AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF COLMA
Wednesday, October 26, 2022
7:00 PM
The City Council meeting will be conducted virtually pursuant to the provisions of Assembly Bill 361 amending the Ralph M. Brown Act and Government Code Section 54953(e) (and without compliance with section 54953(b)(3)) related to conducting public meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic based on the current State of Emergency and the existing State recommendations on social distancing. The Council Chambers will not be open to the public for this City Council meeting.
Members of the public may view the meeting by attending, via telephone or computer, the Zoom Meeting listed below:
Join Zoom Meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81289976261 Passcode: 074407
Meeting ID: 812 8997 6261
Passcode: 074407
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,81289976261#,,,,,,0#,,074407# US (San Jose) +13462487799,,81289976261#,,,,,,0#,,074407# US (Houston)
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)
Meeting ID: 812 8997 6261
Passcode: 074407
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kco5bgxkcc
Members of the public may provide written comments by email to the City Clerk at [email protected] before the meeting. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting or note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda. The length of the emailed comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. Verbal comments will also be accepted during the meeting.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
PRESENTATIONS
• Daly City Public Library Associates – Upcoming Events • Recognition of Talia Serefidden, Manager of Colma Starbucks
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Comments on the Consent Calendar and Non-Agenda Items will be heard at this time.
Comments on Agenda Items will be heard when the item is called.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Motion to Accept the Minutes from the October 12, 2022 Special Meeting.
2. Motion to Accept the Minutes from the October 12, 2022 Regular Meeting.
3. Motion Accepting the 2022 F Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project as Complete, Directing the Director of Public Works to File A Notice of Completion for the Project with the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office.
4. Motion to Adopt a Resolution Adjusting Salary for Part-Time Casual Staff to Meet the Minimum Wage Requirement Set Forth by the State of California and Amending the Salary Schedule.
5. Motion to Adopt a Resolution Supporting the Construction of Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II and Submitting an Application to the California Transportation Commission Through the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for the 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program Funding.
6. Motion to Adopt a Resolution Awarding and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with Marina Landscape Inc. for the 2022 Mission Road Landscape Improvement Project in the Amount of $289,840.00 and Amending the Total Capital Project Budget to be $400,000.00.
NEW BUSINESS
7. FILLING A COUNCIL VACANCY
Consider: Motion to 1. Determine Whether to Fill the Vacancy on the City Council by Appointment or Special Election; and 2. Provide Direction to Staff Regarding the Desired Method of Filling the Vacancy.
STUDY SESSION
8. C/CAG MICRO MOBILITY AND BIKE SHARE PROGRAM
This item is for discussion only; no action will be taken at this meeting.
REPORTS
Mayor/City Council
City Manager
ADJOURNMENT
The City Council Meeting Agenda Packet and supporting documents are available for review on the Town’s website www.colma.ca.gov or at Colma Town Hall, 1198 El Camino Real, Colma, CA. Persons interested in obtaining an agenda via e-mail should call 650-997-8300 or email a request to [email protected].
Reasonable Accommodation
Upon request, this publication will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Any person with a disability, who requires a modification or accommodation to view the agenda, should direct such a request to Pak Lin, ADA Coordinator, at 650-997-8300 or [email protected]. Please allow two business days for your request to be processed.
Minutes – Special Meeting – 10.12.22 Page 1 of 2
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
City Council of the Town of Colma
Colma Community Center
1520 Hillside Boulevard
Colma, CA 94014
Wednesday, October 12, 2022
10:00 A.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Helen Fisicaro called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
Council Present –Mayor Helen Fisicaro and Council Member John Irish Goodwin were present. Vice Mayor Joanne F. del Rosario, Council Members Diana Colvin and Ken Gonzalez were absent.
Staff Present – City Manager Brian Dossey, City Attorney Christopher Diaz, Chief of Police John Munsey, City Clerk Caitlin Corley, and Recreation Manager Angelika Abellana were in attendance.
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS
Mayor Fisicaro made opening remarks and welcomed special guests:
• Vitalba Gammichia, Vice Consul of Economic and Trade Affairs, representing the Italian Consulate General in San Francisco
• Leo Pierini, President of the California Law Enforcement Columbia Association • Dennis Fisicaro, Former Mayor of Colma
• Mark Addiego, South San Francisco Council Member
• Steve Chiappari, General Manager from the Italian Cemetery • Michael Rocchetta, Vice President of the Colma Historical Association • Richard Rocchetta, Secretary of the Colma Historical Association • Representatives from the International Carabinieri Association • Representatives from the Le Donne d'Italia
• Representatives from the Italian American Citizens Club of SSF • Representatives from the SF Italian Athletic Club
• Representatives from the Italian American Social Club of SF
PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF ITALIAN CULTURE AND HERITAGE MONTH Mayor Fisicaro stated, “It is an honor to have you all here with us today as we proclaim the month of October National Italian Heritage and Culture Month and raise the Italian Flag in recognition. Colma has such strong ties to the Italian Community, and we are so pleased and proud to be able to recognize the important contributions that they have made here in Colma and more broadly in the United States.”
Item #1
Minutes – Special Meeting – 10.12.22 Page 2 of 2
Mayor Fisicaro then read a proclamation in recognition of honor of October as Italian Culture and Heritage Month.
REMARKS BY VICE COUNSUL VITALBA GAMMICHIA OF THE ITALIAN CONSULATE Mayor Fisicaro presented Vice Consul Vitalba Gammichia with the proclamation. She thanked Colma for the recognition and made remarks.
RAISING OF THE ITALIAN FLAG
Colma Police Officers raised the Italian Flag.
REMARKS BY OTHER DISTINGUISHED GUESTS
Leo Pierini, President of the California Law Enforcement Columbia Association made remarks.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Fisicaro adjourned the meeting at 10:22 a.m. and invited everyone to stay for coffee and Italian treats.
Respectfully submitted,
Caitlin Corley
City Clerk
Minutes – Regular Meeting 10.12.22 Page 1 of 4
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
City Council of the Town of Colma
Meeting Held Remotely via Zoom.us
Wednesday, October 12, 2022
7:00 PM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CAL
Mayor Fisicaro called the regular session to order at 7:02 p.m.
Council Present –Mayor Helen Fisicaro, Council Members Joanne F. del Rosario, John Irish Goodwin, and Ken Gonzalez were present. Council Member Diana Colvin was absent.
Staff Present – City Manager Brian Dossey, City Attorney Christopher Diaz, Chief of Police John Munsey, Administrative Services Director Pak Lin, Director of Public Works and Planning Brad Donohue, City Planner Farhad Mortazavi, and City Clerk Caitlin Corley were in attendance.
The Mayor announced, “As always, we are accepting public comments through email or the zoom chat function— you can email our City Clerk at [email protected] or use the chat function to let her know which item you would like to speak on. Please keep your comments to 3 minutes or less. Thank you.”
ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
Mayor Fisicaro asked if there were any changes to the agenda. None were requested. The Mayor asked for a motion to adopt the agenda.
A
ction: Vice Mayor del Rosario moved to adopt the agenda; the motion was seconded by Council Member Goodwin and carried by the following vote:
Name Voting Present, Not Voting Absent
Aye No Abstain Not Participating
Helen Fisicaro, Mayor
Joanne F. del Rosario
John Irish Goodwin
Diana Colvin
Ken Gonzalez
4 0
PRESENTATIONS
Proclamation in Recognition of Italian Heritage Month:
The Mayor announced, “This morning, we had a wonderful event at the Community Center to raise the Italian Flag, and present a proclamation in honor of Italian Heritage and Culture Month. We were honored to be joined by Vitalba Gammicchia, Vice Consul of Economics and Trade Affairs, representing the Consulate General of Italy in San Francisco, and Leo Pierini, President of the California Law Enforcement Columbi a
Association, and many other members of the local Italian American community.” Item #2
Minutes – Regular Meeting 10.12.22 Page 2 of 4
She read selections from the proclamation.
Leo Pierini, President of the California Law Enforcement Columbia Association, was on the line to accept the proclamation and make remarks.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Fisicaro opened the public comment period at 7:08 p.m. and seeing no one request to speak, she closed the public comment period.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Motion to Accept the Minutes from the September 28, 2022 Regular Meeting.
2. Motion to Approve Report of Checks Paid for September 2022.
3. Motion to Reconfirm the Findings and Determinations Made in Resolution No. 2021-33 and Under Assembly Bill 361 for the Continuation of Virtual Meetings, with Acknowledgment that the California Department of Public Health has Updated the Definition of “Close Contact” in Regulation 3205 from Being within 6 Feet of Another Person to Sharing the Same Indoor Space with Another Person for 15 Minutes or More, Which Further Supports the Findings.
4. Motion to Accept Informational Report on Recreation Department Programs, Activities, Events, and Trips for the Third Quarter of 2022.
5. Motion Approving the Town’s Response to the Grand Jury Report Dated August 9, 2022, Titled “A Delicate Balance Between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s Right to Know.”
Action: Council Member Goodwin moved to approve the consent calendar items #1 through 5; the motion was seconded by Vice Mayor del Rosario and carried by the following vote:
Name Voting Present, Not Voting Absent
Aye No Abstain Not Participating
Helen Fisicaro, Mayor
Joanne F. del Rosario
John Irish Goodwin
Diana Colvin
Ken Gonzalez
4 0
NEW BUSINESS
6. VACANT COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
City Clerk Caitlin Corley presented the staff report. The Mayor opened the public comment period at 7:10 p.m. and seeing no one request to speak, she closed the public comment period. Council discussion followed. Below is the list of the Vacant Committee Assignments that the Council discussed and agreed on:
Minutes – Regular Meeting 10.12.22 Page 3 of 4
Committee Name NEW
Primary
NEW
Secondary
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
(GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEETS TWICE PER
YEAR APRIL & OCTOBER)
del Rosario Gonzalez
California Cities Gaming Authority
(MEETS THIRD WEDNESDAY, 10:00AM) Fisicaro Gonzalez
Peninsula Clean Energy Board of Directors
(MEETS FOURTH THURSDAY, 6:30PM AT
THE COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
BUILDING IN REDWOOD CITY)
Gonzalez del Rosario
Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance -
“Commute.org” Board of Directors
(6 X A YEAR, THURSDAY MORNINGS)
Gonzalez Colvin
Action: Mayor Fisicaro moved to Approve Appointments to Certain Committee Assignment Vacancies and Grant to the Appointee Discretion in Voting on Matters Brought Before the Committee; and the motion was seconded by Vice Mayor del Rosario and carried by the following vote:
Name Voting Present, Not Voting Absent
Aye No Abstain Not Participating
Helen Fisicaro, Mayor
Joanne F. del Rosario
John Irish Goodwin
Diana Colvin
Ken Gonzalez
4 0
STUDY SESSION
7. UPDATES TO THE BROWN ACT
City Attorney Christopher Diaz presented the staff report. The Mayor opened the public comment period at 7:26 p.m. and seeing no one request to speak, she closed the public comment period. Council discussion followed.
This item was for discussion only; no action was taken at this meeting.
COUNCIL CALENDARING
The next Regular Meeting will be on Wednesday, October 26, 2022 at 7:00 p.m.
Minutes – Regular Meeting 10.12.22 Page 4 of 4
REPORTS
City Manager Brian Dossey gave an update on the following topics:
The Annual Business Recognition Luncheon will be on Thursday October 20, 2022 The Regular City Council Meeting on November 9, 2022 will be a hybrid online and in person meeting.
Thank you to the Recreation Manager Angelika Abellana and the Recreation Department and City Clerk Caitlin Corley for the successful Italian Flag Raising this morning.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Fisicaro adjourned the meeting at 7:39 p.m. in memory of Marilyn Herrera, wife of Bob Herrera, retired Burlingame Fire Chief, and mother of Victoria Sodini, who owns Bertolucci's with her husband Peter.
Respectfully submitted,
Caitlin Corley
City Clerk
Staff Report NOC for 2022 F Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project Page 1 of 3 10/26/2022
STAFF REPORT
T
O: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brad Donohue, Director of Public Works
VIA: Brian Dossey, City Manager
MEETING DATE: October 26, 2022
SUBJECT: Acceptance of F Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project, File Notice of Completion
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council make the following motion:
MOTION ACCEPTING THE 2022 F STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT AS
COMPLETE, DIRECTING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE PROJECT WITH THE SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDER’S OFFICE.
E
XECUTIVE SUMMARY
In late September 2022, O’Grady Paving Inc. (O’Grady) completed the 2022 F Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project (Project). With the Project complete, the Town may now accept the Project and file a Notice of Completion for the Project.
FISCAL IMPACT
City Council approved at their May 2022 City Council meeting a construction budget of $160,622.00 for the Project, including $146,020.00 for construction and $14,602.00 in contingency. The final construction cost inclusive of all change orders totals $149,069.25, a net savings in the amount of $11,552.75.
Cost Amount
Construction $146,020.00
Contingency (10%) $14,602.00
Construction costs+ change orders $149,069.25
Total Remaining $11,522.75
Item #3
Staff Report NOC for 2022 F Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project Page 2 of 3 10/26/2022
BACKGROUND/ANAYSIS
The City Council awarded the Project to O’Grady on May 25, 2022. The Project involved construction work on the 300 block of F Street, (portion of F Street that is on the west side of El Camino Real). The Project scope off work included: various dig outs and repairs of deteriorated portions of the roadway, milling approximately 2 inches of the roadway from El Camino Real to the Town border, readjusting various manholes and valve covers and re-stripping the roadway.
The Project was slightly delayed due to encroachment permit issues with CalTrans. The delays did not impose a hardship on the Town or the Contractor.
ANALYSIS
The Project required extra work, mostly consisting of extra dig outs and repairs for portions of the roadway that had deteriorated from the time that the first estimate was presented in the bid documents. The cost for this work had a net increase to the Project construction budget of approximately $3,050.00.
Staff requests the City Council to accept work performed on the Project and authorize the Director of Public Works to file a Notice of Completion with the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office.
The filing of the Notice of Completion means:
• The Town accepts the Project as complete.
• The time frame for the filing of stop payment notice claims is shortened once the Notice of Completion has been timely filed with the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office To date there have been no stop notices or claims filed with the Town for the Project.
C
ouncil Adopted Values
By accepting the Project as complete, the City Council has reviewed and approved the work performed by O’Grady, thus taking a Responsible position requesting that the Notice of Completion be filed with the County Recorder’s Office and that final payment be timely made to O’Grady.
Alternatives
The City Council can choose not to accept the Project and direct the filing of the Notice of Completion for the Project. .The Town would then not accept the Project as complete and file the Notice of Completion with the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office. Such action would increase the time for subcontractors and material suppliers to file claims.
CONCLUSION
Staff has reviewed the completed Project and recommends that the City Council make a motion to accept the Project as complete and authorize the Director of Public Works to file a Notice of Completion with the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office. .
Staff Report NOC for 2022 F Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project Page 3 of 3 10/26/2022
ATTACHMENTS
A. N
otice of Completion – 2022 F Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
T
own of Colma
1198 El Camino Real
Colma, CA 94014-3212
Attn: Brad Donohue, PW Director
THE AREA ABOVE IS RESERVED FOR RECORDER’S USE
TOWN OF COLMA
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 9204
(This Document is exempt from Recording Fee (Govt. Code § 27383) NOT
ICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1. T
he Town of Colma is the owner of a work of improvement consisting of the construction of improvements for the 2022 F Street Pavement Rehabilitation Project as described in the project specifications dated March, 2022 (hereafter, the “Work”), and of the real property on which the Work is situated, which real property is located in the County of San Mateo, State of California and specifically described as follows: 300 Block of F Street from El Camino Real to the Town of Colma / San Mateo County Border.
2. O
’Grady Paving Inc., the Contractor, was awarded the construction contract by the Town of Colma for the Work, and
3. T
he Work was completed by O’Grady Paving Inc. accepted by the Town of Colma on October 26, 2022; and
4. T
he nature of the interest of the Town of Colma is as a fee simple owner in the above - described real property; and
5. T
he name and address of the Town of Colma is 1198 El Camino Rea l, Colma, California 94014; and
6. I,
Brad Donohue, Public Works Director of the Town of Colma, am authorized by the City Council of the Town of Colma to execute and file this Notice with the County Recorder of the County of San Mateo as an authorized agent of the Town of Colma. I have read the Notice of Completion and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge.
Attachment A
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
_____
_______________________________ ___________________ (Date and Place) Brad Donohue
Director of Public Works
S
taff Report – Minimum Wage Adjustment for Part-Time Staff Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
T
O: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Pak Lin, Administrative Services Director
VIA: Brian Dossey, City Manager
MEETING DATE: October 26, 2022
SUBJECT: Minimum Wage Adjustment for Part-Time Staff
R
ECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt:
RESOLUTION ADJUSTING SALARY FOR PART-TIME STAFF TO MEET THE MINIMUM WAGE
REQUIREMENT SET FORTH BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND AMENDING THE SALARY
SCHEDULE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 4, 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 3, which increases California’s minimum wage annually, reaching $15.00/hour for employers with 26 or more employees by January 1, 2022. After January 1, 2023, future wage increases are tied to inflation, reflecting increases in the Consumer Price Index up to 3.5% per year. On July 27, 2022, the Department of Industrial Relations set the minimum wage at $15.50/hour for organizations with 26 or more employees.
The positions impacted by this regulatory compliance are Recreation Leader, Senior Recreation Leader, Facility Attendant, Student Aide, and Intern. The proposed salary schedule attached as Exhibit A to th e Resolution meets the minimum wage requirement of $1 5.50/hour. It remains consistent with the Town’s compensation differential (pay increase formula) between steps and classification.
The adoption of the resolution adjusting the salary schedule will meet minimum wage requirements for 2023. Annually, Staff will continue to present to the City Council amendments to the salary schedule to remain in alignment with state-required minimum wage.
FISCAL IMPACT
Though the hourly rate will increase for these specific positions, the Recreation Coordinators and Recreation Manager will be able to successfully manage the staffing needs while staying within the Recreation Department’s current budget. If a budget adjustment is needed, Staff will bring it before the City Council as part of a later financial update.
Item #4
Staff Report – Minimum Wage Adjustment for Part-Time Staff Page 2 of 3
BACKGROUND
On April 4, 2016, California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation (SB 3, Leno) raising California’s minimum wage to $15.00/hour by 2022. After January 1, 2023, future wage increases are tied to inflation, reflecting increases in the Consumer Price Index up to 3.5% per year. Under this state law, the Governor may temporarily suspend the minimum wage increase during an economic downturn. On July 27, 2022 , the Department of Industrial Relations published the minimum wage as $15.50/hour for organizations with 26 or more employees.
The increased minimum wage levels are applied uniformly across the state. Local governments retain the ability to adopt local wage ordinances that increase the minimum wage more rapidly than the statewide time frame or increase the minimum wage level. The law also maintains existing exemptions in the state’s minimum wage law. This legislation gives California one of the highest minimum wage s in the country along with jurisdictions like Washington, New York , Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts.
Positions that are affected by this law are Recreation Leader , Student Aide, Senior Recreation Leader, Facility Attendant, and Intern. The current Step 1 hourly wage for Recreation Leader and Student Aide is $15.50/hour.
Staff Report – Minimum Wage Adjustment for Part-Time Staff Page 3 of 3
ANALYSIS
The current pay schedule for part-time employees includes a 5% differential between steps and a 9% differential between classification.
Current Pay Schedule Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Recreation Leader
and Student Aide 15.00 15.75 16.53 17.38 --
Senior Recreation Leader
and Facility Attendant 19.00 19.94 20.94 21.99 --
Intern 18.21 20.36 22.50 24.64 26.79
The proposed salary schedule sets the minimum wage at $15 .50/hour and maintains the incremental pay increases through favorable performance.
Effective
December 25, 2022 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Recreation Leader
and Student Aide 15.50 16.30 17.10 18.00 --
Senior Recreation Leader
and Facility Attendant 19.60 20.60 21.60 22.70 --
Intern 24.75 26.00 27.30 28.70 30.15
Future adjustments will be proposed annually. By updating the minimum wage annually, the Town’s salary schedule will align with the mandated minimum wage schedule in case of an economic downturn and the Governor suspends the increase for the upcoming year.
Council Adopted Values
Adoption of the attached resolution is the fair course of action because the City Council will be bringing the salaries in alignment with the minimum wage set forth by the State of California.
Adoption of the resoluti on is also the responsible course of action because the Council is satisfying the requirement to meet the State minimum wage law.
Alternatives
The Council could choose to not adopt the proposed resolution, or to request modifications to the proposed salary ranges. Doing so is not recommended, as the Town could be in violation of State law because the salary ranges are based on meeting the minimum wage requirements set forth by the State of California.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution (includes Salary Schedule)
Res. 2022-__, Minimum Wage Adjustment for Part-Time Staff Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF COLMA
R
ESOLUTION ADJUSTING SALARY FOR PART-TIME CASUAL STAFF TO MEET THE
MINIMUM WAGE REQUIREMENT SET FORTH BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND
AMENDING THE SALARY SCHEDULE
The City Council of the Town of Colma does hereby resolve as follows:
1. Background.
(a) On April 4, 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 3, whic h increase s California’s minimum wage annually, potentially reaching $15.00/hour for employers with 26 or more employees by January 1, 2022.
(b) On July 27, 2022, the Department of Industrial Relations published the January 1, 2023 minimum wage as $15.50 per hour for organizations with 26 or more employees. (c) In order to ensure compliance with state law, the City Manager is, as he has in previous years, recommending that the City Council adjust the salary schedule as provided for in this Resolution, and continually adjust the salary on an annual basis to ensure compliance with state required minimum wage law.
2. Salary Scale for Part-Time Staff (including Student Aide/ Recreation Leader, Senior Recreation Leader/Facility Attendant, and Intern). The Town shall pay the part- time staff the respective hourly salaries shown below, with the City Manager determining the appropriate step in accordance with Subchapter 3.02 of the Colma Administrative Code relating to Employment (See Exhibit A for Full Salary Schedule):
Student Aide/Recreation Leader
STEP 1 2 3 4
15.50 16.30 17.10 18.00
Senior Recreation Leader/Facility Attendant
STEP 1 2 3 4
19.60 20.60 21.60 22.70
Intern
STEP 1 2 3 4 5
24.75 26.00 27.30 28.70 30.15
Attachment A
Res. 2022-__, Minimum Wage Adjustment for Part-Time Staff Page 2 of 2
3. Salary Schedule Adopted.
(a) The City Council hereby amends the pay or salary schedule , as detailed in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, to memorialize the changes proposed by this Resolution, with the applicable pay or salary for each position listed, in compliance with Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations Section 570.5.
(b) No changes in pay or salary are proposed for those positions on the pay or salary schedule, except for the part-time staff, as set by this Resolution.
4. No Contract. Nothing herein shall be construed as a contract with any employee, and the City Council shall have the discretion to modify the respective salaries in accordance with any applicable state or local provisions.
5. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective upon adoption.
Certification of Adoption
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-__ was duly adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on October 26, 2022 by the following vote:
Name Voting Present, Not Voting Absent
Aye No Abstain Not Participating
Helen Fisicaro, Mayor
Joanne F. del Rosario
John Irish Goodwin
Kenneth Gonzalez
Voting Tally
Dated ______________________ ___________________________________ Helen Fisicaro, Mayor
Attest: ____________________________
Caitlin Corley, City Clerk
Town of Colma Pay Schedule (Effective December 25, 2022) Exhibit A to Resolution Proposed Resolution October 26, 2022
1 2 3 4 5 6
Position Title Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Ord/Reso
Number
Add'l
Incentive Payroll Ref
Elected Officials (Monthly Compensation)
Mayor & City Council 961.00 ORD 784
Regular/Casual/Temporary Employees (hourly rate, compensated on a biweekly basis) Accounting Technician 42.99 45.15 47.41 49.78 52.28 - Reso 2021-44 (10)(11) 8acct Administrative Services Director 80.79 84.84 89.08 93.53 98.22 - Reso 2021-44 (11) 8acm Administrative Technician I 40.13 42.14 44.25 46.45 48.77 - Reso 2021-44 (10)(11) 8at1 Administrative Technician II 42.14 44.25 46.45 48.77 51.21 - Reso 2021-44 (10)(11) 8at2 Administrative Technician III 42.14 44.25 46.45 48.77 51.21 53.77 Reso 2021-44 (10)(11) 8at3 City Clerk 53.77 56.46 59.28 62.24 65.35 - Reso 2021-44 (10)(11) 8clrk1 City Manager 111.74 - - - - - Reso 2022-03 (9) mgr Community Service Officer 39.15 41.11 43.16 45.32 47.58 - Reso 2021-44 (10)(11) 8cso Executive Assistant to Chief of Police 42.14 44.25 46.45 48.77 51.21 53.77 Reso 2021-44 (10)(11) 8at3 Facility Attendant 19.60 20.60 21.60 22.70 - - Reso 2022-xx (11) 8fa Human Resources Manager 58.91 61.85 64.94 68.20 71.60 - Reso 2021-44 (10)(11) 8hrm Intern 24.75 26.00 27.30 28.70 30.15 - Reso 2022-xx (11) intr Maintenance Technician I 39.24 41.20 43.26 45.42 47.70 - Reso 2021-44 (7)(8)(10)(11) 8mt1 Maintenance Technician II 41.20 43.26 45.42 47.70 50.08 - Reso 2021-44 (7)(8)(10)(11) 8mt2 Maintenance Technician III 41.20 43.26 45.42 47.70 50.08 52.59 Reso 2021-44 (7)(8)(10)(11) 8mt3 Management Analyst I 44.69 46.92 49.27 51.72 54.32 - Reso 2021-44 (11) 8ma1 Management Analyst II 48.33 50.73 53.28 55.95 58.74 - Reso 2021-44 (11) 8ma2 Management Analyst III 52.26 54.88 57.62 60.50 63.53 - Reso 2021-44 (11) 8ma3 Police Chief 87.63 92.00 96.61 100.48 104.27 - Reso 2021-44 (1)(11) chief Police Commander 79.37 83.32 87.51 91.87 96.46 - Reso 2021-44 (1)(11) 8pcmd Police Dispatcher / Clerk 48.98 50.34 51.70 53.06 54.41 - Reso 2021-43 (6)(4)(11) clerical Police Dispatcher/Records Supervisor 59.03 60.66 62.31 63.95 65.60 - Reso 2021-43 (2)(4)(11) supervisor Police Officer - Reserve 54.80 - - - - - Ord 773 pdres Police Officer 1 54.80 57.55 60.44 63.45 - - Reso 2021-42 (1)(3)(5)(11) 8po1 Police Officer 2 57.00 59.85 62.85 65.99 - - Reso 2021-42 (1)(3)(5)(11) 8po2 Police Officer 3 58.11 61.02 64.07 67.26 - - Reso 2021-42 (1)(3)(5)(11) 8po3 Police Sergeant 1 69.47 70.91 72.38 76.38 - - Reso 2021-42 (1)(3)(5)(11) 8sgt1 Police Sergeant 2 72.25 73.75 75.27 79.44 - - Reso 2021-42 (1)(3)(5)(11) 8sgt2 Police Sergeant 3 73.63 75.15 76.70 80.97 - - Reso 2021-42 (1)(3)(5)(11) 8sgt3 Public Works Maintenance Supervisor 50.10 52.61 55.23 58.01 60.89 - Reso 2021-44 (7)(8)(10)(11) 8mts Recreation Coordinator 39.13 41.09 43.15 45.30 47.55 - Reso 2021-44 (10)(11) 8recc Recreation Leader 15.50 16.30 17.10 18.00 - - Reso 2022-xx (11) 8rl Recreation Manager 46.77 49.10 51.55 54.14 56.83 - Reso 2021-44 (10)(11) recmgr Senior Recreation Leader 19.60 20.60 21.60 22.70 - - Reso 2022-xx (11) 8rls Student Aide 15.50 16.30 17.10 18.00 - - Reso 2022-xx (11) 8sta Additional Incentive
(1) These positions receive a $1,025 per year uniform allowance (2) This position receives a 5.0% incentive for CAD Administrator (3) These positions receive an additional 5% Holiday Pay (4) These positions receive a $774.73 per year uniform allowance (5) These positions may receive a 5% incentive for Acting Commander, Acting Sergeant, Officer in Charge, Training Officer, and/or Detective
(6) This position may receive a 2.5% incentive for Back-up CAD Administrator (7) These positions may receive $120 per week stand-by pay (8) These positions receive an in kind uniform allowance of $68.67 per pay period (9) This position receives a $300 monthly automobile allowance (10) These positions may received 5% out of class pay
(11) These positions may receive retention pay (2.5% @ 10 years; 5.0% @ 20 years) Summary of Effective Ordinance and Resolution
Ord 773 Reinstatement of Reserve Officer Program - up to 4 Reserve Officers (Adopted 12/13/2017) Ord 784 City Council Compensation (Adopted 11/14/2018)
Reso 2004-36 Establishment of Police Recruit Program - 95% of Police Officer Step 1 (5/12/2004) Reso 2020-07 Addition of Intern and Student Aide Classifications and Compensations (Adopted 2/26/2020) Reso 2020-32 Reclassify Chief of Police position from contract to appointed by City Manager (CC Mtg 7/8/2020) Reso 2021-03 Additional of Management Analyst I/II/III Series (CC Mtg 01/13/2021) Reso 2021-30 Minimum Wage Adjustment for Part-Time Staff (CC Mtg 9/22/2021) Reso 2021-42 2% COLA for POA from Dec 26, 2021 to Jun 30, 2024 (CC Mtg 12/08/2021) Reso 2021-43 2% COLA for CRA from Dec 26, 2021 to Jun 30, 2024 (CC Mtg 12/08/2021) Reso 2021-44 2% COLA for Unrepresented from Dec 26, 2021 to Jun 30, 2024 (CC Mtg 12/08/2021) Reso 2022-03 City Manager Contract Amendment 4 (Adopted 1/12/2022) Reso 2022-xx Minimum Wage Adjustment for Part-Time Staff (Proposed 10/26/2022)
Staff Report – 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program Page 1 of 4 Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II
October 26, 2022
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brad Donohue, Public Works Director
Abdulkader Hashem, Senior Project Manager
VIA: Brian Dossey, City Manager
MEETING DATE: October 26, 2022
SUBJECT: Submittal of Application for 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program Funding Related to the Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following resolutions:
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF HILLSIDE BOULEVARD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PHASE II AND SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO THE
CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION THROUGH THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR THE 2022 LOCAL PARTNERSHIP COMPET ITIVE
PROGRAM FUNDING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, (Senate Bill [SB1], Beall Chapter 5, Status of 2017) created the Local Partnership Program (LPP). The objective of the Local Partnership Program is to provide funding to counties, districts and regional transportation agencies in which voters have approved fees, tolls, or taxes dedicated solely to transportation improvements or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees, dedicated solely to transportation improvements.
The City Council is being asked by Town staff to submit an application to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) through the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) for 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program, commit any necessary matching funds, and provide assurances to the TA as necessary regarding the status and completion of the project.
The proposed resolution supports the Town’s application for $4,550,000 in the 2022 Local Partnership Program funds for the Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II (Project).
If the Town is awarded the requested LPP funds, the proposed resolution also commits $4,550,000 to the completion of the Project including the commitment of any matching funds needed for implementation.
Staff Report – 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program Page 2 of 4 Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II
October 26, 2022
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated cost of construction for the improvements to Hillside Boulevard Phase II is estimated to be in the range of $9,100,000. If the project is accepted for the LPP funds, the Town’s estimated funding plan for the construction of Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II will be as follows:
• 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program $4,550,000 • CIP Reserves (Local Match) $4,550,000
Estimated Project Total $9,100,000
If Town of Colma is awarded the $4,550,000 funds for the Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II, the Town’s required one-to-one local match will be $4,550,000, 50% of the total construction cost which is estimated to be $9,100,000.
BACKGROUND
The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, (Senate Bill [SB1], Beall Chapter 5, Status of 2017) created the Local Partnership Program. The objective of the Local Partnership Program is to provide funding to counties, districts and regional transportation agencies in which voters have approved fees, tolls, or taxes dedicated solely to transportation improvements or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees, dedicated solely to transportation improvements.
The Local Partnership Program continuously appropriates two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) annually to be allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to the eligible local or regional transportation agencies. The San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) is an eligible applicant for CTC Local Partnership Competitive Program funding.
The State of California Transportation Commission (CTC) issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Local Partnership Program (LPP) in September 2022. The Town of Colma is not an eligible applicant for LPP funds and is requesting the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) apply for funding on behalf of the Town of Colma.
The Town of Colma wishes to apply for LPP funds in response to the NOFA to provide [$4,550,000] in funding for the [$9,100,000] Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II to provide an element of safety and mobility for Pedestrian and Bicyclists to travel along the corridor.
Hillside Boulevard is a principal north-south arterial, spanning approximately 1.5 miles through the Town from Daly City border to the South San Francisco city limits. The roadway is a major connector for residents in Daly City, Colma, and South San Francisco linking Highway 101, local businesses and schools. It also provides a connection opportunity between Highway 280 and Highway 101.
The Hillside Improvement project has been broken into two phases due to funding limitations.
Phase I, which is the northern section from Serramonte Boulevard north to Hoffman Street (Daly City Boarder) was completed in 2014. The proposed Hillside improvements, Phase II Staff Report – 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program Page 3 of 4 Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II
October 26, 2022
(600’ south of Serramonte Boulevard to Lawndale Boulevard) will continue with the precedence that was set in Phase I.
The proposed Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project involves implementation of several safety related improvements for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles along the corridor and promote multimodal transport. The anticipated improvements include adding a continuous sidewalk on the west side of the roadway, designated Class II bike lanes on both sides, ADA-compliant ramps, high visibility crosswalks with rapid flashing beacons, street lighting, signing, stripping and green streets infrastructure.
The Town has already completed the preliminary engineering design of Hillside Boulevard Phase II at 35% design level.
ANALYSIS
On September 14, 2022, Town submitted Hillside Boulevard project intake form (project information and cost) to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA).
The Hillside Boulevard project has been considered by TA and ranked third among other project nominations eligible for LPP funding in accordance with prioritization scores. Town has been selected by TA to develop a grant application for the potential project to be submitted by TA to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) on behalf of Colma along with their two nominated projects.
The eligibility criteria for potential projects to be funded through Local Partnership Program (LPP) must meet the following goals and funding restrictions listed in 2022 LPP guidelines:
• Project is generally an improvement to the state highway system (congestion, safety, or operational), transit infrastructure or vehicle purchase, or local roadway multimodal/ complete streets improvements (safety, pedestrian/bicycle, or operational); • Project can only request construction funding and will be ready to start construction by December 30, 2025;
• Project must have required environmental clearance (CEQA and NEPA, if federalized) completed by program adoption date on June 28, 2023 (or latest December 28, 2023) and demonstrate that negative environmental and community impacts will be avoided or mitigated;
• Project can request $1-25 million for construction funding only and must be fully funded; and
• Project has secured minimum 1:1 matching funds (50% minimum match required).
The Town will apply for this grant program and submit an application, requesting funding $9,100,000 including 50% local match ($4,550,000) through the 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program funding for construction of Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II.
Council Adopted Values
The Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II is visionary, because it involves creating improvements for project that will provide safe, attractive, and sustainable paths of travel for those who walk and bike along Hillside Boulevard.
Staff Report – 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program Page 4 of 4 Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II
October 26, 2022
Sustainability Impact
The resolution in support of the Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II Funding Application to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) through the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) is consistent with the Town’s sustainability goals and Complete Streets Program goals.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could choose not to adopt the resolution. Doing so is not recommended as the opportunity to make the much-needed improvements of Hillside Boulevard, and to seek appropriate funding from CTC through TA to that effect, is critical for the safety of pedestrian and bicyclists.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
Reso 2022-__, 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program for Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-__
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF COLMA
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF HILLSIDE BOULEVARD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PHASE II AND SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO THE
CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION THROUGH THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR THE 2022 LOCAL PARTNERSHIP COMPETITIVE
PROGRAM FUNDING
The City Council of the Town of Colma does resolve as follows:
1. Background
(a) The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, (Senate Bill [SB1], Beall Chapter 5, Status of 2017) created the Local Partnership Program.
(b) The objective of the Local Partnership Program is to provide funding to counties, districts and regional transportation agencies in which voters have approved fees, tolls , or taxes dedicated solely to transportation improvements or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees, dedicated solely to transportation improvements. (c) The Local Partnership Program continuously appropriates two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) annually to be allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to the above-mentioned eligible local or regional transportation agencies. (d) The State of California Transportation Commission (CTC) issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Local Partnership Program (LPP) in September 2022; and (e) The Town of Colma wishes to apply for LPP funds in response to the NOFA to provide [$4,550,000] in funding for the [$9,100,000] Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II (Project) to provide an element of safety and mobility for Pedestrian and Bicyclists to travel along the corridor.
(f) The Town of Colma is not an eligible applicant for LPP funds and is requesting the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) apply for funding on behalf of the Town of Colma.
(g) The TA is an eligible applicant for LPP funds and TA and Town of Colma wish to cooperate on the submittal of the grant application to allow the Town of Colma to receive an award of LPP funds.
(h) If an award is received, the TA will have no responsibility related to the delivery of the PROJECT or the use and expenditure of LPP funds.
(i) The Town of Colma will assume responsibility and accountability for the use and expenditure of program funds and compliance with all relevant federal and state laws, regulations, policies, and procedures.
Reso 2022-__, 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program for Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II Page 2 of 3 (j) The TA will submit the LPP grant application on behalf of the Town of Colma and the TA’s Executive Director will sign a cover letter with the Town of Colma as required by the LPP guidelines.
(k) Projects funded from the Local Partnership Program will require at least a one -to-one match of private, local, federal, or state funds.
(l) The Town is seeking funding for the Project.
(m) A resolution is required for:
(i) Supporting the Project and application for [$4,550,000] in 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program for Project; and
(ii) Committing the Sponsor to the completion of the Project, including the commitment of matching funds in the amount of [$4,550,000] needed for implementation; and
(iii) Certifying that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and (iv) Authorizing the Sponsor's City Manager, or designee, to sign a funding agreement or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the TA for the 2022 Local Partnership Program funding for the Project and to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution.
2. Approval and Authorization
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Town of Colma that the Town:
(a) Directs staff to submit a [$4,550,000] application to CTC, through the TA, for the 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program (LPP) for the Construction of Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II;
(b) Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute a MOU with the TA; (c) Commits to the completing the Project, including contributing [$ 4,550,000] of matching funds needed for Project implementation, if the requested LPP funds are awarded; (d) Certifies that any funds awarded by the CTC will be used to supplement existing funds for the Project, and will not replace existing funds or resources. (e) Authorizes the City Manager or designee, to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution.
(f) Will enter into an agreement with the State of California; (g) Will assume all responsibility and accountability for the PROJECT and use and expenditure of LPP funds;
Reso 2022-__, 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program for Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II Page 3 of 3 (h) Agrees to comply with all relevant federal and state laws, regulations, policies, procedures; and
(i) Agrees to comply with all LPP grant agreement and program requirements.
Certification of Adoption
I certify that the foregoing Resolution 2022--__ was duly adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on October 26, 2022 by the following vote:
Name Voting Present, Not Voting Absent
Aye No Abstain Not Participating
Helen Fisicaro, Mayor
Joanne F. del Rosario
John Irish Goodwin
Ken Gonzalez
Voting Tally
Dated ______________________ ___________________________________ Helen Fisicaro, Mayor
Attest: ____________________________
Caitlin Corley, City Clerk
Staff Report 2022 Mission Road Landscape Improvement Project Page 1 of 3 October 26, 2022
STAFF REPORT
T
O: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brad Donohue, Public Works Director
Dave Bishop, PE- Senior Project Manager
VIA: Brian Dossey, City Manager
MEETING DATE: October 26, 2022
SUBJECT: Notice of Award – 2022 Mission Road Landscape Improvement Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION AWARDING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH MARINA LANDSCAPE INC. FOR THE 2022 MISSION ROAD LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $289,840.00 AND AMENDING THE TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECT BUDGET TO BE $400,000.00
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed resolution would award and authorize the City Manager to execute a construction contract with Marina Landscape Inc. (“Marina ”) for the 2022 Mission Road Landscape Improvement Project (“Project”).
The Town published a notice inviting general contractors to bid on the Project on September 2, 2022, and the bid opening occurred on Thursday, October 4, 2022. The Town received four (4) bids. Upon examination and due diligence of the bidder and bids received, Town staff determined that Marina is the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid in the amount of $289,840.
Staff is also requesting an increase in the Project budget in the amount of $ 28,000 for a total Project budget of $400,000.00.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
Proposed costs associated with the Project are as follows:
Item #6
Staff Report 2022 Mission Road Landscape Improvement Project Page 2 of 3 October 26, 2022
At the May 11th, 2022, City Council meeting, Town staff proposed a Project budget of $372,000.
After bids we re received, proposed total costs for the Project came in approximately $28,000 above the Project budget. Town staff is requesting that City Council approve an increase to the Project budget of $28,000, for a total Project budget of $400,000. The proposed increase would come from CIP reserves.
BACKGROUND
At a City Council study session on April 21, 2021, City Council reviewed the merits of obtaining a portion of Holy Cross’ property that fronts Mission Road for the purposes of landscaping and providing added beautification for the residents and businesses in the Mission Road area. At the February 23, 2022, City Council meeting , a resolution was adopted adding the Project to the Town’s CIP.
With the approval of incorporating the Project into the Town CIP, staff proceeded with plans and specifications for the landscaping of a portion of Mission Road that fronts 1500 Hillside Road, (Holy Cross Cemetery). At the May 2022 City Council meeting, the City Council approved the project plans and specifications, and City Council requested staff to solicit bids from qualified contractors.
The Project was advertised on September 2, 2022, and bids were opened on October 4, 2022.
ANALYSIS
The Town received a total of four (4) bids, ranging from a low bid of $289,840.00 to a high bid of $496,540.00. (See attachment “B”). Marina submitted the apparent low bid.
Town staff reviewed the four (4) bid submissions and analyzed each bid item thoroughly. Town staff determined that Marina landscape Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid in the amount of $289,840.00.
Proposed Project Budget
(12 week project) 400,000.00$
Project Costs
Design 41,000.00$
Construction Management/
Design support 39,200.00$
Construction Contract 289,840.00$
Project Contingecies 28,984.00$
Total Project Costs 399,024.00$
Marina Landscape Inc Mcguire and Hester Redgwick Construction Co. Galeb Paving Inc. $289,840.00 $353,220.00 $427,960.00 451,400.00
Staff Report 2022 Mission Road Landscape Improvement Project Page 3 of 3 October 26, 2022
COUNCIL ADOPTED VALUES
Adoption of the resolution is consistent with the City Council’s value of being responsible to its residents and public in their desire to promote a safer environment for the public to walk, bike and travel along the Town’s roadways.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could reject all bids and redesign the P roject in hopes to reduce Project costs.
This is not recommended because the cost to redesign the Project along with cost to re-bid the Project does not guarantee the Project will cost substantially less. .
CONCLUSION
Town staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution awarding and authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract with Marina Landscape Inc. for the 2022 Mission Road Landscape Improvement Project in the amount of $289,840.00 and amending the total capital project budget to be $400,000.00
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. Bid Summary
Reso 2022-__, 2022 Mission Road Landscape Improvement Project – Award of Contract Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-__
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF COLMA
R
ESOLUTION AWARDING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH MARINA LANDSCAPE INC. FOR THE 2022
MISSION ROAD LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $289,840.00 AND AMENDING THE TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECT BUDGET TO BE $400,000.00
The City Council of the Town of Colma hereby resolves:
1. Background
(a) The Town of Colma opened bids for the 2022 Mission Road Landscape Improvement Project (“Project”) on October 04, 2022.
(b) Town Staff determined that Marina Landscape Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid in the amount of $289,840.00.
2. Findings
(a) The City Council finds that Marina Landscape Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid.
3. Approval and Authorization
(a) Award of the construction contract for the Project in the amount of $289,840.00 is hereby made to Marina Landscape Inc.
(b) The construction contract for the Project between the Town of Colma and Marina Landscape Inc., a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk, is approv ed by the City Council of the Town of Colma.
(c) The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute said contract on behalf of the Town of Colma.
(d) The City Council hereby approves a CIP budget amendment to provide an additional $28,000.00 for the Project, for a total Project budget of $400,000.00, including $41,000.00 for design, $ 289,840.00 for construction, $29,984.00 for Town controlled contingency, and $39,200.00 for construction management.
//
//
//
//
//
Attachment A
Reso 2022-__, 2022 Mission Road Landscape Improvement Project – Award of Contract Page 2 of 2
Certification of Adoption
I certify that the foregoing Resolution 2022-__ was duly adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on October 26, 2022 by the following vote:
Name Voting Present, Not Voting Absent
Aye No Abstain Not Participating
Helen Fisicaro, Mayor
Joanne F. del Rosario
John Irish Goodwin
Ken Gonzalez
Voting Tally
Dated ______________________ ___________________________________ Helen Fisicaro, Mayor
Attest: ____________________________
Caitlin Corley, City Clerk
Bid Item Bid Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Total Unit Price Amount Total Unit Price Amount Total Unit Price Amount Total Unit Price Amount Total 1 Mobilization and Contract Processing Costs 1 LS 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 17,000.00$ 17,000.00$ 5,310.00$ 5,310.00$ 34,700.00$ 34,700.00$ 72,710.00$ 72,710.00$ 2 Diversion of Recyclable Waste Materials 1 LS 500.00$ 500.00$ 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ 5,310.00$ 5,310.00$ 700.00$ 700.00$ 1, 000.00$ 1,000.00$ 3 Stormwater Pollution Prevention 1 LS 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$ 16,500.00$ 16,500.00$ 6,200.00$ 6,200.00$ 7,680.00$ 7,680.00$ 4 Utility Potholing 1 LS 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,840.00$ 3,840.00$ 9,800.00$ 9,800.00$ 7,320.00$ 7,320.00$ 5 Site Security, Safety, and Temporary Fencing 1 LS 2,500.00$ 2, 500.00$ 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$ 4,770.00$ 4,770.00$ 23,400.00$ 23,400.00$ 8,335.00$ 8,335.00$ 6 Pedestrian and Traffic Control 1 LS 7,000.00$ 7,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 14,400.00$ 14,400.00$ 24,800.00$ 24,800.00$ 29,160.00$ 29,160.00$ 7 Site Demolition and Disposal of Material: Asphalt
Paving, Concrete Sidewalks and Gutters, Material Off
Haul and Dumping, C apping Utilities
270 CY 200.00$ 54,000.00$ 175.00$ 47,250.00$ 194.00$ 52,380.00$ 230.00$ 62,100.00$ 276.00$ 74,520.00$ 8 Site Preparation, Clearing, Grubbing, Rototilling,
Amending, Fertilizing, and Fine Grading 9,500 SF 2.00 $ 19, 000.00$ 1.20$ 11,
400.00$ 1.00$ 9,
500.00$ 3.00$ 28,
500.00$ 0.60$ 5,
700.00$
9 Soil Import
(Note: See section 31 00 00 Ea rthwork for donated
source of import soil, trucking distance, and trucking
path)
270 CY 50.00$ 13, 500.00$ 37.00$ 9, 990.00$ 74.00$ 19, 980.00$ 108.00$ 29,160.00$ 43.60$ 11, 772.00$ 10 Construction Staking 1 LS 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 1,040.00$ 1,040.00$ 4,500.00$ 4,500.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 11 Irrigation 1 LS 72,000.00$ 72, 000.00$ 79,300.00$ 79,300.00$ 85,300.00$ 85,300.00$ 87,100.00$ 87,100.00$ 93,500.00$ 93,500.00$ 12 Crushed Rock Paving 600 SF 10.00$ 6,
000.00$ 9.00$ 5,
400.00$ 14.10$ 8,
460.00$ 15.00$ 9,
000.00$ 28.00$ 16,
800.00$
13 Site Furnishings 1 LS 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$ 44,500.00$ 44,500.00$ 47,600.00$ 47,600.00$ 30,800.00$ 30,800.00$ 37,340.00$ 37,340.00$ 14 Plant
ing 1 LS 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 49,000.00$ 49,000.00$ 71,300.00$ 71,300.00$ 73,100.00$ 73,100.00$ 75,600.00$ 75,600.00$ 15 Planting Maintenance 1 LS 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ 3,500.00$ 3,500.00$ 7,530.00$ 7,530.00$ 4,100.00$ 4,100.00$ 4,963.00$ 4,963.00$ Total: 280,000.00$ Total: 289,840.00$ Total: 353,220.00$ Total: 427,960.00$ Total: 451,400.00$ 10% Contingency 28,000.00$ 28,984.00$ 35,322.00$ 42,796.00$ 45,140.00$ Tot
al + Contingency 308,000.00$ 318,824.00$ 388,542.00$ 470,756.00$ 496,540.00$ Galeb Paving, Inc.Engineer's Estimate Marina Landscape, Inc.
TOTAL OF BASE BID ITEMS (1‐15):
Town of Colma
2022 Mission Road Landscape Improvement Project
Bid Summary
McGuire and Hester Redgwick Construction Co.
Staff Report – Options for Filling City Council Vacancy Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
T
O: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brian Dossey, City Manager
Christopher J. Diaz, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: October 26, 2022
SUBJECT: Options for Filling a City Council Vacancy
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Determine whether to fill the vacancy on the City Council by appointment or special election; and
2. Provide direction to staff regarding the desired method of filling the vacancy.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Colma City Council consists of five Cou ncilmembers, each elected at large to serve a four - year term. General municipal elections to elect Councilmembers are held on the first Tuesday after the first Mo nday in November of each even -numbered year. The next scheduled election year is this year, 2022.
On October 18 , 2022 Councilmember Colvin tendered her resignation from the City Council.
Pursuant to Government Code section 36512(b), the Council may fill the vacancy by appointment for the remainder of the term or call a special election to fill the vacancy. The City has sixty days from the date of the vacancy (i.e., until December 18, 2022) to choose and proceed with option 1 or option 2 below.
Option 1: Appointment
If the Council fills the vacancy by appointment, the term of the person appointed to fill the vacancy will run until the end of the vacant seat’s original term. Colma Municipal Code section 1.02.020 provides that the Council’s policy is to fill a vacancy on the Council by appointment, and to offer as many citizens as may be interested the chance to apply. Section 1.02.020 does have a number of timing requirements which are based on a previous iteration of the state law governing the special election process, but that section also provides that it is directory (not mandatory), and so the Town should follow the timeline in current state law which allows for sixty days from the date of the vacancy for the City Council to select which method it would prefer to fill the vacancy (see, Gov. Code § 36512).
The process for filling the vacancy by appointment is recommended to be as follows:
Item #7
Staff Report – Options for Filling City Council Vacancy Page 2 of 3
1. The City Manager sends a notice by letter to all To wn residents advising of the vacancy and inviting qualified citizens to submit a letter of interest. Interested persons should submit these letters to Town Hall by a date set by the Council or City Manager . The City Manager can also advise residents of the vacancy and invite letters of interest by publication in the local newspaper, if desired.
2. The application period will then close on a date set by the Council or City Manager, which date should give applicants sufficient time to submit their materials, but which allows the Council time to review the applications and hold interviews, if desired, before the 60 days available to the Town to fill the vacancy have elapsed.
3. All application materials received by the deadline are organized by Town staff and distributed to the Councilmembers. A meeting of the Council is scheduled to discuss the applications and (if desired) hold interviews . If interviews are held, they must be conducted in open session.
4. The Town holds a meeting to discuss the applications and (if desired) hold interviews.
Following any discussion, interviews, and public comment, the Council publicly deliberates and selects one individual for the vacant seat. This will require an affirmative majority vote of the remaining Councilmembers.
However, since the City Council recently appointed a resident to the City Council for a vacancy this past August, staff will still follow options 1-4 above, but will also reach out to the candidates who were not appointed during that process. If the previous candidates are still interested in serving on the City Council, and no new candidates apply for the vacancy, the City Council may appoint one of these candidates in an open meeting.
Option 2: Special Election
If a special election is called, it must be held on the next regularly established election date that is at least 114 days after the call for the special election. The Town incurs the costs of conducting the election, and the term of the person elected to fill the vacancy runs to the end of the vacant seat’s original term. Pursuant to discussions with the San Mateo County Elections Office, staff anticipates that the approximate cost of a special election to f ill the Council vacancy will be $31,000 - $37,200. To conduct an election to fill the vacant seat, the City Council must adopt a resolution formally calling for a special election. (Elections Code, § 12001.) Assuming the City Council adopted this resolution in the sixty day window allowed by state law, the special election would be held in March 2023, as that is the next regular election date that is more than 114 days from the call of the election, in accordance with Government Code section 36512. If the Council proceeds with this option, Councilmember Colvin’s vacant seat would sit open until that election.
If the City Council wishes to call a special election, staff will return to the City Council with the appropriate resolution to call the special election.
Alternatives
To fill the current Council seat vacancy, the Council should, within 60 days, do one of the following:
Staff Report – Options for Filling City Council Vacancy Page 3 of 3
1. Appoint a resident to fill the vacancy, upon consideration of all interested parties’ applications at a forthcoming special meeting.
2. Call a special election to fill the vacancy.
FISCAL IMPACT
If the City Council fills the vacancy by appointment, minimal fiscal impacts are anticipated. A special election will have a greater fiscal cost.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The City Council’s action to fill the vacant Council seat is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act , as it can be seen with certainty that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3).
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council, by motion, determine whether it would prefer to proceed to fill the Council vacancy by special election or by appointment, and direct staff to take all necessary actions accordingly.
Town of Colma - Study Session-Micromobility Page 1 of 3 October 26, 2022
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brad Donohue, Director of Public Works
VIA: Brian Dossey, City Manager
MEETING DATE: October 26, 2022
SUBJECT: Study Session on C/CAG’s Micromobility and the Bike Share Program
RECOMMENDATION
This item is a study session for information purposes only. No City Council action is required; however, staff seeks comments, questions, impressions and opinions from City Council members and members of the public regarding the San Mateo’s County Shared Micromobility Feasibility Study and Implementation Plan and how it relates to the Town of Colma.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City/County Association of Government (C/CAG) staff along with the C/CAG Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) have endorsed the Draft San Mateo County Shared Micromobility Feasibility Study and Implantation Plan (Draft Plan).
“Micromobility (Alternate transportation Options) refers to a range of small, lightweight vehicles operating at speeds typically below 15 mph and driven by signal individuals. Micromobility devices include bicycles, e-bikes, electric scooters, electric skateboards, shared bicycle fleets, and electric pedal assisted (pedelec) bicycles.”
The reason for tonight’s study session is to discuss a portion of the Draft Plan and specifically the pilot locations where a bike share program will be located in the Daly City and Broadmoor area, and it’s impacts both positive and negative on the Town of Colma.
BACKGROUND
Micromobility refers to services such as bikeshare and scooter-share, where users are able to check out various small and light-weight vehicles for short term use through a self-service rental portal. One of the struggles in making public transportation more attractive is the ability to get from a transportation hub, (BART, Samtrans bus stop, other) to your final destination, work, home, retail outlet, etc… This is commonly noted as “first and last mile”. It has been
Town of Colma - Study Session-Micromobility Page 2 of 3 October 26, 2022
envisioned that micromobility transportation options do address first and last mile challenges, bridging the transportation gap between home and transit stations, and from transit stations to places of employment. Other benefits of micromobility includes reducing short distance vehicle trips and increasing transportation access.
One of the pilot locations that was studied is the Bike Share Program. In the Draft Plan (Attachment “A”) the proposed Bike Share Docking Station will be located in the Daly City/ Broadmoor area. The docking station, though not in Colma, is in very close proximity to the Town and the ridership in the bike share program will have impacts to the Town. The objective tonight is to receive the presentation from C/CAG Staff and allow for discussion to materialize in hopes to help set parameters and guidelines to make this bikeshare program successful.
ANALYSIS
The study sessions will address the following:
• Program Vision and Goals
• Program Feasibility
• Draft Plan recommendations
• Bicycle Rideshare pilot program and locations
• System Expansion?
• Other
Like any new program, it does come with wrinkles. In many cases we may not know what some of those issues maybe until the program is up and running. The study session is an attempt to get both City Council and members of the public involved and engaged in the hopes that recom- mendations and experiences can help set the foundation for a successful program going into the future.
The Town is also implementing their first Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Within the plan itself, a micromobility component will be part of the plan. Tonight’s discussion will be instructional to staff as they develop the Town’s master plan.
Council Adopted Values
Implementing Micromobility transportation options is consistent with the City Council value of being visionary . Engaging a healthy dialog and advancing the goals of how micromobility and its positive effects on portions of our community that depend on and want to use public transportation in their day-to-day commitments and activities. The City Council is also allowing a forum for those who may have concerns regarding a bike share program to exist and express those concerns so they can be implemented into the plan.
Alternatives
None.
Town of Colma - Study Session-Micromobility Page 3 of 3 October 26, 2022
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council listen to the presentation by C/CAG and staff, ask questions, and provide feedback to staff regarding the various components of the Draft San Mateo County Shared Micromobility Feasibility Study and Implantation Plan and the Bike Share Program.
ATTACHMENTS
A. San Mateo Micromobility -Final Draft Plan
San Mateo County Shared Micromobility Feasibility Study 1 To: Kim Wever, C/CAG
From: Alta Planning + Design
Date: October 12, 2022
Re: San Mateo Micromob ility – Final Plan DRAFT
I. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Program Vision & Goals .................................................................................................................................... 4 Program Feasibility ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Program Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 4 Program Guidelines & Requirements ............................................................................................................... 7 II. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 8 III. Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Demographics ................................................................................................................................................. 10 Planning & Policy Context .............................................................................................................................. 12 Demand Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 14 Barriers Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 18 Equity Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 20 IV. Vision & Goals ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Proposed Micromobility Program Goals and Objectives ............................................................................... 23 Performance Measures .................................................................................................................................. 23 V. Best Practices ............................................................................................................................................. 29 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 29 Peer System Comparison ................................................................................................................................ 29 Case Study #1: Bay Wheels ............................................................................................................................. 29 Case Study #2: ValleyBike Share ..................................................................................................................... 31 Case Study #3: Sacramento Regional Bike Share ........................................................................................... 33 VI. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 34 Governance and Management ....................................................................................................................... 35 Costs and Funding .......................................................................................................................................... 42 Plan Development .......................................................................................................................................... 44 VII. Program Guidelines ................................................................................................................................ 50 Program Rollout and Expansion ..................................................................................................................... 53 Risk Mitigation ................................................................................................................................................ 55 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 55 San Mateo County Shared Micromobility Feasibility Study 2 Appendix A: Feasibility Memo ............................................................................................................................ 57 Appendix B: Plan & Policy Review ...................................................................................................................... 57 Appendix C: Vision / Goals / Performance Measures Memo ............................................................................. 57 Appendix D: Best Practices Memo ...................................................................................................................... 57 Appendix E: Program Recommendations Memo................................................................................................ 57 Appendix F: Program Guidelines & Regulatory Framework Memo .................................................................... 57
San Mateo County Shared Micromobility Feasibility Study 3 Source: Alta Planning + Design
I. Executive Summary
Introduction
What is Shared Micromobility?
Shared micromobility is an umbrella term for lightweight, human or electric‐powered vehicles that are operated as a fleet and can be accessed by the public to use. While many forms of micromobility vehicles exist, this study focuses on bikes, e‐bikes, and e‐scooters, which are the most common form of shared fleets. Shared micromobility services have expanded across the world. Their technologies and ownership structures have rapidly developed and evolved in the past 5‐10 years. In 2021, 128 million trips were taken via shared micromobility in the North America.1 Shared micromobility services changed significantly in 2018, with the widespread launch of scooter share systems in around 100 U.S. cities. Scooters accounted for 62.2 million trips in 2021.
Project Purpose
The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) collaborated with local stakeholders to define what a successful shared micromobility program would look like for San Mateo County and to determine the feasibility of developing one. The existing status quo requires individual jurisdictions across San Mateo County to develop their own shared micromobility programs and guidelines. This study aims to define what a coordinated, proactive approach to shared micromobility could look like in San Mateo County.
Project Process
The study incorporated multiple analyses to evaluate the feasibility of a shared micromobility program in San Mateo County. Throughout the process, the project team worked with an Ad Hoc Advisory Group and various stakeholders to ensure the study reflected the values of the community. The process included:
Would shared micromobility work in San Mateo County? Examining seven key factors known to influence program feasibility to better understand fatal flaws and/or significant barriers to implementing a shared micromobility program in San Mateo County.
How would shared micromobility fit into the San Mateo County context? Analyzing local and regional policy and data to determine the transportation challenges and opportunities that a shared micromobility could address.
1 NABSA. “Shared Micromobility State of the Industry Report 2021”. https://nabsa.net/2022/08/03/2021industryreport/
San Mateo County Shared Micromobility Feasibility Study 4 What would success look like for a program in San Mateo County? Working with stakeholders to establish a vision, goals, and objectives that articulate what outcomes a shared micromobility program would need to support.
How would a shared micromobility program develop in San Mateo County? Recommending a program structure and guidelines for implementation that best fit the context and resources of partnering agencies in San Mateo County.
Program Vision & Goals
Vision Statement:
A shared micromobility program in San Mateo County
will provide residents and visitors—including low‐income individuals, communities of color, persons with
disabilities, and other historically marginalized
communities—with an affordable, convenient, and
sustainable transportation option that reduces vehicle
miles travelled, connects communities to destinations
across the County, and seamlessly integrates with
transit.
Program Goals:
Replace Motor Vehicle Trips
Integrate with Transit
Ensure the Program Benefits Everyone
Enhance Mobility Options for Local Residents
Create a Cost‐Effective and Self‐Sustaining Program
Support Economic Development
Generate Positive Public Perception about the
Program
Support Tourism Opportunities
Program Feasibility
Many factors influence the level to which a shared micromobility program is feasible, and more specifically, whether a program that meets the local community’s vision and goals is feasible. Based on the results of multiple analyses, or feasibility factors, the project team concluded that a shared micromobility program is feasible in San Mateo County. The feasibility factors, listed below, include qualitative analyses to better understand how a program might achieve its goals and to identify fatal flaws and/or significant barriers to implementing a shared micromobility program in San Mateo County.
Feasibility Factors
Planning and Policy Review: Do existing plans and policies allow or recommend shared micromobility? Demand Analysis: Are there multiple areas around the county where share devices would likely be used? Barriers Analysis: Would users have viable routes/connections to travel on? Equity Analysis: Could a program benefit people with low‐incomes and in communities of color? Program Opportunity and Resource Analysis: Are there sufficient resources available for the management, vendor equipment and operations, and funding of a program?
Program Recommendations
The recommendations apply best practices and lessons learned from peer programs to 1) create a program that is best positioned to achieve the vision and goals and 2) to leverage the county’s strengths and adjust for challenges identified in the feasibility analysis.
While San Mateo County could elect to move forward with a structure other than the proposed, there are several negative governance outcomes of continuing with the current micromobility status quo. Individual jurisdictions would have to bear all procurement, management, and oversight responsibilities for a local program, resulting in an increased and redundant workload burden on jurisdiction staff. Jurisdictions would have no established regulatory or procurement standards from which to build their micromobility program. Individually, each community may struggle to attract the same number and quality of vendors as a multi‐jurisdictional program. Additionally, jurisdictions and vendors would have no mechanism for coordinating planning, procurement, and negotiations and there would be no structure to manage or address inter‐ jurisdictional micromobility issues. The results would be a fragmented micromobility market where users may be restricted to making trips within a specific town or city, users may have to switch between operators based on where they are travelling, and users have less predictability regarding user pricing and riding rules.
Governance and Management Recommendations
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 5
Establish a multi‐jurisdictional program with a single program manager responsible for procurement and contract management.
The recommended program manager is C/CAG given the agency’s countywide program scope, its proven ability to build consensus with partners across jurisdictional boundaries, and general support from the C/CAG Board on the project concept and the program’s ability to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Contract out to one or more private, third‐party operators. Management and oversight responsibilities would be the responsibility of a single organization as the program manager, with support from other organizations in specialized roles. Individual jurisdictions could opt into the program with the flexibility to dictate certain operating requirements, such as no‐ride areas, speed limited areas, and restricted parking areas. Jurisdictions will retain the ability to fine the operator or impound vehicles in instances of violations. Ideally, any day‐to‐day operational issues will be handled by the vendor with oversight from the program manager. Establish a governance committee composed of participating jurisdictions, the program manager and any other key stakeholders as needed. This body would be a venue to discuss program issues, share lessons learned, and resolve problems.
Establish a process for escalating complaints and issues, creating a clear chain of command for any operational issues and complaints
System Type Recommendations
E‐bikes are the primary vehicle type, with the option to include manual bikes and/or e‐scooters as determined by individual jurisdictions.
Hybrid or dockless system types are preferred given their ease of implementation and flexibility of operations when considering a pilot program. However, the results of the feasibility analysis, best practices memo, and goals of the program indicate that multiple system types could be successful in San Mateo County. The peer system comparison showed a hybrid, docked, and/or dockless system can be successful for a regional program. The system type, therefore, will depend on level of funding available and interest from operators.
Costs & Funding Recommendations
Through a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process, procure a private operator responsible for self‐ financing and operating the system.
Public costs would be limited to the cost of procurement, oversight, and contract management. These costs could be partially recouped through a permit fee.
Provide program funding or a program subsidy in return for operator guarantees such as the equity pricing program, caps on user fees, or certain geographic operating requirements.
Plan Development Recommendations
Phase 1 Pilot Program
The San Mateo Shared Micromobility Feasibility Study proposes a Phase 1 Pilot Program that would run for one to two years, with participating jurisdictions committing to stay within the program through the duration of the pilot. The study identified five potential pilot locations (see Map 1 below) based on an analysis of high demand areas, equity focus areas2, and the opportunity to connect across jurisdictional boundaries. The two locations recommended for the pilot are Daly City, Broadmoor, and Colma, and Redwood City and North Fair Oaks based on their close proximity to high frequency transit locations, the ability to serve a large population in an equity priority community with limited access to vehicles and high reliance on transit. Each pilot program should have a minimum of 500 vehicles and 50 stations/hubs (if a docked or hybrid
2 Equity Focus Areas are consistent with the methodology used in the 2021 C/CAG San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedes trian Plan and includes metrics such as share of the population that is non-white, median household income, housing and transportation cost burden, and share of households who do not own cars.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 6
system is chosen). This would include 1.6‐2.0 designated parking spots per bike and 16 hubs per square mile in high density locations. The three additional areas identified as candidates for a pilot program include: Pacifica, South San Francisco, and San Bruno; South San Francisco and Unincorporated San Mateo County; and Millbrae and Burlingame.
System Expansion
The pilot is an opportunity to test and refine the multi‐jurisdictional micromobility management approach. At the end of the pilot period, the study team envisions that revised recommendations and program management structure may be adopted to incorporate lessons learned from the pilot. The system should expand beyond the initial Phase 1 Pilot Program service area based upon factors such as ridership, funding, infrastructure, new indicators of demand, and political will/agency capacity. Following the pilot program, with the multijurisdictional contract in place, the program manager should work with the operator(s) to develop satellite programs at coastal communities, with consideration for alternate service models, such as reduced user fees and/or long‐term lending.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 7
Program Guidelines & Requirements
An RFP for shared micromobility will lay out guidelines and requirements for the program that the selected vendor must follow. The San Mateo County Shared Micromobility Feasibility Study offers recommendations for common elements that will be included, such as type of vehicles permitted, rider age restrictions, and contract length.
II.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 8
Source: Alta Planning + Design
III. Introduction
What is Shared Micromobility?
Shared micromobility is an umbrella term for lightweight, human or electric‐powered vehicles that are operated as a fleet and can be accessed by the public to use. While many forms of micromobility vehicles exist, this study focuses on bikes, e‐ bikes, and e‐scooters, which are the most common form of shared fleets. Shared micromobility services have expanded across the world. Their technologies and ownership structures have rapidly developed and evolved in the past 5‐10 years. In 2021, 128 million trips were taken via shared micromobility in the North America.3 Shared micromobility services changed significantly in 2018, with the widespread launch of scooter share systems in around 100 U.S. cities. Scooters accounted for
62.2 million trips in 2021.
Project Purpose
The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) collaborated with local stakeholders to define what a successful shared micromobility program would look like for San Mateo County and to determine the feasibility of developing one. The existing status quo requires individual jurisdictions across San Mateo County to develop their own shared micromobility programs and guidelines. This study aims to define what a coordinated, proactive approach to shared micromobility could look like in San Mateo County.
Project Process
The study incorporated multiple analyses to evaluate the feasibility of a shared micromobility program in San Mateo County. Throughout the process, the project team worked with an Ad Hoc Advisory Group and various stakeholders to ensure the study reflected the values of the community. The process included:
Would shared micromobility work in San Mateo County? Examining seven key factors known to influence program feasibility to better understand fatal flaws and/or significant barriers to implementing a shared micromobility program in San Mateo County.
How would shared micromobility fit into the San Mateo County context? Analyzing local and regional policy and data to determine the transportation challenges and opportunities that a shared micromobility could address. What would success look like for a program in San Mateo County? Working with stakeholders to establish a vision, goals, and objectives that articulate what outcomes a shared micromobility program would need to support.
3 NABSA. “Shared Micromobility State of the Industry Report 2021”. https://nabsa.net/2022/08/03/2021industryreport/
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 9
How would a shared micromobility program develop in San Mateo County? Recommending a program structure and guidelines for implementation that best fit the context and resources of partnering agencies in San Mateo County.
This process and its findings are summarized in the following sections of the San Mateo County Shared Micromobility Feasibility Study final plan.
Source: Alta Planning + Design
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 10
Source: smccvb.com
IV. Existing Conditions
The study area for the project is San Mateo County. Founded in 1856, the County includes 455 square miles, 20 cities, 764,442 people4, and 57.7 miles of coastline5 (Map 1). The County is part of the larger Bay Area region, bordering the City of San Francisco to the north and Santa Clara County to the south. As the County covers most of the San Francisco Peninsula, it includes a variety of diverse regions, including coastline, natural areas, and built‐up areas, among others. There are numerous parks and open space reserves along the north‐south mountain ridge, including San Pedro Valley Park, Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, and the El Corte de Madera Open Space Preserve.
The County has substantial transportation features, including multiple freeways, the San Francisco International Airport, and two commuter rail systems: Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Caltrain. The County also has bus service provided by the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) and a notable number of existing bikeways.
Demographics
According to the most recent census data (ACS 2020 5‐year estimates), the median age in San Mateo County is 39.7 years, which is about 10 percent higher than the average age in California. As the County is largely suburban in nature, the population is fairly spread out. The highest concentration of residents is in Daly City, South San Francisco, San Mateo, and Redwood City. The County’s proportion of residents of working age (18‐64) is 69 percent. Thirty‐nine percent of San Mateo County residents are non‐Hispanic White, which is just above the statewide rate of 36.5 percent. The second largest racial or ethnic group is Asian (30 percent) which is about double the statewide rate (15 percent).
The County has a median household income of $122,641, and 5.5 percent of its residents live in poverty. The main centers for employment are found along the bayside, due to the presence of large corporate offices and the airport. The highest concentration of jobs is found in the Menlo Park, South San Francisco and San Bruno areas. Towards the coast, the census tract including downtown Half Moon Bay also has a high concentration of jobs. For more information about the population density and jobs concentration in San Mateo County, see Appendix A.
4 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sanmateocountycalifornia/POP010220#POP010220 5 https://www.smcgov.org/fast‐facts
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 11
/g40/g69/g88/g69/g4/g84/g86/g83/g90/g77/g72/g73/g72/g4/g70/g93/g4/g88/g76/g73/g4/g39/g19/g39/g37/g43/g4/g39/g83/g81/g84/g86/g73/g76/g73/g82/g87/g77/g90/g73/g4/g38/g77/g71/g93/g71/g80/g73/g4/g69/g82/g72/g4/g52/g73/g72/g73/g87/g88/g86/g77/g69/g82/g4/g52/g80/g69/g82/g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g16/g4 /g39/g69/g80/g88/g86/g69/g82/g87/g4/g55/g88/g69/g88/g73/g4/g44/g77/g75/g76/g91/g69/g93/g4/g50/g73/g88/g91/g83/g86/g79/g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g16/g4/g55/g69/g82/g4/g49/g69 /g88/g73/g83/g4/g39/g83/g89/g82/g88/g93/g4/g43/g45/g55/g4/g51/g84/g73/g82/g4/g40/g69/g88/g69/g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g16/g4 /g69/g82/g72/g4/g51/g84/g73/g82/g55/g88/g86/g73/g73/g88/g49/g69 /g84 /g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g18/g4/g4 FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 12
Planning & Policy Context
There are a number of planning and policy documents that may impact the implementation and operation of a shared micromobility program in San Mateo County. Plans and policies can be important measures of program compatibility with local initiatives, such as goals for encouraging healthy and active transportation, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, or providing low‐cost transportation options among transit‐dependent populations.
Transportation‐related state, regional, countywide and local plans—such as transportation elements of general plans and bicycle and pedestrian plans—were reviewed (Appendix B). Most reviewed plans include similar goals, objectives and policies. These common plan elements include recommended projects that have a countywide impact, recommendations and considerations for a shared micromobility program, and other topics that relate to shared micromobility. The most common topics include:
Safety: Reduce bicycle and pedestrian‐involved collisions. Access to transit: Improve bicycle and pedestrian access to transit. Connectivity: Create a connected network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that is comfortable for all ages and abilities.
Equity: Ensure everyone, especially historically underserved communities, benefit from active transportation investments and are included in the process.
Regional Coordination: Coordinate with regional agencies to plan and implement the active transportation network.
Education & Encouragement: Create and enhance the culture of active transportation through education and encouragement programs.
Support Facilities: Promote biking and walking by providing supportive facilities such as wayfinding, bicycle parking, etc.
Many of the reviewed plans support shared micromobility either as a goal, objective, policy, or recommendation. All of the regional and County plans, with the exception of the Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Plan (2018), explicitly promote or recommend shared micromobility. The Caltrain Shared Micromobility Strategy is a document dedicated entirely to supporting shared micromobility at all Caltrain stations and along the Caltrain corridor, which includes the entire length of San Mateo County along the Bayside. The document uses an equity lens to lay out overarching strategies, recommendations, and potential scenarios for shared micromobility. The San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and the Unincorporated San Mateo County Active Transportation Plan both recommend developing and/or supporting a shared micromobility program across the County.
While the County and regional plans recommend shared micromobility, recommendations among local municipalities in San Mateo County is more mixed, as shown in Table 1 below. Over half—12 out of 20—of local municipalities mention support for shared micromobility in their local planning documents. Two of the three municipalities on the coastside of the County—Half Moon Bay and Pacifica—and over half (59%) of the bayside municipalities support a shared micromobility program. Support for shared micromobility in an existing plan, however, does not mean a local jurisdiction is for or against a potential shared micromobility program.
In addition to support through planning documents, local jurisdictions are in different stages of project implementation.
The City of San Mateo currently has a shared micromobility permit; City of Redwood City recently approved a shared micromobility ordinance; and the City of Millbrae and City of Burlingame recently procured a vendor for a joint shared micromobility program.
The San Mateo County Shared Micromobility Feasibility Study can help to address many of the common topics related to shared micromobility outlined in the reviewed planning documents. Among the supportive municipalities, some of the common topics related to micromobility across the planning documents include:
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 13
Increasing access to transit and providing a seamless transfer experience between shared micromobility and transit
Providing dedicated parking facilities for shared micromobility Enhancing bicycle facilities that support micromobility Identifying suitable locations for shared micromobility stations and geographic areas where a program should operate
Coordinating with local and regional agencies and organizations Establishing a regulatory framework
Table 1: Recommendation for shared micromobility in existing planning documents among local municipalities in San Mateo County
Appendix B includes the full list of documents reviewed and their relevance to shared micromobility in San Mateo County.
Local Municipalities Recommendation for
Shared Micromobility
in Local Plans
Atherton
Belmont X
Brisbane
Burlingame X
Colma X
Daly City
East Palo X
Foster City
Half Moon Bay X
Hillsborough
Menlo Park X
Millbrae X
Pacifica X
Portola Valley
Redwood City X
San Bruno
San Carlos X
San Mateo X
South San Francisco X
Woodside
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 14
Demand Analysis
Methodology
In order to properly understand potential micromobility demand throughout San Mateo County, demographic information, commercial information, transportation information and key points of interest were agglomerated to create composite heat maps that show demand for docked and nondocked demand (Map 2, Map 3). In many communities, the local context must be considered as well.
The demand estimates were based on a regression analysis using a North American bike share dataset. The regression model finds that job density, tourism destinations, transit proximity, high‐density neighborhoods, the decreased prevalence of individualized car use, and other variables are significant determinants of demand. Additionally, the analysis built on literature6 regarding the differing demand for both docked and non‐docked systems. Tourist attractions and shopping, for example, have a larger impact on demand for a non‐docked system. The relative demand scores in this analysis are a result of the following inputs:
Where people live (Population Density)
Where people work (Employment Density)
Where people shop (Shops)
Where people attend higher education (Student Density) Where people can ride transit (Availability of Transit) Where people visit (Tourist Destinations and Accommodation Services such as Hotels and Motels) It should be noted that the existence of demand does not always guarantee micromobility utilization, however it can help provide insight as to where a micromobility system will operate best. Finally, these maps are based on existing conditions, and show current, not forecasted, demand.
As shown on the maps, black and dark purple areas indicate places in San Mateo County with the highest relative demand.
Pink, orange and yellow areas indicate some demand for shared micromobility, however, the demand here is lower in comparison to other parts of the County. Areas with no color indicate places that did not have high enough scores in any of the demand input criteria. This analysis serves as a helpful tool in determining the most optimal locations for shared micromobility service in San Mateo County.
Results
Several large connected pockets and corridors of high demand areas emerged from the analysis. Micromobility systems work best where demand is continuous across space. The following connected areas feature high demand compared to other areas within the County:
Downtown Areas: With the prevalence of high densities in regard to population, jobs, commercial and non‐ commercial shops, downtown areas operate as a core center for micromobility service areas. Areas in Relatively Close Distance to BART and Caltrain Stations: As micromobility systems benefit from the presence of a more robust transit network, areas within San Mateo County which had either a Caltrain or BART station projected higher demand.
While the majority of high demand areas was found in the populous bayside of San Mateo County, there are other areas of note which should be included in the discussion. These are:
6 Modeling the Demand for Shared E‐Scooter Services (10/21/2021, TRB). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0361198121105162 0 FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 15
Coastal Destination Communities: With the prevalence of downtown areas and destinations, coastal communities also showed up as having high demand, although lower demand overall within their communities. This points to the possibility of having docked and non‐docked systems relatively contained within the high demand areas.
Demand for Docked and Non‐Docked Systems
While there is demand to support both docked and non‐docked systems in San Mateo County, there are some differences between the demand for the different system types. Demand for docked systems are concentrated in downtown and high‐ density areas. Non‐docked systems show less concentrated demand but cover more area than docked systems. This indicates that while non‐docked systems can potentially serve broader areas, docked systems have the advantage in high‐ density and downtown areas. Each system offers different benefits that should be taken into consideration when deciding what system to implement where.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 16
/g40/g69/g88/g69/g4/g84/g86/g83/g90/g77/g72/g73/g72/g4/g70/g93/g4/g88/g76/g73/g4/g39/g19/g39/g37/g43/g4/g39/g83/g81/g84/g86/g73/g76/g73/g82/g87/g77/g90/g73/g4/g38/g77/g71/g93/g71/g80/g73/g4/g69/g82/g72/g4/g52/g73/g72/g73/g87/g88/g86/g77/g69/g82/g4/g52/g80/g69/g82/g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g16/g4/g39/g69/g80/g88/g86/g69/g82/g87/g4 /g55/g88/g69/g88/g73/g4/g44/g77/g75/g76/g91/g69/g93/g4/g50/g73/g88/g91/g83/g86/g79/g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g16/g4/g37/g81/g73/g86/g77/g71/g69/g82/g4/g39/g83/g81/g81/g89/g82/g77/g88/g93/g4/g55/g89/g86/g90/g73/g93/g4/g25/g4/g61/g73/g69/g86/g4/g41/g87/g88/g77/g81/g69 /g88/g73/g87/g4/g12/g22/g20/g21/g29/g13/g16/g4/g57/g55/g4 /g41/g82/g90/g77/g86/g83/g82/g81 /g73/g82/g88/g69/g80/g4/g52/g86/g83/g88/g73/g71/g88/g77/g83/g82/g4/g37/g75/g73/g82/g71/g93/g4/g55/g81/g69/g86/g88/g4/g48/g83/g71/g69/g88/g77/g83/g82/g4/g40/g69/g88/g69/g70/g69/g87/g73/g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g16/g4/g48/g83/g82/g75/g77/g88/g89/g72/g77/g82/g69/g80/g4/g44/g83/g89/g87/g73/g76/g83/g80/g72/g17 /g41/g81 /g84/g80/g83/g93/g73/g86/g4/g40/g93/g82/g69/g81/g77/g71/g87/g4/g12/g22/g20/g21/g29/g13/g16/g4/g69/g82/g72/g4/g51/g84/g73/g82/g55/g88/g86/g73/g73/g88/g49/g69 /g84 /g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g16/g4/g69/g82/g72/g4/g38/g89/g86/g73/g69/g89/g4/g83/g74/g4/g56/g86/g69/g82/g87/g84/g83/g86/g88/g69/g88/g77/g83/g82/g4 /g55/g88/g69/g88/g77/g87/g88/g77/g71/g87/g4/g40/g83/g71/g79/g73/g72/g4/g38/g77/g79/g73/g87/g76/g69/g86/g73/g4/g54/g77/g72/g73/g86/g87/g76/g77/g84/g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g18/g4 /g49/g37/g52/g4/g22/g4
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 17
/g40/g69/g88/g69/g4/g84/g86/g83/g90/g77/g72/g73/g72/g4/g70/g93/g4/g88/g76/g73/g4/g39/g19/g39/g37/g43/g4/g39/g83/g81/g84/g86/g73/g76/g73/g82/g87/g77/g90/g73/g4/g38/g77/g71/g93/g71/g80/g73/g4/g69/g82/g72/g4/g52/g73/g72/g73/g87/g88/g86/g77/g69/g82/g4/g52/g80/g69/g82/g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g16/g4/g39/g69/g80/g88/g86/g69/g82/g87/g4 /g55/g88/g69/g88/g73/g4/g44/g77/g75/g76/g91/g69/g93/g4/g50/g73/g88/g91/g83/g86/g79/g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g16/g4/g37/g81/g73/g86/g77/g71/g69/g82/g4/g39/g83/g81/g81/g89/g82/g77/g88/g93/g4/g55/g89/g86/g90/g73/g93/g4/g25/g4/g61/g73/g69/g86/g4/g41/g87/g88/g77/g81/g69 /g88/g73/g87/g4/g12/g22/g20/g21/g29/g13/g16/g4/g57/g55/g4 /g41/g82/g90/g77/g86/g83/g82/g81 /g73/g82/g88/g69/g80/g4/g52/g86/g83/g88/g73/g71/g88/g77/g83/g82/g4/g37/g75/g73/g82/g71/g93/g4/g55/g81/g69/g86/g88/g4/g48/g83/g71/g69/g88/g77/g83/g82/g4/g40/g69/g88/g69/g70/g69/g87/g73/g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g16/g4/g48/g83/g82/g75/g77/g88/g89/g72/g77/g82/g69/g80/g4/g44/g83/g89/g87/g73/g76/g83/g80/g72/g17 /g41/g81 /g84/g80/g83/g93/g73/g86/g4/g40/g93/g82/g69/g81/g77/g71/g87/g4/g12/g22/g20/g21/g29/g13/g16/g4/g69/g82/g72/g4/g51/g84/g73/g82/g55/g88/g86/g73/g73/g88/g49/g69 /g84 /g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g16/g4/g69/g82/g72/g4/g38/g89/g86/g73/g69/g89/g4/g83/g74/g4/g56/g86/g69/g82/g87/g84/g83/g86/g88/g69/g88/g77/g83/g82/g4 /g55/g88/g69/g88/g77/g87/g88/g77/g71/g87/g4/g40/g83/g71/g79/g73/g72/g4/g38/g77/g79/g73/g87/g76/g69/g86/g73/g4/g54/g77/g72/g73/g86/g87/g76/g77/g84/g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g18/g4 FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 18
Barriers Analysis
When planning and assessing the areas in which micromobility systems would have the most affect, it is important to understand the barriers that users of these systems would face. These data can be used to identify locations to either avoid placing micromobility or to place micromobility in tandem with streetscape improvements that address the identified barrier. These data can also be used to inform aspects of the micromobility system, such as the type of devices to deploy (e.g. e‐vehicles can better accommodate steep slopes). The following inputs were used in the barriers analysis:
Roadway level of traffic stress (LTS) (provided by C/CAG) Clusters of Automobile Focused Businesses (defined in OpenStreetMap) Railways
Highways
Slope greater than 10%
Results
The results of the analysis are seen in Map 4. Clusters of automobile focused businesses are concentrated in downtown areas, indicating a high presence of vehicular use in these specific areas. Bayside communities have many areas without steep slope, but become steeper to the west. Roadways with high LTS scores are indicated in red, and those with moderate scores are demonstrated in orange. Most communities have high‐LTS roadways, highways or railways preventing low‐stress travel across long distances, but have pockets where low‐stress travel may occur.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 19
/g40/g69/g88/g69/g4/g84/g86/g83/g90/g77/g72/g73/g72/g4/g70/g93/g4/g88/g76/g73/g4/g39/g19/g39/g37/g43/g4/g39/g83/g81/g84/g86/g73/g76/g73/g82/g87/g77/g90/g73/g4/g38/g77/g71/g93/g71/g80/g73/g4/g69/g82/g72/g4/g52/g73/g72/g73/g87/g88/g86/g77/g69/g82/g4/g52/g80/g69/g82/g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g16/g4 /g39/g69/g80/g88/g86/g69/g82/g87/g4/g55/g88/g69/g88/g73/g4/g44/g77/g75/g76/g91/g69/g93/g4/g50/g73/g88/g91/g83/g86/g79/g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g16/g4/g69/g82/g72/g4/g51/g84/g73/g82/g55/g88/g86/g73/g73/g88/g49/g69 /g84 /g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g18/g4 FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 20
Equity Analysis
In addition to demand and barriers, equity is an essential component in determining the most optimal micromobility system service area. An equitable micromobility system is accessible to underserved communities and is geographically distributed throughout neighborhoods and demographic groups. Furthermore, when planning a shared micromobility system it is important to understand where a high number of collisions have historically occurred. The equity analysis includes two parts:
Equity Focus Areas (source: C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP)) Collision analysis
The Equity Focus Areas were visualized if they scored above an 8 on the equity focus index, as was done in the C/CAG CBPP.
The collision analysis used collision data analyzed for the San Mateo County Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Strategic Plan, in which collisions from 2014‐2020 were agglomerated to the closest roadway. While all traffic‐related collisions were reviewed within San Mateo County, collisions were weighted more if they resulted in a death or severe injury, involved a person walking or biking, or involved a child. There are some differences in the visualization of these data, as the relative scores were adjusted to be shown on the County scale instead of the local scale.
A collision analysis was included as part of the larger equity analysis because traffic‐related collisions disproportionately impact people walking and biking, low‐income residents, and people of color, among other historically marginalized populations.7 The high‐collision corridors are also useful to compare with the equity focus areas.
Results
Maps 5 and 6 show the results of the analysis. As seen in the equity map, equity focus areas are found throughout the county, indicating that high equity index scores could be helpful in determining where micromobility systems should be placed to meet equity goals. In terms of collisions, high collision areas are seen in downtown areas, indicating that when selecting where to implement a shared micromobility system in a high‐density area, it is crucial to assess the relative safety of the roadway and determine what improvements may be warranted. When comparing both analyses, many high collision areas overlap with equity focus areas, indicating locations where communities could benefit the most from increased investment in bicycle infrastructure, including a possible shared micromobility system.
7 https://www.saferoutespartnership.org/sites/default/files/resource_files/at‐the‐intersection‐of‐active‐transportation‐and‐equity.pdf FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 21
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 22
/g40/g69/g88/g69/g4/g84/g86/g83/g90/g77/g72/g73/g72/g4/g70/g93/g4/g88/g76/g73/g4/g39/g19/g39/g37/g43/g4/g39/g83/g81/g84/g86/g73/g76/g73/g82/g87/g77/g90/g73/g4/g38/g77/g71/g93/g71/g80/g73/g4/g69/g82/g72/g4/g52/g73/g72/g73/g87/g88/g86/g77/g69/g82/g4/g52/g80/g69/g82/g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g16/g4 /g39/g69/g80/g88/g86/g69/g82/g87/g4/g55/g88/g69/g88/g73/g4/g44/g77/g75/g76/g91/g69/g93/g4/g50/g73/g88/g91/g83/g86/g79/g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g16/g4/g55/g88/g69/g88/g73/g91/g77/g72/g73/g4/g45/g82/g88/g73/g75/g86/g69/g88/g73/g72/g4/g56/g86/g69/g74/g74/g77/g71/g4/g54/g73/g71/g83/g86/g72/g87/g4 /g55/g93/g87/g88/g73/g81 /g4/g12/g22/g20/g21/g24/g17/g22/g20/g22/g20/g13/g4/g69/g82/g72/g4/g51/g84/g73/g82/g55/g88/g86/g73/g73/g88/g49/g69 /g84 /g4/g12/g22/g20/g22/g21/g13/g18/g4 FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 23
V. Vision & Goals
A vision statement will help guide the implementation of a shared micromobility program by providing a clear and inspirational statement about the desired program outcome. The proposed vision statement was developed in coordination with C/CAG and members of the ad hoc advisory group.
Vision Statement:
A shared micromobility program in San Mateo County will provide residents and visitors—including low‐income individuals, communities of color, persons with disabilities, and other historically marginalized communities—with an affordable, convenient, and sustainable transportation option that reduces vehicle miles travelled, connects communities to destinations across the County, and seamlessly integrates with transit.
Proposed Micromobility Program Goals and Objectives
In addition to the vision, the goals and objectives are fundamental to the success of the micromobility program in San Mateo County. The goals and objectives were developed based on stated County priorities and shared micromobility system best practices. They were then refined based on advisory group input and further analysis of existing conditions.
These goals and objectives will help guide and shape the planning of a micromobility program.
Proposed Overall Program Goals:
Replace Motor Vehicle Trips
Integrate with Transit
Ensure the Program Benefits Everyone
Enhance Mobility Options for Local Residents
Create a Cost‐Effective and Self‐Sustaining Program
Support Economic Development
Generate Positive Public Perception about the Program Support Tourism Opportunities
Performance Measures
The following indicators can be used to monitor and evaluate how the system is performing in relation to the program’s goals. The evaluation will help to identify where improvements may be made to support program goals and improve the system.
The indicators monitored for overall use will be tracked to establish a baseline for San Mateo County.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 24
Proposed Overall Program Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures Goal Objectives Indicators Data Collection
Replace Motor Vehicle Trips
A micromobility program can help
the County address climate
change and reduce greenhouse
gas emissions by providing a
cleaner alternative transportation
mode to single occupancy
vehicles.
Implement a program that connects to existing
or planned active transportation facilities.
Ensure that the program pricing structure and
coverage area is competitive with other
transportation modes.
Relieve congestion by promoting a mode shift for
short trips (1‐2 miles).
Provide easy access to micromobility for people
who may be interested in riding but do not have
access to a bicycle.
Develop a bike share system near connections to
transit that can serve as a replacement for motor
vehicle trips for longer distance trips.
Percent of car trips replaced Annual Survey
*Number of Trips per vehicle
per day
Provided by operator
Trip Duration – Daily Provided by operator
Number of trips to/from
each station – Daily/Monthly
Provided by operator
Miles Traveled – Monthly Provided by operator
Total trips taken – Annual Provided by operator
Integrate with Transit
Micromobility programs should
support public transit by
providing locations near bus and
rail stations where riders can
expect to find bike share stations
or devices with a degree or
reliability and predictability.
Increase connectivity to and from regional transit
including BART, WETA Ferry, Caltrain, and
SamTrans.
Improve the viability of transit by providing
access to shared bicycles as a first and last‐mile
option for transit riders.
Develop shared payment options for seamless
transactions between bike share and transit trips.
Trips to Transit – Number of
trips in proximity to Caltrain
stations, BART stations, and
SamTrans stops
Provided by operator
If technology allows:
Transfers between shared
micromobility and transit
using Clipper cards.
Provided by operator
Ensure the Program Benefits
Everyone
Develop a robust equity program that ensures
residents from all backgrounds can easily access
the system without any financial, accessibility,
technological, or language barriers to entry.
Trip starts/ends in equity
focus area
Provided by operator
Percentage of fleet
rebalanced to equity focus
areas
Provided by operator
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 25
Goal Objectives Indicators Data Collection
Micromobility programs should
serve residents of all
socioeconomic, disabilities, ages,
racial, and ethnic backgrounds.
Create a system that is affordable across income
levels.
Improve transportation access to jobs, schools,
and recreation.
Ensure the program improves access to
underserved communities by focusing on
geographic and economic equity.
Ridership by age, gender,
race, ethnicity, disability, and
income status
Annual Survey
Number of reduced income
memberships, if/when
available.
Provided by operator
Number of trips per
accessible vehicle per day
Provided by operator
Number of occurrences as
reported by the operator for
riding on sidewalk and in
prohibited areas
Provided by operator
Cash Payment Locations —
Monthly — A list of locations
currently accepting cash
payment for membership
Provided by operator
Cash Payment Members –
Monthly – Weekly – Three
Day – New and cumulative
members
Provided by operator
Sign‐Up Events — Monthly
— Details of in‐person sign‐
up events, including location,
duration, number of people
spoken to, number of people
signed up, sign‐ups by
membership type
Provided by managing
entity and/or operator
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 26
Goal Objectives Indicators Data Collection
Enhance Mobility Options for
Local Residents
Micromobility programs can
provide a reliable mobility option
for residents and commuters by
serving as a first‐and last‐mile
alternative.
Provide increased mobility between origins and
destinations in San Mateo County by providing
access to jobs, employment centers, and other
community destinations.
Partner with large employers to provide their
employees convenient access to the program.
Ensure that devices are always available near
transit and employment centers at peak hours.
User trip purpose
(recreation/for fun,
utilitarian/transportation
focus, weekend/weekday)
Annual Survey
San Mateo County resident
or visitor
Annual Survey
*Members by Membership
Type (e.g. Annual Members –
Monthly – Weekly – Three
Day) – New and cumulative
members
Provided by operator
*Station Performance –
Weekly – Rentals and returns
by station
Provided by operator
Create a Cost‐Effective and
Sustainable Program
Micromobility programs should
be cost‐effective regarding both
capital and operations costs. The
success of the system will allow
the program to be sustainable in
the long‐term.
Develop a successful program that will attract
attention and interest from businesses interested
in sponsorships.
Procure vendor/s that have successfully
deployed several programs in diverse geographic,
economic, and political regions.
*Station Performance –
Weekly – Rentals and returns
by station
Provided by operator
Monthly system revenue and
monthly system expenses
Provided by operator
*Number of Trips per vehicle
per day
Provided by operator
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 27
Goal Objectives Indicators Data Collection
Strategically phase the program and deploy
devices in high demand destinations that can
serve large number of riders before expanding to
include other locations.
Ensure allocation of public funds and securing
grant funding that is dedicated to supporting
equitable access to the program.
*Members by Membership
Type (e.g. Annual Members –
Monthly – Weekly – Three
Day) – New and cumulative
members
Provided by operator
*Casual Users – Daily – New
and cumulative members
Provided by operator
Amount of staff time (from
the managing entity) and
costs required to oversee
pilot
Provided by managing
entity
Support Economic Development
Micromobility programs should
support economic development
through improving convenience
and the user experience in
accessing recreational
destinations (such as business
districts).
Ensure that the micromobility program focuses
on connecting destinations, neighborhoods,
business districts.
Promote bike share as an amenity that can help
communities increase number of visitors/and
support tourism
Number of trips that
start/end within a
commercial area.
Provided by operator
Number of business
partnerships
Provided by operator
Number of agreements with
businesses/employers for
stations on private property.
Provided by operator
Station Performance near
businesses – Weekly –
Rentals and returns by
station
Provided by operator
Generate Positive Public
Perception about the Program
Value of service to
community
Annual Survey
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 28
Goal Objectives Indicators Data Collection
Positive public perception is
important for the overall success
of a micromobility program. Over
time, widespread usage of a
micromobility program will
generate positive public
perception through usage and
minimize negative feedback
about the system.
Ensure that the micromobility program is
sensitive to the local community context by
forming new and maintaining existing touch
points with the surrounding local community.
Promote the program by highlighting the safety,
recreational, and health benefits of
micromobility trips.
Ensure the program is a reflection of the
community’s interests in the program and
responsive to the community’s feedback as the
program as it’s implemented.
Perceived safety of system Annual Survey
User satisfaction with service Annual Survey
Public feedback on system –
Number of emails and calls
received
Provided by managing
entity or operator
Support Tourism Opportunities
Micromobility programs should
support tourism through
improving convenience and the
user experience in accessing
visitor destinations (such as the
beach, hotels, and restaurants).
Ensure that the program is easy to use for first
time riders.
Provide a connected program by strategically
placing devices in high demand visitor
destinations.
Partner with visitor destinations including hotels
and restaurants to offer their customers a
reliable and convenient way to get to and from
their establishments.
Trip volumes along corridors
with tourist destinations
Provided by operator
*Casual Users – Daily – New
and cumulative members
Provided by operator
Number of stations at tourist
destinations and/or number
of station agreements with
tourist‐related businesses
Provided by operator
Station Performance near
visitor destinations – Weekly
– Rentals and returns by
station
Provided by operator
*Indicator repeats for more than one goal.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 29
VI. Best Practices
Introduction
The following section summarizes best practices for a shared micromobility system in San Mateo County based on a review of relevant case studies. The section focuses on key considerations requested by C/CAG and the members of the Ad Hoc Advisory Group, and based upon Alta’s expertise.
The project team identified three peer systems for review, with a focus on regional or countywide systems that operate in or across multiple jurisdictions, which are the most applicable to a future system in San Mateo County.
The three systems are: Bay Wheels in the San Francisco Bay Area, ValleyBike Share in the Pioneer Valley region in Massachusetts, and Sacramento Regional Bike Share.
Peer System Comparison
Case Study #1: Bay Wheels
Location SF Bay Area, CA
San Francisco
San José
Oakland
Berkeley
Emeryville
Population8 San Francisco: 874,784
San José: 1,029,409
Oakland: 422,575
Berkeley: 123,065
Emeryville: 11,679
Owner/Operator Lyft (exclusi ve contract for bike share) Start of Service 2015
System Type Hybrid
Number of Stations/Hubs 550 stations
Number of Bikes 7,000+ bikes
8 American Community Survey (ACS) 2020 5-year estimates FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 30
Source: mtc.ca.gov
About the System
Bay Wheels is a regional bike share system, launched in 2015, serving the San Francisco Bay Area, including the Cities of San Francisco, San José, Oakland, Berkeley and Emeryville. The initial pilot, launched in 2013, included three jurisdictions along the Peninsula (Redwood City, Palo Alto and Mountain View) but these jurisdictions were not brought into the final coordinated system.
The system is a partnership between the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the five municipalities, and Lyft. The program offers discounted memberships for eligible low‐income individuals through its “Bike Share For All” program. In this program, eligible individuals can sign up for a one‐year pass for $5, and can pay $5/month after the initial one year. Lyft also allows cash payment and payment with a prepaid debit card.
The system is integrated with the regional transit card, Clipper, allowing registered members to unlock bikes using their card.
System Governance
The system is owned and operated by Motivate (a subsidiary of Lyft, acquired in 2018). MTC, the Bay Area’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has a Program Agreement with Lyft that outlines the broad requirements of the bike share program. The Program Agreement outlines requirements for the scope of services, key performance indicators (KPIs), liquidated damages, program area, program size, program expansion, maintenance, operations, advertising, sponsorship, revenue sharing, price schedules for memberships, marketing, website, security fund, indemnity, insurance, termination, default, employment, disputes, etc.
MTC, Lyft and the five participating member jurisdictions have a Coordination Agreement that outlines the detailed requirements of member jurisdictions’ coordination with Lyft. The Coordination Agreement outlines the details of a steering committee and member communities’ responsibilities regarding permitting, CEQA compliance, summary of local activities, and notifications to MTC.
San Francisco and San José also have their own agreements with Lyft regarding hybrid e‐bikes. The agreements are between each city and Lyft. The agreements outline clear requirements for Lyft to comply in order to deploy e‐ bikes. Details such as bicycle component requirements, fees, number of bikes, e‐bike‐specific KPIs, etc are specified.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 31
All entities are responsible for their own costs. This means that MTC and the local jurisdictions do not pay Lyft, and Lyft does not share revenues with the public agencies with the exceptions for fees related to e‐bikes.
Case Study #2: ValleyBike Share
Location Pioneer Valley, MA
Amherst
Easthampton
Holyoke
Northampton
South Hadley
Springfield
Chicopee
West Springfield
Population Amherst: 39,995
Easthampton: 15,930
Holyoke: 40,161
Northampton: 28,552
South Hadley: 17,715
Springfield: 153,677
Chicopee: 55,186
West Springfield: 28,527
Owner Shared ownership between p articipating communities (public ownership) Operator Bewegen Technologi es (exclusive contract)
Start of Service 2018
System Type Docked
Number of Stations/Hubs 74 Stations (20 more planned within 18 months) Number of Bikes 720 e‐bikes (will add about 190 more within 18 months) About the System
ValleyBike Share is a bike share system that currently serves University of Massachusetts and the communities of Amherst, Easthampton, Holyoke, Northampton, South Hadley, Springfield, West Springfield, and Chicopee, MA.
The system plans to expand to Westfield later in 2022. Interest in the system began in 2008, though planning in earnest did not begin until 2014 when Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) hired Alta to lead the Pioneer Valley Bike Share Feasibility Study. The system received $1.3 million from the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program in 2017, before launching in 2018 in five communities. In late 2018, a sixth community joined after receiving a Massachusetts Housing Choice grant. ValleyBike received a second CMAQ grant in 2019 to fund the system’s 2021 expansion, which added about 21 stations, 300 bicycles, and two new communities.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 32
ValleyBike has successfully created a bike share system that spans vastly different communities. Different populations served by the system include high‐income and low‐income communities, communities with large student populations, communities with large refugee populations, multilingual communities, and more. The system has worked to market the system to as many people as possible, including providing free low‐income and student memberships through a grant from the Community Foundation of Western Massachusetts. ValleyBike representatives attend local events such as farmers markets to promote the free memberships and assist with enrollment for unbanked people.
The system is made entirely of electric‐assist bicycles. Each of the bikes are equipped with horns, automatic front and back lights, a kickstand, a secondary lock for stops during the rental duration, seat height adjustments, and a front basket that holds up to 45 pounds.
System Governance
The bike share system consists of a contracted partnership between the University of Massachusetts, the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC), the City of Northampton and Bewegen Technologies. The City of Northampton is the lead community and Bewegen Technologies is the vendor.
The City of Northampton acts as the lead community for the ValleyBike Share initiative, which makes them responsible for grants, contracts, and multi‐community administration. Northampton estimates 0.4 Full‐Time Equivalent (FTE) staff time spent working on the ValleyBike Share system.
The participating cities are responsible for their own station locations, the ownership of equipment within their communities, and assisting in identifying and soliciting local sponsors. After the system expanded in 2021, the participating cities (besides Northampton) started to pitch in fees to help fund system administration. Each participating municipality/entity pays $4,056 plus $463 per station. The participating cities are responsible for supplying power to each station within their community, which is estimated to be $110 per station that uses an existing power service and $150 per station that requires a dedicated connection to the power grid.
An estimated $2 million has been spent to date on capital costs for the system, most of which has been covered by the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program. Concrete pads and electric supply for stations have been paid for by each participating municipality, with the help of some small grants.
Electric bicycles, docking stations, and wayfinding stations have mostly been funded by two CMAQ funding cycles, with a third to start in Fiscal Year 2023.
The vendor, Bewegen Technologies, develops and implements the system such as the hardware, software, operation, maintenance, marketing, sponsorship, and advertising. Bewegen keeps all user fees and sponsorship fees in return for no operating costs for the participating agencies/communities.
One financial challenge for the ValleyBike Share system is a lack of sponsors. User fee revenue is estimated to cover about 1/3 of the system costs, but more money from sponsorship fees is needed for long‐term sustainability of the system.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 33
Case Study #3: Sacramento Regional Bike Share
Location Sacramento, CA
West Sacramento, CA
Population Sacramento: 503,482
West Sacramento: 53,574
Owner/Operator Lime and other operators (non‐exclusive permit) Start of Service 2018
System Type Dockless
Number of Stations/Hubs 133
Number of Bikes 350
About the System
The Sacramento Regional Bike Share system currently serves the Cities of Sacramento and West Sacramento and is planning to expand to the City of Davis.
Here is a brief timeline of how the system has evolved over time:
2013: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) won a grant to launch a bike share system.
2015: SMAQMD handed over the management of the bike share grant and system to SACOG. 2016: SACOG, in partnership with the Cities of Sacramento, West Sacramento, and Davis, procured Social Bicycles (Sobi) to operate in the three municipalities. 2018: Uber (JUMP) purchased Sobi and SACOG launched an all‐electric assist bike share system. 2019: SACOG was JUMP’s second top market globally in terms of daily trips 2019: The City of West Sacramento and the City of Sacramento developed local ordinances to allow scooter operators. SACOG ran the regional bike share system with JUMP bikes across the three cities, and private e‐scooter companies began operating in Sacramento and West Sacramento. 2020: The COVID‐19 pandemic halted all shared micromobility operations. Lime took over the operations from Uber.
2021: SACOG, West Sacramento, and Sacramento entered into a revenue sharing agreement with Lime.
The City of Davis does not currently allow e‐scooters and is working with SACOG and Lime to develop a system. E‐scooter operators returned to West Sacramento and Sacramento. 2022: SACOG issued an RFP to help determine the future arrangement of the regional shared micromobility program.
System Governance
The Sacramento Regional Bike Share system consists of a program agreement between the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), the City of West Sacramento, the City of Sacramento, and Lime to operate shared bikes and scooters. In addition to Lime, three other privately owned and operated scooter vendors are currently permitted and operating in Sacramento and West Sacramento. Because the City of Davis doesn’t currently allow shared scooters, SACOG and Lime are currently working with the City of Davis to launch bike share in Davis.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 34
SACOG leads the system administration for the agreement with Lime. The City of Sacramento and City of West Sacramento oversee the other permitted scooter vendors. Lime and the scooter vendors own and operate the system. SACOG spends staff time—an estimated 0.2 FTE—administering the system, planning for system expansion, and planning for bike parking to supplement the system. All operational tasks and costs are covered by the vendors. Under the program agreement, the vendors must meet certain service level, equity, and data sharing requirements. A Bike Share Policy Steering Committee, consisting of staff from SACOG and representatives from the city partners, makes administrative decisions regarding the shared micromobility system.
While Lime owns their equipment, SACOG has spent roughly $1 million buying and installing the public bike racks meant for shared bike parking. The Cities of Sacramento and West Sacramento reinvest per trip fees from permitted scooter vendors on bike parking.
SACOG and Lime recently entered into a multi‐year revenue‐sharing agreement in which Lime receives a subsidy when ridership is low, and Lime provides funding to SACOG when ridership is high. For more information about the terms of this agreement, see the Appendix D. The revenue‐sharing agreement between SACOG and Lime is a short‐term agreement. SACOG spent roughly $75,000 on the revenue‐sharing agreement in 2021. SACOG is currently evaluating the system and considering options for a long‐term approach to shared micromobility in the region.
Source: mobilemarketingmagazine.com
VII. Recommendations
The following section provides a recommended approach to developing and implementing a regional shared micromobility program in San Mateo County. The proposed approach is based on technical findings from the study, as well as stakeholder input gained through meetings and presentations and one‐on‐one interviews with potential partners. C/CAG also conducted a public survey to gauge community interest and preferences related to shared micromobility. The survey was available from May 12, 2022 to June 17, 2022 and was promoted through C/CAG Board Members, Committee Members, Ad Hoc Advisory Group Members, City Council Members, the C/CAG website (link), and community partners (including the nonprofit Thrive, which publishes a newsletter).
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 35
Governance and Management
Governance and management refer to the administrative and contracting structure of a future micromobility program. The recommendations outlined in this section explore topics such as who is responsible for program oversight, how are decisions being made, and what is the recommended contracting and procurement model for the program.
Recommendations:
Establish a multi‐jurisdictional program with a single program manager responsible for procurement, contract management, and program oversight (with support from other organizations in specialized roles). The recommended program manager is C/CAG. Two other agencies in the region were identified as potential program mangers; however, because of C/CAG’s experience with contract administration and managing countywide programs, C/CAG was deemed best suited to play the role of program manager. Contract out to one or more private, third‐party operators. Individual jurisdictions could opt into the program with the flexibility to dictate certain operating requirements, such as no‐ride areas, speed limited areas, and restricted parking areas. Jurisdictions will retain the ability to fine the operator or impound vehicles in instances of violations. Ideally any day‐to‐day operational issues will be handled by the vendor with oversight from the program manager. Establish a governance committee composed of participating jurisdictions, the program manager and any other key stakeholders as needed. This body would be a venue to discuss program issues, share lessons learned, and resolve problems.
Establish a process for escalating complaints and issues, creating a clear chain of command for any operational issues and complaints. To reduce the burden on participating communities, most operational issues would be passed on to the program manager, who would work with the operator to resolve them.
Participating jurisdictions would still reserve the opportunity to escalate issues directly to the vendor if warranted.
Developing an effective governance/management model is essential to implementing a micromobility program in San Mateo County. The governance structure plays a large role in shaping a micromobility program, from determining how responsibilities are distributed among partners, to establishing a process for decision‐making and oversight.
There are a number of different ways that micromobility programs are organized, with several options for the governance of a program to be tailored to local circumstances. To help have a clearer sense of the region’s governance needs and capacities, the study team conducted one‐on‐one interviews with a wide array of regional partners including transit operators, cities, non‐profit organizations, regional agencies, and San Mateo County.
Input from those meetings, along with the body of existing work conducted in this study, allowed the team to refine and better define governance options for San Mateo County.
Based on discussions with stakeholders across the region as well as research on best practices in regional micromobility programs, this study envisions a multi‐jurisdictional micromobility program in San Mateo County where operations would be contracted out to one or more private, third‐party operators. Management and oversight responsibilities would be of a program manager, and individual jurisdictions could opt into the program and retain certain responsibilities and control over the program within their local jurisdictions. The recommended program manager is C/CAG. This study team recommended this model based on the factors discussed below.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 36
Key Considerations Shaping Governance Approach
In our conversations with regional stakeholders and market research, three key issues were identified that ultimately shaped the study team’s recommended governance approach. These three issues highlight the benefit of collective management of micromobility while also accommodating the needs of individual jurisdictions:
Reduce Barriers for Jurisdictions Interested in Implementing Micromobility As highlighted in the feedback gathered during the regional outreach process, it is important to eliminate or reduce the barriers jurisdictions face in implementing a micromobility program through its governance structure.
In the absence of a county‐wide approach to micromobility, responsibility for implementing micromobility falls solely on local governments, requiring them to wholly rely on their own resources, expertise, and staff capacity.
The status‐quo poses a barrier for county‐wide program implementation for three main reasons:
Duplication of Effort: Jurisdictions would be duplicating effort by developing their own micromobility regulations and procurement. A single entity could more efficiently manage a micromobility program that covers several jurisdictions.
Expertise Gap: Most jurisdictions in San Mateo County have never managed or regulated a micromobility system, and each relatively small jurisdiction’s micromobility program would find it challenging to hire and dedicate a staff person with the expertise needed to manage a program. Economies of Scale: Operators may be unwilling to operate a stand‐alone program in San Mateo County’s smaller communities. A single procurement could achieve a more lucrative deal with operators due to the greater size and scale.
A collective governance structure can help address these barriers to implementation by creating a program that communities can opt into. Shared management of a program would reduce the individual regulatory and oversight burden of each participating jurisdiction, and a multi‐jurisdictional system would provide a scale that could make the program more appealing to micromobility operators and allow for a stronger negotiating position with those vendors than would be possible individually.
Balance Local Control with Regional Coordination
The study team also gathered that local jurisdictions feel that there is a need to strike a balance between collective action on micromobility and preserving local control. Some aspects of local governments are going to be at the front lines of a micromobility system regardless of the governance model. For example, the public will likely naturally reach out to local government departments and elected officials to resolve issues. Local governments have a responsibility to the public and will need to have the ability to be responsive to complaints. There also is a recognition in a place as varied as San Mateo County that one‐size does not fit all. Communities might have specific concerns about where people ride or usage restrictions that need have the ability to be context‐sensitive.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 37
All these factors highlight a need for balancing issues of local control with the benefits of regional coordination.
Micromobility providers are not regulated by the State of California. This puts issues like the number of vehicles, requirements for locking devices, and other elements of micromobility services in the control of local jurisdictions.
Additionally, local jurisdictions control regulations such as parking regulation creation and enforcement, which are integral to micromobility operations. While micromobility would benefit from harmonized regulations and operating procedures across the cities and unincorporated areas of San Mateo County, such coordination will need to be voluntary and optional. The governance model needs to consider how to provide communities with the ability to respond to local complaints and the ability to customize regulations and operating requirements between jurisdictions, and local powers of enforcement over micromobility users and the operator. Additionally, the county‐wide program would benefit from providing a consensus‐developed template of local regulations that each local jurisdiction can adopt. More similar local regulations will allow a micromobility operator to incur less cost in meeting differing regulations and will allow users an easier to understand experience, which should support higher ridership.
Provide Customers a Seamless Journey
In the design of a micromobility program, best practices for a successful system include ensuring the system meets the needs of its users. A seamless customer experience that does not require multiple accounts, forms of payment, or different vehicles to complete a single trip can lead to higher ridership and wider system adoption.
Trips often do not neatly fit within jurisdictional boundaries and users would benefit from a standardized riding experience across San Mateo County. This means the ability to use the same vehicle or micromobility device across jurisdiction lines and a consistent user experience would serve users and increase the effectiveness of the program.
Governance plays a part in facilitating a seamless journey by ensuring the program functions predictably across jurisdiction boundaries. It is in the interest of all jurisdictions that riders in San Mateo County have a positive experience on micromobility; a negative experience on one micromobility system regardless of its jurisdiction will lower the likelihood of future micromobility trips that individual might take on any micromobility system.
Program Manager / Lead
Creating a multi‐jurisdictional micromobility program in San Mateo County will require identifying a program lead and champion. There are two general models for managing a multi‐jurisdictional system:
Local management with inter‐jurisdictional oversight and coordination: Participating jurisdictions opt into a regional program and have some governance decision‐making structure. In this model, local jurisdictions would manage most day‐to‐day responsibilities for operating the system, while major programmatic and regulatory decisions fall on the collective group. A good example of a decentralized system is Capital Bikeshare in the Washington, DC region. Each jurisdiction has its own contract with Motivate, the program operator, and a committee composed of representatives from each participating jurisdiction make collective decisions that could impact the system such as adopting new user pricing, acquisition of a title sponsor, or coordinating on bicycle replacement investments. An organization with countywide responsibilities like C/CAG could help convene jurisdictions and help run coordination activities. Alternatively, the program could rely solely on the participating jurisdictions to coordinate among one another.
Centralized management on behalf of jurisdictions: Centralized management of a system is where there is a designated entity that manages the program. Centralized management does not mean that individual jurisdictions do not have a voice in program management, just that one entity takes on a leadership role.
For example, in the Bay Area, the multi‐jurisdiction Bay Wheels program is managed by Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) with input from individual jurisdictions. Jurisdictions also retain autonomy to direct system implementation elements like station placement. As part of this model, FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 38
participating jurisdictions would have a say in how collective decisions are made and the manager would be responsible for convening an oversight group.
While either approach can work in a variety of contexts, the study team recommends a centrally managed program to best meet the needs of San Mateo County.
Benefit of a Single Program Manager
The study team recommends that San Mateo County pursue a system with a single program manager to contract and oversee the program. This recommendation is driven by several factors:
Simplicity: A single entity in charge of overseeing and managing the contract is a simpler approach than decentralized management of a program. Third party operators would have a primary point of contact and single point of responsibility.
Number and Size of Participating Jurisdictions: San Mateo County is comprised of over 20 jurisdictions ranging in size from just over 1,500 people in the Town of Colma to over 100,000 people in Daly City. A centralized management approach would reduce the burden placed on individual jurisdictions. While larger communities may have the staff capacity and expertise to play an active role in program management, smaller communities could effectively be excluded from a decentralized program in San Mateo County due to their size.
Local Champion: Among the jurisdictions in San Mateo County, there is no clear local program lead ready to act as a county‐wide champion. A single multi‐jurisdictional program manager could act as the champion, helping coordinate among the jurisdictions and reach joint decisions. Efficiencies of Scale with Centralized Management: A multi‐jurisdictional system under centralized management would enjoy greater efficiencies of scale compared to a decentralized program. Instead of dividing duplicative responsibilities across people in several jurisdictions, a single program manager could oversee the program. Centralized management could facilitate knowledge sharing and administrative efficiencies for the public members of the system, as well as provide a more economically attractive market for a private provider.
Greater Negotiating Power: A collective procurement run by a single program manager has greater negotiating leverage than a system composed of several independently negotiated contracts between jurisdictions and operators. A larger system is more appealing to operators and would likely garner a greater level of interest than a procurement at the local level. As such, the public partners and program manager would likely be able to include program requirements such as equity‐based membership subsidy and station placement, which may not be economically feasible in small, independent systems. Fundraising Benefits: A single program manager would likely be more effective at fundraising as compared to individual jurisdictions. The program manager could oversee multi‐jurisdictional grant applications, which could be more competitive than individual jurisdictions competing with one another for micromobility funding. A single program manager could also take a lead on private fundraising, including sponsorships and on‐system advertising, which would directly benefit from economies of scale.
Roles and Responsibilities
The roles and responsibilities of the program manager could vary based on the desires of participating jurisdictions and the collective needs of the system. Below is a matrix of primary and secondary responsibilities, with secondary responsibilities representing optional functions or functions that could be delegated to other organizations.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 39
Table 2. Matrix of Program Manager Responsibilities
Primary Responsibilities Secondary Responsibilities
Pre‐Procurement: Form regional micromobility
collective, develop mutually agreed upon operating
guidelines/principles and build out a regulatory
framework for micromobility.
Procurement: Develop and execute the
procurement of one or more program operators.
Coordination: Establish a forum for participating
jurisdictions and help participants come to collective
decisions.
Contract Management: Manage operator contracts
and serve as a centralized point‐of‐contact for the
vendor.
Manage Issues: Act as an interface between the
operator and jurisdictions if any operating issues
arise. Work with the operator to resolve issues.
Public Communication: Limited public engagement
related to the core function of program such as
attending public meetings at the behest of
jurisdictions, drafting press releases, and managing
press inquiries.
Program Monitoring and Data Management: Act as
a central repository for micromobility data and reply
to data requests from stakeholders. Support
reporting and program monitoring. Procure
monitoring software for system.
Marketing and Community Engagement: Lead
marketing and engagement or supplement work
being done by program operator. Range of functions
include equity‐focused community engagement
andintegration of micromobility into existing
transportation demand management (TDM)
activities.
System Planning: Support siting of micromobility
hubs (if applicable). Work with jurisdictions on
planning and implementing supporting
infrastructure.
Fundraising and Grant Management: Prepare grant
applications and manage received grants. Oversee
acquisition of sponsors and advertisers.
Based on the study team’s experience working with other communities, one full‐time equivalent (FTE) of staff resources is needed to manage all the listed primary responsibilities. These responsibilities could be held by one individual or distributed across multiple staff members. The resources needed for the secondary responsibilities will vary. Program monitoring and data management could be handled by the same staff FTE as the primary responsibilities, with specialized staff or contract support. Similarly, that FTE could manage some number of grant applications and grant awards with additional support from other staff or contracts.
Once the pilot period concludes, the program manager, in conjunction with participating jurisdictions, should prepare a pilot evaluation that provides guidance on the future of micromobility in San Mateo County. The evaluation should include an analysis of program performance as well as specific recommendations around how governance, program management, cost sharing, and revenue sharing can be adjusted based on lessons learned.
Additional details on a pilot program evaluation are included in the Evaluating Pilot Performance section.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 40
If the program elected to do additional marketing in‐house (e.g., creating a micromobility ambassador program, developing a TDM micromobility program), additional staff resources could be necessary. While the system as envisioned would not need extensive infrastructure planning, if the program manager was responsible for functions like station siting and the planning of support infrastructure (e.g., bike lanes, wayfinding), that would require support beyond the one FTE.
Types of Organizations
Several organizations could serve the role of program manager, including County‐wide agencies, independent authorities, or non‐profits with suitable mission alignment with micromobility. The lead organization should ideally have the following characteristics and know‐how:
Countywide scope with strong existing relationships with local jurisdictions. Ability to navigate local sensitivities and politics. Consensus‐building and facilitating inter‐jurisdictional communication. Procurement expertise and capacity.
Project and contract management expertise, including the capability to oversee a contract, manage additional subcontractors, and fulfill contract reporting requirements. Expertise in planning and data management, including the ability to work with micromobility datasets, or the ability to contract for that expertise.
Ability to effectively apply for and manage grants.
Ability to conduct field inspections and travel between participating jurisdictions easily.
San Mateo County has several possible candidates to take a leadership role such as C/CAG, SamTrans, and San Mateo County government. Commute.org is another organization that could play a supportive role in program management but may lack the capacity for procurement and contract management. Note that these organizations are identified solely based on a technical capacity and the study team has not received any commitment from an organization to lead program implementation. Any of these organizations may have valid reasons for not taking on a management role, from staff capacity constraints to a lack of suitable alignment with organizational mission and priorities.
Depending on the characteristics the selected lead organization as well as that organization’s capacity, a second regional entity could provide a supporting role in program management. For example one agency could manage the data and monitoring of the program, while another could be responsible for procurement, contract management, grant applications and management, and inter‐jurisdictional communication and consensus‐ building. Based upon the characteristics noted above, C/CAG is the preferred program manager. While other agencies in county have technical capacity, the study team concluded that given C/CAG’s countywide program scope, its proven ability to build consensus with partners across jurisdictional boundaries, and general support from its board on the program’s ability to reduce vehicle miles traveled, C/CAG should be the program manager.
Success in shared micromobility will depend on having a program that operates on a larger scale, and C/CAG has a strong record managing multi‐jurisdictional programs.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 41
Decision‐Making and Coordination
Governance Committee
The program should have a governance committee composed of staff from participating jurisdictions, the program manager and any other key stakeholders as needed. This body would be a venue to discuss program issues, share lessons learned, and resolve problems. In developing the pilot program, the program manager and participating jurisdictions will need to establish the basic framework for the governing body. For example, how is decision making power delegated among participants? Do decisions require consensus among all members or simply a majority vote? Do all participants have an equal say or are votes reflective of jurisdiction size or share of total micromobility fleet?
Process for Escalating Complaints and Issues
Micromobility programs will inevitably generate complaints or issues from the public, such as:
Loss of parking and other space in the public right‐of‐way for micromobility parking Improper parking of vehicles / blocking public right‐of‐way. Improper or unsafe usage of vehicles by users. While certain issues may require engaging the user, systematic solutions like revising no‐ride areas, speed restrictions, and parking locations may be able to address these problems.
Vehicle vandalism
The program manager and participating jurisdictions should establish a clear process for communicating and resolving complaints. Ideally the process of resolving operating issues is streamlined and efficient while reducing the burden placed on individual jurisdictions. In a micromobility program, complaints and issues may be directed to a variety of places: directly to the operator through the call center or app; to local staff; directly to the program manager; through a 3‐1‐1 system or similar public resource for non‐emergency calls; the police; or local elected officials. To help streamline communication, all issues should be forwarded to a single entity.
The study team recommends that all issues and complaints be directed to the selected private operator. The program manager should be provided a copy of complaints on a regular basis (ideally daily, with a weekly and monthly aggregate metric made available as well). The program manager should have access to a database to see how any complaints were resolved. If complaints are not resolved within a pre‐determined timeframe (e.g., 24‐ hours), the complaint should be sent directly the program manager for follow‐up and resolution with the operator.
If necessary, representatives from individual jurisdictions can be brought in to discuss problems.
The governance committee is another venue for any major issues to be discussed and resolved. Jurisdictions should have access to complaints being submitted to the system and a transparent understanding of the type, frequency, and resolution of complaints.
Local Responsibilities
While the goal of the proposed governance structure is to minimize the day‐to‐day administrative burden of the program on local jurisdictions, communities will likely want to retain some responsibilities and control over the system.
Jurisdictions help serve as the eyes and ears of the program manager. As mentioned in the previous section, jurisdiction officials will likely be the ones to receive any community complaints. Jurisdiction staff should have access to the same complaint and resolution information as the program manager to allow them to independently follow‐up on any complaints.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 42
Jurisdictions will likely want to retain some enforcement responsibilities, including the power to impound vehicles or charge fines and penalties to operators for breach of contract terms. Jurisdictions may elect to do their own system field inspections to supplant any field inspections done by the program manager.
Costs and Funding
Recommendations:
Procure through a competitive RFP a private operator responsible for self‐financing and operating the system.
Public costs would be limited to the cost of procurement, oversight, and contract management and could be partially recouped through a permit fee.
Opportunity to negotiate a program subsidy in return for operator guarantees such as the equity pricing program, caps on user fees, or certain geographic operating requirements.
This section outlines the costs and potential funding sources for micromobility in San Mateo County. The public cost of a program is heavily dependent on a program’s business model. For example, a community can implement a micromobility program for little cost if a private operator is willing to provide a system under a permit or RFP scheme. The only public costs of such a program are any resources needed for management and oversight. On the other extreme scale, some communities elect to fully own their micromobility program and finance capital equipment and operating costs themselves. These publicly owned programs may rely on a private vendor to run the program but will reimburse the vendor for the cost of operations. In both scenarios, the total cost of operating the program may be very similar but the net cost to the public will differ substantially. To maintain clarity, the study team has focused on the net cost to the public, in other words the operating costs borne by the public that are not otherwise covered by the operator or through program fees. This section outlines four cost scenarios to illustrate the range of program costs:
Scenario 1: No action
Scenario 2: Fully privately owned system with no public subsidy Scenario 3: Fully privately owned system with public subsidy Scenario 4: Publicly owned program
Costs by Micromobility Scenario
The public costs of creating a micromobility program will vary based on the program’s business model. To help illustrate this variability, the study team developed costs for four scenarios: No Action, Regional Program Oversight and Contract Management, Subsidized System, and Fully Publicly Owned System. Each scenario builds on the one(s) before it such that the costs of the Fully Publicly Owned System include the costs of a subsidized system, and the cost of a regional system with program oversite and contract management. While the four scenarios presented provide context to micromobility costs and revenues, the study team recommends San Mateo County implement one of two scenarios: Regional Program Oversight and Contract Management or a Subsidized System. These two scenarios are consistent with the recommendations laid out in the Governance and Management section above. For every scenario, the costs are estimated assuming the system will have 500 bicycles and limited infrastructure for parking locations/hubs. The cost of no action is largely theoretical and highlights the opportunity cost of not implementing a program. A summary of the scenarios is shown in Table 3.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 43
Table 3. Overview of program costs by scenario
Scenario Key Facts Approximate Annual
Subsidy
Approximate Capital
Costs
Scenario 1:
No Action
No associated capital costs
No associated operating costs
Leads to duplication of effort among
jurisdiction, small impact on reducing single‐
occupant vehicle (SOV) trips
Unknown (would
include
redundant staff
efforts in local
jurisdictions)
None
Scenario 2:
Regional
Program
Oversight
and Contract
Management
Minimal capital costs (about $2,500 per
parking location/docking station; $62,500 for
25 mobility hubs)
One FTE of resources to manage contract and
program oversite ($250,000)
Potential for modest revenues through
permit fees ($20 to $100 per vehicle per year;
$20,000 to $50,000, or $0.10 per trip) to
offset costs
Annual program evaluation ($50,000)
$200,000 ‐
$220,000 for
program
management and
oversight, net of
permit revenue.
$50,000 annually
per year for
program
evaluation
$62,500 up front
for
installation/const
ruction of hubs
Scenario 3:
Subsidized
System
Minimal capital costs (about $2,500 per
parking location/docking station)
One FTE of resources to manage contract and
program oversite
Subsidies of $100,000 annually to the vendor
to cover costs associated with operations and
maintenance of the program9
Potential for modest revenues through
permit fees ($20 to $100 per vehicle per year;
$20,000 to $50,000, or $0.10 per trip) to
offset costs
Annual program evaluation ($50,000)
$300,000 ‐
$320,000 for
program
management and
operator
subsidies, net of
permit revenue
$50,000 annually
for program
evaluation
$62,500 up front
for
installation/const
ruction of hubs
9Based on an assumed trip per vehicle per day of 1.0 and the operating subsidy paid by the program managing public entity to cover operating shortfalls and the added cost of contract requirements ($0.55 subsidy per vehicle * 500 vehicles * 365 days per year).
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 44
Scenario Key Facts Approximate Annual
Subsidy
Approximate Capital
Costs
Scenario 4:
Fully
Publicly
Owned
System
Major capital investment ($2,500 per vehicle
and $2,500 per parking location/docking
station, 50 locations)
One FTE of resources to manage contract and
program oversight plus operating fee with
vendor (about $200 per vehicle per month)
25 percent cost recovery from user fees.
Potential for additional revenue from
advertising, sponsorships, and local operating
support not counted.
Replacement of 20% of the fleet per year due
to state‐of‐good repair (e.g., end of life
replacement, theft, vandalism).
Annual program evaluation ($50,000)
$650,000
annually in
operating
($1,200,000
operating costs ‐
$550,000 revenue
from user fees)10
$50,000 annually
for program
evaluation
$250,000 in
annual state‐of‐
good repair costs
$1.6 million in
start‐up capital
costs
Plan Development
Recommendations:
Phase 1 Pilot Program
o The study team envisions that the pilot would run for one‐two years, with participating jurisdictions committing to stay within that program through the duration of the pilot. o Will cover one of 5 Potential Pilot Program Service Areas Where the service area covers multiple jurisdictions, the service area will be contiguous o 500 vehicles
o Approximately 3.75 square miles per service area
o 50 stations/hubs (if a docked or hybrid system is chosen) 1.6‐2.0 designated parking spots per bike
16 hubs per square mile in high density locations
System Expansion
o The pilot is an opportunity for the county to refine its micromobility management approach. At the end of the pilot period, the study team envisions the county would make recommendations for and adopt a revised program management structure that incorporates lessons learned from the pilot.
o The system should expand beyond the initial Phase 1 Pilot Program service area based upon factors such as ridership, funding, infrastructure, new indicators of demand, and political will/agency capacity.
o Following the pilot program, with the multijurisdictional contract in place, the program manager should work with the operator(s) to develop satellite programs at coastal communities, with consideration for alternate service models, such as reduced user fees and/or longer‐term lending.
10 Operating costs and revenues are estimated based on revenues for peer systems. This figure assumes one trip per vehicle per day for a system of 500 vehicles with average user revenues of $3.00 ($3.00 * 500 vehicles * 365 days per year). The operating cost figure assumes $200 per vehicle per month ($200 per vehicle per month * 500 vehicles * 12 months per year).
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 45
A shared micromobility system can be implemented in multiple phases, with an initial service area for system launch and subsequent system expansion. The service area is a designated boundary within which a shared micromobility system operates. The first phase of a shared micromobility system provides the opportunity for residents and visitors to get comfortable with small‐scale shared micromobility. This can help build support for bike and/or scooter share and bike infrastructure before the system expands to other neighborhoods and/or jurisdictions.
Based upon prior results and analysis—the Feasibility Analysis, Best Practices review, coordination with the Ad Hoc Advisory Group, and the program vision, goals, and objectives—the study team recommends two phases for the shared micromobility system in San Mateo County: the initial Pilot Phase and the expanded Countywide System.
Phase 1 Pilot Program Recommendations
Methodology for Identifying the Potential Pilot Program Service Areas This analysis aims to find potential areas in San Mateo County that are best suited for an initial shared micromobility pilot program. This analysis, consistent with the Feasibility Analysis, took into account characteristics that aim to address the program vision and goals and includes: equity focus areas, proximity to transit, proximity to barriers, and estimated micromobility demand. For more information about each of these factors see the Appendix A.
In addition to the characteristics used in the analysis, political support should be taken into consideration when choosing an area for the initial pilot program. (For a list of supportive jurisdictions–those that have a plan that supports shared micromobility either as a goal, objective, policy, or recommendation–see the Existing Conditions section in this report.)
A 30 acres hexagon grid, covering the whole county was associated to the characteristics in Error! Reference source not found.Table 4. Each hexagon approximates the typical walkshed of a micromobility station or hub. As previously mentioned, system type has not been chosen, however, the hexagon represents the distance one can reasonably expect a shared micromobility user to walk between a shared micromobility vehicle and their destination.11
Table 4. Pilot Study Characteristics and Scoring
Characteristic Method + Scoring of Association of Hexagon Weight Equity Focus Areas (EFA)12 Hexagon in EFA = 1
Hexagon not in EFA = 0
25%
Proximity to Transit13 Within ½ mile of commuter rail = 1 Within ¼ mile of high frequency transit = 0.5
15%
11 The goal of these hexagon grids is to score all general locations and enable average scores to show prioritization results by different geographies. The benefit of this unit of analysis is each area under study is equal in size, and has a uniform shape that is known to work well for spatial sampling.
12 Equity Focus Areas are consistent with the methodology used in the 2021 C/CAG San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
13 Commuter rail includes Caltrain and BART. High frequency transit includes buses with 15 minute headways.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 46
Characteristic Method + Scoring of Association of Hexagon Weight Proximity to Barriers Within 500ft of barrier = 0
Within ¼ mile of barrier = 0.5
More than ¼ mile away =1
10%
Demand Percentile Rank 50%
Once the hexagons were associated with each characteristic, an overall score was calculated for each hexagon using the weights shown in Error! Reference source not found. Table 4. These results are visualized in Map 7, which demonstrates the relative score of each hexagon. The potential pilot program services areas show the highest concentrations of high scoring hexagons.
Potential Pilot Program Service Areas
Map 7 shows the five top scoring locations for San Mateo County’s shared micromobility pilot program. This study recommends two of the five locations be selected for the pilot. The five potential service area locations are meant to guide decision‐making for an appropriate pilot program. Each location contains multiple jurisdictions, so the pilot can test out the proposed governance structure across jurisdiction boundaries. The chosen pilot program service area should have jurisdictional support from all jurisdictions within the pilot area. The potential pilot program service areas include:
1. Redwood City & North Fair Oaks: This potential pilot location covers areas of both Redwood City and North Fair Oaks. Within the areas are a number of restaurants and stores, a downtown district and medical facilities. Additionally, the area contains a Caltrain station, scored high in the demand analysis, and includes equity focus areas in both jurisdictions. See the approximate pilot service area below.
2. Daly City, Pacifica, South San Francisco, & San Bruno: This pilot area includes sections of four jurisdictions: Daly City, Pacifica, South San Francisco and San Bruno. This area contains equity focus areas, multiple commercial areas, Skyline College, and scored relatively high in the demand analysis.
3. Daly City, Broadmoor, & Colma: This pilot project area serves both Daly City, Broadmoor, and Colma.
This area includes the Daly City BART station, Colma BART station, many businesses along Mission Street, and scored high in the demand analysis. The majority of the area is an equity focus area. See the approximate pilot service area below.
4. South San Francisco & Unincorporated San Mateo County: Although this recommendation would only serve South San Francisco and a small portion of unincorporated San Mateo County, the number of businesses and relative scores of the hexagons in the area make it an appealing potential location.
This area has a Caltrain station, the many businesses in downtown South San Francisco, scored well in the demand analysis, and is an equity focus area.
5. Millbrae & Burlingame: This pilot area includes Millbrae and the northern border of Burlingame. This area has a Caltrain station, includes an Equity Focus area, many businesses along Broadway in Millbrae, and a medical center and businesses along Camino Real in Burlingame.
While Coastal communities in San Mateo County were not included as one of the five potential pilot program service areas, they should be considered as part of the program service area expansion. The results (Map 7 below) show areas along the coast that scored well—such as Half Moon Bay and Pacifica—but they are smaller areas that would not be well suited for a pilot program. See below for more information about recommended pilot program size, coverage, and station/hub density.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 47
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 48
Recommended Pilot Service Area for Redwood City & North Fair Oaks
Recommended Pilot Service Area for Daly City, Broadmoor, & Colma
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 49
Pilot Program Size and Coverage
Regardless of system equipment type, the minimum number of recommended shared micromobility vehicles for a for the chosen pilot program service area in San Mateo County is 500 vehicles. A system with less than 500 vehicles will not be able to cover multiple jurisdictions at an adequate density of vehicles (see vehicle density standards below). The pilot program service area should be contiguous when covering multiple jurisdictions. Gaps within the service area make it harder for users to navigate the systems and for operators to rebalance the system.
Stations and/or Hubs
Should the program include a docked or hybrid system type, the minimum number of recommended shared micromobility stations/hubs should be 50 stations/hubs. The following should be considered when determining the density of stations and/or hubs:
The industry standard for providing parking capacity for bike share ranges from 1.6‐2.0 designated parking spots per bike. A higher number of racks per bike reduces the likelihood of hubs reaching full capacity, which reduces out‐of‐hub parking and makes for a better and more reliable user experience. Within higher demand areas–such as downtowns–industry best practices suggest that bikes or bike hubs should be placed within a 3 to 5‐minute walking distance of one another, corresponding to approximately a quarter mile. This represents a hub density of roughly 16 hubs per square mile. For lower demand locations, the inclusion of the hybrid system with vehicles that can lock to a bike rack anywhere in the service area allows for hubs to be farther apart, as users will have the option to park at a rack near their destination. The project team recommends hubs in areas of higher demand have more vehicles and more racks, while hubs in areas of lower demand have fewer vehicles and fewer racks.
Service Area Expansion
Shared micromobility service expansion can be accomplished either as a single large‐scale system expansion or incremental installation of hubs as funds become available.
Conditions for system expansion
It is not necessary to expand all at once. The timing and size of the expansion should consider the following factors:
Ridership: High system ridership—over 1 trip per vehicle per day—may indicate the system is ready to expand.
Funding: Identifying additional funding from sponsorships, grants, or operational funding will be necessary to determine the timing and size of system expansions. Infrastructure: As new bike infrastructure is implemented, system expansions could be coordinated with the arrival of new facilities that provide safe connections for people riding micromobility devices. Space for shared micromobility can be included in the design of new infrastructure. For example, a bike share station could serve as a separation device in a protected bike lane, or a shared‐use path could include additional bike racks for parking micromobility vehicles. Additionally, planning for higher usage of bikeways may result in different engineering to accommodate more and a wider variety of users than if micromobility is not planned.
New Indicators of Demand: Shared micromobility system expansion could be implemented to respond to new development, changes in land use, or expansion of transit service. Political will/agency capacity: Above all, shared micromobility system expansion will depend upon the political will and the capacity of the managing agency and its public partners.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 50
Following the pilot program, with the multijurisdictional contract in place, the program manager should work with the operator(s) to develop satellite programs at coastal communities, with consideration for alternate service models, such as reduced user fees and/or longer‐term lending.
Areas for expansion should consider the following:
The other 3 potential pilot program service areas described above (Daly City, Pacifica, South San Francisco, & San Bruno; South San Francisco & Unincorporated San Mateo County; Millbrae & Burlingame)
Expansion to jurisdictions adjacent to the initial Phase 1 Pilot Program Other high‐scoring areas from the pilot analysis, such as:
o East Palo Alto / Menlo Park
o San Mateo / Foster City
o San Bruno / Millbrae / South San Francisco
Source: Alta Planning + Design
VIII. Program Guidelines
The following section provides detailed program recommendations and guidelines for implementing a regional shared micromobility pilot in San Mateo County. The guidelines build off the technical findings and recommendations developed for this study as well as stakeholder input gained through meetings and presentations with potential partners. The program guidelines are divided into the following sections:
Existing Micromobility Regulatory Framework: A review of state and local micromobility regulations that could impact the implementation of a program in San Mateo County Recommended Program Guidelines and Requirements: Outline of technical requirements and guidelines to be incorporated into a future request for proposals (RFP). This information is supplanted by examples of current practice across the Bay Area and elsewhere
Program Roll‐out and Expansion: Discussion of how a future micromobility pilot program could be expanded over time.
Mitigating Risk: Discussion of strategies to mitigate program risk.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 51
Additional details on recommended program guidelines and requirements are included in Error! Reference source not found.
Existing Micromobility Regulatory Framework
Today only the Cities of San Mateo and Redwood City have established micromobility ordinances in the county.
The Cities of Millbrae and Burlingame have program requirements identified through an RFP; in Fall of 2022 the Cities of Millbrae and Burlingame awarded a contract to Spin to operate a shared micromobility program. . After reviewing these existing documents, the only major point of conflict between these established regulations is that while all communities permit bikeshare (including e‐bikes), scooters are presently only permitted in Redwood City.
Other differences between regulations, such as minimum insurance requirements, could be easily reconciled through a new regional program.
Recommended Program Guidelines and Requirements
The wider study envisions that a regional micromobility program be established as a pilot, implemented through an RFP to select a vendor who would own and run a local program. This section outlines an inventory of recommended program guidelines and performance standard, which is summarized in Table 5. Discussion around each topic includes an overview of options, their pros and cons, examples form other jurisdictions, and specific recommendations for the pilot micromobility program in San Mateo County. For the full program guideline recommendations, see Appendix F.
Table 5: Summary of Program Guidelines
Topic Description
Types of Vehicles Permitted Recommended minimum technical requirements for micromobility vehicles, including for pedal‐assist e‐bikes and e‐scooters.
Rider Regulations Outlines rules for where micromobility vehicles are permitted to be operated based on existing state and local regulations.
Vehicle Parking Regulations Parking regulations with which vendor and riders must comply. Modeled closely on existing standards outlined in area micromobility ordinances Speed Limits Sets maximum electrically‐assisted speed for devices to 15 mph for scooters and 20 mph for bicycles
Age Restrictions Outlines state age restrictions for scooters and e‐bicycles. Ca lifornia vehicle code requires a driver’s license or permit to operate an e‐scooter; e‐bikes do not face the same restriction, but operators typically set a minimum age due to liability concerns.
Fleet Size Recommends initial fleet size of 500 vehicles, with specific minimum limits set systemwide and per operating jurisdiction.
Insurance and Indemnification
Requirements
Sample insurance and indemnification requirements taken from ot her local micromobility programs.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 52
Topic Description
Data Sharing and Frequency Describes when and how data is to be shared with the program ma nager, participating jurisdictions and the public. Includes language requiring adoption of existing data standards.
Contract Length Recommends a one‐ to two‐year pilot contract with renewal options.
Vehicle Maintenance and Inspection
Requirements
List of maintenance and inspection requirements to ensure system is in proper working order.
Rebalancing Requirements Defines rebalancing for the purpose of the RFP and outlines the types of information on rebalancing a respondent should provide in their proposal.
Geographic Coverage Proposes vehicle distribution requirements based on jurisdictio n boundaries and MTC Equity Priority Communities.
Customer Service and Complaint
Resolution Standards
Defines standards for customer service, including issue response time and complaint resolution.
Equity Programming User‐equity focused RFP requirements aimed at reducing barriers to use.
Enforcement Requirements Defines enforcement mechanism, including recommended operator security deposit, hourly impound fee, and mechanism to suspend operation s.
Program Fees Outlines recommended vendor fee structure and pricing.
User Fees Information on area micromobility prices and how an RFP can con sider proposed pricing in the total contract value proposition Subsidy and Revenue Sharing Information on how operating subsidies and revenue sharing could be incorporated into the program.
Program Rollout and Expansion
This section discusses the impact of a jurisdiction entering or leaving the program during the duration of the pilot and how that may affect the overall pilot system. The study team envisions that the pilot would run for one‐ to two years, with participating jurisdictions committing to stay within that program through the duration of the pilot. To provide the greatest flexibility, the program manager could enter into a one year contract with a private operator that includes an additional optional year. There is flexibility for the micromobility program to expand during the initial contract period. Expansion includes introducing micromobility into new jurisdictions and/or increasing the number of vehicles available within a pilot location. Expansion should only be considered if there is demand to warrant such expansion, and should not be undertaken if there are existing issues with operator performance. In addition, expansion may be impractical at the end of a contract period (e.g., in month 21 of a 24 month contract), as contract negotiation is a time and resource intensive process.
The pilot is an opportunity for the county to refine its micromobility management approach. At the end of the pilot period, the study team envisions the county would make recommendations for and adopt a revised program management structure that incorporates lessons learned from the pilot.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 53
Program Rollout and Expansion
The study team envisions that San Mateo County would implement a multi‐jurisdictional micromobility program initially as a pilot. The benefit of this approach is that a pilot allows the program manager and participating jurisdictions to tweak their procurement, program management, and governance structure in the face of changing real‐work circumstances. The pilot could also serve as a proof of concept for any jurisdictions that are interested yet hesitant to participate. Developing the program as a pilot does raise a few questions that this section seeks to answer:
1. How can jurisdictions join the program the program once it is established?
2. How can a jurisdiction exit the program? What implications does an exit have on the viability of the rest of the system?
3. How does San Mateo County evaluate the pilot program? Adding or Eliminating Jurisdictions from the Program
The study team envisions that the pilot program would last a minimum of one‐year, with the option to extend the agreement in 12‐month intervals. All participating jurisdictions should commit to remaining within the program for the entire one‐year period. At the end of the one‐year period, each participating jurisdiction can choose to remain within the program or exit the partnership. In the case that a jurisdiction leaves the program, it will be up to the remaining jurisdiction and operator to decide whether to execute a modified option year, initiate a new procurement, or halt the program.
While participating jurisdictions are expected to participate in the pilot for at least its one‐year minimum duration, they do reserve the right to suspend micromobility operations if the vendor fails to meet the contract terms and conditions.
Jurisdictions are invited to join the regional program as well. Similar to the scenario of a jurisdiction departing form the program, the program manager and operator will have to come to a joint agreement on whether the existing contract can be expanded to include a new jurisdiction. An operator may balk at operating in a new community based on its relative geographic isolation from the rest of the program, overall ridership potential, and financial performance of the existing pilot.
In the case of a jurisdiction joining or leaving the program, the following factors need to be considered:
Fleet Size and Distribution Requirements: Changing the geographic bounds of the system will impact the fleet size and distribution requirements. The program manager, governance committee, and operator will have to come to an agreement on updated fleet minimums, maximums, equity distribution requirements, and jurisdiction distribution requirements.
Local Operating Agreement: The study team envisions that each participating jurisdiction would have a local operating agreement that identifies no‐ride zones, no‐parking zones, slow‐zones, enforcement body with the right to impound vehicles, and local points of contact. Any new jurisdictions would need to prepare their own operating agreement with the support of the program manager. In the case of a jurisdiction leaving the program, the departure may trigger revisions to other local operating agreements (e.g., banning trips from certain routes linking to the adjoining community). Cost and Revenue Sharing: The change in the number of participating jurisdictions could impact how costs and revenue are allocated. Unless funded through an external source, participating jurisdictions would be required to cover any administrative costs or operating subsidy that remains after accounting for operator fees and revenue sharing. This could result in the cost per jurisdiction increasing as certain costs, notably administrative cost, do not grow or contract proportional to system size.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 54
Once a pilot is established, the program manager and governance committee may not be able to accommodate any requested changes to the regulatory or management structure of the program made by additional jurisdictions looking to join. The best opportunity to revise regulations, requirements, and the program government structure are at the conclusion of the pilot. Upon mutual agreement of partners and the operator, the program could introduce new jurisdictions or expand its service area during the pilot.
Contractual Relationships Between Participants
There are a wide array of ways that a system can be organized contractually in San Mateo County. The study team finds that in other communities, the contractual model is often driven by local policy and legal concerns that emerge during the program development phase of the project. The study team recommends that San Mateo County try to pursue as simple of a contractual model as possible to reduce contracting and legal complexity.
One solution is the following:
The vendor contract is between the operator and the program manager The program manager shall be responsible to a governance body composed of all participating jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction will have an agreement with the program manager outlining their program responsibilities and how decisions are to be made within the governance committee. (see Error! Reference source not found.)
The contract with the vendor will deputize jurisdictions with certain powers and responsibilities without requiring them to be party to the contract.
Evaluating Pilot Performance
Micromobility pilots are intended to be temporary and eventually San Mateo County will have to decide whether to transition its pilot to a more permanent program. Other communities have used their pilot program to refine their contracting and management strategies, incorporating lessons from pilot programs into future ordinances and procurements. Before concluding its pilot program, the program manager or partner organization should prepare a pilot evaluation that provides guidance on the future of micromobility in the county. Elements to consider in such an evaluation include:
1. How well did the micromobility program meet initial goals and objectives?
2. How did people utilize the service? Did the program help fill a mobility need in the community?
3. What were common complaints, shortcomings, or issues with the system? How could future procurements or regulations address these issues?
4. How well did the governance structure function? Did the pilot raise any concerns around the sustainability of the governance model, especially if the program were to expand to more jurisdictions?
5. Did program administrative needs and costs differ from expectations? What additional resources would need to be identified to effectively staff a larger multi‐jurisdictional system?
6. Did any issues arise from relying on a single operator in the pilot program? Is there a need to shift to a multi‐operator permit program?
7. Did the pilot raise any concerns around market or operator viability? Were any regulations or requirements found to be burdensome on the operator and threaten overall program viability? Did the market produce sufficient demand for the operator or would a future program require a subsidy to sustain operations?
8. How effective was the user fee structure at attracting and retaining ridership? Should a future contract take a more, less, or similarly proactive role in setting user fees/pricing?
9. How effective was the operator fee structure? Should a future program adjust the fees, including operating fees and security deposits.
10. How should enforcement policies be adjusted?
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 55
The pilot evaluation report should establish specific recommendations around how governance, program management, cost sharing, and revenue sharing can be adjusted based on lessons learned. San Mateo County could elect to replace the pilot with a second pilot to continue to refine management policies or establish a permanent program. For example, the City of Alexandria, Virginia established a Phase II pilot in 2020 that introduced several program revisions based on lessons learned from their Phase I micromobility pilot, which operated during 2019. At the end of 2021, the city adopted a permanent micromobility program.
Risk Mitigation
Any micromobility program faces risks. While it is impossible to eliminate all risk, there are strategies to help mitigate or lesson risk exposure for the program manager, participating jurisdictions, and the public. Some of the most common types of risk the program manager and participating jurisdictions are exposed to are:
Liability risk, which is addressed through insurance requirements that indemnify participating jurisdictions, their staff, and elected officials from legal liability. Operator exit, or the abrupt departure of a private operator from the market. Strategies to mitigate operate exit include conducting due diligence in the RFP process, charging damages or fines to operators for exiting before a contract ends, and contracting with multiple operators. Funding risk, including the loss of funding to support program administrative and (if applicable) subsidies.
Strategies to mitigate this risk include minimizing reliance on annual fund appropriations, diversifying the program’s funding sources, minimizing program costs, and establishing a program endowment.
Additional details on mitigating the risk of developing and administering a micromobility program are included in Error! Reference source not found..
Conclusion
The study team envisions that the pilot will be established through a competitive procurement process that will select one vendor to own and operate a micromobility program for a one to two years term, with additional optional years. The benefit of an RFP is that participating jurisdictions can evaluate bids from several vendors and select one that represents the best value proposition for the county. At the conclusion of the pilot, the study team envisions that San Mateo County will incorporate lessons learned from the pilot into a more permanent program.
The RFP would also be the vehicle to establish operating requirements. The recommended program guidelines represent a minimum scope of services that any RFP respondent would be required to meet. While the final operating requirements will be determined by the program’s governance committee, San Mateo County is fortunate to have a wide established body of practice to borrow from. Jurisdictions across the country, including Bay Area neighbors and even San Mateo County communities like Redwood City, have already established program requirements. The study team sought to recommend program requirements that conform with established practice elsewhere.
Even the best designed micromobility program faces unknowns and risks, from jurisdictions departing from the program, to funding shortfalls or vendor bankruptcy. To help address these concerns, the study team has provided a range of mitigation strategies for consideration.
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 56
The final recommendation of the study team is that any future micromobility program in San Mateo County should strive for simplicity where possible in its final program requirements. Even among Bay Area jurisdictions, the length and complexity of micromobility ordinances and regulations vary widely. Even the most complex regulations do not guarantee against negative program outcomes. A successful micromobility program is a partnership between the community and operator. As such, effective program regulations should be matched with a productive relationship between the program manager and operator. To ensure such a relationship, the program should seek out operators with a positive track record of performance. The program requirements should provide the operator predictability and the opportunity to generate sufficient revenue.
Next Steps
Immediate next steps for program implementation include the following:
Identify Program Manager
Define pilot program geography and establish the Governance Committee Establish Governance Committee bylaws, ILAs, and management processes Identify seed funding for program
Finalize program requirements and procure vendor
The table below identifies the estimated timeline for the steps mentioned above.
Table 6: Governance Committee and Procurement Process Timeline Timeline Description
Spring 2023 Recruitment of new shared micromobility staff Establish governance committee
Summer 2023 Adopt committee bylaws
Enter into a joint agreement between all participants Summer / Fall 2023 Secure funding to launch pilot program Release procurement documents to select operator
Winter 2023 Execute contract with operator
2024 – 2026 (2 Year Pilot) Launching shared micromobility services Meet regularly to discuss program management issues
Provide ongoing reporting
FINAL PLAN
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. C/CAG 57
Appendix A: Feasibility Memo
Appendix B: Plan & Policy Review
Appendix C: Vision / Goals / Performance Measures Memo
Appendix D: Best Practices Memo
Appendix E: Program Recommendations Memo
Appendix F: Program Guidelines & Regulatory Framework Memo
Item #5 - REVISED 10.26.22
Staff Report – 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program Page 1 of 4 Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brad Donohue, Public Works Director
Abdulkader Hashem, Senior Project Manager
VIA: Brian Dossey, City Manager
MEETING DATE: October 26, 2022
SUBJECT: Submittal of Application for 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program Funding Related to the Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following resolutions:
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF HILLSIDE BOULEVARD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PHASE II AND SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO THE
CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION THROUGH THE SAN MATEO COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (C/CAG) FOR THE 2022 LOCAL PARTNERSHIP COMPETETIVE PROGRAM FUNDING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, (Senate Bill [SB1], Beall Chapter 5, Status of 2017) created the Local Partnership Program (LPP). The objective of the Local Partnership Program is to provide funding to counties, districts and regional transportation agencies in which voters have approved fees, tolls, or taxes dedicated solely to transportation improvements or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees, dedicated solely to transportation improvements.
The City Council is being asked by Town staff to submit an application to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) through the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA)City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) for 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program, commit any necessary matching funds, and provide assurances to the TA C/CAG as necessary regarding the status and completion of the project.
The proposed resolution supports the Town’s application for $4,550,000 in the 2022 Local Partnership Program funds for the Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II (Project).
If the Town is awarded the requested LPP funds, the proposed resolution also commits
Item #5 - REVISED 10.26.22
Staff Report – 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program Page 2 of 4 Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II
$4,550,000 to the completion of the Project including the commitment of any matching funds needed for implementation.
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated cost of construction for the improvements to Hillside Boulevard Phase II is estimated to be in the range of $9,100,000. If the project is accepted for the LPP funds, the Town’s estimated funding plan for the construction of Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II will be as follows:
• 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program $4,550,000 • CIP Reserves (Local Match) $4,550,000
Estimated Project Total $9,100,000
If Town of Colma is awarded the $4,550,000 funds for the Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II, the Town’s required one-to-one local match will be $4,550,000, 50% of the total construction cost which is estimated to be $9,100,000.
BACKGROUND
The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, (Senate Bill [SB1], Beall Chapter 5, Status of 2017) created the Local Partnership Program. The objective of the Local Partnership Program is to provide funding to counties, districts and regional transportation agencies in which voters have approved fees, tolls, or taxes dedicated solely to transportation improvements or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees, dedicated solely to transportation improvements.
The Local Partnership Program continuously appropriates two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) annually to be allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to the eligible local or regional transportation agencies. The City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) is an eligible applicant for CTC Local Partnership Competitive Program funding.
The State of California Transportation Commission (CTC) issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Local Partnership Program (LPP) in September 2022. The Town of Colma is not an eligible applicant for LPP funds and is requesting the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) apply for funding on behalf of the Town of Colma.
The Town of Colma wishes to apply for LPP funds in response to the NOFA to provide [$4,550,000] in funding for the [$9,100,000] Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II to provide an element of safety and mobility for Pedestrian and Bicyclists to travel along the corridor.
Hillside Boulevard is a principal north-south arterial, spanning approximately 1.5 miles through the Town from Daly City border to the South San Francisco city limits. The roadway is a major connector for residents in Daly City, Colma, and South San Francisco linking Highway 101, local businesses and schools. It also provides a connection opportunity between Highway 280 and Highway 101.
Item #5 - REVISED 10.26.22
Staff Report – 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program Page 3 of 4 Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II
The Hillside Improvement project has been broken into two phases due to funding limitations.
Phase I, which is the northern section from Serramonte Boulevard north to Hoffman Street (Daly City Boarder) was completed in 2014. The proposed Hillside improvements, Phase II (600’ south of Serramonte Boulevard to Lawndale Boulevard) will continue with the precedence that was set in Phase I.
The proposed Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project involves implementation of several safety related improvements for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles along the corridor and promote multimodal transport. The anticipated improvements include adding a continuous sidewalk on the west side of the roadway, designated Class II bike lanes on both sides, ADA-compliant ramps, high visibility crosswalks with rapid flashing beacons, street lighting, signing, stripping and green streets infrastructure.
The Town has already completed the preliminary engineering design of Hillside Boulevard Phase II at 35% design level.
ANALYSIS
On September 14, 2022, Town submitted Hillside Boulevard project intake form (project information and cost) to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA).
The Hillside Boulevard project has been considered by TA and ranked third among other project nominations eligible for LPP funding in accordance with prioritization scores. Town has been selected by TA to develop a grant application for the potential project to be submitted by TA to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) on behalf of Colma along with their two nominated projects. Just today, staff was informed that C/CAG has met with all the other applicants that applied for consideration to be sponsored to apply for LPP. As it turns out, only one other jurisdiction is still interested in moving forward. The other agency actually scored lower than Colma in the TA’s intake process. For this reason, C/CAG has agreed that Colma would be sponsored by C/CAG and listed as their top priority submission.
The eligibility criteria for potential projects to be funded through Local Partnership Program (LPP) must meet the following goals and funding restrictions listed in 2022 LPP guidelines:
• Project is generally an improvement to the state highway system (congestion, safety, or operational), transit infrastructure or vehicle purchase, or local roadway multimodal/ complete streets improvements (safety, pedestrian/bicycle, or operational); • Project can only request construction funding and will be ready to start construction by December 30, 2025;
• Project must have required environmental clearance (CEQA and NEPA, if federalized) completed by program adoption date on June 28, 2023 (or latest December 28, 2023) and demonstrate that negative environmental and community impacts will be avoided or mitigated;
• Project can request $1-25 million for construction funding only and must be fully funded; and
• Project has secured minimum 1:1 matching funds (50% minimum match required).
The Town will apply for this grant program and submit an application, requesting funding $9,100,000 including 50% local match ($4,550,000) through the 2022 Local Partnership Item #5 - REVISED 10.26.22
Staff Report – 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program Page 4 of 4 Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II
Competitive Program funding for construction of Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II.
Council Adopted Values
The Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II is visionary , because it involves creating improvements for project that will provide safe, attractive, and sustainable paths of travel for those who walk and bike along Hillside Boulevard.
Sustainability Impact
The resolution in support of the Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II Funding Application to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) through the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) is consistent with the Town’s sustainability goals and Complete Streets Program goals.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could choose not to adopt the resolution. Doing so is not recommended as the opportunity to make the much-needed improvements of Hillside Boulevard, and to seek appropriate funding from CTC through TA C/CAG to that effect, is critical for the safety of pedestrian and bicyclists.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution No. 22-XX, Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II
Reso 2022-__, 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program for Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II Page 1 of 3 REVISED 10.26.22
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-__
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF COLMA
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF HILLSIDE BOULEVARD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PHASE II AND SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO THE
CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION THROUGH THE CITY/COUNTY
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTYSAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR THE 2022 LOCAL PARTNERSHIP COMPETITIVE
PROGRAM FUNDING
The City Council of the Town of Colma does resolve as follows:
1. Background
(a) The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, (Senate Bill [SB1], Beall Chapter 5, Status of 2017) created the Local Partnership Program.
(b) The objective of the Local Partnership Program is to provide funding to counties, districts and regional transportation agencies in which voters have approved fees, tolls , or taxes dedicated solely to transportation improvements or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees, dedicated solely to transportation improvements. (c) The Local Partnership Program continuously appropriates two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) annually to be allocated by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to the above-mentioned eligible local or regional transportation agencies. (d) The State of California Transportation Commission (CTC) issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Local Partnership Program (LPP) in September 2022; and (e) The Town of Colma wishes to apply for LPP funds in response to the NOFA to provide [$4,550,000] in funding for the [$9,100,000] Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II (Project) to provide an element of safety and mobility for Pedestrian and Bicyclists to travel along the corridor.
(f) The Town of Colma is not an eligible applicant for LPP funds and is requesting the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) apply for funding on behalf of the Town of Colma. (g) The TAC/CAG is an eligible applicant for LPP funds and TA and Town of Colma wish to cooperate on the submittal of the grant application to allow the Town of Colma to receive an award of LPP funds.
(h) If an award is received, the TAC/CAG will have no responsibility related to the delivery of the PROJECT or the use and expenditure of LPP funds.
(i) The Town of Colma will assume responsibility and accountability for the use and expenditure of program funds and compliance with all relevant federal and state laws, regulations, policies, and procedures.
Reso 2022-__, 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program for Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II Page 2 of 3
(j) The TAC/CAG will submit the LPP grant application on behalf of the Town of Colma and the TA’s Executive Director will sign a cover letter with the Town of Colma as required by the LPP guidelines.
(k) Projects funded from the Local Partnership Program will require at least a one -to-one match of private, local, federal, or state funds.
(l) The Town is seeking funding for the Project.
(m) A resolution is required for:
(i) Supporting the Project and application for [$4,550,000] in 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program for Project; and
(ii) Committing the Sponsor to the completion of the Project, including the commitment of matching funds in the amount of [$4,550,000] needed for implementation; and
(iii) Certifying that any funds awarded by the C/CAGTA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and
(iv) Authorizing the Sponsor's City Manager, or designee, to sign a funding agreement or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the TAC/CAG for the 2022 Local Partnership Program funding for the Project and to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution.
2. Approval and Authorization
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Town of Colma that the Town:
(a) Directs staff to submit a [$4,550,000] application to CTC, through the TA, for the 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program (LPP) for the Construction of Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II;
(b) Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute a MOU with the TAC/CAG; (c) Commits to the completing t he Project, including contributing [$4,550,000 ] of matching funds needed for Project implementation, if the requested LPP funds are awarded; (d) Certifies that any funds awarded by the CTC will be used to supplement existing funds for the Project, and will not replace existing funds or resources. (e) Authorizes the City Manager or designee, to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution.
(f) Will enter into an agreement with the State of California; Reso 2022-__, 2022 Local Partnership Competitive Program for Hillside Boulevard Improvement Project, Phase II Page 3 of 3
(g) Will assume all responsibility and accountability for the PROJECT and use and expenditure of LPP funds;
(h) Agrees to comply with all relevant federal and state laws, regulations, policies, procedures; and
(i) Agrees to comply with all LPP grant agreement and program requirements.
Certification of Adoption
I certify that the foregoing Resolution 2022--__ was duly adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on October 26, 2022 by the following vote:
Name Voting Present, Not Voting Absent
Aye No Abstain Not Participating
Helen Fisicaro, Mayor
Joanne F. del Rosario
John Irish Goodwin
Ken Gonzalez
Voting Tally
Dated ______________________ ___________________________________ Helen Fisicaro, Mayor
Attest: ____________________________
Caitlin Corley, City Clerk