San Clemente City Council
March 4, 2025

910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
Council Chambers
Mayor Knoblock
Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier
Councilmember Cabral
Councilmember Loeffler
Councilmember Wu
4:30 p.m. - Closed Session
5:30 p.m. - Business Meeting
*This agenda has been revised to remove an
item from New Business.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
Tuesday, March 4, 2025
City Council
Revised Regular Meeting Agenda

RULES FOR ADDRESSING COUNCIL
• Members of the public may address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City of San Clemente.
• If you wish to address Council, please complete one of the blue speaker cards located at the entrance to the Council Chambers and turn it in to the City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk. • Persons wishing to address Council concerning an agendized item will be invited to address Council during the time that Council is considering that particular agenda item.

Persons wishing to address Council concerning a non-agendized issue will be invited to address Council during the “Oral Communications” portion of the meeting. • When invited by the Mayor, please step to the podium, and if you wish, state your name and the City in which you reside, and make your presentation. Please limit your presentation to three minutes.

MISSION STATEMENT
The City of San Clemente, in partnership with the community we serve, will foster a tradition dedicated to:

Maintaining a safe, healthy atmosphere in which to live, work and play; Guiding development to ensure responsible growth while preserving and enhancing our village character, unique environment and natural amenities; Providing for the City’s long-term stability through promotion of economic vitality and diversity…
Resulting in a balanced community committed to protecting what is valued today while meeting tomorrow’s needs.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is the state law that requires the City to evaluate and document the potential environmental consequences of discretionary decision. (See, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000-21189.3; and the “CEQA Guidelines” at California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387). For each item that requires a CEQA determination by the City Council, there is a reference to that determination on this agenda, and more information regarding the CEQA analysis is included in the documents that accompany this agenda. To the extent that City staff determines that particular items are not subject to CEQA, there will be no indication of a CEQA action on this agenda.

1 City Council Revised Regular Meeting Agenda March 4, 2025

DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
Pursuant to Government Code § 84308, City Council Members are disqualified and not able to participate in any agenda item involving contracts (other than competitively bid, labor, or personal employment contracts), franchises, discretionary land use permits and other entitlements if the City Council Member received more than $250 in campaign contributions from the applicant or contractor, an agent of the applicant or contractor, or any financially interested participant who actively supports or opposes the City’s decision on the agenda item since January 1, 2023. Members of the City Council who have received, and applicants, contractors or their agents who have made, campaign contributions totaling more than $250 to a City Council Member since January 1, 2023, are required to disclose that fact for the official record of the subject proceedings. Disclosures must include the amount of the campaign contribution and identify the recipient City Council Member and may be made either in writing to the City Clerk before the agenda item or by verbal disclosure during consideration.

CLOSED SESSION (4:30 P.M.)
A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Discussion concerning real property transactions in compliance with Government Code section 54956.8 regarding:

Real Property Negotiations: APN 701-041-06, 701-041-52, 701-041-55,701-041-58, 701-041-59, 701-041-62, 701-043-07, 701-043-08, 701-043-09, and 701-341-02
Property: Properties located near the eastern terminus of Avenida Pico in the City of San Clemente
City Negotiators: Andy Hall, City Manager and Adam Atamian, Community Development Director
Negotiating Parties: Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency, Talega Associates, LLC, and Talega Maintenance Corporation
Under Negotiations: Terms
BUSINESS MEETING (5:30 P.M.)

CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION – Holland Davis, Calvary Chapel San Clemente

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

1. Special Presentations

2. Council Member Reports

3. Oral Communications (Part 1)
Members of the audience who wish to address Council on matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City of San Clemente, but not separately listed on the agenda, may do so during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. Speakers may address Council once during either Oral Communications Part 1 or Part 2. A total time limitation of 30 minutes is allocated for Oral Communications Part 1, with each speaker being allotted 3 minutes in which to give his or her presentation. Speaker order is determined by the order in which speaker cards are provided to the City Clerk or Deputy City Clerk at the meeting. Speakers that cannot be accommodated during Oral Communications Part 1 will be invited to address Council during Oral Communications Part 2, which

2 City Council Revised Regular Meeting Agenda March 4, 2025 appears on this agenda as Item No. 12. When invited by the Mayor, please step to the podium, and if you wish, state your name and the City in which you reside, and make your presentation. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, the City Council cannot act on items raised during public comment but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, request clarification or refer the item to staff.

4. Motion waiving reading in full of all Resolutions and Ordinances

5. Consideration of agendizing items requiring immediate action Per Government Code section 54954.2(b) and 54956.5. Any items agendized will be considered under New Business, unless otherwise determined by a majority vote of the City Council.

6. Closed Session Report - City Attorney

7. Staff Communications

8. Public Hearings
The Public Hearing process includes a staff presentation, a presentation by the applicant not to exceed ten (10) minutes, and public testimony (not to exceed three minutes per speaker). Following closure of the Public Hearing, the City Council will respond to questions raised during the hearing, discuss the issues, and act upon the matter by motion.
8A. CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CONSIDERATION OF A

RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING A DEPOSIT FEE FOR GOLF TEE TIME

BOOKINGS
A public hearing to consider the implementation of a booking deposit fee for the reservation of tee time at the San Clemente Municipal Golf Course. The proposed booking deposit fee of $10 per tee time aims to enhance reservation efficiency, reduce no-shows, and improve access for golfers seeking tee times. The deposit fee is proposed to be applied towards the total green fee at the time of golfer check-in with the Starter Office.

Staff Recommendation
Continue the public hearing to the Regular City Council Meeting of March 18, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.

3 City Council Revised Regular Meeting Agenda March 4, 2025

9. Unfinished Business
9A. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF $1.8 MILLION GRANT AWARD FOR CLEAN MOBILITY OPTIONS VOUCHER PILOT PROGRAM’S 2023 MOBILITY PROJECT VOUCHER, AUTHORIZING

EXECUTION OF THE MOBILITY PROJECT VOUCHER AGREEMENT AND

FINDING THE PROJECT STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-18, which will:

1. Find the Clean Mobility Options (CMO) Voucher Pilot Program statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Public Resources Code § 21080.25.

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Mobility Project Voucher Agreement (Agreement Number MP23W2A-16G).

3. Accept grant revenue from the Clean Mobility Options (CMO) Program Administrator in the amount of up to $1,800,000 for the San Clemente NEV Circulator Program for FY 2024/25 through 2029/30.

4. Direct staff to include the City total contribution of $534,000 to be included within the General Fund Budget for the final operational year of shuttle service within the FY2029 budget.

10. New Business
10A. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A LOCAL HAZARD

MITIGATION PLAN, AND UPDATE ON WILDFIRE MITIGATION ACTIONS (Agendized by Mayor Pro Tem Enmeier, with the support of Councilmember Loeffler and Mayor Knoblock, at the February 4, 2025 City Council meeting.) Staff Recommendation

1. Adopt Resolution No. 25-23 entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE AUTHORIZING THE
ADOPTION OF THE 2024 SAN CLEMENTE LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN.

2. Receive and file the Administrative Report dated March 4, 2025, and on file with the City Clerk, related to the Community Wildfire Protection Plan and Firewise USA Program.

4 City Council Revised Regular Meeting Agenda March 4, 2025 10B. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A DESIGN FOR

INSTALLATION OF A PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND, SIGNAGE,

MARKINGS, AND RED CURBS ON CAMINO MIRA COSTA NEAR MIRA

COSTA PARK AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. 25-24, which will:

1. Find the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1 (Existing Facilities, 14 CCR section 15301) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

2. Approve the design concepts as illustrated in Attachment 2, of the Administrative Report dated March 4, 2025, as follows:
a. Install pedestrian refuge islands in the painted median on Camino Mira Costa.
b. Signage to alert approaching drivers about the presence of pedestrian refuge islands and crossing pedestrians.
c. PED XING markings on both the vehicular and bike lanes leading up to the pedestrian refuge islands.
d. 30-foot red curb on both sides of Camino Mira Costa in front of Mira Costa Park.

3. Direct staff to complete project construction plans based on those design concepts, solicit construction bids, and return to City Council for consideration of award of a construction contract and the necessary code modification to create the new No Parking red curbs.

5 City Council Revised Regular Meeting Agenda March 4, 2025 10C. CITY MANAGER COMPENSATION REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF A

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH CITY MANAGER ANDY HALL

IMPLEMENTING AN EXECUTIVE LEVEL SALARY ADJUSTMENT
(Agendized by Mayor Knoblock, with the support of Councilmember Cabral at the February 18, 2025 City Council meeting.)
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction to staff, make an oral report summarizing the proposed action, and, if desired, consider Resolution No. 25-25 and the draft Second Amendment to the City Manager’s Employment Agreement and fill in the blanks with a salary for the City Manager in an amount specified by the City Council effective February 18, 2025.

11. Consent Calendar
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion without discussion unless Council or Staff requests removal of an item for separate discussion and action.

A. City Council Minutes
Staff Recommendation:
(1) APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 2025.
(2) APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18, 2025.

B. Commission/Committee Minutes
Staff Recommendation:

Receive and file the following:
(1) GOLF COURSE COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 7, 2024.
(2) BEACHES, PARKS AND RECREATION REGULAR MEETING OF
DECEMBER 17, 2024.
(3) PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF
JANUARY 28, 2025.
(4) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF
FEBRUARY 20, 2025.

6 City Council Revised Regular Meeting Agenda March 4, 2025 C. Warrant Register
(1) APPROVE WARRANT NOS.
602527 THROUGH 602657, PAID ON
2-14-25, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,381,170.76
TOTAL WARRANT REGISTER $1,381,170.76
Payroll Register
None.
11D. CONSIDERATION OF FOUR RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING FOUR

SUBMITTALS OF GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR COASTAL PROJECTS
Staff Recommendation

1. Adopt Resolution No. 25-26 entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA,

AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DIVISION OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS

FOR GRANT FUNDING UNDER THE PUBLIC BEACH RESTORATION ACT FOR THE USACE PROJECT STAGE 2 PED PHASE.

2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-27 entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA,

AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DIVISION OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS

FOR GRANT FUNDING UNDER THE BOAT LAUNCHING FACILITIES

GRANT PROGRAM TO ENABLE A COMPREHENSIVE REHABILITATION
PROJECT OF THE SAN CLEMENTE MUNICIPAL PIER.

3. Adopt Resolution No. 25-28 entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA,

AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DIVISION OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS

FOR GRANT FUNDING UNDER THE SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL
PROGRAM FOR THE PILOT SAND RETENTION PROJECT STUDY.

4. Adopt Resolution No. 25-29 entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA,

AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION FOR FUNDING TO CONDUCT A

BEACH ATTENDANCE AND FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE BEACH STUDY.

7 City Council Revised Regular Meeting Agenda March 4, 2025

12. Oral Communications (Part 2)
Members of the audience who wish to address Council on matters that are within the jurisdiction of the City of San Clemente, but not separately listed on the agenda, may do so during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting. When invited by the Mayor, please step to the podium, and if you wish, state your name and the City in which you reside, and make your presentation, not to exceed three minutes. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, the City Council cannot act on items raised during public comment but may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed, request clarification or refer the item to staff.

13. Future Agenda Items

14. Reports
A. Commissions and Committees
B. Council Subcommittee Updates
C. City Attorney
D. City Manager

15. Adjournment
The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled to take place on March 18, 2025.

Closed Session will begin at 4:30 p.m. and the Regular Business Meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. The meeting will take place in the Council Chambers, located at 910 Calle Negocio, 2nd Floor, San Clemente.

8 City Council Revised Regular Meeting Agenda March 4, 2025

CITY COUNCIL MEETING PROCEDURES

PRESENTATION OF WRITTEN MATERIALS TO COUNCIL
In order to ensure that Councilmembers have adequate time to consider written materials concerning agenda items, it is strongly recommended that such materials be submitted to the City Clerk by noon the date preceding the Council meeting.

MEETINGS RECORDED AND TELEVISED
City Council meetings are broadcast live and are replayed periodically on Cox Communications Local Access Channel 854. Meetings are also available for live-stream or post meeting viewing from the City’s website.

Meetings are also recorded via audio CD and/or DVD and retained as a City record in accordance with the City’s records retention schedule.

USE OF ELECTRONIC VISUAL AIDS BY PUBLIC AT MEETINGS
To allow staff adequate time to confirm software compatibility, individuals wishing to utilize electronic visual aids to supplement their oral presentations at the meeting, must submit the electronic files to the City Clerk by no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Only compatible electronic formats will be permitted to be used on City audio/visual computer equipment. Staff makes no guarantee that such material will be compatible, but will use its best efforts to accommodate the request.

LENGTH OF MEETINGS
At 11:00 p.m., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon at this meeting and will continue all other agenda items to a future meeting.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk at (949) 361-8200. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.

COMMUNICATION DEVICES
To minimize meeting distractions and sound system interference, please be sure all personal communication devices are turned off or on silent mode.

MEETING SCHEDULE
Regular Council Meetings are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month in the Council Chambers, located at 910 Calle Negocio, 2nd floor, San Clemente. Closed Session are considered at 5:00 p.m. and the Business Meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. Additional meetings of the City Council may be called as needed.

AGENDAS, ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL WRITTEN MATERIALS Agendas and Administrative Reports are available for review and/or copying at the City Clerk’s Department as soon as agendas are posted, by accessing the City’s website at www.san-clemente.org. An “Inspection Copy” of agenda materials is also located at the entrance to the Council Chambers during meetings for public review. All written material distributed to a majority of the Council after the original agenda packet was distributed is available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Department, located at 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, during normal business hours.

The City Clerk’s Department offers an agenda packet subscription service free of charge. If you wish to receive email copies of City Council agendas, which include hyperlinks to staff reports and other back-up material, register at http://san-clemente.org/enotification.

9 910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: March 4, 2025 Agenda Item: 8A.

Submitted By: Beaches, Parks and Recreation
Prepared By: Samantha Wylie, Beaches, Parks & Recreation Director Subject:
..titl e

CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING A DEPOSIT FEE FOR GOLF TEE TIME BOOKINGS ..body Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact associated with postponing the public hearing.

Summary:

Staff requires additional time to complete a thorough review of the proposed booking deposit structure, including finalizing a financial impact analysis and gathering additional community input. The postponement will allow for further evaluation and ensure that all relevant data and public feedback are presented to the City Council for an informed decision.

Additionally, the rescheduled hearing on March 18, 2025 will provide an opportunity to address any remaining procedural considerations before implementing the proposed fee.

Environmental Review/Analysis:

Continuing the hearing is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council continue the public hearing to the Regular City Council Meeting of March 18, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. ..end
Attachment:

None.

Notification:

Publication in San Clemente Times on February 13, 2025 and February 27, 2025. 10 910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org

AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 1
Meeting Date: March 4, 2025 Agenda Item: 9A.

Submitted By: Community Development
Prepared By: Jonathan Lightfoot, City Planner
Subject:
..titl e
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF $1.8 MILLION GRANT AWARD FOR CLEAN MOBILITY OPTIONS VOUCHER PILOT PROGRAM’S 2023

MOBILITY PROJECT VOUCHER, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE MOBILITY PROJECT

VOUCHER AGREEMENT AND FINDING THE PROJECT STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
..body
Fiscal Impact:

The City of San Clemente has been selected for a grant award of $1.8 Million to implement a pilot, clean-mobility project. The program funds three of four years for operations of a Clean Mobility Options (CMO) project. The San Clemente project proposes to utilize funds exclusively for the purchase of vehicles and their operation. The full operational costs for the first three years of the program are fully reimbursable; however, the City must cover the final year of service in the program (2029) at a cost of $534,000.

Summary:

On February 21, 2023, the City Council directed staff to prepare an application for the phase two CMO Voucher Pilot Program. Staff submitted the grant application in March of 2023, but the City’s application was not initially selected for participation. However, the Program Administrators were able to select additional awardees in 2024 and contacted staff to continue into the second phase of the application process. The CMO Administrator notified staff in December of 2024 of their intent to award the grant, which is also referred to as the Mobility Project Voucher (MPV).

The grant amount is for $1.8 Million and is intended to support a four-year pilot program for a new City trolley line from the Max Berg Park area to the San Clemente Business Park area. Before the City Council is Resolution 25-18 (Attachment 1) to approve the MPV Agreement (Agreement Number MP23W2A-16G), accept the grant funds and find the project statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

Background:

The CMO Voucher Pilot Program provides funding for community-driven mobility projects that increase residents’ access to key destinations by providing various clean transportation options.

Eligible applicants may apply, and receive funding, for electric car sharing, carpooling, regular bicycle and electric bicycle sharing, scooter-sharing, vanpools, innovative transit services, fixed route transit, and other clean mobility options that best suit their communities. All projects funded by CMO must directly benefit residents of a low-income community or a disadvantaged community (DAC). The project area must either be DAC as defined by SB 535, a low-income community or household as defined by Assembly Bill 1550 or Tribal land within DACs or lowincome communities. 11 Meeting Date: March 4, 2025 Agenda Item: 9A.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 2
Funds may be applied to a variety of eligible activities related to project planning and design, outreach and marketing, capital costs, operations and maintenance, and administration costs.

Program standards and project options include:
 Light-duty and medium-duty vehicles that are zero-emissions  Micromobility devices (e.g., bikes, e-bikes, scooters, tricycles, pedicabs, cargo bikes)  Level 2 and Level 3 EV charging systems
 Hydrogen refueling equipment
 Active transportation infrastructure, including docking stations, quick-build safety infrastructure in the public right-of-way, bike and scooter locking stations and storage  Subsidies for traditional public transit rides
 The Implementation Manual, in conjunction with the Guidelines and the corresponding Funding Plans, identifies the minimum requirements for implementing this program. The Implementation Manual, including any updates, is posted on the CMO website at www.cleanmobilityoptions.org.

In San Clemente, the AB 1550 Low-income Community geography that is eligible under this program is west of Interstate 5, south of Avenida Pico, and north of Avenida Valencia. The western boundary consists of the Pacific Ocean. The funds sought through the grant are to provide a new City trolley line with a service area that will extend from this area north to Avenida Pico, and east along Avenida Pico to provide connections to grocery, service, and employment opportunities. Potential beginning to end points are Max Berg Park to the Rancho San Clemente Business Park.

The proposed program utilizes grant funds to acquire electric vehicles that would circulate the route. The intent is for the new service to align with the City’s Trolley Program by aligning service hours to the extent possible, providing free rides and connections to existing Trolley stops. The first phase of the program will include outreach and engagement with the community in early 2025. Staff can recommend changes to the vehicle type or route to the Program Administrator as a result of this outreach. The second phase would include procurement of vehicles and securing a contract for driver services. This could include an amendment to or new contract with LAZ Parking, Inc. which currently operates the City’s trolley program. The lead time for new vehicle delivery is typically 6-12 months, so staff anticipates launching the new route by summer of 2026.

At the conclusion of the grant term, the City is not obligated to continue providing the service.

However, the CMO program strongly emphasizes planning for sustainability. The City will have a head start in this regard by purchasing the vehicles up front as opposed to entering into a turnkey service agreement. The City has discretion to continue, discontinue, or modify the service route or type beyond 2029.

Council Options:
 Approve Resolution No. 25-18, authorizing the City Manager to execute the Mobility Project Voucher Agreement (Agreement Number MP23W2A-16G), accepting the grant funding and finding the project statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 12 Meeting Date: March 4, 2025 Agenda Item: 9A.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 3
 Continue the item and direct staff to provide additional information. However, the City must execute the Voucher Agreement by May 31, 2025, following the Clean Mobility Options (CMO) Implementation Manual guidelines to remain eligible for the funding.  Do not approve the attached Resolution No. 25-18. This will result in the City not executing the Mobility Project Voucher Agreement and not accepting the grants funds to establish a new City trolley line from the Max Berg Park area to the Rancho San Clemente Business Park.

This option will also not require the City to contribute $534,000 in program costs during FY 2029, which are not covered by the grant.

Environmental Review/Analysis:

The City of San Clemente’s proposed project under the Clean Mobility Options (CMO) Voucher Pilot Program is statutorily exempt from CEQA under California Public Resources Code § 21080.25 because it involves a new transit service on existing public right of way within an urbanized area.

Recommended Actions:

Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution No. 25-18, which would:

1. Find the Clean Mobility Options (CMO) Voucher Pilot Program statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to California Public Resources Code § 21080.25;

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Mobility Project Voucher Agreement (Agreement Number MP23W2A-16G);

3. Accept grant revenue from the CMO Program Administrator in the amount of up to $1,800,000 for the San Clemente NEV Circulator Program for FY 2024/25 through 2029/30; and

4. Direct staff to include the City total contribution of $534,000 to be included within the General Fund Budget for the final operational year of shuttle service within the FY2029 budget. ..end
Attachment:

1. Resolution 25-18

2. Mobility Project Voucher Agreement (Agreement Number MP23W2A-16G), with Exhibits:
a. Notice of Intent to Award
b. Scope of Work
c. Community Resource Contributions
d. Phase 1 Application Submission and Attachments (Original) e. Phase 2 Application Submission and Attachments (Original) f. Approved Resolution (see Attachment 1)
g. Conflict of Interest Declaration
h. Confidentiality Agreement
i. Payment Request Form
j. Implementation Manual for the Clean Mobility Options Voucher Pilot Program 13 Meeting Date: March 4, 2025 Agenda Item: 9A.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE 4
Notification:

None.
14 Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 25-18

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING
ACCEPTANCE OF $1.8 MILLION GRANT AWARD FOR
CLEAN MOBILITY OPTIONS VOUCHER PILOT PROGRAM’S
2023 MOBILITY PROJECT VOUCHER, AUTHORIZING

EXECUTION OF THE MOBILITY PROJECT VOUCHER

AGREEMENT AND FINDING THE PROJECT STATUTORILY

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT UNDER CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES
CODE § 21080.25
WHEREAS, the Clean Mobility Options Voucher Pilot Program (Clean Mobility Voucher Pilot Program or “CMO”) provides funding for community-driven mobility projects that increase residents’ access to key destinations by providing various clean transportation options; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of San Clemente directed City staff to apply for a grant under the CMO Voucher Pilot Program’s 2023 Mobility Project Voucher (“MPV”); and
WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente, qualifies as a voucher applicant per the Implementation Manual for the Clean Mobility Options (hereinafter “CMO”) Voucher Program (hereinafter “Program”); and
WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente, as Lead Applicant, submitted a Mobility Project Voucher Application on March 1, 2023, for the Clean Mobility Options Voucher Pilot Program (“CMO”), which application was for the procurement of light or medium duty battery electric vehicles to serve local mobility needs for the AB 1550 Low-income Communities west of Interstate 5, south of Avenida Pico, and north of Avenida Valencia; and WHEREAS, CALSTART, as the CMO Program Administrator, desires to contract with City of San Clemente for, and City of San Clemente desires to provide mobility services described in its application for the CMO MPV; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente is eligible to receive funding through CMO, a statewide initiative funded by California Climate Investments and California Energy Commission Clean Transportation Program Investments, and administered by California Air Resource Board’s Program Administrator team to provide funding for zero-emission shared mobility options to under-resourced communities in California; and WHEREAS, the City of San Clemente will comply with the requirements of the program and will accept the CMO voucher funds.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Clemente does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows:
15 Resolution No. 25-18 Page 2
Section 1. That based on the record as a whole, the project is hereby determined to be statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under California Public Resources Code § 21080.25 because it involves a new transit service on existing public right of way within an urbanized area.

Section 2. That the grant revenue from the CMO Program Administrator in the amount of up to $1,800,000 is hereby accepted for the San Clemente NEV Circulator Program for FY 2024/25 through 2029/30.

Section 3. That the City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized and directed to execute Agreement Number MP23W2A-11G in a form substantially similar to that presented to the City Council on March 4, 2025, including the approval of CMO voucher funds, reiterate CMO program commitment and compliance with CMO program requirements, and deliver them to the CMO Program Administrator Team.

Section 4. That City staff is authorized and directed execute such other documents and take such other and further actions as may be necessary and proper to implement the CMO Project as indicated within Agreement Number MP23W2A-11G and accomplish the purposes of this resolution.

Section 5. That the City Council directs staff to include the City’s total contribution of $534,000 under Agreement Number MP23W2A-11G to be included within the General Fund Budget for the final operational year of shuttle service within the FY2029 budget.

Section 6. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________________, _______.

ATTEST:
___________________________ __________________________
City Clerk of the City of Mayor of the City of San
San Clemente, California Clemente, California
16 Resolution No. 25-18 Page 3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE )
I, LAURA CAMPAGNOLO, City Clerk of the City of San Clemente, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 25-18 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Clemente held on the _______ day of _______________________, _________, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Clemente, California, this _____ day of _________________, ________. __________________________
CITY CLERK of the City of
San Clemente, California
Approved as to form:
____________________________
Elizabeth A. Mitchell, City Attorney
17 This Sample Voucher Agreement can only be modified by the Project Administrator after review and approval by CARB. An actual Voucher Agreement will align with a project’s scope, timeline, budget, and other details. Note, however, that the language in this Sample Voucher Agreement is not negotiable and shall not be modified or proposed to be modified by any applicant, including but not limited to the language in sections Oversight and Accountability and General Provisions.

MOBILITY PROJECT VOUCHER AGREEMENT
Template for General Awardees
(Agreement Number MP23W2A-16G)
FOR
City of San Clemente
FOR
Voucher Program
Attachment 2
18 Table of Contents

1. Complete Agreement......................................................................................................................... 2

2. Voucher Acknowledgement.............................................................................................................. 3

3. Voucher Summary and Contact Information.................................................................................. 3

4. Agreement Term ................................................................................................................................ 3

5. Performance and Reporting Requirements.................................................................................... 3

6. General Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 4

7. Motor Vehicles and Micromobility Devices .................................................................................... 5

8. Infrastructure...................................................................................................................................... 6

9. Planning, Operations, and Maintenance......................................................................................... 8

10. Outreach, Communication, and Participation................................................................................ 8

11. Budget and Voucher Payments ..................................................................................................... 10

12. Suspension of Payments and Early Agreement Termination .................................................... 13

13. Oversight and Accountability......................................................................................................... 13

14. Modification to Agreement ............................................................................................................. 14

15. Change of Business ........................................................................................................................ 14

16. Notices and Contract Representatives ......................................................................................... 15

17. Insurance Requirements................................................................................................................. 15

18. Representations and Certifications............................................................................................... 16

19. Confidentiality and Data Security .................................................................................................. 16

20. General Provisions .......................................................................................................................... 19

21. Entire Contract................................................................................................................................. 33

22. Authority ........................................................................................................................................... 33 Exhibits
A Notice of Intent to Award
B Scope of Work
C Community Resource Contributions
D Phase 1 Application Submission and Attachments (Original) E Phase 2 Application Submission and Attachments (Original) F Approved Resolution
G Conflict of Interest Declaration
H Confidentiality Agreement
I Payment Request Form
J Implementation Manual for the Clean Mobility Options Voucher Pilot Program K Recordkeeping and Reliability Standards for Electric Vehicle Chargers and Charging Stations (if applicable)
19 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
1 Clean Mobility Options Voucher Program
Mobility Project Voucher
Voucher Agreement
MP23W2A-16G
This Voucher Agreement (hereinafter, “Agreement”) is made and entered between the CALSTART, Inc., whose principal place of business is 48 S. Chester Avenue, Pasadena, California 91106, hereinafter referred to as "Program Administrator" and City of San Clemente whose principal place of business is 910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, CA 92673, hereinafter referred to as “Awardee”. Program Administrator and Awardee are at times collectively referred to herein as “Parties.”
Recitals
WHEREAS, on 04/01/2019 CALSTART executed grant agreement G17-CMDC01 with the State of California, California Air Resources Board (hereinafter “CARB”).

WHEREAS, CALSTART is a non-profit, public benefit corporation seeking to create quality jobs, support clean air initiatives, enhance the quality of life, especially in disadvantaged communities, and improve America’s global competitiveness through the establishment of an advanced clean transportation industry.

WHEREAS, City of San Clemente, qualifies as a voucher applicant per the Implementation Manual for the Clean Mobility Options (hereinafter “CMO”) Voucher Program (hereinafter, “Program”).

WHEREAS, CALSTART desires to contract with City of San Clemente for, and City of San Clemente desires to provide the services described in the Scope of Work, attached as Exhibit B, and made a part of this Agreement by reference; and, WHEREAS, City of San Clemente represents that it is willing and able to perform the activities set forth herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, based on their mutual promises, covenants, and conditions contained herein and other good and valuable consideration detailed below, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
20 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
2 CLEAN MOBILITY OPTIONS (CMO) VOUCHER PROGRAM TERMS

1. Complete Agreement
The Complete Agreement between the parties shall consist of the following parts:
• Voucher Agreement (this document)
• Exhibit A: Notice of Intent to Award
• Exhibit B: Scope of Work
• Exhibit C: Community Resource Contributions
• Exhibit D: Phase 1 Application Submission and Attachments (Original) • Exhibit E: Phase 2 Application Submission and Attachments (Original) • Exhibit F: Approved Resolution
• Exhibit G: Conflict of Interest Declaration
• Exhibit H: Confidentiality Statement
• Exhibit I: Payment Request Form
• Exhibit J: Implementation Manual for the Clean Mobility Options Pilot Voucher Program • Exhibit K: Recordkeeping and Reliability Standards for Electric Vehicle Chargers and Charging Stations
Collectively this document, the exhibits and the documents incorporated by reference constitute the complete agreement between the parties.

The Awardee understands the Agreement terms are non-negotiable and agree to abide by all requirements, terms, and conditions of the CMO Voucher Program, which are contained in the Implementation Manual for the Clean Mobility Operations Voucher Pilot Program currently in effect, referred to as Exhibit J in this Agreement, which can also be obtained on the Internet at https://cleanmobilityoptions.org/implementation-manual/. Any subsequent changes or updates to the CMO Implementation Manual constitute part of this agreement and are incorporated in full into this Agreement by reference.

Order of Preference: In the event of any conflict in the Agreement documents, the following shall take precedence:
1) This document, titled “Voucher Agreement”, and future amendments thereto; 2) Exhibit B, Scope of Work;
3) Exhibit D: Phase 1 Application Submission and Attachments (Original); 4) Exhibit E: Phase 2 Application Submission and Attachments (Original); and, 5) Other exhibits to this Agreement.

Under no circumstances shall the Awardee's final plans and specifications relieve the Awardees of any requirement contained in the Agreement unless the Program Administrator has expressly agreed, in writing, to waive the requirement. 21 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
3 2. Voucher Acknowledgement
This Agreement is funded in whole or in part by a California Air Resources Board (CARB) grant to the Program Administrator under the California Climate Investment (hereinafter “CCI”) program and by the California Energy Commission’s (hereinafter “CEC”) Clean Transportation Program. As such, the Awardee and its sub-Awardees shall fully comply with all applicable grant rules, regulations, and requirements outlined in this Agreement.

3. Voucher Summary and Contact Information
Project Title: San Clemente NEV Shuttles
Total Funding: $1,800,000
Project Lead (Awardee): City of San Clemente
Main Contact: Fatana (“Tana”) Temory
Contact Title: Management Analyst
Address: 910 Calle Negocio
City, State, Zip San Clemente, CA 92673
Contact Telephone: (949) 361-6115
Authorized Official: Andy Hall
Authorized Official Title: City Manager

4. Agreement Term
The Term of this Agreement shall commence the date this Agreement is executed by authorized representatives of both Parties (the “Effective Date”) and shall end (the “End Date”) five (5) years from the Effective Date unless sooner terminated as provided for in Article 20(x) herein or amended by mutual written agreement of both Parties. The Awardee’s performance of work or other expenses billable under this Agreement may not commence until after full execution of this Agreement by authorized representatives of both Parties.

The period of performance includes up to 15 months for project design, planning and construction (Planning and Construction Period), and a minimum of four (4) years of service operation (Project Operation Period). Clean mobility projects funded by this program must be fully operating for at least four (4) years.

5. Performance and Reporting Requirements
A. The Awardee agrees to collect the project data and report to the Program Administrator at least quarterly throughout the 5-year Agreement Term as specified in the Exhibit J.

B. The Awardee agrees to submit an end-of-agreement Final Report within 30 calendar days before the End Date or the project completion date, whichever comes first, pursuant to the Implementation Manual.
22 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
4 C. The Program Administrator reserves the right to review, comment, and request changes to any report produced as a result of this Agreement and the Awardee agrees to make the changes requested.

D. The Awardee agrees to collect, monitor, and report required project data, including but not limited to, vehicle, bicycle, and other Clean Mobility Options’ specifications, performance, operation, and maintenance data, as specified in Exhibit J. The Awardee agrees to coordinate with the Program Administrator to provide this data and administer surveys to participants to collect usage data and other information during the Agreement Term.

E. The Awardee warrants that it will exercise due care and diligence in the performance of work, and the work shall be fully and finally completed in accordance with this Agreement subject to the Program Administrator's final approval, which the Program Administrator will not unreasonably withhold. Any costs incurred due to the failure to meet the foregoing standard or correct otherwise defective work that requires re-performance of the work, as directed by the Program Administrator, shall be the responsibility of the Awardee and not the Program Administrator. In the event the Awardee fails to perform in accordance with the above standard:
a) The Awardee will re-perform, at its own expense, any task which was not performed to the reasonable satisfaction of the Program Administrator. Any work re-performed pursuant to this Clause shall be completed within the time limitations originally set forth for the specific task involved. The Awardee must meet the task deadline at no additional cost to the Program Administrator.
b) The Program Administrator may, at its own discretion, provide a new schedule for the reperformance of any task pursuant to this paragraph in the event the re-performance of a task within the original time limitations is not feasible.

F. The Program Administrator has the option to direct the Awardee not to re-perform any task which was not performed to the reasonable satisfaction of the Program Administrator pursuant to (a) and (b) above. In the event the Program Administrator directs the Awardee not to re-perform a task, the Program Administrator and the Awardee shall negotiate a reasonable settlement for satisfactory work performed. Any previous payments made by the Program Administrator shall not be considered a waiver of the Program Administrator’s right to reimbursement.

6. General Requirements
A. The Awardee agrees to ensure that all partners and subcontractors agree to all provisions of CMO, implemented through Exhibit J, and to notify CARB and the Program Administrator immediately if the Awardee becomes aware that partners or subcontractors are out of compliance.
23 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
5 B. The Awardee agrees to be available for a site visit, evaluation, review, or an audit of the project by CARB, California Energy Commission (CEC), and/or the Program Administrator at any time during the Agreement Term.

C. The Awardee understands that CARB and the Program Administrator reserve the right to enforce the terms of this Agreement at any time during the Agreement Term.

D. The Awardee agrees to provide the community resource contributions listed in this Agreement to supplement the voucher funding with community investments as specified in the application and this Voucher Agreement (Exhibits D and E).

E. In the event that CALSTART, Inc., is no longer the Program Administrator prior to the end of the Agreement Term, the Awardee agrees to sign the amended Agreement with the new Program Administrator selected by CARB.

F. The Awardee agrees to fulfill California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter “CEQA”) requirements for each proposed infrastructure installation (e.g., electric vehicle supply equipment or hydrogen refueling station) that is subject to CEQA compliance, as well as permitting and other requirements. Such proposals must adhere to the CEQA requirements specified in Exhibit J.

7. Motor Vehicles and Micromobility Devices
The Awardee agrees to meet the following conditions for vehicles procured or mobility services provided using vehicles under this Agreement. Vehicles include light-duty or medium-duty motorized vehicles, neighborhood electric vehicles, bicycles, scooters, or other micromobility devices.

A. Compliance with all vehicles and micromobility devices requirements specified in Exhibit J.

B. Services, vehicles, micromobility devices, and infrastructure funded by CMO will be maintained throughout the Agreement Term.

C. Approval for a project modification will be secured from the Program Administrator before using vehicles funded by CMO in any way other than described by the project narrative (e.g., the Awardee proposes to introduce a new service model supported by their needs assessment result but not previously identified in the project narrative) per the Awardee’s application (Exhibit D and E).

D. All project vehicles and micromobility devices will be equipped with telematics hardware that allows for recording geospatial utilization data, consistent with data collection requirements specified in Exhibit J.

E. In the event that installation of telematics hardware is found to be infeasible, the Awardee agrees to provide an alternative approach to collect necessary location and usage data to the Program Administrator, who will consider such requests on a case-by-case basis. 24 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
6 F. If the owner of vehicles or micromobility devices (hereinafter “Fleet Owner”) is different from the Awardee, the Fleet Owner must also agree that they will abide by the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

G. In the event the titles of the vehicles purchased with the CMO voucher funds are held by an organization on the program team other than the Awardee, the Fleet Owner must offer to transfer ownership of the vehicle to the Awardee or its designee, at no cost, at the end of the Agreement Term, or at any time during the Agreement that the vehicle owner’s contract with the Awardee is terminated upon approval by the Program Administrator. If a new entity holds the vehicle title, the Awardee must submit evidence to the Program Administrator that this clause has been agreed to by the new vehicle owner and the Awardee.

8. Infrastructure
The Awardee agrees to meet the following conditions for the installation of infrastructure under this Agreement. The installation of infrastructure includes electric vehicle supply equipment (hereinafter “EVSE”), hydrogen refueling stations, bicycle/scooter parking or charging infrastructure, bicycle/scooters safety right-of-way improvement, or signage and wayfinding infrastructure.

A. Infrastructure obtained with CMO funding will be sited in location(s) as specified by the Awardee’s project plan, as approved by the Program Administrator.

B. The Program Administrator will be notified if the Awardee is unable to site the CMO-funded infrastructure in location(s) previously specified by the project plan, as modified by the Program Administrator. The Program Administrator must approve the new proposed location.

C. Compliance with all infrastructure requirements specified in Exhibit J, including CEQA Compliance and Permitting requirements, as listed in Exhibit J and as stated in Planning, Operations, and Maintenance section 9 in this Agreement.

D. Compliance with Assembly Bill 841 (Ting 2020), which requires Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program (hereinafter “EVITP”) certification for the installation of CMOfunded electric vehicle charging infrastructure and equipment. All CMO-funded electric vehicle charging infrastructure and equipment located on the customer side of the electrical meter shall be installed by a contractor with the appropriate license classification, as determined by the Contractors’ State License Board, and at least one electrician on each crew, at any given time, who holds an EVITP certification. Projects that include the installation of a charging port supplying 25 kilowatts or more to a vehicle must have at least 25 percent of the total electricians working on the crew for the project, at any given time, who hold EVITP certification. One member of each crew may be both the contractor and an EVITP-certified electrician.

The Awardee must submit proof to the CMO Program Administrator of the required EVITP certification before performing any installation work described above. Proof of EVITP certification shall include the following:
25 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
7 a) AB 841 certification that certifies the project has complied with all AB 841 requirements or describes why the AB 841 requirements do not apply to the project. The certification shall be signed by the Awardee’s authorized representative.
b) EVITP Certification Numbers of each EVITP-certified electrician that installed electric vehicle infrastructure of equipment if AB 841 requirements apply to the project. c) For all electric vehicle chargers and charging stations installed on or after 1/1/2024:
compliant with recordkeeping and reporting standards as described in CEC's regulations, developed under AB 2061.

The requirements stated above do not apply to any of the following:
a) Electric vehicle charging infrastructure installed by employees of an electrical corporation or local publicly owned electric utility.
b) Electric vehicle charging infrastructure funded by monies derived from credits generated from the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program (Sub article 7 (commencing with Section 95480) of Article 4 of Subchapter 10 of Chapter 1 of Division 3 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations).
c) Single-family home residential electric vehicle chargers that can use an existing 208/240- volt outlet.

E. Compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting standards established under Assembly Bill 2061 (Ting, Chapter 345, Statues of 2022) and Assembly Bill 126 (Reyes, Chapter 319, Statutes of 2023) (Pub. Resources Code, §25231.5) for electric vehicle chargers or charging stations installed on or after January 1, 2024.
a) Compliance with recordkeeping and reporting standards as described in CEC’s regulations. These requirements are not applicable to those electric vehicle chargers and charging stations installed at residential real property containing four or fewer dwelling units.
b) Compliance with all industry best practices and charger technology capabilities that are demonstrated to increase reliability, as described in CEC’s regulations. c) Compliance with any other regulatory requirements, including but not limited to uptime requirements and operation and maintenance requirements. d) If the Awardee is an electric vehicle service provider or other third-party entity that is not the site host, the electric vehicle service provider or third-party entity shall provide a disclosure to the site host about the site host’s right to designate the service provider or third-party as the entity to report the data on behalf of the site host. The Awardee shall verify receipt by signing the disclosure.
26 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
8 F. For infrastructure obtained with CMO funding that is not completely sited on the Project Lead’s owned property and obtrusive to property not owned by the Project Lead, the Awardee will obtain and keep written approval from the property owner (including public agencies if relevant);
G. Infrastructure obtained with CMO funding will be maintained in good repair and in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommended use and maintenance through the minimum 4-year project operation period.

9. Planning, Operations, and Maintenance
A. The Awardee agrees to ensure services are delivered in accordance with the safety and accessibility requirements specified in Exhibit J.

B. The Awardee agrees to develop, administer, and maintain a user-friendly vehicle reservation or ride request system as specified in Exhibit J.

C. The Awardee agrees to provide payment options for end-users that do not have bank accounts with associated debit cards or credit cards, such as cash exchange, pre-paid debit cards, or payment through a cloud-based wallet that can be loaded through in-person payment.

D. The Awardee understands hours of operation must be clearly designated and agrees to operate services during hours readily available to residents based on needs assessment results. It is recommended that services should be available to users at least 5 days a week and at least 12 hours per service day.

E. The Awardee agrees to ensure that no more than 20 percent of the committed fleet (including micromobility devices) or charging infrastructure will be out of service at one time during designated hours of operation, and no single motor vehicle in the fleet will be out of service for more than one week at a time. The Awardees must report vehicles and chargers out of service and fleet size in quarterly reports, consistent with CMO Data Collection Requirements herein and in Exhibit J.

F. The Awardee agrees to develop policies and procedure documents and flow charts that describe administrative actions for evaluating and processing participants, reservations, vehicle maintenance, and data gathering and reporting.

G. The Awardee agrees to fulfill California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements described in section 6 (F) herein.

10.Outreach, Communication, and Participation
A. The Awardees must ensure that key documents, platforms, and customer services are available in commonly-spoken languages in the project area, as determined through census data and community engagement. Key resources to be provided in commonly-spoken languages may include, but are not limited to:
27 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
9 a) End user terms and conditions of service
b) Privacy policies
c) User manuals
d) Mobile software applications
e) Outreach and marketing materials
f) Customer service materials
B. The Awardee agrees to conduct all community outreach and education events as specified in Exhibit B in accordance with stipulations set forth in Exhibit J.

C. The Awardee agrees to follow instructions outlined in the CMO Awardee General Branding and Communications Toolkit when publicly communicating about the program, including displaying the CMO Program logo, the CCI logo and the California Energy Commission (CEC) logo on all outreach and education materials. The Awardee agrees to acknowledge the CCI program as a funding source from CARB’s Low Carbon Transportation program and the Clean Transportation Program (CTP) as a funding source whenever projects funded, in whole or in part by this Agreement, are publicized in any news media, websites, brochures, publications, audiovisuals, or other types of promotional material using the program funding language provided in the CMO Awardee General Branding and Communications Toolkit.

D. The Awardee understands and agrees that all outreach materials, project websites, press releases and press events must receive prior approval from the Program Administrator.

E. The Awardee understands and agrees that the Program Administrator may use the Awardee organization name, the Awardee partner organization names, and any descriptive language and/or branding and imagery used in the application and/or in the execution of the voucher during CMO program activities and events for use in educational or promotional materials in print, multimedia, or web form. Language, branding, imagery, and/or photos and videos will only be used for purposes related to the CMO program.

F. The Awardee understands and agrees to participate in Clean Mobility Equity Alliance (hereinafter “CMEA”) events, training, and meetings as required by the Program Administrator or CARB.

G. The Awardee understands and agrees to coordinate with other CARB’s Low Carbon Transportation Investment Projects, including the Access Clean California Project, Sustainable Transportation Equity Project (hereinafter “STEP”), and Clean Mobility In Schools (hereinafter “CMIS”). Where applicable, the Awardee understands and agrees to coordinate with other CEC Clean Transportation Program Projects, including the California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP), Communities in Charge (CIC), and Energy Infrastructure Incentives for Zero-Emission Commercial Vehicles (EnergIIZE). 28 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
10 11.Budget and Voucher Payments
A. Budget Amount
a) In accordance with the actual costs summarized in the Budget Categories in Exhibit B, the Awardee will be reimbursed for actual costs incurred in an amount not to exceed one million eight hundred thousand and 00/100 dollars ($1,800,000). b) Subject to prior written approval from the Program Administrator, budget line-item shifts of up to 25 percent of the Voucher Funds may be made during the Term, as long as the total voucher amount is unchanged and all other voucher redemption requirements are met. If the line-item shift is more than 25 percent, the Awardee must justify the reason for the amendment. No amendment or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing, signed by the Parties, and approved as required. All line-item shifts must be consistent with Exhibit B (Attachment I).

B. Voucher Payments for Awardees with Cost-Based Payments (Applicable for San Clemente)
a) Payment shall be submitted for actual costs incurred in accordance with the budget in Exhibit B and policies and requirements described in Exhibit I and will be contingent upon the availability of funds received by Program Administrator from CARB. b) Program Administrator shall promptly notify the Awardee in the event funds are not available and Program Administrator shall have no liability to pay any funds whatsoever to the Awardee or to provide any other considerations under this Agreement. Program Administrator will pay the Awardee within 10 days after Program Administrator receives payment of invoices submitted from CARB.
c) Payments made under the Agreement will be subject to the approval of the Awardee status reports by the Program Administrator and CARB, which reports shall clearly summarize actual costs to be reimbursed in accordance with Budget Categories in Exhibit B. Costs submitted for reimbursement that exceed Budget Categories (Direct Labor, Travel, Indirect Costs, etc.) will not be paid until a budget amendment is submitted and approved. Billings will be submitted no less than quarterly, but no more than monthly in a format consistent with the Payment Request Form (Microsoft Excel file format) that will be furnished to the Awardee by the Program Administrator. d) All costs submitted for reimbursement must be supported by sufficient relevant documentation:
i. Personnel Costs: Each staff position billed will be listed individually to include the name, title, number of hours worked, and hourly rate. Labor hours billed will be supported by time records and documentation will be submitted supporting actual hourly labor rates. Payroll registers and/or other third-party documents supporting actual payroll will be provided upon request.
29 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
11 ii. Travel Costs:

1. The Awardee headquarters shall be considered the location of the Awardee's office where the employees’ assigned responsibilities for this award are permanently assigned.

2. Travel costs submitted for reimbursement will be itemized on a listing providing information about the date traveled; origin and destination; individuals traveling; and purpose of business travel.

3. All travel costs billed will be supported by itemized receipts and/or invoices.

4. Travel costs reimbursed will be limited to the maximum per diem amounts set by the California Department of Human Resources (hereinafter “CalHR”) at http://www.calhr.ca.gov/employees/pages/travel-reimbursements.aspx. iii. All other direct costs, including Subcontractor costs, shall be itemized on the invoice and supported by sufficient relevant documentation such as a vendor invoice, receipt or other pertinent third-party provided documentation verifying amounts billed and/or reported as matching cost. Purchases exceeding $2,500 not in the original budget must be pre-approved by the Program Administrator in writing. Copies of cancelled checks will be supplied upon request.
e) Applicable non-labor rates used for billing purposes, including, but not limited to, fringe benefit, overhead, and General and Administrative (hereinafter “G&A”) rates, will be supported by the methodology in which the rates are derived and applied. An approved cost rate agreement negotiated with a Federal cognizant agency or the Federal de minimis rate used in accordance with § 200.414(f) of 2 CFR 200 will suffice. f) The following costs are not allowable under any circumstances:
i. Food and alcoholic beverages
ii. Childcare
iii. Fines and penalties
iv. Litigation and other legal costs
v. Lobbying or other costs for the purposes of influencing election outcomes, referendums, or legislation
g) The Program Administrator will disallow payment of costs not supported by sufficient relevant documentation. The Awardee shall bear all costs and expenses incurred that are not in accordance with the term and conditions of this Agreement unless the Program Administrator, in consultation with CARB, determines otherwise. The Awardee shall not request payment for ineligible costs (see section 11(B)(f) above). h) The Awardee shall maintain records, documents, and other evidence supporting all allowable costs incurred or anticipated applicable credits, and the receipt, use, and disposition of government or Program Administrator property coming into the 30 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
12 possession of the Awardee under this Agreement. The accounting system employed by the Awardee shall be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and best business practices, consistently applied.
i) Upon completion or termination of the Agreement, the Awardee shall submit the final invoice (if any) no later than thirty (30) days after such completion or termination date.

The invoice shall be clearly marked as “FINAL” and prepared as indicated above. j) Each invoice must provide the agreement number, period covered by invoice, and the Awardee’s Employer Identification Number, and be submitted via email to [email protected], or U.S. Postal Service using the following address:

Attention: Clean Mobility Options
CALSTART, Inc.
48 S Chester Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91106
C. Voucher Payments for Awardees with Milestone-based Payments (Not Applicable for San Clemente)
a) Payment requests shall be made in accordance with the policies and requirements described in Exhibit J (Implementation Manual for the Clean Mobility Options Voucher Pilot Program) and in accordance with Awardee’s project milestones schedule in Exhibit B. Payments will be contingent upon the availability of funds received from the CARB. b) Program Administrator shall promptly notify Awardee in the event funds are not available and Program Administrator shall have no liability to pay any funds whatsoever to the Awardee or to furnish any other considerations under this agreement. The Program Administrator will pay the Awardee within 10 days after the Program Administrator receives payment of invoices submitted from the CARB.
c) Payments made under the Agreement will be subject to the approval of status reports and verification of the completion of payable milestones. Billings will be submitted no less than quarterly, but no more than monthly in a format consistent with the Payment Request Form (Microsoft Excel file format) that will be furnished. d) Payment will be delayed if the Program Administrator deems that milestones have not been accomplished or properly documented; that milestones are not in accordance with specifications or that amounts requested for payments are insufficiently documented, or invalid per the Project Milestone Schedule; or noncompliant with other terms of the Agreement.
e) Upon completion or termination of the Agreement, the Awardee shall submit the final invoice (if any) no later than thirty (30) days after such completion or termination date.

The invoice shall be clearly marked as “FINAL” and prepared as indicated above. 31 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
13 f) Each invoice must provide the agreement number, period covered by invoice, and the Awardee’s Employer Identification Number, and be submitted via email to [email protected], or U.S. Postal Service using the following address:

Attention: Clean Mobility Options
CALSTART, Inc.
48 S Chester Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91106
D. The Awardee agrees and understands to prohibit using voucher funds to aid or support a sectarian purpose pursuant to California Constitution, article XVI, section 5. The Awardee also agrees to prohibit using voucher funds to aid or support a sectarian or denominational school or any school not under the exclusive control of the officers of the public schools pursuant to California Constitution, article IX, section 8. CARB and the Program Administrator reserve the right to obtain additional information from the Awardee to determine compliance with California Constitution, article XVI, section 5 and article IX, section 8. Failure to provide any requested information may result in denial of funding.

12.Suspension of Payments and Early Agreement Termination A. The Program Administrator reserves the right to issue a suspension order (stop work order) at any time and for any reason. If issued, a suspension order will be in effect until the dispute has been resolved or the Agreement has been terminated. Upon issuance of the suspension order, the Awardee shall stop all work, unless otherwise specified in the suspension order. Failure to comply with the terms of the suspension order is a material breach of this Agreement and will subject the Awardee to liquidated damages. The Awardee shall resume work only upon receipt of written instructions from the Program Administrator.

B. In the event the Awardee chooses to continue to work on the project after a suspension order has been issued, the Awardee will not be paid for milestones completed or expenditures incurred during the suspension.

C. If CARB rescinds the suspension order and does not terminate the Awardee’s Agreement, the Program Administrator will pay completed milestones during the suspension that are payable in accordance with the terms of the Awardee’s Agreement.

D. In accordance with article 20(GG) (Termination), the Program Administrator reserves the right to terminate the Agreement upon 30 calendar days written notice to the Awardee. Upon termination, all remaining funds must be immediately returned to the Program Administrator.

13.Oversight and Accountability
A. The Awardee shall comply with all oversight responsibilities set forth in Exhibit J.

B. If the Awardee detects any actual or potential activity associated with the circumstances described in section 13.C (e.g., falsification, misspending, etc.) by any third parties, including but not limited to the Awardee’s contractors, subcontractors, sub-awardees, consultants, 32 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
14 employees, agents, affiliates, officers, directors or representatives, the Awardee shall notify CARB and the Program Administrator immediately and work with the Program Administrator to determine an appropriate course of action. The Awardee shall fully cooperate and work with CARB to investigate, resolve and take appropriate action to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including appropriately prosecuting or litigating any civil or criminal claims as determined necessary by CARB or its representative.

C. CARB or its designee reserves the right to recoup any voucher funds that were awarded pursuant to this Agreement due to falsification, misspending, misinformation, misappropriation, fraud, negligence, non-compliance with program requirements or applicable laws, or other related circumstances by the Awardee, contractors, subcontractors, sub-awardees, consultants, employees, agents, affiliates, officers, directors or representatives. In the event that CARB determines that recouping voucher funds is necessary under the aforementioned circumstances, the Awardee agrees to return all voucher funds requested, including any interest earned, within sixty (60) days of written notification from CARB. In addition, CARB may seek other remedies available by law. CARB reserves the right to prohibit any entity from participating in existing or future CARB programs, projects, or grants due to non-compliance with the Agreement or Program requirements, or due to misinformation, misrepresentation, or fraud.

14.Modification to Agreement
Any modification to this Agreement must be mutually agreed upon and in writing, fully executed by authorized representatives of both Parties, before it is effective. Any action taken by the Awardee that is not within scope of the Agreement without authorized modification to this Agreement is deemed not authorized and Program Administrator may prohibit such costs from being claimed as reimbursable hereunder.

15.Change of Business
Change in Business – The Awardee shall promptly notify Program Administrator of the occurrence of each of the following:

A. A change to the Awardee’s address.

B. A change in the Awardee’s business name or ownership.

C. The existence of any litigation or other legal proceeding affecting the project.

D. The occurrence of any casualty or other loss to project personnel, equipment, or third parties of a type commonly covered by insurance.

E. Receipt of notice of any claim or potential claim against the Awardee for a patent, copyright, trademark, service mark, and/or trade secret infringement that could affect the Program Administrator’s, and/or CARB’s and CEC’s rights.

The Awardee shall not change or reorganize the type of business entity under which it does business except upon prior written notification to the Program Administrator. A change of business entity or name change requires an amendment assigning or novating the Agreement to the new entity. In the event the Program Administrator is not satisfied that the new entity can 33 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
15 perform as the original Awardee, the Program Administrator may terminate this Agreement as provided in Article 20(GG).

16.Notices and Contract Representatives
All notices that are required under this Agreement shall be provided in the manner set forth herein unless specified otherwise. Notice to a party shall be delivered to the attention of the person listed below, or to such other person or persons as may hereafter be designated by that party in writing. Notice shall be in writing sent by email, U.S. Mail, express, certified, return receipt requested, or a nationally recognized overnight courier service. In the case of email communications, valid notice shall be deemed to have been delivered upon sending, provided the sender obtained an electronic confirmation of delivery. Email communications shall be deemed to have been received on the date of such transmission, provided such date was a business day (Monday-Friday) and delivered prior to 5:30 pm Pacific Standard Time. Otherwise, receipt of email communications shall be deemed to have occurred on the following business day. In the case of U.S. Mail notice, notice shall be deemed to be received when delivered or five (5) business days after deposit in the U.S. Mail. In the case of a nationally recognized overnight courier service, notice shall be deemed received when delivered (written receipt of delivery).

CALSTART
For legal and contract matters: For program matters:

Piero Stillitano, CFO Nour Katabi
CALSTART, Inc. CALSTART, Inc.
48 S. Chester Avenue 48 S. Chester Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91106 Pasadena, CA 91106
Phone: 626-744-5608 Phone: 626-744-5603
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] City of San Clemente
For legal and contract matters: For program matters:

Elizabeth Mitchell, City Attorney Fatana Temory, Management Analyst City of San Clemente City of San Clemente
910 Calle Negocio 910 Calle Negocio
San Clemente, CA 92673 San Clemente, CA 92673
Phone: 619.814.5819 Phone: 949-361-6115
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

17.Insurance Requirements
The Awardee, and its sub-awardees as well as its contractors and subcontractors who are preforming work under this Agreement shall comply with all insurance requirements outlined in Exhibit J, providing the Program Administrator with evidence of required coverages upon Agreement execution and upon request thereafter. After the voucher is awarded, failure to provide the certificate within 60 days from the voucher execution date may result in the termination of the Agreement. The Awardee understands no work shall begin, and no payments 34 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
16 will be made under this Agreement, until the Awardee and sub-awardees, contractors, and subcontractors fully comply with all applicable insurance requirements and sufficient evidence of coverage, such as a certificate of insurance, is provided.

The Awardee is responsible for submitting evidence of insurance for the Awardee and its subawardees, contractors, and subcontractors annually to the Program Administrator, or upon request, until the end of the Agreement Term.

18.Representations and Certifications
A. The Awardee has, and will have, full authority to execute this Agreement; and to provide the Services that it agrees to provide under this Agreement according to the terms set forth herein. Each person executing this Agreement on behalf of a party represents that he or she is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on that party’s behalf.

B. The Awardee is either a public agency, non-profit organization, or tribal government consistent with applicant eligibility as defined in Exhibit J.

C. This Agreement is legally valid, binding and enforceable against the Parties.

D. The Awardee personnel will comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations governing the performance of each of their respective obligations under this Agreement and shall maintain, requisite licenses, registrations, approvals and exemptions required to perform obligations under this Agreement.

E. The Awardee will ensure that all its personnel will comply with its obligations under this Agreement in a timely fashion, consistent with best practices in the industry.

F. The Awardee certifies that there is no material threatened or pending legal proceeding or government action to which it is a party or to which any of its property is subject, which could materially and adversely affect its ability to enter into this Agreement and/or perform all of its obligations hereunder.

G. The Awardee will ensure that the Awardee personnel have appropriate experience, qualifications and expertise to perform the Services according to Exhibit B. The Awardee agrees that only licensed professionals will be used to perform services or conduct work under this Agreement where such services are called for and where licensed professionals are required for those services under California law.

H. The Awardee certifies that it has appropriate systems and controls in place to ensure that the equipment, materials and products provided by the Awardee, and its sub-awardees, contractors, and subcontractors, during performance of this Agreement will not infringe on any patent, copyright, trademark, related licenses, or other intellectual property.

19.Confidentiality and Data Security
In addition to the confidentiality obligations set forth in Exhibit H and Exhibit J, it is expressly understood and agreed that information the Awardee collects, generates, or 35 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
17 acquires on behalf of the Program Administrator in performing its obligations under the Agreement may be deemed confidential by the Program Administrator, and therefore, the Awardee agrees to:

A. Treat and protect such information or data, including but not limited to all participant records and supporting documentation that personally identifies or describes an individual or individuals (or Personal Identifying Information (“PII”)), as confidential in accordance with California Information Practices Act (California Civil Code Sections 1798, et seq.) and other relevant State or Federal statutes and regulations.

B. Observe complete confidentiality with respect to such information or data collected, generated, or acquired pursuant to the Agreement, including without limitation, agreeing not to disclose or otherwise permit access to such information by any other person or entity in any manner whatsoever unless such disclosure is required by law or legal process.

C. Subject to section J below, the Awardee must acknowledge the confidential nature of information described in section A above; and, ensure that the Awardee, its employees, affiliates, officers, agents, and assigns (i) are informed of the confidential nature of such information; and, (ii) by agreement or otherwise, are prohibited from copying, revealing, or utilizing, for any purpose other than fulfillment of this Agreement, the contents of such information or any part thereof, or from taking any action otherwise prohibited under any provision or section of this Agreement.

D. Sign all non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements provided by CARB, and shall require employees, contractors, and subcontractors to do the same when requested by CARB.

E. Limit access to information and data collected, generated, or acquired pursuant to this Agreement only to necessary employees, agents, and contractors to perform their duties in fulfillment of the Agreement provisions.

F. Notify the Program Administrator immediately and in writing of the circumstances surrounding any possession, use, or knowledge of such information or any part thereof by any person or entity other than those authorized by this section.

G. Report any lost or stolen information, data, or equipment developed, purchased, or collected pursuant to this Agreement to CARB immediately, and to state or federal officials where required by applicable laws. The Awardee agrees that CARB has the right to participate in the investigation of a security incident involving such suspected or actual release or breach of confidential information, including PII, or to conduct its own independent investigation, and that the Awardee shall cooperate fully in such investigations. If applicable law requires or if CARB determines that notice to the individuals whose data has been lost or breached is needed, then the Awardee shall provide all such notification and will bear any and all costs 36 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
18 associated with the notice or any mitigation selected by CARB. The Awardee agrees that it shall be responsible for all costs incurred by it and by CARB due to a security incident resulting from any act or omission of the Awardee or any of its employees, agents, officers, directors, affiliates, representatives, consultants, contractors, subcontractors or sub-awardees, including any acts or omissions resulting in an unauthorized disclosure, release, access, review, or destruction of data or information; or loss, theft or misuse of information or data developed or gathered pursuant to this Agreement. These costs include, but are not limited to, staff time, material costs, postage, media announcements, credit monitoring for impacted individuals, and other identifiable costs associated with the breach or loss of data.

H. Store all records in a secure and safe storage facility that maintains confidentiality and provides fire and natural disaster protection.

I. Retain files during the Term of the Agreement plus five years and do not transmit them to any outside entity during this time except as otherwise approved by CARB.

J. Transfer all project records, including the original records and all copies thereof, to CARB or the Program Administrator at the end of the five-year window described in section G above or upon termination, unless otherwise instructed by CARB.

K. Not use any data or information, or any part thereof, obtained as part of the Agreement in the performance of services to others or for the benefit of others in any form whatsoever whether gratuitously or for valuable consideration without CARB’s written consent.

L. If the Awardee believes disclosure of a confidential record may be required under the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 7920 et seq.) or other law, the Awardee shall give CARB at least fourteen (14) calendar days written notice prior to any planned disclosure so that CARB can seek, solely at CARB’s discretion, an order preventing disclosure from a court of competent jurisdiction. The Awardee agrees that it will not challenge, or authorize or endorse any challenge to, any action or request by CARB to obtain a protective order or other court order to prevent the release of any information. The Awardee agrees that it shall immediately notify and work cooperatively with CARB to respond timely and correctly to any and all public record requests.

M. Provide CARB all pass phrases or passwords used for private keys to encrypt data used, produced, or acquired in the course of performing duties under this Agreement.

N. Ensure that confidential, sensitive, and/or PII information shall be encrypted in accordance with California State Administrative Manual section 5350.1 and California Statewide Information Management Manual section 5305-A.

O. Assume all responsibility and liability for the security and confidentiality of the PII and other confidential information under its control.
37 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
19 P. Adhere to all CARB confidentiality, disclosure, and privacy policies.

Q. Certify, represent and warrant that:
a) Its data and information security standards, tools, technologies, and procedures are sufficient to protect such information and data;
b) It is in compliance and shall remain in compliance at all times during the Agreement Term with the following requirements and obligations:

I. The California Information Practices Act (Civil Code Sections 1798 et seq.);
II. Current NIST special publications 800-171 Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations. Third-party audit results and the Awardee’s plan to correct any negative findings shall be made available to CARB upon request; III. Undergo an annual Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements (SSAE) No. 16 Service Organization Control (SOC) 2 Type II audit. Thirdparty audit results and the Awardee’s plan to correct any negative findings and implementation progress reports shall be made available to the CARB upon request; and
IV. Privacy provisions of the Federal Privacy Act of 1974; c) Compliance with industry standards and guidelines applicable to the work performed under the Agreement. Relevant security provisions may include but are not limited to: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, IRS 1075, Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical (HITECH) Act, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Security Policy, Social Security Administration (SSA) Electronic Information Exchange Security Requirements, and the Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security Standard (DSS) as well as their associated Cloud Computing Guidelines

20.General Provisions
A. ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter “ADA”) Language. The Awardee must ensure that all products and services submitted to, uploaded, or otherwise provided to or funded by CARB or made available to the public by the Awardee and/or its contractors, subcontractors or sub-awardees, including but not limited to data, software, plans, drawings, specifications, reports, operating manuals, notes and other written or graphic work prepared in the course of performance of this Agreement, including Status Reports (collectively, the “Work”), comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, levels A and AA, and otherwise meet the accessibility requirements set forth in California Government Code Sections 7405 and 11135, Section 202 of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12132), and Section 508 of the federal Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794, subd. 38 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
20 (d)) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (36 C.F.R. Parts 1193 and 1194) (collectively, the “Accessibility Requirements”). For any Work provided to CARB or the public in PDF format, the Awardee, along with its contractors, subcontractors and sub-awardees, shall also provide an electronic version in the original electronic format (for example, Microsoft Word or Adobe InDesign). CARB or the Program Administrator may request from the Awardee documentation of compliance with the requirements described above and may perform testing to verify compliance. The Awardee agrees to respond to and resolve any complaint brought to its attention regarding accessibility of materials provided under this Agreement.
a) The Awardee must bring into compliance, at no cost to CARB or the Program Administrator, any Work by the Awardee, or its contractors, subcontractors, and subawardees, not meeting the Accessibility Requirements. If the Awardee fails to bring the Work into compliance with the Accessibility Requirements within five (5) business days of issuance of written notice from CARB or the Program Administrator, or within the time frame specified in said written notice, then the Awardee will be responsible for all costs incurred by the Program Administrator and/or CARB in bringing the Work into compliance with the Accessibility Requirements. The Awardee agrees to respond to and resolve any complaint brought to its attention regarding accessibility of deliverables provided under this Agreement for a period of one year following delivery of the final deliverable under this Agreement.
b) Deviations from the Accessibility Requirements are permitted only by advance written consent by CARB in each instance.

B. Amendment: This Agreement may only be amended by a written amendment to this Agreement which has been fully executed by authorized representatives of both Parties.

C. Assignment: The Agreement is not assignable by the Awardee, either in whole or part, without the consent of CARB and the Program Administrator.

D. Assurances: The Program Administrator reserves the right, but not the obligation, to seek further written assurances from the Awardee and any of the Awardee’s contractors, subcontractors, employees, agents, officers, sub-awardees or affiliates, that the work performed under this Agreement will be performed consistent with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

E. Audits: The Awardee agrees that CARB, CEC, the California Department of General Services, the California Department of Finance, the California State Auditor, or their designated representative shall have the right to review and to copy any records and supporting documentation pertaining to the performance of the Awardee and all State funds received. The Awardee agrees to maintain such records for possible audit for a minimum of five (5) years after the term of the Agreement is completed unless a longer period of records retention is agreed to in writing by the Program Administrator and the Awardee. The 39 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
21 Awardee agrees to allow auditors access to such records during normal business hours and to allow interviews of any employees who might reasonably have information related to such records. Furthermore, the Awardee agrees to include in all agreements, contracts and subcontracts, language identical to or similar to this paragraph to ensure auditors have the ability and right to audit records and conduct interviews of any and all sub-awardees, contractors, consultants and subcontractors in relation to performance or use of the voucher funds under this Agreement.

F. Availability of funds: CARB’s and the Program Administrator’s obligations under the Agreement are contingent upon the availability of funds. In the event funds are not available, the Program Administrator and the State shall have no liability to pay any funds whatsoever to the Awardee or to furnish any other considerations under the Agreement or for any other reason.

G. Awardee’s responsibility for work: The Awardee shall be responsible for work and for persons or entities engaged in work, including, but not limited to, agents, employees, representatives, affiliates, sub-awardees, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and providers of services. The Awardee shall be responsible for any and all disputes arising out of its contract for work on the project, including but not limited to payment disputes with contractors, subcontractors, and providers of services. Neither CARB nor the Program Administrator will mediate disputes between the Awardee and any other entity concerning responsibility for the performance of work. All subcontracts must be submitted to CARB or the Program Administrator upon request for review prior to execution. CARB may also request them during or after the Agreement Term and the Awardee agrees to provide them within five (5) calendar days. Nothing contained in this Agreement or otherwise creates any contractual relation between CARB and any subcontractors of the Awardee, and no subcontract may relieve the Awardee of its responsibilities under this Agreement. The Awardee shall only distribute CMO voucher funds on a reimbursement basis and shall not use voucher funds for advance payments to contractors, subcontractors, service providers, suppliers, sub-awardees, or other third parties.

The Awardee and third party agreements must, at a minimum, incorporate all of the following:
a) A clear and accurate description of the material, products, or services to be procured. b) A detailed budget and timeline.
c) Provisions that allow for administrative, contractual, or legal remedies in instances where the Awardee or third party violates or breaches contract terms, and provides for such sanctions and penalties as may be appropriate.
d) Provisions for termination by the Awardee, including termination procedures and the basis for settlement.
40 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
22 e) A statement that further assignments will not be made to any third party or subsequent tier subcontractors without advance written consent of CARB. f) Language conforming to Infrastructure requirements for Compliance with Assembly Bill 841 (Ting 2020) and all of General Provisions of this Agreement.

Without limiting any of CARB’s other remedies, failure to comply with the above requirements is a material breach of this Agreement and grounds for immediate termination.

H. Compliance with laws, regulations, etc.: The Awardee agrees that it will, at all times, comply with and require its contractors and subcontractors to comply with all applicable federal and State laws, rules, guidelines, regulations, and requirements of the Agreement.

I. Computer software: The Awardee certifies that it has appropriate systems and controls in place to ensure that State funds will not be used in the performance of the Agreement for the acquisition, operation, or maintenance of computer software violation of copyright or other intellectual property laws.

J. Conflict of Interest: Government Code Section 87104 prohibits public officials of CARB, which includes any member, officer, employee, or consultant of a CARB advisory body, from making a formal or informal appearance before, or oral or written communication to CARB for the purpose of influencing a decision by CARB on a grant or other entitlement for use, such as a contract, loan, license, or permit. Prohibited communications include grant applications, letters, emails, phone calls, meetings, or any other form of oral or written communication within or outside of a public committee meeting with CARB, or CARB staff, for the purpose of influencing a CARB decision on an application for funding submitted to CARB. A knowing or willful violation of this section may result in a member being guilty of a misdemeanor and fined up to the greater of $10,000 or three times the amount of an amount unlawfully received. If a court determines a violation occurred and that the official action might not otherwise have been taken or approved if not for the prohibited communication, the grant may be voided. (See Gov. Code §§ 91000, 91003). a) For this reason, CARB officials, including but not limited to advisory body members, also may not be a signatory, or administrator on a grant application, or on any resulting grant agreement. Such individuals should not be listed on the grant application except as necessary to show their role in the organization.
b) Note that an advisory body member's organization may continue to be eligible for a grant.

However, the grant must not follow any communications for purposes of influence by the advisory body member on CARB's decision on that grant agreement. Additionally, that organization would need to identify a different member of the organization to sign or be the administrator for any applications and awarded grants. c) Please also note that applications from organizations affiliated with CARB Board members may require additional review and Board approval. Although CARB will make 41 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
23 every effort to obtain required review and approval in a timely manner, this may delay grant execution and/or distribution of funds.
d) The Awardee certifies that it is, and shall remain, in compliance with all applicable California (hereinafter “State”) and federal conflict of interest laws during the entire Term of this Agreement. The Awardee will have no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which will conflict with its ability to impartially perform under, or complete the tasks described in, this Agreement. The Awardee must disclose any direct or indirect financial interest or situation which may pose an actual, apparent, or potential conflict of interest with its duties throughout the Agreement Term. CARB may consider the nature and extent of any actual, apparent, or potential conflict of interest in the Awardee’s ability to perform the Agreement. The Awardee must immediately advise CARB in writing of any potential new conflicts of interest throughout the Agreement Term.

K. Construction: This Agreement shall not be construed more strongly against either Party regardless of who is more responsible for its preparation.

L. Damages of breach affecting tax exempt status: In the event that any breach of any of the provisions of the Agreement by the Awardee shall result in the loss of tax-exempt status for any State bonds, the Awardee shall immediately reimburse the State in an amount equal to any damages paid by or loss incurred by the State due to such breach.

M. Disadvantaged Communities: The Awardee, for the purposes of this Program and its related Projects, will designate disadvantaged communities, as identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency’s California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen 4.0) that assesses all census tracts in the State to identify areas disproportionately burdened by, and vulnerable to, multiple sources of pollution. The identified disadvantaged community census tracts are available at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/envjustice/ghginvest/
N. Dispute: The Awardee shall continue with the responsibilities under the Agreement during any dispute between the Awardee and Program Administrator or CARB, unless otherwise directed by CARB. The Awardee will work in good faith with CARB and the Program Administrator to resolve any disagreements or conflicts arising from the implementation of the Agreement. However, any disagreement that cannot be resolved at the management level within 30 calendar days of when the issue is first raised with CARB staff shall be subject to resolution by the CARB Executive Officer, or the Executive Officer’s designated representative, in the Executive Officer’s sole discretion. Nothing contained in this paragraph is intended to limit any rights or remedies that the Parties may have under the law.

O. Environmental justice: In the performance of the Agreement, the Awardee shall conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner that ensures the fair treatment of people of all races, genders, cultures, and income 42 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
24 levels, including minority populations and low- income populations of the State. Equal access includes, but is not limited to, ensuring language barriers are fully addressed to the satisfaction of CARB and as otherwise required by local, state, and federal law.

P. Fiscal management systems and accounting standards: The Awardee agrees that, at a minimum, its fiscal control and accounting procedures will be sufficient to permit the tracing of the awardee funds to a level of expenditure adequate to establish that such funds have not been used in violation of local, State, or federal law or the Agreement. Unless otherwise prohibited by local, State or federal law, the Awardee further agrees that it will maintain separate voucher fund accounts as required to manage and administer the Project, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

The Awardee shall not commingle the Voucher Funds with any other accounts, revenues, grants, donations, or funds. The Awardee shall maintain all Voucher Funds in separate bank accounts designated specifically for the purposes of carrying out the obligations of this Agreement. The bank accounts must be held in the name of the Awardee (the official agency name, and not a dba), and no other person or entity. Voucher Funds are not the assets of the Awardee and shall not be used, obligated, or relied upon for any purposes other than those purposes and uses set out in this Agreement. Grant Funds shall not be used as collateral for or an obligation to any debt, loan or other borrower commitments of the Awardee, its officers, directors, Board members, agents, assigns, contractors, subcontractors, Sub-awardees, representatives, employees, or affiliates. All Voucher Fund accounts shall adequately and accurately depict all amounts received and expended.

Q. Force majeure: Neither the Program Administrator nor the Awardee are liable for or deemed to be in default for any delay or failure in performance under this Agreement or interruption of services resulting, directly or indirectly, from acts of God, civil unrest, war, fire, flood, earthquakes, or other physical natural disasters. If either Party intends to invoke this clause to excuse or delay performance, the Party invoking the clause must provide written notice to the other Party immediately of the intent to invoke the clause and the reasons why the force majeure event is preventing that Party from, or delaying that Party in, performing its obligations under this Agreement. The Program Administrator may terminate this Agreement immediately, in writing and without penalty, in the event the Awardee invokes this clause, in which case the Awardee shall immediately return all remaining Voucher Funds to the Program Administrator or their designee, cease all expenditure of Voucher Funds, and turn over all documents, records, deliverables, intellectual property and other information in relation to this Agreement.
43 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
25 a) If the Agreement is not terminated by the Program Administrator pursuant to this clause, upon completion of the force majeure event, the Awardee must immediately recommence the performance of its obligations under this Agreement. The Awardee must also provide to the Program Administrator a written proposal to revise the Project Schedule, inclusive of anticipated major milestones and timeframes for expending remaining Voucher Funds, while minimizing the effects of the delay caused by the force majeure event.
b) An event of force majeure does not relieve a Party from any of its obligations which arose before the occurrence of the force majeure event nor is any Party relieved from those obligations which survive termination or cancellation of the Agreement.

R. Governing law and venue: The Agreement is governed by and shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The Program Administrator and the Awardee hereby agree that any action arising out of the Agreement shall be filed and maintained in the Superior Court in and for the County of Sacramento, California, or in the United States District Court in and for the Eastern District of California. The Awardee hereby waives any existing sovereign immunity for the purposes of the Agreement.

S. Headings: The headings and captions of the various paragraphs, subparagraphs and sections hereof are for convenience only, and they shall not limit, expand, or otherwise affect the construction or interpretation of this Agreement.

T. Indemnification and Hold Harmless: The Awardee agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the State of California, CARB, the Program Administrator, CEC, and their respective officers, Board members, employees, agents, representatives, and successors-ininterest against, for and from any and all liabilities, losses, damages, claims and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of, resulting from, or related to any actions or inactions of the Awardee or any of its contractors, subcontractors, affiliates, employees, officers, agents, sub-awardees, and/or assigns, including but not limited to actions or inactions relating to, arising out of, or resulting from the operation, design, or implementation of any equipment or vehicles purchased, acquired, developed, modified, or used with Voucher Funds, in whole or in part.

U. Independent contractor: The Awardee, and its agents, employees, affiliates, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, officers, sub-awardees, and assigns, if any, in their performance of the Agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers, employees or 44 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
26 agents of the State of California, CARB, CEC or the Program Administrator.

V. Nondiscrimination: During the performance of this Agreement, the Awardee and its contractors, subcontractors, consultants and agents shall ensure that no person is, on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, ethnic group identification, age (40 or over), mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, veteran or military status, or sexual orientation, unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or unlawfully subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered under this Agreement or funded with Voucher Funds. In addition:
a) During the performance of this Agreement, the Awardee and its contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and agents shall not unlawfully discriminate against, harass, or allow harassment against any employee or applicant for employment, because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ethnic group identification, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decision-making (e.g. family-care leave, medical-care leave, or pregnancy-disability leave), medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age (40 or over), sexual orientation, or veteran or military status, nor shall the Awardee or any of its contractors, subcontractors, consultants or agents refuse to hire or employ any person or to refuse to select any person for a training program leading to employment, or bar or discharge any person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or discriminate against any person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ethnic group identification, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking (e.g. family-care leave, medical-care leave, or pregnancy-disability leave), medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age (40 or over), sexual orientation, or veteran or military status. b) The Awardee and its contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and agents shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of all persons receiving or applying for Grant Funds or participating in any Grant programs, projects or activities, along with all respective employees and applicants for employment, are free of such discrimination and harassment.
c) The Awardee and its contractors, subcontractors, consultants and agents shall comply with the provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code section 12900 et seq.) and the applicable regulations promulgated thereunder (California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 10000 et seq.). The applicable regulations of the Civil Rights Council (California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 11000 et seq.) are incorporated into this Agreement by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full.
45 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
27 d) The Awardee and its contractors, subcontractors, agents and consultants shall give written notice of their respective obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which any may have a collective bargaining or other agreement. The Awardee shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all contracts, subcontracts and agreements where work is performed to fulfill any term or condition of this Agreement.

W. No third-party rights: The existence or terms of this Agreement do not create rights in, or grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary of the Agreement, or of any duty, covenant, obligation or undertaking established herein.

X. Office of Foreign Asset Control: The Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the U.S.

Department of the Treasury administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States. OFAC publishes lists of individuals and companies owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, targeted countries. It also lists individuals, groups, and entities, such as terrorists and narcotics traffickers designated under programs that are not country specific. These lists can be found at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/office-of-foreign-assets-control-sanctions-programsand-information. The Awardee represents, warrants and agrees that neither the Awardee nor any of its contractors, subcontractors, sub-awardees, affiliates, agents, employees, officers, representatives or assigns are in violation of any federal law or laws pertaining to any entity or individual listed on any of the OFAC lists. Unless otherwise authorized or exempt, transactions by U.S. persons or in the United States may be or are prohibited if they involve transferring, paying, exporting, withdrawing, or otherwise dealing in the property or interests in property of an entity or individual listed on the Office of Foreign Asset Control’s (OFAC) Specially Designated Nationals (“SDN”) or other Lists. The property and interests in property of an entity that is 50 percent or more owned, whether individually or in the aggregate, directly or indirectly, by one or more persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to any part of 31 C.F.R. chapter V are also blocked, regardless of whether the entity itself is listed. Refer also to the U.S. Department of the Treasury website:
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/sanctions-programs-and-countryinformation/ukraine-russia-related-sanctions Y. Ownership: The Awardee acknowledges, accepts, and agrees that all rights, including all intellectual property rights, in and to PII, data, information, documentation, materials, or other intellectual property developed, licensed, or acquired by the Awardee, their representatives, or their sub-awardees, with any Grant Funds in performance of this Agreement shall remain the exclusive property of CARB and/or CEC. The Awardee has a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to access and use such information and property solely for performing its obligations under this Agreement. Nothing herein shall be construed to confer any license in such information or property, including user tracking and exception data, by implication, estoppel, or otherwise, under copyright or other intellectual property rights, to any third party.

Unauthorized use of said information or property by the Awardee or third parties is prohibited. For the purposes of this requirement, the phrase “unauthorized use” means the 46 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
28 data mining or processing of data, stored or transmitted by the Awardee or third-party service, for unrelated or commercial purposes, advertising or advertising-related purposes, or for any other purpose other than security or service delivery analysis that is not explicitly authorized by CARB or the Program Administrator. It will be the Awardee’s responsibility to immediately turn over this property and information to CARB no later than 10 business days prior to the termination, cancellation, or expiration of this Agreement (whichever is sooner) and provide all reasonable and necessary assistance needed to ensure a smooth transition in accordance with the Project Transition Plan. No such information, data, documents, or intellectual property shall be released to any third party without CARB’s advance written approval. Notwithstanding the above, in the event the Awardee is required by deposition, interrogatory, subpoena, or request for documents under the California Public Records Act to disclose information or data received or generated under this Agreement, the Awardee shall provide CARB and/or CEC a prompt written notice prior to disclosure with sufficient time for CARB and/or CEC to challenge or stay any release in an appropriate court of law.

Z. Parties: When referred to herein, the Awardee and Program Administrator each includes their heirs, successors, assigns, designees, predecessor-in-interest, successor-in-interest, shareholders, members, partners, officers, directors, managers, employees, employers, principals, and agents whether or not named as a party to this Agreement.

AA. Personally Identifiable Information: Information or data, including but not limited to personally identifiable information (“PII”) and all records and supporting documentation that personally identifies or describes an individual or individuals is confidential in accordance with California Civil Code sections 1798, et seq. and other relevant State or Federal statutes and regulations. During the Term, in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, the Awardee agrees to safeguard all such information, records, applications, PII and data which comes into their possession or control in perpetuity, and shall not release or publish any such information, data, or records without first obtaining in each instance the advance written approval of an authorized representative of CARB.

BB. Prevailing wages and labor compliance: If applicable, the Awardee agrees to be bound by all the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1771 et seq. regarding prevailing wages. If applicable, the Awardee shall monitor all agreements subject to payment from the Agreement to ensure that the prevailing wage provisions of California Labor Code 1720- 1861 are being met.

CC. Project Records:
a) The Awardee shall establish and maintain records of the Project. As further described below, by way of example but not limitation, Project records include the Awardee, and any sub-awardee, financial and Program records (“Project Records”). b) The Awardee shall:
47 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
29 I. Utilize best practices to store all records in a safe and secure storage facility that maintains confidentiality and provides fire and natural disaster protection. Files shall be retained during the Term of the Agreement plus three years. Upon completion of the required record-retention period, the Awardee must submit all Project records to Program Administrator. Hardcopy or electronic records are suitable. Acceptable forms of electronic media must be approved based on prior written concurrence from Program Administrator.

II. Remediate documents and webpages, as needed, to be ADA-compliant in accordance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, or a subsequent version, as provided under section 20.A of this Agreement.

III. Develop a systematic process and schedule to backup Project database(s) each day, at a minimum.

IV. Develop and submit to Program Administrator a plan for disaster recovery of all relevant software applications, websites, and data.

V. Develop and enforce security measures to safeguard Project database(s).

VI. Provide data updates to Project Administrator and/or CARB upon request, which could include all Project records.

VII. Provide periodic data summaries to Project Administrator.

VIII. Provide quarterly and annual Status Reports to Project Administrator detailing the status of the Project. Where requested by Project Administrator, the Awardee will clarify, supplement, modify, or update its Status Reports at no additional cost to Program Administrator or CARB.
c) The Awardee shall retain a combined file for the Project containing:

I. Original executed copy of the Agreement and exhibits, as well as any amendments to the Agreement, if applicable.

II. Program-administrator-approved plans, policies, procedures, and manuals.

III. Copies of Awardee’s Voucher Request Forms and supporting documentation.

IV. Documentation of earned interest generation and expenditure (see Section 20 (Q) for more information).

V. Communications between the Awardee and the Program Administrator, CARB, and/or sub-awardee(s).

VI. Copies of all deliverables from the Awardee.
48 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
30 VII. Copies of any decision that Program Administrator and/or CARB have made in support of the Awardee projects, such as minor changes in project scope, changes in timeline, or line-item shifts.

VIII. Data that has been collected during the implementation of the Awardee project.

IX. Any documents, files or webpages that have been created to support the outreach of Program.

X. Presentations, pamphlets, posters, videos, or other electronic media used to support Program.

XI. An official file for Program, which shall adequately document all significant actions relative to the project.

XII. Records, contracts, subcontracts, statements of work, work product from subcontractors or contractors of the Awardee.
d) All Project records must be retained for a period of five (5) years after termination or expiration of the Agreement, whichever occurs first. Upon completion of the third year of record retention, the Awardee shall submit all remaining Project records to the Project Administrator that have not previously been requested or turned over to the Project Administrator. Hardcopy or electronic transfer of electronic records are suitable.

Acceptable forms of electronic media, including hard drives and flash drives, shall be provided. Other forms of electronic media may be allowed based on prior written concurrence from the Project Administrator or CARB.
e) All Project records are subject to audit pursuant to the audit provisions of this Agreement.

DD. Remedies:
a) Alternative Enforcement: The remedies set out in this Agreement are contractual in nature. Nothing stated in this Agreement in any way limits, prevents or precludes the Program Administrator or the State of California from taking enforcement action, exercising any police power or prosecuting any violation of law. b) Cumulative: The rights and remedies of the Parties to this Agreement, whether pursuant to this Agreement or in accordance with law, shall be construed as cumulative, and the exercise of any single right or remedy shall constitute neither a bar to the exercise of nor the waiver of any other available right or remedy.

EE. Severability: If a court of competent jurisdiction holds any provision of the Agreement to be illegal, unenforceable, or invalid in whole or in part for any reason, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions of those provisions, will not be 49 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
31 affected, and will remain in full force and effect.

FF. Survival: The Awardee acknowledges, agrees and accepts that those terms, conditions, provisions and exhibits which by their nature should survive termination, cancellation or expiration of the grant, award, contract, voucher, subcontract or Agreement, shall so survive, including but not limited to those sections and provisions pertaining to indemnity, recordkeeping, audit, third party beneficiary status, return of funds, data security, insurance, confidentiality, and the general provisions.

GG. Termination:
a) Termination Without Cause by Program Administrator. This Agreement may be terminated at any time for any or no reason by Program Administrator upon providing thirty (30) days advance written notice.
b) Termination for Cause by the Awardee. Upon providing ninety (90) days advance written notice to Program Administrator, this Agreement may be terminated by the Awardee if Program Administrator has breached a material provision of the Agreement. c) Termination for Cause by Program Administrator. This Agreement may be terminated by Program Administrator without advance notice at any time if Program Administrator has determined, in its sole discretion, that the Awardee, or any of the Awardee partners, consultants, contractors, subcontractors, employees, representatives, agents, officers, affiliates, or sub-awardees has breached any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement or has violated or are in violation of any of their respective obligations or responsibilities under this Agreement or any other agreement where CARB is an intended third party beneficiary.

I. Non-performance (Breach) Provisions. The Awardee agrees that the following is a non-exhaustive list of the circumstances that constitute non-performance (breach) under this Agreement. These circumstances will be solely determined by CARB and include, but are not limited to:

1. Failure to comply with any of the provisions of the Agreement, including Exhibits.

2. Failure to obligate or expend Voucher Funds within established timelines, or failure to show timely interim progress to meet these timelines.

3. Insufficient performance or widespread deficiencies with Voucher Fund or Project oversight, enforcement, recordkeeping, contracting, inspections, or any other duties.

4. Misuse of Voucher Funds.

5. Funding of ineligible activities or other items.
50 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
32 6. Exceeding the allowable Voucher Fund.

7. Insufficient, incomplete, or faulty documentation.

8. Failure to provide required documentation or reports requested from Program Administrator, CARB, or other State agencies, in a timely manner.

9. Poor performance as determined by a review or fiscal audit.

II. Additional Remedies. In addition to any other requirements and remedies set out elsewhere in this Agreement, upon request by the Program Administrator, the Awardee will also perform as follows:

1. Within fourteen days of any request, timely develop and implement a corrective action plan.

2. Immediately cease all work and spending, and notify all contractors, subcontractors, consultants, sub-awardees and employees to immediately cease all work and spending.
d) Upon termination of this Agreement or upon issuance of the termination notice (whichever occurs sooner) by either Party, the Awardee shall immediately turn over all remaining Voucher Funds in its possession or control and all records, PII, intellectual property, documents, information and data relating to performance, accounting, administration, contracting and management of the Voucher Funds, the Project and the Program, as well as any other materials requested by the Program Administrator or as otherwise required by any of the provisions of this Agreement. e) The Program Administrator, at its sole discretion, may elect to have any or all of the funding, documentation, intellectual property and other property transferred to another awardee.
f) Unless otherwise directed in writing by the Program Administrator, upon termination of this Agreement or upon issuance of the termination notice (whichever occurs sooner) by either Party, the Awardee shall immediately cease all work, and cease all expenditure of Voucher Funds.
g) Unless otherwise directed in writing by the Program Administrator, upon termination of this Agreement or upon issuance of the termination notice (whichever occurs sooner), the Awardee shall submit a final Voucher Request Form and a final Status Report covering activities up to and including the termination date. The final Status Report shall be subject to review and approval by the Program Administrator before any final payments are disbursed. Upon receipt of the Voucher Request Form, and final Status Report, and once all intellectual property and requested data, information and property have been transferred and assigned to CARB, the Program Administrator, at its sole discretion, may make a final payment to the Awardee. This payment shall be for all Program-Administrator-approved, actually incurred costs that in the opinion of the 51 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
33 Program Administrator are justified. However, the total amount paid shall not exceed the total authorized amount for the Voucher Funds.

HH. Third Party Beneficiary: The Awardee represents, warrants and agrees that the Awardee shall name CARB and the State of California as third party beneficiaries in all contracts, subcontracts, grants, subgrants and other agreements entered into using Voucher Funds, or for the purpose of carrying out any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement during the Term.

II. Timeliness: Time is of the essence in performance of the Agreement. The Awardee agrees to proceed with and complete all of its obligations under the Agreement in an expeditious manner.

JJ. Waiver of rights: Any waiver of rights with respect to a default or other matter arising under the Agreement at any time by either party shall not be considered a waiver of rights with respect to any other default or matter. Any rights and remedies of the Program Administrator, CARB, or the State provided for in the Agreement are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law.

KK. Russian sanctions: On March 4, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-6-22 (herein after the “EO”) regarding Economic Sanctions against Russia and Russian entities and individuals. “Economic Sanctions” refers to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, as well as any sanctions imposed under state law. The EO directs State agencies to terminate contracts or grants with, and to refrain from entering into any new contracts or grants with, individuals or entities that are determined to be a target of Economic Sanctions. Accordingly, should the State determine the Awardee is a target of Economic Sanctions or is conducting prohibited transactions with sanctioned individuals or entities, that shall be grounds for termination of this Agreement. The State shall provide the Awardee advance written notice of such termination, allowing the Awardee at least 30 calendar days to provide a written response.

Termination shall be at the sole discretion of the State.

21.Entire Contract
This Agreement, and all Exhibits hereto, and any documents incorporated by reference represents the entire agreement between the Parties hereto related to the Awardee providing services to the Program Administrator, and supersedes and replaces any and all prior negotiations and agreements of any kind, whether written or oral, between the Parties concerning this Agreement. There are no understandings, representations, or warranties of any kind except as expressly set forth herein. No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions herein shall be binding on any party unless in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of such waiver, alteration, or modification is sought.

22.Authority
Each person executing this Agreement on behalf of a Party represents that he or she is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on that Party’s behalf. 52 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
34 [Signatures on following page.]
53 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
35 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto executed this Agreement as of the date first written below.

CALSTART, Inc. City of San Clemente:

By: By:
(Signature) (Signature)
Name: Piero Stillitano Name: Andy Hall
(Print Name) (Print Name)
Title: Chief Financial Officer Title: City Manager
(Print Title) (Print Title)
Date: Date:
54 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
36 EXHIBIT A
Notice of Intent to Award
55 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
37 EXHIBIT B
Scope of Work
56 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
38 EXHIBIT C
Community Resource Contributions
57 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
39 EXHIBIT D
Phase 1 Application Submissions and Attachments
58 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
40 EXHIBIT E
Phase 2 Application Submissions and Attachments
59 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
41 EXHIBIT F
Approved Resolution
60 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
42 EXHIBIT G
Conflict of Interest Declaration
61 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
43 EXHIBIT H
Confidentiality Agreement
62 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
44 EXHIBIT I
Payment Request Form
63 CMO Mobility Project Voucher City of San Clemente
Voucher Agreement
45 EXHIBIT J
Implementation Manual for the Clean Mobility
Options Voucher Pilot Program
64 From: Clean Mobility Options
To: Lightfoot, Jonathan
Cc: Nour Katabi; Katie Smet
Subject: Notice of Intent to Award & Voucher Execution Checklist- A-11G (City of San Clemente) Date: Monday, December 2, 2024 12:50:10 PM
Attachments: A-11G MPV Voucher Execution Checklist.pdf
A-11G W2 MPV Voucher Agreement Template_FOR REVIEW_2024.11.27.docx Exhibit B - A-11G Scope of Work_FOR REVIEW_2024.11.27.docx CMO-Conflict of Interest Form.pdf
CMO-Confidentiality-Statement-Agreement.pdf
NOTICE OF INTENT TO AWARD: MOBILITY PROJECT VOUCHER FOR THE CITY OF SAN

CLEMENTE
Dear Jonathan,
Congratulations! We are pleased to inform you of our intent to award the City of San Clemente the Clean Mobility Options Voucher Pilot Program’s 2023 Mobility Project Voucher (MPV). Funding for your voucher has been reserved, as referenced below:

Application # MP23W2A-11G
Project Title San Clemente NEV Shuttles
Lead Applicant City of San Clemente
Sub-Applicant(s) N/A
Funds Reserved $1,800,000
Voucher Execution Deadline:

Please be advised that you have 180 days from receipt of this Notice of Intent to Award or until May 31, 2025 to execute your Voucher Agreement, following the Clean Mobility Options (CMO) Implementation Manual guidelines. To meet this deadline, please submit all required documents listed in the attached MPV Voucher Execution Checklist no later than April 30, 2025.

Next Steps and Assistance:

Our team is dedicated to assisting you throughout the voucher execution process. Following this email, a team member from the Program Administrator team will contact you to schedule an Information Session for an upcoming Tuesday in the next two weeks. The Information Session will provide a thorough understanding of the CMO Voucher Execution process and CMO insurance requirements. If you have any inquiries regarding voucher execution, feel free to contact Katie Smet at [email protected].

Submission of Documents:

Please submit all required Voucher Execution Checklist documents to:

MP23W2A-16G
Exhibit A
65 [email protected] or CALSTART, Attn: Clean Mobility Options, 48 So.

Chester Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91106.

Voucher Execution:

1. Once the Program Administrator receives, reviews, and approves your Voucher Execution Checklist documents, voucher agreement, and Scope of Work, we will assemble and package your Voucher Agreement for e-signature. The following supporting documents are attached for your review and will be assembled in your packaged Voucher Agreement:
a. Attachment 2: Mobility Project Voucher Agreement
b. Attachment 3: Scope of Work
c. Attachment 4: Conflict of Interest Declaration
d. Attachment 5: Confidentiality Statement

2. After executing the Voucher Agreement, you will receive onboarding assistance from your Cohort Facilitator, who will guide you through the onboarding and implementation process. Resources to help implement your project can be found in the MPV Implementation Toolkit, HERE.

IMPORTANT: The Voucher Agreement must be executed (signed by both parties), AND your insurance must be DEEMED compliant to commence work reimbursable from the funds in your Mobility Project Voucher.

Again, congratulations on your award! We are excited to work with you on your MPV project! Sincerely,
Clean Mobility Options Program Administrator
66 Exhibit B
Scope of Work
Attachment 1: Budget Worksheet (from original application) Attachment 2: Project Milestone Schedule (for awardees with cost-based payments) VOUCHER NUMBER: MP23W2A-16G
TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED: $1,800,000

1. Lead Applicant (Awardee) Information
Organization Name: City of San Clemente
Organization Type: Public Agency
Mailing Address: 910 Calle Negocio
City: San Clemente State: CA Zip Code: 92673
Lead Applicant Primary Contact Name: Fatana Temory
Phone: (949) 361-6115 Primary Email: [email protected]

2. Project Overview
Project Title: San Clemente NEV Shuttle
67 2
Project Objectives: Describe the type of mobility service, number of vehicles or micromobility devices, location and target population that will benefit from service, and gaps or priorities the mobility service will address.

The San Clemente program will acquire electric vehicles for new fixed route service between Max Berg Park and the Avenida Pico Corridor, which includes the City’s AB 1550 Low-income Communities and provides connections to grocery, service, and jobs opportunities. The intent is for the new service to align with the City’s Trolley Program by providing free rides and connections to existing Trolley service. The first phase of the program will include outreach and engagement with the community in early 2025 to finalize the type of shuttle and the route.

The service is intended to operate 10 hours per day, 7 days a week, with adjustments to service hours based on community feedback. The shuttle will be administered by the City of San Clemente and operated by one of the authorized Mobility Operators referenced in the Clean Mobility Provider Directory (or an operator approved by the Program Administrator). The City anticipates purchasing four (4) NEV shuttles, anticipated to be the MotoEV Electro Transit Buddy 15 Passenger Hard Door Wheelchair Shuttle or similar. (This vehicle has been reviewed and approved by CARB.) One alternate that will be evaluated during community engagement is the Hometown Trolley (on a Motiv EV chassis). The City Council will make a final determination of the vehicle and operations provider after a more thorough review of the candidate operators and their rate structures. The lead time for new vehicle delivery is typically 6-12 months, so staff anticipates launching the new route by summer of 2026.
68 3
Project Budget:

Total Budget: $1,800,000 Budget Worksheet: See Attachment 1 Promise to Repay Approved Costs: This Exhibit represents a promise to repay for approved costs used to (check all that apply):

1. __X__ Lease or take ownership of motor vehicle(s) (GVWR 2,000 lbs or more)

2. _____ Lease or take ownership of bicycles, scooters, or other vehicles (under 2,000 lbs GVWR)

3. _____ Installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE)

4. _____ Installation of other infrastructure (Explain: for example, bike infrastructure, solar infrastructure if applicable)

5. _____ Other (Explain: ________________________________________) Community Resource Contribution Items: See Exhibit C
Community Outreach Plan: See Exhibit E (Section 4 of Phase 2 Application) Project Area Information:
 Location (City/Neighborhood): San Clemente
 Project Eligibility:
☐ SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
☒ AB 1550 Low-Income Communities
☐ Tribal lands within AB 1550 Low-income Communities or SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
Description of Project Boundaries Using Street Names and Cross Streets: The service will be provided primarily in the AB 1550 Low-income Communities west of Interstate 5, south of Avenida Pico, and north of Avenida Valencia. The western boundary consists of the Pacific Ocean.

3. Sub-Applicant(s) Information (If Applicable)
Information about the organization(s) who have entered a partnership with the Lead Applicant. See 69 4
the Letter of Commitment from the Sub-Applicant with the application (Exhibit E- Phase 2 application).

Applicable
X Not Applicable

4. Motor Vehicle Fleet Owner Information (If Applicable) Information about the party that will take ownership of the motor vehicles funded by the CMO. The party may be the same or different than the lead applicant. Note: if the party is different from the lead application, the Fleet Owner must agree to abide by the terms and conditions in the voucher agreement.

Organization Name: City of San Clemente
Primary Contact Name: Fatana Temory
Mailing Address: 910 Calle Negocio
City: San Clemente State: CA Zip Code: 92673
Phone: (949) 361-6115 Primary Email: [email protected]

5. Mobility Operator Information (If Applicable)
Information about the mobility operator for each project service model (if more than one). The party may be the same or different than the lead applicant. Note: Securement of the Mobility Operator with the contract is due by first payment for any vehicle or infrastructure equipment or within three months from the Voucher Agreement execution date, whichever is sooner.

Project Service Model: Shuttle Service
Organization Name: Pending
Primary Contact Name: [Insert Primary Contact Name]
Mailing Address: [Insert Mailing Address]
City: [Insert City] State: CA Zip Code: [Insert Zip Code] Phone: [Insert Phone] Primary Email: [Insert Primary Email Address] Attachment 1- Budget Worksheet (from original application) 70 5
Attachment 2: Project Milestone Schedule
71 6
(for Awardees with Cost-Based Payments)
72 City of San Clemente
Community Resource Contributions (CRCs) from Application # Community Resource Contribution Type Community Resource Contribution Supporting Documentation (from Application)

1. Relationship with project-relevant community
groups or Community-Based Organizations (CBOs)

1. The Village & Age Well Senior Services2. Boys & Girls Club of San Clemente3. SC Downtown Business Association4. SC Chamber of Commercial5. Friends of San Clemente Foundation List of CBOs or community groups

2. Project-related materials or assets already
owned by project participants and/or donated to the project that will be used during the Voucher Funding Term.

Jessica Gatny has dedicated approximately 80 hours to project management, including the research and evaluation activities for the project. Jessica developed a timeline to guide the process, prepared a preliminary project budget, and began to reach out to gain community support.

Task Description

3. Project-related labor costs during Voucher
Funding Term that are not paid through voucher funds
The City will retain most of the project labor costs, including most outreach and marketing duties, program management, and research and evaluation activities for the project. For long-term sustainability, the City intends to use purchased NEVs to reduce the cost of operation beyond the program term.

Task Description

4. Project-related materials or assets already
owned by project participants and/or donated to the project that will be used during the Voucher Funding Term. x Event venues (Ole Hanson Beach Club and
Max Berg Park),
x Outreach and education expenses, including
advertising, community meetings/engagement,travel expenses, reporting activities, and Citywebsite x Citywide Parking and Transportation Demand
Management Study and Plan performed from2024-2026 estimated $250,000 Task Description and Public Engagement Work Plan

5. Donated or acquired land of infrastructure or
parking spaces
Existing EV chargers at City Hall for charging the vehicles and will store vehicles at City Hall when not in use, which will be gated and secured.

Photos of City Hall’s EV chargers and secured parking spaces ([KLELW&
73 Mobility Project Voucher Application
Phase 1 of 2

INTRODUCTION
Welcome to the Clean Mobility Options Voucher Pilot Project (CMO) Application for Mobility Projects.

Completed applications may be submitted after the application window opens on Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 9:00 am Pacific Time and before it closes on Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 11:59 pm Pacific Time. For CMO program information including the Implementation Manual, Application Guide, and supporting resources, please visit www.cleanmobilityoptions.org.

APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS:

Before beginning the application process, please:

1. Review the Implementation Manual and
Application Guide at
www.cleanmobilityoptions.org/mpv-app-guide-1.

2. Check your organization's eligibility to apply.

3. Check that you have an eligible project proposal.

4. Confirm you are able and willing to comply with
the program's general provisions.

When you are ready to proceed:

1. Complete this application, referring to the
companion Application Guide, and save the
application prior to the opening of the application
window on Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 9:00
am Pacific Time. You may save and return to
your application at any time prior to submission.

To be accepted, the application must contain all
true, accurate, and complete responses in all
required fields. Required fields are marked with
an asterisk (*).

IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL:

The Application Form (this page) and its
companion Application Guide are derived from
the Implementation Manual (IM). Please see the
IM for comprehensive information about
eligibility, general provisions, and related
information.

ACCESSIBILITY OPTIONS:

Applicants are highly encouraged to submit the
application online through this application portal.

However, if desired, applicants may request a
document-based application by email to
[email protected] or by
postal mail to:

Clean Mobility Options
c/o CALSTART
48 South Chester Avenue
Exhibit D
74 2. After the application window opens at the date
and time listed above, submit this application by
returning to your saved application and pressing
“SUBMIT” before the applican window closes on
Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 11:59 pm Pacific
Time. The “SUBMIT” function will be enabled
once the application window opens.

3. Within 8 weeks of your submission, the Program
Administrator will notify the primary contact
whether the application has been approved and
will move on to the second and final phase. For
more information about Phase 2, see the
Application Guide at
www.cleanmobilityoptions.org/mpv-app-guide-1.

COMPANION APPLICATION GUIDE:

The Application Guide is a companion to this application form with tips for answering each question. We
recommend that you read the guide before starting the
application. "Guidance" links in the application questions below will take you to their corresponding sections in the guide to make this resource easy to use as you progress through your application.

Pasadena, CA, 91106
Mail-in applications will be timestamped as the
day they are mailed (by postmark or receipt at
the applicant's choice).

If you have any questions or need assistance,
please contact the CMO Application Technical
Assistance with your request.

MORE INFORMATION AND SUPPORT:

Technical assistance is available to help
complete the application:
 Email: [email protected]
 Phone: (626) 744-5760
 Web: www.cleanmobilityoptions.org/help
SECTION 1. PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION
Individual's Name
Jonathan Lightfoot
Title
Economic
Development
Officer
Email Address
lightfootj@sanclemente.org
Phone
(949) 361-
8254
Additional Information
SECTION 2. APPLICANT AND TEAM PROFILE
Lead Applicant Organization Name
City of San Clemente
Lead Applicant Organization Address
910 Calle Negocio, San Clemente, California 92673
Lead Applicant Organization Type
Public Agency
Indicate Which, if Any, Related CARB Programs the Lead Applicant Has Previously Received Funding For
None
Application Includes Sub-Applicants
75 No
Indicate the Lead Applicant's Relationship with the Mobility Operator We do not currently have a mobility operator. We will secure and confirm our mobility operator that meets the criteria within 3 months of voucher execution.

Additional Mobility Operator Information (Optional)
City staff have engaged Circuit Transit in preliminary conversations about operating as the mobility provider for this project. Circuit is an “experienced partner” listed in the CMO Clean Mobility Provider Directory. However, staff will reserve the final operator determination to the City Council.

SECTION 3. PROJECT NARRATIVE
Project Name
San Clemente NEV Shuttles
Project Overview
Based on the results of the surveys and community engagement activities underlying our needs assessment, the San Clemente NEV Shuttle program will provide all-electric on-demand shuttle services (or a similar "smart stops" program) that augments the existing transportation options in the City, focusing on last-mile oriented locations and catered to the needs of the local community. The program will be designed with the community’s input and participation to provide safe, convenient, affordable, and accessible first / last mile connections. The goals of the program will be to improve mobility options for the community, provide connections to public transit and key community services, improve social determinants of health related to transportation accessibility, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and reduce congestion.

The shuttle will be administered by the City of San Clemente and operated by one of the authorized Mobility Operators referenced in ths Clean Mobility Provider Directory. City staff has met with Circuit Transit Inc. (Circuit) to confirm the feasibility of this proposal, but the City Council will make a final determination of the provider after a more thorough review of the rate structures of Circuit and other providers. Circuit (or similar) will provide a turn-key service, including employing and training a team of local driver ambassadors, providing and maintaining electric vehicles for service, obtaining appropriate storage and charging facilities, providing technology, and insurance for the service. Circuit currently operates in several nearby cities and will leverage its local Southern California teams and resources to quickly launch and effectively run the service.

The shuttle will operate as an on-demand (or "smart stops") service using a fleet of dedicated all-electric vehicles. Riders can request rides within a geo-fenced coverage zone through a mobile ride request app available on iOS and Android, by phone, and by waving down a vehicle. Rides will be available for a low flat rate fare to the general public, with reduced cost plans available for qualifying individuals. The service will include an electric ADA accessible vehicle for riders requiring ADA assistance, which can be indicated in the ride request app or when requesting by phone. If a fare is implemented, a contactless fare program will accept payment via credit card, debit card, or prepaid card, with accommodations for unbanked participants and those without a smartphone.

The service will operate up to 12 hours per day, 7 days a week, with adjustments made based on feedback from the community and City and as data from the service comes in to best align with the needs of the community.
76 The focus of the service area will be on key destinations for the local population and visitors, including healthcare, transportation hubs, grocery, senior living facilities, and other destinations as determined through community feedback. Over this period, the service can be adjusted and honed to the needs of this community, to the extent necessary and permitted by CMO.

The service will be provided primarily in the AB 1550 Low-income Communities west of Interstate 5, south of Avenida Pico and north of Avenida Valencia. This includes important transit connections (OCTA Route 1, San Clemente Trolley), grocery stores, shopping, and job centers. While the southernmost section is not classified as a Low-Income community, it does contain important community amenities, connections, and resources that align with the needs assessment. Circuit, the City, and community partners, will work with the community to identify key hot spots within this geofenced zone. Based on the Community feedback, the City may alternatively operate the program as a "smart stops" or "hub and spoke" with more clearly defined target pickup locations that overlap the City's public Trolley route.

The service will be reviewed by the project team monthly, quarterly, and on an as needed basis. Hours, vehicles, and/or service territory will be reviewed and may be adjusted as needed according to service data and input from the community.

The City will assist its selected Mobility Operator in coordinating storage, maintenance, and charging locations at a local facility.

No additional infrastructure is expected to be installed for this program. No additional transportation enhancement is proposed other than the core project model. Data from this service may be used to inform other transportation and urban planning.

The City will also engage community partners such as the San Clemente Downtown Business Association, the San Clemente Chamber of Commerce, the San Clemente Senior Center (operated by AgeWell), youthoriented nonprofits, and others to provide outreach and community engagement to continually promote and improve the service. Circuit or (or other selected Mobility Operator) will provide regular data reports to the City.

Service Models
Innovative transit services (e.g., on-demand shuttle or micro-transit) Innovative Transit Services - Type
Shuttle On-Demand Service
Vehicle Types to be Deployed
Light-Duty Battery-Electric Vehicles (CVRP-Eligible)
Medium-Duty Battery-Electric Vans and Buses (HVIP-Eligible) Section
Enter Your Requested Voucher Amount
$1,500,000.00
Indicate the Stage of Your Project
New
Indicate the Status of Service Models in Your Community That are of the Same Type Which You Propose
77 The Same Type of Service(s) Already Exist and
Is/Are Currently Operating in the Community
No
The Same Type of Service(s) Previously Existed
in the Community and Has/Have Ceased
No
SECTION 4. COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

ASSESSMENT
Section
Transportation Access Data – 3 Data Sources
Source 1: US EPA Walkability Index
Source 2: Average Cost Per Week For Fueling Car (AAA)
Source 3: Existing Public Transit Stops (OCTA)
Survey of Project Area Residents
This needs assessment leverages the most recent Travel & Employment Survey conducted by True North Research for OCTA. While the survey included all of Orange County, more localized breakdowns of important data was also reported by smaller Supervisorial Districts.

Methodology:
“...2,019 randomly selected Orange County adult residents participated in the tracking survey between September 12 and September 30, 2022. The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). The interviews averaged 15 minutes in length and were conducted in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. The results presented in this report are representative at the countywide level, as well as within the five Supervisorial Districts identified in Figure 1.” (2) Notable demographics:
“The sample profile matches Orange County’s adult population profile on age, ethnicity, and homeownership based on the most recent Census American Community Survey (ACS) estimates, and is also balanced across Supervisorial Districts.” (43)
September 2022 demographic highlights:
45% Male, 53% Female, 0.3% Other

37.7% Caucasian/White, 32.3% Latino/Hispanic, 1.5% Af Amer/Black, 20.0% Asian American, 3.4% Mixed or Other

44.3% Rent, 51.7% Own

84.2% Always, 8.2% Sometimes, 5.9% Rarely have access to a personal vehicle OCTA’s “Directions 2045” Long Range Transportation Plan (January 2023) further informed this needs assessment.

Copy of Survey Used
Employment Travel Survey FINAL Report - 2022.pdf
Community Engagement – Activity 1
This needs assessment leverages community engagement activities originally undertaken as part of San Clemente’s Housing Element.
78 “Public participation for the 2021-2029 Housing Element included two online Housing Element and Safety Element Community Workshops on October 22, 2020 and January 26, 2021. Members of the community were invited to address concerns and give input on the contents of the Housing Element and Safety Element. The workshops included poll questions for participants to answer throughout the presentation.

Special invitations were sent to housing developers, housing professionals, and agencies and organizations that provide supportive housing services to lower and moderate income households and persons with special needs (see Appendix A for mailing list). Notices were also posted on City website and social media platforms and the City published press releases. The October 2020 workshop was attended by 22 persons and the January 2021 workshop was attended by 17 persons. Presentations for both workshops were translated to Spanish and available on the City’s website. During the October 2020 workshop, participants identified affordable housing and housing for the homeless as priority housing needs in the community, and seniors and young adults as the most underserved groups. During the January 2021 workshop, residents suggested North El Camino Real and Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan as appropriate areas for additional housing, but also suggested avoiding concentration of new housing in specific areas. The meeting recordings are available on the City’s YouTube channel. To further facilitate the community in assessing appropriate areas for increased housing, the City conducted an online survey from February 5 to March 26, 2021. The survey asked residents for their input and density preferences for the potential rezone sites as discussed in the January 2021 webinar. The City published the survey on their website and notified residents through email, two press releases, a special City Council presentation, and social media. As of March 2021, 617 responses were received. The City presented the potential sites for rezoning along before the Planning Commission on April 7, 2021 to solicit further input on the potential sites.”
Link: San Clemente Housing Element (Section 2, Public Participation) https://www.sanclemente.org/home/showdocument?id=72040&t=638092106683668550 Community Engagement – Activity 2
This needs assessment leverages community engagement activities originally undertaken as part of the South Orange County Multimodal Transportation Study.
“Public engagement was a key component of the study process and set a foundation for future stages of development. In total, seven public events were hosted engaging nearly 700 members of the community.

The survey and project information reached more than 400,000 people, which resulted in a total of 2,381 surveys collected. The feedback collected during each phase had a common theme that the public and stakeholders would like to see more alternatives to driving such as light rail, trolleys, active transportation, and improved public transit availability and accessibility. The public indicated a willingness to use alternative modes of transportation if the benefits and ease of use were more appealing than using a personal vehicle.”
Link to study: https://www.octa.net/Projects-and-Programs/Plans-and-Studies/South-Orange-CountyMultimodal-Transportation-Study/#!Resources Link to Appendix A Public and Stakeholder Participation Report:
https://www.octa.net/pdf/SOCMTS_FinalReportAppendices.pdf Community Engagement – Additional (Optional)
The City has engaged the Community multiple times over the past two years in regards to its Trolley program, jointly funded with OCTA (find Trolley info here: https://www.san-clemente.org/recreationcommunity/beaches/san-clemente-trolley). Although the Trolley did not operate in 2020 due to Covid, the service was reintroduced in 2021. In 2020, The City supported local businesses by creating a "parklet" program to allow for outdoor dining, which did remove some parking to make way for these installations.

The City began collecting small fees from the "parklet operators" in 2021 to support expanded trolley services. While the Trolley was intended to only operate during the summers, the City began providing 79 weekend service in the fall through New Years due to community feedback. Most recently, the City Council agendized a further winter extension of its Trolley line as well as a pilot of a "green line" route in the AB1550 area and extending to the southern end of town. This location was selected from public feedback, including interest from the CA State Parks (operating San Clemente State Park, where a stop will be located). The City is funding this 3 month pilot as one way to further explore mobility improvements and demonstrates the City's commitment to public engagement and investment in exploring new mobility alternatives.

Summary Report of Findings
Summary of Report Findings - CMO App 2023.docx
Was Your Needs Assessment Developed by a Previous CTNA Awardee Who Is Not Part of This Proposal?
No
SECTION 5. PROJECT AREA
Where is Your Project Located?
AB 1550 Low-income Communities (see Map Reference)
Map Reference:
https://cleanmobilityoptions.org/projectarea-mapping-tool Select a Method for Describing the Boundaries of the Project Area Description of Project Boundaries Using Street Names and Cross Streets Description of Project Boundaries Using Street Names and Cross Streets The service will be provided primarily in the AB 1550 Low-income Communities west of Interstate 5, south of Avenida Pico and north of Avenida Valencia. The western boundary consists of the Pacific Ocean.

Project Area Setting Description
Most or all of one city/town
Section
Name of County (or Counties)
Orange
Name of City/Cities or Town(s)
San Clemente
SECTION 6. ATTESTATIONS AND SIGNATURE
Signature Signature Date
3/1/2023
80 Signed by
Jonathan Lightfoot
Position
Economic Development Officer
Upload Signature (as needed)
Are You Ready to Submit the Application?
Yes *Application Window
opens at 9:00 am PT on
Wednesday, March 1, 2023
81 82

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
83 Table of Contents
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Motivation for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Local Issues & The Pandemic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Most Important Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Expectations for Coronavirus Pandemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Employment & Commute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Question 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Employment Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Days Working Per Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Question 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Working from Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Question 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Commute Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Question 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Commute Distance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Employer’s Policy on Working from Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Remote Work Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Changing Employers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Current & Expected Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Personal Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Question 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Future Work Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 More or Less Remote Work in Future?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Remote Work Status - Employee’s Preference? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Question 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Question 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Question 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Working Fewer Days from Home. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Question 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Working Same Days from Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Question 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 84 Table of Contents
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Working More Days from Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Question 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Do You Anticipate Changing Employers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Question 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Question 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Programming, Pre-Test & Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Sample, Recruiting & Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Statistical Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 85 List of Tables
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 iii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Top Issue Facing County by Supervisorial District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 2 Top Issues Facing County by Study Version. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 3 Net Impacts of Working From Home by Study Version. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 4 Percentage Change in Days Per Month Performing Personal Activities: Sep 2022 vs Sep 2023 Expectations by Overall & Supervisorial District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 5 Demographics of Sample by Study Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 86 List of Figures
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Map of Supervisorial Districts and ZIP Codes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 2 Most Important Issue Facing County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 3 Opinion of Coronavirus Outbreak by Survey Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 4 Opinion of Coronavirus Outbreak by Age & Employment Status Sep vs One Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 5 Opinion of Coronavirus Outbreak by Years in Orange County, Supervisorial District & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 6 Opinion of Coronavirus Outbreak by Ethnicity & Hsld Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 7 Employment Status: Feb 2020, Jun 2020, Sep 2021 & Post-Pandemic Expectations, Sep 2022 & Sep 2023 Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 8 Employment Status: Sep 2022 & Sep 2023 Expectations by Overall & Age. . . . . . . 17 Figure 9 Employment Status: Sep 2022 & Sep 2023 Expectations by Ethnicity & Hsld Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 10 Work Days Per Week: Feb 2020, Jun 2020, Sep 2021 & Post-Pandemic Expectations, and Sep 2022 & Sep 2023 Expectations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 11 Work Days Per Week Sep 2022 vs Sep 2023 Expectations by Overall, Supervisorial District & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 12 Work Days Per Week Sep 2022 vs Sep 2023 Expectations by Ethnicity & Hsld Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 13 Work Days Per Week Sep 2022 vs Sep 2023 Expectations by Employment Status Sep 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 14 Telework Days Per Week: Feb 2020, Jun 2020, Sep 2021 & Post-Pandemic Expectations, and Sep 2022 and Sep 2023 Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 15 Telework Days Per Week Sep 2022 vs Sep 2023 Expectations by Overall, Supervisorial District & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 16 Telework Days Per Week Sep 2022 vs Sep 2023 Expectations by Ethnicity & Hsld Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 17 Telework Days Per Week Sep 2022 vs Sep 2023 Expectations by Employment Status Sep. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Figure 18 Commute Mode: Feb 2020, Jun 2020, Sep 2021 & Post-Pandemic Expectations, Sep 2022 and Sep 2023 Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 19 Commute Mode Sep 2022 vs Sep 2023 Expectations by Supervisorial District . . . . 24 Figure 20 Work Commute Miles: Feb 2020, Jun 2020, Sep 2021 & Sep 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 21 Telework Option: Feb 2020, Jun 2020, Sep 2021 & Sep 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 22 Telework Option Sep 2022 by Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 23 Telework Option Sep 2022 by Occupation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 24 Impact of Working From Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 25 Negative/Positive Impacts of Each Aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 26 Change Employers in Past 18 Months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 27 Change Employers in Past 18 Months Years in Orange County & Age . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 28 Change Employers in Past 18 Months by Hsld Income & Supervisorial District. . . . 30 Figure 29 Change Employers in Past 18 Months by Telework Option in Sep & Ethnicity. . . . . 30 Figure 30 Main Reason For Changing Employers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 31 Percentage of Days Per Month Performing Personal Activities: Feb 2020, Jun 2020, Aug 2021, Post-Pandemic Expectations, Aug 2022 & Sep 2023 Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 32 Personal Activities: Aug 2022 vs Sep 2023 Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 33 Percentage Change in Days Per Month Performing Personal Activities:

Aug 2022 vs Sep 2023 Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 34 Expected Sep 2023 Telework Status Among All Employees by Overall & Percentage Telework Days in Sep 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 87 List of Figures
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Figure 35 Expected Sep 2023 Telework Status Among All Employees by Supervisorial District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 36 Expected Sep 2023 Telework Status Among All Employees by Hsld Income. . . . . . 37 Figure 37 Sep 2023 Expected Telework Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Figure 38 Fewer Telework Days Next Year (Sep 2023): Employer Requirement vs Employee Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 39 Same Number of Telework Days Next Year (Sep 2023): Employer Requirement vs Employee Preference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 40 More Telework Days Next Year (Sep 2023): Employer Requirement vs Employee Preference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 41 Employment Status in Next 12 Months by Overall & Supervisorial District . . . . . . . 41 Figure 42 Employment Status in Next 12 Months by Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Figure 43 Employment Status in Next 12 Months by Hsld Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 44 Main Reason For Changing Employers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 45 Maximum Margin of Error Due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 88 Introduction
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I NTRODUCTION
The arrival of coronavirus in California triggered a statewide shelter-in-place mandate in March 2020, effectively shuttering many sectors of the world’s fifth largest economy for several months and sending ripple effects through most aspects of daily life. In addition to the direct economic impacts including job losses, salary cuts, and reduced spending, the threat of COVID-19 and the closure of non-essential businesses dramatically altered how and where people work, play, shop, and travel. Although the State began a phased reopening of the economy several months later, public health restrictions remained throughout 2020 and into 2021, and many businesses and employees found themselves forced to operate under altered work arrangements. Within four months of the pandemic’s arrival, full-time employment in Orange County declined by 9%, the number of employees who worked from home at least one day per week jumped from 23% to 61%, and the average number of days worked from home among all employees increased from

0.76 to 2.52 per week. The pandemic also prompted dramatic changes in travel behavior, with Orange County residents reporting significant reductions in the number of days they drive alone, carpool, or use public transit.1
Although the widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines and relaxation of public health guidelines in 2021 allowed many workers the option to return to the office, many preferred to keep their remote work status. Eighteen months after vaccines were made widely available to all adults, questions still remain as to what percentage of workers have returned to the office, how they are commuting, and whether they anticipate these patterns will change or if this is effectively the new normal. The answers to these questions are highly relevant to OCTA’s mission to develop an integrated and balanced transportation system that supports the diverse travel needs and reflects the character of Orange County.

MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH The purpose of the study described in this report was to develop a statistically reliable understanding of how public attitudes, working arrangements, travel behaviors, and mode choice have been altered over the course of the pandemic, as well as how these patterns could change in the upcoming year. This tracking survey represents the third in the study series. A baseline survey (presented to OCTA in August 2020) profiled work arrangements, travel behavior, and relevant activities among Orange County residents prior to the pandemic (January & February 2020) and several months into the pandemic (June 2020) to document changes. A tracking survey conducted in September 2021 captured the same information for the September 2021 period, as well as respondents’ expectations for what was referred to as the post-pandemic period. This third tracking survey gathered the same employment and activity data for the current period (September 2022) and expectations a year from now (September 2023).

Specifically, the current tracking survey was designed to:
• Identify the issues that residents view as the most important facing Orange County today • Gauge residents’ expectations for the coronavirus pandemic

1. Source: Employment and Travel Survey: Summary Report on Pandemic Impacts, report prepared for OCTA by True North Research, August 12, 2020.
89 Introduction
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 • Profile their employment status, work schedule, frequency of remote work, and commute behavior in September 2022 and expectations for a year from now (September 2023) • Profile their use of rideshare, transit, and active transportation, as well as their shopping and dining habits in September 2022 and expectations for September 2023 • Among employees who work from home, gauge the impacts of doing so on their work experiences and performance OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology on page 44). In brief, a total of 2,019 randomly selected Orange County adult residents participated in the tracking survey between September 12 and September 30, 2022.2 The survey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text and telephone) and multiple data collection methods (telephone and online). The interviews averaged 15 minutes in length and were conducted in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. The results presented in this report are representative at the countywide level, as well as within the five Supervisorial Districts identified in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1 MAP OF SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICTS AND ZIP CODES

2. A total of 6,776 interviews were completed between the baseline survey and two tracking surveys. 92618
92679
92676
92886
92808
92677
92862
92688
92675
92651
90740
92656
92807
92887
92821
92672
92673
92603
92683
92869
92602
92626
92630
92660
92692
92648
92708
92646
92691
92657
92833
92806
92647
92704
90631
92867
92653
92804
92629
92705
92823
92870
90630
92694
90620
92805
92649
92780
92612
92801
92831
92620
92835
92627
92610
92709
90720
92840
92663
92802
92707
92614
92703
90621
92843
92865
92706
92701
92624
92604
92841 92868
92606
92782
92625
92637
92832
90680
92710
92705
92661
92845
92697
92861
92844
92866
90623
92705
92841
92707
90742
92655
92662
90743
92804
92705
92705
IRVINE

ANAHEIM
ORANGE
SANTA
ANA
BREA

FULLERTON
TUSTIN

YORBA LINDA

NEWPORT BEACH

HUNTINGTON
BEACH

COSTA MESA

LAKE FOREST

MISSION
VIEJO

SAN CLEMENTE

GARDEN GROVE

SEAL BEACH

LAGUNA NIGUEL
BUENA
PARK

LA HABRA

WESTMINSTER

CYPRESS

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO

PLACENTIA

ALISO VIEJO

DANA POINT

FOUNTAIN
VALLEY

STANTON

LAGUNA BEACH
LAGUNA
HILLS
RANCHO
SANTA

MARGARITA
LOS

ALAMITOS

LAGUNA WOODS
LA
PALMA
VILLA
PARK
Orange County Zip Codes by Supervisorial District
October 5, 2011 Portions of this map copyrighted by Thomas Bros. Maps and reproduced with permission. W:\Requests\EA\Marketing\ZipCodes\OCZIPCodes_SupeDist_2011-1005.mxd Source: OCTA
I024 1
Miles
1 2
4 3
5 Zip Code Boundary
Supervisorial District Boundary
90 Introduction
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to meet the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.

For those who seek an overview of the findings, the section titled Key Findings is for you. It provides a summary of the most important factual findings of the surveys and a discussion of their implications. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-byquestion discussion of the results from the surveys by topic area (see Table of Contents), a description of the methodology employed for collecting and analyzing the data (see Methodology on page 44), and the questionnaire used for the interviews (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 47).

Where appropriate, the results of the baseline survey (August 2020) and the initial tracking survey (September 2021) have been incorporated into graphics and analyses in this report alongside data collected in the 2022 tracking survey to provide a more complete picture of how employment arrangements, travel behavior, and activities have changed over the trajectory of the pandemic.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS True North thanks OCTA for the opportunity to assist the agency with this important study, especially Alice Rogan, Kurt Brotcke, and Darrell Johnson. Their collective expertise, local knowledge, and insight improved the overall quality of the research presented here.

DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those of OCTA. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities, and concerns of their residents and customers. Through designing and implementing scientific surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, performance management, organizational development, establishing fiscal priorities, and developing effective public information campaigns.

During their careers, Dr. McLarney (President) and Mr. Sarles (Principal Researcher) have designed and conducted over 1,200 survey research studies for public agencies, including more than 500 studies for California municipalities, special districts, and transportation planning agencies.
91 Key Findings
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

K EY F INDINGS
This study was designed to provide OCTA with a statistically reliable understanding of how Orange County residents’ attitudes, working arrangements, travel behaviors, and activities were altered over the course of the pandemic, as well as how these patterns may have change as the pandemic recedes. Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the collective results of the survey answer some of the key questions that motivated the research.

Is the coronavirus pandemic still top-of-mind
for Orange County residents?
When asked in June 2020 to identify the most important issue facing Orange County, the coronavirus pandemic/COVID-19 naturally topped the list, being mentioned by more than one-third (34%) of respondents.

The next nearest specific issues were homelessness (12%), housing availability/affordability (7%), traffic congestion (6%), and public safety/ drugs/crime (5%).

Residents’ concerns about the coronavirus in June 2020 were driven, in part, by what they saw as the pandemic’s trajectory in Orange County moving forward. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (63%) were pessimistic about the coronavirus outbreak in Orange County at the time, anticipating that the worst is yet to come. Approximately 20% were optimistic, feeling that the worst is behind us. The remaining respondents were either uncertain (16%) or preferred to not share their opinion (1%).

By September 2021, Orange County residents were far more optimistic about the path of the pandemic, with 53% feeling that the worst is behind us, 21% anticipating the worst is yet to come, and the remainder being unsure (25%) or unwilling to share their opinion (1%). Although still top of mind for many residents, the pandemic was no longer viewed as the most important issue facing the County, being replaced by homelessness (23%) and concerns about housing availability/affordability (15%) at the top of the list. Just 12% of respondents in the 2021 tracking survey identified the pandemic/COVID-19 as the most important issue facing Orange County today.

Fast forward to September 2022 and it’s clear that the pandemic is old news for many Orange County residents. When asked to identify the number one issue facing Orange County today, less than 1% mentioned COVID-19 or the pandemic, focusing instead on homelessness (25%), housing availability/affordability (18%), public safety/drugs/crime (11%), cost of living (9%), traffic congestion (9%), and public transportation (5%).

Consistent with this finding, three-quarters of respondents (74%) in 2022 expected that the worst of the pandemic is behind us, while just 10% anticipated the worst is yet to come, and 16% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion.
92 Key Findings
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 How has the pandemic
impacted Orange
County residents’
employment?
Consistent with the sharp increase in unemployment recorded statewide during the months of April, May and June 2020 in response to the pandemic,3 the baseline survey results revealed that Orange County residents experienced significant job losses between February and June, 2020. Full-time employment declined 9% during this period, with additional declines in part-time employment (-1%) and self-employment (-1.6%). Meanwhile, the percentage of individuals surveyed who were unemployed/looking for work, laid-off, or furloughed increased from 4% to 18% between February and June, 2020.

In addition to the net loss of jobs noted above, there were other less obvious impacts that occurred in the first few months of the pandemic.

Among those who remained employed, the number of days worked per week declined from 4.95 days on average in February 2020 to 4.73 days per week in June 2020. Approximately 4% of individuals who were employed in February and June were also compelled to switch employers in the interim, with young adults (18 to 24) and those in households earning less than $25,000 annually being the most likely to have switched employers during this period.

More than a year later (September 2021), the initial tracking survey indicated that although employment had rebounded in Orange County from the early months of the pandemic, it remained depressed when compared to pre-pandemic levels. Sixty-four percent (64%) of respondents in the tracking survey indicated they were employed full-time (48%), parttime (9%), or self-employed (8%), compared to 71% in February 2020.

The 2021 patterns notwithstanding, Orange County residents anticipated at that time that their levels of employment would return to prepandemic levels once the pandemic was over, with 56% expecting to work full-time, 9% part-time, and 7% self-employed during the post-pandemic period.

The 2022 tracking survey results reveal that little has changed over the past year in terms of employment. The percentage of individuals employed full-time (49%), part-time (9%), or self-employed (7%) is strikingly similar to that found in 2021, collectively just 1% higher. As was the case in 2021, however, respondents in 2022 were optimistic about their future employment, expecting that one year from now (September 2023) their levels of employment (55% full-time, 8% part-time, 8% selfemployed) would be similar to pre-pandemic levels. And just as they were the most likely to suffer unemployment in the early months of the pandemic, younger adults and those in low-income households were

3. According to the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the unemployment rate in California jumped from 4.2% in February to 15.5% in April 2020, reached 16.4% in May 2020, and tapered to 14.9% in June 2020.
93 Key Findings
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 also the most likely to anticipate a positive change in their employment status by 2023.

How has the pandemic
impacted where
employees work?
Concerns about COVID-19 transmission in the work place and guidelines issued by the State of California and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) prompted many Orange County businesses to shift to a remote work model when the pandemic struck, with employees working from home rather than coming to a central work site. This study not only confirmed there was a dramatic shift in where business was being conducted in Orange County during the initial months of the pandemic, it has also demonstrated that the tide of remote work witnessed in 2020 ebbed only modestly in 2021 and appears to be settling into a new normal in 2022 well-above pre-pandemic levels.

Prior to the pandemic in February 2020, less than one-quarter (23%) of employed Orange County residents indicated they worked from home at least one day per week, which translated to an overall average of 0.76 days per week working from home per employee. Four months later in June 2020, 61% of employed residents reported that they worked from home at least one day per week, and the average number of days working from home per employee had jumped to 2.52 per week.

Although the widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines and relaxation of public health guidelines in 2021 allowed many workers the option to return to the office, the first tracking survey in 2021 indicated that only a modest percentage decided to do so. Reporting on their work arrangements in September 2021, 48% indicated that they worked from home at least one day per week, with the average number of days worked from home among all employees being 1.97—not far below the

2.52 reported in June 2020. When asked at that time what they expect when the pandemic is over, the percentage of employees who anticipated working from home at least one day per week (44%) was double pre-pandemic levels, as was the expected average number of days worked from home per week (1.55).

The 2022 tracking survey indicates that the average number of days worked from home has declined only slightly over the past year, even as the pandemic has waned. The patterns match closely to what employees in 2021 expected for the post-pandemic period. In September 2022, 43% of Orange County employees offered that they worked from home at least one day per week, with the average number of days worked at home among all employees being 1.49 (double pre-pandemic levels).

Interestingly, the survey also reveals that some employees aspire to increase the days they work from home over the next year, as the average expected number of days worked from home one year from now (September 2023) is 1.60.
94 Key Findings
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Which industries and
occupations are working remotely?
Although all industries and occupational categories experienced an increase in remote working during the pandemic, by September 2022 the patterns were far from even. Certain industries such as finance & insurance, information, wholesale trade, real estate, rental & leasing, and professional, scientific & technology apparently lend themselves to working from home, with three-quarters or more of employees surveyed in these industries indicating that their employers give them the option to work from home. At the other end of the spectrum, less than one-third of employees in industries that generally require in-person services or labor such as utilities, accommodation & food services, education, and construction reported that their employer gives them the option to work from home at least one day per week.

Similarly, remote work patterns varied dramatically across occupations in September 2022, with far more office professionals reporting that their employers allow them the option to work from home when compared to those working in manual or skilled labor positions. At the extremes, more than three-quarters of employees working in legal, business and financial positions, and computer or math science reported that their employer allows them to work from home, compared to less than 10% of employees in protective services and construction/extraction positions.

How has working from
home impacted
employees’ work experiences and lives?
Employees who currently work at home at least one day per week were generally positive when asked how remote work has impacted various aspects of their job performance and their personal lives. Indeed, for all but two dimensions tested, the percentage of employees who felt that remote work had helped was substantially higher than the percentage who felt it had hurt.

The largest net positive outcomes were reported for the impacts of remote working on their expenses, job satisfaction, productivity, ability to manage their time, and ability to strike a balance between work and their personal life. To a lesser degree, remote work was also generally viewed to have a net positive impact on the quality of their work and their ability to communicate with external customers and partners.

Where remote work was perceived to be harmful focused on employees’ abilities to communicate and collaborate with other employees.

How has the pandemic
impacted commute patterns?
The dramatic increase in remote working that occurred in the initial months of the pandemic had a direct impact on commute patterns in Orange County. With far more employees reporting that they only worked from home in June 2020 (47%) when compared to February 2020 (12%), the percentage who commuted to a work site at least occasionally declined from 89% to 54% during this period. The net reduction in work commutes was felt in every mode category, with the percentage of employees reporting that they typically commute to work by driving alone declining from 77% to 48%, and use of public transit, active trans95 Key Findings
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 portation, and carpool/vanpool for commuting was cut in half during the same period.

By September 2021, many workers had resumed their commutes to a work location outside of their home (at least once per week), although as noted above the amount of work taking place in the home remained well above pre-pandemic levels. Of the 70% of employees who commuted to work in September 2021, 60% indicated they typically drove alone, 4% took public transit, 3% carpooled or vanpooled, 2% used active transportation (walk/run/bike/E-bike), and 2% used a different mode.

With respect to alternative modes of transportation, the trend back toward pre-pandemic commute patterns was expected to continue when employees were surveyed in 2021. Once the pandemic is over, 5% of employees anticipated that they would typically use public transit for their commute, 4% expected to carpool or vanpool, 2% expected to use active transportation, and 2% other modes. Approximately seven-in-ten employees (69%) anticipated that they would drive alone to work once the pandemic is over, which is approximately 10% less than pre-pandemic due to the higher percentage of employees (18%) who anticipate only working from home and thus will not be commuting.

Fast-forward to September 2022 and the patterns are nearly identical to what employees forecast in 2021 for the post-pandemic period. Of the 81% of employees who commuted to work in September 2022, 69% indicated they typically drove alone, 5% took public transit, 1% carpooled or vanpooled, 4% used active transportation (walk/run/bike/E-bike), and 2% used a different mode. Employees also anticipated that these mode choice patterns would hold over the next year, with expectations for September 2023 being nearly identical to the current period.

In what other ways has
the pandemic impacted
residents’ activities?
In the first few months of the pandemic, Orange County residents made significant changes in their travel, shopping, and dining habits. With respect to travel behavior, the percentage of days they drove alone in a vehicle declined from 65% in February 2020 to 43% in June 2020, use of on-demand rideshare declined from 4% of days in February to 1% in June, carpooling with someone they don’t live with declined from 4% of days in February to 1% in June, riding a bus declined from 3% of days on average in February to 1% in June, while riding Metrolink or Amtrak declined from 1% of days in February to 0.2% in June.

With respect to shopping and dining, the dramatic decline in the percentage of days respondents reported eating a meal at a restaurant (24% in February vs 5% in June) was only partially offset by an increase in the percentage of days they ordered food for pick-up (12% in February vs 17% in June) or delivery (6% in February vs 8% in June). When compared to the patterns in February, there was also a modest uptick in the percentage of 96 Key Findings
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 days Orange County residents purchased groceries online (2% in February vs 5% in June) and purchased other products online (20% in February vs 25% in June).

By August 2021, many of the activities had bounced back toward prepandemic levels. When compared to June 2020, the percentage of days respondents drove alone in a vehicle increased from 43% to 56%, use of on-demand rideshare increased from 1% of days to 3%, carpooling with someone they don’t live with increased from 1% to 4%, riding a bus increased from 1% of days to 3%, while riding Metrolink or Amtrak increased from 0.2% of days in June 2020 to 1% in August 2021. Interestingly, the changes in shopping and dining behavior between June 2020 and August 2021 were comparatively slight, with the exception of eating a meal at a restaurant, which increased from 5% of days in June 2020 to 17% of days in August 2021.

When asked in 2021 to think ahead to the post-pandemic period, respondents anticipated small changes in the number of days they would engage in most activities when compared to August 2021, including purchasing products online (-4%), eating a meal at a restaurant (+3%), ordering food for pick-up from a restaurant (-2%), ordering food for delivery from a restaurant (-1%), purchasing groceries online (-0.5%), carpooling (+1%), using on-demand rideshare (+0.8%), riding a bus (+1%), riding Metrolink or Amtrak (+1%), and vanpooling (+0.2%). The one notable exception was a large decline in the percentage of days they anticipated driving alone in a vehicle (-20%) once the pandemic is over when compared to August 2021.

The 2022 tracking survey found that little actually changed during the prior year, as the patterns closely matched those found in August 2021.

Although respondents in 2021 had anticipated a large decline in the number of days they would drive post-pandemic, the percentage of days respondents drove alone in a vehicle decreased just 2% by August 2022 (from 56% to 54%), use of on-demand rideshare increased from 3% of days to 5%, carpooling with someone they don’t live with stayed the same at 4%, riding a bus increased from 3% of days to 4%, while riding Metrolink or Amtrak increased from 1% of days in August 2021 to 2% in August 2022. Interestingly, most of the changes in shopping and dining behavior between August 2021 and August 2022 were slight (2% or less), with the exception of ordering food for pick-up from a restaurant (-3%) and purchasing products online (-3%).
97 Local Issues & The Pandemic
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 L OCAL I SSUES & T HE P ANDEMIC At the outset of the interview, respondents were asked to identify the most important issues facing Orange County today, as well as their expectations for the coronavirus pandemic in the County.

MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES The opening question in this series asked respondents to identify the most important issue facing Orange County today. Question 2 was presented in an open-ended manner, which allowed respondents to mention any issue that came to mind without being prompted by—or restricted to—a particular list of issues. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 2.

Question 2 Thinking about Orange County as a whole, what would you say is the most important issue facing Orange County today? FIGURE 2 MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING COUNTY Homelessness was top-of-mind for many respondents, with one-quarter (25%) identifying it as the most important issue facing Orange County today. Other specific issues mentioned in response to Question 2 included housing availability/affordability (18%), public safety/drugs/ crime (11%), cost of living (9%), traffic congestion (9%), and public transportation (5%). It is also worth noting that 16% of respondents could not identify an issue they felt was the most important facing Orange County as a whole.

25.0 18.3

15.6 10.7

9.3 8.6

5.4 2.9

2.9 2.9

2.8 2.6

2.1 2.0

1.7 1.7

1.7 1.3

1.1 0 5 10 15 20 25
Homelessness
Housing availability, affordability
Not sure, cannot think of anything
Public safety, drugs, crime
Cost of living
Traffic congestion
Public transportation
Development, loss of open space
Population, overcrowding
Infrastructure maintenance, repair
Environmental issues, concerns
Water supply issues, concerns, drought
Economy, unemployment
High gas prices
High taxes
Political division
Illegal immigration issues
Leadership, government
Education, schools
% Respondents
98 Local Issues & The Pandemic
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 1 shows how responses to Question 2 varied by Supervisorial District. Although the rank order varied somewhat, homelessness, housing availability/affordability, and public safety were the top three concerns in four of five districts. Moreover, Table 2 demonstrates that although COVID-19 was the top concern for residents back in 2020, it no longer ranks among the top concerns. In fact, the percentage of respondents citing COVID-19/pandemic as the top issue in Orange County in 2022 was less than 1%, which is why it does not appear in Figure 2. TABLE 1 TOP ISSUE FACING COUNTY BY SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT TABLE 2 TOP ISSUES FACING COUNTY BY STUDY VERSION One Two Three Four Five
Homelessness Homelessness
Housing
availability,
affordability
Homelessness
Housing
availability,
affordability
Not sure, cannot
think of anything
Housing
availability,
affordability
Not sure, cannot
think of anything
Housing
availability,
affordability
Homelessness
Housing
availability,
affordability
Not sure, cannot
think of anything Homelessness Not sure, cannot
think of anything
Not sure, cannot
think of anything
Public safety,
drugs, crime
Public safety,
drugs, crime
Traffic
congestion Cost of living Public safety, drugs, crime
Cost of living Cost of living Public safety,
drugs, crime
Traffic
congestion Cost of living
Traffic
congestion
Public
transportation Cost of living Public safety, drugs, crime Traffic
congestion
Public
transportation
Traffic
congestion
Public
transportation
Public
transportation
Environmental
issues, concerns
Environmental
issues, concerns
Development,
loss of open space
Population,
overcrowding High gas prices Public transportation
Infrastructure
maintenance,
repair
Economy,
unemployment
Environmental
issues, concerns High taxes Water supply issues, concerns Political division Population,
overcrowding
Development,
loss of open
space
Infrastructure
maintenance,
repair
Population,
overcrowding
Supervisorial District
Baseline
Jul 2020
Tracking
Sep 2021
Tracking II
Sep 2022
COVID-19
concerns, issues Homelessness Homelessness
Not sure, cannot
think of anything
Housing
availability,
affordability
Housing
availability,
affordability
Homelessness Not sure, cannot
think of anything
Not sure, cannot
think of anything
Housing
availability,
affordability
COVID-19
concerns, issues
Public safety,
drugs, crime
Traffic
congestion
Traffic
congestion Cost of living
Study Version
99 Local Issues & The Pandemic
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 EXPECTATIONS FOR CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC Anticipating that in certain waves of the survey respondents would identify the coronavirus/COVID-19 as the most important issue facing Orange County, the surveys explored respondents’ views regarding the trajectory of the pandemic. When it comes to the coronavirus outbreak in Orange County, do they think the worst is behind us—or is the worst yet to come?
As shown in Figure 3, opinions about the pandemic have changed dramatically over the past two years. In the baseline survey conducted in July 2020, nearly two-thirds of respondents (63%) were pessimistic about the coronavirus outbreak in Orange County, anticipating that the worst is yet to come. Approximately 20% were optimistic, feeling that the worst is behind us. The remaining respondents were either uncertain (16%) or preferred to not share their opinion (1%). By September 2021, Orange County residents were far more optimistic about the path of the pandemic, with 53% feeling that the worst is behind us, 21% anticipating the worst is yet to come, and the remainder being unsure (25%) or unwilling to share their opinion (1%). In this latest tracking survey (2022), three-quarters of respondents (74%) expected that the worst of the pandemic is behind us, while just 10% anticipated the worst is yet to come, and 16% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion.

Question 3 Which comes closer to your view about where Orange County stands in the coronavirus outbreak: the worst is behind us OR the worst is yet to come? FIGURE 3 OPINION OF CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK BY SURVEY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2022 studies.

Figures 4-6 on the next page show how expectations for the coronavirus pandemic in Orange County in the tracking survey (September 2022) varied by age, employment status in September 2022 and one year from now, length of residence in Orange County, Supervisorial District, gender, ethnicity, and household income. Although certain groups (e.g., high income households) were more optimistic than others, it is striking that the dominant opinion in every identified subgroup was that the worst of the coronavirus pandemic is behind us.

74.0†

52.9 20.4

9.8†

21.2 63.0

15.0†

24.7 15.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Baseline Study
Jul 2020
Tracking Study
Sep 2021
Tracking Study II
Sep 2022
Study Version
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Worst is yet
to come
Worst is
behind us
100
Local Issues & The Pandemic
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 FIGURE 4 OPINION OF CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK BY AGE & EMPLOYMENT STATUS SEP VS ONE YEAR FIGURE 5 OPINION OF CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK BY YEARS IN ORANGE COUNTY, SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT & GENDER 77 78 77
71 67
72 22
13 9
6 5
5 10
7 16 16
60 70
75 82
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Employed Sep & in
one year
Not
employed
Sep & in
one year
Employed
Sep but not
in one year
Not
employed
Sep,
employed in
one year
Age (QD1) Employment Status Sep vs in One Year (Q4,16)
% Respondents
Worst is behind us Worst is yet to come
75 71 73
81 66
80 81
69 11 13 13
9 9 10 11
5 16
6 6
13 74 71
67 73
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 33 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or
more
One Two Three Four Five Male Female
Years in Orange County (Q1) Supervisorial District Gender (QD2) % Respondents
Worst is behind us Worst is yet to come
101
Local Issues & The Pandemic
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 FIGURE 6 OPINION OF CORONAVIRUS OUTBREAK BY ETHNICITY & HSLD INCOME 76 56
64 69
74 80
88 6
13 14 11 11
19 13 12
8 7
5 83
68 73
68 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
Af Amer. /
Black
Asian
American
Mixed or
other
Less than
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K or
more
Ethnicity (QD5) Hsld Income (QD6)
% Respondents
Worst is behind us Worst is yet to come
102
Employment & Commute
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

E MPLOYMENT & C OMMUTE
As noted in the Introduction, the primary purpose of the study described in this report was to develop a statistically reliable understanding of how the pandemic has altered working arrangements, travel behaviors, and mode choice for Orange County residents. To identify the changes that have occurred, the surveys asked a series of questions that profiled respondents’ employment status, working arrangements, and commute behavior in February 2020 (before the pandemic), in June 2020 (during the pandemic), in September 2021 (during the pandemic), and in September 2022 (waning pandemic). Respondents in the 2021 tracking survey were also asked about their anticipated work and commute characteristics once the pandemic is over (post-pandemic), while those in the 2022 tracking survey were asked about their work and commute expectations for one year from now. The results from all three surveys are combined in the graphics presented in this section to allow for easy comparisons, although it is important to note that the question numbering aligns with the 2022 tracking survey.

Question 4 We're interested in how your activities may have changed in response to the pandemic. First, let me ask about your current situation. Which best describes your current employment status? Are you employed full-time, employed part-time, self-employed, laid-off or furloughed, not employed but looking for work, a student, a homemaker, or retired? Question 16 Next, let me ask you about the future, one year from now. If you aren't sure about an answer, please give me your best estimate. One year from now, do you expect to be employed full-time, employed part-time, self-employed, laid-off or furloughed, not employed but looking for work, a student, a homemaker, or retired?
FIGURE 7 EMPLOYMENT STATUS: FEB 2020, JUN 2020, SEP 2021 & POST-PANDEMIC EXPECTATIONS, SEP 2022 & SEP 2023 EXPECTATIONS

48.8 55.1

9.2 8.0 7.6 7.3

7.9 0.8

0.3 6.9

5.5 2.0

5.0 1.6

6.9 3.9

5.8 4.8 5.9 5.9

3.2 3.7 3.9 3.5 4.0 2.3

14.7 15.0 17.9 18.2 18.9 18.9

53.3 44.5 47.6

55.5 10.3 9.1

9.2 9.3

6.5 5.7

7.3 0.4

2.5 1.9

11.0 2.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Feb 2020 Jun 2020 Sep 2021 PostPandemicSep 2022 Sep 2023 Baseline Study Tracking Study Tracking Study II
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Retired
Homemaker
Student
Not employed,
looking for work
Laid-off /
Furloughed
Self-employed
Employed parttime
Employed fulltime
103
Employment & Commute
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 EMPLOYMENT STATUS Consistent with the sharp increase in unemployment recorded statewide during the months of April, May and June 2020 in response to the pandemic,4 the baseline survey results revealed that Orange County residents experienced significant job losses in the early months of the pandemic. Full-time employment declined 9% between February and June 2020, with additional declines in part-time employment (-1%) and self-employment (-1.6%).

Meanwhile, the percentage of individuals surveyed who were unemployed/looking for work, laidoff, or furloughed increased from 4% to 18% between February and June, 2020 (see Figure 7).

More than a year later (September 2021), the tracking survey indicated that although employment had rebounded in Orange County from the early months of the pandemic, it remained depressed when compared to pre-pandemic levels. Sixty-four percent (64%) of respondents in the 2021 tracking survey indicated they were employed full-time (48%), part-time (9%), or selfemployed (8%), compared to 71% in February 2020. The patterns at that time notwithstanding, Orange County residents anticipated that their levels of employment would return to pre-pandemic levels once the pandemic is over, with 56% expecting to work full-time, 9% part-time, and 7% self-employed during the post-pandemic period.

The 2022 tracking survey results reveal that little has changed over the past year in terms of employment. The percentage of individuals employed full-time (49%), part-time (9%), or selfemployed (7%) is strikingly similar to that found in 2021, collectively just 1% higher. As was the case in 2021, however, respondents in 2022 were optimistic about their future employment, expecting that one year from now the levels of employment (55% full-time, 8% part-time, 8% selfemployed) would be similar to pre-pandemic levels.

Figures 8 and 9 highlight patterns of employment in September 2022 and expectations for a year from now (September 2023) among key subgroups of Orange County residents. The top two layers of the bar focus on those whose employment status is expected to change between September 2022 and a year from now. Across all subgroups, the percentage that expected a change in employment status during this period ranged between 5% and 28%, with the dominant type of change being a transition from not being employed in September 2022 to gaining employment a year from now. When compared to their respective counterparts, younger residents (under 35) and low-income residents (under $25,000 annually) were the most likely to anticipate a change in employment status.

4. According to the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the unemployment rate in California jumped from 4.2% in February to 15.5% in April 2020, reached 16.4% in May 2020, and tapered to 14.9% in June 2020.
104
Employment & Commute
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 FIGURE 8 EMPLOYMENT STATUS: SEP 2022 & SEP 2023 EXPECTATIONS BY OVERALL & AGE FIGURE 9 EMPLOYMENT STATUS: SEP 2022 & SEP 2023 EXPECTATIONS BY ETHNICITY & HSLD INCOME DAYS WORKING PER WEEK In addition to a change in employment status, some workers experienced a reduction in the number of days they worked per week during the first few months of the pandemic. As shown in Figure 10 on the next page, 86% of employees reported that they worked at least five days per week in February 2020, with the average number of days worked among all employed individuals being 4.95. By June 2020, those figures had declined to 77% working at least five days per week, and 4.73 days worked per week, on average. The first tracking survey results revealed that by September 2021, the average number of days worked per week returned to pre-pandemic levels (4.90) with little change expected once the pandemic is over (4.91). The patterns in September 2022 were similar, with employees working an average

4.89 days. That said, one year into the future (September 2023), employees anticipated a slight reduction in the average number of days worked per week (4.82).

83.8 64.9

15.6 9.2

27.0 78.0

2.6 0.4 1.4 3.3 2.2 5.6 4.9 4.2

80.5 76.6

51.9 63.0

26.7 12.0 9.7

26.6 2.5

6.0 15.5

7.9 8.8 9.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Overall Age (QD1)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Not employed
Sep, employed in
one year
Employed Sep but
not in one year
Not employed
Sep & in one year
Employed Sep &
in one year

66.3 34.0

61.1 63.1 63.3

70.8 76.7

16.6 38.0

26.3 25.3 29.6

24.0 16.4

5.0 2.6

3.3 2.4

2.3 3.9 2.2 1.1 3.3 13.8

25.5 10.4 7.7 4.9 4.1 3.6

59.7 67.3

77.1 63.8

32.5 28.9

16.4 17.6

2.8 1.8

4.7 1.5 6.0 12.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
Af Amer.
/ Black
Asian
American
Mixed or
other
Less than
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K or
more
Ethnicity (QD5) Hsld Income (QD6)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Not employed
Sep, employed in
one year
Employed Sep but
not in one year
Not employed
Sep & in one year
Employed Sep &
in one year
105
Employment & Commute
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Question 5 How many days per week do you typically work? Question 17 One year from now, how many days per week do you expect to work? FIGURE 10 WORK DAYS PER WEEK: FEB 2020, JUN 2020, SEP 2021 & POST-PANDEMIC EXPECTATIONS, AND SEP 2022 & SEP 2023 EXPECTATIONS
Figures 11-13 broaden the work days analysis to include all respondents (regardless of their employment status in September 2022) to provide a wider perspective on current and expected working days. As shown in the figures, the vast majority of respondents in all subgroups anticipated they will work the same number of days one year from now as they did in September 2022 (i.e., no change). Among those who did anticipate a change in work days, the patterns varied across subgroups with some (under 25 years of age, mixed ethnicity, lower income, part-time employees, and those not currently employed) expecting to work more days one year from now, while others (African Americans, full-time employees, and self-employed) anticipating they will work fewer days.

0.0 1.4 0.9 1.4

4.5 6.0 6.4

9.5 10.8

65.8 71.9 74.1 68.2

69.9 10.0 7.9 9.8 8.0 9.9

8.0 3.8 3.7 3.1 3.6 4.1 2.7

0.4 1.9 0.7 0.7

4.1 1.2 2.0 1.7 4.7

6.0 4.6

10.7 7.4 7.9 7.3

72.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Avg = 4.95
Days
Avg = 4.73
Days
Avg = 4.90
Days
Avg = 4.91
Days
Avg = 4.89
Days
Avg = 4.82
Days
Feb 2020 Jun 2020 Sep 2021 Post-Pandemic Sep 2022 Sep 2023 Baseline Study Tracking Study Tracking Study II
% Employed Respondents
Seven
Six
Five
Four
Three
Two
One
106
Employment & Commute
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 FIGURE 11 WORK DAYS PER WEEK SEP 2022 VS SEP 2023 EXPECTATIONS BY OVERALL, SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT & AGE
FIGURE 12 WORK DAYS PER WEEK SEP 2022 VS SEP 2023 EXPECTATIONS BY ETHNICITY & HSLD INCOME FIGURE 13 WORK DAYS PER WEEK SEP 2022 VS SEP 2023 EXPECTATIONS BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS SEP 2022

13.7 11.0

30.7 14.7 15.1 9.3 6.0 4.8

76.0 77.3

57.4 74.5 74.8 81.1 84.9 89.8

7.8 7.6 10.3 11.8 11.9 10.8 10.1 9.7 9.1 5.4

13.2 15.2 14.6 10.9

77.3 81.5 74.5 77.5

9.5 10.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
One Two Three Four Five 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older
Overall Supervisorial District Age (QD1)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Fewer days per
wk in Sep 2023
Same days per wk
in Sep 2023
More days per wk
in Sep 2023

22.6 31.7

21.6 14.6 9.9 6.1 5.6

67.4 59.3

67.7 75.4 79.4 85.5 84.5

20.2 7.6 10.1 8.9 10.7 10.1 10.7 8.4 9.9

9.6 4.3

19.1 10.2

70.5 75.5

80.7 82.8

9.0 10.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
Af Amer.
/ Black
Asian
American
Mixed or
other
Less than
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K or
more
Ethnicity (QD5) Hsld Income (QD6)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Fewer days per
wk in Sep 2023
Same days per wk
in Sep 2023
More days per wk
in Sep 2023

72.8 25.7

36.9 4.0

27.2 74.3

63.1 96.0

21.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.0 37.8

10.3 73.2

85.0 26.8

68.1 44.6

17.6 13.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Employed
full-time
Employed
part-time
SelfemployedLaid-off,
furloughed
Not
employed,
looking
Student Homemaker Retired
Employment Status Sep (Q4)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Fewer days per
wk in Sep 2023
Same days per wk
in Sep 2023
More days per wk
in Sep 2023
107
Employment & Commute
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 WORKING FROM HOME Concerns about COVID-19 transmission in the work place and guidelines issued by California and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) prompted many Orange County businesses to shift to a remote working model when the pandemic struck, with employees working from home rather than coming to a central work site. As shown in Figure 14, the pandemic created a dramatic shift in where business is being conducted in Orange County that has endured even as the pandemic has waned.

Prior to the pandemic in February 2020, less than one-quarter (23%) of employed Orange County residents indicated they worked from home at least one day per week, which translated to an overall average of 0.76 days per week working from home per employee. Four months later in June 2020, 61% of employed residents reported that they worked from home at least one day per week, and the average number of days working from home per employee had jumped to 2.52 per week.

Question 6 Of the < insert from Q5 > days per week you typically work, how many of these days do you primarily work from home?
Question 18 Of the < insert from Q15 > days per week you expect to work, how many of these days do you expect to primarily work from home one year from now? FIGURE 14 TELEWORK DAYS PER WEEK: FEB 2020, JUN 2020, SEP 2021 & POST-PANDEMIC EXPECTATIONS, AND SEP 2022 AND SEP 2023 EXPECTATIONS
Although the widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines and relaxation of public health guidelines in 2021 allowed many workers the option to return to the office, the first tracking survey in 2021 indicated that only a modest percentage decided to do so. Reporting on their work arrangements in September 2021, 48% indicated that they worked from home at least one day per week, with the average number of days worked from home among all employees being

57.4 51.2

6.5 8.3

4.9 7.7 8.6 11.0

5.5 8.5

7.6 5.7

5.1 5.2 4.7

6.5 33.5

24.9 14.2 13.9 13.7

0.6 2.2 2.1 1.1 1.2 1.4

56.0 51.7

38.9 76.7

5.0 4.6

5.4 5.2

4.5 5.6

5.6 2.9

5.1 9.4

2.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Avg = 0.76
Days,

15.1% of Days
Worked
Avg = 2.52
Days,

52.8% of Days
Worked
Avg = 1.97
Days,

39.4% of Days
Worked
Avg = 1.55
Days,

31.2% of Days
Worked
Avg = 1.49
Days,

30.1% of Days
Worked
Avg = 1.60
Days,

32.9% of Days
Worked
Feb 2020 Jun 2020 Sep 2021 Post-Pandemic Sep 2022 Sep 2023 Baseline Study Tracking Study Tracking Study II
% Employed Respondents
Seven
Six
Five
Four
Three
Two
One
None
108
Employment & Commute
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

1.97—not far below the 2.52 reported in June 2020. When asked at that time what they expect when the pandemic is over, the percentage of employees who anticipated working from home at least one day per week (44%) was double pre-pandemic levels, as was the expected average number of days worked from home per week (1.55).

The 2022 tracking survey indicates that the average number of days worked from home has declined only slightly over the past year, even as the pandemic has waned. The patterns match closely to what employees in 2021 expected for the post-pandemic period. In September 2022, 43% of Orange County employees offered that they worked from home at least one day per week, with the average number of days worked at home among all employees being 1.49 (double prepandemic levels). Interestingly, the survey also reveals that some employees aspire to increase the days they work from home over the next year, as the average expected number of days worked from home one year from now (September 2023) is 1.60.

In a manner similar to that described above for the work days analysis, Figures 15-17 broaden the teleworking analysis to put remote working patterns in the context of all respondents. As shown in the figures, the majority of respondents in all subgroups anticipated that the number of days they work from home each week a year from now (September 2023) will be the same as the number they worked in September 2022. Younger employees (under 35), those residing in Supervisorial District 2, Latinos and those of mixed ethnicity, individuals from households earning less than $50,000 per year, and those currently laid off, furloughed, unemployed, or not looking for work were the most likely to expect an increase in the number of days they telework in the coming year.

FIGURE 15 TELEWORK DAYS PER WEEK SEP 2022 VS SEP 2023 EXPECTATIONS BY OVERALL, SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT & AGE

13.0 10.4

18.7 21.5

14.4 8.9 10.4 4.2

79.7 79.0

75.3 70.9

76.6 78.4 77.9 91.9

5.6 10.5 7.3 10.5 6.0 7.6 9.0 12.7 11.7

3.9 10.8 17.2 13.0 12.8

78.0 77.2

78.7 78.5

8.5 9.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
One Two Three Four Five 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older
Overall Supervisorial District Age (QD1)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Fewer days per
wk in Sep 2023
Same days per wk
in Sep 2023
More days per wk
in Sep 2023
109
Employment & Commute
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 FIGURE 16 TELEWORK DAYS PER WEEK SEP 2022 VS SEP 2023 EXPECTATIONS BY ETHNICITY & HSLD INCOME FIGURE 17 TELEWORK DAYS PER WEEK SEP 2022 VS SEP 2023 EXPECTATIONS BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS SEP COMMUTE MODE The dramatic increase in remote working that occurred between February and June 2020 had a direct impact on commute patterns in Orange County. With far more employees reporting that they only worked from home in June (47%) when compared to February (12%), the percentage who commuted to a work site at least occasionally declined from 89% in February to 54% in June 2020 (see Figure 18). The net reduction in work commutes was felt in every mode category, with the percentage of employees reporting that they typically commute to work by driving alone declining from 77% to 48%, and use of public transit, active transportation, and carpool/vanpool for commuting was cut in half during the same period.

By September 2021, many workers had resumed their commutes to a work location outside of their home (at least once per week), although as noted in the previous section the amount of work taking place in the home remained well above pre-pandemic levels. Of the 70% of employees who commuted to work in September 2021, 60% indicated they typically drove alone, 4%

21.3 17.4 19.2 13.7 11.0 10.6 8.8

69.8 76.6 74.2 78.6 82.2 79.3 78.4

16.9 9.5 8.9 6.0 6.5 7.7 6.7 10.1 12.8

9.9 19.0 12.2 9.5

80.0 81.0 70.9

75.6 5.4 10.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Caucasian
/ White
Latino /
Hispanic
Af Amer.
/ Black
Asian
American
Mixed or
other
Less than
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K or
more
Ethnicity (QD5) Hsld Income (QD6)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Fewer days per
wk in Sep 2023
Same days per wk
in Sep 2023
More days per wk
in Sep 2023

44.7 9.6

20.5 2.4

55.3 90.4

79.5 97.6

23.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

46.4 11.2 17.6 12.6

70.1 65.6

53.6 75.9

11.5 12.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Employed
full-time
Employed
part-time
SelfemployedLaid-off,
furloughed
Not
employed,
looking
Student Homemaker Retired
Employment Status Sep (Q4)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Fewer days per
wk in Sep 2023
Same days per wk
in Sep 2023
More days per wk
in Sep 2023
110
Employment & Commute
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 took public transit, 3% carpooled or vanpooled, 2% used active transportation (walk/run/bike/Ebike), and 2% used a different mode.

With respect to alternative modes of transportation, the trend back toward pre-pandemic commute patterns was expected to continue when employees were surveyed in 2021. Once the pandemic is over, 5% of employees anticipated that they would typically use public transit for their commute, 4% expected to carpool or vanpool, 2% expected to use active transportation, and 2% other modes. Approximately seven-in-ten employees (69%) anticipated that they would drive alone to work once the pandemic is over, which is approximately 10% less than pre-pandemic due to the higher percentage of employees (18%) who anticipate only working from home and thus will not be commuting.

Fast-forward to September 2022 and the patterns are nearly identical to what employees forecast in 2021 for the post-pandemic period. Of the 81% of employees who commuted to work in September 2022, 69% indicated they typically drove alone, 5% took public transit, 1% carpooled or vanpooled, 4% used active transportation (walk/run/bike/E-bike), and 2% used a different mode.

Employees also anticipated that these mode choice patterns would hold over the next year, with expectations for September 2023 being nearly identical to the current period.

Question 7 When you commute to a work destination outside of your home, how do you typically commute to work? Question 19 When you commute to a work destination outside of your home one year from now, how will you typically commute to work?
FIGURE 18 COMMUTE MODE: FEB 2020, JUN 2020, SEP 2021 & POST-PANDEMIC EXPECTATIONS, SEP 2022 AND SEP 2023 EXPECTATIONS
Figure 19 on the next page shows how the September 2022 and anticipated September 2023 commute modes varied by Supervisorial District.

19.0 19.5

68.8 69.1

4.6 5.1 4.7 1.4 2.0 2.2 3.8 3.0

18.3 29.5

46.5 11.5

47.6 60.4

68.9 76.8

3.5 4.1 1.6

4.3 2.4 3.3 4.3

1.6 0.9 1.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Feb 2020 Jun 2020 Sep 2021 PostPandemicSep 2022 Sep 2023 Baseline Study Tracking Study Tracking Study II
% Employed Respondents
Other mode
Walk / Run / E-bike
Carpool / Vanpool
Public transit
Drive alone
Only work from
home
111
Employment & Commute
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 FIGURE 19 COMMUTE MODE SEP 2022 VS SEP 2023 EXPECTATIONS BY SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT COMMUTE DISTANCE Although the percentage of employees commuting to work has fluctuated dramatically over the course of the pandemic, the average commute distance among those still commuting to work has remained fairly consistent—averaging 16.38 miles prior to the pandemic, 15.3 miles in June 2020, and 18.76 miles in September 2021, and 17.20 miles in September 2022 (Figure 20).

Question 8 In miles, what is the approximate one-way commute distance between your home and your place of work?
FIGURE 20 WORK COMMUTE MILES: FEB 2020, JUN 2020, SEP 2021 & SEP 2022

28.0 26.9

17.1 15.1

23.4 21.7

61.3 64.0

66.5 72.7

66.9 70.2

4.7 7.2

4.5 7.9 4.9 3.3

12.4 16.6 15.7 18.7

78.3 70.4 65.4 73.0

3.3 4.7 4.6 2.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Sep 2022 Sep 2023 Sep 2022 Sep 2023 Sep 2022 Sep 2023 Sep 2022 Sep 2023 Sep 2022 Sep 2023 One Two Three Four Five
Supervisorial District
% Employed Respondents
Other mode
Public transit
Walk / Run / E-bike
Carpool / Vanpool
Drive alone
Only work from
home

9.5 15.7

10.8 15.4

12.5 12.0

9.4 5.5

8.0 6.9

4.0 2.3 4.9 5.9

11.8 49.1

30.2 19.6

7.4 5.7

7.5 4.7

8.2 13.1

18.7 16.6

20.2 12.3

9.5 17.3

16.9 8.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Avg = 16.38 Miles Avg = 15.29 Miles Avg = 18.76 Miles Avg = 17.20 Miles Feb 2020 Jun 2020 Sep 2021 Sep 2022
Baseline Study Tracking Study Tracking Study II
% Employed Respondents
More than 40
26 to 40
16 to 25
11 to 15
6 to 10
3 to 5
Less than 3
None, only work
from home
112
Employment & Commute
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 EMPLOYER’S POLICY ON WORKING FROM HOME The ability for an employee to work from home requires an employer that embraces (or at least accepts) the practice. Prior to the arrival of COVID-19, most employed Orange County residents (70%) indicated that their employer did not offer them the option to work from home at least one day per week. Approximately one-quarter of individuals (24%) worked for an employer who allowed remote working and took advantage of the opportunity by working from home at least one day, whereas an additional 7% were given the opportunity to work from home, but declined to do so (see Figure 21).

By June 2020, the pandemic had forced many employers to change their policies regarding remote work. Whereas seven-in-ten employees reported in February their employer did not allow them to work from home at least one day per week, by June 2020 that figure had been cut in half to 34%. Two-thirds of employed Orange County residents in June 2020 reported that their employer allowed them to telework from home at least one day per week, with 62% reporting that they did so.

The widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines and relaxation of public health guidelines in 2021 appeared to prompt some Orange County employers to rescind their policies allowing remote work, as nearly half (47%) of employees surveyed in September 2021 indicated that their employer did not allow them the option of working from home at least once day per week. A similar percentage (49%) indicated their employer allowed remote work and they work from home at least one day per week, whereas 5% indicated they had the option to work from home, but choose not to do so. One year later (September 2022), the number of individuals working for an employer who does not allow remote work increased significantly to 53%, the number who indicated their employer does allow remote work and they work from home at least one day per week declined significantly to 43%, whereas the number with the option to work from home that choose not to remained about the same (4%).

Question 9 Does your employer currently give you the option to work from home at least one day per week?
FIGURE 21 TELEWORK OPTION: FEB 2020, JUN 2020, SEP 2021 & SEP 2022 † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2021 and 2022 studies.

46.8 42.9† 48.6

61.6 23.7

4.8 4.6

4.4 6.7

52.7†

69.6 33.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Feb 2020 Jun 2020 Sep 2021 Sep 2022
Baseline Study Tracking Study Tracking Study II
% Employed Respondents
Employer did not
offer, or not sure
Employer offered,
but did not work
from home
Employer offered,
worked at least one
day from home
113
Employment & Commute
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Although all industries and occupational categories experienced an increase in remote working during the pandemic, by September 2022 the patterns were far from even (see Figure 22). Certain industries such as finance & insurance, information, wholesale trade, real estate, rental & leasing, and professional, scientific & technology apparently lend themselves to working from home, with three-quarters or more of employees surveyed in these industries indicating that their employers give them the option to work from home. At the other end of the spectrum, less than one-third of employees in industries that generally require in-person services or labor such as utilities, accommodation & food services, education, and construction reported that their employer gives them the option to work from home at least one day per week.

FIGURE 22 TELEWORK OPTION SEP 2022 BY INDUSTRY
Similarly, remote work patterns varied dramatically across occupations in September 2022, with far more office professionals reporting that their employers allow them the option to work from home when compared to those working in manual or skilled labor positions (see Figure 23 on next page). At the extremes, more than three-quarters of employees working in legal, business and financial positions, and computer or math science reported that their employer allows them to work from home, compared to less than 10% of employees in protective services and construction/extraction positions.

83.5 79.8

75.4 74.6

74.3 55.3

51.6 41.7

41.0 40.9

40.9 38.9

37.1 28.2

25.4 20.2

18.7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Finance & Insurance
Information
Wholesale Trade
Real Estate, Rental & Leasing
Professional, Scientific & Tech
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation
Public Administration
Other Services
Manufacturing
Admin & Support
Health Care & Social Assistance
Transportation & Warehousing
Retail Trade
Construction
Educational
Accommodation & Food Services
Utilities
% of Employers That Offered Work From
Home at Least One Day Per Week
114
Employment & Commute
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 FIGURE 23 TELEWORK OPTION SEP 2022 BY OCCUPATION
REMOTE WORK IMPACTS Employees who currently work at home at least one day per week were asked to describe how remote work has impacted various aspects of their job performance, their ability to collaborate with other employees, as well as their personal life and living arrangements. For each item shown on the left of Figure 24 on the next page, employees were asked whether they find that working from home has helped, had no impact, or hurt this aspect of their job and/or life. Although the items were asked in a random order to avoid a systematic position bias, they are sorted in the figure from high to low based on the percentage who indicated the dimension has been impacted (helped or hurt).

Employees reported that working from home has had the most impact on their ability to strike a balance between work and their personal life, and their expenses, job satisfaction, ability to manage their time, and productivity, with at least three-quarters of employees reporting either a positive or negative impact for each dimension. At least half of employees also reported that working from home has had an impact on the quality of their work, their ability to collaborate with other employees, their ability to communicate with other employees, and their ability to communicate with external customers or partners.

83.6 82.0

78.9 67.5

63.9 63.3

56.8 49.8

40.9 39.9

36.4 35.8

35.3 24.4

23.5 17.6

16.0 7.0

5.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Legal
Business, financial
Computer, math science
Architecture, engineering
Management
Arts, sports, media
Sales
Life, physical, social science
Office, admin support
Food prep, serving
Personal care, service
Other occupation
Transportation
Education, training, library
Healthcare practitioner, tech
Healthcare support
Install, maintenance, repair
Construction, extraction
Protective services
% of Employers That Offered Work From
Home at Least One Day Per Week
115
Employment & Commute
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Question 12 Next are a few questions about your experiences working from home during the past year. In general, do you find that working from home has helped, had no impact, or hurt:
_____?
FIGURE 24 IMPACT OF WORKING FROM HOME
For every dimension tested, some employees felt that remote work arrangements helped, while others perceived they hurt. Figure 25 displays the findings of Question 12 in a format that makes it easier to identify dimensions for which the net impact across all employees was generally positive or negative.

FIGURE 25 NEGATIVE/POSITIVE IMPACTS OF EACH ASPECT

46.2 42.3

44.0 42.3

36.5 30.7

15.7 16.8

18.8 18.4

29.4 23.8

20.1 21.6

12.1 9.3

12.6 17.5

19.0 20.6

23.2 23.3

37.6 38.6

46.2 49.3

8.4 21.9

14.2 6.4

4.8 3.1

3.3 3.7

1.7 8.8

5.2 26.2

11.2 11.4

4.5 8.5

10.4 24.7

5.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Your ability to strike balance between work, personal life Your expenses
Your satisfaction with your job
Your ability to manage your time
Your productivity
The quality of your work
Your ability to collaborate with other employees
Your ability to communicate with other employees
Your ability to communicate with external customers, partners % Employees Working From Home at Least 1 Day Per Week
Helped a lot Helped somewhat No impact Hurt somewhat Hurt a lot +65
+72
+68
+62
+63
+52
+28
+26
+31
-18
-9
-12
-14
-14
-10
-33
-28
-19
Your ability to strike balance between work, personal life Your expenses
Your satisfaction with your job
Your ability to manage your time
Your productivity
The quality of your work
Your ability to collaborate with other employees
Your ability to communicate with other employees
Your ability to communicate with external customers, partners Neg/Pos Impact of Each Aspect,
% Employees Working From Home at Least 1 Day Per Week
116
Employment & Commute
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 For all but two of the dimensions tested (ability to collaborate with other employees and ability to communicate with other employees), more employees perceived that working from home was generally helpful than hurtful. The largest net positive impacts (helpful % - hurtful %) were found with respect to their expenses (63%), job satisfaction (56%), productivity (49%), ability to manage their time (48%), and ability to strike a balance between work and their personal life (47%).

For the interested reader, Table 3 shows how the net positive perceived impacts of working from home changed between September 2021 and September 2022. For all dimensions, employees in 2022 reported greater net positive impacts of working from home when compared to their counterparts in the 2021 survey. This was especially the case for the impacts of remote work on their productivity (+13%) and job satisfaction (+12%).

TABLE 3 NET IMPACTS OF WORKING FROM HOME BY STUDY VERSION CHANGING EMPLOYERS One of the unanticipated outcomes of the pandemic has been a sharp increase in the number of employees who quit their jobs. Coined by economists as the Great Resignation, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the number of employees who left their jobs in November 2021 was the highest ever recorded in the United States, and this followed six months of record-setting rates of resignations beginning in April 2021. By the end of 2021, more than 47 million Americans had left their jobs. Accordingly, it was of interest to ask Orange County employees whether they had changed employers during the past 18 months and—if yes—to state the reason for their move.

Question 13 Did you change employers in the past 18 months? FIGURE 26 CHANGE EMPLOYERS IN PAST 18 MONTHS
Among currently employed Orange County residents in September 2022, approximately one-quarter (27%) indicated they had changed employers during the prior 18 months (Figure 26). The tendency to have changed employers during this period was more common among those who had
lived in Orange County less than five years, those
under 25 years of age, individuals from lower
income households, and African Americans (see figures 27-29).

Tracking
Sep 2021
Tracking II
Sep 2022
Your productivity +35.4 +48.6 +13.1
Your satisfaction with your job +44.5 +56.2 +11.7
The quality of your work +33.8 +42.2 +8.4
Your ability to strike balance between work, personal life +38.5 +46.7 +8.2 Your ability to manage your time +40.1 +47.9 +7.9
Your ability to communicate with external customers, partners +5.0 +12.1 +7.1 Your ability to collaborate with other employees -12.5 -5.6 +6.9 Your ability to communicate with other employees -5.2 -1.6 +3.6 Your expenses +61.8 +62.3 +0.5
Study Version Difference in Net
Impact
2021 to 2022
Prefer not to
answer

1.8 Yes, changed
employers

26.5 Did not change
employers

71.7 117
Employment & Commute
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 FIGURE 27 CHANGE EMPLOYERS IN PAST 18 MONTHS YEARS IN ORANGE COUNTY & AGE FIGURE 28 CHANGE EMPLOYERS IN PAST 18 MONTHS BY HSLD INCOME & SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT FIGURE 29 CHANGE EMPLOYERS IN PAST 18 MONTHS BY TELEWORK OPTION IN SEP & ETHNICITY

25.1 38.0

29.9 25.1 26.1

17.2 35.1

41.7 26.0 26.5

14.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 Less than
3 3 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or
more
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Years in Orange County (Q1) Age (QD1)
% Employed Respondents That Changed
Employers in Past 18 Months

25.3 26.5 26.8 27.5 27.0 27.8

23.0 29.2

21.5 29.3

41.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 Less than
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K or
more
One Two Three Four Five
Hsld Income (QD6) Supervisorial District
% Employed Respondents That Changed
Employers in Past 18 Months

27.6 43.1

23.1 24.6

27.0 24.2 26.7 27.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
Employer
offered,
worked at
least 1 day
from home
Employer
offered, but
did not
work from
home
Employer
did not
offer, or not
sure
Caucasian /
White
Latino /
Hispanic
Af Amer. /
Black
Asian
American
Mixed or
other
Telework Option in Sep (Q9) Ethnicity (QD5)
% Employed Respondents That Changed
Employers in Past 18 Months
118
Employment & Commute
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Those who had changed employers in the past 18 months were subsequently asked in an openended manner to describe the main reason for the change (Figure 30). A desire for better pay/ salary was the most common response (41%), followed by a collection of other specific reasons (16%), layoffs/company when out of business (12%), wanting a flexible schedule (11%), and a change in career (9%). It is also worth noting that 4% mentioned they changed employers because their prior employer mandated the COVID-19 vaccine, whereas less than 1% sought to move to an employer that would require vaccines for all employees.

Question 14 What was the main reason why you changed employers? FIGURE 30 MAIN REASON FOR CHANGING EMPLOYERS

40.6 15.8

12.0 10.6

8.9 4.3

3.9 2.6

1.1 0.2

0.1 0 10 20 30 40 50
Better pay / salary
Other reasons
Layoffs or company went out of business
Flexible schedule
Change career
Wanted to relocate to a different area
Employer was mandating vaccine
Better benefits
Wanted to work from home
Shorter commute
Wanted employer who mandated vaccine
% Respondents Employed in September 2022 Who
Changed Employers in Past 18 Months
119
Current & Expected Activities
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 C URRENT & E XPECTED A CTIVITIES Having profiled respondents’ employment status, working arrangements, and commute behavior in February 2020, June 2020, September 2021, September 2022, as well as their future expectations, the study transitioned to identifying how other aspects of their travel behavior and related activities may have changed in response to the pandemic.

PERSONAL ACTIVITIES For each of the activities shown in Figure 31, respondents were asked to report how many days they engaged in the activity during February 2020 (prior to the pandemic), June 2020 (during the pandemic), August 2021 (during pandemic), their 2021 expectations for when the pandemic is over, September 2022 (waning pandemic), and their expectations for September 2023. Because the number of days in these months are not equal, the figure reports the average percentage of days in each month that respondents reported engaging in the activity.

Question 15 In the past month, approximately how many days during the month did you: ____? Question 28 Thinking ahead to one year from now, approximately how many days in a typical month do you expect to: _____? FIGURE 31 PERCENTAGE OF DAYS PER MONTH PERFORMING PERSONAL ACTIVITIES: FEB 2020, JUN 2020, AUG 2021, POST-PANDEMIC EXPECTATIONS, AUG 2022 & SEP 2023 EXPECTATIONS 1 2 4555 87 12 18
19 33
1 2
4 4
5 4
5 6
12 18
21 54
1 2
4 544
8 7
13 20
20 35
1 1
3 43
5 6
8 15
17 24
56 001
1 1
4 5
8 17
5 25
43 1
1 3
44 2
56 12
24 20
65 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Vanpool
Ride Metrolink or
Amtrak rail
Ride a bus
Carpool with people you
don’t live with
Use on-demand
rideshare
Purchase groceries
online
Ride a bicycle
Order food for delivery
from a restaurant
Order food for pick-up
from a restaurant
Eat a meal at a
restaurant
Purchase products
online
Drive alone in a vehicle
Average Percentage of Days
Feb 2020
Jun 2020
Aug 2021
Post-Pandemic
Aug 2022
Sep 2023
120
Current & Expected Activities
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 In the first few months of the pandemic, Orange County residents made significant changes in their travel, shopping, and dining habits. With respect to travel behavior, the percentage of days they drove alone in a vehicle declined from 65% in February 2020 to 43% in June 2020, use of on-demand rideshare declined from 4% of days in February to 1% in June, carpooling with someone they don’t live with declined from 4% of days in February to 1% in June, riding a bus declined from 3% of days on average in February to 1% in June, while riding Metrolink or Amtrak declined from 1% of days in February to 0.2% in June.

With respect to shopping and dining, the dramatic decline in the percentage of days respondents reported eating a meal at a restaurant (24% in February vs 5% in June) was only partially offset by an increase in the percentage of days they ordered food for pick-up (12% in February vs 17% in June) or delivery (6% in February vs 8% in June). When compared to the patterns in February, there was also a modest uptick in the percentage of days Orange County residents purchased groceries online (2% in February vs 5% in June) and purchased other products online (20% in February vs 25% in June).

By August 2021, many of the activities had bounced back toward pre-pandemic levels. When compared to June 2020, the percentage of days respondents drove alone in a vehicle increased from 43% to 56%, use of on-demand rideshare increased from 1% of days to 3%, carpooling with someone they don’t live with increased from 1% to 4%, riding a bus increased from 1% of days to 3%, while riding Metrolink or Amtrak increased from 0.2% of days in June 2020 to 1% in August 2021. Interestingly, the changes in shopping and dining behavior between June 2020 and August 2021 were comparatively slight, with the exception of eating a meal at a restaurant, which increased from 5% of days in June 2020 to 17% of days in August 2021.

When asked in 2021 to think ahead to the post-pandemic period, respondents anticipated small changes in the number of days they would engage in most activities when compared to August 2021, including purchasing products online (-4%), eating a meal at a restaurant (+3%), ordering food for pick-up from a restaurant (-2%), ordering food for delivery from a restaurant (-1%), purchasing groceries online (-0.5%), carpooling (+1%), using on-demand rideshare (+0.8%), riding a bus (+1%), riding Metrolink or Amtrak (+1%), and vanpooling (+0.2%). The one notable exception was a large decline in the percentage of days they anticipated driving alone in a vehicle (-20%) once the pandemic is over when compared to August 2021.

The 2022 tracking survey found that little actually changed during the prior year, as the patterns closely matched those found in August 2021. Although respondents in 2021 had anticipated a large decline in the number of days they would drive post-pandemic, the percentage of days respondents drove alone in a vehicle decreased just 2% by August 2022 (from 56% to 54%), use of on-demand rideshare increased from 3% of days to 5%, carpooling with someone they don’t live with stayed the same at 4%, riding a bus increased from 3% of days to 4%, while riding Metrolink or Amtrak increased from 1% of days in August 2021 to 2% in August 2022. Interestingly, most of the changes in shopping and dining behavior between August 2021 and August 2022 were slight (2% or less), with the exception of ordering food for pick-up from a restaurant (-3%) and purchasing products online (-3%).
121
Current & Expected Activities
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Looking ahead to 2023, respondents anticipated engaging in most activities at the same frequency as they do today. The main exception to this pattern was found for driving alone in a vehicle, for which respondents anticipated a large decline (from 54% of days down to 33%) over the next year. However, this is the same decline respondents anticipated occurring back in the 2021 tracking survey that has yet to materialize.

Figure 32 presents the information gathered in Questions 15 and 28 in a different format, noting the percentage of respondents who reported less, the same, or more days engaging in each activity in August 2022 when compared to what they expect a year from now (September 2023).

In most cases, the percentage who are doing less of an activity now vs. what they expect a year from now was offset by a similar percentage who anticipated they are doing more of the activity now. Activities in which the net difference was at least 10% included driving alone in a vehicle (net 35% more August 2022) and riding a bicycle (net 14% more September 2023). FIGURE 32 PERSONAL ACTIVITIES: AUG 2022 VS SEP 2023 EXPECTATIONS Finally, Figure 33 on the next page normalizes the comparison by noting the percentage change in expected days spent engaged in each activity between August 2022 and a year from now. The largest anticipated increases occurred with respect to riding a bicycle (+52%), purchasing groceries online (+18%), and ordering goods for delivery (+10%). The largest anticipated decreases were reported for vanpooling (-63%) and driving alone in a vehicle (-41%). Table 4 shows how the percentage change in expected days spent engaged in each activity by next year varied by Supervisorial District.

94.3 73.9

9.5 20.1
4 11.3

14.8 19.4

16.6 17.9

24.3 29.6

25.7 23.0

83.6 29.4

43.9 45.1

50.8 63.5

75.0 74.4

67.3 84.6
2 9.0

25.3 23.5
5 11.3

5.6 52.7

31.8 13.5
6 12.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Vanpool
Ride Metrolink or Amtrak rail
Ride a bus
Carpool with people you don’t live with
Use on-demand rideshare
Purchase groceries online
Ride a bicycle
Order food for delivery from a restaurant
Order food for pick-up from a restaurant
Eat a meal at a restaurant
Purchase products online
Drive alone in a vehicle
% Respondents
Aug 2022 < Sep 2023 Aug 2022 = Sep 2023 Aug 2022 > Sep 2023 122
Current & Expected Activities
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 FIGURE 33 PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN DAYS PER MONTH PERFORMING PERSONAL ACTIVITIES: AUG 2022 VS SEP 2023 EXPECTATIONS TABLE 4 PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN DAYS PER MONTH PERFORMING PERSONAL ACTIVITIES: SEP 2022 VS SEP 2023 EXPECTATIONS BY OVERALL & SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT +52
+18
+10
+9
+8
+8
+6
-1
-3
-10
-41
-63
-150 -125 -100 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Ride a bicycle
Purchase groceries online
Order food for delivery from a restaurant
Ride Metrolink or Amtrak rail
Ride a bus
Use on-demand rideshare
Carpool with people you don’t live with
Order food for pick-up from a restaurant
Eat a meal at a restaurant
Purchase products online
Drive alone in a vehicle
Vanpool
Average Days Per Month, Percentage Change From Aug 2022 to Sep 2023 One Two Three Four Five
Ride Metrolink or Amtrak rail +52 +82 +41 +60 +39 +43
Vanpool +18 +18 +15 +15 +20 +23
Ride a bicycle +10 +3 +7 +5 +24 +18
Ride a bus +9 -50 +2 +62 +67 +109
Carpool with people you don’t live with +8 +3 +2 +61 +7 +32 Use on-demand rideshare +8 +25 -19 +31 +12 +17
Eat a meal at a restaurant +6 +5 +5 -19 +9 +20
Purchase groceries online -1 -5 -6 -5 +23 -5
Order food for delivery from a restaurant -3 -2 +3 -3 -12 -4 Purchase products online -10 -8 -4 -14 -8 -16
Order food for pick-up from a restaurant -41 -36 -46 -50 -27 -45 Drive alone in a vehicle -63 -83 -33 +108 -33 +41
Overall
Supervisorial District
123
Future Work Arrangements
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 F UTURE W ORK A RRANGEMENTS The final substantive questions of the survey focused on employees’ anticipated work arrangements in 2023, including changes to the amount of time they expect to work from home, the extent to which their employers’ preferences may be driving their expected remote work patterns, and whether they anticipate changing employers in the next year.

MORE OR LESS REMOTE WORK IN FUTURE? To set the stage for the discussion in this section, figures 34-36 summarize employees’ expectations for the amount they will be teleworking a year from now (September 2023). The figures represent all employees, including those who are not currently teleworking. Overall, 74% of employees residing in Orange County expect that the amount they telework in September 2023 will be the same as now (September 2022), whereas 13% expect to work fewer days a year from now and 14% anticipated working more from home in 2023. As shown in the figures, the higher the percentage of days an employee currently works from home, the more likely they are to expect they will reduce the amount of days working remotely in 2023. FIGURE 34 EXPECTED SEP 2023 TELEWORK STATUS AMONG ALL EMPLOYEES BY OVERALL & PERCENTAGE TELEWORK DAYS IN SEP 2022

11.1 44.4

16.9 22.4

44.5 18.5 21.4

13.7 16.1

83.9 61.7

59.1 73.7

12.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
0% 1 to 24% 25% to 49% 50% to 74%
Overall Percent Telework Days in Sep (Q6)
% Respondents Employed in Sep 2022
and Sep 2023 Who Provided Opinion
Fewer telework
days per wk in
Sep 2023
Same telework
days per wk in
Sep 2023
More telework
days per wk in
Sep 2023
124
Future Work Arrangements
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 FIGURE 35 EXPECTED SEP 2023 TELEWORK STATUS AMONG ALL EMPLOYEES BY SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT FIGURE 36 EXPECTED SEP 2023 TELEWORK STATUS AMONG ALL EMPLOYEES BY HSLD INCOME REMOTE WORK STATUS - EMPLOYEE’S PREFERENCE? Regardless of their expectations for how the amount they work from home may change over the next year, all employees were asked whether their anticipated 2023 remote work status is their preference. As shown in Figure 37 on the next page, there is a clear pattern between the type of change expected in their remote work status by September 2023 and whether employees’ preferences dictated the outcome.

Among employees who anticipated working fewer days from home by September 2023, just 41% indicated that this is their preferred outcome. Most employees (61%) who expected to maintain their current remote work patterns offered that this is their preference. Meanwhile, among employees who expected to work more often from home by September 2023, 73% stated that they preferred this arrangement.

10.9 73.3

15.9 10.8 15.8

11.9 18.3

10.1 15.7

74.0 73.4

74.0 73.9

7.7 14.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
One Two Three Four Five
Supervisorial District
% Respondents Employed in Sep 2022
and Sep 2023 Who Provided Opinion
Fewer telework
days per wk PostPandemic
Same telework
days per wk PostPandemic
More telework
days per wk PostPandemic

11.8 7.8

74.7 76.6

10.9 10.5 13.4 15.6

13.5 16.7 20.0 18.0

69.3 71.1 69.7 76.1

13.7 10.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K or
more
Hsld Income (QD6)
% Respondents Employed in Sep and PostPandemic Who Provided Opinion Fewer telework
days per wk PostPandemic
Same telework
days per wk PostPandemic
More telework
days per wk PostPandemic
125
Future Work Arrangements
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Question 20 You indicated that you expect to work fewer days from home one year from now when compared to your current schedule. Is this because you prefer to reduce the number of days you work from home?
Question 22 You indicated that you expect to work the same number of days from home one year from now when compared to your current schedule. Is this because you prefer to keep the number of days you work from home the same?
Question 24 You indicated that you expect to work more days from home one year from now when compared to your current schedule. Is this because you prefer to increase the amount of days you work from home? FIGURE 37 SEP 2023 EXPECTED TELEWORK STATUS WORKING FEWER DAYS FROM HOME Employees who indicated they anticipated working fewer days from home one year from now were subsequently asked if their employer would allow them to continue working from home the same number of days as their current schedule.

Figure 38 on the next page shows that the most common answer to this question was yes—their employer would allow them to continue working from home as often as they do currently (54%).

The figure also shows the relationship between employees’ preferences and their employers’ when it comes to their September 2023 work arrangements. Among those who anticipated working fewer days from home in 2023 and preferred to do so, most (71%) indicated that their employer would have allowed them to continue working from home as often as their current schedule. Conversely, those who anticipated working less from home in the future and did not prefer this outcome were far more likely (56%) to report that their employer would not allow them to continue working from home as often as they do currently.

3.6 41.4

61.3 72.9

56.3 23.5

33.3 5.4 2.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Fewer telework days per
week in Sep 2023
Same telework days per
week in Sep 2023
More telework days per
week in Sep 2023
Post-Pandemic Telework Status (Q6,18)
% Respondents Employed in Sep 2022 and
Sep 2023 Who Provided Opinion
Prefer not to
answer
Do Not Prefer Sep
2023 Telework
Status
Prefer Sep 2023
Telework Status
126
Future Work Arrangements
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Question 21 One year from now, do you expect that your employer will allow you to continue working from home < insert from Q6 > days per week? FIGURE 38 FEWER TELEWORK DAYS NEXT YEAR (SEP 2023): EMPLOYER REQUIREMENT VS EMPLOYEE PREFERENCE WORKING SAME DAYS FROM HOME Employees who indicated they anticipated working the same number days from home next year were subsequently asked if their employer will be requiring employees to work from home at least part of the time during this period. Few employees in this situation (8%) indicated that remote work will be required by their employer and the percentage varied little according to the whether the employees did/did not prefer to work from home the same number of days by September 2023.

Question 23 Has your employer indicated that - one year from now - employees must work from home at least part of the time? FIGURE 39 SAME NUMBER OF TELEWORK DAYS NEXT YEAR (SEP 2023): EMPLOYER REQUIREMENT VS EMPLOYEE PREFERENCE

4.2 40.3

71.3 54.1

28.2 55.6

43.3 2.5 0.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Overall Yes, Prefer to Reduce
Telework Days
Do Not Prefer to
Reduce Telework Days
Prefer to Reduce Number of Telework Days in
Sep 2023? (Q20)
% Respondents Who Expect to Work
Fewer Telework Days in Sep 2023
Prefer not to
answer
Employer Would
Not Allow Same
Number of
Telework Days
Employer Would
Allow Same
Number of
Telework Days

1.3 4.5 8.1 10.4

86.8 88.6 94.3

3.3 2.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Overall Yes, Prefer Same
Number of Telework
Days
Do Not Prefer Same
Number of Telework
Days
Prefer Same Number of Telework Days in Sep
2023? (Q22)
% Respondents Who Expect to Work
Same Telework Days in Sep 2023
Prefer not to
answer
Employer Will Not
Require Some
Telework Days
Employer Will
Require Some
Telework Days
127
Future Work Arrangements
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 WORKING MORE DAYS FROM HOME In a manner similar to that described above, employees who indicated they anticipated working more days from home a year from now were also asked if their employer will be requiring employees to work from home at least part of the time during this period. Overall, 14% of employees in this situation indicated that their employer will be requiring employees to work from home at least part of the time by September 2023.

Those who did not prefer to work more days from home next year were more likely (21%) than their counterparts (12%) to indicate that their employer will require remote work next year.

Question 25 Has your employer indicated that - one year from now - employees must work from home least part of the time? FIGURE 40 MORE TELEWORK DAYS NEXT YEAR (SEP 2023): EMPLOYER REQUIREMENT VS EMPLOYEE PREFERENCE DO YOU ANTICIPATE CHANGING EMPLOYERS? Whereas Question 13 asked respondents whether they had changed employers during the prior 18 month period, Question 26 asked employees whether they anticipated changing employers in the upcoming 12 month period (see Figure 41). Overall, 17% of individuals anticipated that they will be changing their employer within the 12 months following the interview, and an additional 4% indicated they are currently employed but do not anticipate being employed one year from now. Overall, 69% of individuals indicated they anticipated staying with their current employer for the next 12 months, and this expectation was more common among residents of Supervisorial District 5, those 35 to 54 years of age, and those who reside in higher-earning ($100,000+) households (see figures 41-43).

3.1 14.0 12.4

21.3 82.3

75.6 84.2

3.7 3.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Overall Yes, Prefer to Increase
Number of Telework
Days
Do Not Prefer to
Increase Number of
Telework Days
Prefer to Increase Telework Days in Sep 2023?
(Q24)
% Respondents Who Expect to Work
Same Telework Days in Sep 2023
Prefer not to
answer
Employer Will Not
Require Some
Telework Days
Employer Will
Require Some
Telework Days
128
Future Work Arrangements
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Question 26 Do you anticipate that you will change employers in the next 12 months? FIGURE 41 EMPLOYMENT STATUS IN NEXT 12 MONTHS BY OVERALL & SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT FIGURE 42 EMPLOYMENT STATUS IN NEXT 12 MONTHS BY AGE

64.1 74.7

19.0 12.6

2.8 2.1

4.5 4.0

12.3 8.7

68.7 61.3

72.9 71.5

16.5 12.0 16.5

22.0 3.6 4.3

11.3 12.4 12.3 9.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
One Two Three Four Five
Overall Supervisorial District
% Respondents Employed in Sep
2022 and/or Sep 2023
Not employed
Sep 2022,
employed Sep
2023
Employed Sep
2022 but not
Sep 2023
Employed Sep
2022 & Sep
2023 (different
employer)
Employed Sep
2022 & Sep
2023 (same
employer)

75.1 67.0

13.2 3.7

0.4 1.6 4.7

10.1 7.0

19.2 82.7

75.4 63.0

38.5 23.4

13.0 9.2

32.0 8.2

3.1 10.6

21.3 11.1 6.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Age (QD1)
% Respondents Employed in Sep
2022 and/or Sep 2023
Not employed
Sep 2022,
employed Sep
2023
Employed Sep
2022 but not
Sep 2023
Employed Sep
2022 & Sep
2023 (different
employer)
Employed Sep
2022 & Sep
2023 (same
employer)
129
Future Work Arrangements
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 FIGURE 43 EMPLOYMENT STATUS IN NEXT 12 MONTHS BY HSLD INCOME Those who anticipated changing employers in the next 12 months were subsequently asked in an open-ended manner to describe the main reason for their anticipated change (Figure 44).

Here again, a desire for better pay/salary was the most common reason for changing employers (42%), while others cited a change of career (12%), a desire to have a flexible schedule (10%), a collection of different reasons (8%), and desire to work from home (8%). When it comes to an anticipated change in employers over the next year, less than 1% mentioned a vaccine-related reason.

Question 27 What is the main reason why you expect to change employers? FIGURE 44 MAIN REASON FOR CHANGING EMPLOYERS

81.8 82.6

5.5 11.0 9.0

3.4 1.5 4.0 5.6 4.3

36.7 55.3

67.9 63.1

17.9 15.8 26.1

26.4 3.3

3.9 7.4 10.8

41.5 15.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than
$25K
$25K to $49K $50K to $74K $75K to $99K $100K to
$149K
$150K or
more
Hsld Income (QD6)
% Respondents Employed in Sep
2022 and/or Sep 2023
Not employed
Sep 2022,
employed Sep
2023
Employed Sep
2022 but not
Sep 2023
Employed Sep
2022 & Sep
2023 (different
employer)
Employed Sep
2022 & Sep
2023 (same
employer)

41.5 12.4

9.7 8.2

7.8 5.9

4.2 3.9

3.4 2.8

0.2 0 10 20 30 40 50
Better pay / salary
Changing career
Flexible schedule
Other reasons
Want to work from home
Better benefits
Want to relocate to a different area
Current employer may issue layoffs, go out of biz
Want to relocate to a more affordable area
Shorter commute
Want employer who mandates vaccine
% Respondents Employed in September 2022 Who
Anticipate Changing Employers in Next 12 Months
130
Background & Demographics
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS TABLE 5 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE BY STUDY VERSION Table 5 presents the key demographic
and background information that was
collected during the survey. Although the
primary motivation for collecting the
background and demographic information was to provide a better insight into how the results of the substantive questions of the survey vary by demographic characteristics (see crosstabulations in
Appendix A for a full breakdown of each
question), the information is also valuable for understanding the current profile of Orange County’s adult population. The
sample profile matches Orange County’s
adult population profile on age, ethnicity,
and homeownership based on the most
recent Census American Community Survey (ACS) estimates, and is also balanced across Supervisorial Districts.

Baseline Jul 2020
Trackin
g
Sep 2021
Trackin
g II
Se
p 2022
Total Respondents
2,548 2
,119 2,019
Years in Orange County (Q1)
Less than 3 3.9 4.1 5.2
3 to
4 5.2 4.7 4.4
5 to
9 9.7 11.3 8.1
10 to 14 7.2 8.6 7.3
15 or more 73.6 70.7 74.4
Prefer not to answer 0.4 0.7 0.6
A
ge (QD1)
18 to 24 13.3 13.2 13.4
25 to 34 18.6 18.1 18.1
35 to 44 19.3 18.6 18.6
45 to 54 19.1 18.6 18.5
55 to 64 13.8 13.3 12.5
65 or older 14.5 17.2 13.2
Prefer not to answer 1.4 0.9 5.6
Gender (QD2)
Male 48.7 45.5 45.1
Female 48.9 51.4 53.2
Othe
r 0.6 0.8 0.3
Prefer not to answer 1.8 2.3 1.4
Access to Personal Vehicle (QD3)
Alwa
ys 90.8 88.1 84.2
Sometimes 4.2 6.2 8.2
Rarely, never 3.5 4.0 5.9
Prefer not to answer 1.5 1.7 1.7
Home Ownership Status (QD4)
Rent 40.6 42.0 44.3
Own 53.4 52.6 51.7
Prefer not to answer 6.0 5.4 4.0
Ethnicity (QD5)
Caucasian / White 37.5 37.3 37.7
Latino / Hispanic 32.1 32.0 32.3
Af Amer. / Black 2.2 1.8 1.5
Asian American 19.5 19.8 20.0
Mixed or othe
r 3.6 3.1 3.4
Prefer not to answer 5.0 6.0 5.1
Hsld Income (QD6)
Less than $25K 7.8 10.0 8.6
$25K to $49K 15.6 14.2 16.6
$50K to $74K 17.4 16.5 17.2
$75K to $99K 16.1 16.6 14.7
$100K to $149K 16.0 14.4 15.2
$150K or more 20.5 21.7 21.1
Prefer not to answer 6.6 6.6 6.6
Supervisorial District
One 20.7 20.8 19.3
Two 21.2 21.5 22.6
Three 17.4 17.7 18.1
Fou
r 21.3 21.3 20.7
Five 19.4 18.7 19.3
Study Version
131
Methodology
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

M ETHODOLOGY
The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with OCTA to develop a questionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided the many possible sources of systematic measurement error including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects, and priming. Several questions included multiple individual items. Because asking the items in a set order can lead to a systematic position bias, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent.

Some questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For example, only respondents who reported that they were employed in September 2022 (Question 4) were asked follow-up questions about their work schedule (Question 5) and working from home (Question 6) during that month. The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 47) identifies the skip patterns that were used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.

PROGRAMMING, PRE-TEST & TRANSLATION Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conducting the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts the interviewer to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they occur. The survey was also programmed into a passcode-protected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled residents. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into random homes in Orange County prior to formally beginning the survey. Once finalized, the survey was professionally translated into Spanish and Vietnamese to give respondents the option of participating in English, Spanish, or Vietnamese.

SAMPLE, RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION A comprehensive database of households within Orange County was utilized for this study, ensuring that all households had the opportunity to participate in the survey. From this master database, True North developed a stratified, random sample of residents to recruit to participate in the survey. Once selected at random, additional contact information (telephone and/or email) was appended to the sample using publicly available and private sources. Residents were recruited to participate in the survey using a combination of emailed invitations, text invitations, and/or telephone calls.5 Individuals that received an email or text invitation were invited to participate in the survey online at a secure, passcode-protected website designed and hosted by True North. Each sample record was assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only residents who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that the survey could be completed one time only. Individuals that did not respond to an email or text invitation (or that only had telephone contact information) were recruited to participate in the survey by telephone (land lane and/or cell phone).

5. The recruiting method(s) selected for a respondent depended on the contact information that was available for that particular individual.
132
Methodology
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Telephone interviews averaged 15 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would likely bias the sample. A total of 2,019 surveys were completed between September 12 and September 30, 2022.

STATISTICAL MARGIN OF ERROR By using a probability-based sample and monitoring the sample characteristics as data collection proceeded, True North ensured that the sample was representative of adult residents in Orange County. The results of the survey can thus be used to estimate the opinions of all adult residents in the County. Because not all adult residents participated in the survey, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 2,019 respondents for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 2,489,898 adult residents6 in Orange County had been interviewed.

Figure 45 provides a plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response. For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 2.2% for questions answered by all 2,019 respondents countywide.

FIGURE 45 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING
Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to certain questions varied by subgroups such as years living in Orange County, age of the respondent, and Supervisorial District.

Figure 45 above is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a per6. Source: adult population estimate derived from U.S. Census Bureau age profile for Orange County for July 2021.

Sample of 2,019
Adult Residents
± 2.2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error
133
Methodology
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 centage estimate will grow as the number of individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.

DATA PROCESSING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing open-ended responses, and preparing frequency analyses and crosstabulations. The final data were weighted to adjust for minor discrepancies in age and ethnicity within each of the five Supervisorial Districts.

ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole number, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.

These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and charts. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and pie charts for a given question.
134
Questionnaire & Toplines
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 1
OCTA
Employment & Travel Survey Tracker II
Final Toplines (n=2,019)
October 11, 2022
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Standard Intro: Hi, may I please speak to: _____. Hi, my name is _____ and I’m calling from TNR on behalf of OCTA (Oh-See-Tee-Ay) – the Orange County Transportation Authority. We’re conducting a survey about important issues in Orange County and I’d like to get your opinions.

If Land Line, no name on file: Hi, my name is _____ and I’m calling from TNR on behalf of OCTA (Oh-See-Tee-Ay) – the Orange County Transportation Authority. We’re conducting a survey about important issues in Orange County and I’d like to get your opinions.

If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. I’m NOT trying to sell anything and I won’t ask for a donation. Your responses will be confidential.

If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete.

If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back? You can also take the survey online if you prefer.

Section 2: Screener for Inclusion if Land Line & No Name For statistical reasons, I would like to speak to the youngest adult male currently at home that is at least 18 years of age. If there is no male currently at home that is at least 18 years of age, then ask: Ok, then I’d like to speak to the youngest female currently at home that is at least 18 years of age.

If there is no adult currently available, then ask for a callback time.

NOTE: Adjust this screener as needed to match sample quotas on gender & age If respondent asks why we want to speak to a particular demographic group, explain: Its important that the sample of people for the survey is representative of the adult population in Orange County for it to be statistically reliable. At this point, we need to balance our sample by asking for people who fit a particular demographic profile.

Section 3: Local Issues & the Pandemic
Q1 To begin, how long have you lived in Orange County?
1 Less than 1 year 2%
2 1 to 2 years 3%
3 3 to 4 years 4%
4 5 to 9 years 8%
5 10 to 14 years 7%
6 15 years or longer 74%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
135
Questionnaire & Toplines
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 OCTA Employment & Travel Survey Tracker II 10/11/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 2
Q2
Thinking about Orange County as a whole, what would you say is the most important issue facing Orange County today? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Homelessness 25%
Housing availability, affordability 18%
Not sure, cannot think of anything 16%
Public safety, drugs, crime 11%
Traffic congestion 9%
Cost of living 9%
Public transportation 5%
Population, overcrowding 3%
Environmental issues, concerns 3%
Development, loss of open space 3%
Infrastructure maintenance, repair 3%
Water supply issues, concerns, drought 3%
Economy, unemployment 2%
High taxes 2%
Illegal immigration issues 2%
Political division 2%
High gas prices 2%
Q3 Which comes closer to your view about where Orange County stands in the coronavirus outbreak: the worst is behind us OR the worst is yet to come? 1 Worst is behind us 74%
2 Worst is yet to come 10%
98 Not sure 15%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
136
Questionnaire & Toplines
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 OCTA Employment & Travel Survey Tracker II 10/11/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 3
Section 4: Current Employment & Commute
We’re interested in how your activities may have changed in response to the pandemic. First, let me ask about your current situation.

Q4
Which best describes your current employment status? Are you employed full-time, employed part-time, self-employed, laid-off or furloughed, not employed but looking for work, a student, a homemaker, or retired?
1 Employed full-time 48% Ask Q5
2 Employed part-time 9% Ask Q5
3 Self-employed 7% Ask Q5
4 Laid-off/furloughed 1% Skip to Q15
5 Not employed, but looking for work 5% Skip to Q15
6 Student 6% Skip to Q15
7 Homemaker 4% Skip to Q15
8 Retired 19% Skip to Q15
99 Prefer not to answer 2% Skip to Q15
Q5 How many days per week do you typically work?
1 One 1%
2 Two 1%
3 Three 6%
4 Four 10%
5 Five 68%
6 Six 10%
7 Seven 4%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q6 Of the <insert from Q5> days per week you typically work, how many of these days do you primarily work from home?
0 None 57%
1 One 7%
2 Two 9%
3 Three 6%
4 Four 5%
5 Five 14%
6 Six 1%
7 Seven 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
137
Questionnaire & Toplines
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 OCTA Employment & Travel Survey Tracker II 10/11/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 4
Ask Q7 and Q8 if number days reported in Q6 is less than Q5.

Q7
When you commute to a work destination outside of your home, how do you typically commute to work? If they say they use multiple transportation methods, ask: Which do you use for the longest portion of your commute?
If they say drive, car, etc. ask: Do you most often drive by yourself or with other people in the vehicle?
1 Drive alone (car, truck, SUV, or van) 85%
2 Carpool (ride together 2 to 4 people) 6%
3 Vanpool (ride together with 5 to 15
people) 1%
4 Motorcycle/Moped 1%
5 E-bike/electric scooter 1%
6 On-demand rideshare service like
Uber or Lyft 0%
7 Taxi 0%
Public Transit
8 Bus 4%
9 Metrolink/Amtrak rail 1%
10 Other public transit 0%
11 Bicycle 1%
12 Walk/jog/run 1%
13 Other 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q8 In miles, what is the approximate one-way commute distance between your home and your place of work? If respondent not sure, ask them to estimate.

Average miles 17.20
1 Less than 3 7%
2 3 to 5 19%
3 6 to 10 22%
4 11 to 15 18%
5 16 to 25 14%
6 26 to 40 8%
7 More than 40 7%
99 Prefer not to answer 4%
138
Questionnaire & Toplines
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 OCTA Employment & Travel Survey Tracker II 10/11/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 5
Ask Q9 if Q6=0. Otherwise skip to Q10.

Q9 Does your employer currently give you the option to work from home at least one day per week?
1 Yes 8%
2 No 89%
98 Not sure 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q10 What industry do you work in? If hesitates, ask: What does your company do? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Health Care and Social Assistance 18%
Professional, Scientific and Technical
Services 15%
Educational Services 9%
Retail Trade 7%
Public Administration 6%
Prefer not to answer 6%
Manufacturing 5%
Accommodation and Food Services 5%
Other Services (except Public
Administration) 5%
Construction 5%
Transportation and Warehousing 4%
Finance and Insurance 4%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 3%
Arts, Entertainment and Recreation 3%
Information 2%
Administrative and Support and Waste
Management and Remediation Services 2%
Wholesale Trade 1%
Q11 What is your occupation? If hesitates, ask: What type of work do you do? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Management occupations 15%
Education, training, and library occupations 8%
Sales and related occupations 8%
Office and administrative support
occupations 8%
Healthcare practitioner and technical
occupations 7%
Prefer not to answer 7%
139
Questionnaire & Toplines
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 OCTA Employment & Travel Survey Tracker II 10/11/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 6
Business and financial operations
occupations 6%
Architecture and engineering occupations 5%
Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and
media occupations 4%
Food preparation and serving related
occupations 4%
Computer and mathematical science
occupations 3%
Community and social service occupations 3%
Legal occupations 3%
Production occupations 3%
Transportation and material moving
occupations 3%
Healthcare support occupations 2%
Building and grounds cleaning and
maintenance occupations 2%
Personal care and service occupations 2%
Construction and extraction occupations 2%
Installation, maintenance, and repair
occupations 2%
Life, physical, and social science
occupations 1%
Protective service occupations 1%
Armed Forces 1%
Ask Q12 if Q6>0. Otherwise skip to Q15.

Q12
Next are a few questions about your experiences working from home during the past year. In general, do you find that working from home has helped, had no impact, or hurt:
_____? If helped or hurt, ask: Would you say it has (helped/hurt) a lot or somewhat? Randomize
Helped a
lot
Helped
somewhat
No Impact
Hurt
somewhat
Hurt a lot
Not Sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Your satisfaction with your job 43% 23% 20% 8% 3% 1% 1% B Your ability to collaborate with other
employees 15% 12% 38% 24% 9% 1% 1%
C Your ability to communicate with other
employees 16% 9% 45% 21% 6% 2% 2%
D The quality of your work 30% 21% 37% 8% 2% 0% 1%
E Your productivity 36% 26% 23% 10% 4% 1% 1%
F Your ability to strike the right balance
between work and your personal life 46% 18% 17% 11% 6% 0% 1% G Your expenses 41% 29% 19% 4% 5% 1% 1%
H Your ability to manage your time 41% 20% 23% 11% 3% 1% 1% I Your ability to communicate with external
customers or partners 18% 12% 48% 14% 5% 2% 1%
140
Questionnaire & Toplines
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 OCTA Employment & Travel Survey Tracker II 10/11/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 7
Ask Q13 if Q4=(1,2,3). Otherwise skip to Q15.

Q13 Did you change employers in the past 18 months?
1 Yes 27% Ask Q14
2 No 72% Skip to Q15
99 Prefer not to answer 2% Skip to Q15
Q14 What was the main reason why you changed employers? 1 Better pay/salary 41%
2 Better benefits 3%
3 Flexible schedule 11%
4 Wanted to work from home 1%
5 Change career 9%
6 Shorter commute 0%
7 Wanted to relocate to a different area 4%
8 Wanted to relocate to a more
affordable area 0%
9 Layoffs or company went out of
business 12%
10 Employer was mandating vaccine 4%
11 I wanted to work for employer who
mandated vaccine 0%
12 Other 16%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Section 5: Current Activities
Q15 In the past month – August 2022 – approximately how many days during the month did you: ____?
Read in Order
Average
Days
None
1 to 3 4 to 8
9 to 16
More
than 16
A Ride Metrolink or Amtrak rail 0.60 89% 7% 3% 0% 1%
B Ride a bus 1.11 85% 8% 3% 2% 2%
C Use an on-demand rideshare service like
Uber or Lyft 1.46 62% 24% 10% 3% 1%
D Carpool with people you don’t live with 1.28 73% 15% 8% 2% 1% E Vanpool 0.31 96% 3% 1% 0% 0%
F Ride a bicycle 1.64 77% 10% 7% 4% 3%
G Drive alone in a vehicle 16.90 12% 6% 11% 16% 54%
141
Questionnaire & Toplines
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 OCTA Employment & Travel Survey Tracker II 10/11/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 8
H Purchase products online 6.51 9% 28% 34% 22% 7%
I Purchase groceries online 1.26 70% 16% 11% 3% 0%
J Eat a meal at a restaurant 5.57 12% 31% 35% 17% 5%
K Order food for pick-up from a restaurant 3.72 28% 32% 27% 10% 2% L Order food for delivery from a restaurant 1.89 55% 26% 13% 5% 1% Section 6: Future Employment & Commute
Next, let me ask about your expectations for the future, one year from now. If you aren’t sure about an answer, please give me your best estimate.

Q16
One year from now, do you expect to be employed full-time, employed part-time, selfemployed, laid-off or furloughed, not employed but looking for work, a student, a homemaker, or retired?
1 Employed full-time 54% Ask Q17
2 Employed part-time 8% Ask Q17
3 Self-employed 8% Ask Q17
4 Laid-off/furloughed 0% Skip to Q28
5 Not employed, but looking for work 2% Skip to Q28
6 Student 6% Skip to Q28
7 Homemaker 2% Skip to Q28
8 Retired 19% Skip to Q28
99 Prefer not to answer 2% Skip to Q28
Summary of Employment Status September vs One Year from Now (Q4 and Q16) 1 Employed Sep & one year from now 61%
2 Not employed Sep & one year from
now 26%
3 Employed Sep, but not one year from
now 2%
4 Not employed Set, employed one Year
from now 8%
5 Refused one or both questions 3%
142
Questionnaire & Toplines
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 OCTA Employment & Travel Survey Tracker II 10/11/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 9
Q17 One year from now, how many days per week do you expect to work? 1 One 1%
2 Two 1%
3 Three 6%
4 Four 11%
5 Five 70%
6 Six 8%
7 Seven 3%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Summary of Days Worked per Week, September vs One Year from Now (Q5 and Q17) All Respondents
Respondents
Employed in
September
1 More days per week one year from now 13% 8%
2 Same days per week one year from now 75% 77%
3 Fewer days per week one year from
now 9% 15%
4 Refused one or both questions 3% 0%
Q18 Of the <insert from Q17> days per week you expect to work, how many of these days do you expect to primarily work from home one year from now? 0 None 51%
1 One 8%
2 Two 11%
3 Three 9%
4 Four 5%
5 Five 14%
6 Six 1%
7 Seven 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
143
Questionnaire & Toplines
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 OCTA Employment & Travel Survey Tracker II 10/11/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 10
Summary of Days Worked From Home per Week, September vs One Year from Now (Q6 and Q18)
All Respondents
Respondents
Employed in
September
1 More days per week one year from now 13% 13%
2 Same days per week one year from now 76% 74%
3 Fewer days per week one year from
now 8% 13%
4 Refused one or both questions 3% 0%
Ask Q19 if number days reported in Q18 is less than Q17.

Q19
When you commute to a work destination outside of your home one year from now, how will you typically commute to work? If they say they use multiple transportation methods, ask: Which will you use for the longest portion of your commute? If they say drive, car, etc. ask: Will you most often drive by yourself or with other people in the vehicle?
1 Drive alone (car, truck, SUV, or van) 86%
2 Carpool (ride together 2 to 4 people) 6%
3 Vanpool (ride together with 5 to 15
people) 0%
4 Motorcycle/Moped 1%
5 E-bike/electric scooter 1%
6 On-demand rideshare service like
Uber or Lyft 1%
7 Taxi 0%
Public Transit
8 Bus 3%
9 Metrolink/Amtrak rail 0%
10 Other public transit 0%
11 Bicycle 1%
12 Walk/jog/run 0%
13 Other 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Ask Q20 if Q18<Q6. Otherwise skip to instruction preceding Q22.

Q20
You indicated that you expect to work fewer days from home a year from now when compared to your current schedule. Is this because you prefer to reduce the number of days you work from home?
1 Yes 41%
2 No 56%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
144
Questionnaire & Toplines
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 OCTA Employment & Travel Survey Tracker II 10/11/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 11
Q21 One year from now, do you expect that your employer will allow you to continue working from home <insert from Q6> days per week?
1 Yes 54%
2 No 43%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
Ask Q22 If Q18=Q6. Otherwise skip to instruction preceding Q24.

Q22
You indicated that you expect to work the same number of days from home one year from now when compared to your current schedule. Is this because you prefer to keep the number of days you work from home the same?
1 Yes 61%
2 No 33%
99 Prefer not to answer 5%
Q23 Has your employer indicated that – one year from now – employees must work from home at least part of the time?
1 Yes 8%
2 No 89%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
Ask Q24 if Q18>Q6. Otherwise skip to instruction preceding Q26 Q24
You indicated that you expect to work more days from home one year from now when compared to your current schedule. Is this because you prefer to increase the amount of days you work from home?
1 Yes 73%
2 No 24%
99 Prefer not to answer 4%
Q25 Has your employer indicated that – one year from now – employees must work from home least part of the time?
1 Yes 14%
2 No 82%
99 Prefer not to answer 4%
Ask Q26 if Q16=(1,2,3). Otherwise skip to Q28.

Q26 Do you anticipate that you will change employers in the next 12 months? 1 Yes 23% Ask Q27
2 No 72% Skip to Q28
99 Prefer not to answer 6% Skip to Q28
145
Questionnaire & Toplines
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 OCTA Employment & Travel Survey Tracker II 10/11/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 12
Q27 What is the main reason why you expect to change employers? 1 Better pay/salary 41%
2 Better benefits 6%
3 Flexible schedule 10%
4 Want to work from home 8%
5 Changing career 12%
6 Shorter commute 3%
7 Want to relocate to a different area 4%
8 Want to relocate to a more affordable
area 3%
9 Current employer may issue layoffs or
go out of business 4%
10 Current employer is mandating
vaccine 0%
11 I want to work for employer who
mandates vaccine 0%
12 Other 8%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Section 7: Future Activities
Q28 Thinking ahead to one year from now, approximately how many days in a typical month do you expect to: _____?
Read in Order
Average
Days
None
1 to 3 4 to 8
9 to 16
More than
16 Aug < in
one year
Aug = in
one year
Aug > in
one year
A Ride Metrolink or Amtrak rail 0.62 83% 12% 4% 1% 1% 11% 84% 5% B Ride a bus 1.22 83% 8% 5% 2% 2% 9% 85% 6%
C Use an on-demand rideshare
service like Uber or Lyft 1.61 59% 25% 14% 2% 1% 20% 67% 13% D Carpool with people you don’t live
with 1.39 72% 14% 9% 4% 1% 15% 74% 11%
E Vanpool 0.21 94% 3% 2% 0% 0% 4% 94% 2%
F Ride a bicycle 2.39 68% 11% 12% 5% 4% 19% 75% 6%
G Drive alone in a vehicle 10.31 30% 15% 14% 12% 30% 18% 29% 53% H Purchase products online 5.90 8% 31% 36% 20% 5% 24% 44% 32% I Purchase groceries online 1.49 64% 19% 14% 3% 1% 17% 74% 9% J Eat a meal at a restaurant 5.47 7% 31% 42% 17% 3% 30% 45% 25% K Order food for pick-up from a
restaurant 3.65 24% 34% 31% 9% 2% 26% 51% 23%
L Order food for delivery from a
restaurant 2.11 48% 30% 17% 5% 1% 23% 63% 14%
146
Questionnaire & Toplines
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 OCTA Employment & Travel Survey Tracker II 10/11/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 13
Section 8: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for statistical purposes.

D1 In what year were you born? Year recorded and grouped into age categories shown below.
18 to 24 13%
25 to 34 18%
35 to 44 19%
45 to 54 19%
55 to 64 13%
65 or older 13%
Prefer not to answer 6%
D2 What is your gender?
1 Male 45%
2 Female 53%
3 Non-binary <1%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
D3
How would you describe your access to a personal vehicle? Would you say you always have access, sometimes have access, rarely have access, or never have access to a personal vehicle?
1 Always 84%
2 Sometimes 8%
3 Rarely 2%
4 Never 4%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
147
Questionnaire & Toplines
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 OCTA Employment & Travel Survey Tracker II 10/11/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 14
D4 Do you rent or own your home?
1 Rent 44%
2 Own 52%
99 Prefer not to answer 4%
D5 What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? Read list if respondent hesitates
1 Caucasian/White 38%
2 Latino/Hispanic 32%
3 African-American/Black 2%
4 American Indian or Alaskan Native <1%
5 Asian -- Korean, Japanese, Chinese,
Vietnamese, Filipino or other Asian 20%
6 Pacific Islander <1%
7 Middle Eastern 1%
8 Mixed Heritage 2%
98 Other <1%
99 Prefer not to answer 5%
D6
I have just one more question for you for statistical reasons. I am going to read some income categories. Please stop me when I reach the category that best describes your total household income.
1 Less than $25,000 9%
2 $25,000 to less than $50,000 17%
3 $50,000 to less than $75,000 17%
4 $75,000 to less than $100,000 15%
5 $100,000 to less than $150,000 15%
6 $150,000 to $199,999 8%
7 $200,000 or more 13%
98 Not sure 1%
99 Prefer not to answer 6%
Those are all of the questions that I have for you! Thanks very much for participating. 148
Questionnaire & Toplines
OCTA True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 OCTA Employment & Travel Survey Tracker II 10/11/2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2022 Page 15
Post Interview Items
S1 Supervisorial District
1 One 19%
2 Two 23%
3 Three 18%
4 Four 21%
5 Five 19%
149
City Manager 910 Calle Negocio, Suite 300 San Clemente, CA 92673 http://san-clemente.org
City of San Clemente
City Manager
Jonathan Lightfoot, Economic Dev Officer
Phone: (949) 361-8245
[email protected]
Wednesday, March 1, 2023
San Clemente CMO Grant Application 2023
Summary of Report Findings
Based on data from a variety of sources, including the 2022 OCTA Employment & Travel Survey (“Survey”), community engagement activities, and other publicly available data sources, we have identified a project area and service model that matches the unique needs of the San Clemente community.

Residents and visitors of the community today face limited, expensive, and inflexible transportation options. Auto-focused infrastructure incentivizes high rates of single occupancy vehicle use, leading to congestion and forcing residents to pay more than they can afford to maintain access to a car for essential trips. While COVID-19 dramatically altered travel patterns for a time, and remote work ameliorated some of these concerns from some residents, many of these trends have since reversed, and the fundamental problems remain.

Current Transportation Options Are Insufficient
San Clemente is in OCTA's 5th Supervisorial District, where respondents named Public Transportation and Traffic Congestion as two of the top issues facing the county.

Contributing to this concern is the high rate of auto dependence in the community. “Of the 81% of employees who commuted to work in September 2022, 69% indicated they typically drove alone, 5% took public transit, 1% carpooled or vanpooled, 4% used active transportation (walk/run/bike/E-bike), and 2% used a different mode.” (Survey, 8) Alternative options remain rare, as “use of on-demand rideshare increased from 3% of days to 5%, carpooling with someone they don’t live with stayed the same at 4%, riding a bus increased from 3% of days to 4%, while riding Metrolink or Amtrak increased from 1% of days in August 2021 to 2% in August 2022.” (Survey, 9) The City’s Housing Element details the urgent need for improved transportation access, particularly transit access to jobs. “According to All Transit, San Clemente has a performance score of 2.7, significantly lower than the County (Figure C-28). Jobs are 150
City of San Clemente Page 2
generally not accessible by transit in San Clemente. As shown in Figure C-30, employment opportunities are less accessible to communities in the southern and northwestern areas of San Clemente. A small group of block groups in the central eastern section of the City received higher jobs proximity scores, but a majority of the City scored below 40. While the central area of the City along the western border has low job proximity indices (tracts 421.07 and 421.08), the only two existing transit stations in the City are located within these tracts (see Figure C-43).” (Housing Element, 230).

As Covid-era trends progress, previous travel patterns are returning. “With respect to alternative modes of transportation, the trend back toward pre-pandemic commute patterns was expected to continue when employees were surveyed in 2021. Once the pandemic is over, 5% of employees anticipated that they would typically use public transit for their commute, 4% expected to carpool or vanpool, 2% expected to use active transportation, and 2% other modes. Approximately seven-in-ten employees (69%) anticipated that they would drive alone to work once the pandemic is over, which is approximately 10% less than pre-pandemic due to the higher percentage of employees (18%) who anticipate only working from home and thus will not be commuting.” (Survey, 23)
While some expected remote work would decrease commuting trips, this has not proven to be the case. “Although respondents in 2021 had anticipated a large decline in the number of days they would drive post-pandemic, the percentage of days respondents drove alone in a vehicle decreased just 2% by August 2022 (from 56% to 54%), use of on-demand rideshare increased from 3% of days to 5%, carpooling with someone they don’t live with stayed the same at 4%, riding a bus increased from 3% of days to 4%, while riding Metrolink or Amtrak increased from 1% of days in August 2021 to 2% in August 2022.” (Survey, 33)
The persistent need to drive, most often alone, in the community reveals the urgent need for new transportation options. Car ownership is unaffordable, particularly with higher-than-normal gas prices (AAA). New options are necessary to meet community members’ needs and enable a more sustainable transportation system that reduces carbon emissions and improves local air quality.

A Community Shuttle Service Model Will Meet Community Needs Data shows that residents are demanding new transportation options. The OCTA Long Range Transportation Plan survey showed 55% support for “Creat[ing] local community shuttle services that get people to and around major activity centers,” the most popular choice (https://www.octa.net/pdf/LRTPBlueSkySurveyInfographic.pdf?n=202202). A community shuttle option would also help address the most-cited challenge in the survey: “Lack of service close to my home/destination.” As a first-last mile connector, this project would expand the reach of every transit stop in the project area. 151
City of San Clemente Page 3
Public engagement for the South Orange County Multimodal Transportation Study also found interest in alternative modes, if appealing alternatives existed: “The public indicated a willingness to use alternative modes of transportation if the benefits and ease of use were more appealing than using a personal vehicle.” (South OC Multimodal Study, ES-3)
As housing and transportation issues are closely linked, community engagement around housing in San Clemente demonstrates the need for improved transportation access that allows residents to get around without SOVs, which contribute to traffic congestion and pollution. This project will continue to address community needs as development continues, as envisioned by the city’s housing element: “The City has seen an increased interest in residential development in the mixed use zones due to their proximity to services and transportation corridors. The two latest affordable housing projects have been developed in such areas also because of the preference of State and Federal funding programs to locate housing in transit-oriented areas.” (Housing Element, 76) 152
153
City of San Clemente Proposed Project Area Expansion
Service in the northern area (also known as Rancho San Clemente) will be supported by first-last mile connections to the existing low-income housing areas, the major employment hubs within the business park, community services including the high school, City Hall, the Orange County Sheriff, a Post Office, the Family Assistance Ministry, as well as adjacent grocery, retail, and recreational uses.

Community Support

1. Within the Community Engagement Activity 1, San Clemente’s Housing and Safety Element workshops (links provided in application), participants identified affordable housing and housing for homeless as priority housing needs in the community, and seniors and young adults as the most underserved groups. Residents suggested North El Camino Real and Rancho San Clemente Specific Plan (aka the northern area) as appropriate areas for additional future housing. In 2021, the City presented the potential sites for rezoning along before the Planning Commission to solicit further input for the potential sites. The Housing Element also details the urgent need for improved transportation access, particularly transit access to jobs.

2. Public engagement, as part of the South Orange County Multimodal Transportation Study, identifies a common theme that the public and stakeholders would like to see more alternatives to driving such as light rail, trolleys, active transportation, and improved public transit availability and accessibility. The public indicated a willingness to use alternative modes of transportation if the benefits and ease of use were more appealing than using a personal vehicle.

San Clemente is in OCTA’s 5th Supervisorial District, where respondents name public transportation and traffic congestion as two of the top issues facing the county. The high rate of auto dependence in the community is a concern and alternative options remain rare (Survey 8 and 9).

3. The City has engaged the community multiple times over the past two years in regards to its Trolley Program, jointly funded with OCTA. The Trolley was originally intended to only operate during the summers, but the City began providing weekend service year round on the primary route due to community feedback, and routes have again been extended recently to the southern end of town, also selected from public feedback. This successful project demonstrates the City’s commitment to public engagement and investment in exploring new mobility alternatives.
154
City of San Clemente Proposed Project Area Expansion

4. The City Council reviewed options for on February 7, 2023 to expand the City’s trolley/mobility access. The Council directed staff to pilot a “southern route” between the pier and state beach. They also directed staff to pursue additional funding and opportunities for the runner up, “inland route”, which would serve the Pico corridor. The City has not yet been able to establish regular service for this inland route, but we are interested in establishing that through this program.

5. The City would gladly engage with groups along this corridor during the engagement process (San Clemente High School, FAM, Rancho San Clemente Business Park Association, etc.) to incorporate their feedback into any new routes/service in this area.

SC Rides
In 2016, the City started the pilot on-demand transportation service "SC Rides" designed to help mitigate the loss of former local OCTA bus routes 191 and 193. Under its Project V grant program, OCTA has awarded funds to the City to provide up to 90% of the cost of this pilot program. The grant agreement expires June 30, 2025. The City submitted a Measure V grant application to extend this, but there has been no confirmation from OCTA on whether it will be extended.

Under the expiring SC Rides program, rides have been subsidized to cost only $2 (saving riders up to $9 on rides). Eligible, rides must be taken between 6 AM-8 PM, and must be both picked up and dropped off within a .25 miles radius of the original 191 and 193 bus routes. While the required City match is only 10%, the City has been exceeding that value for several years. The City would like to assess community support for a first-last mile, fixed route service and explore which service makes more sense long-term. Staff believes that there may be more benefit to integrated services that align/connect to the popular Trolley program, where the current SC Rides program is a completely detached program.
155
156
157
([KLELW(
158
159
160
161
162
163

CMO PROJECT MILESTONE SCHEDULE