Policy Meeting Friday, July 31, 2015, 9:00am – 10:30am

Board of Supervisors Chambers Conference Room County Government Building

105 Anapamu St., Santa Barbara CA

Chair: Dave Potter, Supervisor, Monterey County Vice-Chair: Helene Schneider, Mayor, Santa Barbara Item #/Est. Time Recommendation

1) 9:00 Introductions and Public Comment

2) 9:05 Draft Policy Meeting notes, June 25th Accept

3) 9:10 Cap & Trade & State Legislative Update (Scott, Pete)

i. Transit & Intercity Rail Capital Program

1. Approach for the next cycle Support

ii. Transportation legislation (John Arriaga)

1. Cal. Intercity Passenger Rail (CIPR) letter Support

4) 9:30 Coast Corridor EIS-R Update (Pete)

i. Final document & response to comments

ii. Salinas to San Jose EIS/R (Fall 2015)

5) 9:45 Amtrak Feasibility Study (Pete)

i. Preliminary Report

ii. Revised Revenue Estimates

6) 10:00 Coast rail organizational issues and next steps

i. Possible need for legislation

ii. Consideration of annual dues Provide Direction

7) 10:15 Meeting Calendar/Schedule; Other issues

Next Meetings

Technical Committee August 21, 2015 Conference Call 11:00am – 12:00pm

Policy Committee October 23, 2015 Monterey 11:00am -1:00pm

2

Coast Rail Coordinating Council Policy Members and Staff

LOS ANGELES

a) Beatrice Proo – Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority (LAMTA), appointed

562-754-2002 BeatriceProo@gmail.com

Staff contact: Jay Fuhrman 213-922-2810 FuhrmanJ@metro.net VENTURA

b) Bryan MacDonald – Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC), appointed

805-562-3990 bryan.macdonald@ci.oxnard.ca.us Staff contact: Ellen Talbo 805-642-1591 x105 etalbo@goventura.com

SANTA BARBARA

c) Helene Schneider – Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG), Mayor SB

805-564-5323 HSchneider@SantaBarbaraCA.gov Staff contact: Scott Spaulding SSpaulding@sbcag.org

SAN LUIS OBISPO

d) Jan Marx – San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), Mayor SLO

805-781-7120 jmarx@slocity.org Staff contact: Peter Rodgers, 805-781-5712 prodgers@slocog.org

MONTEREY

e) Dave Potter (CRCC Chair) – Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC), Supervisor

831-647-7755 district5@co.monterey.ca.us Staff contact: Christina Watson, 831-775-4406 Christina@tamcmonterey.org

SANTA CRUZ

f) John Leopold – Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC), Supervisor

831- 454-2200 john.leopold@co.santa-cruz.ca.us Staff contact: Karena Pushnik, 831- 460-3210 kpushnik@sccrtc.org

SANTA CLARA

g) Ken Yeager – Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (SCCVTA), Supervisor

408-299-5040 supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org

Staff contact: Megan Doyle, 408-299-5040 megan.doyle@bos.sccgov.org

SAN MATEO/CALTRAIN

h) TBD – Joint Powers Board (Caltrain), appointed

Staff contact: Sebastian Petty, 650-622-7831 Pettys@samtrans.com

SAN FRANCISCO

i) TBD – San Francisco County Transportation Authority Legislative Assistance: John Arriaga, JEA Associates 916-669-1340 jeaandassoc@aol.com

Caltrans: Royce Gotcher 916-654-7129 royce_gotcher@dot.ca.gov Amtrak: Alex Kalfin 510-873-8216 Alexander.Khalfin@amtrak.com

3

Meeting Notes June 25, 2015

Conference Call Meeting – Policy Committee Coast Rail Meeting Notes

Name Agency e-mail Dave Potter, Chair TAMC/Co Monterey district5@co.monterey.ca.gov

Helene Schneider, V. Chair SBCAG Hschneider@SantaBarbaraCA.gov Jan Marx SLOCOG jmarx@slocity.org Peter Rodgers SLOCOG prodgers@slocog.org John Leopold SCCRTC john.leopold@co.santa-cruz.ca.us George Dondero SCCRTC gdondero@sccrtc.org Christina Watson TAMC christina@tamcmonterey.org Scott Spalding SBCAG spaulding@sbcag.org Tim Gillham SLOCOG tgillham@slocog.org John Arriaga JEA & Associates jeaandassoc@aol.com Erica Arriaga JEA & Associates ericajea@aol.com Sebastian Petty Caltrain Pettys@samtrans.com Michael Litschi LOSSAN/OCTA mlitschi@octa.net

1) Introductions/Public Comment: CRCC Chairperson, Dave Potter, called the meeting to order. 2) Draft Policy Meeting notes, April 17

th: The meeting notes were approved as written.

3) Cap & Trade & State Budget Update: i. Transit & Intercity Rail Capital Program – Pete Rodgers said grant award recipients

would be announced next week. It was noted that ~$265M in funding was being made available instead of the $125M that was originally expected. Mr. Rodgers announced a recent letter authored by Senator Hill requesting an increase in Cap & Trade funding for intercity rail. He went on to say that he was hopeful that some of the projects submitted (i.e. LOSSAN capital, transit transfer program, and Pajaro Station) and other member agencies would be awarded funding. Scott Spaulding asked a question regarding SB 9. John Arriaga said there was nothing new to report.

ii. State Budget – Mr. Rodgers said there would be no STIP and ITP funds available for

intercity rail and regional projects. It was noted that Legislators were currently working through committee on how to address the funding shortfalls. Mr. Arriaga said a special session will be taking place next week to discuss the $79B shortfall for maintenance and infrastructure projects. He went on to say the Governor’s focus will be on the special session. He also said that committee members were announced, specifically noting Assembly Members Achadjian and Alejo and Senator Cannella. It was also noted that the Governor was looking for a sustainable and consistent funding source and that new taxes would be considered if necessary. Mr. Arriaga said he would contact and meet with members to express our support for rail. Mr. Potter said it was a good idea to be proactive. Mr. Arriaga recommended the Council take action. Mr. Rodgers suggested writing a letter to our Legislators. Mr. Potter suggested a physical presence in Sacramento. Mr. Arriaga said he would start setting meetings the week after July 4

th.

John Leopold said Santa Cruz could meet with Assembly Member Alejo. Helene Schneider commented that senator Hanna-Beth Jackson would be in Santa Barbara on July 31

st. Mr. Potter requested Mr. Rodgers to get started on the letter to be submitted by

the CRCC Policy Board. Mr. Spaulding suggested adding statewide rail advocacy groups to the letter. Mr. Arriaga said he would send the list of committee members to Mr. Rodgers to forward to the CRCC member agencies.

DRAFT DRAFT

4

4) Coast Corridor EIS-R Update: i. Final document & response to comments – Mr. Rodgers said the FRA signed off on

the contract extension to allow additional time to complete the documents. It was noted that Caltrans is funding the $55K increase needed to prepare the Final document.

ii. Service Dev. Plan revisions to SLOCOG Board (Oct.) – It was noted that changes to the Program of Projects in the document requires revisions to the Service Development Plan and the DEIS-R.

iii. Salinas to San Jose EIS/R (Fall 2015) – Christina Watson provided an update on the

Salinas to San Jose EIS/R, saying TAMC was finalizing the Request for Proposals and anticipates the Board awarding a contract at their September meeting.

5) Amtrak Feasibility Study:

i. Preliminary Report – Mr. Rodgers began by saying the strikeouts and underlines included in the agenda reflect revised ridership numbers and annual State dollar amounts required to operate the service, specifically noting operating costs have gone down. It was noted that farebox recovery ratio revisions were being added into the overall document and that the report is due out in the next couple of weeks. It was suggested that an Amtrak representative speak to the CRCC Policy Board at the July 31

st meeting in Santa Barbara.

ii. Revised Cost & Revenue Estimates – Mr. Rodgers noted city-pair information was

provided, but Amtrak staff was unsure if the cost information needed to be revisited before release.

6) LOSSAN Schedule Optimization & Rail Infrastructure Review: Mr. Rodgers provided an

update, saying Chad Edison of CalSTA has been working on the year-long study to improve rail scheduling and operations for all passenger and freight services operating along the LOSSAN rail corridor. One issue that has risen involves the proposed peak-hour service between Ventura and Santa Barbara, which if implemented, could take the preferred Coast Daylight train slot. George Dondero, Ms. Watson, and Mr. Rodgers requested that Mr. Edison preserve the Coast Daylight slot and preserve peak-hour service to Santa Barbara. It is still unclear whether the scheduling scenarios are viable and feasible, which will require further analysis. It was noted that the LOSSAN Schedule Optimization study will be available in September. Ms. Schneider commented that the July Board meeting in Santa Barbara will be important. 7) Meeting Calendar/Schedule; Other issues: A discussion ensued on the meeting start times for the joint LOSSAN and CRCC meetings in Santa Barbara on July 31

st. Mr. Spaulding said some

LOSSAN members were considering meeting Friday or Thursday afternoon. Mr. Rodgers said the CRCC Policy Board meeting start time could not be finalized until LOSSAN finalizes its schedule. Michael Litschi said he sent a request to the LOSSAN Board for their preferred meeting time and should have a response next week. Mr. Litschi went on to provide an update on recent LOSSAN Board activities, specifically noting the approval of the LOSSAN Interagency Transfer Agreement (ITA) for the Surfliner service. He also said minor edits to the ITA by Amtrak’s legal counsel have occurred in the last couple weeks and that a signing ceremony is scheduled on June 29

th in

Sacramento. Once officially formalized, LOSSAN will take over the Surfliner service starting July 1st.

It was noted that LOSSAN Chairman, David Golonski, and Managing Director, Jennifer Bergener, would be in attendance at the official signing. It was also noted that the San Joaquin JPB will also be having an official ITA signing on the same day. Next Meetings: The next CRCC TAC conference call is scheduled for July 17

th and the CRCC

Policy meeting is scheduled for July 31st in Santa Barbara.

5

COAST RAIL COORDINATING COUNCIL POLICY COMMITTEE

July 31, 2015 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3

Action requested: SUPPORT

CAP AND TRADE & STATE LEGISLATIVE SPECIAL SESSION UPDATE

i) Transit Capital and Intercity Rail Program (TCIRP) Quick review: Funding available: $224 Million

Recommended List: Released July 1, 2015 Key project objectives:

1. Reduce Green House Gases (GHG) 2. Expand and improve rail service 3. Integrate rail service of the state’s various operators

Project limits: Applicants could only submit a maximum of 2 projects (1 >$3M, 1<$3M) This year’s 14 grants include:

Constructing station and service improvements for Los Angeles basin light rail and improving and increasing service on Southern California commuter rail services across five counties,

Offering San Diego improved and increased trolley service and 11 miles of new bus rapid transit,

Expanding Bay Area light rail service and capacity, Refurbishing Sacramento rail cars for future express service, Adding capacity to Sonoma County rail service, Building two new bus rapid transit corridors and reducing locomotive emissions in the

San Joaquin region, Improving Monterey and Salinas bus service, Reducing Capitol Corridor, Altamont Corridor Express and Amtrak San Joaquin corridor

travel times, Launching a new Orange County rapid bus route, Improving local transit transfers to and from the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner, and Commencing new, more frequent electric bus service between the Antelope Valley and

Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley and new, more frequent electric bus rapid transit in the Antelope Valley.

These improvements include funds for 16 new and 7 refurbished light rail vehicles, 3 rail cars, 9 locomotives, 20 compressed natural gas buses, 12 hybrid buses and 30 zero emission electric buses. However, several proponents of intercity rail were disappointed with the amount of funding for intercity rail since only $4.6 million was directly programmed towards intercity rail projects.

6

LOSSAN & CAPITOL corridors received all that they applied for and the SAN JOAQUIN project applied for was already programmed, therefore did not receive funding. The CRCC did not submit an application. SB 9 Senate Bill 9 (Beall) in the current session proposes to eliminate the limitations on the number of applications that an agency can submit, and eliminates the project thresholds (1 project smaller that $3M and one larger than $3M). From the perspective of a small urban county (i.e. SB, SLO, Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Benito), the limitations on the number of projects is an effective equalizer. It has the effect of leveling the playing field. It is difficult for agencies with small staffs to prepare the applications and compete with the volume of requests. For these reasons, SLOCOG staff recommends the CRCC take a “WATCH” position and request that geographic equity continue to be a consideration. Next TCIRP Cycle It makes sense to develop a strategy for the next round of TCIRP. Staff recommends that we begin to pull together LOSSAN, the CAPITOL corridor group, and Union Pacific to develop a corridor wide strategic investment application. It will be critical to have the support of the railroad, and in prior modeling work they have shared their requested projects. It may be possible that some nominal contribution will be needed from member jurisdictions to prepare a quality, comprehensive application. The Policy Board should discuss their willingness to pursue a small amount of funding through their agency ($2K-$5K) towards a corridor wide funding application.

Courtesy of Scott Spaulding, SBCAG

7

ii) State Legislative Special Session Update John Arriaga will provide an update on the Special Session. Below is a summary from CALCOG.

8

9

(Note: This is DRAFT. Similar letter in progress for Speaker Atkins)

10

11

COAST RAIL COORDINATING COUNCIL POLICY COMMITTEE

July 31 , 2015 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 4

Action requested: INFORMATION COAST CORRIDOR EIS-R UPDATE After a 4 month long “stop work” order to the contractor to extend the contract (SLOCOG- Caltrans – Federal Railroad Administration) work has restarted. BACKGROUND i) Final Environmental Impact Statement-Report (EIS-R)

As reported at the last Policy meeting, the public comment period is closed and the consulting team (Circlepoint) has prepared written responses to the comments. The two issues of concern are:

o Numerous comments from the City of King relative to the location of a siding

project & the future passenger platform location, and

o the proposed removal of 3 curve realignment projects between Santa Margarita

and the City of Paso Robles.

In both cases SLOCOG, Caltrans, and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) are making revisions to the Draft EIS-R to accommodate the input received. In King City planning progress was made subsequent to the initial consultations and the environmental consequences of the newly developed “Draft” Plan will be addressed in the document. For the curve realignment projects in SLO County, all parties have agreed the likelihood of their implementation is extremely low. Several members of the public requested they be eliminated from the document during the final public hearing in Atascadero. There is a consensus to eliminate them once a technical evaluation is made. ii) Service Development Plan and revisions schedule for Oct 7th to SLOCOG To be thorough and deliberate with the changes to the Program of Projects in the document, it is necessary to revise the Service Development Plan as well as the DEIS-R. iii) Salinas to San Jose EIS-R The Coast Corridor document above covers only SLO-Salinas, Caltrans is preparing LA-SLO, and TAMC released the Salinas – San Jose Request for Proposals. Proposals are due August 6th with the TAMC Board selecting a contract on September 23rd.

12

COAST RAIL COORDINATING COUNCIL POLICY COMMITTEE

July 31, 2015 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 5

Action requested: INFORMATION

AMTRAK FEASIBILITY STUDY

A preliminary draft of the study has been released to TAMC and SLOCOG. It is being reviewed

in order to prepare a draft for release.

Some of the key preliminary figures have been updated after the ridership and revenue model

was completely revised.

Both scenarios (SD-SF & SD-SJ) include 4am departure from San Diego

The train service schedules do not alter the existing #790 and #761 train slots

There is a one-time $750K mobilization fee (training, recruitment etc.)

Ridership to/from SF: 124,600 per year, to/from SJ: 100,900

Total annual state contribution required: $6.4M (both scenarios)

Initial projected farebox recovery ratio for SF/SJ, respectively: 46%, 40%

Costs exclude rail equipment (i.e. assumed to be State-owned or other)

Potential layover areas on both northern locations require further assessment, but do not

appear to be overly problematic.

Next steps:

Amtrak is reviewing the cost assumptions before

TAMC staff is now sending the final text revisions to Amtrak

While the revenue and ridership model was completely reworked, Amtrak staff is

verifying that there are not major changes to the “cost side” of the assessment before it

will be released.

The Amtrak ridership and revenue modeling staff may be in California in August or

September and are willing to meet and discuss the results.

13

COAST RAIL COORDINATING COUNCIL POLICY COMMITTEE

July 31, 2015 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 6

Action requested: INFORMATION

COAST RAIL ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES AND NEXT STEPS

Legislation

In light of the formation of the LOSSAN Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to administer intercity

rail services as far north as San Luis Obispo County, it is necessary to determine if LOSSAN’s

JPA would allow it to administer a train further north. Additionally, for the CAPITOL Corridor to

serve Salinas, legislative authorization may be necessary.

While several hurdles remain before new Coast Route services could start (i.e. UPRR approval,

capital improvements etc.,) it would be nice to know how the service should/could be

administered. A letter from the CRCC may be appropriate to a coastal legislator to seek an

opinion from the State Legislative Counsel’s office.

Annual Dues

The CRCC has never had any member contributions. Since it is simply a planning coalition, the CRCC has no actual expenses other than the member agencies staff time. There are no posting or noticing requirements. Occasionally, incidental conference room fees, or telecommunication fees are absorbed by SLOCOG’s budget (~$2k) Earlier this year paper agendas were eliminated and the Technical Committee meetings were limited to conference calls-only. SLOCOG has provided all of the direct staff support (for about 23 years!) Some members of the Technical Committee believe a small annual contribution may help provide further legitimacy and awareness among coastal agencies. The Policy Committee should discuss if staff should develop an estimated budget, and the pros/cons of member agencies contributions.

14

Meeting Schedule Updated 7/23/15

TECHNICAL MEETING Friday, August 21, 2015 Conference Call 11:00-12:00 TECHNICAL MEETING Friday, September 18, 2015 Conference Call 11:00-12:00

POLICY MEETING Friday October 23, 2015 Monterey 11:00-1:00 TECHNICAL MEETING Friday, November 20, 2015 Conference Call 11:00-12:00

TECHNICAL MEETING Friday, December 18, 2015 Conference Call 11:00-12:00 POLICY MEETING Friday January 15, 2016 TBD 11:00-1:00

TECHNICAL MEETING Friday, February 19, 2016 Conference Call 11:00-12:00 POLICY MEETING Friday April 15, 2016 San Francisco 10:00-12:00 TECHNICAL MEETING Friday, May 20, 2016 Conference Call 11:00-12:00

POLICY MEETING Friday, June 17, 2016 TBD 11:00-1:00

TECHNICAL MEETING Friday July 1 7, 2016 Conference Call 11:00-12:00

POLICY MEETING Friday, August , 2016 Santa Barbara 10:00-11:30 Additional meeting(s) may be added subject to need.

1. Most meeting are normally scheduled for the 3rd

Friday of the month, if significant conflicts occur, it is rescheduled.

2. Policy meetings occur every 4-5 times per year, Technical Committee meeting are monthly conference calls on the 3

rd Friday

3. Meetings will be canceled one month in advance as necessary 4. Biennial Joint Meeting with LOSSAN Board (even numbered years – to date, unresolved for 2016)

H:\2014-15 OWP\6000 Integration of Modes of Transp 14-15\6200 Rail Service Coordination 14-15\CRCC\Meeting Schedule Updated 3.docx