

Item 10 INFORMATION/ACTION Update on Parking Issues at the Lathrop/Manteca Parking Lot

Background:

In the September SJRRC Board Meeting, issues with parking at the Lathrop/Manteca parking lot were brought to the Board’s attention. This increase is mostly due to a rise in ridership, and SJRRC staff are taking several steps to address it.

The Operations team restriped the parking lot to add an additional 22 parking spaces. This was achieved by relining certain areas and utilizing some space in the parking lot to better accommodate additional parking.

In working to resolve the parking issue, another cause for congestion was discovered. Some of the cars have been using the Lathrop/Manteca parking lot as a park and ride to use either a carpool or vanpool. On September 19th, Operations staff did a check of riders entering the station and caught 17 cars using the lot as a park and ride. These individuals were advised that parking was for ticketed ACE passengers only. Chris Kay and John Giovannoni are working to create a color coded parking pass for ACE monthly, 20 ride passengers, and individual ticket holders to place in their cars. This parking pass would be free for any ACE ticketed rider.

ACE staff met with SJCOG to discuss options for creating vanpools. Their suggestion was to create a survey to determine specifically where Lathrop/Manteca riders were coming from, then see if carpools or vanpools might be an option for riders to create. In the meantime, the Marketing team will be promoting SJCOG’s DIBS program, a revamped Web site that helps connect commuters together in an attempt to reduce traffic congestion.

Finally, ACE staff also discussed the parking issue with Manteca’s transit team. Currently, Manteca does not offer service to the Lathrop/Manteca station due to the station’s physical location in the city of Lathrop. However, with an update to their Short Range Transit Plan, Manteca is preparing to offer pick up and drop off service at the Lathrop/Manteca station starting in December of 2017.

45 of 45