A G E N D a BOARD of DIRECTORS MEETING San Mateo

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2019

CHARLES STONE, CHAIR CAROLE GROOM, VICE CHAIR RON COLLINS ROSE GUILBAULT KARYL MATSUMOTO DAVE PINE JOSH POWELL PETER RATTO

JIM HARTNETT A G E N D A GENERAL MANAGER/CEO

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

San Mateo County Transit District Administrative Building Bacciocco Auditorium – 2nd Floor 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2019 – 2:00 pm

1. CALL TO ORDER/ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. SWEARING IN: a. Karyl Matsumoto for a term ending 12-31-2022 (Representing City Selection Committee – North) b. Charles Stone for a term ending 12-31-2022 (Representing City Selection Committee – Central) c. Ron Collins for a term ending 12-31-2022 (Representing City Selection Committee – South)

3. ROLL CALL

4. REPORT OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE (Powell, Guilbault) a. Election of Board and Committee Officers for 2019

5. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION a. Approval of Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting of December 5, 2018 b. Acceptance of Statement of Revenues and Expenses for November 2018

6. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Comments by each individual speaker shall be limited to two (2) minutes. Items raised that require a response will be deferred for staff reply. 7. REPORT OF THE CHAIR a. Report of the Nominating Committee for Coastside Public Member and Appointment of Public Member – Coastside (Stone, Matsumoto)

Note: All items appearing on the agenda are subject to action by the Board. Staff recommendations are subject to change by the Board.

Page 1 of 5 15139614.1 SamTrans Board of Directors Meeting Agenda for January 9, 2019

b. Appointment of Representative to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority

8. REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER/CEO

9. BOARD MEMBER REQUESTS/COMMENTS

10. RECESS TO COMMITTEE MEETINGS

A. COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE / COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE* (P. Ratto, Chair; C. Groom, R. Guilbault)

1. Call to Order MOTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Community Relations Committee Meeting of December 5, 2018 3. Appointment of Iris Chan and Mary Adler, Representing Bus Riders, to the Citizens Advisory Committee

INFORMATIONAL 4. Accessibility Update 5. Paratransit Coordinating Council Update 6. Multimodal Ridership Report – November 2018 7. Adjourn

B. FINANCE COMMITTEE / COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE* (K. Matsumoto, Chair; R. Guilbault, D. Pine)

1. Call to Order

MOTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Finance Committee Meeting of December 5, 2018 3. Award of Contracts for On-Call Program Management Oversight Services 4. Award of Contract For Underground Storage Tank Maintenance 5. Amendment and Consolidation of Policies Establishing Settlement Authority for General Liability, Employment, and Workers' Compensation Claims 6. Adjourn

Page 2 of 5 15139614.1 SamTrans Board of Directors Meeting Agenda for January 9, 2019

C. STRATEGIC PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT, AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE/ COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE* (J. Powell, Chair; D. Pine) 1. Call to Order MOTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Strategic Planning, Development, and Sustainability Committee Meeting of December 5, 2018 3. Adoption of SamTrans Fare Policy INFORMATIONAL 4. UC Davis Paratransit Study Update 5. Adjourn

D. LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE / COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE* (J. Powell)

1. Call to Order

MOTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Legislative Committee Meeting of December 5, 2018 3. Adoption of 2019 Legislative Program INFORMATIONAL 4. State and Federal Legislative Update 5. Adjourn

11. RECONVENE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 12. MATTERS FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION: COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE MOTION a. Appointment of Iris Chan and Mary Adler, Representing Bus Riders, to the Citizens Advisory Committee

SUBJECTS DISCUSSED b. Accessibility Update c. Paratransit Coordinating Council Update d. Multimodal Ridership Report – November 2018 13. MATTERS FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION: FINANCE COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS a. Award of Contracts for On-Call Program Management Oversight Services b. Award of Contract For Underground Storage Tank Maintenance c. Amendment and Consolidation of Policies Establishing Settlement Authority for General Liability, Employment, and Workers' Compensation Claims

Page 3 of 5 15139614.1 SamTrans Board of Directors Meeting Agenda for January 9, 2019

14. MATTERS FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION: STRATEGIC PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT, AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION a. Adoption of SamTrans Fare Policy SUBJECT DISCUSSED b. UC Davis Paratransit Study Update

15. MATTERS FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION: LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MOTION a. Adoption of 2019 Legislative Program

SUBJECT DISCUSSED b. State and Federal Legislative Update

16. GENERAL COUNSEL REPORT a. Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1): Audrey Stout v. San Mateo County Transit District CIV 529993 b. Closed Session: Public Employee Performance Evaluation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b)(1), Conference with Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Agency designated representative: Board Chair Title/Unrepresented Employee: General Manager/CEO Jim Hartnett Following the closed sessions, the Board may consider potential actions to amend the Employment Agreement of the General Manager/CEO.

17. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

18. DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING – Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 2:00 pm, San Mateo County Transit District, Bacciocco Auditorium, 2nd Floor, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 19. ADJOURN

Page 4 of 5 15139614.1 SamTrans Board of Directors Meeting Agenda for January 9, 2019

INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC

If you have questions on the agenda, please contact the District Secretary at 650-508-6279. Agendas are available on the SamTrans Website at www.samtrans.com.

Date and Time of Board and Advisory Committee Meetings San Mateo County Transit District Committees and Board: First Wednesday of the month, 2:00 pm; SamTrans Citizens Advisory Committee: Last Wednesday of the month, 6:30 pm. Date, time and location of meetings may be changed as necessary. Meeting schedules for the Board and CAC are available on the Website.

Location of Meeting The San Mateo County Transit District Administrative Building is located at 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, one block west of the San Carlos Caltrain Station on El Camino Real, accessible by SamTrans bus Routes ECR, FLX, 260, 295 and 398 (view map). Additional transit information can be obtained by calling 1-800-660-4287 or 511, or by visiting 511.org.

Public Comment If you wish to address the Board, please fill out a speaker's card located on the agenda table. If you have anything that you wish to be distributed to the Board and included for the official record, please hand it to the District Secretary, who will distribute the information to the Board members and staff.

Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities Upon request, the Transit District will provide for written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing address, phone number, a brief description of the requested materials, and a preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least two days before the meeting. Requests should be mailed to the District Secretary at San Mateo County Transit District, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070-1306; or emailed to [email protected]; or made by phone at 650-508-6279 or TTY 650-508-6448.

Availability of Public Records All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda that are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act and that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body will be available for public inspection at 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body.

Page 5 of 5 15139614.1 BOD ITEM #5 (a) JANUARY 9, 2019

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (DISTRICT) 1250 SAN CARLOS AVENUE, SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING DECEMBER 5, 2018

MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Gee, C. Groom (Vice Chair), Z. Kersteen-Tucker, K. Matsumoto, D. Pine, J. Powell, P. Ratto, C. Stone (Chair)

MEMBERS ABSENT: R. Guilbault

STAFF PRESENT: J. Hartnett, C. Mau, J. Cassman, S. van Hoften, D. Olmeda, D. Hansel, S. Murphy, J. Brook, C. Boland

CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Charles Stone called the meeting to order at 2:08 pm and requested that Directors Z. Kersteen-Tucker and Gee lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Assistant District Secretary Jean Brook called the roll. A quorum was present. CONSENT CALENDAR • Approval of Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting of November 7, 2018 • Acceptance of Statement of Revenues and Expenses for October 2018 • Acceptance of Unaudited Statement of Revenues and Expenses for Period Ending June 30, 2018 • Acceptance of Quarterly Investment Report and Fixed Income Market Review and Outlook – 3rd Quarter FY 2018 • Acceptance of the Capital Projects Quarterly Report - 1st Quarter FY 2019 • Authorize the Disposition of Five Surplus Non-Revenue Support Vehicles • Adoption of Updated SamTrans Conflict of Interest Code – Approved by Resolution No. 2018-58 • Approval of Continuation of the Safe Harbor Transit Ticket Program – Approved by Resolution No. 2018-59 • Adoption of the US-101 Express Bus Feasibility Study – Approved by Resolution No. 2018-60 • Rejection of All Bids to Furnish Petroleum Products • Award of Contract for Gillig Hybrid Bus Replacement Engines – Approved by Resolution No. 2018-61 • Acceptance of Community Choice Energy Program Update Referring to the Unaudited Statement of Revenues and Expenses for Period Ending June 30, 2018, Director Karyl Matsumoto expressed concerns about preparing for recession.

Page 1 of 5 15139623.1 San Mateo County Transit District Board Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2018

Derek Hansel, Chief Financial Officer, explained what indicators the Finance Department monitors so as not to over-commit funds in any given period. Director Dave Pine asked if FAA rules about spending local sales tax revenues collected from jet fuel on projects for San Francisco International Airport also apply to SamTrans sales tax collections. Joan Cassman, Legal Counsel, said that agencies receiving certain local sales taxes are required under a current FAA rule to submit plans to the federal government addressing tax revenues from jet fuel, but that application and meaning of the requirements are still unresolved. Motion/Second: Gee/Ratto Ayes: Gee, Groom, Kersteen-Tucker, Matsumoto, Pine, Powell, Ratto, Stone Absent: Guilbault PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Andy Chow, Redwood City, said that in light of the passage of Measure W, the District should come up with a revised operating plan in the coming years. REPORT OF THE CHAIR Chair Stone thanked those who worked to put Measure W on the ballot: • Assemblymember Kevin Mullin, who carried the enabling legislation for the tax • Former Assemblymember Gene Mullin for co-chairing the Yes on W campaign • Rosanne Foust, President & CEO, San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA), for contributing to Get Us Moving (GUM) outreach and education effort, and for fundraising for the Yes on W campaign • Transportation Equity Allied Movement Coalition (TEAMC) for its efforts developing the expenditure plan and then promoting the measure, including:

o Chris Lepe, Transform o Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain o Diane Bailey, Menlo Spark o Montzerrat Garcia Bedolla, Youth Leadership Institute (YLI) • County Supervisors, with Supervisors Don Horsley and Warren Slocum heading up the GUM steering committee • San Mateo County labor community • SamTrans staff, particularly the Communications division, for the GUM outreach efforts led by Jessica Epstein, Government and Community Affairs Officer and Seamus Murphy, Chief Communications Officer; and Jim Hartnett, General Manager/CEO • Fellow Board members • Former SamTrans Board members Shirley Harris and Adrienne Tissier • Voters of San Mateo County

Page 2 of 5

15139623.1 San Mateo County Transit District Board Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2018

Public Comment: • Theresa Vallez-Kelly, Safe Routes to School Coordinator, San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE), congratulated her TEAMC colleagues on the passage of Measure W. • Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, thanked her TEAMC colleagues. Mr. Hartnett echoed Chair Stone’s expressions of thanks to all those who had supported GUM and Measure W. He read a portion of a letter he sent to District employees confirming the victory of Measure W: “So what’s next? The people of San Mateo County have placed their trust in us to fulfill the promises of Measure W, and we must deliver. It doesn’t mean business as usual or just more of the same. It is a new day. We will be responsible for leading efforts to plan and implement expanded and enhanced mobility solutions for those community members who depend on us, and those who choose us. We will be relieving traffic congestion for all, whether they ride with us or not. What we do makes a real difference in the quality of life for the communities we serve and the economic vitality of our region. I am very proud of you for the work you do, your dedication to the public good, and how you represent positive values. If we had not earned the trust of the public, the ballot would not have been successful. We must continue to earn that trust by how we deliver.” Director Pine thanked Chair Stone for his efforts on the GUM campaign. Chair Stone announced that he would take the next four items out of order. Resolution of Appreciation for Martha Martinez – Approved by Resolution No. 2018-57 Director Matsumoto presented the resolution to Martha Martinez, former District Secretary. Ms. Martinez thanked the Board. Motion/Second: Gee/Stone Ayes: Gee, Groom, Kersteen-Tucker, Matsumoto, Pine, Powell, Ratto, Stone Absent: Guilbault Appointment of Nominating Committee for 2019 Chair and Vice Chair Directors Gee, Powell, and Guilbault agreed to participate on the nominating committee. Resolution of Appreciation for Zoe Kersteen-Tucker – Approved by Resolution No. 2018- 56 The Board members each expressed their thanks to Director Zoe Kersteen-Tucker for her accomplishments and hard work while a member of the Board. Director Kersteen-Tucker expressed her appreciation to the Board. Motion/Second: Gee/Matsumoto Ayes: Gee, Groom, Kersteen-Tucker, Matsumoto, Pine, Powell, Ratto, Stone Absent: Guilbault

Page 3 of 5

15139623.1 San Mateo County Transit District Board Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2018

Resolution of Appreciation for Jeff Gee – Approved by Resolution No. 2018-55 The Board members each expressed their thanks to Director Jeff Gee for his accomplishments and hard work while a member of the Board. Director Gee expressed his appreciation to the Board. Motion/Second: Ratto/Pine Ayes: Gee, Groom, Kersteen-Tucker, Matsumoto, Pine, Powell, Ratto, Stone Absent: Guilbault REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER/CEO Mr. Hartnett noted that his report was in the packet. Presentation of Safety Awards Mr. Hartnett presented Safe Operator Awards to: • Trinidad Ramirez – 25 years • Jaime Ramirez – 25 years • Devendra Chandra – 30 years BOARD MEMBER REQUESTS/COMMENTS None. RECESS TO COMMITTEE MEETINGS The Board meeting recessed at 3:16 pm. RECONVENE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Chair Stone reconvened the Board meeting at 4:57 pm. MATTERS FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION: COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE / COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE* Director Ratto reported the following items:

SUBJECTS DISCUSSED: • Accessibility Update • Paratransit Coordinating Council Update • Citizens Advisory Committee Update • Multimodal Ridership Report – October 2018 • Mobility Management Report – Annual Summary • Quarterly Dashboard Report – July-September

MATTERS FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION: FINANCE COMMITTEE / COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE* Director Matsumoto led the Board in voting on the following items: MOTION: • Acceptance of Fiscal Year 2018 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

Page 4 of 5

15139623.1 San Mateo County Transit District Board Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2018

SUBJECT DISCUSSED: • SamTrans Fare Study Update and Draft Fare Policy RESOLUTION: • Postponement of 2019 Fare Increases – Approved by Resolution No. 2018-62 Motion/Second: Kersteen-Tucker/Ratto Ayes: Gee, Groom, Kersteen-Tucker, Matsumoto, Pine, Powell, Ratto, Stone Absent: Guilbault MATTERS FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION: STRATEGIC PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE / COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE* Director Powell had no items to report.

MATTERS FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION: LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE / COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE* Director Kersteen-Tucker reported the following items:

SUBJECT DISCUSSED: • State and Federal Legislative Update

GENERAL COUNSEL REPORT Ms. Cassman thanked outgoing Directors Gee and Kersteen-Tucker for their service on the Board.

WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Chair Stone said that Board communications were in the reading file.

DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING Chair Stone announced the time and location of the next meeting as Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 2:00 pm, San Mateo County Transit District, Bacciocco Auditorium, 2nd Floor, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA.

ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 5:01 pm in memory of Former President George H.W. Bush. An audio/video recording of this meeting is available online at www.samtrans.com. Questions may be referred to the District Secretary's office by phone at 650-508-6279 or by email to [email protected].

Page 5 of 5

15139623.1

BOD ITEM #5 (b) JANUARY 9, 2019

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT STAFF REPORT

TO: Board of Directors

THROUGH: Jim Hartnett General Manager/CEO

FROM: Derek Hansel Chief Financial Officer

SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 2018

ACTION Staff proposes that the Board accept and enter into the record the Statement of Revenues and Expenses for the month of November 2018 and supplemental information.

This staff report provides a brief discussion of significant items and trends on the attached Statement of Revenues and Expenses through November 30, 2018. The statement has been designed to follow the Agency wide line item rollup as included in the adopted budget. The columns have been designed to provide easy comparison of year to date prior to current actuals for the current fiscal year including dollar and percentage variances. In addition, the current forecast of Revenues and Expenses is compared to the Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2019.

SIGNIFICANCE

Annual Budget Amendment and Forecast: The annual forecast is currently the same as budget and will be updated twice a year and presented at the February and April board meetings.

Year to Date Revenues: As of November year-to-date actual, the Total Sources of Funds (page 1 of the Statement of Revenues and Expenses, line 15) are $10.2 million higher than the prior year. This is primarily driven by the Local TDA and STA Funds (page 1, line 2), and District ½ Cent Sales Tax (page 1, line 10).

Year to Date Expenses: As of November year-to-date actual, the Total Uses of Funds (page 1, line 33) are $5.8 million higher than the prior year-to-date actual with no significant new variance compared to prior months.

Page 1 of 2

BUDGET IMPACT There is no budget impact for the month of November 2018.

STRATEGIC INITIATIVE This item does not achieve a strategic initiative.

Prepared By: Melanie Hartanto, Accountant 650-508-6478 Jennifer Ye, Manager, General Ledger 650-622-7890

Page 2 of 2

Statement of Revenues and Expenses Page 1 of 13

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT SUMMARY OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES FISCAL YEAR 2019 NOVEMBER 2018

% OF YEAR ELAPSED: 41.7% YEAR-TO-DATE ANNUAL PRIOR CURRENT $ % $ % ACTUAL ACTUAL VARIANCE VARIANCE BUDGET FORECAST VARIANCE VARIANCE

SOURCES OF FUNDS Operating Revenues 1 Passenger Fares 6,749,371 6,527,991 (221,380) (3.3%) 16,457,750 16,457,750 0 0.0% 1 2 Local TDA and STA Funds 17,505,612 19,785,703 2,280,091 13.0% 47,485,688 47,485,688 0 0.0% 2 3 Pass through to Other Agencies 346,806 174,278 (172,528) (49.7%) 743,268 743,268 0 0.0% 3 4 Operating Grants 984,313 311,724 (672,589) (68.3%) 3,533,624 3,533,624 0 0.0% 4 5 SMCTA Measure A 3,916,704 4,620,220 703,516 18.0% 11,088,532 11,088,532 0 0.0% 5 6 SM County Measure A & Other 1,562,500 1,041,667 (520,833) (33.3%) 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 0.0% 6 7 AB434 Funds, TA Funded Shuttle & Other 128,750 172,500 43,750 34.0% 414,000 414,000 0 0.0% 7 8 Subtotal - Operating Revenues 31,194,056 32,634,083 1,440,027 4.6% 82,222,862 82,222,862 0 0.0% 8 9 Other Revenue Sources 9 10 District 1/2 Cent Sales Tax 31,967,441 39,858,622 7,891,181 24.7% 86,353,200 86,353,200 0 0.0% 10 11 Investment Interest 846,763 1,455,977 609,214 71.9% 2,030,312 2,030,312 0 0.0% 11 12 Other Interest, Rent & Other Income 3,222,463 3,495,062 272,599 8.5% 7,890,875 7,890,875 0 0.0% 12 13 Subtotal - Other Revenues 36,036,667 44,809,661 8,772,995 24.3% 96,274,387 96,274,387 0 0.0% 13 14 14 15 Total Sources of Funds 67,230,723 77,443,744 10,213,022 15.2% 178,497,249 178,497,249 0 0.0% 15 16 16 17 USES OF FUNDS 17 18 Operating Expenses 18 19 Motor Bus 46,844,372 54,427,939 7,583,567 16.2% 132,713,297 132,713,297 0 0.0% 19 20 A. D. A. Programs 8,111,400 7,111,008 (1,000,391) (12.3%) 18,998,212 18,998,212 0 0.0% 20 21 Caltrain 2,570,735 3,181,000 610,265 23.7% 7,634,404 7,634,404 0 0.0% 21 22 Other Multi-modal Programs 982,995 1,027,619 44,624 4.5% 2,329,406 2,329,406 0 0.0% 22 23 Pass through to Other Agencies 346,806 174,278 (172,528) (49.7%) 734,268 734,268 0 0.0% 23 24 Land Transfer Interest Expense 0 0 (0) 0.0% 45,716 45,716 0 0.0% 24 25 Total Operating Expense 58,856,309 65,921,844 7,065,536 12.0% 162,455,303 162,455,303 0 0.0% 25 26 26 27 Total Operating Surplus / (Deficit) 8,374,414 11,521,900 3,147,486 37.6% 16,041,946 16,041,946 0 0.0% 27 28 28 29 Sales Tax Allocation - Capital Program 3,662,255 2,506,488 (1,155,768) (31.6%) 6,015,570 6,015,570 0 0.0% 29 30 30 31 Total Debt Service 4,116,794 4,047,381 (69,413) (1.7%) 21,612,357 21,612,357 0 0.0% 31 32 32 33 Total Uses of Funds 66,635,358 72,475,713 5,840,355 8.8% 190,083,230 190,083,230 0 0.0% 33 34 34 35 PROJECTED SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) 595,364 4,968,032 4,372,667 734.5% (11,585,981) (11,585,981) 0 0.0% 35

This report represents actuals and budgets on budgetary basis.

1/2/2019 9:56 AM Statement of Revenues and Expenses Page 2 of 13

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUES FISCAL YEAR 2019 NOVEMBER 2018 % OF YEAR ELAPSED: 41.7% YEAR-TO-DATE ANNUAL PRIOR CURRENT $ % $ % ACTUAL ACTUAL VARIANCE VARIANCE BUDGET FORECAST VARIANCE VARIANCE

OPERATING REVENUES - MOTOR BUS

1 TOTAL MOTOR BUS FARES 6,379,318 6,044,541 (334,777) (5.2%) 15,501,882 15,501,882 0 0.0% 1 2 LOCAL (TDA) TRANSIT FUND: 2 3 General Operating Assistance 15,183,646 16,552,363 1,368,718 9.0% 39,725,672 39,725,672 0 0.0% 3 4 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE: 4 5 Local STA Operating Assistance 1,379,223 2,362,163 982,940 71.3% 5,669,191 5,669,191 0 0.0% 5 6 OPERATING GRANTS 6 7 TOTAL OPERATING GRANTS 245,413 302,710 57,297 23.3% 1,448,667 1,448,667 0 0.0% 7 8 8 9 DISTRICT 1/2 CENT SALES TAX: 9 10 General Operating Assistance 20,556,294 25,231,194 4,674,900 22.7% 62,514,163 62,514,163 0 0.0% 10 11 Accessibility Fixed Route 377,508 396,460 18,952 5.0% 1,220,047 1,220,047 0 0.0% 11 12 TOTAL 1/2 CENT SALES TAX 20,933,802 25,627,654 4,693,852 22.4% 63,734,210 63,734,210 0 0.0% 12 13 INVESTMENT INTEREST INCOME: 13 14 Investment Interest Income 674,061 1,221,846 547,784 81.3% 1,630,000 1,630,000 0 0.0% 14 15 15 16 OTHER REVENUE SOURCES: 16 17 Rental Income 626,636 623,382 (3,254) (0.5%) 1,600,000 1,600,000 0 0.0% 17 18 Advertising Income 692,667 549,106 (143,561) (20.7%) 1,205,307 1,205,307 0 0.0% 18 19 Other Income 729,607 1,144,174 414,567 56.8% 2,198,368 2,198,368 0 0.0% 19 20 TOTAL OTHER REVENUES 2,048,909 2,316,662 267,752 13.1% 5,003,675 5,003,675 0 0.0% 20 21 21 22 TOTAL MOTOR BUS 46,844,372 54,427,939 7,583,567 16.2% 132,713,297 132,713,297 0 0.0% 22 23 23 24 AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT: 24 25 Passenger Fares Redi-Wheels 370,053 483,450 113,397 30.6% 955,868 955,868 0 0.0% 25 26 Local TDA 4.5 Redi-Wheels 799,139 871,177 72,038 9.0% 2,090,825 2,090,825 0 0.0% 26 27 Local STA - Paratransit 143,604 0 (143,604) (100.0%) 0 0 0 0.0% 27 28 Operating Grants 738,900 9,015 (729,885) (98.8%) 2,084,957 2,084,957 0 0.0% 28 29 Sales Tax - District ADA Programs 1,738,524 1,724,775 (13,749) (0.8%) 4,281,834 4,281,834 0 0.0% 29 30 Sales Tax - Paratransit Suppl. Coastside 724,797 758,870 34,073 4.7% 1,830,600 1,830,600 0 0.0% 30 31 Interest Income - Paratransit Fund 172,702 234,131 61,429 35.6% 400,000 400,000 0 0.0% 31 32 SMCTA Measure A Redi-Wheels 1,345,969 1,439,220 93,251 6.9% 3,454,128 3,454,128 0 0.0% 32 33 SM County Measure A & Other 1,562,500 1,041,667 (520,833) (33.3%) 2,500,000 2,500,000 0 0.0% 33 34 Measure M Paratransit 515,213 548,704 33,491 6.5% 1,400,000 1,400,000 0 0.0% 34 35 TOTAL ADA PROGRAMS 8,111,400 7,111,008 (1,000,391) (12.3%) 18,998,212 18,998,212 0 0.0% 35 36 36 37 MULTI-MODAL TRANSIT PROGRAMS: 37 38 Transfer from SMCTA for Caltrain 2,570,735 2,878,440 307,705 12.0% 6,908,256 6,908,256 0 0.0% 38 39 Other Sources - Caltrain 0 302,560 302,560 0.0% 726,148 726,148 0 0.0% 39 40 AB434 Funds, TA Funded Shuttle & Other 128,750 172,500 43,750 34.0% 414,000 414,000 0 0.0% 40 41 Employer SamTrans Shuttle Funds 658,341 629,696 (28,645) (4.4%) 1,487,200 1,487,200 0 0.0% 41 42 Sales Tax - SamTrans Shuttle Program 119,353 111,136 (8,217) (6.9%) 253,406 253,406 0 0.0% 42 43 Sales Tax - Gen. Operating Asst. 76,551 114,288 37,737 49.3% 174,800 174,800 0 0.0% 43 44 44 45 TOTAL MULTIMODAL 3,553,730 4,208,619 654,889 18.4% 9,963,810 9,963,810 0 0.0% 45 46 46 47 TOTAL REVENUES 58,509,502 65,747,566 7,238,064 12.4% 161,675,319 161,675,319 0 0.0% 47

This report represents actuals and budgets on budgetary basis.

* Reflects Adopted Budget approved by the Board on June X, 2016, $X amendment approved on October 1, 2016, $X amendment approved on January 2, 2017.

1/2/2019 9:56 AM Statement of Revenues and Expenses Page 3 of 13

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT OPERATING EXPENSES FISCAL YEAR 2019 NOVEMBER 2018

% OF YEAR ELAPSED: 41.7% YEAR-TO-DATE ANNUAL EXPENSES PRIOR CURRENT $ % $ % ACTUAL ACTUAL VARIANCE VARIANCE BUDGET FORECAST VARIANCE VARIANCE

DISTRICT OPERATED BUSES

1 Wages & Benefits 25,815,421 32,086,683 6,271,262 24.3% 68,531,191 68,531,191 0 0.0% 1 2 2 3 Services: 3 4 Board of Directors 25,440 16,627 (8,814) (34.6%) 86,000 86,000 0 0.0% 4 5 Contracted Vehicle Maintenance 472,071 426,514 (45,557) (9.7%) 1,302,319 1,302,319 0 0.0% 5 6 Property Maintenance 443,545 530,448 86,904 19.6% 1,589,000 1,589,000 0 0.0% 6 7 Professional Services 1,528,658 1,457,150 (71,508) (4.7%) 4,290,020 4,290,020 0 0.0% 7 8 Technical Services 2,309,806 2,740,967 431,161 18.7% 8,961,854 8,961,854 0 0.0% 8 9 Other Services 1,020,800 992,375 (28,425) (2.8%) 3,821,376 3,821,376 0 0.0% 9 10 10 11 Materials & Supply: 11 12 Fuel and Lubricants 1,175,091 1,608,176 433,086 36.9% 3,950,821 3,950,821 0 0.0% 12 13 Bus Parts and Materials 817,176 777,455 (39,721) (4.9%) 2,036,780 2,036,780 0 0.0% 13 14 Uniforms and Driver Expense 93,678 136,592 42,914 45.8% 564,226 564,226 0 0.0% 14 15 Timetables and Tickets 30,996 35,916 4,920 15.9% 283,500 283,500 0 0.0% 15 16 Office Supplies / Printing 117,894 279,737 161,843 137.3% 454,234 454,234 0 0.0% 16 17 Other Materials and Supply 68,955 48,670 (20,285) (29.4%) 150,300 150,300 0 0.0% 17 18 18 19 Utilities: 19 20 Telecommunications 181,514 200,689 19,175 10.6% 712,296 712,296 0 0.0% 20 21 Other Utilities 496,202 455,399 (40,803) (8.2%) 1,058,000 1,058,000 0 0.0% 21 22 Insurance Costs 1,445,531 699,543 (745,988) (51.6%) 3,057,336 3,057,336 0 0.0% 22 23 Workers' Compensation 1,309,355 1,244,221 (65,134) (5.0%) 3,666,068 3,666,068 0 0.0% 23 24 Taxes and License Fees 268,563 328,834 60,271 22.4% 795,415 795,415 0 0.0% 24 25 Fixed Route Accessibility 377,508 396,460 18,951 5.0% 1,220,047 1,220,047 0 0.0% 25 26 Leases and Rentals 73,932 75,832 1,901 2.6% 185,292 185,292 0 0.0% 26 27 Promotional and Legal Advertising 99,240 292,507 193,266 194.7% 1,292,750 1,292,750 0 0.0% 27 28 Training and Business Travel 63,844 133,107 69,263 108.5% 770,855 770,855 0 0.0% 28 29 Dues and Membership 35,865 48,072 12,207 34.0% 150,483 150,483 0 0.0% 29 30 Postage and Other 13,921 14,020 99 0.7% 237,780 237,780 0 0.0% 30 31 31 32 Total District Operated Buses 38,285,003 45,025,992 6,740,989 17.6% 109,167,943 109,167,943 0 0.0% 32 33 33 34 CONTRACTED BUS SERVICES 34 35 Contracted Urban Bus Service 7,162,525 8,269,532 1,107,006 15.5% 19,951,838 19,951,838 0 0.0% 35 36 Other Related Costs 186,180 127,889 (58,291) (31.3%) 464,647 464,647 0 0.0% 36 37 Insurance Costs 267,008 112,579 (154,429) (57.8%) 785,990 785,990 0 0.0% 37 38 Coastside Services 706,990 690,110 (16,880) (2.4%) 1,742,000 1,742,000 0 0.0% 38 39 Redi Coast Non-ADA 100,790 96,519 (4,271) (4.2%) 266,200 266,200 0 0.0% 39 40 Other Related Costs 45,783 27,120 (18,663) (40.8%) 131,293 131,293 0 0.0% 40 41 La Honda - Pescadero 23,363 22,050 (1,313) (5.6%) 55,130 55,130 0 0.0% 41 42 SamCoast - Pescadero 63,958 52,683 (11,275) (17.6%) 140,800 140,800 0 0.0% 42 43 Other Related Cost - SamCoast 2,772 3,464 692 25.0% 7,456 7,456 0 0.0% 43 44 Total Contracted Bus Service 8,559,369 9,401,946 842,577 9.8% 23,545,354 23,545,354 0 0.0% 44 45 45 46 TOTAL MOTOR BUS 46,844,372 54,427,939 7,583,567 16.2% 132,713,297 132,713,297 0 0.0% 46

This report represents actuals and budgets on budgetary basis.

* Reflects Adopted Budget approved by the Board on June X, 2016, $X amendment approved on October 1, 2016, $X amendment approved on January 2, 2017.

1/2/2019 9:56 AM Statement of Revenues and Expenses Page 4 of 13

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT OPERATING EXPENSES FISCAL YEAR 2019 NOVEMBER 2018

% OF YEAR ELAPSED: 41.7% YEAR-TO-DATE ANNUAL EXPENSES PRIOR CURRENT $ % $ % ACTUAL ACTUAL VARIANCE VARIANCE BUDGET FORECAST VARIANCE VARIANCE

47 AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT PROGRAMS 47 48 48 49 Elderly & Disabled/Redi-Wheels 2,249,616 2,166,822 (82,793) (3.7%) 8,012,000 8,012,000 0 0.0% 49 50 Other Related Costs 1,177,531 1,226,628 49,097 4.2% 3,042,705 3,042,705 0 0.0% 50 51 ADA Sedans / Taxi Service 2,091,979 2,266,702 174,723 8.4% 3,848,426 3,848,426 0 0.0% 51 52 ADA Accessibility Support 443,188 532,168 88,981 20.1% 1,644,784 1,644,784 0 0.0% 52 53 Coastside ADA Support 724,797 758,870 34,073 4.7% 1,830,600 1,830,600 0 0.0% 53 54 Insurance Costs 1,424,289 159,818 (1,264,471) (88.8%) 619,697 619,697 0 0.0% 54 55 TOTAL ADA PROGRAMS 8,111,400 7,111,008 (1,000,391) (12.3%) 18,998,212 18,998,212 0 0.0% 55 56 56 57 57 58 MULTI-MODAL TRANSIT PROGRAMS 58 59 59 60 CALTRAIN SERVICE 60 61 Peninsula Rail Service 2,570,735 3,181,000 610,265 23.7% 7,634,404 7,634,404 0 0.0% 61 62 Total Caltrain Service 2,570,735 3,181,000 610,265 23.7% 7,634,404 7,634,404 0 0.0% 62 63 63 64 OTHER SUPPORT 64 65 SamTrans Shuttle Service 906,445 913,332 6,887 0.8% 2,154,606 2,154,606 0 0.0% 65 66 Maintenance Multimodal Facilities 76,550 114,287 37,737 49.3% 174,800 174,800 0 0.0% 66 67 Total Other Support 982,995 1,027,619 44,624 4.5% 2,329,406 2,329,406 0 0.0% 67 68 68 69 TOTAL MULTI-MODAL PROGR 3,553,730 4,208,619 654,889 18.4% 9,963,810 9,963,810 0 0.0% 69 70 70 71 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 58,509,502 65,747,566 7,238,064 12.4% 161,675,319 161,675,319 0 0.0% 71

This report represents actuals and budgets on budgetary basis.

* Reflects Adopted Budget approved by the Board on June X, 2016, $X amendment approved on October 1, 2016, $X amendment approved on January 2, 2017.

1/2/2019 9:56 AM SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT Statement ofRevenues andExpenses MOTOR BUS MONTHLY EXPENSES - BUDGET VS ACTUAL FISCAL YEAR 2019

18.00

15.00

12.00

9.00 Millions

6.00

3.00

- Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Budget Actual 57,524,577

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June MONTHLY EXPENSES Budget 15,262,726 10,388,766 10,389,066 10,743,024 10,740,995 Actual 13,537,081 9,807,233 9,605,414 10,459,602 11,018,609 Page 5of13 CUMULATIVE EXPENSES Budget 15,262,726 25,651,492 36,040,558 46,783,582 57,524,577 Actual 13,537,081 23,344,314 32,949,728 43,409,330 54,427,939 Variance - F(U) 1,725,645 2,307,178 3,090,830 3,374,252 3,096,638 Variance % 11.31% 8.99% 8.58% 7.21% 5.38% SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT ADA PROGRAM MONTHLY EXPENSES - BUDGET VS ACTUAL Statement of Revenues and Expenses FISCAL YEAR 2019

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50 Millions

1.00

0.50

- Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 57,524,577

Budget Actual

July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June MONTHLY EXPENSES Budget 1,592,580 1,590,330 1,590,330 1,590,330 1,590,330

Actual 1,345,590 1,447,129 1,360,741 1,519,804 1,437,744 Page 6of13 CUMULATIVE EXPENSES Budget 1,592,580 3,182,910 4,773,240 6,363,570 7,953,899 Actual 1,345,590 2,792,719 4,153,460 5,673,264 7,111,008 Variance - F(U) 246,990 390,191 619,780 690,306 842,891

Variance % 15.51% 12.26% 12.98% 10.85% 10.60% SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT Statement ofRevenues and Expenses MULTIMODAL MONTHLY EXPENSES - BUDGET VS ACTUAL FISCAL YEAR 2019

2.00

1.75

1.50

1.25

1.00 Millions 0.75

0.50

0.25

- Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Budget Actual

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June MONTHLY EXPENSES

Budget 830,318 830,318 830,318 830,318 830,318 Page7of13 Actual 833,082 844,739 858,042 839,250 833,507 CUMULATIVE EXPENSES Budget 830,318 1,660,635 2,490,953 3,321,270 4,151,588 Actual 833,082 1,677,820 2,535,862 3,375,112 4,208,619 Variance - F(U) (2,764) (17,185) (44,910) (53,842) (57,031) Variance % -0.33% -1.03% -1.80% -1.62% -1.37% SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS November 30, 2018

DESCRIPTION TOTAL INTEREST PREPAID INT INTEREST INTEREST ADJ. INTEREST INVESTMENT RECEIVABLE RECEIVABLE EARNED RECEIVED RECEIVABLE 11‐30‐18 10‐30‐18 11‐30‐18 11‐30‐18 11‐30‐18 11‐30‐18

REIMBURSEMENT SECURITIES FUND 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) LAIF ‐‐ REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS 79,244.98 143.89 0.00 143.81 0.00 0.00 287.70 RESERVE SECURITIES FUNDS 88,910,977.53 338,648.68 11,732.25 149,818.01 111,065.45 (768.93) 388,364.56 LAIF ‐‐ RESERVE FUNDS 28,948,549.12 57,816.13 0.00 52,535.67 0.00 0.00 110,351.80 PARATRANSIT FUNDS 25,223,872.85 93,495.60 4,096.98 42,535.75 28,595.70 (176.60) 111,356.03 LAIF ‐‐ PARATRANSIT 1,061,552.06 1,927.51 0.00 1,926.50 0.00 0.00 3,854.01 BANK OF AMERICA 23,806,156.15 0.00 0.00 12,649.20 12,649.20 0.00 0.00 WELLS FARGO 6,640.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 US BANK ‐ CUSTODIAN ACCOUNT 10,206,544.93 13,647.13 0.00 12,773.87 13,647.13 0.00 12,773.87 DEBT SERVICE RESERVES HELD BY TRUSTEE: 10,846,898.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 189,090,436.24 505,678.93 15,829.23 272,382.81 165,957.48 (945.53) 626,987.96

NOVEMBER 2018 ‐‐ SUMMARY OF INTEREST & CAPITAL GAIN YEAR TO DATE ‐‐ SUMMARY

Interest Earned 11/30/18 271,437.28 Interest Earned 1,488,134.88 Add: Add: CEO Interest 0.00 CEO Interest Less: Less: Trust Fees (676.72) Trust Fees (3,225.57) Capital Gain(Loss) (17,653.90) Capital Gain(Loss) (80,921.59) Amortized Premium/Discount 21,732.25 Amortized Premium/Discount 88,087.48 Total Interest & Capital Gain(Loss) 274,838.91 Total Interest & Capital Gain(Loss) 1,492,075.20

Balance Per Ledger as of 11/30/18 Deferred Int Acct. 210852/3 63,105.61

Interest Acct. 409101 1,425,029.27 Page 8of 13 Less Trust Fees 530045 (3,225.57) Gain(Loss) Acct. 405210 (80,921.59) Amortized Premium/Discount 88,087.48 1,492,075.20

Note: Total may not foot due to rounding. Attachment A

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT RESERVE SECURITIES FUNDS -- INTEREST ON SECURITIES November 30, 2018

ORIGINAL MARKET INTEREST PREPAID INTEREST INTEREST PP INTEREST INTEREST INT REC'VBLE SETTLE PURCHASE VALUE MATURITY/CALL INT RATE/ REC'VBLE INT REC'VBLE EARNED RECEIVED RECEIVED REC'VBLE LESS PREPAID PAR TYPE OF SECURITY CUSIP # DATE PRICE 11‐30‐18 DATE RATE DAY 10‐31‐18 11‐30‐18 11‐30‐18 11‐30‐18 DATE ADJ. 11‐30‐18 11‐30‐18 VALUE

U.S. TREASURY NOTES AND BONDS US TREASURY NOTE 912828ST8 03‐25‐15 64,987.30 64,664.86 04‐30‐19 1.250% 2.2569 2.24 67.71 (0.37) 69.58 69.58 65,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828VF4 12‐07‐15 251,702.93 249,650.87 05‐31‐20 1.375% 9.7396 1,475.31 292.19 1,753.13 (4.58) 9.63 9.63 255,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828VP2 05‐18‐16 775,283.20 740,068.50 07‐31‐20 2.000% 41.6667 3,790.76 1,250.00 (27.17) 5,013.59 5,013.59 750,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828L32 06‐29‐16 417,495.32 399,926.30 08‐31‐20 1.375% 15.6597 985.79 469.79 (7.70) 1,447.88 1,447.88 410,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828Q78 01‐05‐17 1,607,456.25 1,584,905.84 04‐30‐21 1.375% 62.6389 62.29 1,879.17 (10.38) 1,931.08 1,931.08 1,640,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828R77 03‐17‐17 1,363,632.81 1,351,163.80 05‐31‐21 1.375% 53.4722 8,099.73 1,604.17 9,625.00 (26.02) 52.88 52.88 1,400,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828D72 04‐05‐17 1,007,734.38 978,125.00 08‐31‐21 2.000% 55.5556 3,530.45 1,666.67 (36.17) 5,160.95 5,160.95 1,000,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828D72 06‐29‐17 1,516,347.66 1,467,187.50 08‐31‐21 2.000% 83.3333 5,300.75 2,500.00 (54.35) 7,746.40 7,746.40 1,500,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828D72 07‐11‐17 2,213,320.31 2,151,875.00 08‐31‐21 2.000% 122.2222 7,772.06 3,666.67 (79.68) 11,359.05 11,359.05 2,200,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828T67 10‐10‐17 1,074,519.53 1,051,574.70 10‐31‐21 1.250% 38.1944 75.78 1,145.83 (18.78) 1,202.83 1,202.83 1,100,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828T67 08‐03‐17 1,520,271.48 1,481,764.35 10‐31‐21 1.250% 53.8194 108.40 1,614.58 (26.47) 1,696.51 1,696.51 1,550,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828T67 08‐31‐17 3,051,078.13 2,963,528.70 10‐31‐21 1.250% 107.6389 210.74 3,229.17 (20.56) 3,419.35 3,419.35 3,100,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828X47 12‐06‐17 1,256,803.91 1,230,064.85 04‐30‐22 1.875% 66.1458 65.78 1,984.37 (43.50) 2,006.66 2,006.66 1,270,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828X47 01‐04‐18 1,777,148.44 1,743,399.00 04‐30‐22 1.875% 93.7500 92.23 2,812.50 (62.66) 2,842.07 2,842.07 1,800,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828X47 05‐07‐18 3,726,980.47 3,728,936.75 04‐30‐22 1.875% 200.5208 200.42 6,015.62 46.43 6,262.46 6,262.46 3,850,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828TJ9 09‐07‐18 2,395,117.19 2,392,090.00 08‐15‐22 1.625% 112.8472 8,610.73 3,385.42 (73.60) 11,922.55 11,922.55 2,500,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828N30 11‐06‐18 1,521,290.04 1,530,703.13 12‐31‐22 2.125% 92.9688 0.00 11,732.25 2,324.22 (50.53) 14,005.94 2,273.69 1,575,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828N30 08‐03‐18 1,551,875.00 1,555,000.00 12‐31‐22 2.125% 94.4444 11,456.52 2,833.33 (61.58) 14,228.27 14,228.27 1,600,000.00 30.49% FEDERAL AGENCY BONDS/NOTE FHMA NOTES 3135GOT29 02‐28‐17 849,456.00 836,677.95 02‐28‐20 1.500% 35.4167 2,231.25 1,062.50 3,293.75 3,293.75 850,000.00 FHLMC AGENCY 3137EAEF2 04‐20‐17 1,295,554.00 1,274,981.50 04‐20‐20 1.375% 49.6528 546.18 1,489.58 2,035.76 2,035.76 1,300,000.00 FHMA NOTES 3135G0T60 08‐01‐17 598,182.00 587,346.60 07‐30‐20 1.500% 25.0000 2,275.00 750.00 3,025.00 3,025.00 600,000.00 FHLB NOTES 3130ACE26 09‐07‐17 438,587.60 428,553.84 09‐28‐20 1.375% 16.8056 554.58 504.17 (0.01) 1,058.74 1,058.74 440,000.00 FHLB NOTES 3137EAEJ4 09‐29‐17 578,950.20 567,523.62 09‐29‐20 1.625% 26.1806 837.78 785.42 1,623.20 1,623.20 580,000.00 FHLB GLOBAL NOTE 3130A8QS5 07‐15‐16 2,683,581.30 2,585,420.10 07‐14‐21 1.125% 84.3750 9,028.13 2,531.25 11,559.38 11,559.38 2,700,000.00 FNMA NOTES 3135G0N82 08‐19‐16 473,375.03 455,353.53 08‐17‐21 1.250% 16.4931 1,220.49 494.79 1,715.28 1,715.28 475,000.00 FNMA NOTES 3135G0N82 08‐19‐16 1,518,823.75 1,461,924.48 08‐17‐21 1.250% 52.9514 3,918.40 1,588.54 5,506.94 5,506.94 1,525,000.00 9.37% CORPORATE NOTE TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP 89236TDM4 01‐09‐17 439,846.00 439,542.84 01‐09‐19 1.700% 20.7778 2,327.11 623.33 2,950.44 2,950.44 440,000.00 BERKSHIRE HATHWAY GLOBAL NOTE 084670BL1 12‐23‐16 1,810,188.00 1,790,469.00 08‐14‐19 2.100% 105.0000 8,085.00 3,150.00 11,235.00 11,235.00 1,800,000.00 TOYOTA MOTOR CORP NOTES 89236TDH5 10‐18‐16 669,665.00 662,145.59 10‐18‐19 1.550% 28.8472 375.01 865.42 1,240.43 1,240.43 670,000.00 PEIZER INC CORP NOTE 717081EB5 11‐21‐16 1,184,146.80 1,168,378.01 12‐15‐19 1.700% 55.9583 7,610.33 1,678.75 9,289.08 9,289.08 1,185,000.00 CITIGROUP INC 172967LF6 01‐10‐17 899,640.00 890,447.40 01‐10‐20 2.450% 61.2500 6,798.75 1,837.50 8,636.25 8,636.25 900,000.00 MICROSOFT CORP 594918BV5 02‐06‐17 899,397.00 889,222.50 02‐06‐20 1.850% 46.2500 3,931.25 1,387.50 5,318.75 5,318.75 900,000.00 WALT DISNEY CO CORP NOTES 25468PDP8 03‐06‐17 379,901.20 374,725.98 03‐04‐20 1.950% 20.5833 1,173.25 617.50 1,790.75 1,790.75 380,000.00 APPLE INC BONDS 037833CS7 05‐11‐17 819,163.60 806,565.12 05‐11‐20 1.800% 41.0000 6,970.00 1,230.00 7,380.00 820.00 820.00 820,000.00 HOME DEPOT INC CORP NOTES 437076BQ4 06‐05‐17 449,739.00 441,213.75 06‐05‐20 1.800% 22.5000 3,285.00 675.00 3,960.00 3,960.00 450,000.00 MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTE 6174467P8 11‐10‐16 2,009,250.00 1,852,498.80 07‐24‐20 5.500% 275.0000 26,675.00 8,250.00 34,925.00 34,925.00 1,800,000.00 CATERPILLAR FINL SERVICE NOTE 14913Q2A6 09‐07‐17 649,454.00 634,429.90 09‐04‐20 1.850% 33.4028 1,903.96 1,002.08 2,906.04 2,906.04 650,000.00 WAL‐MART STORES INC CORP NOTE 931142EA7 10‐20‐17 898,695.00 879,314.40 12‐15‐20 1.900% 47.5000 6,460.00 1,425.00 7,885.00 7,885.00 900,000.00 BRANCH MANKING & TRUST CORP NOTES 05531FAZ6 10‐26‐17 449,793.00 437,771.70 02‐01‐21 2.150% 26.8750 2,418.75 806.25 3,225.00 3,225.00 450,000.00 IBM CORP CORP NOTES 44932HAG8 02‐06‐18 899,559.00 885,435.20 02‐05‐21 2.650% 66.2500 5,697.50 1,987.50 7,685.00 7,685.00 900,000.00 NATIONAL RURAL UTIL COOP 63743HER9 02‐26‐18 374,583.75 371,009.63 03‐15‐21 2.900% 30.2083 1,389.58 906.25 2,295.83 2,295.83 375,000.00 NATIONAL RURAL UTIL COOP 63743HER9 04‐19‐18 512,821.55 509,519.89 03‐15‐21 2.900% 41.4861 1,908.36 1,244.58 3,152.94 3,152.94 515,000.00 UNILEVER CAPITAL CORP NOTES 904764AZ0 03‐22‐18 721,295.25 716,953.95 03‐22‐21 2.750% 55.3819 2,159.90 1,661.46 3,821.36 3,821.36 725,000.00 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP 89236TEU5 04‐13‐18 659,736.00 653,646.18 04‐13‐21 2.950% 54.0833 973.50 1,622.50 2,596.00 2,596.00 660,000.00 PEPSICO INC CORP NOTE 71344DX3 10‐10‐17 599,880.00 584,452.20 04‐15‐21 2.000% 33.3333 533.33 1,000.00 1,533.33 1,533.33 600,000.00 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 06051GFW4 11‐03‐17 100,776.00 97,910.80 04‐19‐21 2.625% 7.2917 87.50 218.75 306.25 306.25 100,000.00 HERSHEY COMPANY CORP NOTES 427866BA5 05‐10‐18 359,751.60 359,623.08 05‐15‐21 3.100% 31.0000 5,301.00 930.00 5,735.00 496.00 496.00 360,000.00 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. 025816BU2 05‐17‐18 899,847.00 894,210.30 05‐17‐21 3.375% 84.3750 13,837.50 2,531.25 15,187.50 1,181.25 1,181.25 900,000.00 CHARLES SCHWAB CORP CORP NOTES 808513AW5 05‐22‐18 569,982.90 569,317.71 05‐21‐21 3.250% 51.4583 8,181.88 1,543.75 9,211.04 514.59 514.59 570,000.00 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP CORP 3814GGQ1 11‐28‐16 1,765,872.00 1,651,240.00 07‐27‐21 5.250% 233.3333 21,933.33 7,000.00 28,933.33 28,933.33 1,600,000.00 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 06051GGS2 09‐18‐17 550,000.00 536,743.35 10‐01‐21 2.328% 35.5667 1,067.00 1,067.00 2,134.00 2,134.00 550,000.00 AMERICAN HONDA FIANCE CORP NOTES 02665WCP4 10‐10‐18 899,568.00 898,887.60 12‐10‐21 3.375% 84.3750 1,771.88 2,531.25 4,303.13 4,303.13 900,000.00 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP 2442ETL3 03‐15‐17 448,015.50 438,448.50 01‐06‐22 2.650% 33.1250 3,809.38 993.75 4,803.13 4,803.13 450,000.00

JPMORGAN CHASES & CO CORP NOTES 46625HJD3 05‐26‐17 973,638.00 922,305.60 01‐24‐22 4.500% 112.5000 10,912.50 3,375.00 14,287.50 14,287.50 900,000.00 Page 9of 1 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 06051GHH5 05‐17‐18 250,000.00 248,675.25 05‐17‐22 3.499% 24.2986 3,984.97 728.96 4,373.75 340.18 340.18 250,000.00 24.00%

COMMERCIAL PAPER BANK OF TOKYO MITS UFJ LTD COMM PAPER 06538CM40 03‐09‐18 785,780.00 799,801.60 12‐04‐18 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 800,000.00

ING (US) FUNDING LLC COMM PAPER 4497W1Q82 07‐02‐18 2,063,542.25 2,084,478.90 03‐08‐19 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,100,000.00 3 MUFG BANK LTD/NY COMM PAPER 62479MOB2 06‐‐15‐18 833,613.42 843,499.20 03‐11‐19 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 850,000.00 DEXIA CREDIT LOCAL SA NY COMM PAPER 25214PJB0 06‐26‐18 1,766,875.00 1,786,456.80 03‐11‐19 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,800,000.00 MUFG BANK LTD/NY COMM PAPER 62479MRG0 07‐20‐18 980,725.00 989,329.00 04‐16‐19 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 Attachment A

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT RESERVE SECURITIES FUNDS -- INTEREST ON SECURITIES November 30, 2018

BNP PARIBAS NY BRANCH COMM PAPER 09659CRH3 10‐19‐18 887,850.00 890,568.00 04‐17‐19 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 900,000.00 DEXIA CREDIT LOCAL SA NY COMM PAPER 25214PM26 10‐12‐18 882,050.25 884,913.30 07‐02‐19 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 900,000.00 9.24% CERTIFICATION OF DEPOSIT CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK NY CD 13606A5Z7 12‐05‐16 1,199,064.00 1,200,000.00 11‐30‐18 1.760% 58.6667 9,093.33 1,760.00 10,560.00 (293.33) 0.00 0.00 1,200,000.00 SVENSKA HANDELSBANKENY LT CD 86958JHB8 01‐12‐17 1,800,000.00 1,799,020.80 01‐10‐19 1.890% 94.5000 10,773.00 2,835.00 13,608.00 13,608.00 1,800,000.00 BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA HOUSTON LT CD 06417GUE6 04‐06‐17 900,000.00 897,333.30 04‐05‐19 1.910% 47.7500 1,289.25 1,432.50 2,721.75 2,721.75 900,000.00 BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA HOUSTON CD 06417GU22 06‐07‐18 899,658.00 901,845.00 06‐05‐20 3.080% 77.0000 11,088.00 2,310.00 13,398.00 13,398.00 900,000.00 SUMITOMO MITSUI BANK NY CERT DEPOSIT 86565BPC9 10‐18‐18 898,776.00 905,225.40 10‐16‐20 3.390% 84.7500 1,186.50 2,542.50 3,729.00 3,729.00 900,000.00 SWEDBANK (NEW YORK) CERT DEPOS 87019U6D6 11‐17‐17 1,800,000.00 1,761,710.40 11‐16‐20 2.270% 113.5000 19,181.50 3,405.00 20,884.00 1,702.50 1,702.50 1,800,000.00 ROYAL BANK OF CANADA NY CD 78012UEE1 06‐08‐18 1,500,000.00 1,501,807.50 06‐07‐21 3.240% 135.0000 19,305.00 4,050.00 23,355.00 23,355.00 1,500,000.00 8.63% ASSET‐BACKED SECURITY/COLLATERALIZED MORTGAGE OBLIGATION CITIBANK CREDIT CARD 2017‐A2 A2 17305EGA7 01‐26‐17 1,549,703.18 1,547,923.00 01‐17‐21 1.740% 74.9167 7,791.33 2,247.50 10,038.83 10,038.83 1,550,000.00 TOYOTA ABS 2017‐A A3 89238MAD0 03‐15‐17 436,643.19 433,545.27 02‐15‐21 1.730% 20.9856 346.00 629.57 648.75 8.95 335.77 335.77 436,694.58 TOYOTA ABS 2017‐A A3 89238MAD0 03‐15‐17 13,303.85 13,305.42 11‐15‐18 1.730% 0.6394 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13,305.42 ALLY ABS 2017‐1 A3 0200PAC7 01‐31‐17 335,390.71 332,870.54 06‐15‐21 1.700% 15.8393 273.67 475.18 513.12 17.70 253.43 253.43 335,420.03 ALLY ABS 2017‐1 A3 0200PAC7 01‐31‐17 26,779.26 26,781.00 11‐15‐18 1.700% 1.2647 0.00 0.00 0.00 ‐ 0.00 0.00 26,781.60 FORD ABS 2017‐A A3 34531EAD8 01‐25‐17 1,183,160.02 1,172,380.09 06‐25‐21 1.670% 54.8857 890.67 1,646.57 1,670.00 (0.07) 867.17 867.17 1,183,164.40 FORD ABS 2017‐A A3 34531EAD8 01‐25‐17 16,835.54 16,835.60 11‐15‐18 1.670% 0.7810 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16,835.60 TOYOTA ABS 2017‐B A3 89190BAD0 05‐17‐17 1,799,861.94 1,780,596.54 07‐15‐21 1.760% 88.0000 1,408.00 2,640.00 2,640.00 1,408.00 1,408.00 1,800,000.00 ALLY ABS 2017‐2 A3 02007HAC5 03‐29‐17 1,354,678.73 1,344,826.76 08‐15‐21 1.780% 66.9892 1,143.16 2,009.68 2,143.42 62.41 1,071.83 1,071.83 1,354,838.47 ALLY ABS 2017‐2 A3 02007HAC5 03‐29‐17 90,150.90 90,161.53 11‐15‐18 1.780% 4.4580 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 90,161.53 HONDA AUTO 2017‐2 A3 43814PAC4 09‐29‐17 329,964.26 325,188.34 09‐18‐21 1.790% 16.4083 213.31 492.25 492.25 213.31 213.31 330,000.00 JOHN DEERE ABS 2017‐B A3 47788BAD6 07‐18‐17 599,956.08 592,365.72 10‐15‐21 1.820% 30.3333 485.33 910.00 910.00 485.33 485.33 600,000.00 AMERICAN EXPRESS ABS 2017‐4 A 02582JHG8 05‐30‐17 679,891.06 676,256.40 12‐15‐21 1.640% 30.9778 495.64 929.33 929.33 495.64 495.64 680,000.00 CITIBAANK ABS 2017‐A3 A3 17305EGB5 05‐22‐17 902,403.00 886,670.01 04‐07‐22 1.920% 48.0000 1,152.00 1,440.00 2,592.00 2,592.00 900,000.00 JOHN DEERE OWNER 47788CAC6 02‐28‐18 284,979.51 283,082.24 04‐15‐22 2.660% 21.0583 336.93 631.75 631.75 336.93 336.93 285,000.00 TAOT 2018‐A A‐3 89238BAD4 01‐31‐18 449,994.83 444,892.59 05‐16‐22 2.350% 29.3750 470.00 881.25 881.25 470.00 470.00 450,000.00 AMXCA 2018‐1 A 02582JHQ6 03‐31‐18 1,509,824.69 1,502,354.72 10‐17‐22 2.670% 111.9917 1,791.87 3,359.75 3,359.75 1,791.87 1,791.87 1,510,000.00 ALLYA 2018‐2‐A3 02004VAC7 04‐30‐18 649,881.96 648,587.42 11‐15‐22 2.920% 52.7222 843.56 1,581.67 1,581.67 843.56 843.56 650,000.00 CCCIT 2018‐A1 A1 17305EGK5 01‐31‐18 899,875.44 887,885.91 01‐20‐23 2.490% 62.2500 6,287.25 1,867.50 8,154.75 8,154.75 900,000.00 GMCAR 2018‐3 A3 36255JAD6 07‐18‐18 399,906.72 399,000.40 05‐16‐23 3.020% 33.5556 503.33 1,006.67 1,006.67 503.33 503.33 400,000.00 CARMAX AUTO OWNER TRUST 14313FAD1 07‐25‐18 419,942.75 418,961.97 06‐15‐23 3.350% 39.0833 625.33 1,172.50 1,095.50 (77.00) 625.33 625.33 420,000.00 15.25% FEDERAL AGENCY COLLATERALIZED MORTGAGE OBLIGATION FANNIE MEA 3136AQDQ0 10‐30‐15 59,214.17 58,214.52 09‐01‐19 1.646% 2.6806 127.58 80.42 127.58 80.42 80.42 58,627.08 FANNIE MEA 3136AQDQ0 10‐30‐15 34,729.60 34,385.27 11‐25‐18 1.646% 1.5722 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34,385.27 FNA 2014‐M6 A2 3136AJ7G5 12‐15‐16 1,748,817.37 1,694,375.35 05‐25‐21 2.679% 127.5601 3,914.41 3,826.80 3,923.65 9.24 3,826.80 3,826.80 1,714,132.96 FNA 2014‐M6 A2 3136AJ7G5 12‐15‐16 40,371.06 39,570.38 11‐25‐18 2.679% 2.9447 0.00 0.00 0.00 ‐ 39,570.38 FNA 2018‐MS A2 3136B1XP4 04‐30‐18 527,934.04 519,977.69 09‐25‐21 3.560% 51.1886 1,603.95 1,535.66 1,664.81 60.86 1,535.66 1,535.66 517,637.71 FNA 2018‐MS A2 3136B1XP4 04‐30‐18 23,477.16 16,395.76 11‐25‐18 3.560% 51.7208 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ‐ 523,019.28 FHLMC MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURED P POOL 3137BM6P6 04‐09‐18 453,832.03 447,517.85 08‐25‐22 3.090% 38.6250 1,158.75 1,158.75 1,158.75 1,158.75 1,158.75 450,000.00 3.03% CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS MONEY MARKET FUND 31846V534 1,581,276.10 1,581,276.10 1,168.00 469.15 1,168.00 469.15 469.15 0

LAIF 28,948,549.12 28,948,549.12 57,816.13 52,535.67 110,351.80 110,351.80 28,948,549.12

MATURED/CALLED FHLB GLOBAL NOTE 3130A9EP2 09‐08‐16 (879,234.40) (866,773.60) 11‐06‐18 (880,000.00) CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK NY CD 13606A5Z7 12‐05‐16 (1,199,064.00) (1,200,000.00) 11‐30‐18 (1,200,000.00) TOYOTA ABS 2017‐A A3 89238MAD0 03‐15‐17 (13,303.85) (13,305.42) 11‐15‐18 (13,305.42) ALLY ABS 2017‐1 A3 0200PAC7 01‐31‐17 (26,779.26) (26,781.00) 11‐15‐18 (26,781.60) FORD ABS 2017‐A A3 34531EAD8 01‐25‐17 (16,835.54) (16,835.60) 11‐15‐18 (16,835.60)

ALLY ABS 2017‐2 A3 02007HAC5 03‐29‐17 (90,150.90) (90,161.53) 11‐15‐18 (90,161.53) Page 9Aof 13 FANNIE MEA 3136AQDQ0 10‐30‐15 (34,729.60) (34,385.27) 11‐25‐18 (34,385.27) FNA 2014‐M6 A2 3136AJ7G5 12‐15‐16 (40,371.06) (39,570.38) 11‐25‐18 (39,570.38) FNA 2018‐MS A2 3136B1XP4 04‐30‐18 (23,477.16) (16,395.76) 11‐25‐18 (523,019.28)

TOTAL LAIF 28,948,549.12 28,948,549.12 TOTAL A/C 121100 & 112010 90,248,484.98 88,910,977.53 90,410,515.23

TOTAL (EXCLUDE LAIF AND CASH/CASH EQUIVALENTS) 90,248,484.98 88,910,977.53 338,648.52 11,732.25 149,818.01 111,065.45 (768.93) 388,364.23 376,631.98 90,410,515.23 SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT REIMBURSEMENT ‐‐ INTEREST ON SECURITIES November 30, 2018

ORIGINAL MARKET INTEREST PREPAID INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST INT REC'VBLE SETTLE PURCHASE VALUE MATURITY/CALL INT RATE/ APPL. REC'VBLE INT REC'VBLE EARNED RECEIVED REC'VBLE LESS PREPAID PAR TYPE OF SECURITY CUSIP # DATE PRICE 11‐30‐18 DATE RATE DAY DAYS 10‐31‐18 11‐30‐18 11‐30‐18 11‐30‐18 ADJ. 11‐30‐18 11‐30‐18 VALUE

CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS FIRST AMER US TREASURY MM 31846V534 8,250,735.63 8,250,735.63 12,138.74 12,138.94 12,138.74 12,138.94 12,138.94

LAIF 79,244.98 79,244.98 143.89 143.81 287.70 287.70 79,245

MATURED/CALLED

TOTAL LAIF 79,244.98 79,244.98 TOTAL A/C 121100 & 112010 0.00 0.00

TOTAL (EXCLUDE LAIF AND CASH/CASH EQUIVALENTS) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 10of 13 Attachment A

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT PARATRANSIT FUNDS ‐‐ INTEREST ON SECURITIES November 30, 2018

ORIGINAL MARKET INTEREST PP INTEREST INTEREST INTEREST PP INTEREST INTEREST INT REC'VBLE SETTLE PURCHASE VALUE MATURITY/CALL INT RATE/ REC'VBLE REC'VBLE EARNED RECEIVED RECEIVED REC'VBLE LESS PREPAID PAR TYPE OF SECURITY CUSIP # DATE PRICE 11‐30‐18 DATE RATE DAY 10‐31‐18 11‐30‐18 11‐30‐18 11‐30‐18 DATE ADJ. 11‐30‐18 11‐30‐18 VALUE

U.S. TREASURY NOTES AND BONDS US TREASURY NOTE 912828VF4 12‐07‐15 197,414.06 195,804.60 05‐31‐20 1.375% 7.6389 1,157.10 229.17 1,375.00 (3.72) 7.55 7.55 200,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828VP2 05‐18‐16 558,203.91 532,849.32 07‐31‐20 2.000% 30.0000 2,729.35 900.00 (19.57) 3,609.78 3,609.78 540,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828L32 06‐29‐16 81,462.50 78,034.40 8‐31‐20 1.375% 3.0556 191.71 91.67 (0.87) 282.51 282.51 80,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828B90 10‐05‐16 181,323.24 171,875.90 02‐28‐21 2.000% 9.7222 599.45 291.67 (1.63) 889.50 889.50 175,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828Q78 01‐05‐17 475,375.78 468,706.91 04‐30‐21 1.375% 18.5243 18.42 555.73 (3.07) 571.08 571.08 485,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828D72 04‐05‐17 251,933.59 244,531.25 08‐31‐21 2.000% 13.8889 883.47 416.67 (9.06) 1,291.08 1,291.08 250,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828D72 06‐29‐17 454,904.30 440,156.25 08‐31‐21 2.000% 25.0000 1,590.22 750.00 (16.30) 2,323.92 2,323.92 450,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828D72 07‐11‐‐17 528,178.71 513,515.63 08‐31‐21 2.000% 29.1667 1,853.76 875.00 (19.03) 2,709.73 2,709.73 525,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828T67 10‐10‐17 488,417.97 477,988.50 10‐31‐21 1.250% 17.3611 33.78 520.83 (8.85) 545.77 545.77 500,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828T67 08‐03‐17 514,930.66 501,887.93 10‐31‐21 1.250% 18.2292 35.61 546.88 (9.25) 573.24 573.24 525,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828T67 08‐31‐17 688,953.13 669,183.90 10‐31‐21 1.250% 24.3056 49.08 729.17 (1.66) 776.59 776.59 700,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828X47 12‐06‐17 296,882.81 290,566.50 04‐30‐22 1.875% 15.6250 15.54 468.75 (12.43) 471.86 471.86 300,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828X47 01‐04‐18 543,017.58 532,705.25 04‐30‐22 1.875% 28.6458 28.49 859.37 (18.22) 869.64 869.64 550,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828X47 05‐07‐18 1,306,863.28 1,307,549.25 04‐30‐22 1.875% 70.3125 69.92 2,109.38 11.66 2,190.96 2,190.96 1,350,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828TJ9 09‐07‐18 670,632.81 669,785.20 08‐15‐22 1.625% 31.5972 2,411.01 947.92 (20.61) 3,338.32 3,338.32 700,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828N30 08‐03‐18 436,464.84 437,343.75 12‐31‐22 2.125% 26.5625 3,222.15 796.88 (17.33) 4,001.70 4,001.70 450,000.00 US TREASURY NOTE 912828N30 11‐06‐18 531,244.14 534,531.25 12‐31‐22 2.125% 32.4653 0.00 4,096.98 811.63 (17.65) 4,890.96 793.98 550,000.00 32.49% FEDERAL AGENCY COLLETERALIZED MORTGAGE OBLIGATION FANIE MAE 3136AQDQ0 10‐30‐15 17,024.08 16,736.68 09‐01‐19 1.646% 0.7707 36.68 23.12 36.68 23.12 23.12 16,855.29 FANIE MAE 3136AQDQ0 10‐30‐15 9,984.75 7,179.52 11‐25‐18 1.646% 0.4520 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,885.76 FNA 2014‐M6 A2 3136AJ7G5 12‐15‐16 480,924.77 465,953.22 05‐25‐21 2.679% 35.0790 1,076.47 1,052.37 1,079.01 2.54 1,052.37 1,052.37 471,386.56 FNA 2014‐M6 A2 3136AJ7G5 12‐15‐16 11,102.05 10,881.86 11‐25‐18 2.679% 0.8098 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,881.86 FN 2018‐M5 A2 3136B1XP4 04‐30‐18 145,181.85 142,993.86 09‐25‐21 3.560% 14.0769 424.42 422.31 457.83 33.41 422.31 422.31 142,350.37 FN 2018‐M5 A2 3136B1XP4 04‐30‐18 6,456.22 6,330.30 11‐25‐18 3.560% 0.6260 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,330.30 FHLMC MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURED P POOL 3137BM6P6 04‐09‐18 131,107.03 129,282.93 08‐25‐22 3.090% 11.1583 334.75 334.75 334.75 334.75 334.75 130,000.00 2.97% CORPORATE NOTE TOYOTA MOTOR CREIDT CORP 89236TDM4 01‐09‐17 119,958.00 119,875.32 01‐09‐19 1.700% 5.6667 634.67 170.00 804.67 804.67 120,000.00 BERKSHIRE HATHAWY INC. 084670BL1 12‐23‐16 502,830.00 497,352.50 08‐14‐19 2.100% 29.1667 2,245.83 875.00 3,120.83 3,120.83 500,000.00 TOYOTA MOTOR CORP NOTES 89236TDH5 10‐18‐16 199,900.00 197,655.40 10‐18‐19 1.550% 8.6111 111.94 258.33 0.01 370.28 370.28 200,000.00 PEIZER INC CORP NOTE 717081EB5 11‐21‐16 329,762.40 325,371.09 12‐15‐19 1.700% 15.5833 2,119.33 467.50 2,586.83 2,586.83 330,000.00 CITIGROUP INC 172967LF6 01‐10‐17 249,900.00 247,346.50 01‐10‐20 2.450% 17.0139 1,888.54 510.42 2,398.96 2,398.96 250,000.00 MICROSOFT CORP 594918BV5 02‐06‐17 249,832.50 247,006.25 02‐06‐20 1.850% 12.8472 1,092.01 385.42 1,477.43 1,477.43 250,000.00 WALT DISNEY CO CORP NOTES 25468DP8 03‐06‐17 99,974.00 98,612.10 03‐04‐20 1.950% 5.4167 308.75 162.50 471.25 471.25 100,000.00 APPLE INC BONDS 037833CS7 05‐11‐17 224,770.50 221,313.60 05‐11‐20 1.800% 11.2500 1,912.50 337.50 2,025.00 225.00 225.00 225,000.00 HOME DEPOT INC CORP NOTES 43707BQ4 06‐05‐17 124,927.50 122,559.38 06‐05‐20 1.800% 6.2500 912.50 187.50 1,100.00 1,100.00 125,000.00 MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTE 6174467P8 11‐10‐16 558,125.00 514,583.00 07‐24‐20 5.500% 76.3889 7,409.72 2,291.67 9,701.39 9,701.39 500,000.00 CATERPILLAR FINL SERIVE NOTE 1491302A6 09‐07‐17 184,844.60 180,568.51 09‐04‐20 1.850% 9.5069 541.90 285.21 (0.01) 827.10 827.10 185,000.00 WAL‐MART STORES INC CORP NOTE 931142EA7 10‐20‐17 249,637.50 244,254.00 12‐15‐20 1.900% 13.1944 1,794.44 395.83 0.01 2,190.28 2,190.28 250,000.00 BRANCH MANKING & TRUST CORP NOTES 05531FAZ6 10‐26‐17 124,942.50 121,603.25 02‐01‐21 2.150% 7.4653 671.88 223.96 (0.01) 895.83 895.83 125,000.00 IBM CORP CORP NOTES 44932HAG8 02‐06‐18 249,877.50 245,954.25 02‐05‐21 2.650% 18.4028 1,582.64 552.08 2,134.72 2,134.72 250,000.00 NATIONAL RURAL UTIL COOP 63743HER9 02‐26‐18 99,889.00 98,935.90 03‐15‐21 2.900% 8.0556 370.56 241.67 612.23 612.23 100,000.00 NATIONAL RURAL UTIL COOP 63743HER9 04‐19‐18 149,365.50 148,403.85 03‐15‐21 2.900% 12.0833 555.83 362.50 918.33 918.33 150,000.00 UNILEVER CAPITAL CORP NOTES 904764AZ0 03‐22‐18 198,978.00 197,780.40 03‐22‐21 2.750% 15.2778 595.83 458.33 0.01 1,054.17 1,054.17 200,000.00 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP NOTES 89236TEU5 04‐13‐18 179,928.00 178,267.14 04‐13‐21 2.950% 14.7500 265.50 442.50 708.00 708.00 180,000.00 PEPSICO INC CORP NOTE 71344DX3 10‐10‐17 164,967.00 160,724.36 04‐15‐21 2.000% 9.1667 146.67 275.00 421.67 421.67 165,000.00 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 06051GFW4 11‐03‐17 25,194.00 24,477.70 04‐19‐21 2.625% 1.8229 21.88 54.69 (0.01) 76.56 76.56 25,000.00 HERSHEY COMPANY CORP NOTES 427866BA5 05‐10‐18 99,931.00 99,895.30 05‐15‐21 3.100% 8.6111 1,472.50 258.33 1,593.06 0.01 137.78 137.78 100,000.00 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. 025816BU2 05‐17‐18 249,957.50 248,391.75 05‐17‐21 3.375% 23.4375 3,843.75 703.13 4,218.75 328.13 328.13 250,000.00 CHARLES SCHWAB CORP CORP NOTES 808513AW5 05‐22‐18 159,995.20 159,808.48 05‐21‐21 3.250% 14.4444 2,296.67 433.33 2,585.56 144.44 144.44 160,000.00 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP CORP 3814GGQ1 11‐28‐16 496,651.50 464,411.25 07‐27‐21 5.250% 65.6250 6,168.75 1,968.75 8,137.50 8,137.50 450,000.00 Page 11of 13 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 06051GGS2 09‐18‐17 160,000.00 156,143.52 10‐01‐21 2.328% 10.3467 310.40 310.40 620.80 620.80 160,000.00 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP NOTES 02665WCP4 10‐10‐18 249,880.00 249,691.00 12‐10‐21 3.375% 23.4375 492.19 703.13 (0.01) 1,195.31 1,195.31 250,000.00 JOHN DEERE CAPITALCORP 24422ETL3 03‐15‐17 114,492.85 112,047.95 01‐06‐22 2.650% 8.4653 973.51 253.96 1,227.47 1,227.47 115,000.00 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO CORP NOTES 46625HJD3 05‐26‐17 270,455.00 256,196.00 01‐24‐22 4.500% 31.2500 3,031.25 937.50 3,968.75 3,968.75 250,000.00 BANK OF AMERICA CORP 06051GHH5 05‐17‐18 75,000.00 74,602.58 05‐17‐22 3.499% 7.2896 1,195.49 218.69 1,312.13 102.05 102.05 75,000.00 23.55% COMMERCIAL PAPER BANK OF TOKYO MITSU UFJ LTD COMM PAPER 06538CM40 03‐19‐18 343,778.75 349,913.20 12‐04‐18 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 350,000.00 ING (US) FUNDING LLC COMM PAPER 4497W1082 03‐19‐18 589,583.50 595,565.40 03‐08‐19 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 600,000.00 Attachment A

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT PARATRANSIT FUNDS ‐‐ INTEREST ON SECURITIES November 30, 2018

MUFG BANK LTD/NY COMM PAPER 62479MQB2 06‐15‐18 392,288.67 396,940.80 03‐11‐19 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400,000.00 DEXIA CREDIT LOCAL SA NY COMM PAPER 25214PJB0 06‐26‐18 490,798.61 496,238.00 03‐18‐19 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500,000.00 BNP PARIBAS NY BRANCH COMM PAPER 09659CRH3 10‐19‐18 246,625.00 247,380.00 04‐17‐19 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 250,000.00 DEXIA CREDIT LOCAL SA NY COMM PAPER 25214PM26 10‐12‐18 245,013.96 245,809.25 07‐02‐19 0.000% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 250,000.00 9.16% CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK NY CD 13606A5Z7 12‐05‐16 249,805.00 250,000.00 11‐30‐18 1.7600% 12.2222 1,894.44 366.67 2,200.00 (61.11) (0.00) (0.00) 250,000.00 SVENSKA HANDELSBANKEN NY LT CD 86958JHB8 01‐12‐17 500,000.00 499,728.00 01‐10‐19 1.8900% 26.2500 2,992.50 787.50 3,780.00 3,780.00 500,000.00 BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA HOUSTON 06417GUE6 04‐06‐17 250,000.00 249,259.25 04‐05‐19 1.9100% 13.2639 358.13 397.92 (0.01) 756.04 756.04 250,000.00 BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA HOUSTON CD 06417GU22 06‐07‐18 249,905.00 250,512.50 06‐05‐20 3.0800% 21.3889 3,080.00 641.67 3,721.67 3,721.67 250,000.00 SUMITOMO MITSUI BANK NY CD 86565BPC9 10‐18‐18 249,660.00 251,451.50 10‐16‐20 3.3900% 23.5417 329.58 706.25 1,035.83 1,035.83 250,000.00 SWEDBANK (NEW YORK) CERT DEPOS 87019U6D6 11‐17‐17 500,000.00 489,364.00 11‐16‐20 2.2700% 31.5278 5,328.19 945.83 5,801.11 0.01 472.92 472.92 500,000.00 ROYAL BANK OF CANANDA NY CD 78012UEE1 06‐08‐18 425,000.00 425,512.13 06‐07‐21 3.2400% 38.2500 5,469.75 1,147.50 6,617.25 6,617.25 425,000.00 8.48% FEDERAL AGENCY BOND/NOTE FNMA NOTES 3130A9EP2 09‐09‐16 314,725.95 310,265.55 11‐06‐18 1.0000% 8.7500 306.25 43.75 350.00 0.00 0.00 315,000.00 FNMA NOTES 3135G0T29 02‐28‐17 214,862.40 211,630.31 02‐28‐20 1.5000% 8.9583 564.37 268.75 833.12 833.12 215,000.00 FHLMC AGENCY 3137EAEF2 04‐20‐17 348,803.00 343,264.25 04‐20‐20 1.3750% 13.3681 147.05 401.04 548.09 548.09 350,000.00 FNMA NOTES 3135GOT60 08‐01‐17 149,545.50 146,836.65 04‐20‐20 1.5000% 6.2500 568.75 187.50 756.25 756.25 150,000.00 FHLB NOTES 3130ACE26 09‐08‐17 84,727.15 82,788.81 09‐28‐20 1.5000% 3.5417 107.14 106.25 (8.86) 204.53 204.53 85,000.00 FHLMC NOTES 3137EAEJ4 09‐29‐17 164,701.35 161,450.69 09‐29‐20 1.5000% 6.8750 238.33 206.25 17.19 461.77 461.77 165,000.00 FHLB GLOBAL NOTE 3130A8QS5 7‐15‐16 516,837.88 497,932.76 07‐14‐21 1.1250% 16.2500 1,738.75 487.50 2,226.25 2,226.25 520,000.00 FNMA NOTES 3135G0N82 8‐19‐16 597,658.06 575,183.40 08‐17‐21 1.2500% 20.8333 1,541.67 625.00 2,166.67 2,166.67 600,000.00 8.13% ASSET BACKED SECURITY/COLLATERALIZED MORTGAGE OBLIGATION CITIBANK ABS 2017‐A2 A2 17305EGA7 01‐26‐17 449,913.83 449,397.00 01‐17‐21 1.7400% 21.7500 2,262.00 652.50 2,914.50 2,914.50 450,000.00 TOYOTA ABS 2017‐A A3 89238MADO 03‐15‐17 121,289.77 120,429.24 02‐15‐21 1.7300% 5.8293 96.11 174.88 180.21 2.49 93.27 93.27 121,304.05 TOYOTA ABS 2017‐A A3 89238MADO 03‐15‐17 3,695.52 3,695.95 11‐15‐18 1.7300% 0.1776 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,695.95 ALLY ABS 2017‐1 A3 02007PAC7 01‐31‐17 95,234.39 94,518.79 06‐15‐21 1.7000% 4.4976 77.71 134.93 145.70 5.02 71.96 71.96 95,242.72 ALLY ABS 2017‐1 A3 02007PAC7 01‐31‐17 7,604.00 7,604.66 11‐15‐18 1.7000% 0.3591 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,604.66 FORD ABS 2017‐A A3 34531EAD8 01‐25‐17 345,088.35 341,944.20 06‐25‐21 1.6700% 16.0083 259.78 480.25 487.08 3.18 256.13 256.13 345,089.62 FORD ABS 2017‐A A3 34531EAD8 01‐25‐17 4,910.36 4,708.30 11‐15‐18 1.6700% 0.2278 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,910.38 TOYOTA ABS 2017‐B A3 89190BADO 05‐17‐17 499,961.65 494,610.15 07‐15‐21 1.7600% 24.4444 391.11 733.33 733.33 391.11 391.11 500,000.00 ALLY ABS 2017‐2 A3 02007HAC5 03‐29‐17 374,997.57 372,270.38 08‐15‐21 1.7800% 18.5437 316.44 556.31 593.33 17.28 296.70 296.70 375,041.79 ALLY ABS 2017‐2 A3 02007HAC5 03‐29‐17 24,955.27 24,626.30 11‐15‐18 1.7800% 1.2340 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24,958.21 HAROT 2017‐3 A3 43814PAC4 09‐29‐17 99,989.17 98,541.92 09‐18‐21 1.7900% 4.9722 64.64 149.17 149.17 64.64 64.64 100,000.00 JOHN DEERE ABS 2017‐B A3 47788BAD6 07‐18‐17 169,987.56 167,836.95 10‐15‐21 1.8200% 8.5944 137.51 257.83 257.83 137.51 137.51 170,000.00 AMERICAN EXPRESS ABS 2017‐4 A 02582JHG8 05‐30‐17 199,967.96 198,898.94 12‐15‐21 1.6400% 9.1111 145.84 273.33 273.33 145.84 145.84 200,000.00 CITIBAANK ABS 2017‐A3 A3 17305EGB5 05‐22‐17 250,667.50 246,297.23 04‐07‐22 1.9200% 13.3333 320.00 400.00 720.00 720.00 250,000.00 JOHN DEERE OWNER 47788CAC6 02‐28‐18 79,994.25 79,461.68 04‐15‐22 2.6600% 5.9111 94.58 177.33 177.33 94.58 94.58 80,000.00 TAOT 2018‐A A‐3 89238BAD4 01‐31‐18 124,998.56 123,581.28 05‐16‐22 2.350% 8.1597 130.56 244.79 244.79 130.56 130.56 125,000.00 AMXCA 2018‐1 A 02582JHQ6 03‐21‐18 424,950.66 422,848.18 10‐17‐22 2.6700% 31.5208 504.33 945.62 945.63 0.01 504.33 504.33 425,000.00 ALLYA 2018‐2 A3 02004VAC7 04‐30‐18 184,966.40 184,597.96 11‐15‐22 2.9200% 15.0056 240.09 450.17 450.17 240.09 240.09 185,000.00 CCCIT 2018‐A1 A1 17305EGK5 01‐31‐18 249,965.40 246,634.98 01‐20‐23 2.490% 17.2917 1,746.46 518.75 2,265.21 2,265.21 250,000.00 GMCAR 2018‐3 A3 36255JAD6 07‐18‐18 119,972.02 119,700.12 05‐16‐23 3.020% 10.0667 151.00 302.00 302.00 151.00 151.00 120,000.00 CARMAX AUTO OWNER TRUST 14313FAD1 07‐25‐18 109,985.01 109,728.14 06‐15‐23 3.350% 10.2361 163.78 307.08 286.92 (20.16) 163.78 163.78 110,000.00 15.22% CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS ` MONEY MARKET FUND 31846V534 374,533.20 374,533.20 340.39 165.78 340.39 165.78 165.78 0

LAIF 1,061,552.06 1,061,552.06 1,926.50 1,926.50 3,853.00 3,853.00 1,061,552

MATURED/CALLED FANIE MAE 3136AQDQ0 10‐30‐15 (9,984.75) (7,179.52) 11‐25‐18 (9,885.76) FNA 2014‐M6 A2 3136AJ7G5 12‐15‐16 (11,102.05) (10,881.86) 11‐25‐18 (10,881.86) FN 2018‐M5 A2 3136B1XP4 04‐30‐18 (6,456.22) (6,330.30) 11‐25‐18 (6,330.30) CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK NY CD 13606A5Z7 12‐05‐16 (249,805.00) (250,000.00) 11‐30‐18 (250,000.00) FNMA NOTES 3130A9EP2 09‐09‐16 (314,725.95) (310,265.55) 11‐06‐18 (315,000.00) TOYOTA ABS 2017‐A A3 89238MADO 03‐15‐17 (3,695.52) (3,695.95) 11‐15‐18 (3,695.95) Page 11Aof 13 ALLY ABS 2017‐1 A3 02007PAC7 01‐31‐17 (7,604.00) (7,604.66) 11‐15‐18 (7,604.66) FORD ABS 2017‐A A3 34531EAD8 01‐25‐17 (4,910.36) (4,708.30) 11‐15‐18 (4,910.38) ALLY ABS 2017‐2 A3 02007HAC5 03‐29‐17 (24,955.27) (24,626.30) 11‐15‐18 (24,958.21)

TOTAL LAIF 1,061,552.06 1,061,552.06 TOTAL A/C 122010 25,606,126.47 25,223,872.85 25,642,270.40

TOTAL (EXCLUDE LAIF AND CASH/CASH EQUIVALENTS) 25,606,126.47 25,223,872.85 93,495.65 4,096.98 42,535.75 28,595.70 0.00 (176.60) 111,356.09 107,259.11 25,642,270.40 SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT SUMMARY OF BUDGET ACTIVITY FOR NOVEMBER2018

BUDGET AMENDMENTS

Amount Line Item Description

Nov-18 No Budget Amendment for November 2018. $ - Total$ - Total

BUDGET REVISIONS

Amount Line Item Description

Nov-18 No Budget Revisions for November 2018.

$ - Total$ - Total

BUDGET TRANSFERS

Amount From Amount To Justification Line Line Nov-18 $ (20,000) Wage & Benefits 1$ 20,000 Temporary Staff 7 CC 090600 Transfer W&B to Temp exp $ (7,000) Wage & Benefits 1$ 7,000 Temporary Staff 7 CC 090700 Transfer W&B to Temp exp

$ (27,000) Total$ 27,000 Total

line line Page12of13 Page 13 of 13

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT 1/2 CENT SALES TAX RECEIPTS AND PROJECTIONS FY2019 November 2018

1/2/19 9:55 AM Approved Budget Receipts Over/(Under) Current Date Amount Date AmountBudget/Projection Projection

FY2018:

1st Quarter 21,495,463 1st Quarter 19,203,000 (2,292,463) 19,203,000 2nd Quarter 22,409,567 2nd Quarter 24,290,962 1,881,395 24,290,962 3rd Quarter 18,912,692 3rd Quarter 23,363,553 4,450,861 23,363,553 4th Quarter 21,842,278 4th Quarter 20,939,400 (902,878) 20,939,400 FY2018 Total 84,660,000 FY2018 Total 87,796,915 3,136,915 87,796,915

FY2019: Jul. 18 6,017,139 Sep. 18 7,491,211 1,474,072 6,017,139 Aug. 18 7,017,139 Oct. 18 9,665,751 2,648,612 7,017,139 Sep. 18 8,022,799 Nov. 18 9,885,148 1,862,349 8,022,799 3 Months Total 21,057,077 27,042,110 5,985,033 21,057,077

Oct. 18 6,408,256 Dec. 18 6,408,256 Nov. 18 6,408,256 Jan. 19 6,408,256 Dec. 18 8,648,652 Feb. 19 8,648,652 6 Months Total 42,522,241 27,042,110 5,985,033 42,522,241

Jan. 19 6,805,453 Mar. 19 6,805,453 Feb. 19 6,805,453 Apr. 19 6,805,453 Mar. 19 7,044,605 May 19 7,044,605 9 Months Total 63,177,752 27,042,110 5,985,033 63,177,752

Apr. 19 6,793,353 Jun. 19 6,793,353 May 19 6,793,353 Jul. 19 6,793,353 Jun. 19 9,588,742 Aug. 19 9,588,742 FY2019 Total 86,353,200 FY2019 Total 27,042,110 5,985,033 86,353,200

22,531,149 1st Quarter 17,327,474 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 39,858,622 YTD Actual Per Statement of Revenue & Expenses

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2019

CHARLES STONE, CHAIR CAROLE GROOM, VICE CHAIR RON COLLINS ROSE GUILBAULT KARYL MATSUMOTO DAVE PINE JOSH POWELL ETER ATTO P R MEMORANDUM JIM HARTNETT GENERAL MANAGER/CEO

BOD ITEM # 8 January 9, 2019 Date: January 2, 2019

To: SamTrans Board of Directors

From: Jim Hartnett, General Manager/CEO

Subject: General Manager/CEO Report

Fiscal Year 2019, November 2018 Summary

Fixed-route Bus Service/Ridership YTD FY 2018 YTD FY 2019 Trips that did not operate (DNO) 160 336 Complaints per million trips 154 199 • The higher number of complaints is attributable to the increase in DNOs. Driver shortage is a major contributor for Did Not Operate (DNO) and late bus service. Efforts are underway to increase recruitment and to streamline bus operator training.

On-time Performance goal is 85%: YTD FY 2018 YTD FY 2019 • Directly operated service 81.3% 81.5% • Contracted bus service 76.1% 70.5% • Coastside service 77.8% 72.6% • Combined service 79.9% 78.7%

Ridership YTD FY 2018 YTD FY 2019 • AWR 37,830 36,250 • Total Trips 4,838,930 4,631,670

Riders by Fare Category YTD FY 2018 Percent YTD FY 2019 Percent Adult Cash 812,833 16.9% 691,403 15.0% Adult Pass 2,374,130 49.2% 2,424,047 52.5% Youth Cash 657,578 13.6% 576,432 12.5% Youth Pass 231,310 4.8% 188,088 4.1% Eligible Discount 745,966 15.5% 734,557 15.9% Motor Bus Total Trips 4,821,817 100.0% 4,614,527 100.0% (Does not include Dumbarton and On-demand trips) • Through November 2018, YTD ridership decreased 207,290 trips or 4.3% compared to the prior year. The Youth category had the largest ridership decrease of 14.0% or 124,368 trips, which accounts for 60.0% of the total ridership loss. The Adult category decreased by 2.2% or 71,513 trips, while the Eligible Discount riders decreased 1.5% or 11,409 trips. Paratransit Service/Ridership

Jim Hartnett January 2, 2019 Page 2 of 3

YTD FY 2018 YTD FY 2019 On-time Performance goal is 90.0% • Redi-Wheels 89.7% 90.4% • RediCoast 97.3% 97.0%

Ridership • Paratransit AWR 1,250 1,190 • Paratransit Total Trips 152,970 146,650 • Free trips on fixed-route buses 221,066 218,483 • The number of registrants is 8,188 and remains steady.

Maintenance Department The goal of 25,000 average Miles Between Service Calls (MBSC) was achieved for both motor bus and paratransit fleets (District maintained vehicles).

YTD FY 2018 YTD FY 2019 Miles Driven # Calls MBSC Miles Driven # Calls MBSC Motor Bus 2,428,916 91 26,691 2,570,316 93 27,638 Paratransit 692,890 13 53,299 617,207 14 44,086

Holiday Buses For the eighth consecutive year, the SamTrans Holiday Bus participated in the annual Redwood City Hometown Holidays Parade in conjunction with Caltrain’s Holiday Train (December 1st). District employees, and several SamTrans’ new Youth Ambassadors, walked in the parade and shared SamTrans minibus stress relievers with the parade onlookers. After the parade, the SamTrans Holiday Bus parked at the Sequoia Caltrain Station in Redwood City prior to the arrival of the Holiday Train.

SamTrans partnered with WiLD 94.9 and Serramonte Center to wrap a holiday-themed bus. The bus was used on December 7 to collect 324 toys during the SamTrans “Stuff-a-Bus Toy Drive” at Serramonte Center. The bus operated throughout the county in regular revenue service during the holiday shopping season, serving Stanford, Hillsdale, Tanforan, Serramonte Center, and Stonestown Mall.

SamTrans Social Media YTD FY 2018 YTD FY 2019 Impressions: 2,876,559 2,759,245 (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn) Interactions: 37,951 44,944 New Followers: 453 702 Website Sessions 786,904 854,947 (pages viewed on SamTrans.com)

Human Capital Investment

Jim Hartnett January 2, 2019 Page 3 of 3

Activity YTD FY 2018 (hrs.) YTD FY 2019 (hrs.) New Bus Operator Trainees 3,630 7,008 Part to Full-time Bus Operator 472 180 Proterra training 0 144 DMV mandated training 1,040 972 Bus Operator retraining 429 502 Maintenance training 3,767 2,494 First Aid, CPR/AED 0 144 Professional Development 608 0 Total Hours 9,946 11,444

• Class 156 started on November 16, 2018, with 18 trainees, graduation expected to take place on February 1, 2019.

The SamTrans Bus Operations Safety Campaign consisted of two campaigns: “Awareness of Adapting to the Hazards in Winter Months” • Daylight Savings ends November 3  Longer nights induce drowsy driving  Darker roads mean increased chances for car accidents • Holiday Shopping  Increased traffic, both vehicles and pedestrians near holiday events and in shopping areas  Aggressive and/or distracted driving • Inclement weather  More fog  Wet roads • Be aware of decreased visibility • Increase following distance, scan ahead and prepare for the unexpected • Use defensive driving, check mirrors often, cover your breaks, and slow down • Get rest

“Awareness of the Bus Safety Zone” • Make sure the bus is parallel to the curb • Keep the right mirror away from the bus stop and other hazards (trees, signs, poles) • Track overhead clearance for anything that could be hanging over bus • Check the traffic in left mirror BEFORE moving the steering wheel to the left • Check out the sweep in the right mirror before pulling out of the bus stop • Keep eyes on the front door while closing • When an ADA Passenger is boarding or alighting , make sure there is safe/adequate room to deploy the ramp BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2019

CHARLES STONE, CHAIR CAROLE GROOM, VICE CHAIR RON COLLINS ROSE GUILBAULT KARYL MATSUMOTO DAVE PINE JOSH POWELL PETER RATTO

JIM HARTNETT A G E N D A GENERAL MANAGER/CEO

COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (Accessibility, Senior Services, and Community Issues)

San Mateo County Transit District Administrative Building Bacciocco Auditorium – 2nd Floor 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2019 – 2:30 pm or immediately following Board meeting recess

INFORMATIONAL 4. Accessibility Update 5. Paratransit Coordinating Council Update 6. Multimodal Ridership Report – November 2018 7. Adjourn

Committee Members: Peter Ratto (Chair), Carole Groom, Rose Guilbault

NOTE: • This Committee meeting may be attended by Board Members who do not sit on this Committee. In the event that a quorum of the entire Board is present, this Committee shall act as a Committee of the Whole. In either case, any item acted upon by the Committee or the Committee of the Whole will require consideration and action by the full Board of Directors as a prerequisite to its legal enactment. • All items appearing on the agenda are subject to action by the Board. Staff recommendations are subject to change by the Board. CRC ITEM #2 JANUARY 9, 2019

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (DISTRICT) 1250 SAN CARLOS AVENUE, SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA

MINUTES OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING / COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DECEMBER 5, 2018

Committee Members Present: P. Ratto (Committee Chair), C. Groom

Committee Members Absent: R. Guilbault

Other Board Members Present Constituting Committee of the Whole: J. Gee, Z. Kersteen- Tucker, K. Matsumoto, D. Pine, J. Powell, C. Stone (Chair)

Staff Present: J. Hartnett, C. Mau, J. Cassman, S. van Hoften, D. Olmeda, D. Hansel, S. Murphy, J. Brook, C. Boland

CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair Peter Ratto called the meeting to order at 3:16 pm. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 2018 Motion/Second: Gee/Pine Ayes: Gee, Groom, Kersteen-Tucker, Matsumoto, Pine, Powell, Ratto, Stone Absent: Guilbault

ACCESSIBILITY UPDATE Tina Dubost, Manager, Accessible Transit Services, said that the new SamTrans mobile app was demonstrated at the SamTrans Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting in November. PARATRANSIT COORDINATING COUNCIL UPDATE Ben McMullan, PCC Chair, said that PCC was present at the Center for Independence (CID) emergency preparedness presentation. He announced that discussion is underway about how SamTrans and the PCC could partner with the County’s emergency medical services in providing emergency response. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE Committee Chair Ratto updated the Board on the SamTrans CAC meeting of November 28. He said that David Olmeda, Chief Operating Officer, Bus, would discuss the following reports: MULTIMODAL RIDERSHIP REPORT – OCTOBER 2018 MOBILITY MANAGEMENT REPORT – ANNUAL SUMMARY QUARTERLY DASHBOARD REPORT – JULY-SEPTEMBER Mr. Olmeda gave a presentation on the End-of-Year Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2018, and reviewed monthly and quarterly statistics.

Page 1 of 2 15139619.1 Community Relations Committee Minutes of December 5, 2018 Meeting Dra

Director Karyl Matsumoto asked if there was a plan to improve performance. She noted that the large number of active construction projects in South San Francisco is challenging for bus service in that area. Mr. Olmeda said that bus routes and times are adjusted accordingly. She asked why there had been a spike in DNOs (Do Not Operate). Mr. Olmeda said that DNOs and other performance deficiencies correlate directly with the shortage of bus operators. Jim Hartnett, General Manager/CEO, concurred, saying that full staffing of operators has not yet been achieved. Director Josh Powell said that he favored the District resolving basic customer service issues before taking on new initiatives. Committee Chair Ratto noted that traffic congestion plays a major part in service delays. He advocated the passing of more congestion mitigation measures such as Measure W. Committee Member Carole Groom said the County’s high cost of housing is a major deterrent in attracting bus operators, many of whom commute long distances. She said that the District needs to examine the cost of living and adjust salaries accordingly. Director Dave Pine said that recruitment would become increasingly difficult due to lack of affordability in the local housing market. He asked about traffic signal priority for buses. Mr. Olmeda said new technology was coming in early 2020. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 3:40 pm. An audio/video recording of this meeting is available online at www.samtrans.com. Questions may be referred to the District Secretary's office by phone at 650-508-6279 or by email to [email protected].

Page 2 of 2 15139619.1 CRC ITEM #4 JANUARY 9, 2019

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT STAFF REPORT

TO: Community Relations Committee

THROUGH: Jim Hartnett General Manager/CEO

FROM: David Olmeda Chief Operating Officer, Bus

SUBJECT: ACCESSIBLITY REPORT

ACTION This item is for information only. No action is required.

SIGNIFICANCE Several groups advise SamTrans on accessible service issues. The Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC) provides a forum for consumer input on paratransit issues. The Advocacy and Legislative Committee (AL-Com) is the advocacy arm of the PCC.

The PCC and the PAL (PCC AL-Com) meet monthly (except for August).

The minutes of the November PCC and PAL meetings are attached to this report.

BUDGET IMPACT There is no impact on the budget.

BACKGROUND No Additional Information.

Prepared By: Tina Dubost, Manager, Accessible Transit Services 650-508-6247 Project Manager: Tina Dubost, Manager, Accessible Transit Services 650-508-6247

SAN MATEO COUNTY PCC POLICY-ADVOCACY-LEGISLATIVE (PAL) COMMITTEE

MEETING MINUTES 11:30a.m. - 12:30 p.m. November 13, 2018

ATTENDANCE: Members Present: Mike Levinson, Chair; Sammi (Wilhelmina) Riley, Consumer; Tina Dubost, SamTrans; Sandra Lang, Consumer; Benjamin McMullan, CID . (5 members/ Quorum requires 6)

GUESTS: David Koffman, Nelson/Nygaard; Lorna Rodriguez-Wong, PCC Staff;: Patty Talbott, First Transit/Redi-Wheels; Lynn Spicer, First Transit/Redi-Wheels; David Scarbor, SamTrans; Henry Silvas, SamTrans; Michael Mau, San Mateo County Commission on Aging; Larisa Vaserman, Consumer.

ABSENT: Aki Eejima, Consumer; Alex Madrid, Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities (CID); Dinae Cruise, PCC Vice-Chair.

WELCOME: Mike called the meeting to order at 11:40 a.m. and welcomed all to the PAL meeting.

OCTOBER PAL MINUTES: There was no quorum available to approve the October PAL Meeting Minutes.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: Tina introduced David Scarbor who has taken the position of Accessibility Coordinator position for SamTrans. PCC welcomed David to the meeting.

Tina said that Measure W is too close to call. Since San Mateo had mail in ballots, votes are still being tabulated. The most recent count was 65.5%. The measure will require 66.67% to pass. Sandra thanked Team C for all their hard work and getting people to get out and vote.

Tina also added that Proposition 6 to repeal the gas tax did not pass. So, transportation projects already in progress will not be cancelled.

LOCAL ADVOCACY ISSUES—OPEN DISCUSSION:

Patty said that there is a meeting scheduled with Talib from Serra Cab tomorrow. Patty continued by saying the meeting with Serra Cab was to address ETA and on-time performance. They also want to know more about the taxi drivers’ location and communication to the dispatcher. She said that First Transit has been relying on Serra Cab more. That increased reliance seems to be taxing Serra Cab’s systems. Sammi mentioned that even though her original scheduled ride was for much earlier, taxi drivers have told her that she was just a recent add-on to their manifest. Mike asked

that Patty provide an update of the meeting results. So, if the PCC also schedules a meeting, they would not duplicate these concerns.

The group asked about the training that taxi drivers receive. Lynn Spicer said that all new taxis drivers receive 3 days of training. A few members were concerned if there was training for dispatchers and how to provide service to people with disabilities. Lynn said they also have refresher training for people with disabilities. David Koffman asked if there was training for dispatchers. Lynn said no. Patty said she would follow-up on the dispatcher training issue. Ben gave an example of a customer being picked up late by a taxi.

Lynn provided an update on Dennis Rosselli, who had complained about his wife being picked up late. First Transit worked with the dialysis center. Lynn said that Mr. Rosselli has complimented the drivers. They have worked this out and the results have been good.

Lorna mentioned that she met a rider at the San Bruno Emergency Preparedness event. This rider lives in San Mateo and states that it regularly takes her 3 hours to get to Foster City. This seemed to be an “incredible length of time” to get between the two locations. Lorna will forward the rider information to Tina for review.

Tina also followed up on Alex’s issue regarding a late pick-up and inaccurate information from a taxi ride. She and Lynn said that they had already followed up with Alex.

OTHER BUSINESS: The PCC will meet today from 1:30-3:30 p.m. The next PAL meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, December 11, 2018 from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

The meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.

SAN MATEO COUNTY PARATRANSIT COORDINATING COUNCIL (PCC)

MEETING MINUTES 1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. November 13, 2018

ATTENDANCE: Members Present Chair: Benjamin McMullan, Center for Independence of Individuals with Disabilities (CID); Mike Levinson, Consumer/PAL Chair; Sammi (Wilhelmina) Riley, Consumer; Tina Dubost, SamTrans; Sandra Lang, PCC Member; Marie Violet, Dignity Health; Monica Colondres; Community Resident; Nancy Keegan, Sutter Health; Barbara Kalt, Rosener House; Patty Clement; Catholic Charities; Judy Garcia, Consumer; (Member Attendance- 11, Quorum-Yes).

GUESTS: David Koffman, Nelson-Nygaard; Lorna Rodriguez-Wong, PCC Staff; Patty Talbott, First Transit; David Scarbor, SamTrans; Lynn Spicer, First Transit/Redi-Wheels; Talib Salamin, Serra Cab; Larisa Vaserman, Consumer.

ABSENTEES: Alex Madrid, CID/Education Chair; Valerie Campos, Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired; Aki Eejima, Consumer; Dinae Cruise, Vice-Chair

WELCOME/INTRODUCTION: Ben McMullan called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. and welcomed all to the PCC Meeting.

APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER MINUTES: Mike moved to approve the October Meeting Minutes and Sammi seconded the motion. The meeting minutes were approved with changes.

COMMITTEE REPORTS A. POLICY ADVOCACY- LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE (PAL)

Mike provided an update from the PAL committee meeting from earlier that day: Tina said that Measure W is too close to call. Since San Mateo had mail-in ballots, votes are still being tabulated. The most recent count was 65.5%. The measure will require 66.67% to pass. Sandra thanked Team C for all their hard work and getting people to get out and vote.

Tina also added that Proposition 6 to repeal the gas tax did not pass. So, transportation projects already in progress will not be cancelled.

LOCAL ADVOCACY ISSUES—OPEN DISCUSSION: Patty said that there is a meeting scheduled with Talib from Serra Cab tomorrow. Patty added that the meeting with Serra Cab was to address expected time of arrival (ETA) and on-time performance. They also want to know more about the taxi drivers’ location and communication to the dispatcher. She said that First Transit has been relying on Serra Cab more. That increased reliance seems to be taxing Serra Cab’s systems, as they are experiencing the same driver shortage as bus operations. Sammi mentioned that even though her original scheduled ride was for much earlier, taxi drivers have told 4

her that she was a recent add-on to their manifest. Mike asked that Patty provide an update of the meeting results.

B. GRANT/BUDGET REVIEW Barbara was not in attendance last month but asked Tina if the updated budget is available now. Tina said that it would be available for the December meeting.

C. EDUCATION COMMITTEE Sammi provided an update on the outreach events. The committee discussed outreach tabling at the “Transition to Independence” fair on October 20th, “Seniors on the Move” on November 2nd and “Emergency Preparedness” on November 9th. The PCC website is back up and working. We also discussed getting a copy of the Consumer Corps application and copy of the updated Checklist on the website.

The next Education Committee meeting via conference call will be held on Friday, December 7th from 1:00-1:30pm

D. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Ben mentioned that an Executive meeting will be planned soon. Lorna asked that those on the committee provide dates that they might be available for a conference call.

Ben has contacted Shruti Dhapodkar, at Office of Emergency Services, who will present in December. She will be asked to discuss registries.

Sandra brought up that Shruti’s original presentation asked that everyone plan out their Emergency Preparedness pack. Sandra said that she still has not done so but now might be the time to do so. Tina offered to send out a list to PCC members to assist in compiling an Emergency Preparedness Pack.

CONSUMER CORPS REPORT: This quarter (July through September) had 13 participants and 148 checklist submissions. Participants reported that over 74% of rides were within 20 minutes of their scheduled ride time. Regarding telephone reservations 47% of participants reported that their calls were taken without being put on hold. Night before call information was not available this month. Driver Assistance “met needs” or was “above needs” in 85% of reports. Customer satisfaction with driver assistance has declined from 96% to 85%. For the 3rd quarter, 30% of members rode on Redi-Wheels vehicles, 48% rode on taxis and the remaining 22% rode on Redi-Coast vehicles. Only 21% noted seeing the yellow comment cards probably due to the increase in taxi service for Redi-Wheels. It has been noted that Redi-Wheels riders need to request comment cards on Serra Cab rides since the comment cards are not usually displayed to all Serra taxi riders.

Tina asked that Consumer Corps riders be given the 800 number if they have needs that may not be addressed. Lorna will add the 800 number as a resource to the quarterly letters to the Consumer Corps members.

SAMTRANS/REDI-WHEELS REPORT: A. Operational Report Tina informed the PCC committee that David Scarbor is the new Accessibility Coordinator. PCC members welcomed David.

Tina said there was a request to change the telephone hold music. They are checking with IT because they share this queue music with the Customer Service line. They need to verify that this change will not affect the Customer Service queue. They want to make sure that SamTrans calls will not get Redi-Wheels announcements and vice versa.

SamTrans did two studies with the University of California, Davis which are close to being finalized. The UC Davis studies are making recommendations for micro transit. A second study is an efficiency analysis on Redi-Wheels. With demand going up, they will be making recommendations on reducing costs, increasing revenue and providing other services that may help with demand. They also recommend improving access to SamTrans buses to reduce Redi-Wheels demand. They hope to be able to present the results of this study to the SamTrans Board in December and present to the PCC at the December meeting. This is just a big picture document of possibilities and not necessarily for immediate implementation.

B. Performance Summary Tina compared data from September 2018 to September 2017. Ridership is down about 7%. Total trips served are down about 3.7%. Average weekly ridership is down by 7%. Taxi ridership has increased to 39% of total trips performed. No-shows are down in comparison to the same time last year. The on-time performance is 90%, which meets the standard. Productivity is good.

Judy had an incident where she could not get to her ride in time due to circumstances beyond her control. Tina offered to have Jim Rusconi contact her regarding a no-show on her account. Tina offered to check on it before the monthly letters go out.

Larisa asked if a Redi-Wheels driver is required to wait for the rider five minutes after the scheduled pick-up time. Tina confirmed that is correct. Larisa also wanted confirmation that if a rider goes to the same place and back regularly, she may ask for a subscription. Tina provided general information on subscription service.

Monica made an observation that with employment shortages as they are, both SamTrans and taxi services have had difficulties attracting drivers.

Talib also commented that they were doing their best to meet the demand.

C. Monthly Redi-Wheels Comment Statistics Report Tina said there was a total of 26 compliments. There were 47 complaints, of which 22 were valid. The most frequent type of comments were for late vehicles. Seventeen late vehicle comments were received, and 10 were deemed valid. Of the 12 driver conduct comments received, 5 were considered valid.

Tina wanted to follow-up on Mike’s question from last month where some comments fall into “He said, she said” category. In this instance, of the 7 comments which were deemed not valid, the drivers denied the allegation but SamTrans was not able independently to verify the allegation. Video was not available. Tina said SamTrans takes all comments seriously. Mike said that if SamTrans cannot conclusively verify the allegations, these comments should be moved to an ‘unknown’ category.

David Scarbor added that since drivers are investigated, management will follow-up to determine that this is not a regular pattern. So, if an incident has been determined invalid and management gave the driver the benefit of the doubt, it will still be monitored if a similar comment is received on the driver in the future.

Mike liked that management would follow-up further with an allegation. He just felt that moving a comment to the “invalid” category means you made a decision on the validity of the allegation when in fact SamTrans just could not validate. Patty Talbot added that a lot goes on behind the scenes regarding a driver once a comment is received. Nancy appreciated all the work that goes on behind the scenes at First Transit that is not represented on the report. Nancy added the report negatively reflects on those seven people who took the time to place a complaint for that month and does not properly represent them. Nancy further added that the column might also note what actions are taken in this category. Presently, this “invalid” column implies that the customer is wrong. Patty suggested that this is a wording issue and that adding a third column would be more work and change the historical data.

Monica did bring up that technically the word “invalid” does not appear on the report. Mike said that was correct but it implies that all others not list as valid were dismissed. He was suggesting that the word “valid” possibly be changed to “substantiated”. Ben said that we would table this discussion until next month.

D. Safety Report Patty Talbott said that there were 8 total incidents in October. Of those incidents, 2 were preventable and 6 were non-preventable.

Patty the Redi-Wheels union (Local 1574) voted to approve the contract. Patty was glad since the contract had been an issue for about a year but now the organization can move forward.

LIAISON REPORTS: A. COASTSIDE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (CTC) The next CTC meeting is scheduled for December 13th from 9:30-11:00 a.m. at 925 Main Street in Half Moon Bay. Tina was going to check if the time was to be changed.

B. AGENCY Agencies have not met since the last PCC meeting.

C. ERC No meeting scheduled.

D. COMMISSION ON DISABILITIES (COD) Ben reported that COD is moving forward in organizing the In-Home Support Services (IHSS) focus groups in order to bring feedback to the state legislature. The Transition to Independence Fair was held on October 20th at Mills High School. It was a success with about 300 attendees. The COD also recently presented to the Board of Supervisors.

E. CENTER FOR THE INDEPENDENCE OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES (CID) The next Emergency Preparedness Event was held on November 9th in San Bruno Senior Center. It was quite popular with about 150 attendees. CID also came out with a voting video with changes. We encourage all to view the video.

F. COMMISSION ON AGING (COA) Mike Levinson indicated that Scott McMullin will probably be the main contact, with Michael Mau, as one of the COA alternatives. Tina reported that at the COA’s transportation meeting Scott asked staff to have the Rider’s Guide translated to Spanish. This is currently in progress. Scott was also looking to shorten the eligibility process. The ADA requires that the eligibility process be within 21 days of receiving a completed application. Tina said SamTrans is within that timeframe. The COA will pursue that issue at a later date.

OTHER BUSINESS The next PAL and PCC meetings will be held on Tuesday, December 11, 2018. The PAL Committee will meet from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and the PCC will meet from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

MEETING ADJOURNED at 2.55 p.m.

CRC ITEM #6 JANUARY 9, 2019

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT STAFF REPORT

TO: Community Relations Committee

THROUGH: Jim Hartnett General Manager/CEO

FROM: David Olmeda Chief Operating Officer, Bus

SUBJECT: MULTIMODAL RIDERSHIP REPORT – NOVEMBER 2018

ACTION

This report is for information only. No action is required.

SIGNIFICANCE

The grand total average weekday ridership declined by 6.0 percent across all modes in the month of November 2018. Specific mode performance is as follows: average weekday ridership for Bus (-7.0%), Paratransit (-7.3%), Shuttles (-4.6%), Caltrain (-5.2%), and BART (-6.4%). Finally, total ridership decreased 6.4 percent in November 2018. SamTrans will implement service changes in January 2019 to improve regularity and reliability on main routes such as the ECR and ECR Rapid and to curb declining ridership.

Table “A” summarizes the average weekday ridership (AWR) statistics for all modes of transportation for which SamTrans is responsible. Chart “A” features year-to-date comparisons of AWR for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, FY2018, and FY2019.

Table “B” summarizes the total monthly ridership figures for all SamTrans transportation modes. Chart “B” features total ridership year-to-date for FY2017, FY2018, and FY2019. Tables “A” and “B” also provide the corresponding data for the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) San Francisco International Airport Extension as a separate line.

Table “C” details the number of riders for each fare category for SamTrans fixed route for the month and calendar year-to-date.

Table “D” details total and average daily ridership by day type (i.e. Weekdays, Weekends, and Holidays).

Table “E” provides additional information regarding SamTrans performance standards, including Average Weekday Ridership, On-Time Performance, and Token Usage (adult and youth).

Page 1 of 8

AVERAGE WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP – NOVEMBER 2018 COMPARED TO NOVEMBER 2017

Grand Total – 151,360, a decrease of 6.0 percent

Bus – 35,180, a decrease of 7.0 percent

Paratransit – 1,140, a decrease of 7.3 percent

Shuttles – 11,240, a decrease of 4.6 percent

Caltrain – 58,520, a decrease of 5.2 percent

Table A Average Weekday Ridership

November 2018 Average Weekday Ridership Percent Change Mode FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2018/2019 Bus 41,550 37,830 35,180 -7.0% Paratransit 1,240 1,230 1,140 -7.3% Shuttles 12,770 11,780 11,240 -4.6% Caltrain 57,050 61,740 58,520 -5.2% Total 112,610 112,580 106,080 -5.8% BART Extension (No Daly City) 49,720 48,360 45,280 -6.4% Grand Total 162,330 160,940 151,360 -6.0% Weekdays 21 21 21

November 2018 Year-to -date Percent Change Mode FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2018/2019 Bus 40,380 37,830 36,250 -4.2% Paratransit 1,260 1,250 1,190 -4.8% Shuttles 12,530 12,030 11,450 -4.8% Caltrain 60,020 61,980 61,970 0.0% Total 114,190 113,080 110,870 -2.0% BART Extension (No Daly City) 50,820 49,050 47,470 -3.2% Grand Total 165,010 162,130 158,340 -2.3%

Page 2 of 8

Chart A Grand Total Average Weekday Ridership (FYTD)

180,000 165,010 162,130 158,340 160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019

MONTHLY TOTAL RIDERSHIP – NOVEMBER 2018 COMPARED TO NOVEMBER 2017

The following summary and figures include total ridership for all modes of transportation for which SamTrans is responsible. These numbers are a gross count of each boarding across all modes and all service days for the month of November for the past three fiscal years.

Grand Total – 3,687,100 a decrease of 6.4 percent

Bus – 876,360, a decrease of 7.0 percent

Paratransit – 27,450, a decrease of 8.4 percent

Shuttles – 236,100, a decrease of 5.2 percent

Caltrain – 1,470,240, a decrease of 5.5 percent

Page 3 of 8

Table B Total Monthly Ridership

November 2018 Total Monthly Ridership Percent Change Mode FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2018/2019 Bus 1,024,690 942,520 876,360 -7.0% Paratransit 29,630 29,960 27,450 -8.4% Shuttles 258,400 249,140 236,100 -5.2% Caltrain 1,468,820 1,555,380 1,470,240 -5.5% Total 2,781,550 2,777,000 2,610,140 -6.0% BART Extension (No Daly City) 1,197,290 1,161,850 1,076,960 -7.3% Grand Total 3,978,840 3,938,850 3,687,100 -6.4% Weekdays 21 21 21

November 2018 Year -to-date Percent Change Mode FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2018/2019 Bus 5,150,310 4,838,930 4,631,670 -4.3% Paratransit 152,710 152,970 146,650 -4.1% Shuttles 1,323,090 1,283,080 1,239,430 -3.4% Caltrain 7,939,260 8,054,310 8,031,620 -0.3% Total 14,565,370 14,329,280 14,049,360 -2.0% BART Extension (No Daly City) 6,280,190 6,127,050 5,927,920 -3.3% Grand Total 20,845,560 20,456,320 19,977,280 -2.3%

Chart B Grand Total Ridership (FYTD)

25,000,000

20,845,560 20,456,320 19,977,280 20,000,000

15,000,000

10,000,000

5,000,000

0 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019

Page 4 of 8

The following summaries illustrate the number of riders by fare category and by day type for the month of November 2018. These numbers do not include Dumbarton ridership and rural On-Demand service previously reflected under the Paratransit ridership.

Table C Bus Riders by Fare Category

Fare Category Weekday Saturday Sunday Holiday Total

Adult Cash 94,793 13,239 10,721 1,822 120,575 Adult Pass 401,651 39,186 31,673 5,299 477,809 Youth Cash 95,255 5,992 4,415 505 106,167 Youth Pass 34,035 1,502 1,206 172 36,914 Eligible Discount 103,331 14,602 12,033 1,950 131,915 Total 729,063 74,521 60,048 9,748 873,381

November November November 2018 Calendar 2016 2017 2018 Year-to-Date Adult Cash 175,833 149,646 120,575 1,527,538 Adult Pass 512,801 471,931 477,809 5,180,454 Youth Cash 136,316 130,519 106,167 1,295,689 Youth Pass 55,298 45,207 36,914 430,836 Eligible Discount 141,038 141,964 131,915 1,572,489 Total 1,021,286 939,267 873,381 10,007,006

Table D SamTrans Bus Ridership Summary

November 2018 SamTrans Ridership Summary By day type: Total Riders Average Daily Riders Weekdays 729,063 35,039 Saturdays 74,521 18,630 Sundays 60,048 15,012 Holiday(s) 9,748 9,748 Total 873,381 29,113

Page 5 of 8

PERFORMANCE METRICS DESCRIPTION

AWR (Average Weekday Ridership) - measures average ridership on a weekday basis for the month

OTP (On Time Performance) - sampling thousands of schedules in the system for late, early, and on-time arrival and departure

Tokens - total of Adult and Youth token usage for the month

Table E Bus Performance Metrics

Tokens AWR OTP Adult Youth

November 2017 37,807 79.72% 25,213 23,789 December 2017 35,258 78.90% 22,431 21,234 January 2018 34,180 81.47% 22,164 20,410 February 2018 36,263 78.69% 24,017 21,234 March 2018 35,985 79,55% 26,025 25,612 April 2018 35,513 80.57% 27,234 20,230 May 2018 37,829 78.47% 23,583 34,316 June 2018 33,156 78.58% 15,537 14,986 July 2018 30,493 80.80% 16,025 5,780 August 2018 35,620 78.94% 18,942 16,057 September 2018 40,348 77.76% 17,726 24,825 October 2018 38,960 76.97% 22,166 24,237 November 2018 34,043 78.93% 18,896 18,652

Page 6 of 8

SAMTRANS PROMOTIONS – NOVEMBER 2018

Holiday

Veterans Day Observance - On November 12, in observance of Veterans Day, both SamTrans and Caltrain recognized and celebrated our Veterans’ service and sacrifice by running “SamTrans Salutes America’s Veterans” on all bus head signs and station Visual Message Signs (VMS).

Partnerships

San Mateo Harvest Festival (November 9 – 11) - The 46th Annual 2018 Harvest Festival was held at the San Mateo Event Center. The event featured over 250 artisans, specializing in clothing, jewelry, specialty foods, toys, holiday décor and more. Customers received a $2 discount if they rode public transit to the event by presenting a take-one that was available onboard buses and online at go.samtrans.com. Internal communications to promote the event included organic social media and a featured post on the Peninsula Moves transit news blog. The partnership included logos in printed collateral material, an event website, ad cards placed onboard buses, social media postings and a news release.

Senior Showcase in Foster City (November 9) - SamTrans Senior Mobility staff and volunteers attended the Senior Showcase held at the Recreation Center in Foster City. Staff and volunteers used this great opportunity to promote SamTrans and its’ Senior and Veteran Mobility Program. Internal communications to promote the event included organic social media and a feature on the Peninsula Moves transit news blog. The partnership included logos in printed/electronic collateral material produced by event organizers, social media postings, a news release and printed ads.

Youth Marketing Outreach Highlights

SamTrans Youth Ambassador Monthly Meeting (November 7) - Youth Ambassadors met to discuss November/December outreach and volunteer opportunities, including Independent City 2018, Stuff-A-Bus toy drive, Hometown Holidays and Holiday Train.

Ambassadors were greeted by Charles Stone, who is Chair of the SamTrans Board of Directors, a member of the Caltrain Board of Directors and a member of the Belmont City Council, and Carter Mau, Deputy GM/CEO. Charles and Carter responded to the youth ambassador’s questions about electrification, renewable energy and future plans for SamTrans.

Customer Service Rep 1 Karen Martinez spoke about her role at SamTrans and customer service. She walked the students through our fare products, our system maps, and schedules.

Menlo Park SRTS Meeting (November 13)

SamTrans Youth Ambassador Stuff-A-Bus Toy Drive (November 26 – 30) - Five of our youth ambassadors supported our Stuff-A-Bus efforts by hosting a toy drive at their schools, housing complexes and libraries.

Page 7 of 8

Discussion on SamTrans Routes in Menlo Park (November 28) - Met with representatives from Menlo Park and Encinal School to discuss issues with current routes and discuss rezoning of school boundaries.

Prepared by: Alex Lam, Senior Planner 650-508-6227 Christina Contreras, Marketing Outreach Coordinator 650-508-7763 James Namba, Marketing Specialist 650-508-7924 Jeremy Lipps, Social Media Officer 650-508-7845

Page 8 of 8

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2019

CHARLES STONE, CHAIR CAROLE GROOM, VICE CHAIR RON COLLINS ROSE GUILBAULT KARYL MATSUMOTO DAVE PINE JOSH POWELL PETER RATTO

JIM HARTNETT GENERAL MANAGER/CEO A G E N D A

FINANCE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

San Mateo County Transit District Administrative Building Bacciocco Auditorium – 2nd Floor 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2019 – 2:45 pm or immediately following Community Relations Committee meeting

1. Call to Order

Committee Members: Karyl Matsumoto (Chair), Rose Guilbault, Dave Pine

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (DISTRICT) 1250 SAN CARLOS AVENUE, SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA

MINUTES OF FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING / COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DECEMBER 5, 2018

Committee Members Present: K. Matsumoto (Committee Chair), D. Pine

Committee Members Absent: R. Guilbault

Other Board Members Present Constituting Committee of the Whole: J. Gee, C. Groom, Z. Kersteen-Tucker, J. Powell, P. Ratto, C. Stone (Chair)

Staff Present: J. Hartnett, C. Mau, J. Cassman, S. van Hoften, D. Olmeda, D. Hansel, S. Murphy, J. Brook, C. Boland

CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair Karyl Matsumoto called the meeting to order at 3:41 pm. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 2018 Motion/Second: Stone/Powell Ayes: Gee, Groom, Kersteen-Tucker, Matsumoto, Pine, Powell, Ratto, Stone Absent: Guilbault

ACCEPTANCE OF FISCAL YEAR 2018 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT Derek Hansel, Chief Financial Officer, introduced Grace Martinez, Director of Accounting, who gave a presentation on the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Ahmad Gharaibeh, Partner, Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP, the District’s audit partner, summarized the audit process. Chair Charles Stone thanked the Finance Department and Mr. Gharaibeh. Jim Hartnett, General Manager/CEO, thanked the Audit Committee for their review and input on the CAFR. Director Jeff Gee said that at the December 3 Audit Committee meeting, the Committee learned that all identified deficiencies from last year were removed and have been corrected on the most recent CAFR. He said that the District has also rectified cash flow from JPB grants, and that he anticipated an increase in SamTrans’s credit rating as a result. Motion/Second: Stone/Groom Ayes: Gee, Groom, Kersteen-Tucker, Matsumoto, Pine, Powell, Ratto, Stone Absent: Guilbault

Page 1 of 2 15139620.1 Finance Committee Minutes of December 5, 2018 Meeting Dra

SAMTRANS FARE STUDY UPDATE AND DRAFT FARE POLICY

Daniel Shockley, Senior Planner, noted that no action would be taken on the SamTrans Fare Policy and it would be proposed for adoption at a future meeting. He facilitated a presentation with an update on the study. Chair Stone said he was interested in driving up youth ridership. Director Groom said she supported the idea of frequently updating the fare policy. She said she felt it definitely was not the right time for any fare increase. Director Gee said it was struggle to balance lower-income riders’ fare concerns with farebox recovery. Committee Member Dave Pine said more emphasis should be put on increasing ridership, especially with the passage of Measure W. Director Peter Ratto said he favored ride aggregation where people get a monthly pass once they reach a certain ride threshold. Director Zoe Kersteen-Tucker asked if the policy allowed for SamTrans to charge more for certain routes. Mr. Shockley said they were looking at the possibility of charging a premium fare for express buses. Director Josh Powell asked how District revenue is impacted by decreased ridership and price increases. Mr. Shockley said the model doesn’t take that into consideration but that he would discuss with his technical team and get back to him. Committee Chair Matsumoto said ridership in the North County is transit- dependent and unlikely to be able to afford even a weekly pass. Chair Stone proposed moving those customers to a cashless system. Director Powell said that previous surveys suggested that 50 percent of riders didn’t own smart phones. POSTPONEMENT OF 2019 FARE INCREASES Public Comment: • Mike Levinson, Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC), said that he supported postponing any fare increases • Ben McMullan, Center for Independence (CID) and PCC, also said that he supported postponing fare increases. Motion/Second: Groom/Powell Ayes: Gee, Groom, Kersteen-Tucker, Matsumoto, Pine, Powell, Ratto, Stone Absent: Guilbault

ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 4:30 pm. An audio/video recording of this meeting is available online at www.samtrans.com. Questions may be referred to the District Secretary's office by phone at 650-508-6279 or by email to [email protected].

Page 2 of 2 15139620.1 FINANCE ITEM #3 JANUARY 9, 2019

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT STAFF REPORT

TO: Finance Committee

THROUGH: Jim Hartnett General Manager/CEO

FROM: Derek Hansel Michelle Bouchard Chief Financial Officer Chief Operating Officer, Rail

SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR ON-CALL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT SERVICES

ACTION Staff proposes the Committee recommend the Board:

1. Award contracts to Cooper Pugeda Management, Inc. of San Francisco, California and Jacobs Project Management Company of Oakland, California for an aggregate total not-to-exceed amount of $340,000 to provide on-call Program Management Oversight Services (PMO Services) for a five-year term at the negotiated rates specified in each contract.

2. Authorize the General Manager/CEO, or his designee, to execute a contract with each of the above firms in full conformity with the terms and conditions of the solicitation documents and in a form approved by legal counsel.

SIGNIFICANCE To meet an on-going need, the San Mateo County Transit District (District) contracts with consultants to provide PMO Services in support of capital projects. Approval of the above actions will provide the District with two qualified firms to deliver PMO Services for current and future capital projects.

Award of these contracts will not obligate the District to purchase any specific level of service from either of the selected firms. Work will be performed under Work Directives (WDs) issued to each firm on an on-call and project-by-project basis.

BUDGET IMPACT Each WD will contain a defined scope of services, schedule and budget. WDs will be funded from approved capital and/or operating budgets using a variety of funding mechanisms and sources and may include Federal, State, and local revenues and grants.

Page 1 of 3 15085486.1

BACKGROUND The District has an ongoing need for PMO Services, primarily consisting of program and project management, document control, records management, cost estimating and scheduling and support services to support implementation of various capital projects.

A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board and advertised in a newspaper of general circulation, and on the agency’s procurement website. Four firms submitted proposals:

1. Cooper Pugeda Management, Inc., San Francisco, California 2. Hill International, Inc., San Francisco, California 3. Jacobs Project Management Company, Oakland, California 4. Salimi Construction Management, LLC, San Francisco, California

In accordance with federal and state laws governing the procurement of architecture and engineering services, proposals were evaluated, scored and ranked solely based on qualifications. Staff only negotiated price with the highest ranked firms. An Evaluation Committee (Committee), composed of qualified staff from Capital Program Delivery and Rail Engineering Support departments, reviewed, scored and ranked proposals in accordance with the following weighted criteria:

• Qualifications and Experience of Key Personnel 30% • Qualifications and Experience of Firm 25% • Project Understanding and Management Plan 25% • Quality Control Plan 20% • Small Business Enterprise Preference 5%

After initial review and screening of the technical proposals, two of the four firms were found to be in the competitive range. Both firms are qualified and established consultants that have successful experience working for the District. The Committee, therefore, determined oral interviews would not be necessary. Staff successfully negotiated contract terms and conditions, including price, with each of the highest ranked firms. Prices were determined to be fair, reasonable, and consistent with those currently paid by the District, and other public agencies in the Bay Area, for similar services.

Staff assessed Small Business Enterprise (SBE) preference points to all four firms for their proposed utilization of SBEs. Cooper Pugeda Management, Inc., which is a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE), commits to DBE participation for 50% of the contract value. Cooper Pugeda also commits to utilizing SBEs for 55% of the total contract value. Jacobs Project Management Company commits to utilizing SBEs for 25% of the total contract value, including utilizing DBE subconsultants for 18% of the total contract value.

The two firms possess the requisite experience and qualifications required for successful performance of the services defined in the solicitation documents. PMO Services are currently provided by Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. The contract expires in March

Page 2 of 3 15085486.1 2019.

Procurement Administrator II: Angela Gardner 650-508-7788 Project Manager: Robert Cheung, Project Controls Manager 650-622-8019

Page 3 of 3 15085486.1 RESOLUTION NO. 2019- ____

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT STATE OF CALIFORNIA

* * *

AWARDING CONTRACTS TO COOPER PUGEDA MANAGEMENT, INC. AND JACOBS PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPANY FOR PROVISION OF ON-CALL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT SERVICES FOR AN AGGREGATE NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $340,000 FOR A FIVE-YEAR TERM

WHEREAS, the San Mateo County District (District) issued a Request for Proposals

(RFP) for on-call program management oversight services; and

WHEREAS, in response to the RFP, the District received four proposals; and

WHEREAS, an Evaluation Committee (Committee) reviewed, evaluated, scored,

and ranked all the proposals according to the qualifications-based evaluation criteria

set forth in the RFP, and determined that two firms were in the competitive range; and

WHEREAS, the Committee completed its evaluation process, including

negotiation of cost with the highest-ranked proposers, and determined that Cooper

Pugeda Management, Inc. of San Francisco, California and Jacobs Project

Management Company of Oakland, California possess the necessary qualifications and requisite experience to successfully perform the scope of services defined in the solicitation documents, and have agreed to perform the specified services at fair and reasonable prices; and

WHEREAS, staff and legal counsel have reviewed the proposals found to be in the competitive range and have determined that the proposals comply with the requirements of the solicitation documents; and

Page 1 of 2 15085489.1 WHEREAS, the General Manager/CEO recommends, and the Finance

Committee concurs, that the Board of Directors award contracts to Cooper Pugeda

Management, Inc. and Jacobs Project Management Company for on-call program management oversight services for an aggregate not-to-exceed amount of $340,000

for a five-year term.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the San Mateo

County Transit District hereby awards contracts for on-call program management oversight services to Cooper Pugeda Management, Inc. and Jacobs Project

Management Company for a five-year term for an aggregate not-to-exceed amount

of $340,000; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the General Manager/CEO, or his designee, is authorized

to execute contracts with Cooper Pugeda Management, Inc. and Jacobs Project

Management Company in full conformity with all of the terms and conditions of the RFP

and negotiated agreements, and in a form approved by legal counsel.

Regularly passed and adopted this 9th day of January, 2019 by the following

vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

______Chair, San Mateo County Transit District

ATTEST:

Acting District Secretary

Page 2 of 2 15085489.1 FINANCE ITEM #4 JANUARY 9, 2019

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT STAFF REPORT

TO: Finance Committee

THROUGH: Jim Hartnett General Manager/CEO

FROM: Derek Hansel David Olmeda Chief Financial Officer Chief Operating Officer, Bus

SUBJECT: AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK MAINTENANCE

ACTION Staff proposes that the Committee recommend that the Board:

1. Award a contract to the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder, Constructicon Corp (dba CIC) of Mountain View, California, to perform underground storage tank inspection, testing, and maintenance services (Services) for an estimated not-to-exceed amount of $270,000 for a five-year term. 2. Authorize the General Manager/CEO or his designee to execute a contract with CIC in full conformity with the terms and conditions of the bid specification documents and in a form approved by legal counsel.

SIGNIFICANCE Award of this contract will provide the San Mateo County Transit District (District) with a dedicated and qualified contractor to provide Services for the underground storage tanks located at North Base and South Base maintenance facilities.

BUDGET IMPACT Funds for this contract are included in the current operating budget and will be included in future operating budgets.

BACKGROUND An Invitation for Bids (IFB) was issued and advertised in a newspaper of general circulation and on the District’s procurement website, which includes Small Business Enterprises (SBE) and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) registered in the District’s vendor database. Prior to releasing the IFB, extensive outreach was conducted through direct email after searching industry websites and the State of California’s DBE database. The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises assigned a 15% SBE goal to this solicitation. One potential bidder attended the Pre-Bid Meeting and site walk.

Page 1 of 2 15093242.1 The District received a single bid as follows:

Company Bid Amount Independent Cost Estimate $288,000 Constructicon Corp, Mountain View, CA $242,901

CIC met all bid requirements. Staff conducted an analysis of the price and determined it is fair and reasonable. As a requirements-based contract, Services will be provided at fixed unit rates for an estimated not-to-exceed amount of $270,000.

Staff reviewed the bid and determined that CIC is a certified SBE. As a SBE, CIC was eligible to receive a five percent (5%) SBE preference. Since CIC was the sole bidder, the SBE preference did not affect the evaluation or ranking of its bid.

CIC is an established Bay Area contractor, headquartered in Mountain View. Company reference checks confirmed its experience and competency. CIC has successfully provided services for other local agencies and in 2015 it successfully completed the removal and installation of an underground tank at North Base. Based upon these findings, staff concludes that CIC is appropriately qualified and capable of meeting the requirements of the contract and is, therefore, the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder.

CIC will subcontract plumbing work to Technology, Engineering, and Construction, Inc. (TEC). TEC has provided maintenance, inspection and testing services to the District for more than 20 years.

Staff contacted three underground storage tank contractors to determine why they did not submit a bid. Two of the three contractors indicated that they intended to do so, but missed the deadline to submit, while the other indicated it has no capacity to take on additional projects. Staff also contacted the U.S. Army Contracting Command in Arizona to inquire about a recently issued Underground Storage Tank Maintenance solicitation; no bids were received.

The District’s current contractor is TEC, which was awarded a five-year contract in 2012 for a total estimated amount of $750,000. The contract expired on May 30, 2018.

No strategic initiatives apply to the award of this contract.

Procurement Administrator II: Linda Tamtum 650-508-7933 Project Manager: Jeff Thomas 650-508-6309

Page 2 of 2 15093242.1 RESOLUTION NO. 2019 -

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT STATE OF CALIFORNIA

* * *

AWARDING A CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCTICON CORP (DBA CIC) TO PROVIDE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK INSPECTION, TESTING AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR AN ESTIMATED NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $270,000

WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Transit District (District) issued an Invitation For

Bids (IFB) for underground storage tank inspection, testing and maintenance services

(Services) to be performed at North Base and South Base facilities; and

WHEREAS, in response to the IFB, the District received one bid; and

WHEREAS, staff and Legal Counsel have reviewed the bid and determined that

Constructicon Corp. dba CIC (CIC) of Mountain View, California submitted a responsive and responsible bid; and

WHEREAS, staff conducted a price analysis of the bid and determined that the bid is fair and reasonable; and

WHEREAS, the General Manager/CEO recommends, and the Finance

Committee concurs, that the Board of Directors (Board) award a contract for an estimated not-to-exceed amount of $270,000 to CIC for the Services.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the San Mateo

County Transit District awards a contract to Constructicon Corp. dba CIC for the provision of underground storage tank inspection, testing and maintenance services for an estimated not-to-exceed amount of $270,000; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board authorizes the General Manager/CEO or designee to execute a contract on behalf of the District with CIC in full conformity

Page 1 of 2

15093240.1 with the terms and conditions of the solicitation documents and in a form approved by legal counsel.

Regularly passed and adopted this 9th day of January, 2019, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

______Chair, San Mateo County Transit District ATTEST:

______District Secretary

Page 2 of 2 15093240.1 FINANCE ITEM #5 JANUARY 9, 2019

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT STAFF REPORT

TO: Finance Committee

THROUGH: Jim Hartnett General Manager/CEO

FROM: Carter Mau Derek Hansel Deputy General Manager Chief Financial Officer

Joan Cassman Legal Counsel

SUBJECT: AMEND AND CONSOLIDATE POLICIES ESTABLISHING GENERAL LIABILITY, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY

ACTION Staff proposes the Committee recommend the Board: 1. Repeal and replace the separate San Mateo County Transit District (District) policies establishing settlement authority for (a) general liability claims and (b) employment and workers' compensation claims into a single Policy Establishing Settlement Authority for General Liability, Employment and Workers' Compensation Claims (Policy); 2. Amend the settlement limits for each type of claim to authorize staff to settle claims up to $100,000; and 3. Take any actions necessary to give effect to the above actions.

SIGNIFICANCE Adoption of the proposed Policy, set forth as Attachment A, would allow staff the flexibility to more efficiently and expeditiously settle claims for the District, as well as those of the agencies it manages, including the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) and San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA).

Current settlement authority limits were established in 2001 for general liability claims and 2003 for employment and workers' compensation claims. The current limits require Board action before settlement of any claims over $50,000. With the passage of time (approximately 17 and 15 years, respectively), the District's current policies no longer reflect the economic realities of litigation for both claimants and the District. In addition, the policies would benefit from updating references to outdated titles and organizational structures as well as combining them for ease of use. The combined Policy would create one new free-standing document as prior policies were expressed in separate resolutions.

Page 1 of 2 15123201.2 BUDGET IMPACT The proposed Policy, with updated limits, is expected to improve the efficiency of claims processing, thereby decreasing staff and legal costs.

BACKGROUND For general liability claims, the Board first delegated to staff certain levels of settlement authority in 1983, pursuant to Resolution 1983-39, with limits of $5,000 for the District's third-party claims administrator and $25,000 for a committee including the General Manager, Risk Manager, General Counsel, Chief Financial Officer and a member of the Board. In 2001, by Resolution 2001-28, the policy changed to allow the Risk Manager, after review by General Counsel, to settle claims up to $25,000 and the General Manager, upon recommendation of the Risk Manager and General Counsel, to settle claims up to $50,000. The policy was revised again in 2010, pursuant to Resolution 2010- 47, to reflect then-current titles and changes to the District's organizational structure; but the limits were not revised at that time.

For employment related claims to cover discrimination, harassment and other employment claims as well as workers' compensation claims, in 2003, the Board established the District's first settlement authority policy with limits generally consistent with those previously established for general liability claims as specified above. Under Resolution 2003-19, the Director of Human Resources was authorized to settle claims up to $10,000; the Deputy CEO (Finance and Administration), after review by General Counsel, was authorized to settle claims up to $25,000; and the General Manager/CEO, upon recommendation by the Deputy CEO (Finance and Administration) and General Counsel, was authorized to settle claims up to $50,000. This policy also was revised in 2010, by Resolution 2010-48, to reflect then-current titles but not to alter the levels of authority.

A review of recent settlements over the past decade reveals that six general liability claims and three employment and workers' compensation claims have been settled by the District in the $50,000 to $100,000 range.

The proposed delegations of authority would be similar to those adopted by our neighboring agencies, including the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA) and the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (Muni). They also are consistent with authority delegated to staff to enter into certain procurement and cooperative agreements.

STRATEGIC INITIATIVE Priority 2 – Strengthen Fiscal Health • Goal 3 – Implement existing and new best practices

Prepared By: Joan Cassman, Legal Counsel 415-995-5021 Shayna van Hoften, Legal Counsel 415-995-5880

Page 2 of 2 15123201.2 Attachment A: Proposed Draft Policy

San Mateo County Transit District Settlement Authority Policy for General Liability, Employment and Workers' Compensation Claims

This policy establishes the settlement authorities vested in staff and consultants of the San Mateo County Transit District (District) in settling (a) general liability claims; (b) discrimination, harassment and other employment-related claims, and (c) workers' compensation claims.

1. The District's third-party claims administrator, with oversight by the Insurance & Claims Administrator, is authorized to settle general liability claims and actions up to $5,000 and authorize payment of same;

2. The Insurance & Claims Administrator is authorized to settle general liability claims and actions up to $10,000 and authorize payment of same;

3. The Chief Financial Officer, after review by General Counsel, is authorized to settle general liability claims and actions between $10,001 and $25,000 and authorize payment of same;

4. The Deputy General Manager, after review by General Counsel, is authorized to settle employment and workers' compensation claims and actions up to $25,000 and authorize payment of same;

5. The General Manager/CEO, upon recommendation by the Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel, is authorized to settle general liability claims and actions between $25,001 and $100,000 and authorize payment of same;

6. The General Manager/CEO, upon recommendation by the Deputy General Manager and General Counsel, is authorized to settle employment and workers' compensation claims and actions between $25,001 and $100,000 and authorize payment of same; and

Page 1 of 2

15113518.2 7. Only the Board of Directors, upon recommendation by the General Manager/CEO, may approve settlements in excess of $100,000 and authorize payment of same.

This policy also establishes the settlement authority framework that guides the District's management of the specified types of claims and actions filed against the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority.

Page 2 of 2

15113518.2 RESOLUTION NO. 2019 -

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT STATE OF CALIFORNIA * * * REVISING AND CONSOLIDATING THE POLICIES ESTABLISHING SETTLEMENT AUTHORITY FOR GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS AND EMPLOYMENT AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 1983-9, the Board of Directors (Board)

established a Settlement Authority Policy for General Liability Claims (Liability Claims

Policy) for the San Mateo County Transit District (District), under which staff was

authorized to settle claims up to $25,000; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2001-28, adopted more than 17 years ago, the Board increased the Liability Claims Policy's levels of authority, allowing staff to settle

claims of up to $50,000; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2003-19, the Board established a Settlement

Authority for Employment Claims (Employment Claims Policy) for the District, under

which staff was authorized to settle discrimination, harassment and other employment-

related claims, as well as workers' compensation claims, of up to $50,000; and

WHEREAS, the Board revised both the Liability Claims Policy and the Employment

Claims Policy pursuant to Resolutions No. 2010-47 and 2010-48, respectively, to reflect changes to titles and roles within the District following a staff reorganization, but made

no adjustments to the levels of settlement authority included in the two policies; and

WHEREAS, due to the passage of time, the current settlement authorities have

fallen behind those applicable to other agencies in the Bay Area and no longer reflect

the economic reality of litigation for both claimants and the District; and

Page 1 of 3

15113473.1 WHEREAS, in recognition of this context and to reflect current staff position titles and organization of District staff, to consolidate the policies governing settlement of claims, and for closer alignment with staff's authority to enter into various other types of contracts, the General Manager/CEO recommends, and the Finance Committee concurs, that the Board update and consolidate the General Claims Policy and

Employment Claims Policy into a single Settlement Authority Policy for General

Liability, Employment and Workers' Compensation Claims; and

WHEREAS, the amended and consolidated policy will authorize:

• the District's third-party claims administrator, with oversight by the Insurance &

Claims Administrator, to settle general liability claims up to $5,000;

• the Insurance & Claims Administrator to settle general liability claims up to

$10,000;

• the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and General Counsel to settle general

liability claims up to $25,000;

• the Deputy General Manager (DGM) and General Counsel to settle

employment and workers' compensation claims up to $25,000;

• the General Manager/CEO, CFO and General Counsel to settle general

liability claims up to $100,000;

• the General Manager/CEO, DGM and General Counsel to settle

employment and workers' compensation claims up to $100,000; and

WHEREAS, under the amended and consolidated Policy, settlement of any claim over $100,000 will require Board action.

Page 2 of 3

15113473.1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors (Board) of the San

Mateo County Transit District hereby repeals and replaces the District's Settlement

Authority Policy for General Liability Claims and the District's Settlement Authority Policy for Employment Claims with an amended and consolidated Settlement Authority Policy for General Liability, Employment and Workers' Compensation Claims, attached as

Attachment A and incorporated herein as if set forth in full; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager/CEO is authorized to take any actions necessary to give effect to this resolution.

Regularly passed and adopted this 9th day of January, 2019 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Chair, Board of Directors

ATTEST:

Acting District Secretary

Page 3 of 3

15113473.1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2019

CHARLES STONE, CHAIR CAROLE GROOM, VICE CHAIR RON COLLINS ROSE GUILBAULT KARYL MATSUMOTO DAVE PINE JOSH POWELL PETER RATTO

JIM HARTNETT GENERAL MANAGER/CEO A G E N D A

STRATEGIC PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT, AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

San Mateo County Transit District Administrative Building Bacciocco Auditorium – 2nd Floor 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2019 – 3:00 pm or immediately following the Finance Committee meeting

1. Call to Order MOTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Strategic Planning, Development, and Sustainability Committee Meeting of December 5, 2018 3. Adoption of SamTrans Fare Policy INFORMATIONAL 4. UC Davis Paratransit Study Update 5. Adjourn

Committee Members: Josh Powell (Chair), Dave Pine

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (DISTRICT) 1250 SAN CARLOS AVENUE, SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA

MINUTES OF STRATEGIC PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT, AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE / COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DECEMBER 5, 2018

Committee Members Present: J. Powell (Committee Chair), Z. Kersteen-Tucker, D. Pine

Committee Members Absent: None

Other Board Members Present Constituting Committee of the Whole: J. Gee, C. Groom, K. Matsumoto, P. Ratto, C. Stone (Chair)

Staff Present: J. Hartnett, C. Mau, J. Cassman, S. van Hoften, D. Olmeda, D. Hansel, S. Murphy, J. Brook, C. Boland

CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair Josh Powell called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 2018 Motion/Second: Stone/Kersteen-Tucker Ayes: Gee, Groom, Kersteen-Tucker, Matsumoto, Pine, Powell, Ratto, Stone Absent: Guilbault ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 4:31 pm. An audio/video recording of this meeting is available online at www.samtrans.com. Questions may be referred to the District Secretary's office by phone at 650-508-6279 or by email to [email protected].

Page 1 of 1 15139622.1 SPDS ITEM #3 JANUARY 9, 2019

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT STAFF REPORT

TO: Planning, Development, and Sustainability Committee

THROUGH: Jim Hartnett General Manager/CEO

FROM: April Chan Chief Officer, Planning, Grants and Transportation Authority

SUBJECT: ADOPT SAMTRANS FARE POLICY

ACTION Staff recommends the Board adopt the proposed SamTrans Fare Policy, attached.

SIGNIFICANCE In 2017, the San Mateo County Transit District (District) launched the SamTrans Fare Study, a comprehensive study to determine riders’ sensitivity to fare changes and develop a framework for a fare policy. The District does not currently have a dedicated policy addressing the development and implementation of fares for its services.

Building on findings from the SamTrans Fare Study, staff developed a draft SamTrans Fare Policy proposal that will help staff administer fares and manage the fare change process. Once adopted, future fare changes should be carried out in a manner that is consistent with the Fare Policy and the District’s strategic goals.

Staff presented the SamTrans Fare Policy to the Board of Directors (Board) for comment at its December 5, 2018 meeting. Board feedback was supportive with no requests for revision. As such, no significant changes have been made to the policy now proposed for adoption.

Staff intends to use the SamTrans Fare Policy to evaluate the $0.25 adult base fare increase, originally scheduled to take effect in 2019 but postponed by the Board at the December 2018 meeting. Codified Tariff changes for compliance with the SamTrans Fare Policy will be presented to the Board and the public in Spring 2019, following public outreach and analysis as may be required by relevant laws and regulations.

BUDGET IMPACT There is no budget impact associated with adoption of the Fare Policy. Implementation of the Fare Policy through future changes to the Codified Tariff could result in budget impacts.

Page 1 of 2 15104551.2 BACKGROUND The 2015–2019 SamTrans Strategic Plan called for a comprehensive fare analysis subsequent to a fare increase in 2016. District staff initiated the SamTrans Fare Policy Study in late 2017.

In April 2018, staff conducted an intercept survey onboard 11 routes to solicit passenger feedback about District fare products and passengers' sensitivity to price changes. The survey used a “stated preference” method where respondents are asked how their trip- making on SamTrans would fluctuate given a change in fares.

This approach reveals an individual’s sensitivity to price (also known as elasticity of demand) and facilitates the creation of a model that can predict the ridership and revenue implications of fare changes. The survey provides staff with an overview of respondents’ travel behavior, travel preferences, and demographics. Based on the study results, staff estimated the overall ridership elasticity to be -0.13, meaning that for every 10% increase in cost, ridership may decrease by 1.3%. Elasticity is not uniform across demographic groups, meaning that fare changes may have a greater impact on ridership of some groups of riders than others.

Concurrently, the Fare Study project management team convened a staff working group composed of a broader set of District staff stakeholders. The group discussed opportunities to simplify and improve the existing fare structure and provided feedback on the draft Fare Policy.

STRATEGIC INITIATIVE • Priority 2: Strengthen Fiscal Health

Prepared By: Daniel Shockley, Senior Planner, Planning 650-508-6382

Page 2 of 2 15104551.2 Revised: January, 2019 FINAL (redline) SamTrans Fare Policy Preamble & Definitions In public transit, fares are the fees paid by riders for use of the system. Transit agencies use fare revenues to offset a portion of their daily operational costs. A fare policy is a collection of principles that orient fare-related decisions to a set of strategic goals, which are typically outlined in a guiding document, such as a strategic plan. A fare structure is the collection of various fare products for sale and their prices. Transit agencies seek to align their fare structures with their established fare policies.

The SamTrans Fare Policy is intended to assist the San Mateo County Transit District (District) in balancing several competing priorities when considering changes to the existing fare structure, in a way that is consistent with the SamTrans Strategic Plan. Fare Policy Structure The policy is composed of five general topic areas that are influenced by fares. Each topic is supported with a series of policy statements that should guide District decisions when considering fare changes.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are listed for each topic in order to measure the effectiveness of fare policy and structure decisions. A holistic assessment of fare policy KPIs should provide the District with valuable insight when assessing the impact of various fare choices.

Fare products and/or prices are formalized in the SamTrans Codified Tariff and must be compliant with applicable state and federal regulations. Any future fare changes to the Codified Tariff should be consistent with this policy. Changes to the Codified Tariff and/or policy will be brought to the Board of Directors for approval.

This Fare Policy applies to all SamTrans services as defined in the Codified Tariff.

Ridership Policy 1.1: Fares should encourage ridership growth by keeping SamTrans affordable and simple to use. Policy 1.2: Fares should preserve or grow ridership among core ridership groups (such as low-income passengers) or strategic markets (such as youth).

Fare policy is not the sole determinant of ridership, but it is one that the District has direct control over. Therefore, the District should analyze potential effects on ridership, partially based on passenger demographics, when making fare policy choices to determine whether or not fares

15110484.1 Revised: January, 2019 FINAL (redline) create or exacerbate a disproportionate financial impact on any one or more groups of SamTrans riders.

Ridership: Key Performance Indicators Metric Description Goal Interval Data Source Stable or Bus Operations Ridership Quarterly monitoring of daily ridership. Quarterly increase Division Balanced Passenger As part of the triennial ridership survey, monitor Market Research demographic Triennial Demographics ridership and demographic trends. Department mix

Cost Recovery Policy 2.1: In order to support current and future services, fare revenue will offset a portion of annual operating costs. Policy 2.2: Specific farebox revenue targets may be set for individual routes pursuant to service type and District strategic policy goals, and/or when required by discretionary grant funding, among others.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2018, SamTrans recovered approximately 13% of operating costs with fares.1 Sales tax, other governmental sources, and grant revenues fund the remaining operating budget. Given this context, fares should not be expected to completely offset operations. At the same time, the District should consider the revenue implications of fare decisions in order to avoid unnecessarily increasing costs or reducing revenue. The District should also consider the revenue and ridership tradeoffs of fare choices. Cost Recovery: Key Performance Indicators Performance Description Goal Interval Data Source Metric Total revenue collected from Stable or Farebox Revenue Quarterly Treasury & Finance Division fare sales. increase Farebox Recovery Ratio of fare sales to operating Stable or Quarterly Treasury & Finance Division Ratio cost. increase Operating cost per passenger Stable or Treasury & Finance and Bus Cost per Passenger Quarterly served. decrease Operations Divisions

Customer Experience Policy 3.1: Fares should be easily understood by customers. Policy 3.2: Fare changes should be transparently and rationally justified.

1 According to the National Transit Database (NTD), the average farebox recovery nationwide for bus transit agencies was approximately 12% in 2017.

15110484.1 Revised: January, 2019 FINAL (redline)

Policy 3.3: When feasible, the District should support ongoing regional efforts to streamline fare payment processes. Policy 3.4: Fares should encourage use of multi-ride passes over single-ride tickets, tokens, or other media. Policy 3.5: Fares should support use of Clipper and the SamTrans mobile ticketing app.

When considering new fare products or prices, the District should consider the use of multi-ride passes, such as the day pass or 31-day pass, instead of specialized one-way fare categories. This will help to keep the base fare structure as simple as possible and reduce the marginal (per-trip) costs of using SamTrans services. Customer Experience: Key Performance Indicators Performance Data Description Goal Interval Metric Source Solicit customer feedback via the triennial survey or Customer Positive feedback Triennial; Market other market research opportunities, when available. Feedback on Fare regarding ease of sooner when Research Customer ratings on ease of use. Higher ratings Products use. feasible Department preferred. Monitor use of fare payment media among ridership, Increase rates of Farebox Fare Payment Mix in particular the use of Clipper, mobile app, and Clipper, pass, and Quarterly Data passes. app use.

Administration & Overhead Policy 4.1: Fares should be straightforward and cost-effective to administer. Policy 4.2: Fares should facilitate efficient operations, such as reduced dwell time. Policy 4.3: Fares should embrace technological innovation.

Transit operating costs typically encompass administrative overhead, meaning that staff time spent managing and collecting fares has a direct impact on the District's overall cost effectiveness. Additionally, fare payment onboard a transit vehicle can impact dwell time and on-time performance, which also has cost and service implications. Therefore the administration of fares should require an appropriate level of staff effort and should facilitate efficient daily operations. Administration & Overhead: Key Performance Indicators Performance Metric Description Goal Interval Data Source Reduced SamTrans Staff Assess the staff resources required to administrative Monthly Internal working groups Feedback administer SamTrans fare policy. costs; positive feedback Bus Dwell Time at Time spent at stops loading and unloading Stable or Quarterly Bus Operations Division Stops passengers. decrease

15110484.1 Revised: January, 2019 FINAL (redline)

Increase rates Monitor use of fare payment media of Clipper, Fare Payment Mix among ridership, in particular the use of Quarterly Farebox Data pass, and app Clipper, mobile app, and passes. use.

15110484.1 Revised: January, 2019 FINAL (redline)

Strategic Adjustments Policy 5.1: Fare changes must be evaluated for consistency with the SamTrans Fare Policy. Policy 5.2: Time and budget permitting, the fare elasticity model should be updated and used to evaluate ridership and revenue implications of fare changes. Policy 5.3: Fare discounts should be used to incentivize certain markets to take SamTrans. Policy 5.4: Fare discounts should have specific and well-documented goals. Outcomes will be measured on a regular basis and modified or removed as necessary. SamTrans will sometimes prioritize increasing ridership among a specific market, such as youth, and offer incentives, such as a discounted or promotional fare. When considering such promotions, staff should document the intended goal of the discount and closely monitor its effect. To the extent possible given time and budget, the fare elasticity model should also be regularly updated and used as a tool to predict the ridership and revenue implications of a proposed discount or other adjustment. Strategic Adjustments: Key Performance Indicators Performance Description and Desired Outcome Goal Interval Data Source Metric Staff should monitor the ridership among Ridership Triennial; Ridership of strategic markets, such as youth, in order to Market Research increase of sooner, when Strategic Market gauge the effectiveness of relevant discounts Department strategic market. feasible or other promotions. Forecasted Staff should update and run the fare elasticity change in Market Research Fare Model model when proposing discounts or other ridership or As needed and/or Planning Outputs adjustments. revenue within a Departments tolerable limit.

15110484.1 RESOLUTION NO. 2019 –

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT STATE OF CALIFORNIA

* * *

ADOPTING THE PROPOSED SAMTRANS FARE POLICY

WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Transit District (District) has direct control over

fare products and prices on SamTrans and other District services, which are one of

many determinants of system ridership and revenue; and

WHEREAS, the District must balance the often-contradictory priorities of

facilitating ridership and preserving operating revenue when making fare-related

decisions; and

WHEREAS, fare media types, fare payment procedures, and fare program

management have direct impacts on administrative overhead costs and operational

performance; and

WHEREAS, fare structure legibility is critical for ensuring an excellent customer

experience and attracting new riders; and

WHEREAS, fare discounts, when applied strategically and documented

thoroughly, could grow ridership in specific markets; and

WHEREAS, new fare payment technologies, such as Clipper 2.0 and the SamTrans

Mobile Ticketing App, can provide unique opportunities for fare program management;

and

WHEREAS, a fare policy will assist the District in balancing all of the above considerations in a manner consistent with its Strategic Plan when considering or

discussing fare changes; and

Page 1 of 3 15105492.1

WHEREAS, the SamTrans 2015-2019 Strategic Plan called for a comprehensive fare study to inform future fare changes and make the system easier to use and administer; and

WHEREAS, in March of 2018, the District completed the SamTrans Fare Study, a comprehensive survey of frequent SamTrans riders which determined the elasticity of demand and demographic profiles of SamTrans ridership; and

WHEREAS, the SamTrans Fare Study has provided staff with a modelling tool to

predict the ridership and revenue outcomes of proposed fare changes; and

WHEREAS, based on the SamTrans Fare Study results, staff has developed a

proposed fare policy which focuses on facilitating ridership growth and preserving

revenue to the extent possible, enhancing customer experience, reducing

administrative overhead, preserving efficient operations, and codifying the existing

practice of strategic discounts; and

WHEREAS, staff presented a draft proposed fare policy to the Board of Directors

(Board) at its December 2018 meeting for discussion and feedback, and has made

necessary revisions to the policy based on that feedback; and

WHEREAS, staff intends to use the fare policy to evaluate the $0.25 base adult

fare increase, which was scheduled to go into effect in 2019 and was postponed by an

act of the Board at the December 2018 meeting, and propose any other revisions

necessary for consistency with the SamTrans Fare Policy; and

WHEREAS, the General Manager/CEO recommends, and the Committee

concurs, that the Board adopt the SamTrans Fare Policy.

Page 2 of 3 15105492.1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the San Mateo

County Transit District adopts the SamTrans Fare Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.

Regularly passed and adopted this 9th day of January, 2019 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Chair, San Mateo County Transit District

ATTEST:

Acting District Secretary

Page 3 of 3 15105492.1 SPDS ITEM #4 JANUARY 9, 2019

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT STAFF REPORT

TO: Strategic Planning, Development and Sustainability Committee

THROUGH: Jim Hartnett General Manager/CEO

FROM: April Chan Chief Officer, Planning, Grants and Transportation Authority

SUBJECT: UC DAVIS PARATRANSIT STUDY UPDATE

ACTION Staff proposes the Board receive an update of the recently-completed UC Davis Study on the efficiency of SamTrans paratransit service.

SIGNIFICANCE The San Mateo County Transit District partnered with UC Davis to conduct a paratransit efficiency study. The study has resulted in several alternatives to address rising costs, low farebox revenue, operator shortages, and growing demand for services. Staff will update the Board on these recommendations via a powerpoint presentation at the January 9, 2019 meeting.

BUDGET IMPACT None

BACKGROUND The Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California Davis (ITS-Davis) research group led by Principal Investigator Dr. Dan Sperling partnered with SamTrans to conduct two studies, one is focused on an efficiency analysis of the Redi-Wheels and Redi-Caost paratransit services, and the other is on microtransit feasibility. The microtransit feasibility is currently underway, and staff will return with study results in spring 2019.

The paratransit analysis is aimed at identifying alternatives to increase revenue, control costs, manage demand, and to identify innovative service models to respond to the impacts of the growing operator shortage.

The study identified nine alternatives for consideration to be presented in detail during the Board meeting:

Reduce Costs 1) Align paratransit services with the ADA spatially (distance of ¾ mile from closest fixed route) and temporally (time when the closest fixed route is operating);

Page 1 of 2 2) Widen the pickup window from 20 to 30 minutes; 3) Evaluate technology opportunities to reduce contractor costs (web booking, real time information); Increase Revenue 4) Charge a premium fare for out-of-service area trips; 5) Increase the base and lifeline paratransit fare (to be considered as a part of the SamTrans Fare Study and upcoming Fare Policy); Manage Demand/Innovative Services 6) Continue to look at ways to improve access to fixed route services; 7) Subsidize same-day transportation services, including taxis and Transportation Network Companies (TNCs); 8) Look for opportunities to expand accessible vehicles (taxis or TNCs); Address Operator Shortage 9) Incentivize volunteer driver programs; 10) Look at ways to incorporate TNCs into service portfolio.

BUSINESS PLAN Priority: Expand and Innovate Mobility Services Initiative: UC Davis Study

STRATEGIC INITIATIVE Priority 1: Expand Mobility Options • Goal 1: Increase weekday fixed-route ridership by 15 percent

Prepared By: Christy Wegener, Director, Planning 650-508-6278

Page 2 of 2

UC Davis Paratransit Efficiency Study

Strategic Planning, Development and Sustainability Committee January 9, 2019 Today’s Update

• Scope of UC Davis study

• Existing conditions

• Challenges and opportunities

• Alternatives

• Next steps and questions

2 Scope of Study • UC Davis researchers conducted an efficiency analysis of SamTrans paratransit service

• Project objectives: • Address increasing demand for paratransit • Address increasing cost for services • Address declining revenues/low farebox recovery • Existing conditions • Peer review/innovative pilots • Development of alternatives • Final report

Existing Conditions • Contracted operation • First Transit • Taxi Cab • FY18 – Cost ~ $18.4M; Farebox ~ $750k • SamTrans paratransit services goes above and beyond the ADA • Beyond the minimum ¾ mile required both spatially (distance) and temporally (time) • Fare is less than 2x of base bus fare ($4.25) • Lifeline fare is $1.75*

*SamTrans is unique in offering a reduced paratransit fare for low-income individuals.

4 Existing Conditions • Ridership Trends – 12.4% increase in trips between 2015 and 2017 • Lifeline fare assistance passengers take nearly 40% more trips per month than non-lifeline fare assistance passengers • Trips have somewhat stabilized or declined recently

• Low farebox recovery – 4% farebox recovery ratio

• Operator shortage has led to the increased use of taxis • On average, taxis cost more per hour than the contracted service

5 Challenges and Opportunities

Challenges: • Increasing cost of services • Operator shortages • Aging population UC Davis identified alternatives to: • Reduce cost • Increase revenues • Manage demand for trips • Address operator shortage

Study is starting point for further analysis

6 Alternatives – Reduce Costs 1) Align operating policy with the ADA (3/4 mile) spatially and/or temporally • Potential cost reduction of up to 5% ($700k) 2) Increase pick-up window to 30 minutes (currently 20) • Potential cost reduction of 2-3% (more efficient, reduced use of taxis) 3) Explore technology to improve efficiency and reduce contractor costs • Software modules for web booking, real time information

7 Alternatives – Increase Revenue

4) Consider a premium fare for trips outside the ¾ mile ADA requirement • Potential fare revenue increase of 40% ($250k)

5) Increase the base paratransit fare (regular and lifeline) • Revenue and ridership impacts are explored in the SamTrans Fare Study

8 Alternatives – Demand Management/ Innovative Services 6) Improve access to fixed route services

7) Provide subsidized same-day services • Currently have a taxi pilot that will launch in 2019; consider adding TNCs

8) Explore increasing wheelchair accessible vehicles • Potentially necessary for partnerships with TNCs

9 Alternatives – Operator Shortage

9) Incentivize or coordinate volunteer driver programs

10) Potential opportunity to explore bringing in TNCs are a service provider for same day or regular paratransit service • Potential opportunity with next paratransit operating contract

10 Next Steps

1) Receive Board and Public Feedback

2) Finalize UC Davis Report

3) Identify alternatives for further exploration

Questions?

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2019

CHARLES STONE, CHAIR CAROLE GROOM, VICE CHAIR RON COLLINS ROSE GUILBAULT KARYL MATSUMOTO DAVE PINE JOSH POWELL PETER RATTO

JIM HARTNETT GENERAL MANAGER/CEO

A G E N D A

LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

San Mateo County Transit District Administrative Building Bacciocco Auditorium – 2nd Floor 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2019 – 3:15 pm or immediately following the Strategic Planning, Development, and Sustainability Committee meeting

1. Call to Order

MOTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Legislative Committee Meeting of December 5, 2018 3. Adoption of 2019 Legislative Program INFORMATIONAL 4. State and Federal Legislative Update 5. Adjourn

Committee Member: Josh Powell

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (DISTRICT) 1250 SAN CARLOS AVENUE, SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA

MINUTES OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE / COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DECEMBER 5, 2018

Committee Members Present: J. Gee, Z. Kersteen-Tucker (Committee Chair), J. Powell

Committee Members Absent: None

Other Board Members Present Constituting Committee of the Whole: C. Groom, K. Matsumoto, D. Pine, P. Ratto, C. Stone (Chair)

Staff Present: J. Hartnett, C. Mau, J. Cassman, S. van Hoften, D. Olmeda, D. Hansel, S. Murphy, J. Brook, C. Boland

CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair Zoe Kersteen-Tucker called the meeting to order at 4:31 pm. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7, 2018 Motion/Second: Stone/Powell Ayes: Gee, Groom, Kersteen-Tucker, Matsumoto, Pine, Powell, Ratto, Stone Absent: Guilbault

STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Casey Fromson, Director, Government and Community Affairs, briefly summarized highlights of recent federal and state legislation. Ms. Fromson introduced the District’s federal advocates, Eve O’Toole and Lauri Hettinger, Senior Policy Advisors, Holland & Knight, Washington, DC, and the District’s Sacramento lobbyist, Matt Robinson, Shaw/Yoder/Antwih, Sacramento, CA, who gave a more detailed picture of current legislative activity. Director Karyl Matsumoto asked if there was federal funding available for grade separations. Ms. Hettinger said that there is capped federal funding available for grade separations, and that they are trying to remove that cap. Director Dave Pine asked Ms. Fromson to add a category of federal grade separation monies to her monthly legislative report. Mr. Hartnett expressed his appreciation for the state and federal advocates’ support and collaboration with the District.

Page 1 of 2 15139621.1 Finance Committee Minutes of December 5, 2018 Meeting Dra

2019 DRAFT LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

In the interest of time, Chair Charles Stone suggested that Committee Chair Kersteen-Tucker postpone discussion of this item until the January meeting. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 4:57 pm.

An audio/video recording of this meeting is available online at www.samtrans.com. Questions may be referred to the District Secretary's office by phone at 650-508-6279 or by email to [email protected].

Page 2 of 2 15139621.1 LEGISLATIVE ITEM #3 JANUARY 9, 2019

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT STAFF REPORT

TO: Legislative Committee

THROUGH: Jim Hartnett General Manager/CEO

FROM: Seamus Murphy Chief Communications Officer

SUBJECT: 2019 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

ACTION Staff proposes the Committee recommend the Board adopt the attached Legislative Program to guide the San Mateo County Transit District’s (District) policy advocacy efforts over the course of the 2019 calendar year.

SIGNIFICANCE The 2019 Legislative Program (Program) establishes the principles that will guide the San Mateo County Transit District’s (District) legislative and regulatory advocacy efforts through the 2018 calendar year, including the first half of the 2019-2020 State legislative session and the first session of the116th Congress. The program is intended to be broad enough to cover the wide variety of issues that are likely to be considered during that time and flexible enough to allow the District to respond swiftly and effectively to unanticipated developments. Adoption of the Program provides our legislative delegation and our transportation partners with a clear statement of the District’s priorities.

Objectives The 2019 Program is organized to guide the District’s actions and positions in support of three primary objectives:

1. Maintain and enhance funding opportunities to support the District’s programs, projects, and services.

2. Seek a regulatory environment that streamlines project delivery and maximizes the District’s ability to meet public transportation service demands.

3. Reinforce and expand programs that build and incentivize public transportation ridership and improve quality transportation choices.

The Program is structured to apply these core objectives to a series of issues detailed in the 2019 Legislative Program.

Page 1 of 2 Should other issues surface that require the District’s attention, actions will be guided by the three policy objectives listed above. If needed, potential action on issues that are unrelated to these policy goals will be brought to the District’s Board of Directors for consideration.

Advocacy Process Staff will indicate on each monthly legislative update recommended positions for pending bills. Once the board has an opportunity to review the recommended position, staff will communicate the position to the relevant entity (such as the bill author, agency, or coalition). In rare circumstances, should a position on a bill be needed in advance of a board meeting, staff will confer with the Board Chair. If legislation falls outside of the scope of the Board’s adopted Legislative Program, Board approval will be required prior to the agency taking a position.

The District and its legislative consultants will employ a variety of engagement tools to support the 2019 Legislative Program, including:

1. Direct Engagement Engage policymakers directly and sponsor legislation, submit correspondence and provide public testimony that communicates and advances the District’s legislative priorities and positions.

2. Coalition-based Engagement Engage local and regional stakeholders to build awareness about specific issues and participate in local, regional, statewide and national coalitions organized to advance positions that are consistent with the 2019 Program.

3. Media Engagement Build public awareness and communicate legislative priorities by issuing press releases, organizing media events, and through the use of social media and other electronic media.

BUDGET IMPACT There is no impact on the budget.

BACKGROUND Staff actively monitors legislative and regulatory activity and will seek Board positions on selected bills as appropriate to further the District’s legislative objectives and to provide support for our advocacy efforts. Staff will supply updated reports summarizing relevant legislative and regulatory activities, allowing the Board to track legislative developments and providing opportunities to take appropriate action on pending legislation.

Prepared By: Casey Fromson, Director Government and Community 650-508-6493 Affairs

Page 2 of 2 SamTrans

2019 Legislative Program

Purpose

Legislative and regulatory actions have the potential to significantly benefit SamTrans programs and services. They also have potential to present serious challenges that threaten the Agency’s ability to meet the county’s most critical transportation demands.

The 2019 Legislative Program establishes the principles that will guide the Agency’s legislative and regulatory advocacy efforts through the 2019 calendar year, including the first half of the 2019-20 State legislative session and first session of the 116th Congress. The program is intended to be broad enough to cover the wide variety of issues that are likely to be considered during that time and flexible enough to allow the Agency to respond swiftly and effectively to unanticipated developments.

Objectives The 2019 Legislative Program is organized to guide the Agency’s actions and positions in support of three primary objectives: • Maintain and enhance funding opportunities to support the Agency’s programs and services; • Seek a regulatory environment that streamlines project delivery and maximizes the Agency’s ability to meet transportation service demands; and • Reinforce and expand programs that build and incentivize public transportation ridership and improve quality transportation choices.

Issues The Legislative Program is structured to apply these core objectives to a series of State and Federal issues falling in these categories: • Budget and Transportation Funding Opportunities • Transportation Projects Funding Requests and Needs • Regulatory and Administrative Issues

Within these categories are a detailed list of specific legislative initiatives and corresponding set of policy strategies.

Should other issues surface that require the Board’s attention, actions will be guided by the three policy objectives listed above. If needed, potential action on issues that are unrelated to these policy goals will be brought to the Board for consideration.

Public Engagement Strategies Staff, led by the Communications Division and its legislative consultants, will employ a variety of public engagement strategies to support the 2019 Legislative Program, including: • Direct Engagement Engage policymakers directly and sponsor legislation, submit correspondence and provide public testimony that communicates and advances the Agency’s legislative priorities and positions.

• Coalition-based Engagement Engage local and regional stakeholders to build awareness about specific issues and participate in local, regional, statewide and national coalitions organized to advance positions that are consistent with the 2019 Legislative Program.

• Media Engagement Build public awareness and communicate the Agency’s legislative priorities by issuing press releases, organizing media events, and through the use of social media.

State and Regional

Funding Opportunities and Challenges

Issue / Background Strategy

General Funding The State recently enacted SB 1, • Protect against the elimination or diversion of any State or regional funds that support which provides $5.2 billion to maintain local the agency’s transportation needs. streets and roads and highways, ease traffic • Support State funding allocation requests for investments that benefit the agency’s congestion, and provide mobility options through transportation programs and services. investments in public transportation and bicycle • Work with statewide transit coalitions to identify and advance opportunities for and pedestrian programs. funding that would support the agency’s transportation priorities.

• Support efforts to provide funding for the deployment of zero emission transit In 2014, the Legislature called for, via SB 1077, a vehicles. pilot program to study a road charge model as an • alternative to the gas tax. The nine-month pilot Monitor recommendations of the Road Usage Charge (RUC) Technical advisory began in July 2016, with over 5,000 participating Committee and implementation of a RUC program by the California State vehicles statewide. The California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA). Transportation Agency (CalSTA) reported its • Monitor efforts to implement a mileage-based user fee as a potential revenue source. findings from the Legislature to the CTC and the Legislature in 2018.

Formula Funding After years of diversion to • Support the full funding of the STA program at levels called for in the 2011 support the State’s General Fund, funding for reenactment of the 2010 gas-tax swap legislation. the State Transit Assistance (STA) program has • Advocate for the regularly scheduled issuance of State infrastructure bonds that remained stable over the last few budget cycles support the Agency’s services and programs. thanks to successful legal, legislative and • Support full and timely allocation of the Agency’s STIP share. political efforts on behalf of the transportation • Support the California Transit Association’s efforts to engage the Legislature on community. Still, more revenue is needed in Transportation Development Act (TDA) reform and the review of performance order to meet the demand of increased measures for transit. ridership, reduce highway congestion – especially on Highway 101 – and adhere to the State’s mandate of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and creating livable communities. Cap-and-Trade Revenues In 2012, the State • Work with the Administration and like-minded coalitions to secure the appropriation began implementing the cap-and-trade market- of additional cap-and-trade revenues to support the Agency’s transportation needs. based compliance system approved as a part of • Support legislation and regional action that makes a broad array of the Agency’s the California Global Warming Solutions Act of emissions-reducing transportation projects, programs and services eligible for 2006 (AB 32). Since the program began selling investment. allowances, the program has generated billions • Protect existing cap-and-trade appropriations for transit operations, capital projects of dollars. In 2014, legislation was enacted and sustainable communities strategy implementation. creating a long-term funding plan for cap-and- • Work to direct additional revenues to transit-eligible programs, including efforts to trade which dedicates 60 percent of cap-and- secure funding from the remaining discretionary funds and revenues dedicated to the trade revenues to transportation. The remaining high-speed-rail project. 40 percent is subject to annual appropriation • through the state budget process. In 2017, the Support efforts to revise the State’s definition on “disadvantaged communities” to legislature extended the program from 2020 to encompass a larger proportion of disadvantaged communities on the Peninsula.

2030.

The programs require a certain percentage of funds be expended in state defined “disadvantaged communities” (as defined by CalEnviroScreen). This can prove difficult in jurisdictions with a small number of disadvantaged communities.

Voter Threshold Legislation has been considered • Support efforts to amend the State Constitution to reduce the voter threshold in recent years that provide a framework for required for the State or a city, county, special district or regional transportation lowering the thresholds for the State or a city, agency to impose a special tax for transportation projects or programs. county, special JPB or regional public agency to impose a special tax.

Other State or Local Funding Options Local and • Advocate for legislation that would create new local funding tools to support regional governments continue to seek methods transportation infrastructure and services. for funding new infrastructure, facility needs, • Support innovative local and regional funding options that will provide financial sustainability initiatives, and projects that will support for the agency. support ridership growth through a variety of • Support legislation that works to ensure revenues generated through managed lane methods such as managed lanes and local ballot projects remain in the County of origin. measures. • Advocate for funding sources that would assist transit agencies in obtaining funds for sustainability initiatives including water conservation, waste reduction, long-term resource efficiency of facilities and equipment, and greenhouse gas reductions. • Support funding for workforce housing to attract and retain quality personnel. • Support efforts that allow for public private partnerships that benefit the implementation of capital projects, efficient operation of transit services, or enhanced access to a broad range of mobility options that reduce traffic congestion. Transportation Projects

General As the Bay Area’s population continues • Work with partners in the region to bring business, community, and transportation to grow, the region’s transportation stakeholders together to enhance, support and advocate for transportation and infrastructure is being negatively impacted. mobility in the Bay Area. Highways, local streets and roads are becoming heavily congested, Caltrain is nearing its capacity limits, and the demand for housing with easy access to public transit is increasing.

Dumbarton Corridor In 2018, SamTrans entered • Support funding opportunities that will help the project move through the different into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) stages of planning, environmental, and construction phases. with Cross Bay Transit Partners, a joint venture • Support policies that will allow for effective public private partnerships. between Facebook and Plenary Group. The ENA • Support policies that will promote long-term transit use and access in the Dumbarton kicks off a process to evaluate the technical and Corridor. financial feasibility of a transit project along the currently inactive Dumbarton rail bridge. MTC is leading an effort related to the Dumbarton Highway called Dumbarton Forward. These efforts are building on the 2017 SamTrans “Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study” that looked at short- and long-term strategies that reduce traffic congestion and improve mobility between Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. The Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI) The GBI is • Support funding for GBI projects such as complete streets, bike and pedestrian a collaboration of 19 cities, counties, local projects, parking improvements, signal improvements, sustainability features like and regional agencies united to improve the storm water capture, and transportation demand management features. performance, safety and aesthetics of El Camino Real. Starting at Daly City and ending near the Diridon Caltrain Station in central San Jose, the initiative brings together for the first time all of the agencies having responsibility for the condition, use and performance of the street. Transit Oriented Development / First and Last • Support efforts to provide commuters with easy and convenient options to travel to Mile First and last mile projects, as well as transit and from major transit centers to their final destination. oriented development projects are an important • Support the development of new and innovative first and last mile options. part of the broad transit ecosystem that will help • Support increased funding opportunities for first and last mile projects. support robust ridership in the corridor. • Advocate for policies that promote transit-oriented developments in ways that with compliment transit services. • Support the State’s GHG reduction goals by supporting transit oriented developments. • Support state funding incentives and streamlining processes for transit oriented development. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) • Support efforts that provide more TDM tools and funding opportunities. TDM is the application of strategies and policies • Support policies that encourage use of TDM. to reduce travel demand of single-occupancy vehicles or to redistribute this demand in space or time.

Caltrain Modernization (CalMod) Program In • Advocate for the sale and allocation of Proposition 1A bonds to meet the 2012, the State Legislature appropriated $705m commitments specified in SB 1029 with respect to the Caltrain corridor. in Prop 1A high-speed rail funds to modernize the • Support the allocation of cap-and-trade funding to advance implementation of the Caltrain corridor and lay the foundation for future CalMod Program. high-speed rail service. Under a multi-party • Work with state, local and regional partners to advance policies and actions that will regional funding agreement, this investment will help secure funding needed to fulfill local, regional and state commitments to the be used to match a variety of local, regional, state CalMod Program. and federal funding sources to electrify the • Work to address regulatory challenges that limit the implementation of solutions that corridor, install an advanced signaling system and will maximize Caltrain capacity and service benefits. replace Caltrain’s aging diesel trains with electric • Support the allocation of cap-and-trade or other state / regional funding to advance trains that will dramatically improve service implementation of Caltrain projects. between San Francisco and San Jose. • Work to address regulatory actions or policies that negatively impact future capacity or service improvements. Other Projects Beyond the CalMod Program, • Consistent with existing agreements between JPB and CHSRA, support efforts to plan, Caltrain has identified capital projects such as a engage stakeholders, and implement the Blended System project on the Caltrain fully electrified 8-car EMU fleet with longer corridor. platforms that will provide additional capacity and service benefits to Caltrain commuters. The capital needs also include but are not limited to grade separations and station upgrades. The Caltrain Business Plan, a 2040 vision for the corridor is currently underway will help identify future capital and operating needs.

In 2016, a new round of HSR Blended System planning, outreach and environmental clearance work kicked-off in the corridor. While this project is not being led by the JPB, the agency owns the right-of-way and has a significant interest in the process and success of the project that will “blended” with Caltrain service.

Regulatory and Administrative Issues

General Every year a variety of legislation or • Support opportunities to remove barriers to, and improve the ability to conduct, regulatory action is pursued that would affect safe, efficient transportation operations, administration, planning and project regulations governing transportation-related delivery efforts, including alternative project delivery methods that provide flexibility service operations, administration, planning and to the agency. project delivery. In addition, opportunities exist • Oppose efforts to impose unjustified and burdensome regulations or restrictions on to reform or update existing regulations that are the Agency’s ability to conduct efficient transportation operations, administration, outdated, or can be improved to address planning and project delivery efforts. potential burdens on transportation agencies without affecting regulatory goals.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) • Closely monitor efforts to modernize CEQA. Without compromising CEQA’s Several regional and statewide transportation effectiveness as an environmental protection policy, support proposals that organizations continue working to modernize advantage transportation projects, including bicycle, pedestrian and transit-oriented CEQA and minimize unnecessary delays during development projects. the environmental review process.

Sustainable Communities Strategies • Advocate for policies that provide adequate and equitable funding to support Implementation In conjunction with AB 32 and SB increased demand and dependence on JPB’s transportation services associated with 32 implementation, the Sustainable Communities the implementation of SB 375 and Plan Bay Area. and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) requires regions to develop Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) with integrated housing, land-use and transportation policies that will accommodate population growth and reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions by specific amounts. In 2017, regional authorities in the Bay Area approved the update to Plan Bay Area, which includes the region’s SCS.

Federal

Funding Opportunities and Challenges

Issue / Background Strategy

Federal Appropriations Every year, Congress • Partner with local, regional, State and national coalitions to advocate appropriation adopts several appropriations bills that cover 12 of the maximum authorized amount for programs that benefit the agency’s major issue areas, including the Transportation, transportation services and needs. Housing and Urban Development bill. These • Work with local and regional coalitions to support requests for funding from measures provide the authority for federal discretionary programs, including the Capital Investment Grant program. agencies to spend money during the upcoming • Communicate frequently with the agency’s federal delegation and key appropriators fiscal year for the programs they administer. on the needs or concerns of pending appropriation bills.

In September 2018, Congress passed a continuing resolution (CR) to keep federal agencies funded at the same level as the previous fiscal year, through December 7, 2018. Congress will have to pass a CR or omnibus appropriations bill to fund the government for the fiscal year 2019.

The President and the Department of Transportation (DOT) have proposed phasing out the Capital Investment Grant program (New Starts/Small Starts/Core Capacity) in the annual budget request. However, Congress continues to provide funding for the program and has include language in the annual Transportation/HUD Appropriations bills requiring the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to allocate funding for projects and to continue to sign full funding grant agreements. Tax and Finance Congress also considers • Support efforts to ensure tax provisions that benefit the agency’s priorities are legislation that governs tax and finance issues included in any tax or finance proposal. that impact transit agencies. • Protect against the elimination or diversion of any tax policies that support the agency’s transportation needs. Transportation Projects

General Support the efforts of partnering • Work with federal delegation members, as well as local, regional, and state coalitions to agencies to obtain federal funding for transit support the federal funding requests for our partner transit agencies on projects that projects in San Mateo County. provide complimentary services for the agency.

Caltrain Modernization Program The current • Advocate for the Caltrain Electrification Project FTA Core Capacity funding to be included Caltrain Electrification Project funding plan in the President’s budget request and in the annual THUD Appropriations bills. includes funding from several federal funding • Work with federal delegation members, as well as local, regional, and state coalitions to sources including the FTA Core Capacity support the PCEP requests for funding. Program. • Advocate for additional PTC funding for capital and operating expenses. • Support efforts to streamline regulatory administrative hurdles to supporting full PTC Positive Train Control (PTC) is a federal mandate. operations. The current Caltrain Positive Train Control (PTC) • Support the allocation of federal funding to advance implementation of Caltrain projects. project includes funding from the Federal • Work to address regulatory actions or policies that negatively impact future capacity or Railroad Administration (FRA). service improvements. Other Projects Beyond the CalMod Program, • Consistent with existing agreements between JPB and CHSRA, support efforts to plan, Caltrain has identified capital projects such as a engage stakeholders, and implement the Blended System project on the Caltrain fully electrified 8-car EMU fleet with longer corridor. platforms that will provide additional capacity and service benefits to Caltrain commuters. The capital needs also include but are not limited to grade separations, station upgrades, and supporting regional projects that will increase Caltrain ridership. The Caltrain Business Plan, a 2040 vision for the corridor is currently underway will help identify future capital and operating needs.

101 Managed Lanes The project may include • Support funding opportunities that will help the project move through the different removing or replacing existing auxiliary lanes stages of planning, environmental, and construction phases. between interchanges; reconstructing ramp • Support policies that will allow for effective public private partnerships. connections to US 101; and installing electronic toll collection infrastructure on US 101 between Whipple Road to the I-380 interchange in San Mateo County.

Regulatory and Administrative Issues

FAST Act Reauthorization and other Regulations • Monitor and review guidance and rulemaking proposals affecting FAST Act The FAST Act expires in September 2020. implementation and other transportation issues. Congressional authorization committees are • Collaborate with local, regional, state and national transportation advocacy groups to expected to begin holding hearings early in 2019 coordinate comments and advocacy efforts that support regulations that maximize and are looking for recommendations for the next benefits for transportation programs, services and users. reauthorization bill. The congressional • Collaborate with local, regional, state and national transportation advocacy groups to authorization committee leadership are hoping to coordinate proposals and advocacy efforts for FAST Act reauthorization. introduce a bill at the end of 2019. During Congress’ consideration of the reauthorization bill, there will be an opportunity to change, increase funding, and implement new policy for highway, transit, and rail programs.

USDOT will also issue guidance, new rulemaking, and take action in response to Executive Orders on a variety of issues outside the scope of the FAST Act. Infrastructure Proposals Congress could consider • Monitor closely and take action as needed on new Administration or Congressional an infrastructure package in 2019 that would policies that may have a significant impact on transit / transportation projects and include increased funding for highways, transit, programs. aviation, and water programs. Funding for these • Advocate for funding for the agency’s projects and needs in the President’s and programs has yet to be identified. Congressional infrastructure proposals.

LEGISLATIVE ITEM #4 JANUARY 9, 2019

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT STAFF REPORT

TO: Transit District

THROUGH: Jim Hartnett General Manager/CEO

FROM: Seamus Murphy Chief Communications Officer

SUBJECT: STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

ACTION This report is for information only. No Board action is required.

SIGNIFICANCE The 2019 Legislative Program establishes the principles that will guide the legislative and regulatory advocacy efforts. Based on those principles, staff coordinates closely with our Federal and State advocates on a wide variety of issues that are considered in Congress and the State legislature. The attached reports highlight the recent issues and actions that are relevant to the Board.

Prepared By: Casey Fromson, Government and 650-508-6493 Community Affairs Director

800 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1100 | Washington, DC 20006 | T 202.955.3000 | F 202.955.5564 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com

SamTrans Federal Update December 2018

FY 2019 Appropriations Update: Congress has passed FY 2019 funding measures for five spending bills, but the seven remaining (including Transportation/HUD) require action. Currently, these federal agencies (including Department of Transportation) are operating under a continuing resolution (CR) until midnight on December 21. Disagreement remains around the President’s request for funding for increased security at the U.S.-Mexico border, which would include construction of a border wall.

On Wednesday, December 19, the Senate passed, by voice vote, a CR which would provide funding for the federal agencies until February 8, 2019. After a meeting Vice President Mike Pence, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) stated that the President would sign the CR into law.

On Thursday, December 20, the President threatened to veto the Senate CR because it does not include the border funding. The House, then passed a CR which includes $5 billion for the border wall. The vote was 217 to 185, with all the Democrats and eight Republicans--Reps. Amash (R-MI), Buck (R-CO), Curbelo (R-FL), Hurd (R-TX), Paulsen (R-MN), Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Valadao (R-CA)--voting in opposition. 31 members did not vote. The Senate had already adjourned for the Christmas holidays, but had to return at noon on Friday, December 21.

The Senate did not have the 60 votes necessary to pass the House passed CR with border wall funding , and the federal government shutdown.

DOT Impact with Federal Government Shutdown: The impact of a federal government shutdown at DOT depends on the how program is funded. Programs funded by the Highway Trust Fund will continue but those funded by appropriations will be affected.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is funded by the Highway Trust Fund by the FAST Act and will continue to operate as normal. FHWA will continue to be able to provide funding for about six months.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will also operate normally for at least two to three weeks of a shutdown. The highway safety programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would be able to function as normal for a few weeks.

Most of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is funded by discretionary appropriations, most of its employees would be furloughed. According to the DOT shutdown plan, “FTA would

not continue any of its unfunded core agency functions. No grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, purchase orders, travel authorizations, or other documents obligating funds would be executed.” “FTA would discontinue reimbursements to transit agencies for ongoing operations and construction projects to enable them to provide transit services and pay employees and contractors.”

Of the 54,179 DOT employees: • 25,200 (46.5 percent) are deemed essential to DOT activities that protect life and safety and will have to work without pay. Most of these employees are air traffic controllers and others include aviation, pipeline, and trucking safety inspectors. • 714 employees (1.3 percent) will also have to work out pay because they support the essential employees. • Nine Senate-confirmed Presidential appointees are required to work. • 7,814 employees (14.4 percent) will work and be paid because the work for FHWA and FMCSA, which is funded by the Highway Trust Fund. • 20,442 employees (37.7 percent) would be furloughed.

BUILD Grants Totaling $1.5 Billion Announced: On December 11, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao announced $1.5 billion in Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grant funding to 91 projects in 49 states and the District of Columbia. An interactive map with details on the awardees is available on the Department of Transportation’s website.

DOT received a total of 851 applications requesting over $11 billion in grant funding, which is a 9.6 acceptance rate. The average 2018 grant size is $16.2 million and the average 2017 grant size was $11.9 million. 69.6 percent of the grants went to rural areas.

Road and bridge projects received 69.4 percent the funding; transit projects received 9.5 percent; port/maritime projects received 9.9 percent; and rail projects received 11.2 percent. The average federal share for the BUILD projects is 34.1 percent.

2 #62450384_v1

December 12, 2018

TO: Board of Directors, San Mateo County Transit District

FM: Joshua W. Shaw and Matt Robinson, Shaw / Yoder / Antwih, Inc. Mike Robson and Trent Smith, Edelstein Gilbert Robson & Smith LLC

RE: STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE – January 2019

Legislative Update The Legislature convened on December 3 for a check-in session and introduced several dozen bills for consideration in the 2019-2020 Regular Session, with many of them attempting to address the state’s housing crisis. The Legislature will reconvene on January 7, the same day that Governor-elect Gavin Newsom will be sworn in to office. In his first major task at the helm of California, Governor Newsom will release his proposed 2019-2020 State Budget on January 10.

ARB’s Innovative Clean Transit Regulation On Friday, December 14, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) will consider adoption of the proposed Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) regulation. The proposed regulation would impose a zero- emission bus (ZEB) purchase mandate on large transit agencies in California, beginning as soon as 2023 but as late as 2025, and on small transit agencies, beginning in 2026. The proposed regulation would initially impact standard transit buses, postponing the ZEB purchase requirement for non-standard buses (i.e. articulated, cutaway, over-the-road coaches) until 2026. SamTrans has actively engaged in the comment process for this proposal.

We will monitor the outcome of the meeting and report on its outcome to SamTrans staff.

Grade Separation Funding At the December 5 SamTrans Board meeting, we were asked to include in the SamTrans Board Report a list of state funding options for rail grade separations. Below is a list of the funding sources that we are aware of and/or that have been used to fund grade separations in recent years. The funding sources below are managed across various state agencies and departments, including the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), the California Transportation Commission (CTC), and Caltrans.

PUC Section 190 Grade Separation Program – The Program is a state funding program to grade separate crossings between roadways and railroad tracks and provides approximately $15 million annually, transferred from Caltrans. Agencies apply to the PUC for project funding.

State Transportation Improvement Program – The STIP, managed by Caltrans and programmed by the CTC, is primarily used to fund highway expansion projects throughout the state, but also supports grade separations. The STIP is programmed every two years (currently the 2018 STIP added $2.2 billion in new funding). Local agencies receive a share of STIP funding, as does the State. The STIP is funded with gasoline excise tax revenues.

Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program – The TIRCP is managed by CalSTA and is available to fund rail and transit projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The program receives funding from Cap and Trade and the recently created Transportation Improvement Fee to the tune of approximately $500 million per year. The TIRCP is programmed over 5 years, with the most recent cycle beginning in May 2018. Caltrain received $160 million for the CalMod project.

Proposition 1A – This $9.9 billion Bond Act is the primary funding source for the high-speed rail project and has been used to fund a very limited number of grade separation projects in the past, including in the City of San Mateo.

December 20, 2018

TO: Board of Directors, San Mateo County Transit District

FM: Joshua W. Shaw and Matt Robinson, Shaw / Yoder / Antwih, Inc. Mike Robson and Trent Smith, Edelstein Gilbert Robson & Smith LLC

RE: Supplemental Report on ARB’s Innovative Clean Transit Regulation – December 2018

ARB’s Innovative Clean Transit Regulation On Friday, December 14, the California Air Resources Board adopted the Innovative Clean Transit regulation. The regulation, which has been in development since spring 2015, requires large transit agencies, like SamTrans, to begin to purchase zero-emission buses (ZEBs), as soon as 2023, with the goal of transitioning all transit buses in California to zero-emission technology by 2040. SamTrans’ deployment of 10 battery-electric buses in 2019 and its commitment to go all electric by 2033 means the agency is well-positioned to meet the purchase requirements in the early years of the regulation. SamTrans must assess how the requirement to purchase only ZEBs, beginning in 2029, interacts with the agency’s planned ZEB procurement schedule. The regulation initially impacts standard transit buses, postponing the ZEB purchase mandate for non- standard buses (i.e. articulated, cutaway, over-the-road coaches) until at least 2026. The main provisions of the regulation are as follows: • Individualized ZEB Rollout Plans: The regulation requires large and small transit agencies to develop and submit a ZEB rollout plan by July 1, 2020 and by July 1, 2023, respectively. As a transit agency with more than 100 vehicles in annual maximum service, SamTrans is considered a large transit agency under the regulation. • ZEB Purchase Mandate: The regulation requires transit agencies to acquire a minimum number of ZEBs at the time of new bus purchases, based on the following schedules. Large transit agencies: Small transit agencies: o 2023: 25% o 2023: N/A o 2026: 50% o 2026: 25% o 2029 and After: 100% o 2029 and After: 100%

The regulation does not require the purchase of zero-emission articulated or cutaway buses or over-the-road coaches until at least 2026. Importantly, state incentive funding, like HVIP, will only be available to transit agencies that purchase ZEBs before – or in excess of – the requirements established by the regulation. • Statewide Thresholds: The regulation includes a mechanism for encouraging the early elective adoption of ZEBs and postponing the purchase mandate. Under this mechanism:

o If transit agencies statewide have 850 ZEBs in operation and/or on order by December 31, 2020, the 2023 purchase mandate impacting large transit agencies (noted above) would be postponed until 2024.

o And, if transit agencies statewide have 1,250 ZEBs in operation and/or on order by December 31, 2021, the 2024 purchase mandate impacting large transit agencies (noted above) would be postponed until 2025. • Low NOx Requirement: The regulation requires transit agencies to purchase low NOx engines, if available for conventional internal combustion engine bus purchases. Currently, no low NOx engines are certified by ARB for use in diesel buses, so this requirement will not immediately impact SamTrans. • Renewable Fuel Requirement: The regulation requires transit agencies to purchase renewable fuels when diesel or natural gas contracts are renewed. The regulation authorizes transit agencies to request a one-year exemption from the ZEB purchase mandate to address the following issues: • Delays in bus delivery or infrastructure buildout; • The unavailability of ZEBs with sufficient range to meet a transit agency’s daily mileage needs; • The unavailability of ZEBs that meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements or any other federal, state or local law, regulation or ordinance; and, • Financial hardship at the transit agency, including the inability to secure funding to offset the incremental cost of a ZEB over a conventionally-fueled equivalent bus. The one-year exemption can be renewed by ARB’s Executive Officer if the issues persist. The board resolution that accompanies the regulation directs ARB’s Executive Officer to provide the ARB Board with a comprehensive review of the regulation at least one year prior to the initiation of any ZEB purchase requirement. The comprehensive review will assess the following issues: • Cost, performance and reliability of ZEBs; • Availability of incentive funding; • Infrastructure necessary to support ZEB deployment; • Extent of job creation resulting from the rule; • Deployment status of ZEBs and related technologies; and, • Barriers to Zeb deployment. The comprehensive review provides the ARB Board with an opportunity to adjust the regulation, if necessary. Funding Opportunities The state has developed several incentive programs, designed to offset the incremental cost of ZEBs over conventionally-fueled equivalent buses. The most relevant are highlighted below: • ARB’s Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) – $125 million: HVIP provides point-of-sale vouchers to offset the incremental cost of zero- and near- zero emission buses and trucks as well as charging/refueling infrastructure.

In Fiscal Year 2018-19, the voucher amounts are as follows: $150,000 for 40-foot battery-electric buses ($165,000, if in DAC); $175,000 for 60-foot articulated battery-electric buses ($190,000, if in DAC); and, $300,000 for 40-foot hydrogen fuel cell buses ($315,000, if in DAC). Vouchers for infrastructure are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Funding for HVIP is subject to an annual appropriation by the Legislature and is administered by CALSTART, though overseen by ARB, on a first-come/first-serve basis to fleet owners. As of December 19, $101.9 million remains in HVIP for utilization by fleet owners. • ARB’s Volkswagen Mitigation Trust – $130 million: The VW mitigation trust allows transit agencies to claim funding for ZEBs as follows: up to $180,000 for new battery electric buses; and, up to $400,000 for a new fuel cell electric transit bus. Award amounts can be used for supporting infrastructure.

The VW mitigation trust is a one-time funding opportunity resulting from a consent decree between US EPA, ARB and VW. Funding in the VW Mitigation Trust is expected to be administered by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District and will be overseen by ARB. Funding is expected to be available to transit agencies, beginning in January 2019. • CEC’s Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program (ARFVTP) -- $165 million: ARFVTP provides grants, loans, and loan guarantees to support the development and production of low-carbon fuels, expand charging/refueling infrastructure, and establishing workforce training programs. Of the $165 million appropriated to the ARFVTP in Fiscal Year 2018-19, $17.5 million is specifically earmarked to support Advanced Freight & Fleet Technologies, inclusive of charging/refueling infrastructure for ZEBs. Funding is expected to be available to applicants, including transit agencies, beginning in Q3 2019. Funding for the ARFVTP is subject to an annual appropriation by the Legislature. • PG&E’s Charge Ready Program -- $22.3 million: This program will fully fund the construction and installation of the electric vehicle (EV) service connection and supply infrastructure – often referred to as “make-ready” infrastructure – which is required for the installation of an electric bus charger. This infrastructure and equipment includes every component from the distribution circuit up to the stub for the bus charger. As part of this investment, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) will also offer transit agencies rebates for the purchase of electric bus chargers, at a value of up to 50% of the cost the chargers. Guidelines for this program are still being developed by PG&E and must be approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Funding is expected to be available to transit agencies, beginning in Q2 2019. Electricity Rate Considerations As agencies scale up their deployment of battery-electric buses they often find that the cost of electricity as a fuel far exceeds the cost of CNG and, at times, diesel. For example, the two California transit agencies that have operated the most electric bus miles in the country have consistently reported that the cost of fuel per mile for their operations are 40% to 2 times higher for electric buses than CNG- and diesel-powered equivalents, respectively. Much of this cost increase is the result of demand charges, fixed costs borne by transit agencies for capacity-related delivery and generation infrastructure improvements necessary to support battery-electric bus charging.

To address the prohibitive cost of electricity as a fuel, PG&E has submitted a new Commercial Electric Vehicle rate design proposal to the PUC. PG&E asserts that this new rate design, if approved by the PUC, will reduce the cost of operating battery-electric buses by 30% compared to today’s rates, reducing the cost of electricity as a fuel to below the cost of diesel. We will continue to monitor the approval process for this new rate design proposal and keep you apprised of major developments. San Mateo County Transit District State Legislative Matrix 12/12/18

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Position

AB 5 Introduced in the Existing law, as established in the case of Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Watch Gonzalez D Assembly Court of Los Angeles (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex), creates a presumption that a worker who performs services for a hirer is an employee. Existing law requires a 3- Worker status: independent part test, commonly known as the “ABC” test, to establish that a worker is contractors. independent contractor. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to include provisions within this bill would codify the decision in the Dynamex case and clarify its application. San Mateo County Transit District State Legislative Matrix 12/12/18

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Position

AB 11 Introduced in the The California Constitution, with respect to any taxes levied on taxable property in a Watch Chiu D Assembly redevelopment project established under the Community Redevelopment Law, as it then read or may be amended, authorizes the Legislature to provide for the division Community Redevelopment of those taxes under a redevelopment plan between the taxing agencies and the Law of 2019. redevelopment agency, as provided.This bill, the Community Redevelopment Law of 2019, would authorize a city or county, or two or more cities acting jointly, to propose the formation of an affordable housing and infrastructure agency by adoption of a resolution of intention that meets specified requirements, including that the resolution of intention include a passthrough provision and an override passthrough provision, as defined. The bill would require the city or county to submit that resolution to each affected taxing entity and would authorize an entity that receives that resolution to elect to not receive a passthrough payment, as provided. The bill would require the city or county that adopted that resolution to hold a public hearing on the proposal to consider all written and oral objections to the formation, as well as any recommendations of the affected taxing entities, and would authorize that city or county to adopt a resolution of formation at the conclusion of that hearing. The bill would then require that city or county to submit the resolution of intention to the Strategic Growth Council for a determination as to whether the agency would promote statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals. The bill would require the council to approve formation of the agency if it determines that formation of the agency both (1) would not result in a state fiscal impact, determined as specified by the Controller, that exceeds a specified amount and (2) would promote statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals. The bill would deem an agency to be in existence as of the date of the council’s approval. The bill would require the council to establish a program to provide technical assistance to a city or county desiring to form an agency pursuant to these provisions. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. San Mateo County Transit District State Legislative Matrix 12/12/18

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Position

AB 40 Introduced in the Existing law imposes various limitations on emissions of air contaminants for the Watch Ting D Assembly control of air pollution from vehicular and nonvehicular sources. Existing law generally designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency with the Zero-emission vehicles: primary responsibility for the control of vehicular air pollution. Existing law required comprehensive strategy. the state board to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases emitted by passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and any other vehicles determined by the state board to be vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the state. This bill, no later than January 1, 2021, would require the state board to develop a comprehensive strategy to ensure that the sales of new motor vehicles and new light-duty trucks in the state have transitioned fully to zero-emission vehicles, as defined, by 2040, as specified. San Mateo County Transit District State Legislative Matrix 12/12/18

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Position

AB 51 Introduced in the Existing law imposes various restrictions on employers with respect to contracts and Watch Gonzalez D Assembly applications for employment. A violation of those restrictions is a misdemeanor. This bill would prohibit a person from, as a condition of employment, continued Employment discrimination: employment, the receipt of any employment-related benefit, or as a condition of enforcement. entering into a contractual agreement, prohibiting an applicant for employment, employee, or independent contractor from disclosing to any person an instance of sexual harassment that the employee or independent contractor suffers, witnesses, or discovers in the workplace or in the performance of the contract, or otherwise opposing any lawful practice, or from exercising any right or obligation or participating in any investigation or proceeding with respect to unlawful harassment or discrimination. The bill would also prohibit an employer from requiring any applicant for employment or any employee to waive any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of any provision of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) or other specific statutes governing employment, as a condition of employment, continued employment, the receipt of any employment-related benefit, or as a condition of entering into a contractual agreement. The bill would also prohibit an employer from threatening, retaliating or discriminating against, or terminating any applicant for employment or any employee because of the refusal to consent to the waiver of any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of specific statutes governing employment. The bill would establish a specific exemption from those prohibitions. Because a violation of these prohibitions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. San Mateo County Transit District State Legislative Matrix 12/12/18

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Position

ACA 1 Introduced in the (1)The California Constitution prohibits the ad valorem tax rate on real property from Watch Aguiar-Curry D Assembly exceeding 1% of the full cash value of the property, subject to certain exceptions. This measure would create an additional exception to the 1% limit that would Local government financing: authorize a city, county, or city and county to levy an ad valorem tax to service affordable housing and public bonded indebtedness incurred to fund the construction, reconstruction, infrastructure: voter approval. rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure or affordable housing, if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by 55% of the voters of the city, county, or city and county, as applicable, and the proposition includes specified accountability requirements. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

SB 4 Introduced in the Senate Under existing law, various agencies administer programs to preserve and expand Watch McGuire D safe and affordable housing opportunities and promote sound community growth. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would limit Housing. restrictive local land use policies and legislation that would encourage increased housing development near transit and job centers, in a manner that ensures that every jurisdiction contributes its fair share to a housing solution, while acknowledging relevant differences among communities. San Mateo County Transit District State Legislative Matrix 12/12/18

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Position

SB 5 Introduced in the Senate Existing property tax law requires the county auditor, in each fiscal year, to allocate Watch Beall D property tax revenue to local jurisdictions in accordance with specified formulas and procedures, subject to certain modifications. Existing law requires an annual Local-State Sustainable reallocation of property tax revenue from local agencies in each county to the Investment Incentive Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) in that county for allocation to Program. specified educational entities. This bill would establish in state government the Local-State Sustainable Investment Incentive Program, which would be administered by the Sustainable Investment Incentive Committee. The bill would authorize a city, county, city and county, joint powers agency, enhanced infrastructure financing district, affordable housing authority, community revitalization and investment authority or transit village development district to apply to the Sustainable Investment Incentive Committee to participate in the program and would authorize the committee to approve or deny applications for projects meeting specific criteria. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

SB 43 Introduced in the Senate This bill would require the Air Resources Board, in consultation with the California Watch Allen D Department of Tax and Fee Administration, to conduct a study and submit a report to the Legislature by January 2021 on the feasibility and practicality of a system to Carbon taxes. replace the tax imposed pursuant to the Sales and Use Tax Law with an assessment on retail products sold or used in the state based on the carbon intensity of the product to encourage the use of less carbon-intensive products. The Board would then update its Scoping Plan to reflect the results of the study. San Mateo County Transit District State Legislative Matrix 12/12/18

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Position

SB 50 Introduced in the Senate Existing law, known as the Density Bonus Law, requires, when an applicant proposes Watch Wiener D a housing development within the jurisdiction of a local government, that the city, county, or city and county provide the developer with a density bonus and other Planning and zoning: housing incentives or concessions for the production of lower income housing units or for the development: equitable donation of land within the development if the developer, among other things, communities incentive. agrees to construct a specified percentage of units for very low, low-, or moderate- income households or qualifying residents. This bill would require a city, county, or city and county to grant upon request an equitable communities incentive when a development proponent seeks and agrees to construct a residential development, as defined, that satisfies specified criteria, including, among other things, that the residential development is either a job-rich housing project or a transit-rich housing project, as those terms are defined; the site does not contain, or has not contained, housing occupied by tenants or accommodations withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with specified law within specified time periods; and the residential development complies with specified additional requirements under existing law. The bill would require that a residential development eligible for an equitable communities incentive receive waivers from maximum controls on density and automobile parking requirements greater than 0.5 parking spots per unit, up to 3 additional incentives or concessions under the Density Bonus Law, and specified additional waivers if the residential development is located within a 1/2-mile or 1/4- mile radius of a major transit stop, as defined. The bill would authorize a local government to modify or expand the terms of an equitable communities incentive, provided that the equitable communities incentive is consistent with these provisions. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

AGENDA ITEM #17

SamTrans

CORRESPONDENCE

JANUARY 9, 2019 (as of 1-3-2019) From: Pape, David Subject: GBI Task Force Meeting - Wednesday, December 12, 2018 Date: Friday, December 07, 2018 10:37:51 AM Attachments: 00_TF_Agenda Packet.pdf _Readingfile_Packet_12_12_18.pdf

Dear Grand Boulevard Initiative Task Force Members and Other Interested Parties,

Our next Task Force meeting is Wednesday, December 12th from 10am - 12pm. The meeting will be held at Santa Clara University, Saint Clare Room (500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA, 95053). Directions to this location are included with the attached agenda.

For our new Task Force Members and Alternates, we invite you to attend the New Member Orientation starting at 9am at the same location.

The meeting includes several informative presentations – MTC Public Lands Study, VTA Land Use Development Review Policy, and 2018 Legislative Update. Agenda items also include an update on the Future of GBI Committee, 2019 meeting schedule recommendation, update on GBI grant work, and GBI Corridor Tour survey results.

We also have attached a Reading File with recent articles relevant to the Grand Boulevard Initiative.

We hope to see you at this meeting. If you have not already RSVP’d, please confirm your attendance here: https://goo.gl/forms/TjR5GCtwFe1DwvKI3

Best regards,

David

David Pape SamTrans | Senior Planner 650.508.6210 | [email protected]

AGENDA

1. Call to order Grand Boulevard Initiative 2. Self-Introductions Task Force Meeting

3. MTC Public Lands Study Presentation Santa Clara University (Therese Trivedi, MTC) (TF 1) Saint Clare Room 500 El Camino Real, 4. VTA Land Use Development Review Policy Santa Clara, CA 95053 (Brent Pearse, VTA) (TF 2) Wednesday, December 12, 2018

5. 2018 Legislative Update New Member Orientation: (Jessica Epstein, SamTrans) (TF 3) 9:00 AM – 10:00 AM

6. Future of GBI Update Task Force Meeting: (Co-Chairs) 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM

7. 2019 Meeting Schedule Recommendation (Mike Garvey, CGS) (TF 4)

8. Update on Grand Boulevard Initiative Grant Work (David Pape, SamTrans) (TF 5)

9. September 26, 2018 Corridor Tour Survey Results (David Pape, SamTrans) (TF 6)

10. Written Reports

a. Activity Along the Corridor Quarterly Update (Gwen Buckley, SamTrans) (TF 7)

11. Other Business

12. Public Comment. Anyone wishing to address the Task Force on matters not on the posted agenda may do so. Each speaker is limited to two minutes. As these items are not on the posted agenda, members of the Task Force may respond briefly but the Task Force's general policy is to refer such items to the Working Committee for attention, or have the matter placed on a future agenda for a more comprehensive action or report and formal public discussion.

13. Action Items from this meeting (Co-Chairs)

14. Adjourn*

Page 1 of 2

Next Meeting: March 27, 2019 Location: TBD

DIRECTIONS TO SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY:

Public Transportation: From Caltrain or VTA bus – Exit at Santa Clara Caltrain Station. Head south on Railroad Ave. Cross El Camino Real to the main University entrance on Palm Drive. Follow the map on the reverse to the Learning Commons. Walking distance from the Caltrain station is approximately 0.5 miles each way (10 minute walk) (refer to map).

From Southbound 101: Take the De La Cruz Blvd exit from US-101 S. Merge onto W Trimble Rd. Continue onto De La Cruz Blvd. Stay right to continue onto Lewis St. Turn right onto Lafayette St and then make a slight right onto El Camino Real. Turn right onto the Main University entrance on Palm Drive and check-in at the security station where you will be directed to the Central Parking Structure (refer to map).

From Southbound 280: Follow I-280 S to the Alameda in San Jose. Take the California 82/The Alameda exit from I-880 N. Turn left onto the Alameda and stay right onto El Camino Real. Turn left onto the Main

University entrance on Palm Drive and check-in at the security station where you will be directed to the Central Parking Structure (refer to map).

Santa Clara Caltrain Station

Central Parking Structure

Learning Commons rd St. Clare Room, 3 Floor

Page 2 of 2

TF 1 TO: Grand Boulevard Initiative Task Force and Interested Parties

FROM: Therese Trivedi, MTC

SUBJECT: MTC Public Lands Study Presentation

DATE: December 12, 2018

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission recently published the Public Lands Study: Transit-Oriented Workforce Housing Assessment, which evaluates affordable and workforce housing development opportunities on publicly-owned properties in the Bay Area. The Study, published September 11, 2018, provides context for workforce housing development, outlines funding challenges, and recommends next steps for local agencies and MTC to advance housing development. The report shows that there is approximately 700 acres of public land near transit services that is suitable for housing in the Bay Area, 62 of which are in San Mateo County and 234 in Santa Clara County.

TTF 1 - Page 1 of 1

TF 2 TO: Grand Boulevard Initiative Task Force and Interested Parties

FROM: Brent Pearse, VTA

SUBJECT: Presentation on VTA’s Land Use Development Review Policy

DATE: December 12, 2018

VTA is pursuing the adoption of a Land Use Development Review Policy in order to engage with development projects at an early stage. This policy is intended to improve upon the traditional model of review which occurs primarily through CEQA and Transportation Impact Analysis processes. Brent Pearse of VTA’s Land Use and Transportation Integration Team will present the policy’s visions of enhancing land uses to provide better transit accessibility and reduce congestion, in reference to the broader impacts for the El Camino Real corridor. This policy presents a transparent vision for land use and transportation coordination.

TTF 2 - Page 1 of 1

TF 3 TO: Grand Boulevard Initiative Task Force and Interested Parties

FROM: Jessica Epstein, Government Affairs Officer Caltrain/SamTrans/TA

SUBJECT: 2018 State Legislative Update

DATE: December 12, 2018

The Legislature concluded the 2017-18 Legislative Session on August 31. Governor Brown had until September 30 to act on all bills sent to him in the waning days of the session. The Legislature will officially reconvene December 3, but won’t hit the ground running until early January.

Proposition 6 With most of the votes counted, it appears that California voters have overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 6.

Proposition 6 would have repealed $5.2 billion in new transportation funding, enacted by Senate Bill 1 (Beall & Frazier) [Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017], designed to repair and maintain our state highways and local roads, improve our trade corridors, and support public transit & active transportation projects.

Additionally, Proposition 6 would have amended the State Constitution to require the Legislature to get voter approval for new or increased taxes on the sale, storage, use, or consumption of gasoline or diesel fuel, as well as for taxes paid for the privilege of operating a vehicle on public highways.

Gubernatorial Race The race to succeed Governor Brown resulted in Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom and Republican businessman John Cox advancing from the June primary to the November General Election. As expected, Gavin Newsom defeated John Cox by a significant margin. Democrat Eleni Kounalakis will serve as Lieutenant Governor.

US Senate In what ultimately became a tighter race than anticipated, California voters selected current US Senator Diane Feinstein to continue to represent the state over State Senator Kevin De Leon.

California State Legislative Races All California Assembly seats and half of California Senate seats were up for election or reelection this year. While Democrats were expected to keep their strong majority in both houses, their ability to regain a two-thirds supermajority in both houses was

TTF 3 - Page 1 of 4

uncertain. However, based on recent results, it looks as though Democrats will obtain the coveted supermajority in both the Senate and the Assembly. If things hold, the Senate would move to 29 Democrats and 11 Republicans and the Assembly would shift to 60 Democrats and 20 Republicans. However, if Senator Ricardo Lara wins the statewide race for Insurance Commissioner, the Senate will need to call a special election to fill his seat and the Senate will drop to 28 Democrats, still enough for a supermajority.

California Ballot Propositions Originally, 12 statewide propositions were put on the November 2018 ballot. However, Proposition 9 was removed by order of the California Supreme Court. Below is a complete list of the 11 statewide propositions that remained on the November 2018 ballot.

Proposition 1. Authorizes Bonds to Fund Specified Housing Assistance Programs. Legislative Statute. Authorizes $4 billion in general obligation bonds for existing affordable housing programs for low-income residents, veterans, farmworkers, manufactured and mobile homes, infill, and transit-oriented housing. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds averaging about $170 million annually over the next 35 years. YES LEADS 55.5-44.5

Proposition 2. Authorizes Bonds to Fund Existing Housing Program for Individuals with Mental Illness. Legislative Statute. Amends Mental Health Services Act to fund No Place Like Home Program, which finances housing for individuals with mental illness. Ratifies existing law establishing the No Place Like Home Program. Fiscal Impact: Allows the state to use up to $140 million per year of county mental health funds to repay up to $2 billion in bonds. These bonds would fund housing for those with mental illness who are homeless. PASSED 62.8-37.2

Proposition 3. Authorizes Bonds to Fund Projects for Water Supply And Quality, Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Water Conveyance, And Groundwater Sustainability And Storage. Initiative Statute. Authorizes $8.877 billion in state general obligation bonds for various infrastructure projects. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds averaging $430 million per year over 40 years. Local government savings for water-related projects, likely averaging a couple hundred million dollars annually over the next few decades. NO LEADS 48.5-51.5

Proposition 4. Providing Children’s Health Care. Initiative Statute Authorizes $1.5 billion in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund grants for construction, expansion, renovation, and equipping of qualifying children’s hospitals. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds averaging about $80 million annually over the next 35 years. PASSED 62-38

Proposition 5. Changes Requirements for Certain Property Owners to Transfer Their Property Tax Base to Replacement Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

TTF 3 - Page 2 of 4

Removes certain transfer requirements for homeowners over 55, severely disabled homeowners, and contaminated or disaster-destroyed property. Fiscal Impact: Schools and local governments each would lose over $100 million in annual property taxes early on, growing to about $1 billion per year. Similar increase in state costs to backfill school property tax losses. FAILED 40.5-59.5

Proposition 6. Eliminates Certain Road Repair And Transportation Funding. Requires Certain Fuel Taxes And Vehicle Fees Be Approved By The Electorate. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Repeals a 2017 transportation law's taxes and fees designated for road repairs and public transportation. Fiscal Impact: Reduced ongoing revenues of $5.2 billion from state fuel and vehicle taxes that mainly would have paid for highway and road maintenance and repairs, as well as transit programs. NO LEADS 43.3-56.7

Proposition 7. Conforms California Daylight Saving Time to Federal Law. Allows Legislature to Change Daylight Saving Time Period. Legislative Statute. Gives Legislature ability to change daylight saving time period by two-thirds vote, if changes are consistent with federal law. Fiscal Impact: This measure has no direct fiscal effect because changes to daylight saving time would depend on future actions by the Legislature and potentially the federal government. PASSED 60-40

Proposition 8. Regulates Amounts Outpatient Kidney Dialysis Clinics Charge For Dialysis Treatment. Initiative Statute. Requires rebates and penalties if charges exceed limit. Requires annual reporting to the state. Prohibits clinics from refusing to treat patients based on payment source. Fiscal Impact: Overall annual effect on state and local governments ranging from net positive impact in the low tens of millions of dollars to net negative impact in the tens of millions of dollars. FAILED 39.6-60.4

Proposition 10. Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control On Residential Property. Initiative Statute. Repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose on residential property. Fiscal Impact: Potential net reduction in state and local revenues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or considerably more. FAILED 39.9-60.1

Proposition 11. Requires Private-Sector Emergency Ambulance Employees to Remain On-Call During Work Breaks. Eliminates Certain Employer Liability. Initiative Statute. Law entitling hourly employees to breaks without being on-call would not apply to private-sector ambulance employees. Fiscal Impact: Likely fiscal benefit to local governments (in the form of lower costs and higher revenues), potentially in the tens of millions of dollars each year. PASSED 60-40

TTF 3 - Page 3 of 4

Proposition 12. Establishes New Standards For Confinement Of Specified Farm Animals; Bans Sale Of Noncomplying Products. Initiative Statute. Establishes minimum requirements for confining certain farm animals. Prohibits sales of meat and egg products from animals confined in noncomplying manner. Fiscal Impact: Potential decrease in state income tax revenues from farm businesses, likely not more than several million dollars annually. State costs up to $10 million annually to enforce the measure. PASSED 62.2-37.8

TTF 3 - Page 4 of 4 State Legislative Matrix 2018

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Subject AB 87 Signed by the Existing law authorizes a peace officer, or a public employee who is engaged in directing Transportation Ting D Governor traffic or enforcing parking laws, to remove a vehicle under specified circumstances, including when the vehicle is found or is operating on the highway with a registration Vehicles: removal: expiration date in excess of 6 months before the date it is found or operated on the highway, autonomous or displaying a license plate or registration sticker that was not issued for that vehicle. This vehicles. bill would additionally authorize a peace officer or specified public employee, as specified, to remove a vehicle that uses autonomous technology without a valid permit that is required to operate the vehicle on public roads. The bill would authorize the release of the vehicle after the registered owner of, or person in control of, the autonomous vehicle furnishes the storing law enforcement agency with proof of current registration and a valid driver’s license, and either a valid permit that is required to operate the autonomous vehicle using autonomous technology on public roads or a declaration or sworn statement to the Department of Motor Vehicles that states that the autonomous vehicle will not be operated using autonomous technology, as specified. The bill would make additional technical, nonsubstantive changes. AB 1041 Signed by the Existing law creates the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as a regional agency Transportation Levine D Governor in the 9-county San Francisco Bay area with comprehensive regional transportation planning and other related responsibilities. Existing law creates the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) as a Bay Area Toll separate entity governed by the same governing board as the MTC and makes the BATA Authority and responsible for the programming, administration, and allocation of toll revenues from the oversight state-owned toll bridges in the San Francisco Bay area. This bill would prohibit a committee: conflict representative appointed to the oversight committee from being a member, former of interest. member, staff, or former staff of the commission or the authority, a current employee of any organization or person that has received or is receiving funding from the commission or the authority, or a former employee or person who has contracted with any organization or person that has received or is receiving funding from the commission or the authority within one year of having worked for or contracted with that organization or person. This bill contains other existing laws. State Legislative Matrix 2018

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Subject AB 1756 Dead Existing law, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, establishes a comprehensive Transportation Brough R transportation funding program by increasing the motor vehicle fuel (gasoline) tax by $0.12 per gallon with an inflation adjustment, increasing the diesel excise tax by $0.20 per gallon Transportation with an inflation adjustment, creating a new transportation improvement fee imposed under funding. the Vehicle License Fee Law with a varying fee between $25 and $175 based on vehicle value and with an inflation adjustment, creating a new $100 annual vehicle registration fee applicable only to zero-emission vehicles model year 2020 and later and with an inflation adjustment, and increasing the additional sales and use tax rate on diesel fuel by an additional 4%. The act provides that the fuel excise tax increases take effect on November 1, 2017, the transportation improvement fee takes effect on January 1, 2018, the zero-emission vehicle registration fee takes effect on July 1, 2020, and the additional sales and use tax rate increases take effect on November 1, 2017. The act provides for the expenditure of the revenues generated from these charges pursuant to specified to programs and other requirements. This bill would repeal the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.This bill contains other related provisions. AB 1771 Signed by the This bill would make changes to RHNA and requires MTC/ABAG’s methodology to further the Housing Bloom D Governor statutory RHNA objectives, rather than to just be consistent with them. It also requires the regional agencies to publicly explain how each of the factors was incorporated into the methodology and how the methodology furthers the statutory objectives. The bill adds a new statutory objective to increase access to areas of high opportunity for lower-income residents, avoiding displacement and affirmatively furthering fair housing and requires the regional agencies to post all RHNA information on a public website to help ensure it is available to all affected local governments and all interested stakeholders. This bill eliminates the existing law requirement to include the market demand for housing as a factor in developing the methodology. And instead focuses on factors such as housing need, housing burden, overcrowding, and jobs/housing fit. This bill requires a locality, if it disagrees with its RHNA allocation, to submit a request for a revision that includes a statement as to why the proposed allocation is not appropriate and why a revision is necessary to further the statutory objectives. Finally, this bill deletes the authority of two local governments to agree to an alternative distribution of appealed housing allocations between the affected local governments. State Legislative Matrix 2018

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Subject AB 1804 Signed by the The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to Infrastructure Berman D Governor prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect California on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not Environmental have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative Quality Act: declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in categorical the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the exemption: infill project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA requires the development. Office of Planning and Research to prepare and develop, and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt, guidelines for the implementation of CEQA. CEQA requires the guidelines to include a list of classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and that are required to be exempt from CEQA (categorical exemption). Existing guidelines for the implementation of CEQA exempts from the requirements of CEQA infill development meeting certain requirements, including the requirement that the proposed development occurs within city limits. This bill would revise the above-described categorical exemption to include proposed residential and mixed- use housing projects occurring within an unincorporated area of a county. Because a lead agency would be required to determine the applicability of this exemption, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill also would require the office to recommend proposed regulatory amendments for the implementation of these provisions and would require the secretary to certify and adopt the changes on or before January 1, 2020.This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. State Legislative Matrix 2018

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Subject AB 1866 Dead Existing law provides various sources of funding for transportation purposes, including Transportation Fong R funding for the state highway system and the local street and road system. These funding sources include, among others, fuel excise taxes, commercial vehicle weight fees, local Transportation transactions and use taxes, and federal funds. Existing law imposes certain registration fees funding. on vehicles, with revenues from these fees deposited in the Motor Vehicle Account and used to fund the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of the California Highway Patrol. Existing law provides for the monthly transfer of excess balances in the Motor Vehicle Account to the State Highway Account. This bill would create the Traffic Relief and Road Improvement Program to address traffic congestion and deferred maintenance on the state highway system and the local street and road system. The bill would provide for the deposit of various existing sources of revenue in the Traffic Relief and Road Improvement Account, which the bill would create in the State Transportation Fund, including revenues attributable to the sales and use tax on motor vehicles, revenues attributable to automobile and motor vehicle insurance policies from the insurer gross premiums tax, revenues from certain diesel fuel sales and use taxes, revenues from certain vehicle registration fees, and certain miscellaneous State Highway Account revenues. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. State Legislative Matrix 2018

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Subject AB 1969 Dead Existing law provides various sources of funding to public transit operators. Under the Mills- Transportation Salas D Alquist-Deddeh Act, also known as the Transportation Development Act, certain revenues are available, among other things, for allocation by the transportation planning agency to Transportation transit operators, subject to certain financial requirements for an operator to meet in order funds: to be eligible to receive the moneys. Existing law sets forth alternative ways an operator may transportation qualify for funding, including a standard under which the allocated moneys do not exceed planning agencies: 50% of the operator’s total operating costs, as specified, or the maintenance by the operator transit operators: of a specified ratio of fare revenues to operating costs. Existing law generally establishes the fare revenue ratios: required fare revenues to operating cost ratio as 20% in urbanized areas and 10% in exemptions. nonurbanized areas. This bill would authorize a transportation planning agency to grant an exemption, for up to 5 years, to an operator that fails to maintain the applicable fare- revenue-to-cost ratio if, based on that agency’s determination, an exemption is appropriate, as specified. The bill would require the agency to consider specified factors in determining whether to grant the exemption. The bill would authorize an operator granted an exemption to be allocated the revenues it would have qualified for had it maintained the applicable ratio. State Legislative Matrix 2018

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Subject AB 2034 Signed by the Existing law requires specified businesses and other establishments, including, among others, Transportation Kalra D Governor airports, intercity passenger rail or light rail stations, bus stations, and truck stops, to post a notice, as developed by the Department of Justice, that contains information relating to Human trafficking: slavery and human trafficking, including information regarding specified nonprofit notice. organizations that a person can call for services or support in the elimination of slavery and human trafficking. Existing law makes a business or establishment that fails to comply with the requirements of these provisions liable for a civil penalty of $500 for a first offense, and $1,000 for each subsequent offense. This bill would require specified businesses or other establishments that operate an intercity passenger rail, light rail, or bus station, on or before January 1, 2021, to train new and existing employees who may interact with, or come into contact with, a victim of human trafficking or who are likely to receive, in the course of their employment, a report from another employee about suspected human trafficking, in recognizing the signs of human trafficking and how to report those signs to the appropriate law enforcement agency, as specified. Because the bill would require local government agencies to perform additional duties, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the Department of Justice, on or before July 1, 2020, in consultation with community-based anti-human trafficking organizations, mass transit employee representatives, and representatives of mass transit system organizations, to develop guidelines to assist employers in providing the employee training. The bill would also require the department to make the guidelines publicly available on its Internet Web site and to distribute copies of the guidelines to the employers described above upon request. This bill contains other existing laws. State Legislative Matrix 2018

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Subject AB 2065 Dead Existing law prescribes requirements for the disposal of surplus land by a local agency. Housing Ting D Existing law defines “local agency” for these purposes as every city, county, city and county, and district, including school districts of any kind or class, empowered to acquire and hold Local agencies: real property. Existing law defines “surplus land” for these purposes as land owned by any surplus land. local agency that is determined to be no longer necessary for the agency’s use, except property being held by the agency for the purpose of exchange. This bill would expand the definition of “local agency” to include sewer, water, utility, and local and regional park districts, joint powers authorities, successor agencies to former redevelopment agencies, housing authorities, and other political subdivisions of this state and any instrumentality thereof that is empowered to acquire and hold real property, thereby requiring these entities to comply with these requirements for the disposal of surplus land. The bill would revise the definition of “surplus land” to mean land owned by any local agency that is not necessary for the agency’s governmental operations, except property being held by the agency expressly for the purpose of exchange for another property necessary for its governmental operations and would provide that land is presumed to be surplus land when a local agency initiates an action to dispose of it. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. AB 2127 Signed by the Existing law requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission Transportation Ting D Governor (Energy Commission), on a biennial basis, to adopt an integrated energy policy report containing an overview of major energy trends and issues facing the state. Existing requires Electric vehicle the Energy Commission, as a part of the report, to conduct transportation forecasting and charging assessment activities that include, among other things, an assessment of trends in infrastructure: transportation fuels, technologies, and infrastructure supply and demand. This bill would assessment. require the Energy Commission, working with the State Air Resources Board and the PUC, to prepare and biennially update a statewide assessment of the electric vehicle charging infrastructure needed to support the levels of electric vehicle adoption required for the state to meet its goals of putting at least 5 million zero-emission vehicles on California roads by 2030 and of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. The bill would require the Energy Commission to regularly seek data and input from stakeholders relating to electric vehicle charging infrastructure. This bill contains other existing laws. State Legislative Matrix 2018

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Subject AB 2418 Dead Existing law creates the California Transportation Commission, with various powers and Transportation Mullin D duties relative to the programming of transportation capital projects and allocation of funds to those projects pursuant to the state transportation improvement program and various Transportation: other transportation funding programs. This bill would establish the California Smart City emerging Challenge Grant Program to enable municipalities to compete for grant funding for emerging transportation transportation technologies to serve their transportation system needs, and would specify technologies: certain program goals. The bill would require the commission to form the California Smart California Smart City Challenge Workgroup on or before July 1, 2019, to provide the commission with Cities Challenge guidance on program matters, as specified. The bill would require the commission, in Grant Program. consultation with the workgroup, to develop guidelines on or before March 1, 2020, for the program, which would not be subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, and to revise them as necessary. The bill would make the implementation of the program contingent upon an appropriation in the annual budget act. AB 2650 Dead Existing law authorizes buses operated by a publicly owned transit system, on regularly Transportation Lackey R scheduled service, to be equipped with certain illuminated signs, as specified. Existing law requires the illuminated signs to adhere to certain specifications, including, among others, Public transit being limited in size to a display of not greater than 720 square inches, and requiring the buses: illuminated illuminated signs to display information directly related to public transit service, including, signs. but not limited to, route number, destination description, run number, and public service announcements. This bill would revise those conditions, to increase the maximum display area of an illuminated sign to 4,320 inches and to allow paid advertising to be displayed on the illuminated sign. State Legislative Matrix 2018

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Subject AB 2923 Signed by the Existing law establishes the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) with various Transportation Chiu D Governor powers and duties and establishes a board of directors as the legislative body of the district. Existing law requires the board to determine all questions of district policy and what transit San Francisco Bay facilities should be acquired or constructed, and authorizes the board to establish zones Area Rapid Transit within the district to undertake the acquisition or construction of any transit facilities. This District: transit- bill would require the board to adopt by ordinance new transit-oriented development (TOD) oriented zoning standards for each station that establish minimum local zoning requirements for development. height, density, parking, and floor area ratio only, that apply to an eligible TOD project, as defined. The bill would require that the adoption of, or amendments to, the TOD zoning standards comply with specified requirements and would require affected local jurisdictions to adopt a local zoning ordinance that conforms to the TOD zoning standards and is operative within 2 years of the date that the TOD zoning standards are adopted by the board for a station, or by July 1, 2022, if the board has not adopted TOD zoning standards for the station. The bill would provide that BART’s approval of TOD zoning standards is subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review and would designate BART as the lead agency for CEQA review, as specified. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. State Legislative Matrix 2018

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Subject AB 3124 Signed by the Existing law imposes a 40-foot limitation on the length of vehicles that may be operated on Transportation Bloom D Governor the highways, with specified exemptions. Existing law exempts from this limitation an articulated bus or articulated trolley coach that does not exceed a length of 60 feet, and Vehicles: length authorizes the bus or trolley to be equipped with a folding device attached to the front of the limitations: buses: bus or trolley if the device is designed and used exclusively for transporting bicycles. Existing bicycle law prohibits the above-described device from extending more than 36 inches from the front transportation body of the bus when fully deployed, and prohibits a bicycle that is transported on that devices. device from having the bicycle handlebars extend more than 42 inches from the front of the bus. This bill would additionally authorize an articulated bus or articulated trolley coach that does not exceed a length of 60 feet to be equipped with a folding device attached to the front of the bus or trolley if the device is designed and used exclusively for transporting bicycles as long as the device does not extend more than 40 inches from the front body of the bus when fully deployed. The bill would require a public agency operating transit services to establish a route review committee, as specified, in order to operate that articulated bus or articulated trolley coach, and would require the committee, by a majority vote, to make a determination of which routes are suitable for the safe operation of that articulated bus or articulated trolley coach. The bill would also make technical, nonsubstantive changes and a conforming change in a related provision. SB 328 Vetoed by the Existing law requires the governing board of each school district to fix the length of the Transportation Portantino D Governor schoolday for the several grades and classes of the schools maintained by the school district in accordance with specified provisions of law. This bill would require the schoolday for Pupil attendance: middle schools and high schools, including those operated as charter schools, to begin no school start time. earlier than 8:30 a.m. by July 1, 2021, or the date on which a school district’s collective bargaining agreement that is operative on January 1, 2019, expires, whichever is later, except for rural school districts. To the extent the bill imposes new duties on school districts and charter schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would encourage the State Department of Education to post specified information on its Internet Web site, including research on the impact of sleep deprivation on adolescents and the benefits of a later school start time, and to advise school districts of this posting. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. State Legislative Matrix 2018

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Subject SB 828 Signed by the This bill would revise the RHNA process used to distribute existing and projected regional Housing Wiener D Governor housing needs to cities and counties within the MTC/ABAG region (and in the other COGs around the state). The bill was watered-down leaving the Assembly Appropriations Planning and Committee, which removed provisions that would have required the final regional housing Zoning need plan to demonstrate government efforts to reverse racial and wealth disparities throughout a region by assigning additional weight to local governments that met specified criteria in the distribution of the regional housing needs allocation for all income categories (largely targeting Bay Area communities).

SB 1000 Signed by the Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, among other things, requires the legislative body Transportation Lara D Governor of each county and city to adopt a general plan for the physical development of the county or city and authorizes the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and Transportation regulations by counties and cities. This bill would prohibit a city, county, or city and county electrification: from restricting which types of electric vehicles may access an electric vehicle charging electric vehicle station approved for passenger vehicles that both is publicly accessible and the construction charging of which was funded, at least in part, by the state or through moneys collected from infrastructure. ratepayers. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. State Legislative Matrix 2018

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Subject SB 1014 Signed by the Existing law, the Passenger Charter-party Carriers’ Act, provides for the regulation of charter- Transportation Skinner D Governor party carriers of passengers by the Public Utilities Commission, and makes it unlawful for a charter-party carrier to operate without first obtaining a permit or certificate from the California Clean commission, except as specified. The act includes specified requirements for liability Miles Standard and insurance coverage for transportation network companies, as defined, and their participating Incentive Program: drivers. Under existing law, a violation of the act or an order or direction of the commission zero-emission pursuant to the act is a crime. This bill would establish the California Clean Miles Standard vehicles. and Incentive Program, which would require, by January 1, 2020, that the state board establish a baseline for emissions of greenhouse gases for vehicles used on the online- enabled applications or platforms by transportation network companies on a per-passenger- mile basis. The bill would require, by January 1, 2021, that the state board establish, and the commission implement, annual targets and goals starting in 2023 for the reduction under that baseline for emissions of greenhouse gases per passenger-mile driven on behalf of a transportation network company. The bill would require that the targets and goals meet specified requirements. The bill would require, by January 1, 2022, and every 2 years thereafter, that each transportation network company develop a greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan that includes proposals on how to meet the targets and goals for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases that would be established pursuant to the bill. Because the violation of a commission order or direction implementing the bill’s provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. SB 1119 Signed by the Existing law requires all moneys, except for fines and penalties, collected by the State Air Transportation Beall D Governor Resources Board as part of a market-based compliance mechanism to be deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and to be available upon appropriation. Existing law Low Carbon Transit continuously appropriates specified portions of the annual proceeds in the fund to various Operations programs, including 5% for the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, administered by the Program. Department of Transportation, which provides operating and capital assistance for transit agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve mobility. This bill would waive the above requirement if the recipient transit agencies expend the funding provided on certain transit activities. This bill contains other existing laws. State Legislative Matrix 2018

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Subject SB 1328 Signed by the Existing law requires the Chair of the California Transportation Commission to create a Road Transportation Beall D Governor Usage Charge (RUC) Technical Advisory Committee in consultation with the Secretary of the Transportation Agency. Under existing law, the purpose of the technical advisory committee Mileage-based is to guide the development and evaluation of a pilot program to assess the potential for road usage fee. mileage-based revenue collection as an alternative to the gas tax system. Existing law requires the technical advisory committee to study RUC alternatives to the gas tax, gather public comment on issues and concerns related to the pilot program, and to make recommendations to the Secretary of the Transportation Agency on the design of a pilot program, as specified. Existing law repeals these provisions on January 1, 2019. This bill would extend the operation of these provisions until January 1, 2023. The bill would, in addition, require the technical advisory committee to continue to assess the potential for mechanisms, including, but not limited to, a mileage-based revenue collection system, to use as alternative methods to the existing gas tax system for generating the revenue necessary to maintain and operate the state’s transportation system. The bill would, instead, require the committee to gather public comment related to the assessment of those mechanisms. SB 1376 Signed by the This bill would require the Public Utilities Commission, as part of its regulation of Transportation Hill D Governor transportation network companies (TNCs), to establish a program in a new or existing proceeding relating to accessibility for persons with disabilities, including wheelchair users Transportation who need a wheelchair accessible vehicle (WAV). As part of the program, the bill would network require the commission, by January 1, 2019, to begin conducting workshops with companies: stakeholders in order to determine community WAV demand and WAV supply and to accessibility for develop and provide recommendations regarding specified topics for programs for on- persons with demand services and partnerships. disabilities. State Legislative Matrix 2018

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Subject SB 1434 Dead Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has regulatory authority over public Transportation Leyva D utilities, including electrical corporations Existing law, enacted as part of the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015, requires the PUC, in consultation with the State Energy Transportation Resources Conservation and Development Commission and State Air Resources Board, to electrification: direct electrical corporations to file applications for programs and investments to accelerate electricity rate widespread transportation electrification to reduce dependence on petroleum, meet air design. quality standards, achieve the goals set forth in the Charge Ahead California Initiative, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. That law requires that the programs proposed by electrical corporations seek to minimize overall costs and maximize overall benefits. The PUC is required to approve, or modify and approve, programs and investments in transportation electrification, including those that deploy charging infrastructure, through a reasonable cost recovery mechanism, if they are consistent with the above-described purposes, do not unfairly compete with nonutility enterprises, include performance accountability measures, and are in the interests of ratepayers. This bill would require the PUC, on or before July 1, 2019, to direct an electrical corporation with more than 100,000 service connections in California to file a rate design application that supports and accelerates the deployment of zero-emission transit buses to reduce dependence on petroleum, meet air quality standards, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. This requirement would not apply to an electrical corporation with an approved or proposed rate tariff that meets the goals of the bill as of July 1, 2019. The bill would authorize an electrical corporation with 100,000 or fewer service connections in California to file a rate design application for those purposes. The bill would require a rate design proposed by an electrical corporation to seek to minimize overall costs and maximize overall benefits. The bill would require the commission to approve, or modify and approve, a rate design application filed by an electrical corporation if it is consistent with these requirements and is revenue neutral to the relevant customer class.This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. State Legislative Matrix 2018

Bill ID/Topic Location Summary Subject Proposition 6 On the Proposition 6 is a constitutional amendment ballot initiative that has qualified for the Transportation Transportation November November 2018 General Election. Prop 6 requires that the statewide electorate approve any Taxes and Fees Ballot gas, diesel, or vehicle related tax or fee increase. Since the initiative has a retroactive Repeal effective date of January 1, 2017, it would repeal the revenue increases included in SB 1 – the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 and potentially negatively impact other long- standing transportation funds. Proposition 69 Approved by The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Transportation Transportation the voters in Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of Taxes & Fees the June 5th greenhouse gases. The act authorizes the state board to include the use of market-based Lockbox primary compliance mechanisms. Existing law requires all moneys, except for fines and penalties, election. collected by the state board as part of a market-based compliance mechanism to be deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and to be available upon appropriation. This measure would create the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund, in which all moneys collected by the state board as part of a market-based compliance mechanism beginning January 1, 2024, and until the effective date of specified legislation would be deposited. The measure would require all moneys in the fund to be available upon appropriation for specified purposes and would require a bill making those appropriations to be passed by a 2/3 vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature. The measure would require all new moneys collected as part of a market-based compliance mechanism after the effective date of that specified legislation to be deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The measure would prohibit a specified sales tax exemption from being applied until the effective date of that specified legislation. This bill contains other existing laws.

TF 4 TO: Grand Boulevard Initiative Task Force and Interested Parties

FROM: Michael Garvey, CGS

SUBJECT: Confirm Proposed 2019 Task Force and Working Committee Meeting Calendars

DATE: December 12, 2018

Task Force Meetings

Based on the survey of Task Force members conducted in 2008 and reaffirmed in 2013, the best meeting day is Wednesday, from 10:00 AM – noon. As during the past 10 years, the Task Force will be meeting on a quarterly basis, usually on the last Wednesday of each quarter. The meeting locations will alternate between San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. The proposed 2019 Task Force Meeting Calendar is below for review and approval.

Day Date Time Location Wednesday March 27 10:00 AM - Noon SamTrans Wednesday June 26 10:00 AM - Noon TBD Wednesday September 25 10:00 AM - Noon SamTrans Wednesday December 11* 10:00 AM - Noon TBD

Note: *The “normal” meeting date would be December 25. This date is recommended as it avoids Hanukkah (Dec 22-30), Christmas, and New Year’s Day.

Rosh Hashanah, which conflicts in some years with the presumed September date, falls on Sept 29-Oct 1 2019. Yom Kippur falls on October 8.

TF 4 1 of 2

Working Committee Meetings

The Working Committee Meeting calendar continues the scheduling of meetings on the fourth Monday of each month, with two exceptions. The location will be at SamTrans in San Carlos. The proposed 2019 Working Committee Calendar is below for review and approval.

Day Date Time Location Monday January 28 10:00 AM - Noon SamTrans Monday February 25 10:00 AM - Noon SamTrans Monday March 25 10:00 AM - Noon SamTrans Monday April 22 10:00 AM - Noon SamTrans Monday May 20** 10:00 AM - Noon SamTrans Monday June 24 10:00 AM - Noon SamTrans Monday July 22 10:00 AM - Noon SamTrans Monday August 26 10:00 AM - Noon SamTrans Monday September 23 10:00 AM - Noon SamTrans Monday October 28 10:00 AM - Noon SamTrans Monday December 9*** 10:00 AM-Noon SamTrans

Note: ** The normal meeting day would be May 27 but that is Memorial Day. *** To avoid conflict with Thanksgiving and the December holidays, the November and December meetings would be merged and held on this date.

TF 4 2 of 2

TF 5 TO: Grand Boulevard Task Force and Interested Parties

FROM: David Pape, SamTrans

SUBJECT: Update on Caltrans Planning Grant Work

DATE: December 12, 2018

The Grand Boulevard Initiative and Corridor jurisdictions have been successful in securing federal, state, and regional funding for projects in the El Camino Real Corridor. This is an update on the current Grand Boulevard Initiative grant work. An executive summary is provided below followed by additional, more detailed information about each of the grants.

Executive Summary

The GBI team currently oversees one grant:

Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant involves working with the cities of Palo Alto and Redwood City to create conceptual designs for one section of El Camino Real in each city. Planning work by project consultant Fehr & Peers began in the summer of 2017. The project consultant has completed the data collection and existing conditions review, established draft performance metrics for case study evaluation, and developed community outreach plans for both case study cities. Following initial community outreach efforts, conceptual designs will be developed with additional community input throughout 2018 with project completion set for early 2019.

Grand Boulevard Initiative: Creating Safe and Healthy Corridor Communities

Project Summary: The Project facilitates the design of multimodal streetscape improvements to create a roadway that is safe and accessible for all users, is integrated with proposed sustainable development, and enhances modal choices by encouraging pedestrian and transit activity. The project focuses on two case study locations on El Camino Real in Redwood City and Palo Alto; the case study locations were selected based on their bicycle and pedestrian collision rates and opportunity to improve roadway safety and downtown connections. In addition to developing streetscape designs, the project will identify multimodal performance metrics for measuring the success of the roadway and a variety of funding options for cities to consider as they implement the envisioned improvements. The potential designs, tools, and funding and implementation options can be adapted for use in other cities along the El Camino Real Corridor or other urban corridors.

Grant Program: Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant

TF 5 - Page 1 of 2 Grant Award: $349,074 On behalf of the Grand Boulevard Initiative, the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) was awarded $349,074 under the FY16-17 Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program to fund the “Grand Boulevard Initiative: Creating Safe and Healthy Corridor Communities” Project. Caltrans awarded the grant on June 8, 2016.

Significance: This project is a critical first step toward implementing multimodal improvements, addressing safety issues in the El Camino Real Corridor, and realizing the Grand Boulevard Initiative Vision of people friendly places. This work also will build from Grand Boulevard Initiative’s TIGER II Complete Streets Project findings. This grant will allow the cities to complete the public engagement process and conceptual design plans. These two steps are prerequisites before the cities can move forward through the Caltrans Project Development Process and into construction.

Partnerships: SamTrans is partnered with C/CAG, VTA, the San Mateo County Health System, the Santa Clara County Health Department, and the cities of Redwood City and Palo Alto to direct the Project work. As the grantee, SamTrans will manage the grant and consultant contract(s). The cities of Redwood City and Palo Alto are providing the required local matching funds.

Project Update: Significant progress was made in the month of October and November. On Saturday, October 20th, the project team met held the final outreach event for Redwood City. The pop-up style event included a temporary bike lane on a segment of El Camino Real and tabling. Members of the public were invited to try the temporary bicycle lane and share feedback on the draft conceptual designs.

In addition, on Wednesday November 14th, the project team held a study session with the Palo Alto Planning Commission to share the draft conceptual designs plans and gather feedback.

Lastly, a TAC meeting was held on Thursday November 15th to discuss the final report layout and share preliminary outreach results for Redwood City. The planning team will continue to make progress on the final report for both Cities and incorporate outreach results from the final events.

For more information on the project please visit the city’s websites below.

Redwood City: http://www.redwoodcity.org/departments/community-development- department/planning-housing/planning-services/general-plan-precise-plans/el- camino-real-corridor-plan

Palo Alto: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/transit/transportation_projects/grand _boulevard_palo_alto.asp

TF 5 - Page 2 of 2

TF 6 TO: Grand Boulevard Initiative Task Force and Interested Parties

FROM: David Pape, SamTrans

SUBJECT: GBI Corridor Tour Debrief

DATE: December 12, 2018

Following the GBI Corridor Tour hosted on September 26, 2018, participants completed a survey, providing feedback on the tour and suggestions for improvement. The following report, included as Attachment 1 of the packet, details the results of the Corridor Tour Survey.

TWC 6 - Page 1 of 1

GBI Corridor Tour Survey Report

Overall, responses to the GBI Corridor Tour survey were positive, with some key areas for potential improvement in future tours. Most constructive criticism came in terms of tour logistics: timing, breaks, materials, and speaker volume. In total,16 responses were submitted over the two week period that the survey was open.

Question 1: 10 of 15 responses gave the tour a 5 out of 5-star rating. The remaining 5 gave a 4-star rating, making the average a 4.67/5. One respondent skipped the question.

Question 2: 7 of 16 respondents said communications before the tour were Extremely Effective. 9 said the communications were Very Effective.

Question 3: All respondents stated that the segment of the tour in San Mateo’s Bay Meadows was useful.

Question 4: Most respondents found information regarding the Belmont development pipeline to be useful. However, 2 of 16 stated that it was not useful.

Question 5: All respondents stated that the segment of the tour in Redwood City was useful.

Question 6: 14 of the 16 respondents agreed that the tour was timed appropriately to some extent. One response neither agreed nor disagreed that time was allotted appropriately during the tour. One response disagreed that time was allotted appropriately during the tour.

T Page 1 of 2

Question 7: 13 of the 16 respondents agreed to some extent that the tour’s speakers included the appropriate level information. 3 responses neither agreed nor disagreed that the level of information given was appropriate at the various stops.

Question 8: 8 of 16 survey responders provided direct feedback on this question. 4 stated that more handouts related to developments would have been useful. 2 respondents would have liked information about project timelines and public participation. 1 respondent stated a desire to have the tour highlights connected to the broader goals and visions of the Grand Boulevard Initiative and received details on how each project affected the progress towards those goals.

Question 9: If the Grand Boulevard Initiative were to host another tour in the future in Santa Clara County, 9 of the 12 responses included Mountain View as a response, of which 4 listed Mountain View alone as a preferred location. The next most popular response was Sunnyvale, with 4 respondents including it among their list of cities. Palo Alto, San Jose, and Santa Clara were each listed as desirable options by 3 respondents. 2 of 16 skipped Question 9 and 2 answered “Yes” to Question 9.

Question 10: In response to how the event could be improved 11 individuals chose to answer in some way and 5 chose to skip. Of the 11 responses, 3 mentioned difficulty hearing speakers both on the bus and outdoors on tours, particularly near traffic. These respondents suggested megaphones for outdoor amplification and better microphone use for on-board bus speakers. 2 requested additional snack and bathroom breaks. 1 respondent would have liked a more detailed itinerary given before the tour. 1 respondent stated that an all-day tour may be preferable in the future. 4 respondents gave no suggestions for improvement.

T Page 2 of 2 GBI ACTIVITY ALONG THE CORRIDOR TF 7

DECEMBER 2018 | QUARTERLY REPORT The Activity Along the Corridor Summary is a quarterly update of important milestones completed by the various member agencies, counties, and cities of the Grand Boulevard Initiative. The Vision This Summary highlights the most recent activities and “El Camino Real will achieve its full potential as a complements the Activity Along the Corridor Story Map, an place for residents to work, live, shop and play, interactive tool that illustrates the cumulative progress that has creating links between communities that promote been made along the El Camino Real Corridor since the walking and transit and an improved and inception of the Grand Boulevard Initiative in 2006. The Story meaningful quality of life.” Map showcases the locations for public infrastructure and private development projects, as well as planning documents that are in progress, under construction, or completed along

the Corridor. Starting 2018, the Story Map will be hosted on an

ESRI-based web map to increase storage capacity and improve

www.grandboulevard.net user-experience. It is available on the Grand Boulevard Initiative website at: https://grandboulevard.net/activity- along-the-corridor

CITIES & COUNTIES OTHER UPDATES

Corridor Planning and Development Projects: Grand Boulevard Initiative Website (www.grandboulevard.net) City of San Mateo is currently updating their Downtown Plan.

City of Mountain View is in the process of adopting their ECR During the 4 month period of this report (July 2018 to streetscape plan. The City is doing a parking analysis along November 2018), the site was visited 1,434 times. New visitors ECR and studying the feasibility of bike lanes. accounted for 89% of total people who accessed the site.

ABAG’s County Public Land Use Report is available and posted Since we began tracking in June 2011, the website has been on their website. visited by 44,238 different people (or computers) from over 154 different countries. City of Santa Clara’s El Camino Plan is in process and an online survey for the plan is available at the city’s website. Grand Boulevard Initiative Social Media

The City of Sunnyvale is finalizing concepts in the draft El The Grand Boulevard Initiative social media pages featured Camino Real Corridor Specific Plan and its draft EIR. posts about:

The City of South San Francisco received a new application  GBI: Bike & Ped Safety Improvement Study: Protected for 410 Norr Avenue for a five-story, 345-unit mixed-use Bike Lane Pop-up Event in Redwood City project.  Article on the Low income housing tax credit: how it

works and who it serves The Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan is available online. It includes numerous proposed bikeway improvements and projects on  A Planetizen article about how millennials are El Camino. happier in cities

 A Planetizen article on New York’s ‘Zoning Handbook’.

TF 7 - Page 1 of 2 GBI ACTIVITY ALONG THE CORRIDOR | December 2018

 A CityLab article about Inclusionary Zoning

 Mobility Lab article about separating biking and walking transportation modes.

 Article on streets that are designed to function as highways, despite being located in urban areas. They are dangerous for pedestrians.

 Article on how American cities have an excess of parking spaces.

 Verge article on how Lyft will offer discounts to people who use bikes and scooters to connect to transit.

 A Planetizen article on how Los Angeles Express Lane Revenue is funding electric double-decker buses.

The Grand Boulevard Initiative Facebook page has 342 “likes”. The Twitter page has 286 followers.

Be part of the conversation – like Grand Boulevard Initiative on Facebook, follow Grand Boulevard Initiative on Twitter, and connect with Grand Boulevard Initiative on LinkedIn.

facebook.com/grandboulevardinitiative

twitter.com/grand_boulevard

linkedin.com Search groups for “Grand Boulevard Initiative”

TF 7 - Page 2 of 2 Grand Boulevard Initiative Task Force Reading File

December 2018 The following articles are in the December 2018 reading file:

 “As teachers flee Bay Area housing crisis, one school district tries new approach”. Bay Area News Group. November 25, 2018.

 “Many cities have transit. How many have good transit?” Institute for Urban Research. November 14, 2018.

 “California gives Waymo the state’s first permit to test self-driving cars without humans”. Quartz. October 30, 2018.

 “South City examines inclusionary housing.” Daily Journal. September 12, 2018.

 “Step-by-step for fixing badly planned American Cities.” CityLab. October 9, 2018.

 “The 10 top emerging trends that will shape real estate in 2019”. Urban Land Institute. October 10, 2018.

 “Uber writes an equation to help cities measure--and manage--the curb.” Wired.com. October 6, 2018.

As teachers flee Bay Area housing crisis, one school district tries new approach

By MARISA KENDALL | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group PUBLISHED: November 25, 2018 at 6:00 am | UPDATED: November 26, 2018

Faced with a mounting crisis as teachers leave the Bay Area in droves because they can’t afford to live here, a San Mateo County school district is pioneering a new solution.

Jefferson Union High School District is set to break ground next year on 116 low- cost apartments to house its teachers and staff. The project is unique in the way it’s funded — via a $33 million voter-approved bond, thought to be the first in the nation dedicated exclusively to building teacher housing. Now other local school districts, also faced with a dire need for affordable employee housing, are considering similar ballot measures.

“It’s a new option,” said Dale Scott of Dale Scott & Company, the high school district’s financial adviser. “We’re seeing interest not only in the Bay Area, where there’s obviously very high prices, but also in certain parts of the Central Valley, where rental housing is at a premium.”

Bond-funded housing is one of many solutions school districts throughout the Bay Area are exploring as they grapple with how to house staff in the midst of a drastic affordable housing shortage. San Jose Unified School District is considering turning some of its schools into teacher housing — an idea that sparked a backlash from neighborhood residents earlier this year. The district hasn’t yet secured funds for the project, but it likely would be financed through city, county or state housing bonds.

In September, an experimental teacher housing project proposed in Palo Alto secured additional funding from the Los Altos School District, on top of money already set aside by Santa Clara County and the city of Palo Alto. Santa Clara Unified School District offers affordable teacher housing in its Casa del Maestro complex, paid for by certificates of participation — which allow investors to buy up shares of rental revenue. The Bay Area’s high housing prices make it difficult for districts to attract and retain teachers, leading to about 40 teacher vacancies each year at Jefferson Union, and an annual turnover rate of 20 percent, said Andy Lie, president of the school district’s board of trustees. Jefferson Union pays its teachers between $49,500 and $87,300 a year — one of the lowest ranges in the county and nowhere near enough to afford the area’s high cost of living. Homes in Daly City, where many of Jefferson Union’s schools are located, sell for a median price of $926,500, according to Zillow. The average rent for a one- bedroom apartment is $2,165, according to RentCafe. Jefferson Union workers end up commuting two or three hours a day, living packed into too-small apartments or working multiple jobs. “It becomes very difficult to keep staff for any amount of time,” Lie said. “We’ve had stories of teachers who drive for Uber or Lyft or teachers who deliver pizzas on the weekend.”

Lie estimates the district spends about $440,000 a year on training new teachers and other costs associated with its high turnover rate.

Marlene Gutierrez, who teaches science at Terra Nova High School in Pacifica, is one of the Jefferson Union teachers struggling to get by. Gutierrez, who pays $2,300 a month to rent a one-bedroom apartment in Daly City, has no disposable income left over to travel or increase her retirement savings. And her rent keeps going up — it increased $400 this year.

“It’s really a challenge for me,” 53-year-old Gutierrez said. “It’s living paycheck to paycheck.”

The district board and administrators brainstormed ways to build low-cost staff housing but couldn’t come up with the money to finance construction. Eventually they decided to go the unusual route of asking local residents to fund the new housing via a bond, which would be paid back through a property tax hike. Voters in June approved Measure J by 55.8 percent — just barely above the 55 percent threshold the measure needed to pass.

Scott believes Measure J marked the first time a school district has asked voters to approve a general obligation bond specifically to build teacher and staff housing. Earlier this month, trade publication The Bond Buyer recognized the revolutionary deal by naming it as a finalist for its Deal of the Year Award. About a dozen of Scott’s other California school district clients are considering putting their own bond measures on the ballot to fund staff housing, he said.

In San Mateo County, the Measure J money will pay for construction of a four- story building of rental apartments exclusively for Jefferson Union teachers and staff, set to break ground next summer in a parking lot on the campus of Daly City’s defunct Serramonte High. The old high school building is used as a district office, hosts adult education classes and is rented by community organizations. Those uses will continue as the new apartment building goes up next door, Lie said.

The district hopes to set rent prices in the new apartment building at 50 percent below market rate. Construction is expected to wrap up by the fall of 2021.

The apartments are intended to help young teachers and new hires get on their feet, and residents would be allowed to stay for up to 10 years. Residents who leave their job with the school district would have to move out.

California gives Waymo the state’s first permit to test self-driving cars without humans

By Michael J. Coren October 30, 2018

California’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) on Tuesday (Oct. 30) issued Waymo the state’s first permit to test self-driving cars on public roads without a human in the driver’s seat. Alphabet’s autonomous-driving subsidiary has had permission to test autonomous vehicles with safety drivers since 2014, but it can now dispense with humans to test three dozen test vehicles in its fleet.

In a blog post, Waymo called the development a milestone for its self-driving fleet, which has driven 10 million autonomous miles (and 7 billion simulated miles) since 2009. California is the company’s second test region; since 2017, it has also had a program in Phoenix, Arizona. The California test area is limited to the core of Silicon Valley—near Alphabet’s headquarters in Mountain View—and the surrounding towns of Sunnyvale, Los Altos, and Palo Alto. The permit allows testing on streets and highways with speed limits of up to 65 miles per hour at any time of day, as well as during inclement weather.

WAYMO

Self-driving cars still have a checkered driving record. In March, one of Uber’s self-driving vehicles struck and killed a pedestrian despite the presence of a safety driver. In June, one of Waymo’s autonomous minivans crashed after its driver accidentally turned off the self-driving software when he fell asleep at the wheel.

Although Waymo is the first to go driverless, California noted that 60 other manufacturers are approved to test autonomous vehicles with safety drivers in California. The state is requiring all manufacturers who obtain a permit to test autonomous cars without safety drivers to notify local governments of testing in their area, coordinate with local law enforcement, communicate with passengers, and monitor the test vehicles at all times.

Excerpt: Many Cities Have Transit. How Many Have Good Transit?

NOV 14, 2018

Photo: Flickr user Jeff Stvan. In his new book, Houston's own resident transit authority Christof Spieler answers questions like: What are the best transit cities in the U.S.? The best Bus Rapid Transit lines? The most useless rail transit lines? The missed opportunities? Using data, graphics, maps and more, Spieler, vice president and director of planning at Huitt- Zollars and a senior lecturer at Rice University, looks at the transit systems of the 47 metropolitan areas in the country that have rail or bus rapid transit. At least one of those systems, Spieler had a large hand in shaping as a Metro board member here in Houston and the architect of the transit agency's bus route redesign in 2015 that helped Houston withstand the declining system ridership trend that many other cities are experiencing. As part of the Kinder Institute's Urban Reads series, Spieler will be in conversation with Director of Strategic Partnerships Kyle Shelton about transit, Houston and more Wednesday evening. With his new book, "...Spieler sets the rules of engagement for effective transit and offers a roadmap for achieving it," according to former New York City Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan. Below are two different excerpts from his new book, first, an introductory personal essay and then, a look at density as just one of several components of successful transit. I live in Houston, Texas, a famously car-oriented city. I work at an urban planning practice, teach at Rice University, and serve on a transit agency board. I can do all of that on public transit. Almost every morning, I walk out my door, go three blocks down the street, and get on a train. It will take me to work, to meetings, to lunch with friends, to medical appointments, to lectures, to museums, to the park. I find it as convenient as driving, and considerably more pleasant. Transit makes my life better. This is possible because the transit I live next to is high quality. The train runs every six minutes during the day on weekdays, so I rarely have to wait. It has its own lane, and traffic signal priority, so it’s not slowed down by congestion. My transit system has nice stations that shelter me from the rain, and good passenger information. But, most importantly, taking the train for most of my travel is possible because the transit I live next to goes to the right places. It runs by lots of apartments and condos and houses, presenting me with options for living next to it. It runs by lots of office buildings, including the building where I work. It also runs by a lot of the other things I want to do in my life—socialize, learn, have fun. At all of those places, the train drops me off right in the middle of things, not in a giant parking lot or in the middle of a freeway. More people ought to have the choice to live like this. I’m on the train every day with lots of different people, who live in different places and work in different kinds of jobs. This transit line works for them, too. Good transit offers access, opportunity, and freedom. People who don’t ride transit benefit from transit, too. People who use transit—be they downtown professionals or minimum-wage service workers—are essential to the economy. Everybody on a bus or a train represents one less car on the road. Public transit significantly reduces the environmental impacts of cities, reducing energy use and preventing sprawl that eats up natural habitat. All of these benefits scale with ridership—as people use transit more, its societal benefits increase. To build good public transit, which is transit that is useful to lots of people, we need to have the right conversations about transit. We need to talk about what matters—to focus on the quality of service, not the technology that delivers it; to talk about all kinds of transit riders, not just about a narrow target market; to understand that the transit experience depends on buildings and streets and sidewalks as much as it does on stations and trains; and, above all, to talk about getting transit in the right places. We also need to be willing to talk about where transit is falling short. The measure of success in transit is not miles of track or ribbon cuttings, it is whether transit makes people’s lives better. It is remarkable how much of the public transit we build in the United States doesn’t go where people want to go or when they want to go there. Some cities have built transit that has transformed the experience of living there. Some have simply built a lot of transit. Some have built very little. It is worth comparing them and drawing lessons. That’s what this book is about. * * * Density Nothing matters as much to making transit useful and successful as population density. Every mile of transit costs money to build and operate. Fundamentally, the usefulness of that mile is a based on simple math: how many people will that mile of transit reach? A mile of route puts roughly a square mile of area within reach of transit. If 100 people live in that square mile, there are 100 potential transit riders; if 10,000 people live in that square, there are 10,000 potential transit riders. Multiple research studies have attempted to quantify density thresholds for transit. At somewhere around 3,000 people per square mile, it makes sense to operate some level of infrequent local bus service. This level of density is common in US cities, both in prewar neighborhoods and postwar car-oriented suburbia. Here, while an hourly bus will get ridership, transit will never be the most convenient mode, and most people will choose to drive. Somewhere around 10,000 people per square mile, though, transit reaches a tipping point. Here, the sheer number of people are enough to justify frequent service. Moreover, walking and biking become useful for short trips, which makes it easier for people to live without cars and makes transit more desirable. As densities further increase, more and more transit is justified. The transit- oriented neighborhoods of older cities have over 15,000 people per square mile, and even newer car-oriented cities like Los Angeles and Houston have some neighborhoods at these densities. The performance of a rail or BRT line is directly related to the surrounding densities. For example, the most successful light-rail systems in the United States—San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia, Seattle, Newark, Jersey City, Buffalo, and Houston— serve large areas of over 10,000 people per square mile.

Put transit in densely populated places. The fundamental math of density leads to an obvious rule: put transit where the people are. Successful transit needs to go where population densities are highest. Unfortunately, this is surprisingly uncommon. Across the United States, transit service often doesn’t match density well. There are several reason for this. One is that density has shifted. Some older neighborhoods have lost population density over the past few decades, while other have gained. Networks that have remained relatively static— including most bus networks—have not reflected these changes. A second reason is that transit planning is often based on perceptions, not reality. Some areas that people consider “suburban” are actually quite dense. A third reason, perhaps the most influential, is that building transit in dense areas is more difficult. Streets trend to be narrower, traffic tends to be heavier, land is less available, and there are more residents and businesses to upset. Increase population density where transit is. The least expensive way to increase the number of people around transit is to build more places for people to live along existing transit lines. The transit industry now calls this “transit-oriented development,” but it has been happening as long as transit has existed. Large parts of New York redeveloped from small, single-family houses into brown- stones and apartments around new subway lines. Almost every transit line has room for new development along it: vacant lots, surface parking, aging single-story retail, underused industrial tracts. Even areas that already have density can be densified, and often the market supports dense new development in areas that already have an established residential market better than in relatively undeveloped areas. In city after city, the real estate market has proven to support new development around transit. Despite the claims of some anti-transit think tanks, mixed use around transit is the result of market demand, not a plot led by city planners. In fact, local governments actually do the reverse. Across the United States, city zoning ordinances limit the density of development around transit. Most cities also require parking in all new development, regardless of how convenient it is to transit, forcing people who choose not to own a car to pay for space to park one. Without government limits on land use, areas around transit would have more residential units—and less parking—than they do now. What good government policy can achieve, though, is making sure that some of the new development is affordable.

New development along Houston rail.

Portland, Oregon. Houston built its light rail through already dense areas and has seen over $5 billion in new development since it was completed. The map above shows new development started since construction began on the rail line. Often, though, land-use regulations limit new development along rail lines. Portland, Oregon, is considered a transit- friendly city, with a long history of development along transit, but 42% of the land within the city is legally limited to single-family homes (shown in yellow in the map above), capping the density there regardless of market demand. Rather than serving density, many rail lines seem to avoid it. The figure below shows multiple light-rail and commuter rail systems, at a consistent scale overlaid on density. Many follow former freight rail lines, which are often in unpopulated industrial corridors. Some were deliberately kept out of denser areas to avoid political opposition.

South City examines inclusionary housing Proposal to require affordable units in rental developments unpopular with builders

By Austin Walsh Daily Journal staff

Sep 12, 2018

South San Francisco officials are weighing an initiative designed to facilitate construction of affordable housing units in new rental developments, despite concerns raised by home builders.

The South San Francisco City Council will consider Wednesday, Sept. 12, an inclusionary housing proposal mandating as much as 15 percent of all new rental developments to be set aside at an affordable rate.

The proposal, which comes in the wake of slate of housing laws combating the state’s affordability crisis, is unpopular with executives from development companies seeking an exemption from the proposal.

Alex Greenwood, the city’s Economic and Community Development director, acknowledged the issues raised by builders while also noting the need to construct more below-market-rate housing in South San Francisco.

“We want a balanced amount of growth and we want affordable housing to be a part of that,” he said. “And we recognize that construction costs are increasing and there are other factors that are making housing harder to develop, but this has got to be something that is considered.” The fears surrounding the rising cost of development are cited by building company officials seeking a grace period before the proposal is implemented, should it be approved.

Two executives from housing builders wrote letters encouraging councilmembers to exempt projects in the development pipeline from being subjected to the potential ordinance, for fear of disrupting an already established budget.

“We are extremely concerned that, based on that deadline, our project will be subject to the proposed inclusionary housing ordinance which would render the project infeasible based on long established project economics,” said a letter from Ed McCoy and Brendan Hayes, senior vice presidents with Fairfield Residential, which is building 157 units along Airport Boulevard.

A representative from Bella Vista Development, which is interested in building 283 apartments also on Airport Boulevard, shared a similar concern.

“There are several ‘pipeline’ projects that will become economically infeasible if subjected to a 10 percent low-income requirement, especially given the astronomical escalation of construction costs the market has experienced,” said the letter.

The letter also requests a grace period before implementation and an exemption for proposed and planned projects, similar to the exception granted when officials recently imposed additional park fees for developers.

Under the proposal going before councilmembers, builders would be required to set aside 10 percent of all units in a rental project at an affordable rate, and that amount would jump to 15 percent the following year.

Greenwood said the proposal takes advantage of Assembly Bill 1015, passed last year by state lawmakers under an effort to revitalize the inclusionary housing mandate stripped by the Palmer state Supreme Court ruling.

Previously, city officials could only require a portion of units in a for-sale development to be reserved at an affordable rate, but the new law extends to rental properties.

“This is the first time we’ve had legislative authority to consider inclusionary housing for rental and sale projects, rather than just for sale,” said Greenwood.

He added the enhanced local control syncs well with the ongoing focus by South San Francisco officials to facilitate all types of affordable housing construction.

“The council has been very focused on affordable housing for many years, especially in recent years, and the council is very aware and concerned about the impact rising housing costs are having on residents,” he said.

As councilmembers take on the proposal, Greenwood said the challenge will be to assure the cost foisted on developers will not become so great that development is halted, potentially worsening the shortage of available units.

“Ultimately, it is a decision for the council as far as where they want to strike that balance,” he said. The South San Francisco City Council meets 7 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 12, in the Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive. [email protected]

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105

Step-by-step Guide For Fixing Badly Planned American Cities

Author: Jeff Speck Date posted: October 9, 2018 Feed: CityLab View: Original article

I published the book Walkable City in 2012. Since then, many of our leaders have realized that establishing walkability as a central goal can make cities better in a whole host of ways. That book did a decent job of inspiring change, but it didn’t tell people exactly how to create it. My new book, Walkable City Rules: 101 Steps to Making Better Places (released on October 15 by Island Press) is an effort to weaponize Walkable City for deployment in the field. An excerpt follows below. —Jeff Speck

Rule 9: Fix your codes Eliminate legal barriers to mixed use. Andres Duany used to give a lecture called “The Story of Planning.” In it, he would recount the formative victory of the planning profession. It happened in the 19th century, when people were choking on the soot from Europe’s “dark, satanic mills.” The planners,

Page 1 of 9 who were not yet called planners, said, “Hey, why don’t we move the housing away from the factories.” They did it, and lifespans increased immediately and dramatically. The planners were hailed as heroes, and, as we like to say, they have been trying to repeat that experience ever since. This story is admittedly an oversimplification, but at its heart it is true. Modern city planning began with the intention of separating incompatible uses from each other, and evolved somewhat mindlessly into separating all uses from each other.

Six degrees of separation: single-use zoning. By the mid-20th century, planners seemed to have gone berserk. Having witnessed the life- changing benefits of zoning, they became zone-happy, introducing more and more categories and more and more rules about what should be separated from what else, until the city of neighborhoods was replaced by the city of zones. The planner Paul Crawford used to point out how the typical mid-20th-century zoning code spelled out literally hundreds of separate zone- able property uses, in one case (a small California city) including both “19. Baths, Turkish,” and “135. Turkish Baths.” This same code permitted the manufacture of potato chips but not corn chips, and allowed chinchillas to be sold retail but not wholesale. We planners now know that this was wrong. The city of zones is no longer taught in planning school. The leadership of the city planning, urban design, and real-estate professions all agree that single-use zoning is a recipe for economic, environmental, and social disaster. Yet, nationwide, the old-school zoning maps still exist, sitting on acre after acre of undeveloped property, directly in the path of progress. It is clear why the city of zones is the exact opposite of the walkable city. If nothing is close to anything different, and the only connection is a single fat roadway, then the population is automatically conscripted into driving. When a walkable city is mapped by land use, the image is remarkably different. If the picture above is a Rothko, the one below is a Seurat—he was the pointillist. Uses are still separate, but at a much finer grain, like confetti. And a large section of this plan, shown in red, contains buildings holding multiple uses, mixed vertically.

Page 2 of 9

Flexible zoning allows for a fine-grained mix of uses, including vertical mixed use, shown here in red. (New York City Department of Planning) If they are to once again achieve walkable outcomes, cities must replace their use-based zoning codes with something different. There are many ways to do this, but the most comprehensive and effective is to enact a form-based code instead. Form-based codes, pioneered in the 1980s, still address land use—keeping incompatible uses apart—but focus more attention on those physical aspects of private buildings that impact the quality of the public realm, such as height, placement, and where the parking goes. They also replace our current dangerous street standards with designs that encourage walking and biking. Based on the design of livable places, they result in more of them.

Rule 31: Focus on speeding Street improvements should be linked to keeping speeding in check. “It’s the speed, stupid.” Roughly half of this book addresses different aspects of the street and how they are designed and managed. Many of these points may serve multiple objectives and audiences, but they all aim back, in one way or another, at a single issue, vehicle speed. While many different factors influence the safety of humans in cities, none matters nearly so much as the speed at which vehicles are traveling. The relationship between vehicle speed and danger is, to put it mildly, exponential. The diagram below is one of many that can be found to communicate this relationship. (Other diagrams show people falling out of buildings, with 20 miles per hour equaling the second floor and 40 miles per hour equaling the seventh.) The basic message to remember is that you are about five times as likely to be killed by a car going 30 as a car going 20, and five times again as likely to be killed by a car going 40.

Page 3 of 9

The risk to pedestrians from vehicles takes a dramatic upturn at 25 miles per hour, as this chart based on data on pedestrian casualties (collected by S.J. Ashton) shows. (The dashed lines are confidence intervals.) (D.C. Richards Transport Research Laboratory) This threshold zone of 20 to 40 miles per hour is basically where it all happens—the difference between bruises, broken bones, and death. And 20 to 40 is roughly the range of speeds that we find cars traveling on the best downtown streets. Keeping cars on the lower end of that range, therefore, must be the central objective of urban street design. The speed of the impact itself is not the only factor. As cars move faster, the likelihood of a crash also rises. Drivers and pedestrians alike have less time to respond to conflicts; stopping distances lengthen; and the driver’s cone of vision narrows. These factors multiply the impact of speed beyond those indicated in the above graph. It is safe to say that a car traveling 30 miles per hour is probably at least three times as dangerous as one going 25. Many cities have a downtown speed limit of 25. All should—or lower. These limits simplify the conversation, because it is no longer necessary to talk about “slowing drivers down.” Who wants to be slowed down? That sounds like congestion. Instead, we can simply talk about “reducing illegal speeding.” Streets need to be redesigned so that fewer people will speed on them. This cannot be accomplished with speed limits alone, because people do not drive the posted speed; they drive the speed that is implied by the street design. Streets must be designed to encourage the speeds that we have set for them, or the result will be illegal, deadly speeding. That is the central message, and the street designer’s mandate.

Rule 53: Understand that cycling follows investment Topography, climate, and culture can’t compare. In the 1970s, people in Portland, Oregon, biked not much more than people in the rest of the United States. Over the ensuing 40 years, the city invested about $60 million in cycling infrastructure—enough money to pay for about one mile of urban freeway. Now, people in Oregon bike to work at a rate that is more than 14 times the national average. The same story can be told of many European cities, except with more dramatic outcomes. By the 1960s, cars had begun to dominate the landscapes of Amsterdam and Copenhagen, just like

Page 4 of 9 in the typical American city. But then, national and local policies directed investment away from highways and toward comprehensive urban cycling networks, with an emphasis on safe bike lanes largely protected from automobile traffic. Now, in the Netherlands, 36 percent of people list cycling as their most common way of getting around, and the percentage in urban centers is even higher. Meanwhile, in Copenhagen, after $150 million was invested in the past decade alone, a whopping 62 percent of residents commute to work or school by bicycle—almost seven times as many as go by car. It snows a bit in Copenhagen—the city famously plows the bike lanes before the car lanes—and of course it rains a ton in Portland, about 150 days per year. It snows there too. There’s a saying in Portland: “There’s no such thing as bad weather, just bad gear.” This brings up another point, which is that weather, once thought so important to bike ridership, seems to not have much of an impact on outcomes, and neither does topography. Twice as many people commute by bike in Canada’s northern Yukon Territory than in California, and hilly San Francisco has double the cycling rate of relatively flat Denver. Clearly, hot weather can be a problem, which is why development regulations encouraging showers at work—as the LEED green-building certification does—are a key part of the picture. But climate, hills, and other local factors cannot legitimately be cited as insurmountable hurdles to growing a cycling population, when the evidence clearly suggests otherwise. The most befuddling red herring of all is “culture.” Often is it claimed that “nobody will bike here because nobody bikes here.” Observing that few people bike in a place without a good bike network is like saying that you don’t need a bridge because nobody is swimming the river. In sweaty Macon, Georgia, past city officials installed three noncontiguous blocks of bike lanes and then pointed out that nobody used them. Last year, they striped eight miles of pop-up bike lanes and witnessed cycling increase by more than 800 percent.

Rule 88: Make sticky edges Energize public spaces with active, deep facades. In Jan Gehl’s classic Cities for People, the index contains 36 distinct entries under the term “edges.” Gehl understands—and has helped us to understand—how the quality of a place’s perimeter is largely responsible for its success or failure as public space.

Page 5 of 9

He uses the term “soft edges” to describe the objective, noting that people almost always linger at the perimeter of a space rather than the center, but that the most successful edges offer more than a blank wall or a sheet of mirror glass. The best do two things well: They are active, and they are thick.

Active Facades Active facades provide the street with interest and energy. In terms of what can be written into city codes, these qualities translate into percentage of openings, rhythm, and limited repetition. The bluntest instrument for avoiding blank walls is a minimum openings percentage. In its “active facade” zones, the City of Melbourne sets a minimum of 60 percent, which is appropriate to retail uses. Residential facades can have a minimum closer to 25 percent to allow punched openings, but this rule should be tied to a “no blank walls” requirement that demands a window or door every 10 feet or less on each story. Rhythm is provided by buildings having vertical rather than horizontal articulation. The ribbon window of early Modernism does many things, but it does not support an interesting walk, as it stretches out distances and provides no articulation as you move past. Codes should require that long facades in would-be walkable areas provide vertical members at their lower stories. Limited repetition is provided by encouraging small increments of development and, where that is not possible, breaking up long buildings into distinct segments. Front porches, transition zones between outside and inside, allow neighborly interactions that simply would not happen Front porches, transition zones between outside and inside, allowing neighborly interactions that simply would not otherwise. happen otherwise. (Lexey Swall)

Page 6 of 9

Thick Facades What makes a potential shopper more likely to enter a store? What makes a resident more likely to interact with passersby? What makes pedestrians more likely to stop and hang out for a while? All these questions have the same answer: robust transition zones between the insides and the outsides of buildings, architectural features that attenuate the path from public to private. In shorthand, these can be called thick facades. Thick facades take myriad forms. In retail architecture, examples include sidewalk dining, benches against facades, placards and merchandise in the frontage zone, entry alcoves flanked by display windows, roll-up and other wide-open warm-weather facades, arcades, window counters and window bars (the drinking kind), and upstairs balconies or other overhangs. Most retail facades should have some form of awning. The goal is to blur the distinction between the shop and the sidewalk. In residential settings, short setbacks, front porches and stoops, bay windows, balconies, and active front-yard gardens all add thickness. A new best practice among skilled multifamily developers is to make first-floor apartments look like rowhouses by giving them stoops and front doors, even though they may still be hallway-served. In office buildings, first-floor offices should be given transitional spaces like bay windows and porches against the sidewalk where possible, similar to residential uses. But a better approach, one becoming favored among office tenants, is to forego the large glamorous lobby in favor of leasing out as much space as possible to amenity retail such as restaurants and coffee houses, which can provide proper storefronts instead. Rule 100: Don’t give up on sprawl

It’s where most Americans live. In 1999, when Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and I were writing Suburban Nation, it seemed that stopping the spread of sprawl might actually be possible. Two decades later, it is difficult to harbor such illusions. Most of the subsidies and market perversities that drove the initial suburban outflux are still in place, and too many powerful organizations still benefit from our dependence on cars and roads.

Page 7 of 9

Even though polls and price comparisons show that the auto zone is vastly overbuilt, the sprawl machine will continue to churn, sucking in farmland and fossil fuels and spitting out soulless subdivisions and ever more carbon. The data suggest it might kill us all before long. But while we’re still here, why can’t we just live in the kind of places we want? This final question, and our collective failure to change the rules of the game, has led to a new mandate, less ambitious but still important: making the walkable lifestyle available to more of the people who want it but can’t find or afford it in their cities. As the sprawl bomb continues to slowly detonate, planners and activists can make the biggest difference by bringing more attainable housing to our city and town centers. But they can also have an impact by creating pockets of urbanism where the people already are: in the belly of the sprawl beast. This work has been going on for decades now, described in such books as Retrofitting Suburbia—new mixed-use town centers plopped in the middle of the auto zone. Most of them, like Legacy Town Center in Plano, Texas, or Belmar in Lakewood, Colorado, occupy the sites of dead malls or office parks. When done properly, they seem to be an almost surefire real-estate home run, because the hundreds of thousands of people surrounding them are absolutely starved for urbanism. Their desirability means that all but their smallest apartments quickly become too expensive for most. But they still provide a much-needed experience for regional suburbanites, who drive to them in droves to shop, dine, see a movie, or just walk around. Avalon, one such center in Alpharetta, Georgia, has more than 200 public events each year. These are what planners call “park-once environments.” And for those who can afford to live there, they provide a happier, lower- carbon lifestyle. Lakewood, Colorado, a farmers’ market takes place at what used to be a suburban shopping mall (Belmar, Lakewood, CO) Are such new suburban centers really more sustainable overall? It’s hard to say. But they help to alleviate the monotony of sprawl, which is now where most Americans live, including many of the poorest.

Page 8 of 9

When suburbia was more wealthy than poor, planners could theoretically hold their noses and confine their design work to city centers. This would no longer seem to be a moral choice. The statistics make it clear that the vast majority of people living in sprawl don’t want to be there: In a recent National Association of Realtors survey, only 10 percent of respondents want to live in single-use housing subdivisions. This means that perhaps a third of Americans are trapped in the suburbs involuntarily, most because they can’t afford real urbanism. Besides giving them cute town centers to stroll around, what can be done?

The answer lies in the type of suburbia they are stuck in. The first and best opportunity, available only in places that experienced real growth before 1950, is to find the old Main Street and bring it back to life. Sometimes, a town that appears to be all sprawl, like Tigard, Oregon, is stealthily concealing a spore of urbanism that is ready to germinate if given the proper care. Wise communities will focus their investment there, fix the streets, build new housing, and reinforce a walkable design standard to create a core of walkability that can lift the entire community. But then there are all the newer places like Chandler, Arizona: 250,000 humans doomed to scuttle around perhaps the most utterly placeless landscape in America, 65 square miles of entirely car-dependent nowhere. Without the full-scale insertion of a large, new town center, what can be done to make the denizens of the purest sprawl less isolated? While true walkability is out of the question, the most essential improvements would seem to surround safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers, too. People are dying in these landscapes at an alarming rate, thanks to high-speed road geometrics, inadequate crossings, and rare and dangerous bike lanes. Such places can’t really be fixed, but they can—and should—be made safer using many of the techniques contained in this volume.

Page 9 of 9

The 10 top emerging trends that will shape real estate in 2019

The Urban Land Institute’s annual look at the year ahead focuses on technology and transformation at an uncertain moment.

By Patrick Sisson Oct 10, 2018

How will the real estate market respond to a period of uncertainty in 2019?

It’s complicated. In the course of compiling its annual Emerging Trends report, the Urban Land Institute found that the only certainty in its outlook for 2019 was uncertainty. Expert analysis points to a more complex, multi-layered series of overlapping trends, with unpredictable results, as opposed to a few strong narratives.

Will technology offer more opportunity and enhance competition and efficiency, or help consolidate the industry and drive out smaller players? How will shifts in demographics and shopping patterns challenge current investment practices? Will the U.S. ever get a grip on its housing affordability issues?

The report, a joint project of ULI and PricewaterhouseCoopers researchers unveiled during its fall meeting in Boston this afternoon, considered the responses of more than 750 real estate professionals in creating an high-level overview of the trends it believes will impact the real estate world. While the report expects an overall economic

Page 1 of 6 slowdown next year, emerging trends and markets in flux that could provide new opportunities.

Here are the broad trends and innovations expected to shape the real estate industry next year.

Grappling with a transformative moment

While vague, predicting a year of significant transformation only reflects the climate of uncertainty and possibility that’s settled over the market. This year alone, the homebuying market was expected to be the most competitive in history before buyers pumped the brakes later in the year. After years of steady growth and low interest rates, many observers anticipate a correction, especially in the face new technology, generational and demographic changes, the rise of new markets, and the continued winding-down of traditional retail. One survey respondent described the feeling of “coming off a peak,” and others have said the “low-hanging fruit has been picked.”

One of the most far-reaching changes rewriting the way real estate professionals do business has been the rise of industry-specific technology, startups, and better and more transparent analytics. In many cases, capital is following fintech, or financial tech, leading to more efficient—and automated—transactions.

Construction labor shortages continue to hamstring the homebuilding industry. Shutterstock

Tapering growth leads to a new numbers game

Less growth means a more challenging environment, and analysts predict a slow down on multiple fronts. Population growth has continued to trickle up, labor force

Page 2 of 6 availability, especially in the construction industry, is lackluster at best, and productivity figures for the economy at large show minuscule improvements. Add in government forecasts of an economic slowdown—Congressional Budget Office projections show average GDP growth of 1.9 percent in 2018-19, much slower than at the beginning of the current economic upswing—and real estate activity will likely taper off as well. This deceleration means identifying and capitalizing on new opportunities—such as emerging markets, replacing older buildings, adaptive reuse, and new office space—will be much harder.

Second cities, and now their suburbs, may be key markets

Investors have long seen urban revitalization in smaller U.S. cities as a great bet, but as these downtowns boom and millennials continue to return, young adults have started to make inroads into the suburbs. Researchers are seeing more evidence the younger generation that put off buying a home has its eyes on single-family homes, meaning that housing surrounding these so-called 18-hour cities—especially if it’s in walkable, transit- oriented developments—is in high demand. Census Bureau stats show evidence of a second-city suburban shift. Over 2.6 million people annually moved from principal cities within metropolitan areas to the suburbs in 2016 and 2017, and of the smaller markets in the ULI’s Top 20 emerging market report, 55 percent of new residents over the last five years have relocated to suburban homes.

Can your apartment complex keep up? Shutterstock

Amenity creep and the apartment arms race

In a competitive housing market, apartment landlords and builders have been engaging in an arms race for new amenities. Fancy gyms and rooftop access doesn’t cut it anymore. Today’s cutting-edge multifamily developments include movie theaters, dog runs, communal gardens, and access to coworking space. As landlords “knock themselves over” looking for new selling points to attract downtown renters, smart

Page 3 of 6 home and service-economy firms are also rising to the challenge, offering benefits such as laundry service.

Technology tackles the real estate market

Tech has always had its eye on opportunity, and real estate, which represents 13 percent of the U.S. GDP, is a big prize. Next year will see increasing inroads by tech firms, services, and startups seeking to capture and consolidate this fragmented market. Venture capital and tech investors have responded in kind. CB Insights projects real estate tech investment may top $5.2 billion by the end of 2018, firms such as Fifth Wall have zeroed-in on the industry, and investment in building and construction tech has boomed. New platforms for home selling keep popping up, trying to disrupt how this traditional transaction works.

Continued rise of artificial intelligence

Will hype about the game-changing potential of artificial intelligence begin to manifest itself in the real estate industry? While some tech startups have integrated AI into their market analyses, perhaps the most immediately relevant use for machine learning and other emerging technologies is building management, organization, and design. Companies such as WeWork, and smart buildings such as The Edge already see big potential in analyzing user behavior in their shared office space to refine their offerings, redesign the layout of their spaces, and create a virtuous feedback loop. ULI report authors suggest that for the real estate industry, AI may offer big benefits for building efficiency and safety, as well as security and property access.

These boxes have a big impact on real estate. Shutterstock

Dealing with the real costs of free delivery

As next-day increasing becomes just-in-time, a sea change in logistics and shopper expectations had created new challenges for the real estate industry. The never-ending hunger Amazon and other e-commerce companies have for warehouse space has supercharged the industrial real estate sector, but the possibilities of increasing speedy delivery have contributed to transportation gridlock in major U.S. cities.

Page 4 of 6

Add this to increasingly underfunded infrastructure—businesses will bear an estimated $240 billion in congestion costs over the next five years, while annual spending on roads and highways is just 37 percent of what’s needed to keep pace with deterioration. It’s clear real estate will not only have to factor in, and pay the price, for this oversight, but will need to pay attention to how potential solutions, such as congestion pricing, impact land values and investment opportunities.

Retail transforming into a new equilibrium

The much-hyped retail apocalypse narrative overstates the situation: it’s not extinction, more a culling of the herd. The rise of omni-channel retail and the shrinking size of America’s retail footprint—a response to e-commerce and just-in-time delivery—means commercial developers and investors need to support more efficient uses of space, and see how everyone, from small firms to big box stores, are seeking out a better, not necessarily bigger, brick-and-mortar presence.

This is an era where simply merchandizing is being overshadowed by services, and the rise in new kinds of tenants—such as urgent-care medical facilities, health and fitness providers, restaurants, financial services, and entertainment venues—underscore the strength of the experience economy. It’s also changing how leases are written. With the sector in flux, the standard long-term agreement is making way to shorter deals, even pop-up leases.

Seeing more in going green Shutterstock

A renewed sustainability focus

In the wake of serious recent reports on climate change, there’s been a renewed focus on sustainability in the building and construction industries from groups such as We Are Still In and the Climate Mayors. As calls to curb emissions and control environmental impacts only rise over the next decade, more and more investors and building managers will make green practices a core part of their business. “Real estate has been proactive on sustainability issues for many years,” reads the report. “As a matter of self-interest as

Page 5 of 6 well as social responsibility, the industry is moving ahead to advance its sustainability performance regardless of the direction of national policy.”

The acute affordability crisis

The statistics couldn’t be clearer: the United States faces a widespread housing crisis, from big cities to small towns. Half of all renters pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing, HUD says 12 million Americans spend more than half their earnings on a place to live, and since 2015, the combination of rising prices for single-family homes and rising mortgage rates has cut home affordability by 15 percent. This country needs new homes, and fast; academics estimate the U.S. requires 4.6 million additional rental units by 2030.

That rate of construction should be possible, based on the money bring invested in the multifamily sector, but for a variety of reasons, including regulations, new construction has and remains skewed towards the upper end of the market. A vast reckoning will take place in the rental market. Hopefully public and private stakeholders can work together and build off a handful of good examples to rework how rental buildings are funded and delivered.

Page 6 of 6

Uber Writes an Equation to Help Cities Measure—and Manage—the Curb

Author: Aarian Marshall

Wired.com

PATRICK T. FALLON/BLOOMBERG/GETTY IMAGES

Not sure what your curb has done for you lately? Not to worry. Your answer is arriving now, in the form of an equation devised by Uber that is meant to help cities evaluate how efficiently they’re using this increasingly contested space.

After years of neglect and scorn, this strip of urban infrastructure, long the sole domain of the meter maid, has gotten incredibly crowded. Bike- and scooter-share companies would love to park their wheels there. Transit agencies would love for drivers to stay out of their bus stops. Delivery drivers—the folks transporting businesses’ daily merchandise, the roughly 30 percent more UPS, FedEx, and USPS packages sent since five years ago, the 20 percent more takeout orders—would love to idle just outside their destinations. Ride-hailers like Uber and Lyft would love to pick up and drop off their passengers quickly and safely. Car owners would love to park there, ideally for free.

Yes, the curb is a contested space, which is why cities want to get better at managing it. Some are trying. Places like Washington, DC, are experimenting with reserved nighttime parking spots for Uber and Lyft pick-ups and drop-offs in one of its most hopping nightlife areas. Lyft has

Page 1 of 3 worked with San Francisco’s Metropolitan Transportation Agency to block its drivers from stopping on a busy street.

To do more, though, cities need data—a complete understanding of what’s happening on their roads. Plus, they need a smart way to evaluate that data, a way to come to conclusions about how curbs should be used. Oh, and also an easy way to explain those decisions to citizens once they're made.

“Converting parking to loading zones or to other uses is just a politically challenging thing to do,” says Allison Wylie, who works on transportation and mobility policy for Uber.

Which is why, in a report released last month, Uber and the transportation consultancy Fehr and Peers published what they’re calling a “curb productivity index.” It’s a way to figure out what the curb is doing for you.

The equation is deceptively simple:

Activity/(Time x Space)

“Activity” is the number of passengers using the curb space by a specific mode, “time” is the duration of their usage, and “space” is the total amount of curb footage dedicated to that use.

Here’s the example that the consultants use in their report, where a 20-foot length of curb is used for four hours as a parking spot by a single car carrying two people:

2 passengers/(4 hours x 20 feet) = .025 passengers/hour-feet, or 0.5 passengers per hour per 20 feet of curb

But if that space is instead used as part of an 80-foot bus stop serving 100 people in that four-hour block, the equation looks like this:

100 passengers/(4 hours x 80 feet) = .3125 passengers/hour-feet, or 6.25 passengers served per hour per 20 feet of curb

Clearly, the bus stop is a better use of public space.

To show how this equation might work in the real world, the researchers collected 12 hours’ worth of video footage, photographs, and Uber data for five locations in San Francisco. They concluded that, yes, it sometimes makes sense to convert parking spots to other uses, like Uber pick-ups and designated loading zones. It also makes sense to make curbs flexible—to use them for parking at some times of day and other functions at others.

“This is an easy-to-use, easy-to-understand way to communicate the benefits of turning over parking in very busy downtown centers to more productive uses,” says Wylie. She notes that

Page 2 of 3 cities that can’t collect their own precise data should also be able to use the five examples in the report, each a different sort of street, to reach their own curb conclusions.

It's not surprising that an Uber report would find in favor of more space for Uber. But transportation experts say it’s a good thing that the ride-hailing company is thinking seriously about how to use city streets. For years, government officials have criticized the company for refusing to release the data they need to make important and long-lasting decisions on street design and infrastructure. “The report is advancing the discussion of how to use data in cities, which is quite good,” says Bruce Schaller, a former New York City transportation official who is now an independent transportation A new Uber scooter, released into the wild in Santa Monica, California this week consultant.

This is only a first step. The harder decisions come after cities decide to change the status quo. They need to figure out not just how the street is operating now but how they want it to operate in the future. Maybe fewer people would choose ride-hail if there were dedicated infrastructure for buses that could make them faster than a solo trip in a car.

And then cities need to figure out how to price those decisions. Changing behavior isn’t just a question of drawing differently colored stripes on curbs. It’s also using money as a carrot or stick. If cities want fewer cars to park, they need to raise the price of parking. If they want fewer people in cars, they need to raise the cost of driving, through things like congestion fees or even fees on ride-hail trips.

Those decisions should come quick. On Wednesday, Uber became just the latest company to introduce a scooter-share program to city streets, this time in Santa Monica. The cheery red, Jump-branded electric scoots are another way for the company to show that it’s not only committed to four-wheeled transport devices. And it announced last week it would contribute $250,000 to an organization dedicated to sharing data between private companies and the public sector. (Lyft and Ford also said it would join the initiative.) Uber also says it will disburse $10 million to sustainable transportation causes in the next three years. That money will, in part, help fight congestion in cities—a problem the company, and ones like it, may have contributed to.1

Story updated, 10/6/18, 2:05 PM EDT: This story has been updated throughout with more details on Uber details on Uber's sustainable transportation initiatives.

Page 3 of 3

12/7/18 6:56pm – Rona Rios, Manager, Customer Service

Complaint came in she asked for it to go to the Board. 7 voicemails left on my phone extension – from payphone.

Please create 5/6 reports and refer out as FYI’s. Reference each report number in all of the reports in case she calls back the reps can provide her with each of the report numbers. Close.

Customer: Ms. Williams with no return phone number left.

1. Samtrans is not delivering schedules to any of the BART stations. Every stations between Daly City and Millbrae need schedules (including SFO Airport). Also Riders Digest and System Maps. Specifically ECR Late Night to Airport.

Why not have them for last 1.5 years and if we won’t have them why?

Answer: Refer this to Distribution Dept to evaluate locations mentioned by customer and place maps in the area.

2. Maps in the schedules should have more side streets on them. ECR Late Night should be a separate schedule.

Answer: Economically placed together. Suggestions went to Graphics Design Dept.

3. System Map should look like BARTs Transit Connection map. It is easier to read than the SamTrans System Map.

Answer: Refer this to Graphic Design

4. Providing this information is a public service – wants us to make sure we take this call serious. If not taken care of she will call state representative and file a law suit.

5. ECR Schedule needs to show more stops, and have a better map.

Answer: Refer this to Graphic Design

6. 398 schedules are not at San Bruno Bart. The 38 bus Safe Harbor schedule does not say where the bus is going, it just says not going to San Bruno BART. The next Riders Digest should say where the 38 bus is going. Also, include a phone number for Safe Harbor Shelter. Every time there’s a change to a schedule the dates need to be posted clearly.

Answer: Refer this to Scheduling and to Graphic Design

7. The new ECR Schedules took over 1 month to get on the bus, after the schedule was changed. This is clearly against the law and need to be stopped. The theory I was told by a supervisor at the bus stop was because for ECR the changes were significant and they wanted to do test runs before printing a schedule with times listed. I asked why they didn’t do this before changing the schedule and she said they need to test the runs with actual people on the bus to determine the right times. Nobody does this, it is against the law. Signs on the bus stop was good but not enough. People need to have this on paper, not just on the computer. Breaking the disability law.

Answer: Refer to Scheduling and Graphic Desgin

8. Make sure all of this is in a report and given to the Board. Do Not Lump these in to one complaint unless they need to go to the same group together.

Answer: Refer to Rona for response to BOARD

9. Keep an eye on the customer service people. Some are rude to me and to others I know. If they cause problems we will file a lawsuit too. Goodbye.

Answer: Refer to Blytha as an fyi. From: Rios, Rona To: "[email protected]" Cc: Board (@samtrans.com) Subject: KX Express Route Date: Thursday, December 06, 2018 3:31:01 PM

Good Afternoon,

Your letter was received by the Samtrans Board and was forwarded to me for response. The Board will receive a copy of our correspondence.

First, please know that we appreciate you taking the time to send us your comments about the KX and 398 merger. I understand from your correspondence that you would like some runs in the afternoon schedule to exclude San Bruno.

This change with the KX and 398 was an effort to consolidate two routes that were doing the same thing as well as an expansion of service hours. Regarding the changes made to the schedule, we have received numerous comments and understand through this feedback that the service change impacted customers in different ways; some were negatively impacted and on the other hand, we have seen an increase in total weekly ridership that tells us that others have experienced a benefit. Before service changes are considered, we analyze ridership patterns among other things as we always try our best to meet the needs of the community we serve. However, it is difficult to predict the end result when making any service change.

In addition to your feedback, there were others that have commented about this service as well. Our Planning and Scheduling Department is in receipt of all comments and is in fact looking at all recommendations and suggestions that have come in. They are currently evaluating if a direct service in and out of San Francisco is a workable option. The next schedule update is this summer. Please know that all of our customers comments will be taken into consideration.

Again, we are sincerely sorry for the impact this change has had on your commute. We do value your feedback, and your patronage.

Best Regards,

Rona Rios Manager, Customer Service|Distribution SamTrans|Caltrain|SMCTA 1250 San Carlos Avenue San Carlos, CA. 94070 [email protected]

______

From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 5:54 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Charles Stone; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: For 12/5 meeting, attn board secretary

Please include this email in all board members' packets for Wednesday's meeting.

To Samtrans and Citizen Advisory Committee board members: Please bring back the former KX express route [without San Bruno] during the afternoon commute hours going southbound. There were only 4 runs for commuters. One run may have resumed recently but there is also a 1-1/2 hour time gap between this run and the one [including San Bruno] before. Then, a 30 minute gap for the next run [including San Bruno]. As you recall, the KX was merged with the 398 route and renamed 398 bus in August 2018. The 398 bus added multiple stops in San Bruno (SB) which delays the run by 25 minutes or more due to more traffic. The former KX southbound run used to take an hour, but now it takes closer to 2 hours to help 1-2 riders going to San Bruno. Maybe a stop in San Bruno should be added to Millbrae/SFO since the rider(s) want to go to the airport. Is the cost of hurting numerous dedicated commuters who work in SF worth obtaining 1-2 SB riders? Your feasibilty study did not mention SF workers, or how full the buses used to be (sometimes people standing) during the commute hours. This study appears to round all express routes together throughout the day, as only 1/2 capacity as the justification for its proposal. How did it come up with these 'new' routes? Wouldn't you consider going to downtown more frequently, or to attractions [i.e. new Warriors stadium] where there is more interest in using public transit? The so called new express routes would not help my commute, so I hope Samtrans will consider restoring the 398 bus for 4 afternoon runs back to KX route [excluding San Bruno]. I have tried taking Muni to Caltrain and walked over 1.5 mile, or BART to Samtrans, but taking multiple transit is not as direct and cost effective as taking only one form of public transit. Driving is tiring and expensive but faster, yet I prefer to help the environment and get one car off the road. Hope Samtrans will consider restoring the bus service to meet its riderships' needs for a win-win solution.

Thank you for your consideration and time. Sincerely, B Lee