Union City City Council
July 12, 2022

NOTICE AND AGENDA

CITY OF UNION CITY

CITY COUNCIL /

SPECIAL MEETING AND STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, July 12, 2022
6:00 PM
City Hall- Council Chamber
34009 Alvarado-Niles Road
Union City, CA 94587
Meeting will Also be Held Via Teleconference.

To access meeting, please us the following link:
https://unioncity-org.zoom.us/j/89210811287
Or
By Telephone dial: 1 408 638 0968; Webinar ID: 892 1081 1287

1. CALL TO ORDER

1.a. Roll Call

2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Comments limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda

3. STUDY SESSION

3.a. Study Session - Receive Report on Status of Quarry Lakes Parkway and Development of Gateway Property

4. ADJOURNMENT
/s/ Carol Dutra-Vernaci
Carol Dutra Vernaci
Mayor
Agenda Item
DATE: 7/12/2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOAN MALLOY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION - RECEIVE REPORT ON THE STATUS OF QUARRY

LAKES PARKWAYAND DEVELOPMENT OF THE GATEWAY PROPERTY
Staff recommends that the City Council receive this informational report on the status of the Quarry Lakes Parkway and the status for the development of the Gateway property. As a study session, the Council will have an opportunity to ask questions and hold a discussion about the project. No action by the Council is requested.

The staff report is organized to provide a summary on the following subjects:

A description and summary of the Quarry Lakes Parkway: phases, funding sources and costs, design and construction schedule, process for securing regulatory permits, jurisdiction responsible for construction, bus stop locations, mobility opportunities, utility and fiber conduit opportunities, and connections to regional trails.

The process for programing approximately $61 million from Local Area Transportation Improvement Program funds (LATIP) to fund construction of Quarry Lakes Parkway. The LATIP will be funded from the appraised land value of the $86,184,000 that will result from the sale of the former Caltrans property, now called the Gateway property, to City Ventures. The Gateway property is bordered by Osprey, Alvarado-Niles Road, Old Alameda Creek, and the Fremont city limit.

Review the documentation submitted by Union City to the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) to request the release of funding programmed for Quarry Lakes Parkway to complete the design for Quarry Lakes Parkway Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4 and the funding to construct Phases 1 and 2.

A summary of the Decoto Complete Street project that is facilitated by the city of Fremont. The Decoto Complete Streets project is one of the original segments of the former East West Connector and is critical to the long-term development of transit in the Decoto Road/Dumbarton corridor. The city of Fremont is coordinating the design and construction to facilitate bus service, bicycles, and pedestrians from the I-880 interchange to the Union City boundary.

Review a new open space concept for the area by increasing the water flow in Old Alameda Creek to restore habitat, and create recreation opportunities. Water would be diverted from the Line M Flood Control Channel in a gravity-flow pipe and discharge into Old Alameda Creek. The diversion of water from the Line M Channel will create more flood control capacity in the Line M Channel downstream, eliminate the need to construct new deep detention basins on the Gateway property, and create an additional four acres of developable land.

Review the opportunity to create enhanced open space on the Gateway property through the creative treatment of stormwater run-off generated by Quarry Lakes Parkway.

Report on meetings with the regulatory agencies who will need to issue permits to construct the Quarry Lakes Parkway including Alameda County Water District, Alameda County Flood Controland Water Conservation District, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Review the status of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with City Ventures for development of the Gateway property.

Review the negotiations with Union Pacific Railroad to complete the construction of the at-grade crossing to improve access to the Union City BART Station and future ACE service Review the recommendation of the Southern Alameda County Integrated Rail Analysis (SoCo Rail) Study is to create an East Bay rail hub adjacent to the Union City BART Station and to provide additional ACE service to the Bay Area. Staff is coordinating with ACE and MTC to facilitate the design and construction of an ACE Station adjacent to the Union City BART Station in conjunction with planning and constructing the grade separations for the Quarry Lakes Parkway. See Exhibit 21 for the location of the planned rail hub station.

BACKGROUND
Alameda County Transportation Authority, the predecessor to Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) was the original sponsor for the East West Connector. Alameda CTC voted to make Union City the lead agency for the completing the design, securing regulatory permits, and for constructing the Quarry Lakes Parkway at the March 15, 2018 meeting. See Exhibit 1. After Union City assumed responsibility for the roadway, the project was renamed from the East West Connector to Quarry Lakes Parkway to better reflect its purpose as a local roadway.

At the March 15, 2018 meeting, Alameda CTC released $2.5 million for Union City to complete the final design work for the entire project, secure regulatory permits, and to evaluate the need for additional environmental and traffic analysis. The Commissioners directed Union City to work with transit, pedestrian, and bicycle groups to meet the needs of those interests in the final design of the Quarry Lakes Parkway. Union City was directed to report back to the Commission upon completion of the design work and to submit an updated cost estimate for construction.

Alameda CTC transmitted to Union City the drawings for the East West Connector that had been prepared by the Alameda CTC engineering consultant and were only 65 percent complete. The Alameda CTC consultant did not provide detailed documentation on discussions with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Alameda County Water District, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Union Pacific Railroad, and BART. Permits from each of these agencies will be needed to construct the Quarry Lakes Parkway.

The design for the East West Connector prepared by the Alameda CTC consultant did not include today’s standards for Complete Streets; transit priority; and National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Standards for on-street bicycle facilities, separated bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and intersections.

The design did not include the provisions for the delivery of utilities to serve the Gateway property, and conduit to provide high speed fiber to the Station District.

The initial $2.5 million provided to the Quarry Lakes Parkway project by Alameda CTC in 2018 was insufficient to prepare 100 percent construction drawings and to secure regulatory permits that would be required to create a construction bid package for the Quarry Lakes Parkway. City staff delivered a report to the Alameda CTC on November 19, 2020, regarding the work that Union City had completed in an effort to meet the conditions imposed by the Commission at the March 15, 2018, meeting. See Exhibit 2 for the presentation made to Alameda CTC.

In summary, staff presented to Alameda CTC the following:

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) assessed and documented land use and transportation trends related to the proposed Quarry Lakes Parkway (QLP) project in comparison to the former East-West Connector (EWC) project.

Kittelson determined that Quarry Lakes Parkway supported adopted land use plans; reduced Vehicle Hours Traveled and Vehicle Miles Traveled; improved air quality; supported enhanced transit services; enhanced pedestrian and bicycle safety; aligns with regional significant projects; is identified on Plan Bay Area 2050; relieves congestion on Decoto Road that will support future transit along Decoto Road; improved traffic circulation to and from the Station District; and improved safety conditions by reducing vehicular volume along the existing high-injury Decoto Road.

Meyers Nave provided legal documentation that the Certified Environmental Impact Report for the East West Connector was adequate to construct the Quarry Lakes Parkway.

Union City staff provided documentation on meetings with the bicycle, pedestrian, and transit advocates including AC Transit, ACE, BART, Cross Bay Transit, Bike East Bay, Alameda CTC BPAC, Union City BPAC, and East Bay Regional Park District.

Union City staff presented a plan for phasing the design and construction of the Quarry Lakes Parkway and updated design and construction costs.

Following the City's presentation, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 20-013 that committed $22 million from the 1986 Measure B funding for East West Connector to complete the design of Quarry Lakes Parkway Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4 with the following conditions:

Prepare a full funding plan for Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4.

The Alameda CTC Executive Director was authorized to execute a project funding agreement for the design of QLP Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Employ most current NACTO standards for bicycle and pedestrian facilities including separated bicycle and sidewalks.

Employ design features that are most compatible with high-quality transit along Quarry Lakes Parkway.

Host quarterly, publicly noticed meetings, with pedestrian, bicycle, and transit advocates.

Convene meetings with Fremont, and AC Transit to evaluate the potential for transit priority along Decoto Road.

See Exhibit 3, Item 9 for Alameda CTC meeting minutes and for a copy of Resolution No. 20-013.

DISCUSSION
Summary of Quarry Lakes Parkway
Quarry Lakes Parkway Phases
Quarry Lakes Parkway will be constructed in phases. See Exhibit 4.

Segment A is called Decoto Road Complete Street and extends between the I-880 interchange and the Union City/Fremont bridge across the Alameda Creek flood control channel. Fremont is the lead agency in the design and the construction of Segment A. The Decoto Road Complete Street will implement transit priority treatments and improve safety for bicycles and pedestrians. The project is environmentally cleared and is in final design. Fremont is pursuing construction funding and plans to start construction in the fall of 2023 and to complete construction by the winter 2024.

Phase 1 is located between Mission Boulevard and 7
th Street.

Phase 2 is located between Alvarado-Niles Road and Old Alameda Creek.

Phase 3 is located between 7
th Street and 11th Street and will require construction of a grade separation under the Niles Subdivision railroad tracks (easterly tracks).

Phase 4 is located between 11
th Street and Alvarado-Niles Road. Construction of this segment will require construction of a grade separation under both the BART tracks and the Oakland Subdivision railroad tracks. The construction of the grade separations will also require the construction of separate rail “shooflies,” which are temporary rail track detours. The engineering to determine how to keep BART service continuous during construction needs to be completed. Phase 4 will be the most expense and complicated Quarry Lakes Parkway segment. The design of Segment 4 will need to be coordinated with ACE and MTC on the future ACE train station adjacent to Union City BART, Union Pacific Railroad, and BART.

The construction of Phases 3 and 4 will make Quarry Lakes Parkway a fully grade-separated roadway.

This will provide AC Transit, Dumbarton Express and Union City Transit an alternative route to the Station District and Mission Boulevard without needing to cross the two rail lines on Decoto Road.

Eliminating the rail crossings will improve travel time, reliability, and safety because the buses will not have to stop at each crossing, and buses may continue to provide service if the rail crossing arms malfunction. Buses will have easy and reliable access to the Corporation Yard where both Dumbarton Express buses and Union City Transit buses are stored. Emergency vehicles will have reliable access to the Station District and between Mission Boulevard and Alvarado-Niles Road.

Phase 5 begins with the construction of a new bridge to cross Old Alameda Creek from the Gateway property and continue along Old Alameda Creek through land owned by Union City, Fremont, and the Alameda County Water District and intersect with Paseo Padre Parkway and Phase A (Decoto Complete Streets). Union City will seek to adjust the city boundaries between Union City and Fremont as the centerline of Quarry Lakes Parkway Phase 5.

Allelements of Quarry Lakes Parkway in Union City will include Class 2 bicycle lanes on the roadway that are adjacent to the vehicle lanes, Class 1 bicycle and pedestrian paths that are separated from the landscaped roadway, traffic calming, bus stops, and mobility enhancements. See Exhibit 5.

Quarry Lakes Parkway will include continuous bicycle and pedestrian trails and new opportunities for connecting to EBRPD regional trails; new bus routes for Union City Transit, and perhaps AC Transit and Dumbarton Express; and mobility hubs that could include electric car recharge facilities. See Exhibit 6.

Utilities and conduit for high-speed fiber conduit will be placed within the Quarry Lakes Parkway right-of-way to enhance services to development planned on the Gateway property, Alameda County Water District property, and the planned development in the Greater Station District.

Union City would like to complete the design work for all four segments simultaneously because it is the most cost effective use of resources to design Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4 as one project and it provides the best opportunity to reduce construction costs through value engineering. For example: a key component of the design feature in Quarry Lakes Parkway is the construction of a gravity-flow pipe from the Line M Channel located in Phase 1, continuing under the two railroad grade separations that will be constructed in Phases 3 and 4, and terminating with discharge of water into Old Alameda Creek that is located in Phase 2. A gravity-fed, continuous pipeline should not be designed in phases. The pipeline must be completely designed at the beginning of a multi-phase project to ensure a continuous flow. Once the pipe design is finalized, it can be constructed in phases. See Exhibit 7.

The design work for Phases 3 and 4 also must be coordinated with MTC and ACE, who are planning to construct an ACE Station and layover yard adjacent to the Union City BART Station.

Quarry Lakes Parkway Funding Sources
The primary funding sources for the construction of Quarry Lakes Parkway will be:
$69 million Measure B funds identified for East West Connector $14.3 million 2005-CMA TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) $61+ million Union City’s share of the LATIP
$40 million Union City’s share of TEP 21 Funds (Dumbarton Corridor). $72 million TEP 22 Funds, transit enhancement for the Union City BART Station $256.3 million total funding available
Quarry Lakes Parkway Project Costs
Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4
$ 22.0 million Design
$ 18.7 million Permits and Mitigation
$145.6 million Construction
$ 21.7 million Construction Management
$208.1 million Total
Phase 5
$ 5.9 million Design
$ 3.2 million Permits and Mitigation
$ 45.0 million Construction
$ 5.9 million Construction Management
$ 60.0 million Total
Phase A: Decoto Road Complete Streets
$ 2.2 million Design
$ 1.3 million Permits and Mitigation
$ 15.0 million Construction
$ 1.5 million Construction Management
$ 20.0 million Total
Quarry Lakes Parkway Design and Construction Schedule
Quarry Lakes Parkway will be designed and constructed in phases. See Exhibit 8.

Phase A:

Design, Permits 2021-2022
Construction 2023-2024
Phases 1 and 2:

Design, Permits 2022-2023
Construction 2024-2026
Phases 3 and 4:

Design, Permits 2022-2024
Construction 2025-2028
Phase 5:

Design, Permits 2025-2026
Construction 2027-2030
Agreement with California Transportation Commission (CTC) to Program LATIP Funds The $86,184,000 purchase price for the Gateway property will be deposited into a Caltrans account called the LATIP. The LATIP will fund specific projects identified by the California Legislature and the California Transportation Commission.

The city of Fremont convened a LATIP meeting with representatives from the California Transportation Commission, Caltrans, Santa Clara County VTA, Alameda CTC, Newark, and Union City on June 6, 2022.

The purpose of the meeting was to agree upon the procedure to disburse LATIP funding to the specified projects and to determine the specific funding amount to convey to each project.

Subject to verification with the State Controller, Caltrans is to receive approximately $82,000 to $400,000 for recovery of administrative costs.

Santa Clara VTA will receive $7.35 million as the final reimbursement for constructing the I-880 Mission interchange, a project that facilitated the BART extension to San Jose.

The city of Fremont will receive $17.72 million to rehabilitate the former Route 84 located on Fremont city streets. In conjunction with the upgrade to the former Route 84, Fremont will be adding additional pedestrian and bicycle amenities funded by Fremont.

Union City will receive the remaining approximate $61 million LATIP funds to construct Quarry Lakes Parkway.

S ee Exhibit 9 for the meeting minutes with CTC, Caltrans, Santa Clara VTA, Alameda CTC, Fremont, Newark, and Union City.

Union City Submission of a Full Funding Plan to Alameda CTC and Request to Release Design Funds The Alameda CTC initially released $4.2 million to complete the design of Quarry Lakes Parkway Phases 1 and 2 in November of 2020. As a condition of the project, Union City is obligated to submit a full funding plan for the Quarry Lakes Parkway project to receive the Measure B programmed money to complete design and construction of Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4. Union City is also obligated to hold quarterly, publicly noticed meetings to discuss the Quarry Lakes Parkway.

The Union City Public Works Director submitted detailed documentation to Alameda CTC documenting how Union City complied with the conditions requested by the Alameda CTC. The documentation included:

A Full Funding Plan and documentation on why the Quarry Lakes Parkway was entitled to receive the identified funds.

Meeting minutes of publicly noticed Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) that discussed the Quarry Lakes Parkway.

Documentation on coordination with BART, AC Transit, MTC-ACE, to ensure Quarry Lakes Parkway willemploy design features that are most compatible for high quality use of transit. See Exhibit 10.

As of the writing of the staff report, Alameda CTC has not accepted the Full Funding Plan as proposed by Union City staff and is requesting additional information. Staff is reviewing Alameda CTC's requests to chart a path forward.

Coordination with Fremont to Design and Construct Decoto Complete Streets The city of Fremont is the lead agency and coordinating the design and construction of Decoto Complete Streets, which is Phase A of the Quarry Lakes Parkway project. (This segment was also one of the original segments of the East West Connector and it is critical to the long-term development of transit in the Decoto Road/Dumbarton corridor.) The Complete Streets project extends from the Decoto Road/I-880 interchange to the Union City boundary at the Alameda County flood control channel. The project will implement transit priority treatments for bus service and improve access and safety for bicycles and pedestrians. The project is environmentally cleared and is in final design. Fremont is pursuing construction funding and proposes to start construction in the fall of 2023 to complete construction by the winter 2024. Union City staff have met with Fremont staff to coordinate on this project. See Exhibit 11.

OldAlameda Creek
Opportunity to Enhance Water Flow in OldAlameda Creek:

Create Habitat, andAdditional Land for Housing Development The construction of Quarry Lakes Parkway will require modification of the existing stormwater drainage system now serving the Station District. Two existing detention basins will be removed and the stormwater that flows into the existing Line M Channel will be reduced. The Environmental Impact Report for the East West Connector provided environmental clearance for the new stormwater treatment system that will be constructed as a component of the Quarry Lakes Parkway. See Exhibit 12.

The elements of the new stormwater system include the construction of a new gravity-fed drainage pipe that will remove excess water from the Line M Channeland discharge the water into Old Alameda Creek. A second pipe will capture the drainage from Quarry Lakes Parkway and convey the stormwater for treatment in a new bio-retention hydromodification basin located between the realigned Quarry Lakes Drive and Old Alameda Creek. Simply defined, a bio-retention hydromodification basin removes pollutants from stormwater runoff through filtration and 'manages' the stormwater discharge to not increase instability in a downstream channel.

After the roadway stormwater is treated, it will be discharged into Old Alameda Creek.

Enhancing the stormwater flow into Old Alameda Creek and the bio-retention hydromodification basin will provide the opportunity to restore native habitat and create a new open space and recreational amenity. Trails along the bank of Old Alameda Creek will provide connectivity to future development, links to the East Bay Regional Park District Trail system, and the bicycle trails along Quarry Lakes Parkway. See Exhibit 13 for a rendering of the Old Alameda Creek restoration vision. Exhibit 14 provides an example of bio-retention and hydromodification that can also be an open space amenity.

Portions of Old Alameda Creek have become a dumping ground and include homeless encampments. The vision for Old Alameda Creek creates an opportunity to clean-up the area, remove invasive plant species and create habitat for native species. See Exhibit 15 to view the existing conditions.

Portions of Old Alameda Creek are owned by Union City, Fremont, and the Alameda County Water District.

See Exhibit 16 for a map of the Old Alameda Creek ownership. Union City staff met with the staff from both agencies and each expressed support for the concept of enhancing the water flow of Old Alameda Creek and restoring habitat.

The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWCD) is the responsible agency for flood control in Alameda County. ACFCWCD owns and operates the Line M Channel and the Alameda County flood control channel. ACFCWCD expressed an interest to fund the incremental cost to upsize the Line M bypass pipe in order to increase the downstream capacity in the Line M Channel by removing additional water from the Channeland discharging it into Old Alameda Creek.

Meetings with RegulatoryAgencies
Constructing Quarry Lakes Parkway and the restoration of Old Alameda Creek will require the issuance of permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, US Army Corp of Engineers, and National Marine Fisheries Service.

Senior staff from the Regional Water Quality Control Board walked the Old Alameda Creek site and held technical discussions with Union City staff on June 24, 2022. The outcome of the meeting was positive and the Regional Water Quality Control Board would like to continue working with Union City to implement the Old Alameda Creek restoration vision.

Gateway Property Development Update
City Ventures and the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
Union City acquired the Gateway property from Caltrans through a Purchase and Sale Agreement executed in July 2020. The California Department of Transportation voted to convey the Caltrans property to Union City at its June 23 and 24, 2021 meeting. Union City is obligated to pay Caltrans the $86,184,000 appraised value of the property within six years after the California Transportation Commission conveyed the property to Union City. The full $86,184,000 land payment is due to Caltrans July 29, 2027.

The City Council authorized the issuance of a Notice of Availability in June 2021, that solicited statements of interest in purchasing the Gateway property. The Notice of Availability described approximately 25 acres being available with an obligation to preserve as a park the one-half acre surrounding the Peterson Farmhouse and to dedicate an additional three acres as a city park.

The City Council accepted the Statement of Interest submitted by City Ventures to pay $90 million for the Gateway property, which is above the appraised value. The City Councilauthorized entering into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with City Ventures that was executed December 15, 2021.

The City Manager extended the City Ventures due diligence review timeframe identified in the ENA to allow the City to develop a better understand of the drainage needs for the entire Quarry Lakes Parkway project and the Gateway property. City staff and consultants have now completed the drainage analysis and have better defined the boundaries of the property that will be conveyed to the developer.

A key determination made by Union City staff and consultants was that two deep detention basins planned by the Alameda CTC consultant for the East West Connector were not needed. The realignment of Quarry Lakes Drive could be moved to the west and provide better access to the future development and a future new City Park.

As noted in the discussion above regarding the proposed bioretention hydromodification basin, stormwater treatment is recommended to be relocated to a site between the realigned Quarry Lakes Drive and Old Alameda Creek to create a new shallow hydromodification bio-retention basin. This could be coordinated with the developer to utilize the new bio-retention hydromodification basin for their stormwater treatment and more efficiently use the Gateway property.

The end result of the updated drainage plan is that the 25-acre footprint of land to be convened to City Ventures is better configured to provide better opportunities for housing. The realigned Quarry Lakes Drive will provide Union City residents easier access to the new three acre park that City Ventures must dedicate to Union City. See Exhibit 17 to view the vision for the Gateway property.

Since the execution of the City Ventures ENA, staff released for City Council's consideration the proposed Housing Element and the proposed Greater Station District Specific Plan EIR. The Housing Element and the Specific Plan assume up to 535 residential units on the Gateway property, which includes 25 percent affordable units.

As part of next steps, City staff will engage in detailed site planning with City Ventures for the Gateway property and begin the preparation of the Disposition and Development Agreement.

BART and Passenger Rail Hub
BART East Entrance At-Grade Crossing Update
Union City is the lead agency to construct the pedestrian crossing of the Oakland Subdivision to provide direct access between the newly constructed east BART entrance and the East Plaza. See Exhibit 18. The vision for the East Entrance to BART has been part of the Station District Plan since 2001.

Union City secured the needed permits to construct the at-grade crossing from the California Public Utilities Commission and Union Pacific Railroad. The funding source for design and construction of the at-grade crossing are a grant from the Alameda CTC and 2011 Redevelopment Bonds. Union City is responsible for the design and construction of the landscaping, stairs, and ramps to be constructed on each side of the railroad tracks. Union City will pay Union Pacific to construct the signal arms, pedestrian gates, and the physical crossing on the racks. Union City is working with ROMA Collaborative to finalize the design and to prepare a bid package.

As a condition of receiving a permit from Union Pacific to construct the crossing, Union City is obligated to improve pedestrian crossings of the Oakland Subdivision on Decoto Road and to close the existing I Street pedestrian crossing in the Decoto neighborhood. See Exhibit 19. Union City is preparing a bid package to construct the at-grade crossing and the improvements requested by Union Pacific as one bid package.

In addition to the requested improvements on Decoto Road and the closure of I Street, Union Pacific recently requested additional remote improvements at Ithaca and Smith Streets and signalization preemption improvements. Union City submitted preliminary plans to Union Pacific for review and requested that Union Pacific allow Union City to bid the remote improvements separately. Union City would agree not to open the at-grade crossing untilafter the remote improvements were completed. See Exhibit 20.

PlannedACE Station Union City BART
MTC and ACE are conducting the Southern Alameda County Integrated Rail Analysis (SoCo Rail) Study to evaluate the creation of a passenger rail hub in southern Alameda County. The details of the study and background reports can be viewed at the MTC website:

Southern Alameda County Integrated Rail Analysis (SoCo Rail) Study | Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ca.gov)
The recommendation of the SoCo Rail Study is to create an East Bay rail hub adjacent to the Union City BART Station and to provide additional ACE service to the Bay Area. See Exhibit 21 for the location of the planned rail hub station.

MTC and ACE are now engaged in Phase 2 of a planning process to develop conceptual operations plans, model ridership, and prepare conceptual design of the infrastructure improvements. Union City willcoordinate with MTC and ACE when it designs Phase 4 of the Quarry Lakes Parkway.

The rail station will require the construction of additional tracks parallel to the Oakland Subdivision to create a safe loading platform and an overlay facility adjacent to the Restoration Site. See Exhibit 22. A rail shoofly will need to be constructed to build the Phase 4 Quarry Lakes Parkway grade separation under the Oakland Subdivision and the BART tracks. The rail shoofly could later serve as the rail platform and train storage facility for ACE.

Conclusion and Next Steps
Since December of 2021, staff has been diligently working to facilitate the construction of Quarry Lakes Parkway and the sale of the Gateway property. As is illustrated in this report, Union City is working with many partners, including:

The city of Fremont
Alameda County Water District
Alameda County Flood Controland Water Conservation District Regional Water Quality Control Board
Union Pacific Railroad
BART
City Ventures
Funding partners:Alameda CTC and Caltrans
East Bay Regional Park District
ACE
MTC
Future work will be with the regulatory agencies: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, US Army Corp of Engineers, and National Marine Fisheries Service.

The next steps are to continue to work with Alameda CTC to receive approval of the Full Funding Plan so that design of Phases 3 and 4 can proceed concurrently with Phases 1 and 2. Staff will also continue to work with permitting agencies to facilitate the construction of Phases 1 and 2. Lastly, with the updated drainage plan, staff willcontinue to work with City Ventures to facilitate the sale and development of the Gateway property.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund to accept the staff report. The design and construction of the Quarry Lakes Parkway will not use General Funds, except those hours that are dedicated by staff to facilitate the project management and secure funding.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the staff report, hold a discussion, and ask clarifying questions.

Prepared by:

Mark Evanoff, Interim Deputy City Manager
Submitted by:

Mark Evanoff, Interim Deputy City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:

Description Type
Exhibit 1:Alameda CTC, March 15, 2018 Meeting Exhibit
Exhibit 2: Staff Presentation to Alameda CTC, November 19, 2020 Exhibit Exhibit 3:Alameda CTC, November 19, 2020 Meeting Minutes Exhibit Exhibit 4: Quarry Lakes Parkway Phasing Exhibit
Exhibit 5: Quarry Lakes Parkway rendering Exhibit
Exhibit 6: Quarry Lakes Parkway Connectivity Exhibit
Exhibit 7: Line M Bypass Illustration Exhibit
Exhibit 8: QLP Construction Schedule Exhibit
Exhibit 9: LATIP Meeting Minutes June 6, 2022 Exhibit
Exhibit 10: QLP Full Funding Plan Submitted to Alameda CTC Exhibit Exhibit 11: Decoto Complete Street Illustration Exhibit Exhibit 12: Drainage Plan for Quarry Lakes Parkway Exhibit Exhibit 13: Old Alameda Creek Restoration Vision Exhibit Exhibit 14: Example of Bioretention Open SpaceAmenity Exhibit Exhibit 15: Old Alameda Creek Existing Conditions Exhibit Exhibit 16: Old Alameda Creek Ownership Exhibit
Exhibit 17: Gateway Property Vision Exhibit
Exhibit 18:At-Grade Crossing Rendering Exhibit
Exhibit 19: Union Pacific Required Improvements Exhibit Exhibit 20: Union Pacific Required Remote Improvements Exhibit Exhibit 21:ACEStation Location Exhibit
Exhibit 22:ACEStation Layover Facility Exhibit
Power Point Attachment
R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Board-Commission\20180322\9.2_EWC\9.2_EWC_Memo_20180305_Final.docx Memorandum 9.2
DATE: March 15, 2018
TO: Alameda County Transportation Commission
FROM: Trinity Nguyen, Director of Project Delivery
Vivek Bhat, Director of Programming and Project Controls SUBJECT: I-880 to Mission Boulevard East-West Connector Project (PN 1177000) Recommendation
It is requested that the Commission consider three options, Options A through C, to fund and deliver the I-880 to Mission Boulevard (Route 238) East West Connector (EWC) Project in Union City and Fremont, and approve Option C - Deferred-Build as recommended unanimously by the Programs and Projects Committee (PPC) at its meeting earlier this month.

Option C – Deferred-Build would allow for the EWC Project to move forward and defer the full funding decision until the project’s construction bid document is complete and meets the requirements for advertisement, construction readiness, and the project delivery plan, all as established and approved by the Commission. In addition, this option would include the transfer of the project sponsorship and assignment of all contracts and agreements associated with the development of the project to the City of Union City. Full details of Option C are provided in Attachment F.

There is no programming or allocation action requested at this time.

A key concern voiced during public comment at the March 12, 2018 PPC meeting centered on whether certain Measure BB funding categories and amounts proposed in the Local Funding Concept for Option A – Build Option (Attachment D) could be used to fund the EWC Project. A Supplemental Local Funding Analysis is provided as Attachment G.

R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Board-Commission\20180322\9.2_EWC\9.2_EWC_Memo_20180305_Final.docx The three project funding and delivery options considered by the PPC are as follows:

Option A - Build: Approve a full funding plan concept for the EWC Project with Measure BB funds from various funding categories included in the 2014 Transportation Expenditure Plan (2014 TEP), which would require discretionary action by the Commission and be subject to conditions and further actions as detailed in this memorandum and in Attachment D.

Option B - No-Build: Make the decision to not move forward with the project and reprogram the remaining 1986 Measure B funds according to the apportionment proposed in Attachment E.

Option C - Deferred-Build: Approve that the project move forward and defer the full funding decision until the project’s construction bid document is complete and meets the requirements for advertisement, construction readiness, and the project delivery plan, all as established and approved by the Commission, subject to conditions detailed in Attachment F.

Summary
The EWC Project is the last major capital project commitment remaining to be delivered in the 1986 Measure B Transportation Expenditure Plan (1986 TEP). The EWC Project proposes to construct about 3.2 miles of improved east-west local arterial roadway on existing and new alignments connecting I-880 and Route 238 (Mission Boulevard).

The project includes a combination of three major grade-separated railway structures, new 4-lane roadways and bridges, improvements to existing roadways, and improvements to intersections along Decoto Road, Fremont Boulevard, Paseo Padre Parkway, Alvarado-Niles Road and Route 238 (Mission Boulevard). This roadway, with transit and multimodal links, would also provide direct access to the Union City Intermodal (Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)) transit oriented development district (see Attachment A for project details).

The EWC Project evolved from the original Route 84 Historic Parkway Project (Historic Parkway) - a Caltrans sponsored project approved in the 1986 TEP. Over a 13 year span between 1989 and 2002, Caltrans worked with local jurisdictions and communities to environmentally clear the Historic Parkway. Due to the continuing lack of local consensus for any of the six options studied as part of the Historic Parkway, Caltrans was unable to obtain federal environmental clearance and ultimately withdrew its sponsorship and suspended the project indefinitely.

In 2003, in an effort to save the Historic Parkway and meet the 1986 TEP commitment, the Alameda County Transportation Authority (“ACTA” - predecessor R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Board-Commission\20180322\9.2_EWC\9.2_EWC_Memo_20180305_Final.docx agency to the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC)) initiated additional studies and evaluated additional alternatives in close coordination with the Cities of Union City and Fremont and Caltrans to establish consensus on an alternative project to function as an east-west connection between I-880 and Route 238 to replace the Historic Parkway. A total of sixteen alternatives were explored, and in May 2006, the agencies ultimately agreed to support the development, funding, and delivery of the EWC alternative and reflected their intent through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU outlined the general commitment of funding and general roles and responsibilities of each agency for the development and delivery of the EWC Project. As a result, ACTA became the sponsor and implementing agency for the project and initiated the 1986 TEP amendment process to replace the Historic Parkway with the EWC Project. Approved in June 2006, the1986 TEP Amendment No. 2 added the EWC Project and named ACTA, Union City, and Fremont as project sponsors. The Alameda CTC, assuming responsibility of ACTA, has been the project’s implementing agency in cooperation and partnership with the Cities of Union City and Fremont.

The Cities agreed to work cooperatively to fund and deliver the project. The fully executed MOU is provided as Attachment B.

The EWC Project is considered to have officially started in 1989 when Caltrans initiated the environmental clearance process for the Historic Parkway; however, the beginnings of the EWC Project can be traced back even further to 1958 when Caltrans first identified the need for the Historic Parkway and through the 1960’s and 70’s when the right-of-way was acquired and preserved for the Historic Parkway.

Thus, the EWC Project could be said to be the result of an evolutionary and consensus building process spanning almost 60 years. Over this period, the project has encountered many hurdles and controversies including a major litigation resulting in an unfavorable ruling, protracted opposition from impacted neighborhoods, on-going lack of local consensus, two different environmental clearance processes, changes in design standards and permitting requirements, and lack of funding. These factors have caused substantial project delays and increased costs. In addition, at the technical level, the project contains many challenging engineering features including: protecting the drinking groundwater supply, creeks, and wetlands from contamination, buried contaminated soils resulting from local land use development, and construction staging to maintain freight railroad and BART operations. It should also be noted that this project will construct the first ever BART shoofly. All of these challenges add to project risks and additional project costs.

Despite these many major hurdles, the project has met many significant and critical milestones, including environmental clearance. The new California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental process was lengthy and addressed many controversial issues including water quality, hazardous materials, traffic, noise, right- R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Board-Commission\20180322\9.2_EWC\9.2_EWC_Memo_20180305_Final.docx of-way, and wetland and habitat impacts. Project support and consensus was obtained in 2009 with the adoption of the CEQA Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR); however, due to insufficient construction funding, the project was suspended in 2011. With the passage of the 2014 Measure BB, the project was restarted in 2015.

During the four-year suspension, many design standards had changed that required the plans to be revised and the costs and project deliverability to be re-evaluated.

In March 2017, a comprehensive assessment was completed and the project cost updated. Currently the project’s plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) is approximately 65% complete. The associated project cost estimate is $320 million, and the funding shortfall is $210 million. A project timeline and cost history is provided in Attachment C.

Over the past year, Alameda CTC staff has validated project estimates and risks and engaged the Cities of Union City and Fremont to discuss potential options to build the project and also the consideration of a “No-Build” option. The 2006 MOU provides guidance on the distribution of remaining funds in the event the project does not continue into construction.

The greatest hurdle to build the EWC Project has been funding. Given the significant shortfall, Alameda CTC facilitated the convening of elected officials representing the Cities of Fremont, Newark, and Union City and the South County Area to assist with the funding discussion. From this forum, the Dumbarton Corridor Area Transportation Improvement funds (MBB TEP-21) was identified as one of many potential funding sources for the EWC Project. Action by the Alameda CTC Commission in October 2017 supported the recommendations of the Tri-City and South County elected officials to approve up to $40 million for projects in the City of Union City that meet the approved Programming principles of MBB TEP-21. The EWC Project meets the programming principles of MBB TEP-21.

The EWC Project currently has an environmental document compliant with CEQA.

Unless the project can secure an environmental document compliant with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the project will not be eligible to receive any federal funding.

The City of Union City has expressed a strong desire to pursue a “Build” option for the project and the City of Fremont has expressed their commitment to work with the City of Union City to move the project forward. The current estimated total project cost is about $320 million. The project has about $110 million of committed funding, leaving a funding gap of about $210 million.

In light of the EWC Project’s long history and complexities, the Commission is requested to consider at least three project delivery and funding options.

Additionally, depending on which option is chosen by the Commission, additional R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Board-Commission\20180322\9.2_EWC\9.2_EWC_Memo_20180305_Final.docx programming, allocation, and/or other administrative processes may need to be developed and brought back for future action by the Commission.

The three project delivery and full funding options are as follows:

Option A - Build: Fully fund the project with Measure BB funds from various funding categories included in the 2014 TEP which would require discretionary action by the Commission, as detailed further in this memorandum and in Attachment D. This option would require that the Commission approve the conditions the project must meet to be fully funded. Under this Build Option, the Commission also would be required to approve a full funding plan concept and all necessary subsequent actions, including any necessary amendment to the 2014 TEP, to ensure the funds will be in place to construct the project when it is ready. In addition, Alameda CTC and the Cities of Union City and Fremont would work cooperatively to pursue external funding sources and deliver the project.

Option B - No-Build: Not move forward with the project and reprogram the remaining 1986 Measure B funds according to the apportionment proposed in Attachment E.

Option C - Deferred-Build: Allow the project to move forward and defer the full funding decision until the project’s construction bid document is complete and meets the requirements for advertisement, construction readiness, and the project delivery plan all as established and approved by the Commission, subject to conditions detailed in Attachment F. There currently is adequate funding available to allow for the project to proceed to this milestone.

For all options, it is recommended that the Commission approve the transfer of the project sponsorship to the City of Union City and authorize the assignment of all contracts and agreements associated with the development of the project to the City of Union City.

Staff is not requesting any programming or allocation action at this time.

Background
Alameda CTC is responsible for the programming and allocation of funds from each of the three voter approved sales tax measures from 1986, 2000, and 2014. The passage of these transportation measures have facilitated the delivery of significant projects and programs throughout Alameda County by providing funding to R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Board-Commission\20180322\9.2_EWC\9.2_EWC_Memo_20180305_Final.docx expedite projects and to leverage external funding. The EWC Project is the only project remaining to be delivered from the 1986 TEP.

The EWC Project, located in the cities of Union City and Fremont, proposes to construct about 3.2 miles of improved east-west local arterial roadway on existing and new alignments connecting I-880 and Route 238 (Mission Boulevard).

The EWC Project includes three major grade-separated railway structures, a combination of new roadways, new 4-lane roadways and bridges, improvements to existing roadways and improvements to intersections along Decoto Road, Fremont Boulevard, Paseo Padre Parkway, Alvarado-Niles Road and Route 238 (Mission Boulevard). This roadway with transit and multimodal links will:
• Improve local connectivity from Mission Boulevard (SR-238) to the Dumbarton Bridge (SR-84),
• Provide direct access to planned transit oriented development and regional transit at the Union City Intermodal BART transit oriented development district, • Allow for expanded bus access to the Union City Intermodal Station, • Create three grade-separated railway structures under BART and UPRR tracks, and
• Construct new Class I multi-use path, new Class II bike lanes, and implement Complete Streets features.

Currently the project’s PS&E is approximately 65% complete. The associated project cost estimate is $320 million and the funding shortfall is $210 million. See Attachment A for project details.

The beginnings of the EWC Project can be traced back to 1958 when Caltrans first identified the need for the Historic Parkway. Right-of-way was acquired and/or zoned for the Historic Parkway during the 1960’s and 70’s and the approval of the Expenditure Plan in 1986 made funding available to develop the project. Upon initiation of the environmental process in 1989, the project faced immediate opposition. In 1991, litigation against the project was filed by the Citizens for Responsible Neighborhoods. The litigation was eventually settled in 1994 but at a significant cost to the project due to delays and added scope. Six alternatives were ultimately analyzed as part of the environmental studies and the Historic Parkway was identified as the preferred alternative. A Final Environmental Impact Report/Study (EIR/S) was completed and approved by Caltrans in 2002; however, due to the continuing lack of local consensus and continuing local opposition for any of the alternatives studied, the Federal Highway Administration would not certify the EIR/S. Subsequently, Caltrans withdrew its sponsorship of the Historic Parkway until consensus could be reached.

R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Board-Commission\20180322\9.2_EWC\9.2_EWC_Memo_20180305_Final.docx In 2003, in an effort to meet the 1986 TEP commitment to the Historic Parkway, ACTA (one of the predecessor agencies to the Alameda CTC) initiated additional studies and evaluated additional alternatives in close coordination with the Cities of Union City and Fremont and Caltrans to establish consensus on an alternative project to function as an east-west connection between I-880 and Route 238 to replace the Historic Parkway. A total of sixteen alternatives were explored and a conceptual cost of $136 million established. In May 2006, the parties ultimately agreed to enter into an MOU to outline the general commitment of funding and general roles and responsibilities of each agency to support the development and delivery of the EWC Project option. As a result, several key actions occurred to move the EWC Project forward:
• May 2006, ACTA voted to approve and include the EWC Project as one of the alternative set of improvements to replace the Historic Parkway. • October 2006, ACTA adopted Amendment No. 2 to the 1986 TEP which resulted in the inclusion of the EWC Project as a 1986 TEP capital project and listed ACTA, Union City, and Fremont as the project sponsors.
• January 2007, ACTA, the Cities of Union city and Fremont, and Caltrans finalized the terms of the MOU. ACTA became the implementing agency for the project and the Cities agreed to work cooperatively to fund and deliver the project.

The Alameda CTC, after assuming the responsibility of ACTA, has been the project’s implementing agency in cooperation and partnership with the Cities of Union City and Fremont. The fully executed MOU is provided as Attachment B.

Upon execution of the MOU, Alameda CTC proceeded, as the implementing agency, to initiate the environmental process for the EWC Project. The new CEQA environmental process was lengthy and addressed many controversial issues including, water quality, hazardous materials, traffic, noise, right-of-way and wetland and habitat impacts. As part of the environmental process, the project estimate was refined and updated. The 2008 project cost estimate was $192 million. Project support and consensus was achieved in 2009 with the adoption of the CEQA Final EIR and design efforts began. An update to the cost estimate was performed in 2011 yielding a project cost estimate of $211 million. Due to insufficient construction funding, design efforts were halted later that year. With the successful passage of Measure BB in November 2014, work on the EWC Project was re-initiated in 2015.

During the four year project suspension, many design standard requirements had changed. Most significant to the project included the BART track shoofly which had to be redesigned to accommodate higher design speeds. Critical path work activities, including right-of-way acquisition and mitigation of environmental impacts, were also initiated to more adequately assess the cost and to avoid further costly schedule delays. A comprehensive review of project cost, risks, and schedule completed in March 2017 resulted in an updated project cost estimate of $320 R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Board-Commission\20180322\9.2_EWC\9.2_EWC_Memo_20180305_Final.docx million. The cost estimate factors in risks in the areas of utilities, right-of-way, and material cost increases as well as challenging engineering complexities such as protecting the drinking groundwater supply, creeks, and wetlands from contamination, buried contaminated soils resulting from local land use development, and construction staging to maintain freight railroad operations and BART operations. A project timeline and cost history is provided in Attachment C.

Over the past year, Alameda CTC staff has validated the project estimates and risks and engaged the Cities of Union City and Fremont to discuss potential options to build the project and also the consideration of a “No-Build” option. If the project cannot be moved into construction, the provisions of the MOU document would govern. Although the current cost estimate has been validated, there are risks that cannot be fully estimated. The quantity and level of contaminated soil, costs for right-of-way acquisitions, and utility relocations are project risk areas that may increase beyond what is currently anticipated and reflected in the project estimate.

It should also be noted that this project will construct the first ever BART shoofly and there is no pre-existing technical information which can be relied upon to fully understand all associated risks.

Beyond the project complexities and engineering challenges, the single greatest hurdle facing the construction of the EWC Project is funding. Given the significant capital shortfall and other capital needs for projects in the Cities of Fremont and Newark, Alameda CTC facilitated discussions in May 2017 to convene elected officials representing the Cities of Fremont, Newark, and Union City and the South County Area to assist with the funding discussion. The forum was held in September 2017, and the Dumbarton Corridor Area Transportation Improvement funds (MBB TEP21) were identified as one of many potential funding sources for the EWC Project.

Action by the Alameda CTC Commission in October 2017 supported the recommendations of the Tri-City and South County elected officials to approve up to $40 million for projects in the City of Union City that meet the approved Programming principles of MBB TEP-21. The EWC Project meets the programming principles of MBB TEP-21.

Currently the EWC Project has an environmental document compliant with CEQA.

Unless and until the project can secure an environmental document compliant with NEPA, the project will not be eligible to receive any federal funding.

The City of Union City has expressed a strong desire to pursue an option that would move the EWC Project forward to construction, and the City of Fremont has expressed their commitment to work with the City of Union City to support the delivery of the EWC Project and to ensure the portions of the EWC Project that go through the City of Fremont can move forward into construction. The current estimated total project cost is about $320 million. The project has about $110 million R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Board-Commission\20180322\9.2_EWC\9.2_EWC_Memo_20180305_Final.docx of secured funding, of which $89 million is from 1986 Measure B, leaving a funding gap of about $210 million.

In light of the project’s history and complexities, the Commission is asked to consider at least three project delivery and funding options. Additionally, depending on which option is chosen by the Commission, additional programming, allocation, and/or other administrative processes may need to be developed and brought back for future action by the Commission.

The three project delivery and full funding options are as follows:

Option A - Build: Fully fund the project with Measure BB funds from various funding categories included in the 2014 TEP which would require discretionary action by the Commission. This option would require that the Commission approve the conditions that the project must meet to be fully funded.

Under this Build Option, the Commission also would be required to approve a full funding plan concept and all necessary subsequent actions, including any necessary amendment to the 2014 TEP, to ensure the funds will be in place to construct the project when it is ready. In addition, Alameda CTC and the Cities of Union City and Fremont would work cooperatively to seek external funding sources and deliver the project.

Details and stipulations are further detailed in Attachment D.

Option B - No-Build: Not move forward with the project and reprogram the remaining 1986 Measure B funds according to the apportionment proposed in Attachment E.

Option C - Deferred-Build: Allow the project to move forward and defer the full funding decision until the project’s construction bid document is complete, ready for advertisement, and meets the requirements for construction readiness in accordance with the project delivery plan as established and approved by the Commission. Previously allocated funds are sufficient to allow the project to proceed to this milestone. Details are provided in Attachment F.

For all options, it is recommended that the Commission approve the transfer of the project sponsorship to the City of Union City and authorize the assignment of all contracts and agreements associated with the development of the project to the City of Union City. The change in sponsorship would be reflected in the FY 2018 Comprehensive Investment Plan Update.

Staff is not requesting any programming or allocation action at this time.

R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Board-Commission\20180322\9.2_EWC\9.2_EWC_Memo_20180305_Final.docx Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact to the Alameda CTC budget.

Attachments
A. I-880 to Mission Blvd. East-West Connector Fact Sheet B. Memorandum of Understanding
C. Project Timeline and Cost History
D. Build Option
E. No-Build Option
F. Deferred-Build Option
G. Supplemental Local Funding Analysis
CAPITAL PROJECT FACT SHEET PN: 1177000
The Alameda County
Transportation Commission
(Alameda CTC) is leading the
project implementation efforts in
cooperation with the cities of
Fremont and Union City on this

2.6-mile roadway realignment
project. Work includes the
construction of an improved
east-west connection between
Interstate 880 (I-880) and State
Route 238 (SR-238), also known as
Mission Boulevard, new roadways,
widening two existing roadways
and improvements to intersections
along Decoto Road, Fremont
Boulevard, Paseo Padre Parkway,
Alvarado-Niles Road and SR-238
(Mission Boulevard).

In addition to improving existing
roadways, this critical roadway
with transit and multimodal links
will also provide direct access to
the Union City Intermodal Bay
Area Rapid Transit (BART) transit
oriented development district.

Interstate 880 to Mission Blvd
East-West Connector

PROJECT OVERVIEW
JANUARY 2018

PROJECT NEED
• Provides connection from SR-84/I-880 to Mission Boulevard.

PROJECT BENEFITS
• Improves connectivity from Mission Boulevard (SR-238) to the Dumbarton Bridge (SR-84)
• Provides access to planned transit oriented development and regional transit at the Union City Intermodal
• Expands bus access to Union City Intermodal Station
• Creates a grade separate roadway under BART and UPRR tracks • Constructs new Class I multi-use path and Class II bike lanes • Implements Complete Streets features
(For illustrative purposes only.)
Note: The project is designed to be constructed as four independent construction bid packages as represented by Segments A through D.

9.2A
Alameda County Transportation Commission 1111 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94607 510.208.7400 www.AlamedaCTC.org Note: Information on this fact sheet is subject to periodic updates.

California Department of Transportation, Alameda CTC and the cities of Fremont and Union City
INTERSTATE 880 TO MISSION BOULEVARD EAST-WEST CONNECTOR

PARTNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS
STATUS
Implementing Agency: Alameda CTC
Current Phase: Design
• Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was approved
in 2009.
• Due to insufficient construction funding, design efforts were halted in late 2011.
• In November 2014 with the passage of Measure BB, critical path work activities began, including right-of-way
acquisition, Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and BART grade separated designs, and mitigation of environmental impacts. • Alameda CTC, in partnership with the city of Union City, is working on a funding strategy to address the significant project shortfall.

Project site rendering, WRECO.

Project web page:
http://www.alamedactc.org/app_pages/view/7146
Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was approved in 2009 http://www.alamedactc.org/app_pages/view/7146
Final EIR/EA with finding of no significant impact (FONSI):
http://www.dot.ca.gov/d4/documents-environmental/
680nbhovlane/680final/Report-I-680_NB_Express_Lane_FED_ July2015.pdf

PROJECT DOCUMENTS
COST ESTIMATE BY PHASE ($ X 1,000)

SCHEDULE BY PHASE
FUNDING SOURCES ($ X 1,000)
Begin End
Scoping/Environmental Spring 2007 Summer 2009
Final Design (PS&E) Fall 2015 Spring 2019
Right-of-Way/Utility Fall 2015 Spring 2019
Construction3 Spring 2019 Fall 2022
Scoping $ 0
PE/Environmental $ 5,358
Final Design (PS&E) $ 16,891
Right-of-Way/Utility $ 95,164
Construction $ 202,447
Total Expenditures $ 319,860
Measure BB $ 0
Measure B $ 88,771
Local1 $ 14,300
Local2 $ 6,708
TBD $ 210,081
Total Revenues $ 319,860
1Congestion Management Agency Transportation Improvement Program (CMA-TIP) funds
2City of Union City funds
3Assumes full funding decision spring 2018.

9.2B

This page intentionally left blank
East West Connector Project Timeline and Cost Summary 9.2C • 1958 California Transportation Commission adopted New Route 84 • 1970s, 1980s, Corridor Right-of-Way Being Reserved
• 1980 California Transportation Commission rescinded the Route Adoption of Route 84 • 1986 Measure B/1986 Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) passes • 1989 Environmental Phase Initiated (Project Approval and Environmental Document - PA/ED) • 1991 Litigation filed against Project by Citizens for Responsible Neighborhoods • 1994 Litigation Settled, but Continuing Lack of Consensus Increased Cost • 2002 Completed Draft Environmental Phase (Final PA/ED - EIR/EIS) • 2003 Alameda CTC took over as lead implementation agency • 2004 Alameda CTC developed “Option 2” (Current Project) and received both Cities concurrence • 2006 Alameda CTC approved 1986 Plan Amend No. 2, EWC project inclusion to 1986 TEP • 2007 Alameda CTC executed MOU with Union City, Fremont & Caltrans • 2008 SB 791 was signed into law creating a separate LATIP for SR 84 • 2009 CEQA (State) Final EIR Approved

Project Element 2004 2008 2011 2017
Project Engineering and Support $20,840,000 $36,620,000 $38,540,000 $46,809,000 Environmental Mitigation $7,010,000 $7,910,000 $15,850,000 Right of Way Capital $46,070,000 $23,000,000 $23,000,000 $78,230,000 Construction Capital $69,480,000 $125,410,000 $141,460,000 $178,971,000 Total Project Cost: $136,390,000 $192,040,000 $210,910,000 $319,860,000 2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
EIR
certified
PS&E
started
PS&E
suspended
Significant
PS&E re-design
MBB
approved
PS&E
re-started
Comprehensive
Cost Update
This page intentionally left blank
R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Board-Commission\20180322\9.2_EWC\9.2D_Build.docx

9.2D
Option A: “Build” Option
Under this option, the Commission is requested to approve a full funding plan concept as detailed below, and approve all necessary subsequent actions to ensure that the funds will be in place to construct the project when it is ready. In addition, Alameda CTC and the Cities of Union City and Fremont would work cooperatively to seek funds and deliver the project.

Funding
• Federal: The project cannot qualify for federal funds until clearance is obtained under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Obtaining clearance would likely take an additional three years or more based upon the impacts outlined in the approved EIR document. This delay would increase the project cost and there is no assurance that the project would compete well for federal funding.
• State funds: The project can qualify for state funds from some of the funding programs under SB1. It should be noted that many state funding programs are leveraged with federal dollars at an 88/12 ratio match and would require NEPA clearance. Funding programs under the SB1 purview are administered by the California Transportation Commission and could potentially have a federal component. There is no guarantee that state only funding at this magnitude would be available.
• Regional funds: No funding has been identified that could be pursued for the project.
• Local funds: The project is eligible to receive sales tax funding subject to the eligible uses and approval of the Alameda CTC.

Risk Management
• The deliverability of the project is greatly impacted by approval of third-party agreements (particularly BART and Union Pacific Railroad), right-of-way costs, environmental mitigation, and public acceptance. Effectively managing these risk areas will ensure the project can be delivered within the estimated project costs. These risk areas are best managed at the local jurisdictional level. For this reason the implementing agency will need to be transferred to the City of Union City.

Based on the above, a full funding plan concept has been prepared along with conditions to minimize risks for Alameda CTC and increase the deliverability of the project.

R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Board-Commission\20180322\9.2_EWC\9.2D_Build.docx Project Cost and Funding Information
• Current Estimated Project cost (March 2017): $320,000,000 • Current Programmed (Committed) Funds:
1986 Measure B $ 88,871,000
Union City $ 6,708,000
CMA-TIP $ 14,300,000
$109,879,000
• Proposed Full Funding Plan Concept (See Table A for full analysis):

TEP 21 Dumbarton Corridor Area Transportation Improvements $ 40,000,000 TEP 22 Union City Intermodal * $ 75,000,000
TEP 23 Railroad R/W Preservation and Track Improvements** $ 32,000,000 TEP 26 Congestion Relief** $ 25,000,000
TEP 44 Bike/Pedestrian Grant Program $ 10,000,000
TEP 45 Community Development Investment $ 9,500,000
Union City Local Funds/Contributions $ 19,400,000
$210,900,000
* Named Capital – Plan Amendment required to move funding. **Estimated $10 million as an advance for future Local Alternative Transportation Improvement Program (LATIP) funds for the EWC project.

Conditions:
• City of Union City will sponsor and implement the project as contained within the approved environmental document.
• City of Union City will be responsible for all cost overruns. • City of Union City will not be eligible to receive any future discretionary funding from Measure BB.
• All provisions of Alameda CTC’s Project Funding Agreement apply. • The project will comply with the timely use of funds requirement which will require that the City of Union City deliver the project in accordance with an approved project delivery plan. The delivery plan will ensure that all project segments will begin construction by January 2021, assuming that all additional funds are available for allocation and encumbrance. No construction funding will be authorized until the delivery plan is approved by Alameda CTC. In the event the City cannot meet this requirement, the project will be deemed infeasible, and the provisions of the “No Build” option will apply.
• In the event of project savings or additional funding is secured from regional, state, or federal sources for the project, the order of reduction will be as follow:

TEP 21, then TEP 22, then TEP 23.
• If the approved delivery plan results in the need to bond, the City of Union City will bear the cost of bonding and or other advancement of funds.

No programming or allocation action is recommended at this time.

TABLE A: LOCAL FUNDING PROPOSAL ANALYSIS
Estimated Total Project Cost
(March 2017) $320,000,000
Union City Funds $6,708,000
ACTA funds $88,871,000
CMA-TIP $14,300,000

CURRENT
FUNDING PLAN SUBTOTAL: $109,879,000

FUNDING
SHORTFALL NEEDS: $210,121,000
NOTES
TEP 21*
Dumbarton Corridor Area
Transportation Improvements $40,000,000
TEP language: Dumbarton Corridor Area Transportation Improvement projects will support express bus services in the Dumbarton Corridor connecting southern Alameda County and the Peninsula. The projects will also support transit oriented development and priority development areas, and improve local streets and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure within the cities of Fremont, Newark and Union City.

Analysis:

Eligible project based on the TEP-21 Programming Principles adopted by the Alameda CTC Board on October 26, 2017.

The project will provide an East-West connection and facilitate transit connections.

Amount is within the total authorized for Union City as approved by the Commission.

TEP 22 Union City Intermodal $75,000,000
TEP language: This project funds the development of a new intermodal station in Union City to serve BART, Dumbarton Corridor services, Capitol Corridor, ACE and local and regional bus passengers. The project involves construction of a two-sided rail station and bus transit facility, accessible to a 30-acre transit oriented development site. Improvements will be made to pedestrian and bicycle access, BART parking, elevators, fare gates and other passenger amenities.

Analysis:

Union City Intermodal has $75,000,000 earmarked in the TEP and is sponsored by the City of Union City.

The City may seek approval, through a Plan Amendment, to use these funds for the EWC.

The EWC project will provide a second entrance into/out of the Union City Intermodal Station and is vital to the success of the Transit-Oriented Development area.

TEP 23* RR R/W preservation $32,000,000
TEP Language:

Funds allocated by this project may be used to maintain and enhance existing railroad corridors for regional rail as well as to preserve the rights of way of rail corridors that could be used for other transportation purposes, such as major trails.

Analysis:

The project includes $32 million of railroad-related improvements to construct three railroad grade separations.

The proposed amount of $32 million is 29% of the total TEP amount of $110 million.

TEP 26*
Congestion Relief, Local Bridge
Seismic Safety $25,000,000
Analysis:

The project is listed as a "such as" project in TEP and meets the objective of this funding program.

The entire project cost is eligible for this program. The proposed amount of $25 million is 3.9% of the total TEP amount of $639 million.

TEP 44**
Bicycle and Pedestrian Grant
Program $10,000,000
Analysis:

The project includes complete street elements and will construct class 1, 2, and 4 bicycle facilities.

The cost of these improvements $10 million.

The proposed amount of $10 million is 6.4% of the total TEP amount of $154.8 million.

TEP 45**
Community Development
Investments Program $9,500,000
Analysis:

The project will also provide direct access to the Union City Intermodal (BART) transit oriented development district and meets the objective of the funding program.

The project work within a one-mile radius is estimated to be $175 million would be considered eligible for this program. The proposed amount of $9.5 million is 3.2% of the total TEP amount of $300 million.

Additional Union City Local
Match $19,400,000
Analysis:

The project work to be borne by City's funding is: R/W ($15.5 M) and environmental mitigation ($3.9 M).

The additional match of $19.4 M brings City of Union City's total contribution to $26.2 M. This equates to a 8.1% contribution. 8-11% match is general minimum match requirements from Fed funding sources.

POTENTIAL FUNDS: $210,900,000
Analysis:
*Discretionary Capital Projects MBB amount = $1.2 B.... Proposed amount for EWC is $97 M from discretionary funds. (8.1%) **Discretionary Programs MBB amount = $0.9 B .... Proposed amount for EWC is $19.5 from discretionary funds. (2.2%) Total: This is 5.55% of total MBB discretionary funds.

Union City by population is 4.56%. (Lane Miles is 4.16%; 50%Pop+50%Lane Miles= 4.36%) Proposed TEP Amount

9.2D1
This page intentionally left blank
R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Board-Commission\20180322\9.2_EWC\9.2E_No Build.docx

9.2E
Option B - “No-Build” Option
Under this option, the EWC would not move forward to construction. The remaining Measure B funds, estimated to be $69 million, would be distributed in accordance with the intent of the MOU provisions, to Union City, Fremont, and Newark.

Funding Assessment:
1986 Measure B Allocated Funds: $ 88,871,000
Estimated Sunk Costs: $ 19,871,000
Estimated Remaining Funds: $ 69,000,000
Fremont $ 9,338,000 Transportation projects in Fremont
Newark $ 1,960,000 Transportation projects in Newark
$46,000,000 Construct Historic Parkway in Union City
$ 9,000,000 Environmental mitigation costs for Historic Parkway $ 2,702,000 Transportation projects in Union City
Union City $57,702,000
This page intentionally left blank
R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Board-Commission\20180322\9.2_EWC\9.2F_Deferred.docx

9.2F
Option C – “Deferred-Build” Option
Allow the project to move forward but defer the full funding decision until the project’s construction bid document is complete and ready for advertisement and meeting the requirements for construction readiness and the project delivery plan as established and approved by the Commission.

The estimated cost required to complete the project plans and secure all necessary permits to allow the project to be advertised and awarded is $ 56,571,000. This amount is less than the $ 88,871,000 of 1986 Measure B Allocated Funds.

Conditions:
• City of Union City will sponsor and implement the project as contained within the approved environmental document.
• All provisions of Alameda CTC’s Project Funding Agreement apply. • City of Union City will accept the assignment of all contracts and agreements associated with the development of the project.
• The City of Union City must ensure the project’s construction bid document is complete and ready for advertisement and meeting the requirements for construction readiness and the project delivery plan as established and approved by the Commission.
• The project will comply with the timely use of funds requirement which will require that the City of Union City deliver the project in accordance with an approved project delivery plan. The delivery plan will ensure that all project segments will be in a position to advertise by June 2020.

No programming or allocation action is recommended at this time.

This page intentionally left blank
R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Board-Commission\20180322\9.2_EWC\9.2G_Sup_Local_Funding_Analysis.docx

9.2G
Supplemental Local Funding Analysis
At the March 12, 2018 Programs and Projects Committee meeting, a key concern voiced during public comment centered on whether certain Measure BB categories proposed under the Local Funding Concept for Option A – Build Option (Attachment D) could be used to fund the EWC. The concern was limited to two categories which have been identified and further expanded upon below.

TEP 22 – Union City Intermodal:

TEP language: This project funds the development of a new intermodal station in Union City to serve BART, Dumbarton Corridor services, Capitol Corridor, ACE and local and regional bus passengers. The project involves construction of a two-sided rail station and bus transit facility, accessible to a 30-acre transit oriented development site. Improvements will be made to pedestrian and bicycle access, BART parking, elevators, fare gates and other passenger amenities.

The Union City Intermodal project is a Transit Investment Type project and has $75 million earmarked in the TEP. The City of Union City is the project sponsor.

Analysis:

The EWC includes many transit supportive features:
(1) Bus access to the Union City Intermodal Station by way of Decoto. At-grade crossings on Decoto near 7th Street and 12th Street create delays. The EWC will provide a second entrance into and out of the Union City Intermodal Station that has no rail crossing conflicts.
(2) Promotes transit to transit alternatives by creating alternative bus access to the BART Station via the EWC.
(3) The Fire Station located near the 7th Street/Decoto Intersection uses Decoto as a primary access to provide service for the BART station and all areas within the general vicinity. The EWC improves access for emergency service by providing an alternative parallel corridor to the south of Decoto Road. (4) Within a one-mile radius of the Union City Intermodal Station the EWC project includes new bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure that will have a new access connection to the East entrance. The EWC also completes the circulation network around the Union City BART Station as it closes the loop by extending 11th Street to the EWC and through the EWC to Mission Boulevard.

The estimated cost of the transit supportive features is $175 million.

The City of Union City believes the EWC is vital to the success of the Transit-Oriented Development area surrounding the Union City Intermodal Station. Although the EWC includes many transit supportive features, it is identified in the TEP as a Street Investment Type project. If the City of Union City decides that it wishes to construct the EWC, a 1986 TEP Union City project, and proposes to utilize any portion of funds from the Union City Intermodal project, a 2014 TEP Union City project, to fully fund the EWC, the approval of a Plan Amendment to the 2014 TEP would be required.

R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Board-Commission\20180322\9.2_EWC\9.2G_Sup_Local_Funding_Analysis.docx TEP 44 – Bicycle and pedestrian grant program
TEP language: These funds, administered by Alameda CTC, will be available for the purposes of implementing and maintaining regional bicycle and pedestrian facilities and increasing safe bicycling. These funds will be periodically distributed by Alameda CTC for projects and programs that ... Implement major elements of the Alameda County Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan, Implement bicycle and pedestrian elements of Community Based Transportation Plans... Provide bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure within and connecting to developments in priority development areas...

The total estimated TEP amount is $154.8 million.

Analysis:

The EWC includes complete street elements and will construct:

Class 1 ~0.3 miles
Class 2, ~9.5 miles
Multi-use path ~1.5 miles
Eligible features included in the EWC project:
(1) Bicycle/Pedestrian infrastructure within and connecting to developments in Union City’s Intermodal Station District, an identified Central Business District in Alameda CTC's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans.
(2) Paths connect to the Alameda Creek Regional Trail.
(3) Completes the bike path loop within Union City by constructed the south leg of a Decoto, Mission, EWC, and Paseo Padre (or Alvarado-Niles) loop(s). (4) The EWC completes Union City’s Master Bike Plan connections by connecting to existing bike path terminations at 11th/Green Street and Alvarado-Niles.

The estimated construction cost of these improvements $10 million.

Notes:

The local funding concept provided in Attachment D is one potential option to achieve full funding. The proposed amount could vary significantly from $0 up to the maximum amount of the eligible project cost within the funding category based upon the final construction estimate, other external funds secured for the project, and/or the discretion of the Commission.
1 QUARRY LAKES PARKWAY
(East-West Connector)
2 1. Context and History of Quarry Lakes Parkway

2. Need for QLP and Decoto Multimodal Corridor

3. Respond to Commissioner Questions raised
at Spring 2018 meeting

4. Next Steps for Quarry Lakes Parkway implementation
Outline of Presentation
3 East West Connector & Quarry Lakes Parkway
4 Quarry Lakes Parkway & Decoto Road Multimodal Corridor 5 Station District Priority Development Area
6 Station District Priority Development Area
7 Union City Station District Priority Development Area 8 UNION CITY BART STATION:

ACTC's $100M+ Investment
9 Direction from Commissioners March 2018
East West Connector Project Funding Agreement
• Union City now lead agency
• Cap of $2.5 M
• Evaluate traffic: Determine adequacy environmental
• Coordinate with transit providers and BPACs
• Evaluate design work and prepare cost estimate
• Complete the 2011 East West Connector Plans
10 Traffic Findings: Kittleson Transportation Memorandum Parkway meets the needs identified in the approved 2009 EIR Additional Project Findings by building the project as opposed to doing nothing:
✓ Supports Land-Use Plans
✓ Reduces Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT), Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) and improves air quality
✓ Supports Enhanced Transit Services
✓ Enhances Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel and Safety
✓ Aligns with Regional Significant Projects
✓ QLP and Decoto Multimodal – in Plan Bay Area 2050
11 Key Kittleson Quarry Lakes Parkway Findings:
✓ Relieves Decoto Road, in support of a future transit
along Decoto Road
✓ Provides improved transit circulation to and from
the Station District
✓ Improves safety conditions by reducing vehicular
volume along existing high-injury corridor Decoto Road
by providing dedicated, separated facilities for vulnerable users on Quarry Lakes Parkway
12 CEQA Memo Summary and CEQA Legal Opinion
• ICF CEQA consultants and Meyers Nave City Attorney
agree
• Supplemental environmental review of approved 2009
EWC EIR is not required
• Alameda CTC Staff concur with findings
13 Meetings with Transit Agencies and Bicycling Community • AC Transit: Jim Cunradi, John Urgo, and Robert del Rosario • BART: Charlie Ream
• Cross Bay Transit: Winsome Bowen and Kristi Loui
• ACE: Dan Leavitt
• Bike East Bay: Dave Campbell and Susie Hufstader
• Alameda CTC BPAC: Matt Turner, Kristi Marleau, Feliz Hill, Jeremy Johansen, Liz Brisson, David Fishbaugh, and Ben Schweng • Union City BPAC: Jo Ann Lew, Marty Ankenbauer, Steve
Nichols, Mandeep Gill, Tim Swenson, Glenn Kirby, and Andreas Kadavanich • East Bay Regional Park District: Brian Holt and Sean Dougan • ACTC: Saravana Suthanthira and James O’Brien
14 Quarry Lakes Parkway "Complete Street" Design
Looking Toward Heart of Station District
15 Evaluate and Update Project Costs

PROJECT ELEMENTS

EWC PROJECT
(2018 ESTIMATE)

QUARRY LAKES
PARKWAY1
PA&ED/ FINAL PS&E $23,334,000 $31,004,0006
RIGHT OF WAY3 $78,230,000 $4,630,0004

ENVIRONMENTAL M
ITIGATION5
$15,850,000 $18,642,000
CONSTRUCTION $178,971,000 $203,350,0002
CM -RE & DSDC $23,475,000 $30,504,0007
TOTAL COST $319,860,000 $288,130,000
16 Complete 2011 East West Connector Plans
• Design does not meet Complete Street Design
Criteria & Multimodal Policies
• Roadway does not adapt to adjacent land-use
• Update design of bridges for regulatory permits
• Created Phasing Plan for two-city partnership
17 Quarry Lakes Parkway can be built in phases
Quarry Lakes Parkway Project Cost by Phase
18 Funds available to complete design and phased construction PROJECT PHASES FINAL PS&E Right of Way &
Mitigation Construction

CM-RE &
DSDC
Support
TOTAL
Phase 1:
7th Street Connection
$ 2,023,000 $ 2,987,000 $10,150,000 $1,523,000 $16,683,000 Phase 2:

Gateway Connection
$ 2,198,000 $ 1,211,000 $ 14,650,000 $ 2,198,000 $ 20,257,000 Phase 3:
11th St. Connection
$ 9,165,000 $ 12,088,000 $ 61,100,000 $ 9,165,000 $ 91,518,000 Phase 4:

Alvarado-Niles Grade Sep
$ 8,640,000 $ 2,401,000 $ 59,731,000 $ 8,900,000 $79,672,000 Phase 5:

Paseo Padre & Trail
$ 5,900,000 $ 3,200,000 $ 45,000,000 $ 5,900,000 $ 60,000,000 Fremont:

Decoto Road Multimodal
$2,175,000 $ 1,172,000 $ 14,478,000 $ 2,175,000 $20,000,000 Total $30,101,000 $23,059,000 $91,518,000 $77,281,000 $ 288,130,000 19 PHASES AND SCHEDULE
20 Release Funding for the Quarry Lakes Parkway
For more information:
https://www.unioncity.org/Quarry-Lakes-ParkwayProject
Alameda County Transportation Commission
Commission Meeting Minutes
Thursday, November 19, 2020, 2 p.m. 6.1

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call
A roll call was conducted. All members were present with the exception of Commissioners Haggerty, Miley, and Thao.

Commissioner Cox attended as an alternate for Commissioner Chan.

Commissioner McQuaid attended as an alternate for Commissioner Carson.

Commissioner Narum attended as an alternate for Commissioner Thorne.

Subsequent to the roll call:

Commissioner Haggerty arrived during item 4. Commissioner Miley arrived during item 6.1.

3. Public Comment
There were no public comments.

4. Chair and Vice Chair Report
Chair Cutter stated that Alameda CTC continues to deliver projects and implement programs during the pandemic and she noted that the Commission will continue to do its part in the economic recovery and supporting communities by delivering projects and programs and keeping a continued focus on project development and program delivery for on-going investments throughout the county. She provided details on the long-range County Transportation Plan as well as the COVID-19 Rapid Response Bicycle and Pedestrian Grant Program, and she stated that the Commission would also consider approval of the draft audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). She concluded her report by congratulating Commissioner Haggerty on winning the Distinguished Service Award from the California Transit Association.

Vice Chair Bauters provided instructions to the Commission regarding technology procedures including instructions on administering public comments during the meeting.

5. Executive Director Report
Tess Lengyel noted that Alameda CTC has worked very closely with partner agencies to leverage funds over the past year. She reported that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) awarded Alameda CTC $25M for the I-680 Gap Closure Project and she provided details on other projects that have been advertised for construction. Ms.

Lengyel concluded her report by informing the Commission that she was the moderator on a statewide panel discussing “Transportation in a post COVID-19 world” held by the Self-Help Counties Coalition.

6. Consent Calendar

6.1. Approve October 22, 2020 Commission Meeting Minutes

6.2. FY2020-21 First Quarter Report of Claims Acted Upon Under the Government Claims Act

6.3. Approve Alameda CTC FY2020-21 First Quarter Investment Report

6.4. Approve Alameda CTC FY2020-21 First Quarter Consolidated Financial Report

6.5. Annual Local Business Contract Equity Program Utilization Report for Payments Processed between July 1, 2019 and June 30, 2020

6.6. Approve Alameda CTC Staff and Retiree Benefits for Calendar Year 2021 and Salary Ranges for FY2021-22

6.7. Approve the FY2021-22 Professional Services Contracts Plan

6.8. Approve Administrative Amendments to Various Agreements to Extend Agreement Expiration Dates

6.9. Approve funding strategy for City of Emeryville’s Senate Bill 1 funded Quiet Zone Safety Engineering Measures Project

6.10. Approve the Professional Services Agreement with Acumen Building Enterprise, Inc. for Project Management / Project Controls Services

6.11. Approve Oakland Alameda Access Project Actions to complete the Environmental Phase

6.12. Approve actions necessary to facilitate project advancement and delivery of the Rail Safety Enhancement Program (RSEP)

6.13. Approve COVID-19 Rapid Response Bicycle and Pedestrian Grant Program

6.14. Congestion Management Program (CMP): Summary of the Alameda CTC’s Review and Comments on Environmental Documents and General Plan Amendments

6.15. Federal, state, regional and local legislative activities update Vanessa Lee, Clerk of the Commission stated that a public comment was received pertaining to item 6.11. Ms. Lee stated that the public comment was sent to the Commission in advance of the meeting and is available for review on the Alameda CTC website. She read the comment into the record.

Commissioner Marchand moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Ortiz seconded the motion. The motion passed with the following roll call votes:

Yes: Arreguin, Bauters, Cox, Cutter, Dutra-Vernaci, Ezzy Ashcraft, Freitas, Haggerty, Halliday, Haubert, Kaplan, Marchand, McBain, McQuaid, Mei, Narum, Ortiz, Pilch, Saltzman, Valle
No: None
Abstain: Miley

Absent: Thao

7. Community Advisory Committee Written Reports

7.1 Independent Watchdog Committee
Tess Lengyel stated that the minutes for the Independent Watchdog Committee were included in the packet.

8. Finance and Administration Committee

8.1 Approve the Alameda CTC Draft Audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2020
Patricia Reavey recommended that the Commission approve the Alameda CTC Draft Audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the Year Ended June 30, 2020. Ms. Reavey stated that the auditors have reported what is considered to be an unmodified opinion or clean audit on the financial statements. She noted that the Alameda CTC Audit Committee met on October 22, 2020 to review the draft CAFR and discuss required communications regarding internal controls, significant audit findings, and other matters. She stated that there were no recommendations taken from that meeting and the auditors did not find any deficiencies in internal controls. Ms. Reavey noted that the auditing firm audited the calculation of the limitation ratios required by the 2000 and 2014 Transportation Expenditure Plans, and Alameda CTC is compliant with those requirements. Ms. Reavey stated that Maze & Associates also performed a single audit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, which is required when a grantee spends $750,000 or more in federal funds in the fiscal year. The auditors reported that Alameda CTC complied with compliance requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each of the Federal programs. She stated that Alameda CTC’s CAFR has been drafted to meet all Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) requirements for an award for excellence in financial reporting and will be submitted to the GFOA for consideration of this award. Ms. Reavey introduced introduced David Alvey, a partner with Maze & Associates, who gave a detailed presentation on the CAFR.

Commissioner Mei moved to approve this item. Commissioner Dutra-Vernaci seconded the motion. The motion passed with the following roll call votes:

Yes: Arreguin, Bauters, Cox, Cutter, Dutra-Vernaci, Ezzy Ashcraft, Freitas, Haggerty, Halliday, Haubert, Kaplan, Marchand, McBain, McQuaid, Mei, Miley, Narum, Ortiz, Pilch, Saltzman, Valle
No: None
Abstain: None

Absent: Thao

9. Programs and Projects Committee Meeting

9.1 Approve I-880 to Mission Boulevard East-West Connector Project (PN 1177000) Commitment of 1986 Measure B Funding (Resolution No. 20-013) Alameda CTC General Counsel Zack Wasserman provided details on an apparent Brown Act violation relating to Commissioner Dutra-Vernaci’s contact with more than a quorum of the Alameda CTC Commissioners to discuss the I-880 to Mission Boulevard East-West Connector Project. Mr. Wasserman noted that based on his research and discussions with co-General Counsel Steve Mattas at Meyers Nave, the cure for this violation is to put the communications on the record by having Commissioner Dutra-Vernaci inform the Commission of the Commissioners she contacted and the substance of the conversations and by having the Commission commit to not having such serial meetings in the future. Those are the cures that would apply if there was a complaint after the Commission voted and they serve as the cure in this situation where the violation was discovered in advance of the vote.

Mr. Wasserman noted that at the next meeting of the Commission, there will be an item on the agenda to take this action to commit to not hold serial meetings in the future.

Commissioner Cutter asked if Commissioner Dutra-Vernaci is able to discuss and vote on this item. Mr. Wasserman stated that recusal is not required for this item.

Commissioner Dutra-Vernaci noted that she made a mistake and unintentionally violated the Brown Act. She detailed the Commissioners she contacted and stated that she contacted those Commissioners to discuss the comments made at the March 2018 meeting. She noted that according to her recollection, the conversations with the Commissioners were not different than the issues that had been discussed at their Commission Meetings. Commissioner Dutra-Vernaci noted that she discussed the following with the Commissioners: the importance of the project to Union City; complete Streets is incorporated in the project; class 1 and Class 4 bikeways with protected intersections are included in the project, and this is a local roadway; her commitment to working with bicycle, pedestrian and transit partners and advocates; the reasons it took so long to get to this point with the project. Commissioner Dutra-Vernaci stated that knowing that the bicycle component was of great interest, she invited Commissioners Bauters, Pilch and Saltzman to see the plans and diagrams for the Class 1 and 4 bikeways and the protected intersections. Commissioner Bauters attended a meeting with her in Union City and separately Commissioner Pilch visited the Union City TOD.

Tess Lengyel stated that the East-West Connector (EWC) Project is the last capital project remaining from the 1986 Measure B Transportation Expenditure Plan that was approved by voters. She noted that many questions were raised pertaining to whether the Commission’s direction was followed by the City of Union City. Ms.

Lengyel reiterated the Commissioners direction stating that, the Commission directed the City, as the Project Sponsor, to evaluate whether an update, amendment or addendum to the current 2009 environmental document was required. To perform the evaluation, the Commission directed the City to update the traffic study, which means using an updated traveled demand model that included the area from the Dumbarton Bridge to compare the project to determine if it’s consistent with the state certified 2009 Environment Impact Report. Ms. Lengyel noted that many questions were raised about why the City did not look for new alternatives for the project or look at new transit or bicycle and pedestrian studies for the area. Ms. Lengyel clarified that while interest has been expressed are interested in these studies, it is not what the Commission directed the City to do. She noted that Attachment D in the Commission Packet included a detailed letter from the City of Union City answering the questions raised by the public. She introduced Vivek Bhat and Joan Malloy with the City of Union City who provided the presentation for this item.

Vivek Bhat recommended that the Commission approve the following actions solely for the 1986 Measure B Named Capital Project Funds:
➢ Adopt Resolution No. 20-013 (Attachment A) committing the remaining balance of 1986 Measure B funding for the I-880 to Mission Boulevard East- West Connector Project to the Quarry Lakes Parkway Project sponsored by the City of Union City and acknowledging the commitment fulfills the entire commitment of 1986 Measure B funding from the 1986 Transportation Expenditure Plan to the project;
➢ Allocate $4.2 million of 1986 Measure B funding for the design phases of Segments 1 and 2 of the Quarry Lakes Parkway Project ($2 million and $2.2 million, respectively);
➢ Allocate $17.8 million of 1986 Measure B funding for the design phases of Segments 3 and 4 of the Quarry Lakes Parkway Project ($9.2 million and $8.6 million, respectively) with the condition that full funding for all phases of the segment will be identified in the funding agreement(s) for the Quarry Lakes Parkway Project before any reimbursements for eligible design phase costs for that segment will be approved; and
➢ Authorize the Executive Director, or designee of the Executive Director, to execute a project funding agreement, or agreements, with the City of Union City for the design phases of Segments 1 through 4 of the Quarry Lakes Parkway Project up to the amounts allocated for the design phase for each segment.

Joan Malloy, City of Union City Manager reviewed the City’s Project Delivery approach and public engagement efforts and commitments. Ms. Malloy provided a status of conditions set by Alameda CTC Commission in March 2018.

The following public comments were heard during the meeting:
• Flavio Poehlmann suggested that the Commission not take action on the item and provided comments on the traffic study.
• Dave Campbell, Bike East Bay, suggested that the City of Union City perform a study on a two-lane roadway.
• Trustee Sarabjit Kaur Cheema, a school trustee for Union City raised concern over saving the farm and requested the City to not take away the land. • Robert Czerwinski, Chairman of the Union City EWC Mitigation Monitoring Committee commented that a new EIR or a revision of the EIR is requested before the funds are released.
• David Schonbrunn, President of Transportation solution Fund, requested that Mayor Dutra-Vernaci apologize by recusing herself and he also pointed out that induced demand in the EIR is out of date.
• Liz Ames, BART Director, commented that many things have changed since the traffic study and therefore it should be revaluated. • Dan Leavitt representing the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission commented that he supports the Quarry Lakes Project in Union City and Fremont.
• Willie McDonald, Alameda County Fire Chief commented that he supports the Quarry Lake Project.
• Krysten Laine commented that the traffic study needs to be updated and requested that the Commission hold off the vote.
• Michele Kim commented that she supports the Quarry Lakes Project. • Andreas Kadavanich representing Bike Fremont commented a month ago that the Union City Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee had not reviewed the traffic study and requested the Commission to defer action to the next cycle of meetings.
• Faith Sen commented that she supports the Quarry Lakes Project. • Gerald Cauthen representing the Bay Area Transportation working Group commented that his group met and they agreed that this project does not improve transportation of any kind. He opposes the Quarry Lakes Project. • Mandeep Gill a member of the Union City BPAC commented that this project has been rushed and the people that walkable and bikeable communities are not being listened to enough. He suggested a two-lane roadway may be warranted.
• Maria Ramirez commented that she opposes the Quarry Lakes Project and requested the City to save the land and open space.
• Jared Rinetti, Union City Policy Chief, commented that he supports the Quarry Lakes Project. He noted that the project will help to alleviate congestion and assist emergency vehicle access.
• Uthra Srinivasan commented that the plan and project was drawn up in 1986 and the study is now irrelevant. She opposes the Quarry Lakes Project. • Clint Johns stated that he is questioning removing a farm and replacing it with more houses and gridlock.
• Rangin Khattak commented that he opposes this project. He stated that 60% of the funding is not available and he asked why is this project being discussed at this time.
• Jesus Vargas stated that he is representing himself, not his firm. He commented that he was one of the original engineers of the project and noted that the updated studies are solid and consistent with current engineering requirements. He supports the Quarry Lakes Project.

Vanessa Lee, Clerk of the Commission stated that nine additional public comments were received for this item. The additional public comments were sent to the Commission in advance of the meeting and are available for review on the Alameda CTC website. Ms. Lee stated that the majority of the comments received were captured in the record by commenters at the meeting, however Ms. Lee read public comments that were not spoken at the meeting, into the record. She read the following comments:
• Alameda County Union City Water District – Supports the Quarry Lakes Project.
• Caliber, a local land owner – Supports the Quarry Lakes Project. • Jennifer Schwartz – Opposes the Quarry Lakes Project. • Manuel Fernandez – Supports the Quarry Lakes Project. • Jewell Spalding, on behalf of the Sierra Club- Opposes the Quarry Lakes Project.
• Joann Lew on behalf of the Union City BPAC – Supports the Quarry Lakes Project.

The following comments were heard from Commissioners:

Commissioner Ortiz stated that for AC Transit this project will have an impact on designating Decoto Road as a transit corridor and she requested that the Union City agree to include transit priority lanes on Decoto road as part of the overall project area plan.

Commissioner Valle stated that there are two elementary schools as well as a high school in the area of Decoto Road and the safety of kids crossing the roadway is risky. He noted that diverting traffic away from Decoto Road to Quarry Lakes Parkway is the way to go and expressed his support for the project.

Commissioner Saltzman stated that the project is overbuilt and a four-lane road will induce traffic. She agrees that transit priority lanes are needed to accommodate buses however, she opposes the project as written at this time.

Commissioner Mei stated that she’s spoken to many people in the community regarding their concerns with the expansion of the lanes; however, she noted that having transit priority lanes is a good idea.

Commissioner Dutra-Vernaci stated that Union City is paying attention to the comments and the community. She noted that it’s important to get traffic off Decoto Road and stated that the project will create safety for the community.

Commissioner Pilch commented that he appreciates the comments about the priority transit lanes and the complete streets design about the project; however, the project does not have enough data regarding effects on traffic.

Commissioner Marchand commented that he supports the Quarry Lakes Project.

Commissioner Mei asked does the farm house have any historical significance that warrants preserving. Joan Malloy stated that the Quarry Lakes Project will not impact the farm house.

Commissioner Bauters commented that due to the challenging nature of the project, he proposed the following additional provisions be included in the Resolution as part of approval for this item:

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Commission does and it hereby finds and determines each of the following, based upon the conditions stated in paragraphs (f), (g), (h), and (i) below:
➢ (f) The project sponsor will employ the most current NACTO standards for all bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including, but not limited to, on-street and separated bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and intersections within the project scope.
➢ (g) The project sponsor agrees to employ design features that are the most compatible with the best and highest quality use for transit along the Quarry Lakes Parkway.
➢ (h) The project sponsor agrees to host a quarterly, publicly noticed design update meeting for the benefit of the public, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit advocates, with the project sponsor’s design team and consultants present, to present updates to the public during the design process, and to receive feedback and answer questions from the public about design elements during design development.
➢ (i) The project sponsor agrees to convene meetings with the City of Fremont and AC Transit to evaluate the necessity and potential design of transit priority lanes along Decoto Road between Dumbarton Bridge and Mission Boulevard during the design phase of this project.

Commissioner Bauters moved to approve this item with the above provisions.

Commissioner Haggerty seconded the motion. The motion passed with the following roll call votes:

Yes: Arreguin, Bauters, Cox, Cutter, Dutra-Vernaci, Ezzy Ashcraft, Freitas, Haggerty, Halliday, Haubert, Marchand, McBain, McQuaid, Mei, Narum, Ortiz, Pilch, Saltzman, Valle
No: None
Abstain: None

Absent: Kaplan, Thao

10. Planning, Policy and Legislation Committee

10.1. Adoption of 2020 Countywide Transportation Plan and companion documents, Community-Based Transportation Plan and New Mobility Roadmap Tess Lengyel stated that the CTP is a culmination of nearly two years of detailed work and public engagement, and she introduced Cathleen Sullivan and Kristen Villanueva to present the item. Ms. Sullivan recommended that the Commission adopt the 2020 Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) and its companion documents, the Community-Based Transportation Plan and the New Mobility Roadmap. The presentation covered, outreach, core recommendations in the 10- year list, and the new mobility roadmap, which addresses rapid change in transportation sector to support safe, equitable, and widely beneficial innovations and outcome.

The following public comments were heard on this item:
• Denyse Trepanier, of Bike Walk Alameda, offering support of the Oakland Alameda Access Project.
• Mike Jacobs, thanked and supported staff’s recommendations • Jim Haussener, regarding bicycle and pedestrian projects included in the plan.
• Rochelle Wheeler with City of Alameda, thanked staff for moving the West End Bike/Ped Crossing from 30-year list to the 10-year list. • Dave Campbell thanked staff and the Commission for moving the West End Bike/Ped Crossing project from 30-year list to the 10-year list.

Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft thanked Tess Lengyel and her staff for attending Alameda’s City Council meeting.

Commissioner Cutter asked if funding is need at this time regarding for the estuary project. Ms. Lengyel stated that the plan is not a funding document.

Commissioner Ortiz moved to approve this item. Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion. The motion passed with the following roll call votes:

Yes: Arreguin, Bauters, Cox, Cutter, Dutra-Vernaci, Ezzy Ashcraft, Freitas, Haggerty, Halliday, Haubert, Marchand, McBain, McQuaid, Mei, Narum, Ortiz, Pilch, Saltzman, Valle
No: None
Abstain: None

Absent: Kaplan, Thao

11. Commission Member Reports
Commissioner Haggerty congratulated Commissioner Bauters on being elected as the Secretary of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

Commissioner Cutter stated that the Waste Water District is sampling waste water for areas to determine the path of the water through communities. The goal is to locate hot spots to get the coronavirus under control.

12. Adjournment
The next meeting is Thursday, December 3, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.

This page intentionally left blank
Exhibit 4: Quarry Lakes Parkway Phases
Exhibit 5: Quarry Lakes Parkway Renderings

City Project 18-04: Quarry Lakes Parkway & Decoto Complete Streets Project

PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR QLP-PHASES
Updated June 14, 2022 Funded Phase Unfunded Phase
Based on DRAFT QLP Project Delivery Plan
PHASES
Design
Right of Waya
Permitting
Construction
Design
Right of Way
Permitting
Construction
Design
Right of Way
Permitting
Construction
Design
Right of Way
Permitting
Construction
Design
Right of Way
Permitting
Construction
Design
Right of Way
Permitting
Construction
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2031 2032
Phase 4
ANR Connection
(BART-UP Grade
Sep)
Phase 5 & B
Paseo & Trail
Connection
Phase A
Fremont- Decoto
Complete Streets
2029 2030
Pnase 1
7th St. Connection
Phase 2
Gateway
Connection
Phase 3
11th Connection
(UP Grade Sep)
1 STATE ROUTE 84 HISTORIC PARKWAY LATIP COMMITTEE
June 6, 2022, 1:00 pm, Via Zoom
Meeting Summary
Attendees:

California Transportation Commission: Teresa Favila, Jon Pray. Beverly Newman-Burckhard
Caltrans: Sunil Repaka (HQ), Val Ignacio (D4) Resham Haddox (D4), Louis Shuman (D4)
Alameda CTC: Vivek Bhat, James O’Brien
VTA: Marcella Rensi
City Of Fremont: Hans Larsen, Jim Pierson, Eliza Villaluz City of Union City: Marilou Ayupan, Mark Evanoff
City of Newark: Jason Imai
Consultant Support: Eileen Goodwin Apex Strategies, Matt Todd GBS, Norma Ortega GBS

1. Welcome and Introductions

2. Confirm that Caltrans has received sufficient LATIP funds to pay for its costs for Land Disposition Fees (the first priority on the LATIP list) Discussion: It is not clear whether Caltrans has compiled all of their costs to date related to the disposal of the State-owned parcels and what portion, if any, was taken “off the top” at the time of the deposit into the special account set up by the State for the LATIP. The Committee discussed the need for a complete accounting of revenues, expenditures and current account balance for the LATIP account.

Committee Recommendation: The Committee recommends that Caltrans provide a complete accounting of revenues and expenditures for the LATIP account. The LATIP Committee acknowledged there will need to be a sub-committee to true up the Caltrans billings to date, the amount of funding currently in the account and a rough “go forward” budget number for planning purposes. The Sub-Committee will be comprised of Val Ignacio (D4) and Norma Ortega, GBS consultant with assistance from Rambabu Bavirisetty (HQ) if needed. It is understood the subcommittee will need to work with the State Controller’s Office to get access to the 2 exact amounts. The Sub-Committee will convene as soon as practicable and will complete the accounting and report back to the LATIP Committee via a revised chart referred to below, by August 31, 2022.

3. Confirmation of remaining payment to VTA for I880/Mission Blvd. Interchange (LATIP Priority 2)
Discussion: The Committee confirmed that VTA has received $35 million from the LATIP account toward their Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) amount of $42.35 million for the I-880/Mission Blvd. IC Completion (MB196) (Project No. 2 on the LATIP Priority List). The remaining balance due to VTA is 7.35 million.

Committee Recommendation: The LATIP Committee acknowledges and VTA agreed the remaining payment due to VTA is $7,350,000.
.

4. Adopt the revised cost of $17.72 million for the “Existing State Route 84 Improvements” (the third priority project in the LATIP list) as determined by Caltrans District 4 and Fremont
Discussion: The Committee received a report of an updated cost estimate of $17.72 million for the Existing State Route 84 Improvements Project (Project 3 on the LATIP priority list) to replace the “rough estimate” of $9 million included as a placeholder in the LATIP Priority List. The current list approved by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) allows for the update per previous CTC action.

The City of Fremont and Caltrans clarified that after months of negotiation the $17.72 million is an “agreed upon amount” and not intended as an actual cost reimbursement. The scope will not be in a stand-alone project because the City intends to build the project in phases and incorporate additional scope that will make the roadway a complete street (which is not an eligible scope). City of Fremont indicated that they may approach CTC for a LONP/Advanced Construction Authority to advance some phases of the project depending on timing of the funding of the LATIP. CTC staff concurred that they would support that request provided there would be a scope attached to the request that matches the original intent of the LATIP language (Scope).

Action: The Committee unanimously agreed to the LATIP amount for Project 3 on the LATIP Priority List, the Existing State Route 84 Improvements, be updated to $17.72 million based on the approved PSSR developed in partnership by the City of Fremont and Caltrans. The LATIP Committee also acknowledges that all relevant jurisdictions that are sponsors on the LATIP list were present and in concurrence of this revised amount for this project.

5. Determine the process for the CTC to formally adopt the revised cost estimate for Existing State Route 84 Improvements
3 Discussion: The Committee discussed the process for updating the LATIP list with the new amount for the Existing State Route 84 Improvements Project (Project 3 on the LATIP Priority List) and determined that sending the record of the LATIP Committee meeting on June 6, 2022, to the CTC would suffice as supporting documentation for the request to update the List. The Committee agreed to create a matching chart for future use by CTC staff to summarize the agreed to amounts for each category.

Action: The Committee unanimously agreed that the record of the LATIP Committee meeting on June 6, 2022, would be sent to the CTC staff attending the meeting and the record would serve as supporting documentation for the Committee’s request to update the LATIP Priority List and any future Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) requests.

6. Confirm that the remaining funding for the LATIP priority projects will be $86,184,000 as shown in Caltrans’ appraisal
Discussion: The Committee discussed the amount to be deposited into the LATIP account following the disposal by the City of Union City as the amount of the appraised value, $86.184 million.

Committee Recommendation: None.

7. Determine the process for project sponsors to receive LATIP funds once the $86,184,000 has been deposited with the state.

Discussion: The Committee discussed the process for sponsors of projects on the LATIP Priority List to access the LATIP funds. CTC staff confirmed that allocations will not be approved until the funds are deposited into the LATIP account, and that project sponsors may request a Letter of No Prejudice to advance a project using other funds at their own risk (similar to the LONP that VTA has in place for Project No. 2 on the LATIP Priority List). CTC staff asked that a new chart be created with notes to be utilized at future CTC items as an attachment that captures these agreements not only as the record of the meeting but also a revised chart for ease of use.

Committee Recommendation: The LATIP Committee acknowledges that the amended LATIP will serve as a programming document. A new chart will be created by Norma Ortega GBS after the Caltrans administrative repayment issue is resolved by August 31, 2022 and distributed to this group.

8. Other issues needed to be addressed by the Full Committee Discussion: None
Meeting Summary prepared by Eileen Goodwin, Apex Strategies, edited by attendees and finalized and redistributed on July 7, 2022 June 4, 2022
Mr. Gary Huisingh, Executive Director of Projects
Alameda County Transportation Commission
1111 Broadway, Suite 800
Oakland, CA 94607
Subject: Response to April 18, 2022 Letter on Project Delivery and Funding Status Quarry Lakes Parkway (Alameda CTC PN. 1177001) Dear Gary,
Thank you for allowing Union City to clarify the project delivery and funding plan for the complex multimodal corridor Quarry Lakes Parkway (QLP) Project. For your reference see Attachment A for a one-page summary of the five phases delivery plan for the QLP Project.

To best reply to your letter, we have organized our responses by:

1. Describing compliance with the requirements of QLP PFA No. A22- 0053 (executed September 2021) and Alameda CTC Resolution No. 20-013 (November 19, 2020), specifically:
a) Union City has prepared a proposed full funding plan for QLP, Phases 1-4;
b) Union City has completed the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) to employ most current NACTO standards as required by Item (f) of the Resolution;
c) Union City has completed construction of transit improvements and is actively coordinating with our transit agency partners to ensure the QLP will employ design feature that are most compatible with the best and highest quality use for transit as required by Item (g) of the Resolution;
d) Union City has convened publicly noticed quarterly meetings with the public and bicycle, pedestrian, and transit advocates to provide updates on the project as required by Item (h) of the Resolution; and

2. Describing how value engineering (VE) benefits for evaluating all segments of QLP project at the beginning of the project and coordinating and collaborating with adjacent projects can achieve overall cost savings.

3. Describing why coordinating with ACE on the grade separations for QLP project Phases 3 and 4 will facilitate, compliment and save money for the construction of the proposed ACE Station and Layover

Facility and the QLP project. Union City is also proposing to use the funding identified East West Connector (EWC) PFA No. A18-0046 (executed August 2018) as this work is consistent with EWC Segment C component of this agreement.

1. Compliant with Quarry Lakes Parkway, PFA A22-0053
a) Proposed Full Funding Plan for Quarry Lakes Parkway, Phases 1-4 In your letter, you requested clarification on our approach for a full funding plan. The Fund Matrix presented to the Alameda CTC in November 2020 identified a shortfall of $172 Million for the QLP project. However, prior presentations regarding funding sources for the EWC project made to the Alameda CTC included the TEP 21 Dumbarton Corridor Area Transportation Improvements and TEP 22 Union City Intermodal Station funds.

Route 84 Local Agency Transportation Improvement Plan, LATIP ($ 86.0 M) The November 2020 Fund matrix presented to Alameda CTC did not include the latest information regarding the revenue that will be available to the LATIP through the Sale of the State property in Union City. Since the November 2020 Alameda CTC approval of the QLP project funding, the following milestones have been completed:
1) California Transportation Commission (CTC) approved conveyance of excess State property with an appraised value of about $86.0 million to Union City at its June 21, 2021 meeting,
2) Union City entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with City Ventures in December 2021 for the development of State property; and
3) Caltrans’ approved the Route 84 LATIP Relinquishment PSSR (Project Scope and Summary Report) with the City of Fremont and confirmed the “State of Good Repair” cost at $17,720,000.

These are key steps to facilitate the LATIP program including a revenue projection based on a Caltrans approved real estate appraisal provides a realistic funding distribution for the LATIP projects.

The Route 84 LATIP Committee is being convened (including appropriate CTC and Caltrans staff) is scheduled to meet on June 6, 2022, led by the City of Fremont to discuss the process for updating the LATIP and steps to allocate the remaining LATIP funds. Union City anticipates that Caltrans will confirm LATIP program funds for the QLP/EWC project, identified as LATIP #4 Project, and that about $60 million will be available to allocate to the project from the LATIP. See Attachment B: Draft Cost Summary of LATIP

Funds and Projects for additional detail. Once we receive confirmation of the LATIP funds, we can work together to revise the QLP funding plan.

TEP 21, Dumbarton Corridor Area Transportation Improvements ($120 M) The Dumbarton Corridor Area Transportation Improvements is included in the 2014 TEP and identifies $120 M in available to support express bus services and improve local streets and bicycle access within TODs/PDAs along the Dumbarton Corridor in the cities of Fremont, Newark and Union City (see Attachment C, page 20 of the 2014 TEP). A kind reminder that various Alameda CTC documents for EWC funding plan in the past, including the 2017 Southern Alameda County Programming and Project report (see Attachment D) have documented that the $120 M of funding was to be equally divided among the three cities allocating $40 M to each city. This document identifies that Fremont’s share was programmed to the recently constructed Warm Springs BART Station West Side Access, Newark’s share to the Central Avenue Overpass, and Union City’s share for the Alameda CTC EWC project. The QLP/EWC project, which is parallel to the Dumbarton/Decoto Road corridor clearly meets the TEP 21 programming principles and provides a secondary south access route to the Union City BART Station for AC Transit, Union City Transit and Dumbarton (DB) Express and to the over 100-acre Station District Area with over 2,000 new housing units. Union City and Alameda CTC should discuss how to formalize Union City’s share of TEP-21 to QLP/EWC funding plan and include the updated LATIP funds. If needed, we look forward to the opportunity to review with the Alameda CTC the history regarding the programming of $40 M of TEP 21 funds.

TEP 22, Union City Intermodal Station ($75 M)
The purpose of TEP 22, Union City Intermodal Station funds is detailed on page 20 of 2014 Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) (see Attachment C).

Over the past 20 years, Union City and our project and funding partners have already invested over $140 million in federal, state, and local funds to complete the Union City Intermodal Station improvements. Through these improvements, the Union City BART Station is now a two-sided station and provides better access to existing and future TOD housing developments surrounding the station. Union City led the project development in partnership with BART, AC Transit and Union City Transit. The project was constructed in phases based on available funding, maintaining BART and transit operations, safe pedestrian access and providing sufficient BART parking during construction. All Union City BART Station improvements have been completed with other funds because the $75.0 million of TEP 22 funds were not available for the construction phase.

Union City and BART have completed the following eligible improvements at the Union City BART Station defined in TEP 22:
1) Constructed a two-sided BART Station to serve the Capitol Corridor, ACE, Regional (DB Express & AC Transit) and local (UC Transit) transit, 2) Reconfigured BART Parking to improve pedestrian access and to accommodate future development, constructed new elevators, fare gates and other passenger amenities, and
3) Constructed bus transit facilities on both the east and west side of the station.

Other eligible improvements that meet the definition of TEP 22 that will be completed with the construction of QLP project include:
• Improved access to the 30-acre transit-oriented development site, and • Improved pedestrian and bicycle access to the Greater Station District.

Union City clearly sees a funding nexus for use of $72.0 Million (of $75.0 Million) of TEP 22 funds to construct QLP Phases 3 and 4 (Grade Separations) to accommodate the ACE Rail Station and Layover Facility on the Oakland Subdivision Rail line, coordinating railroad oversight, and securing construction permits with Union Pacific Railroad.

Also, the QLP project will provide direct access to the proposed ACE Station directly adjacent to the East Plaza along 11
th Street. We look forward to the
opportunity to update the Commission on why TEP 22 funding completes the build out of the Union City Intermodal Station. We can provide Alameda CTC with a proposed QLP project Phases 1-4 funding plan after our upcoming LATIP meeting.

Value Engineering, discussed latter in the letter, provides additional justification on why design work for QLP project Phases 1-4 needs to begin early in the project development phase.
b) Item (f): Complied with NACTO Standards Adoption of Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan
Union City implemented NACTO Design Standards through the preparation and adoption of an updated BPMP by the City Council in November 2021.

The two-year adoption process included review and comments from the public, Bicycle, Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), Planning Commission and the City Council. The separated Class I bikeway and buffered Class II bikeway along the Quarry Lakes Parkway project are identified as a High Priority Bicycle Project in the approved BPMP. In addition, QLP serves as Union City’s segment of East Bay Greenway and connects directly to Fremont’s Quarry Lakes Trail and East Bay Greenway.

c) Item (g): Design feature that are most compatible with the best and highest quality use for transit
Union City’s long partnership history with AC Transit, BART, ACE, and transit agencies has achieved high-quality transit projects to serve the Greater Station District surrounding the Union City BART Station. Consistent with past transit accomplishments, Union City will ensure the best and high-quality use for transit in the design, construction, and maintenance of QLP.

Union City is unique from other Bay Area cities because it is also a transit agency. Union City is responsible for the procurement, maintenance, and operations of Union City Transit. We understand the requirements, funding, and challenges of transit agencies. UC Transit’s 22 transit vehicles are maintained at our Maintenance Facility/Corp Yard on 7th Street in Union City as well as the AC Transit DB Express vehicles.

When QLP Phases 3 and 4 are completed, AC Transit’s Dumbarton Express and UC Transit services will be able improve travel time reliability to the Union City BART Station from the Maintenance/Corp Yard via QLP with the route going under the existing Niles Subdivision and Oakland Subdivision railroad tracks bridge structures. Buses will no longer have to travel along Decoto Road, a known HIN (High Injury Network) and a route that requires buses to stop and cross the two (2) at-grade railroad tracks. Transit routes on Decoto Road are regularly disrupted by down position railroad safety gates/arms when daily freight trains and Capitol Corridor trains (about 30 trains/day) travel on the tracks and when railroad safety gates/arms malfunction.

MTC and ACE met with City staff in early 2021 to present and discuss the Southern Alameda County Rail Integrated Rail (SoCo Rail) Study, which identified a new ACE rail station at the Union City BART Station. Union City’s long-term investment in creating a two-sided intermodal station at BART, facilitated future connectivity with this ACE passenger rail service. SoCo Rail Study, Phase Two is underway and includes operations planning, ridership analysis, conceptual engineering, and cost estimating. The study will also include coordination with AC Transit and Union City Transit to provide service to the new ACE Station. AC Transit and Union City Transit will determine how best to utilize the QLP corridor to serve the new ACE rail station.

Union City is currently coordinating with UC Transit and AC Transit in evaluating potential transit stops for our local and AC Transit’s regional buses along Quarry Lakes Parkway to serve future development areas and to provide direct transit routes to and from the Union City BART Station, future ACE Rail Station, and the Station District area.

Achieving high quality transit along the Quarry Lakes Parkway to serve this Union City BART Station, future ACE Station, Station District Area TOD site and planned neighborhoods along the corridor requires Value Engineering as described in the next section of the letter.
d) Item (h), Complied with Quarterly Meetings with the Public As stated in our April 30, 2022 Quarterly Progress Report, the City’s BPAC will serve as the public meeting tor Quarry Lakes Parkway updates to the public including pedestrian, bicycle and transit advocates. Bike East Bay along with other bicycle advocates are regular attendees. They participated with preparation of the approved 2021 BPMP and has reviewed the updated design of the Union City Boulevard Bike Lanes Project and Dyer Street Pavement Rehab project. The Quarry Lakes Parkway update is schedule for the next BPAC meeting on Tuesday, June 21st at 7:00 PM.

2. Value Engineering (VE) Early in Project Achieves Significant Cost Savings
To respond to AlaCTC’s concern about being prudent regarding coordination with the SoCo Rail Study and proceeding in a manner to avoid potential project cost increases with initiating design work of QLP, Phase 3 (Niles Subdivision Grade Separation) & Phase 4 (BART/Oakland Subdivision Grade Separations), we appreciate the opportunity to explain the benefits of VE especially for complex and multi-jurisdictional projects.

Value engineering is an opportunity to partner with key stakeholders and technical experts to review projects early in the planning and the development phase to identify significant potential cost saving as described in Attachment E (Value Engineering Diagram). A project is evaluated to achieve the best design standards, construction practices and most cost-efficient project at the start of the project work. The VE evaluation will:
• Develop or update consensus of project purpose, need and scope, • Identity risk and validate cost estimates,
• Promote innovative ideas for design, right of way and project delivery, • Resolve challenging constructability issues,
• Compare and prioritize project elements, and
• Refine the design for enhance opportunities to increase benefit-cost ratio.

Caltrans policy requires a mandatory VE on all transportation projects over $50 and have always stated that potential significant cost savings are identified in early phases: planning, conceptual design, preliminary

engineering, and final design phases and as described in the Attachment E, Value Engineering Diagram.

To ensure the best design and most cost-efficient project, QLP Phases 3 & 4 (Design) and the ACE Station/Layover Facility (PAED) projects need to be coordinated and planned concurrently to allow innovative strategies for design integration, project delivery and construction staging. VE thereby facilitates connectivity to future ACE Station and the TOD site completing the eligible improvements identified in TEP 22 funds.

Through initial coordination meetings on the proposed trackway improvements for the ACE station/layout facilities, city staff and the consultant team has identified cost savings opportunities during the construction phases within Oakland Subdivision right-of-way by coordinating with QLP Phase 3 (Niles Sub Grade Separations) and Phase 4 (BART/Oakland Sub) as noted below:
• Approximately two thousand (2,000) feet of railroad track required from the QLP Phase 4 shoofly can be reused for the ACE Station & layover facility. This VE approach reduces throw-away cost for hauling and removing the excess shoofly trackway. This trackway material can be stored within UP right of way or nearby for the upcoming ACE project. • Excess dirt material from QLP Phase 2 can be used for cleanup and grading for the ACE Station and Layover Facility within the Oakland Subdivision right of way. This VE approach reduces cost for removal and hauling excess fill material, which can be stockpiled nearby for upcoming ACE project.

Other cost savings that will be gained through VE include:

QLP Phases 1 and 2 currently in Final Design phase includes the design of the gravity flowing Line M Bypass system that releases peak flow storm events from the Line M Channel in Phase 1 into Old Alameda Creek in Phase

2. QLP Phases 3 and 4 is located between QLP Phase 1 and Phase 2 and also includes this new gravity flowing Line M bypass pipeline. Final design of QLP Phase 3 and 4 concurrently with QLP Phases 1 and 2 is necessary for coordinating complex engineering design and details of this major drainage structure for developing strategies for design integration, permit approvals, project delivery and construction phasing.

3. East West Connector PFA No. A18-0046 Funding
Union City is proposing to use the funding identified East West Connector (EWC) PFA No. A18-0046 (executed August 2018) as this work is consistent with EWC Segment C component of this agreement.

There is approximately $2 million of unspent funds in EWC PFA No. A18- 0046, that was not used under the T. Y. Lin International Inc. Consultant Service Agreement for the EEWC, as identified in Appendix A-8, Assignment and Assumption Agreement (See Attachment F).

T. Y. Lin International was not able to develop a proposal for updating and modifying the EWC project to meet current Complete Streets deign and multimodal policies. Though Union City received CADD files, the City never received draft technical reports and draft regulatory permits required for 95% Plans as identified in Appendix A-7, Permits/Agreements/Coordination Agencies (See Attachment G). If these documents were prepared and can be made available to Union City, it may expedite the permitting process even though all permits will need to be updated to meet current local, state, and federal policies.

In November 2021, Union City released an RFP for final design of QLP project Phases 1 and 2 and invited Alameda CTC staff to participate in the proposal review process. Mark Thomas was awarded the QLP Phases 1 & 2 Design Phase in January 2022. The Union City project team have held highly productive meetings with City of Fremont, Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District and Alameda County Water District on the overall project design. The Union City project team plans to meet with San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board later this month, which will provide insight on the current permit requirements.

Since QLP Phases 1 and 2 Final Design Phase is aggressively moving forward the past 6 months and the justification for concurrent work for the QLP Phases 3 and 4 Final Design will result in overall cost savings, Union City plans to use about $1.5 million of remaining EWC funds available through PFA No. A18-0046 for design phase of QLP Phases 3 & 4 for Value Engineering/Preliminary Engineering (35% Design). This limit of work is identified within EWC, Segment C (Alvarado-Niles Road to Mission Blvd) of PFA No. A18-0046 Appendix A-1 (see Attachment H). Union City will coordinate with your staff to review the existing PFA and agree which Appendices should be revised.

Finally, Union City will proceed with the preparation of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for soliciting proposals for an engineering design consultant team with expertise in the coordination, design, permitting and construction of Union Pacific Railroad and BART projects, required for QLP Phases 3 and 4 work.

As we did for the QLP Phases 1 and 2 RFP process, we will again invite Alameda CTC staff to participate in Phases 3 and 4 RFP process.

Union City and our project team looks forward to updating Alameda CTC on the exciting designs for re-imaging Quarry Lakes Parkway, a multimodal

corridor with the latest “Smart Cities/Smart Street” features including opportunities to connect existing and planned neighborhoods and open spaces (parks, creek and water treatment areas) in Union City and Fremont.

We know that this is a long letter covering multiple topics. We expect you may have questions and need for clarification on some of these issues. We suggest we have a meeting/call to run through these items and develop a plan for next steps. Let us know your availability in the next few weeks.

Respectfully,
Marilou Ayupan, P.E.

Public Works Director
Attachment A: Quarry Lakes Parkway, Phases 1-5 Project Description Attachment B: Draft Summary of LATIP Funding Revenues and Projects Attachment C: Page 20, 2014 Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) Attachment D: So. Alameda County Projects for TEP 21, Dumbarton Corridor
Attachment E: Value Engineering Diagram
Attachment F: EWC Additional Project Consideration (Assume TY Lin Contract)
Attachment G: EWC Permits/Agreements/Coordinating Agencies Attachment H: EWC Project Description
cc: Tess Lengyel, Alameda CTC Executive Director
Vivek Bhat, Alameda CTC Director of Programming and Project Controls
Mayor Carol Dutra-Vernaci
Joan Malloy, City Manager
Mark Evanoff, Deputy City Manager
Due to funding and project development considerations, it is expected that the project will be built in multiple phases as described below. The numbered phases are chronological and not necessarily adjacent to each other.

PROJECT SCHEDULE AND PHASING
7TH STREET CONNECTION
Phase 1 is located between 7th Street and Mission Boulevard (Route 238) and will realign 7th Street to intersect directly with the new Parkway, next to the City’s Corporation Maintenance Yard and Drigon Dog Park. The 7th Street alignment fronting the Maintenance Yard allows Union City Transit to complete the planned EV Fueling Station that serves Union City Transit and AC Transit buses. In addition, Phase 1 will accommodate the proposed 900-unit housing development at Decoto Road and complete the 7th Street bikeway system. Phase one could be constructed within the next five years. 1 GATEWAY CONECTION

GRADE SEPARATIONS AND ALVARADO-NILES CONNECTION
Phase 2 extends westerly from Alvarado-Niles Road to the Union City/Fremont boundary. The new segment will provide access and utility infrastructure to the City’s Gateway development site (previously owned by Caltrans) and will create a new, defined entrance into Quarry Lakes Regional Park. Phase 2 could be constructed within the next five years, simultaneously with Phase 1.

Phase 4 is located between 11th Street and Alvarado-Niles Road. Phase 4 requires the construction of railway structures to grade separate and depress the new Parkway under the BART tracks and Union Pacific Railroad (Oakland Subdivision) tracks. This segment will complete the link between Mission Boulevard and the Gateway development site and provide full access to 7th Street, 11th Street and Alvarado-Niles Road. This last Quarry Lakes Parkway segment will complete the secondary access to and from the Station District area, including the Union City BART Station, benefiting both Union City and northern Fremont BART commuters. When completed, Quarry Lakes Parkway will provide an alternative route that will avoid the existing at-grade railroad crossings along Decoto Road and provide a new multimodal corridor serving pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and vehicles. Similar to the Phase 3 permit process, Phase 4 will be constructed within 10 years. 2 4
11TH STREET CONNECTION

PASEO PADRE PARKWAY & BICYCLE TRAIL CONNECTION
Phase 3 is located between 7th Street and 11th Street. Phase 3 requires the construction of a railway structure to grade separate and depress the new Parkway under the Union Pacific Railroad (Niles Subdivision) tracks to connect to 11th Street. This important connection will provide the much-needed secondary access to the Station District area, the Union City BART Station, and other areas of Union City, thus avoiding the heavily-congested Decoto Road. Union City Transit and AC Transit will finally be able to provide service to the East Plaza/Transit Center along 11th Street on the east side of BART Station. Because of the lengthy timeline to secure a Union Pacific Railroad construction permit, the segment will be constructed within the next 10 years.

These phases are in Fremont and Union City and would make the western connection to Paseo Padre Parkway from the Gateway development. This segment of the Parkway includes new bridges that cross Alameda Creek Flood Control Channel and Old Alameda Creek, and provide the opportunity to revegetate and preserve the creek systems. This initial segment would build the northern half of the Parkway, including the multi-use bikeway and trail system between Mission Boulevard and Paseo Padre Parkway. The multi-use path will connect directly to the existing Alameda Creek trail. The southern half of Quarry Lake Parkway with the two additional lanes will be constructed later. It is anticipated that these phases are 10 to 20 years out. 3 5

CONTACT INFORMATION
Mark Evanoff, Deputy City Manager - Phone: 510.675.5345 - Web: https://www.unioncity.org/499/Quarry-Lakes-Parkway-Project ROUTE 84 LATIP FUNDS AND APPROVED LATIP PROJECTS
(Proceeds of Sale of Excess Route 84 Parcels to fund So. Alameda County Projects) LATIP Committee- Caltrans, Alameda CTC, Fremont, Union City and Newark Updated May 11, 2021
DRAFT SUMMARY OF LATIP #1 AND LATIP #2 PROJECT FUNDING

APPROVED LATIP
PROJECTS (Initiated
with East West
Connector MOU (ACTIA,
Caltrans, Fremont and
Union City) in 2009.

Formalized by CTC in
2010)

LATIP PROJECT
# (Total of 9
LATIP Projects
were identified
in Fremont,
Union City &
Newark)

ESTIMATED

FUNDING NEED
(2009 CTC
LATIP)- (Includes
LATIP Projects
#1 - #5 only)
LATIP # 1-

FREMONT

PARCELS
(CTC approved
sale to FUSD at
06/25/15
Meeting)
LATIP #2 -

UNION CITY

PARCELS
(CTC approved
conveyance to
Union City at
06/24/2021
Meeting) NOTES
Caltrans Appraised
Value $39,494,495 $86,184,000
CALTRANS: REAL ESTATE

ASSESSMENT PROCESS
(ESTIMATE)
1 $3,000,000 $4,494,495 $0
Per AlaCTC Letter dated
04/18/22, Caltrans
remaining balance is
about $30K. Real Estate
assessment has been
completed.

CALTRANS: VTA
I880/MISSION

INTERCHANGE (PROJECT

COMPLETED/FUNDING
SHORTAGE) 2 $42,350,000 $35,000,000 $7,350,000
Per STIP FF-15-58 at
06/26/16 CTC, LATIP #1
2010 STIP 8 Funds to
VTA. LATIP #2 to pay
VTA remaining balance.

CALTRANS:FREMONT
ROUTE 84

RELINQUISHMENT (PSSR
COMPLETED) 3 $9,000,000 $0 $17,720,000
Caltrans' approved Rte
84 Relinquishment PSSR
confirmed project
amount for "State of
Good" Repair
CALTRANS/ACTIA: EAST

WEST CONNECTOR
(UNION CITY-QUARRY
LAKES
PARKWAY/FREMONTDECOTO COMPLETE) 4 $69,900,000 $0 $61,114,000 LATIP #2 Funds may be
available at early as FY
24/25. TIP Amendment
required for new State
STIP funds

CALTRANS/ACTIA- EWC
@ MISSION BLVD-SR 238
(UNION CITY-QLP @
MISSION BLVD) 5 $5,000,000 $0 $0
No remaining LATIP #2
funds available
TOTAL $129,250,000

BALANCE OF
LATIP #1 and #2
FUNDS $0 $0
Investments include maintenance and service
enhancements on existing rail lines and the
development of transportation investments serving
the Dumbarton Corridor Area. Funds will also be
allocated for preserving rail right of way for
transportation purposes, ensuring that service is
available for future generations. Finally, this funding category acknowledges the importance of connecting
high speed rail to Alameda County and the Bay Area
and seeks to prioritize targeted investments to ensure
strong connections to this future service.

Dumbarton Corridor Area Transportation
Improvement projects will support express bus
services in the Dumbarton Corridor connecting
southern Alameda County and the Peninsula. The
projects will also support transit oriented
development and priority development areas, and
improve local streets and bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure within the cities of Fremont, Newark
and Union City.

This project funds the development of a new
intermodal station in Union City to serve BART,
Dumbarton Corridor services, Capitol Corridor, ACE
and local and regional bus passengers. The project
involves construction of a two-sided rail station and
bus transit facility, accessible to a 30-acre transit
oriented development site. Improvements will be
made to pedestrian and bicycle access, BART
parking, elevators, fare gates and other passenger
amenities.

This project supports track improvements and train
car procurement which will enable the trains running
between Oakland and San Jose to increase daily
round trips, matching frequencies between
Sacramento and Oakland.

Funds allocated by this project may be used to
maintain and enhance existing railroad corridors for
regional rail as well as to preserve the rights of way
of rail corridors that could be used for other
transportation purposes, such as major trails.

This project will link neighborhoods to transit
stations along Broadway, Oakland’s major transit
spine, providing a frequent and reliable connection
between the regional rail hub at Jack London Square,
with Downtown Oakland, the Uptown Arts and
Entertainment District, and adjoining neighborhoods,
utilizing the most efficient and effective technology.

R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Commission\Commission\20171026\Consent\6.8_South_County\6.8_South County Projects and Programming Strategy_Final.docx
Memorandum 6.8
DATE: October 19, 2017
SUBJECT: South County Capital Projects and Programming Strategy RECOMMENDATION: Receive an update on the South County Capital Project needs; and Approve the Programming Principles for the 2014 Measure BB Dumbarton Corridor Area Transportation Improvements (MBB TEP-21) funds.

Summary
Alameda CTC is responsible for the programming and allocation of funds from each of the three voter approved sales tax measures from 1986, 2000, and 2014. The passage of these transportation measures have facilitated the delivery of significant projects and programs throughout Alameda County by providing funding to expedite projects and to leverage external funding. Within the South County, which includes the cities of Fremont, Newark, and Union City (Tri-Cities), several major capital projects are at a point in the project delivery cycle where a full funding plan for construction should be in place before committing to capital Right-of-Way (ROW) or construction expenditures:

1. BART Warm Springs West Side Access – Advertise Phase (Fremont)

2. Central Avenue Overpass – Design/ROW Phase (Newark)

3. I-880 to Mission Blvd. East-West Connector – Design/ROW Phase (Union City) Exclusively contained within the South County, the 2014 Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) earmarks $120 million Measure BB funds for Transportation Improvements in the Dumbarton Corridor Area (MBB TEP-21) which could potentially address the capital needs within the Tri-Cities. To facilitate the programming of MBB TEP-21 funds towards the delivery of these significant capital investments, elected officials representing the Tri-Cities and the South County convened on September 28, 2017. The meeting discussion focused on prioritizing the immediate capital needs of major projects within the South County and devising a programming strategy for the MBB TEP-21 funds to leverage available regional, state, and federal funds for future transportation needs.

The programming principles presented in Attachment A is consistent with the principles and objectives of the Alameda CTC’s Comprehensive Investment Plan (CIP). Specifically R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Commission\Commission\20171026\Consent\6.8_South_County\6.8_South County Projects and Programming Strategy_Final.docx
the principles reflect an equitable amount of funding (up to $40 million for each City, towards eligible projects and programs in the South County), facilitate the expedited delivery of near-term capital priorities to bring benefits to the public, and support the leveraging of external funds for long-term priorities in the South County.

Staff recommends the approval of the Programming Principles for the 2014 Measure BB Dumbarton Corridor Area Transportation Improvements (MBB TEP-21) funds.

Discussion
Alameda CTC is responsible for the programming and allocation of funds from each of the three sales tax measures from 1986, 2000, and 2014 subject to the requirements of each of the approved measures. While the Tri-Cities continue to deliver important projects and programs, there are several major capital projects with unfunded capital costs that are nearing a standstill until a full funding plan for construction capital can be established:

I-880 to Mission Blvd. East-West Connector (Implementing Agency: Alameda CTC) Connecting the cities of Fremont and Union City, this 1986 Measure B project will construct an improved east-west connection between I-880 and Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) and is a combination of new roadways, improvements to existing roadways and improvements to intersections along Decoto Road, Fremont Boulevard, Paseo Padre Parkway, Alvarado-Niles Road and Route 238 (Mission Boulevard). This critical roadway with transit and multimodal links will also provide direct access to the Union City Intermodal (BART) transit oriented development district.

Alameda CTC is leading the project implementation efforts in cooperation with the cities of Fremont and Union City. The project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was approved in 2009; however, due to insufficient construction funding, design efforts were halted in late 2011. With the successful passage of Measure BB in November 2014, work was initiated on critical path work activities including initial ROW assessments for acquisitions, UPRR and BART grade separated designs, and mitigation of environmental impacts in order to competitively position the project for full funding. A comprehensive review of project cost, risks, and schedule has been completed and a shortfall of $210 million has been identified. Until a full funding plan is in place, offers for acquisition of ROW is on hold.

Central Avenue Overpass Project (Implementing Agency: City of Newark) Central Avenue provides a critical east-west route through the City of Newark and also serves as a bypass for regional traffic using Route 84 and Interstate 880 to traverse the Dumbarton Bridge corridor. The Central Avenue Overpass project will eliminate a significant impediment to the flow of traffic through the project area and relieve congestion in the corridor by constructing a four lane grade separation structure (bridge overpass including sidewalks and bicycle lanes) at the railroad crossing on Central R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Commission\Commission\20171026\Consent\6.8_South_County\6.8_South County Projects and Programming Strategy_Final.docx
Avenue between Sycamore Street and Morton Avenue. Improvements are designed to relieve traffic congestion within the Dumbarton Corridor, provide enhanced vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian safety, improve emergency response times and eliminate potential at grade accidents. In addition, the overpass will enhance circulation and promote transit use to the City of Newark’s planned transit oriented center. The project is currently in the design phase and initial ROW assessments have begun. A shortfall of $16 million has been identified due to railroad ROW impacts. Until a full funding plan is in place, offers for acquisition of ROW is on hold.

West Side Access Project (Implementing Agency: City of Fremont) The new BART Warm Springs/South Fremont station opened on March 25, 2017. Access from the east side of the station was constructed by BART. The overall plan for the station is to also have access from west side of the concourse. The Warm Springs BART West Access Bridge and Plaza Project is intended to provide the pedestrian/bicycle connection required to enhance multi-modal connectivity between the station and the properties west of the station, including Tesla, Thermo Fisher, and other major employers in the City of Fremont.

The project consists of construction of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge that will connect the west side of the new Warm Springs/South Fremont BART station to a ground level entry plaza. The bridge will consist of two connected spans, one approximately 147-feet long truss span connected to the station concourse level over the existing UPRR mainline tracks, and one approximately 102-feet long cable-stay span connecting from the truss span, over a UPRR spur track, to a 1 acre entry plaza. The plaza will provide a landing area for the bridge's staircase, escalators, and elevator, and, will be a public space that will provide a setting for community gatherings and outdoor activities. The project was recently advertised and the bids received in September 2017 were significantly higher than the Engineer’s Estimate and subsequently an award could not be made. Efforts are underway to modify and rebid the construction package; however, no award can be made without a full funding plan in place for construction.

Programming Strategy
The Dumbarton Corridor Area Transportation Improvements Program (MBB TEP-21) is a funding program from the 2014 TEP that is exclusively contained within the South County area and has been identified as a potential solution to address the capital needs within the Tri-Cities.
$120 million in program funds are available to support:
• Projects that support express bus services in the Dumbarton Corridor connecting southern Alameda County and the Peninsula.
• Projects that support transit oriented development and priority development areas and that improve local streets and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure within the Cities of Fremont, Newark, and Union City.

R:\AlaCTC_Meetings\Commission\Commission\20171026\Consent\6.8_South_County\6.8_South County Projects and Programming Strategy_Final.docx
To facilitate the programming of MBB TEP-21 funds towards the delivery of these significant investments, elected officials representing the Tri-Cities and the South County convened on September 28, 2017. The meeting discussion focused on prioritizing the immediate capital needs of regionally significant projects within the South County and devising a programming strategy for MBB TEP-21 funds to leverage available regional, state, and federal funds for future needs.

The programming principles for MBB TEP-21 detailed in Attachment A reflect an equitable amount of funding (up to $40 million for each City towards eligible projects and programs in the South County), facilitates the expedited delivery of the near-term priorities, and supports the leveraging of external funds for the long-term priorities in the South County.

Projects recommended for programming and allocation through MBB TEP-21 will be included in Alameda CTC’s CIP.

Fiscal Impact: None.

Attachments
A. Draft Programming Principles for MBB TEP-21 Program funds Staff Contacts
Vivek Bhat, Director of Programming and Project Controls Trinity Nguyen, Director of Project Delivery
Draft Programming Principles for MBB TEP-21 Program
The following principles will guide the allocation of funds from MBB TEP-21:
• The cities of Fremont, Union City, and Newark may prioritize projects and programs, within their respective jurisdictions, to receive up to $40 million of funding for eligible transportation Improvements with the objective to expedite the delivery of projects and programs within the South County. • Eligible transportation improvements include but are not limited to:
 Complete streets/streetscape projects that improve safety and multimodal mobility on arterial and collector roadways in the Dumbarton Corridor Area.
 Highway capital improvements that improve the efficiency, personthroughput, safety, or reliability of the Dumbarton Bridge.  Transit priority treatments.
 Access to transit – station area improvements and bicycle/pedestrian improvements that improve efficiency of station circulation or overcome first- and last-mile barriers.
 Park and ride lots and shared parking arrangements including expansion of existing locations and new locations.
 Technology strategies including traditional Intelligent Transportation Systems deployment emerging shared use mobility solutions such as ride-matching platforms, and other strategies.

6.8A
Attachment B:

VALUE ENGINEERING DIAGRAM
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A18-0046
Project No. 1177.000
APPENDIX A-8

ADDITIONAL PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
As noted above, ALAMEDA CTC's funding obligations as set forth in this AGREEMENT are contingent upon PROJECT SPONSOR taking all necessary actions to assume the TY Lin contract for the delivery of the PROJECT:, including but not limited to execution and delivery of the Assignment and Assumption Agreement attached as Appendix I
A07-0001 T. Y. Lin International, Inc. Contract value $19,684,918 Alameda CTC has paid a total of $17,676,095 for work completed through 5/4/18. T. Y. Lin International has delivered the following work products to ALAMEDA CTC, copies of which will be delivered to PROJECT SPONSOR following the parties' execution of this AGREEMENT:
• Segment A Plans, Specification, & Estimate @ 95% complete • Segment B Plans, Specification, & Estimate @ 65% complete • Segment C Plans, Specification, & Estimate @ 65% complete • Segment D Plans, Specification, & Estimate @ 65% complete • Right of Way Engineering & Plat Maps complete for Segments A, C, & D • Right of Way Engineering complete for Segment B
Alameda CTC will provide copies of these deliverables after the Agreement is fully-executed.

The remaining contract balance is $2,008,823. Measure B funding under this AGREEMENT for the remaining design work is limited to $2,500,000.

The following agreements will be terminated upon the parties' execution of this AGREEMENT, and PROJECT SPONSOR will be required to enter into new agreements with these agencies to complete the work under each such agreement.

1. BART 8-7/17 BART
Design review of the BART line grade separation with the East West Connector project

2. UPRR 745264 Union Pacific Railroad- Niles Subdivision MP Design review of the Niles Subdivision grade separation with the East West Connector project

3. UPRR 745266 Union Pacific Railroad- Oakland Subdivision MP Design review of the Oakland Subdivision grade separation with the East West Connector project

4. Verizon/MCI R40070-001
Design review of the Verizon Fiber Facilities with the East West Connector project Appendix A — Page 9
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A18-0046
Project No. 1177.000
APPENDIX A-7

PERMITS/AGREEMENTS/COORDINATING AGENCIES
A list of permitting agencies, required agreements and coordinating agencies is included in this appendix.

Per Section 1.23 of this AGREEMENT, PROJECT SPONSOR shall obtain all state, local and federal permits and approvals for work, including environmental approvals in accordance with the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as applicable. PROJECT SPONSOR will comply with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations.

PERMITS:
• USACE 404 — Wetlands
• CF & G 1602 — Streambed Alteration
• RWQCB 401 — Water Quality
• USF & WS Section 7— Endangered Species
• NMFS Section 7 — Endangered Species
• SHPO Section 106 — Historic Preservation
AGREEMENTS:
• BART — Design Agreement executed; Construction Agreement still necessary • UPRR — C&M Agreement still necessary
• Verizon/Sprint — Design Agreement still necessary
COORDINATING AGENCIES:
• Alameda County Public Works Agency (ACPWA)
• Alameda County Transportation Commission (ALAMEDA CTC) • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Appendix A — Page 8
The project will construct an improved east-west connection between 1-880 and Route 238 (Mission Boulevard). The project is a combination of new roadways, improvements to existing roadways, improvements to intersections along Decoto Road, Fremont Boulevard, Paseo Padre Parkway, Alvarado-Niles Road and Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) and includes bicycle & pedestrian facilities along the project.

Segment A limits — On Decoto Road from 1-880 to Paseo Padre Pkwy & on Paseo Padre from Decoto to new roadway Segment B liirnts — On new roadway from Paseo Padre Pkwy to Alvarado Niles Road Segment C limits — On new roadway from Alvarado Niles Road to SR 238 (Mission Blvd) Segment D limits — Intersection of new Roadway and SR 238 (Mission Blvd) Project Map
Project Area
-4--Slccz yk*
Union City

4./
Apperldix A — Page 2
Alameda CTC Agreement No. A18-0046
Project No. 1177.000
APPENDIX A-1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Title: 1-880 to Route 238 (Mission Boulevard) — East West Connector Project Project Description:

BIORETENTION AS A PARK

OLD ALAMEDA CREEK - EXISTING CONDITIONS
Exhibit 18: Old Alameda Creek Property Ownership

GATEWAY PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT • JUNE 2022
0 100’ 200’ 400’
Exhibit 20: At Grade Crossing
Exhibit 21: Union Pacific Required Improvements for At-Grade Crossing








!"##$!
!%"&'(
$
)

$!

*
Exhibit 23: ACE Station Location
Exhibit 24: ACE Layover Facility at Union City BART
City Council Study Session
Quarry Lakes Parkway
July 12, 2022
2 Structure of Presentation:
• Background
• QLP Description, Phases and Timing
• QLP Cost and Funding Sources
• Programming LATIP and ACTC funds
• Decoto Complete Streets
• Old Alameda Creek Enhancement Vision and Meetings
with Regulatory Agencies and Partners
• City Ventures Update
• BART East Entrance (At-grade Crossing)
• Coordination with MTC and ACE for Union City Station
Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
3 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
Gateway
Site
4 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
Background 2018:
• Alameda CTC made Union City Lead Agency March 15, 2018 • Granted Union City $2.5 million to:
• Complete design work (EWC Connector Segments B, C & D) • Secure regulatory permits
• Evaluate need for additional environmental work
• Prepare a traffic analysis
• Work with transit, pedestrian, and bicycle groups to ensure QLP is designed to meet interests of groups
• Submit updated cost estimate
• Report back upon completion of design work
5 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
Background 2018:
• Alameda CTC provided Union City
• 65% drawings (EWC, Segment B, C & D)
• Limited documentation to secure permits –
no permits secured
• $2.5 million to prepare 100% construction
documents/bid package
• Inadequate funding to complete work
• City Manager briefed Alameda CTC November
19, 2020

PERMITS
• Union Pacific
• RWQCB
• Cal Fish and Wildlife
• Nat. Marine Fisheries
• Army Corp of Eng.
• ACFCWCD
• BART
6 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
Alameda CTC 2020 Presentation:
• Transportation Memo prepared by Kittleson Associates:
• Supported adopted land use plans
• Reduced Vehicle Hours Traveled and Vehicle Miles Traveled • Enhanced transit services, pedestrian and bicycle safety • Aligns with Bay Area 2050
• Improved traffic circulation to and from Station District • Consistent with EIR
• Legal documentation Certified EIR adequate for QLP
7 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
• Meetings with other agencies and
partners
• Phasing design and construction
plan for QLP and updated costs
Partners and Agencies
• AC Transit
• ACE
• BART
• Dumbarton Rail
• Bike East Bay
• Alameda CTC BPAC
• Union City BPAC
• EBRPD
• City of Fremont
Alameda CTC 2020 Presentation:
8 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
Alameda CTC Action:
• Adopted Resolution No. 20-013
• Committed $22 million from Measure BB to compete design Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4 upon submission of full funding plan • Convene meetings with Fremont, and AC Transit to evaluate potential for transit priority lanes along Decoto Road
• Employ design features along QLP for highest quality transit • Hold publicly noticed meetings with bicycle, pedestrian, and transit advocates on design elements of QLP
9 Quarry Lakes Parkway Phases:

Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
10 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
11 Quarry Lakes Parkway: Connectivity
Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
12 Quarry Lakes Parkway Timeline:

Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
City Project 18-04: Quarry Lakes Parkway & Decoto Complete Streets Project

PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR QLP-PHASES
Updated June 14, 2022 Funded Phase Unfunded Phase
Based on DRAFT QLP Project Delivery Plan
PHASES
Design
Right of Way a
Permitting
Construction
Design
Right of Way
Permitting
Construction
Design
Right of Way
Permitting
Construction
Design
Right of Way
Permitting
Construction
Design
Right of Way
Permitting
Construction
Design
Right of Way
Permitting
Construction
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2031 2032
Phase 4
ANR Connection
(BART-UP Grade
Sep)
Phase 5 & B
Paseo & Trail
Connection
Phase A
FremontDecoto
Complete
2029 2030
Pnase 1
7th St.

Connection
Phase 2
Gateway
Connection
Phase 3
11th Connection
(UP Grade Sep)
13 Quarry Lakes Parkway Project Cost
Phases 1-4
$ 22.0 M Design
$ 18.7 M Permits and Mitigation
$ 145.6 M Construction
$ 21.7 M Construction Management
$208.1 M Total
14 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
Phase 5
$ 5.9 M Design
$ 3.2 M Permits and Mitigation
$ 45.0 M Construction
$ 5.9 M Construction Management
$ 60.0 M Total
15 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
California Transportation Commission
Agreed to Program $86,184,000 LATIP
$ 82,000 to
$ 400,000
Caltrans Administration
$ 7,035,000 Santa Clara VTA:

I-880/Mission Interchange BART
$17,720,000 Fremont restoration of Historic Route 84
$61,000,000 Approximate, Union City, East-West Connector 16 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
Funding Sources
$ 69 M Measure B Funds
$ 14.3 M 2005-CMA TIP (Transportation
Improvement Program)
$ 61 M Union City share of LATIP
$ 40 M TEP 21 Dumbarton Corridor
$ 72 M TEP 22 Intermodal Station
$256.3 M Total
17 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
Alameda CTC Submission:
• Full Funding Plan
• BPAC quarterly meeting documentation
• Documentation - Coordination with Fremont, AC Transit, BART, and MTC-ACE to ensure QLP will employ design
features most compatible with transit
18 Quarry Lakes Parkway Phases:

Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
19 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
QLP Phase A: Decoto Complete Streets
Fremont is lead agency
20 Quarry Lakes Parkway Phases 1-4:

Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
21 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
22 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
23 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
24 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
25 Old Alameda Creek Restoration Vision
Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
26 Old Alameda Creek Property Owners
Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
27 Old Alameda Creek Existing Conditions
Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
28 Old Alameda Cross Section
Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
29 Bioretention Open Space Amenity
Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
30 Gateway Site Vision
• 25 acres
• Up to 535 residential
units
• 135 affordable units
• 3-acre new park
dedication
• 0.5 acre historic
resource area
Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session
31 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
At Grade
Crossing
Status
At-Grade Crossing Union Pacific Railroad Required Improvements 32

NEW BART

PEDESTRIAN

AT-GRADE XING

DECOTO ROAD

PEDESTRIAN

CROSSING

IMPROVEMENTS
“I” ST. AT-GRADE

CROSSING
(CLOSURE)
Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
33 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
Exhibit 2 Showing:

UP requested remote improvements and signalization
improvements
34 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
S
S S

S

2030 Vision for ACE Network
36 Summary of Review
• QLP Phases and Timing
• QLP Cost and Funding Sources
• Discussed Decoto Complete Streets
• Old Alameda Creek Enhancement Vision and Meetings
with Regulatory Agencies and Partners
• City Ventures Update
• BART East Entrance (At-grade Crossing)
• Coordination with MTC and ACE for Union City Station
Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
37 Next Steps
• Work with ACTC on Full Funding Plan
• UPRR Agreement and Permits for
Construction of East Entrance
• Facilitate City Venture development
38 Quarry Lakes Parkway Study Session – July 12, 2022
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Staff Report and ask clarifying questions