2022-09-13; City Council; ; Authorization of an Agreement with Fehr & Peers for Transportation Planning and Engineering Design Services for Various Transportation Initiatives and request to carry $2 — Carlsbad City Council, September 13, 2022

CA Review _RMC_
Meeting Date: Sept. 13, 2022
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Staff Contact: Nathan Schmidt, Transportation Planning and Mobility Manager [email protected], 442-339-2734
Subject: Authorization of an Agreement with Fehr & Peers for Transportation Planning and Engineering Design Services for Various Transportation Initiatives and request to carry $276,399 in funding forward from Fiscal Year 2021-22 to FY 2022-23
Districts: All
Reco
mmended Action
Adopt a resolution authorizing execution of a professional services agreement with Fehr & Peers, a California corporation, to provide engineering and environmental services for the Sustainable Mobility Plan Implementation Plan, Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee Study and Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program for an amount not to exceed $383,315.

The resolution also includes a request to carry $276,399 forward from the Transportation Department’s FY 2021-22 operating budget to its FY 2022-23 operating budget to fund a portion of the agreement.

Executive Summary
The City Council is being asked to authorize staff to execute a professional services agreement with a consultant to create the implementation plan for three interconnected initiatives needed to re-evaluate and identify the funding for future transportation improvements in the city:
• The Sustainable Mobility Plan, intended to support all forms of transportation around the city while meeting the city’s climate action goals
• A study of a multimodal transportation impact fee, a possible replacement to the city’s current traffic impact fee program
• A vehicle miles traveled mitigation program
Staff have selected the engineering consultants Fehr & Peers as the most qualified of the companies that bid on the project. The proposed agreement with Fehr & Peers is for $383,315.

The agreement requires the City Council’s approval under Carlsbad Municipal Code Section

3.28.060(D)(5) because the value of the proposed agreement exceeds $100,000 per year.

To fund a portion of the work to be done under this agreement, the portion focused on the Sustainable Mobility Plan and the vehicle miles traveled study, staff are proposing to carry $276,399 that was unspent in the fiscal year 2021-22 Transportation Department’s operating budget in the General Fund forward to its FY 2022-23 budget. That request requires the City Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 1 of 42

Council’s approval under City Council Policy No. 87 because the amount of the unspent General Fund money to be carried forward is greater than $100,000.

Discussion
Sustainable Mobility Plan
The City Council adopted the Sustainable Mobility Plan in January 2021. The plan provides broad recommendations for reducing vehicle miles traveled in the city, mitigating the impacts of growth and development, and shifting how residents get around the city away from single- occupied private automobiles toward transportation modes that are more livable, cleaner and healthier. The plan builds upon important prior planning work in the city, including:
• The General Plan’s Mobility Element
• Bicycle and pedestrian master plans
• Village & Barrio Master Plan
• Carlsbad Active Transportation Strategy
• Climate Action Plan
• Establishing the Transportation Demand Ordinance
Traffic impact fee
The city’s current traffic impact fee is assessed on developers based on the impact their projects will have on city streets. It was designed to fund needed circulation improvements within the city. The genesis of the program was the city’s General Plan, which requires that the city ensure the provision of adequate circulation infrastructure to serve its projected population. One of the objectives listed in General Plan Mobility Element Policy 3-P.5 states the city should, “[r]equire developers to construct or pay their fair share toward improvements for all travel modes consistent with this Mobility Element, the Growth Management Plan, and specific impact associated with their development.”
Implementation plan for Sustainable Mobility Plan
The first task in this process is to develop a strategic implementation plan for the Sustainable Mobility Plan. This implementation plan will focus on devising realistic funding strategies for the design and construction of recommended mobility projects. It will build upon the project prioritization process established in the original Sustainable Mobility Plan and serve as a blueprint for a phased implementation of the multimodal improvement projects identified in the plan. (Multimodal refers to efforts to make it easier for people to get around by all forms of travel, not just cars.)
This detailed plan will include an engineering feasibility analysis of top-priority projects and programs, covering the preliminary cost estimates, conceptual improvement plans, roadway cross sections and identification of funding sources. One program to be considered for funding is an all-electric flexible fleet on-demand rideshare program.

Multimodal transportation impact fee
The next task would be to develop a multimodal transportation impact fee program which would replace the city’s current traffic impact fee program. This study would provide a mechanism to modernize the city’s current fee program to collect funds for the construction of the improvements identified and prioritized in the Sustainable Mobility Plan and Capital Improvement Program.

Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 2 of 42

This first program concept to be studied is a traditional impact fee program in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act, which authorizes a city to impose fees on specific development projects to defray the cost of new or additional public facilities needed to serve those developments.

Developers would pay a fee based on the impact their projects would have on the city’s transportation infrastructure. The proceeds would be used for projects intended to reduce vehicle miles traveled.

The methodology used to determine the amount individual fees and the efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled would be consistent with Senate Bill 743, which took effect in 2020, that changed the way local governments analyze transportation impacts from development projects and how they identify mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. 1 That methodology will also need to align with the requirements in the county’s TransNet Extension Ordinance, which generates funding for regional transportation projects, for the city to remain eligible to receive its share of TransNet’s sales tax revenue.

Vehicle miles traveled mitigation program
The third task is to develop a mitigation program the city could use to reduce significant vehicle miles traveled impacts from new development projects to what is known as a less-than- significant impact.

The city developed its Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Guidelines in 2020 to help in the analysis of the transportation impacts caused by development projects. This was consistent with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research advisories and California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15064.3 - Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts. The city’s guidelines were last revised in September 2020.

To provide additional options to help mitigate for project-related vehicle miles traveled impacts, the city is now planning to develop a mitigation fee program and/or an in-lieu fee program in which the developers of new projects would pay a fee based on the vehicle miles traveled their projects would generate. The proceeds of this fee program would be used to help alleviate or mitigate significant impacts from development projects.

This mitigation fee program is anticipated to pay for relevant transportation demand management and vehicle miles traveled-reducing projects within the city. Future developments that trigger potentially significant vehicle miles traveled impacts under state environmental guidelines would fund these projects. Potential measures may include providing active transportation network improvements identified in the Sustainable Mobility Plan Implementation Plan and other city-run programs to incentivize the use of alternative travel modes.

1 The previous practice of evaluating traffic transportation impacts used road congestion and delay or level of service. SB 743 requires the amount of driving and length of trips – as measured by vehicle miles traveled or VMT – to be used to assess transportation impacts on the environment when projects are reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 3 of 42

Bidding, proposed agreement
Staff posted a request for proposals for the project on June 13, 2022. On July 7, the city received three proposals. A selection panel of city staff evaluated and ranked the proposals based on best-value criteria, in keeping with Carlsbad Municipal Code sections 3.28.050(D)(2) – Procurement of goods, and 3.28.060 – Procurement of Professional Services The selection panel ranked Fehr & Peers as the most qualified and negotiated a scope of work with an associated fee not to exceed $383,315. The agreement will be in effect for two years from the effective date. The City Manager may amend the agreement to extend the term for up to two additional one-year periods.

Budget carryforward request
Staff are asking the City Council to approve a request to carry $276,399 in unspent funds in the Transportation Department’s FY 2021-22 operating budget in the General Fund to its FY 2022- 23 operating budget to pay for the studies on the Sustainable Mobility Plan’s implementation plan and the vehicle miles traveled fee.

According to Council Policy No. 87, General Fund Surplus Policy, the city manager is authorized to approve the carrying forward of any unspent and unencumbered budget for a particular item equal to or less than $100,000, after certain requirements are met. Since this carryforward exceeds $100,000, City Council authorization is therefore required. Based on preliminary unaudited financial information, staff anticipate meeting these requirements, making the Transportation Department’s available balance at 2021-22 fiscal year end available for this purpose. (The remaining carryforward requests citywide will be brought to the City Council for consideration and approval at a future date.)
Traffic and Mobility Commission Input
Staff provided a presentation to the Traffic and Mobility Commission and sought input on the proposed scope of work for the request for proposals on Dec. 6, 2021. No vote was taken at this meeting, which was intended only to gather the commissioner’s feedback. The commissioners said they supported undertaking these studies to identify priorities and funding for multimodal transportation projects in the city. (Exhibit 2 are the approved minutes of this meeting.) Options
Staff provide the following options for the City Council’s consideration:

1. Adopt a resolution authorizing execution of a professional services agreement with Fehr & Peers to provide engineering and environmental services for the Sustainable Mobility Plan Implementation Plan, Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee Study, and Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program, for an amount not to exceed $383,315 and approving the request to carry $276,399 forward into the current fiscal year’s budget to help pay for this agreement
Pros
• Staff determined that the Fehr & Peers’ proposal provides the best value to the city
• Sufficient funding is available for the agreement, including the grant funding from the Capital Improvement Program and General Fund. The project can be started and completed at the earliest opportunity

Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 4 of 42

Cons
• None identified

2. Do not adopt a resolution authorizing execution of an agreement with Fehr & Peers for the above-described services and do not approve the above-described carryforward.

Pros
• None identified
Cons
• Rejection of all proposals will delay the project
• Future solicitation efforts would consume additional staff time and expenditures • Delay in starting the Sustainable Mobility Plan Implementation Plan and Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee will result in delays to implement projects identified in the Sustainable Mobility Plan
• The city will miss out on collecting some future traffic impact fee funds from private development projects
Staff recommend Option 1.

Fis cal Analysis
Partial funding for the Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee portion of this project has been appropriated from Capital Improvement Program Project No. 6040, Traffic Impact Fee Study Update. The Transportation Department had sufficient available budget at the end of the 2021- 22 fiscal year to fund the studies.

Staff are requesting the City Council approve carrying $276,399 forward into the current fiscal year’s budget to complete the funding for this work.

The agreement, provided as Attachment A to Exhibit 1, includes an option to extend the agreement term for a maximum of two additional one-year periods. If the city elects to extend the agreement, the amount shall not exceed $200,000 per agreement year. If the term is extended for a third year, the maximum contract amount will be $583,315. If extended for a fourth year, the maximum contract amount will be $783,315.

These additional funds for the potential term extensions of years three and four of the agreement have been identified to cover additional work that may be required to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Assessment in Task 9. Staff may determine, through the project development process, that a more robust environmental analysis is required than currently anticipated. If this occurs, the consultant indicated the increased costs to perform the in-depth CEQA Assessment task would amount to approximately $150,000 - $200,000 per agreement year and would extend the schedule by approximately 12-18 months.

If staff determine that these additional funds beyond the initial two-year not-to-exceed fee of $383,315 are required, staff will return to city council to request appropriation of these funds.

Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 5 of 42
The available funds and estimated costs for the project are summarized below:

Sustainable Mobility Plan Implementation Plan, Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee Study and Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program Funding Summary Capital Improvement Program Project No. 6040 –Traffic Impact Fee Total appropriation to date $270,000
Total expenditures and encumbrances to date $11,217
Total available funding $258,783
Additional costs for Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee Study Professional services agreement $123,117
Staff engineering, administrative costs $13,800
Total estimated costs $136,917
Remaining balance – CIP Project No. 6040 $121,866
Additional costs for Sustainable Mobility Plan implementation plan and Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program studies
Professional services agreement $260,199
Staff engineering and administrative $16,200
Total estimated costs $276,399
Additional appropriation needed - Carryforward request $276,399 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ALL STUDIES $413,316
Next
Steps
Once the agreement is approved by the City Council and is fully executed, staff will issue a purchase order and a notice to Fehr & Peers to proceed with the engineering design and environmental services of the project. Staff anticipate the project will begin in September 2022 and be finished in the first quarter of 2024.

Environmental Eval uation
This action does not constitute a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act under Public Resources Code section 21065 in that it has no potential to cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and therefore does not require environmental review.

Public Notification
This item was noticed in keeping with the state’s Ralph M. Brown Act and it was available for public viewing and review at least 72 hours before the scheduled meeting date.

Exhibits

1. City Council resolution

2. Minutes of the December 6, 2021, Traffic and Mobility Commission meeting Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 6 of 42
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-220

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,

CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH FEHR & PEERS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, TO

PROVIDE ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR THE

SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, MULTIMODAL

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY, AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED

MITIGATION PROGRAM AND APPROVAL OF A CARRYFORWARD REQUEST

TO FUND A PORTION OF THE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it necessary, desirable and in the public interest to prepare the Sustainable Mobility Plan, or SMP, Implementation Plan, update the city's Traffic Impact Fee program with a Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee study, and develop a new Vehicle Miles Traveled, or VMT, mitigation program, Capital Improvement Program, or CIP, Project No. 6040, or Project, which would include the city undertaking transportation planning, engineering design and environmental assessment; and
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2022, staff received three proposals from consultants to provide services for the Project; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to a review of the proposals based on best-value criteria consistent with Carlsbad Municipal Code Sections 3.28.050(0){2) and 3.28.060, staff ranked Fehr & Peers, a California corporation, as the most qualified consultant for the Project; and WHEREAS, staff and Fehr & Peers negotiated the scope of work and associated fee in an amount not to exceed $383,315 to provide professional transportation planning, engineering design and environmental assessment services for the Project over an initial two-year term, with two additional one-year extensions as authorized by the City Manager; and WHEREAS, the Project is financed by the CIP and General Fund; and WHEREAS, per Council Policy No. 87, General Fund Surplus Policy, the City Council must authorize the carryforward of any unspent and unencumbered budget for a particular item in an amount greater than $100,000, after certain requirements are met; and WHEREAS, based on preliminary unaudited financial information, staff anticipate meeting these requirements, making Transportation Department's available balance at 2021-22 fiscal year end available for this purpose; and
Exhibit 1
Sept. 13, 2022 Item #6 Page 7 of 42
WHEREAS, staff request the City Council approve a carryforward request from fiscal year 2021- 22 for Transportation Department unspent operating funds within the General Fund to support the SMP and VMT studies in the amount of $276,399; and
WHEREAS, the City Planner has determined that in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21065, the action to award a professional services agreement for engineering design services does not constitute a "project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act in that it has no potential to cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and therefore does not require environmental review.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:

1. That the above recitations are true and correct.

2. That the City Council approves a carryforward request from fiscal year 2021-22 Transportation Department unspent operating funds within the General Fund to support the SMP and VMT studies in CIP Project No. 6040 in the amount of $276,399.

3. That the Mayor is authorized and directed to execute the professional services agreement with Fehr & Peers, a California corporation, in an amount not to exceed $383,315 for the Sustainable Mobility Plan Implementation Plan, Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee Study and Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program, CIP Project No. 6040, which is attached hereto as Attachment A.

4. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to amend the Agreement to extend the term for two (2) additional one (1) year periods or parts thereof.

Sept. 13, 2022 Item #6 Page 8 of 42
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 13th day of September, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

Blackburn, Bhat-Patel, Acosta, Norby.

None.

Hall.

MATT HALL, Mayor
FAVIOLA MEDINA, City Clerk Services Manager
(SEAL)
Sept. 13, 2022 Item #6 Page 9 of 42
for
DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Attachment A
PSA23-1900TRAN

AGREEMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, MULTIMODAL

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY, AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED MITIGATION

PROGRAM SERVICES

FEHR &PEERS
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the _\.:....3_"'""' ____ day of ��\9<-c , 2022, by and between the City of Carlsbad, a municipal corporation, ("City"), and Fehr & Peers, a California corporation, ("Contractor").

RECITALS
A. City requires the professional services of a consultant that is experienced in transportation planning and engineering.

B. Contractor has the necessary experience in providing professional services and advice related to transportation planning and engineering.

C. Contractor has submitted a proposal to City under Request for Proposals No.

RFP22-1865TRAN and has affirmed its willingness and ability to perform such work.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and the mutual covenants contained herein, City and Contractor agree as follows:

1. SCOPE OF WORK
City retains Contractor to perform, and Contractor agrees to render, those services (the "Services") that are defined in attached Exhibit "A", which is incorporated by this reference in accordance with this Agreement's terms and conditions.

2. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE
While performing the Services, Contractor will exercise the reasonable professional care and skill customarily exercised by reputable members of Contractor's profession practicing in the Metropolitan Southern California Area and will use reasonable diligence and best judgment while exercising its professional skill and expertise.

3. TERM
The term of this Agreement will be effective for a period of two (2) years from the date first above written. The City Manager may amend the Agreement to extend it for two (2) additional one (1) year periods or parts thereof. Extensions will be based upon a satisfactory review of Contractor's performance, City needs, and appropriation of funds by the City Council. The parties will prepare a written amendment indicating the effective date and length of the extended Agreement.

4. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE
Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

5. COMPENSATION
The total fee payable for the Services to be performed during the initial Agreement term shall not exceed three hundred eighty-three thousand three hundred fifteen dollars ($383,315). No other compensation for the Services will be allowed except for items covered by subsequent amendments to this Agreement. If the City elects to extend the Agreement, the amount shall not exceed two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) per Agreement year. The City reserves the right to withhold a ten percent (10%) retention until City has accepted the work and/or Services specified in Exhibit "A".

City Attorney Approved Version 6/12/18
Sept. 13, 2022 Item #6 Page 10 of 42
PSA23-1900TRAN
City Attorney Approved Version 6/12/18
2 Incremental payments, if applicable, should be made as outlined in attached Exhibit "A".

6. STATUS OF CONTRACTOR
Contractor will perform the Services in Contractor's own way as an independent contractor and in pursuit of Contractor's independent calling, and not as an employee of City. Contractor will be under control of City only as to the result to be accomplished but will consult with City as necessary. The persons used by Contractor to provide services under this Agreement will not be considered employees of City for any purposes.

The payment made to Contractor pursuant to the Agreement will be the full and complete compensation to which Contractor is entitled. City will not make any federal or state tax withholdings on behalf of Contractor or its agents, employees or subcontractors. City will not be required to pay any workers' compensation insurance or unemployment contributions on behalf of Contractor or its employees or subcontractors. Contractor agrees to indemnify City within thirty (30) days for any tax, retirement contribution, social security, overtime payment, unemployment payment or workers' compensation payment which City may be required to make on behalf of Contractor or any agent, employee, or subcontractor of Contractor for work done under thi s Agreement. At the City’s election, City may deduct the indemnification amount from any balance owing to Contractor.

7. SUBCONTRACTING
Contractor will not subcontract any portion of the Services without prior written approval of City.

If Contractor subcontracts any of the Services, Contractor will be fully responsible to City for the acts and omissions of Contractor's subcontractor and of the persons either directly or indirectly employed by the subcontractor, as Contractor is for the acts and omissions of persons directly employed by Contractor. Nothing contained in this Agreement will create any contractual relationship between any subcontractor of Contractor and City. Contractor will be responsible for payment of subcontractors. Contractor will bind every subcontractor and every subcontractor of a subcontractor by the terms of this Agreement applicable to Contractor's work unless specifically noted to the contrary in the subcontract and approved in writing by City.

8. OTHER CONTRACTORS
The City reserves the right to employ other Contractors in connection with the Services.

9. INDEMNIFICATION
Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against all claims, damages , losses and expenses including attorneys ’ fees arising out of the performance of the work described herein caused by any negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Contractor, any subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable.

The parties expressly agree that any payment, attorney’s fee, costs or expense City incurs or makes to or on behalf of an injured employee under the City’s self -administered workers’ compensation is included as a loss, expense or cost for the purposes of this section, and that this section will survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.

10. INSURANCE
Contractor will obtain and maintain for the duration of the Agreement and any a nd all amendments, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise out of or in connection with performance of the services by Contractor or Contractor’s agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. The insur ance will be obtained from an DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 11 of 42
PSA23-1900TRAN
City Attorney Approved Version 6/12/18
3 insurance carrier admitted and authorized to do business in the State of California. The insurance carrier is required to have a current Best's Key Rating of not less than "A-:VII"; OR with a surplus line insurer on the State of California’s List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers (LASLI) with a rating in the latest Best’s Key Rating Guide of at least “A:X”; OR an alien non-admitted insurer listed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) latest quarterly listings report.

10.1 Coverage and Limits.

Contractor will maintain the types of coverage and minimum limits indicated below, unless the Risk Manager or City Manager approves a lower amount. These minimum amounts of coverage will not constitute any limitations or cap on Contractor's indemnification obligations under this Agreement. City, its officers, agents and employees make no representation that the limits of the insurance specified to be carried by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement are adequate to protect Contractor. If Contractor believes that any required insurance coverage is inadequate, Contractor will obtain such additional insurance cover age, as Contractor deems adequate, at Contractor's sole expense. The full limits available to the named insured shall also be available and applicable to the City as an additional insured.

10.1.1 Commercial General Liability (CGL) Insurance. Insurance wr itten on an “occurrence” basis, including personal & advertising injury, with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the gen eral aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

10.1.2 Automobile Liability. (if the use of an automobile is involved for Contractor's work for City). $2,000,000 combined single-limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

10.1.3 Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability. Workers' Compensation limits as required by the California Labor Code. Workers' Compensation will not be required if Contractor has no employees and provides, to City's satisfaction, a declaration stating this.

10.1.4 Professional Liability. Errors and omissions liability appropriate to Contractor’s profession with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per claim. Coverage must be maintained for a period of five years following the date of completion of the work.

10.2 Additional Provisions. Contractor will ensure that the policies of insurance required under this Agreement contain, or are endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

10.2.1 The City will be named as an additional insured on Commercial General Liability which shall provide primary coverage to the City.

10.2.2 Contractor will obtain occurrence coverage, excluding Professional Liability, which will be written as claims-made coverage.

10.2.3 This insurance will be in force during the life of the Agreement and any extensions of it and will not be canceled without thirty (30) days prior written notice to City sent by certified mail pursuant to the Notice provisions of this Agreement.

10.3 Providing Certificates of Insurance and Endorsements . Prior to City's execution of this Agreement, Contractor will furnish certificates of insurance and endorsements to City.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 12 of 42
PSA23-1900TRAN
City Attorney Approved Version 6/12/18
4 10.4 Failure to Maintain Coverage . If Contractor fails to maintain any of these insurance coverages, then City will have the option to declare Contractor in breach or may purchase replacement insurance or pay the premiums that are due on existing policies in order to maintain the required coverages. Contractor is responsible for any payments m ade by City to obtain or maintain insurance and City may collect these payments from Contractor or deduct the amount paid from any sums due Contractor under this Agreement.

10.5 Submission of Insurance Policies. City reserves the right to require, at any time, complete and certified copies of any or all required insurance policies and endorsements.

11. BUSINESS LICENSE
Contractor will obtain and maintain a City of Carlsbad Business License for the term of the Agreement, as may be amended from time-to-time.

12. ACCOUNTING RECORDS
Contractor will maintain complete and accurate records with respect to costs incurred under this Agreement. All records will be clearly identifiable. Contractor will allow a representative of City during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor will allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement.

13. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
All work product produced by Contractor or its agents, employees, and subcontractors pursuant to this Agreement is the property of City. In the event this Agreement is terminated, all work product produced by Contractor or its agents, employees and subcon tractors pursuant to this Agreement will be delivered at once to City. Contractor will have the right to make one (1) copy of the work product for Contractor’s records.

14. COPYRIGHTS
Contractor agrees that all copyrights that arise from the services will be vested in City and Contractor relinquishes all claims to the copyrights in favor of City.

15. NOTICES
The name of the persons who are authorized to give written notice or to receive written notice on behalf of City and on behalf of Contractor under this Agreement.

For City For Contractor
Name Nathan Schmidt Name Jason Pack
Title
Transportation Planning and
Mobility Manager Title Project Manager
Department Public Works Address 101 Pacifica, Suite 300 City of Carlsbad Irvine, CA 92618
Address 1635 Faraday Ave Phone No. 949-308-6300
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Email [email protected]
Phone No. 442-339-2734

DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 13 of 42
PSA23-1900TRAN
City Attorney Approved Version 6/12/18
5 Each party will notify the other immediately of any changes of address that would require any notice or delivery to be directed to another address.

16. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Contractor shall file a Conflict of Interest S tatement with the City Clerk in accordance with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Conflict of Interest Code. The Contractor shall report investments or interests in all categories.

Yes ☒ No ☐

17. GENERAL COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
Contractor will keep fully informed of federal, state and local laws and ordinances and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by Contractor, or in any way affect the performance of the Services by Contractor. Contractor will at all times observe and comply with these laws, ordinances, and regulations and will be responsible for the compliance of Contractor's services with all applicable laws, ordinances and regulations.

Contractor will be aware of the requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and will comply with those requirements, including, but not limited to, verifying the eligibility for employment of all agents, emplo yees, subcontractors and consultants whose services are required by this Agreement.

18. DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT PROHIBITED
Contractor will comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination and harassment.

19. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
If a dispute should arise regarding the performance of the Services the following procedure will be used to resolve any questions of fact or interpretation not otherwise settled by agreement between the parties. Representatives of Contractor or City will reduce such questions, and their respective views, to writing. A copy of such documented dispute will be forwarded to both parties involved along with recommended methods of resolution, which would be of benefit to both parties. The representative receiving the letter will reply to the letter along with a recommended method of resolution within ten (10) business days. If the resolution thus obtained is unsatisfactory to the aggrieved party, a letter outlining the disputes will be forwarded to the City Manager. The City Manager will consider the facts and solutions recommended by each party and may then opt to direct a solution to the problem. In such cases, the action of the City Manager will be binding upon the parties involved, although nothing in this procedure will prohibit the parties from seeking remedies available to them at law.

20. TERMINATION
In the event of the Contractor's failure to prosecute, deliver, or perform the Services, City may terminate this Agreement for nonperformance by notifying Contractor by certified mail of the termination. If City decides to abandon or indefinitely postpone the work or services contemplated by this Agreement, City may terminate this Agreement upon written notice to Contractor. Upon notification of termination, Contractor has five (5) business days to deliver any documents owned by City and all work in progre ss to City address contained in this Agreement. City will make a determination of fact based upon the work product delivered to City and of the percentage of work that Contractor has performed which is usable and of worth to City in having the Agreement completed. Based upon that finding City will determine the final payment of the Agreement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 14 of 42
PSA23-1900TRAN
City Attorney Approved Version 6/12/18
6 Either party upon tendering thirty (30) days written notice to the other party may terminate this Agreement. In this event and upon request of City, Contractor will assemble the work product and put it in order for proper filing and closing and deliver it to City. Contractor will be paid for work performed to the termination date; however, the total will not exceed the lump sum fee payable under this Agreement. City will make the final determination as to the portions of tasks completed and the compensation to be made.

21. COVENANTS AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES
Contractor warrants that Contractor has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide emp loyee working for Contractor, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that Contractor has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration contingent upon, or resulting from, the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City will have the right to annul this Agreement without liability, or, in its discretion, to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of the fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fees, gift, or contingent fee.

22. CLAIMS AND LAWSUITS
By signing this Agreement, Contractor agrees that any Agreement claim submitted to City must be asserted as part of the Agreement process as set forth in this Agreement and not in anticipation of litigation or in conjunction with litigation. Contractor acknowledges that if a false claim is submitted to City, it may be considered fraud and Contractor may be subject to criminal prosecution. Contractor acknowledges that California Government Code sections 12650 et seq., the False Claims Act applies to this Agreement and, provides for civil penalties where a person knowingly submits a false claim to a public entity. These provisions include false claims made with deliberate ignorance of the false information or in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of information. If City seeks to recover penalties pursuant to the False Claims Act, it is entitled to recover its litigation costs, including attorney's fees. Contractor acknowledges that the filing of a false claim may subject Contractor to an administrative debarment proceeding as the result of which Contractor may be prevented to act as a Contractor on any public work or improvement for a period of up to five (5) years. Contractor acknowledges debarment by another jurisdiction is grounds for City to terminate this Agreement.

23. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Any action at law or in equity brought by either of th e parties for the purpose of enforcing a right or rights provided for by this Agreement will be tried in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of San Diego, State of California, and the parties waive all provisions of law providing for a change of venue in these proceedings to any other county.

24. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
It is mutually understood and agreed that this Agreement will be binding upon City and Contractor and their respective successors. Neither this Agreement nor any part of it nor any monies due or to become due under it may be assigned by Contractor without the prior consent of City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.

25. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated by it, along with the purchase order for this Agreement and its provisions, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter of it. In case of conflict, the terms of the Agreement supersede the purchase order. Neither this Agreement nor any of its provisions may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except in a writing signed by both parties.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 15 of 42
DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A 7E-AE19-E0B05097173F

26. AUTHORITY
PSA23-1900TRAN
The individuals executing this Agreement and the instruments referenced in it on behalf of Contractor each represent and warrant that they have the legal power, right and actual authority to bind Contractor to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

CONTRACTOR
FEHR & PEERS, a California corporation
By:

By:
�cfu.LL
(sign here)
Christopher Mitchell, President
(print name/title)
(sign here)
(print name/title)
CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal
corporation of the State of Ca · :ornia
By:

MATT HALL, Mayor
ATTEST:
� fllu½
for FAVIOLA MEDINA,
City Clerk Services Manager
If required by City, proper notarial acknowledgment of execution by contractor must be attached.

If a corporation, Agreement must be signed by one corporate officer from each of the following two groups.

Group A
Chairman,
President, or
Vice-President
Group B
Secretary,
Assistant Secretary,
CFO or Assistant Treasurer
Otherwise, the corporation must attach a resolution certified by the secretary or assistant secretary under corporate seal empowering the officer(s) signing to bind the corporation.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CINDIE K. McMAHON, City Attorney
BY: __ ��---
Assistant City Attorney
Sept. 13, 2022
City Attorney Approved Version 6/12/18
Item #6 Page 16 of 42
for
PSA23-1900TRAN
City Attorney Approved Version 6/12/18
8 EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES

DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 17 of 42
18 Project Approach
Scope of Services
The Fehr & Peers team has reviewed and refined components of the scope of work outlined in the RFP. This refinement is described in the scope of work below, but key modifications are summarized in Table 1. : Innovation
: Value Added
TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF SCOPE

SCOPE TASK (RFP) PROPOSED REFINEMENTS
Task 1 - Project
Management
Merged with Task 2 and moved the Public Outreach Plan to Task 3.

Value Added: For Bi-weekly meetings, a shared agenda will be kept updated with the agenda, meeting summary, and actions.

Task 2 – Kick-Off Meeting Merged with Task 1
Task 3 – Public and
Stakeholder Outreach
Changed to Task 2. Added details regarding potential stakeholders along with key touchpoints and themes for each round of outreach.

Task 4 – Existing
Conditions Review
Changed to Task 3. This task will set the foundation for prioritization and for determining if any proposed improvements would be mitigating an existing deficiency. Data analysis and GIS mapping subtasks were added in order to provide a more complete picture of existing conditions.

Innovation: Incorporate origin/destination and safety data (Streetlight/Wejo) from cellphones and connected vehicles.

Task 5 – Sustainable
Mobility Plan
Implementation Plan
Changed to Task 4. Added detail on prioritization process, including the use of innovative data sources and a post-prioritization phasing strategy. Disclosed key assumptions.

Value Added: Added more detailed (~30%) design concepts for complex elements of near-term projects.

Innovation: Calibrate prioritization methodology with “criteria weighting” session.

Task 6 - White Paper on
Best Practice Research
on Transportation Impact
Fees and VMT Mitigation
Programs
Changed to Task 5. We will explore options for SB 7 43 programmatic mitigation (fees, exchanges, and banks), CEQA considerations for providing streamlining, and a summary of how agencies throughout California are tackling programmatic VMT mitigation and fee program updates.

Innovation: Added a Fee Burden Comparison Memo to help decision makers understand fee levels in Carlsbad compares to other cities.

Task 7 - Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) Mitigation
Program
Changed to Task 6. We will provide the total citywide VMT mitigation associated with the fee program projects and the amount of VMT reduced per dollar paid as part of the fee program.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 18 of 42
TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF SCOPE
Task 8 – Nexus Study
Changed to Task 7 . We have added detail describing key nexus items that will be considered, including a VMT-based nexus, MMLOS nexus, or any other type of nexus to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee and associated program consistent with AB 1600 requirements.

Task 9 - Transportation
Impact Fee and VMT
Mitigation Fee Program,
Ordinance and Fee
Calculation Tool
Changed to Task 8. Added detail related to what type of tool would be developed and how we can leverage existing tools that the City currently utilizes.

Task 10 - Environmental
Analysis (Draft and Final)
Changed to Task 9. Our scope includes a simple and straightforward approach to CEQA review for the fee program. It meets the requirements to allow the fee program to be used for mitigation and is a cost and time sensitive approach.

Value Added: Fehr & Peers is currently working with Carlsbad on the Housing Element Update EIR and will identify synergies and considerations related to CEQA evaluations for the two efforts.
19 DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 19 of 42
f!1
20 TASK 1: PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The primary project management tasks, aside from
staffing, subconsultant management, and invoicing,
will be the kick-off meeting and a series of bi-weekly
check-in meetings.

TASK 1.1: KICK-OFF MEETING
The Fehr & Peers team will review appropriate
background information, including the current
TIF program, CIP project list, and other relevant
information to assess the status of the current
TIF program. We also plan to attend one hybrid
kick-off meeting with Fehr & Peers staff attending
in-person and our subconsultants attending
virtually. We anticipate the kick-off meeting to
cover key components of the project, and will
include discussions with the City’s Communications
Department to discuss key stakeholders and the
outreach process. This task will inform the Public
Outreach Plan (delivered in Task 2) and establish
communications protocols between the Fehr &
Peers team, the City, and the key stakeholders.

TASK 1.2 BI-WEEKLY VIRTUAL MEETINGS
Based on our proposed schedule we anticipate
scheduling a series of approximately 34 bi-
weekly (30 min) check-ins with the City. These
meetings can be cancelled or lengthened as
needed to adequately address the requirements
of the project at any given time.

A shared running agenda (using Teams or
SharePoint) will be kept updated and used as
a tool to add check-in agenda items, notes,
and action items. Our team has utilized this
approach on other projects in the region to
keep everyone organized and up-to-speed.

TASK 1 DELIVERABLES:
• Meeting agendas, minutes, and materials
TASK 2: PUBLIC AND

STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
TASK 2.1: PUBLIC OUTREACH PLAN
The Fehr & Peers team, with input provided by
the City’s Project Manager and Communications
Department during the kick-off meeting
(Task 1), will develop a Public Outreach Plan
for review and approval by the City.

A key element of the outreach plan will be the
stakeholder list that will identify when input from
different stakeholder groups will be most critical
and provide the greatest value. We anticipate that
some stakeholders (such as advocacy groups)
will be most concerned about the project list and
prioritization; other stakeholders (like the BIA/
developers) will be most concerned about the
fee program and should be engaged once the
fee program and nexus study are underway so
that concerns related to the level of fees can be
identified and discussed. Once the outreach plan
and general stakeholder list have been approved,
we will work with City staff to identify and reach out
to the specific individuals and organizations that
will comprise the targeted stakeholder groups.

TASK 2.2: MEETINGS WITH STAKEHOLDERS,

COMMISSIONS, AND COUNCIL
We anticipate the following touchpoints
for our outreach to stakeholders,
commissions, and City Council:

Touchpoints for Stakeholders,
Commissions and Council
Stake-
holders TMC PC CC
Overall Process and Goals (Outreach
Plan, Stakeholder List) X X X
Preliminary Project List, Fee Program
White Paper X X X
Refined Project List with Preliminary
Cost Estimates and Fees X X X
Final Draft Fee Study and
Implementation Plan (Adoption)
- Final Fees, Concept Designs, Phasing
Plan, and Cost Estimates

X X X X
TASK 2.3: OUTREACH SUMMARY MEMO
All outreach materials and notes will be
compiled into a detailed memorandum
documenting the process and input received.

This will be an important element in building
support for adoption of the fee ordinance.

TASK 2 DELIVERABLES:
• Public Outreach Plan, Stakeholder List,
Outreach Events, Meeting Materials,
Outreach Summary Memo
TASK 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS REVIEW
Our familiarity with city infrastructure plans and
DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 20 of 42
policies allows us to complete this task efficiently
and offer additional analysis and innovations to
support this and other tasks.

TASK 3.1: DOCUMENT AND DATA REVIEW
We will review the city programs, policies,
documents, and studies listed in the RFP as well as
the following additional resources relevant to the TIF
program:
• Carlsbad Active Transportation Strategy
(developed by Fehr & Peers staff)
• MMLOS Tool for the City (developed
by Fehr & Peers staff)
• Local Roadway Safety Plan (if available)
• Pavement Management Program
The goal of this effort will be to establish existing
deficiencies on the system and to assist in refining
the final project list that should be carried forward
in the fee program update. It is critical to
understand existing deficiencies to help establish
the fee program. The fee program must only
include projects/portions of projects that are
needed to support growth and not to address
existing deficiencies. This effort will also establish
a baseline of potential factors to consider in the SMP
re-prioritization process (Task 4.2).

In addition to the plans/programs noted above,
Fehr & Peers will work with the City to identify any
available data that can be utilized in this effort. This could include recent traffic studies, collision analysis in the city, or any other relevant information.

We
also proposed to utilize origin and destination and
vehicle-based traffic safety data from Streetlight
and Wejo to supplement our understanding of
existing conditions and for potential use in the SMP
re-prioritization process (Task 4.2).

TASK 3.2: GIS MAPPING
We will compile available GIS data from the
documents and sources listed above to create
a series of maps that help us understand the
relationship between existing conditions, mobility
and safety trends, and adopted future plans.

TASK 3.3: SLIDESHOW SUMMARY
A slideshow summary of key findings will serve as the
final product for this analysis and will be presented
to City staff as part of a strategic discussion on how
the findings will inform our next steps.

TASK 3 DELIVERABLES:
• Streetlight and Wejo Safety Data and Analysis,
GIS Maps, Slideshow Summary
TASK 4: SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN
(SMP) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The key to this task is to create an actionable
strategy for implementing the Sustainable
Mobility Plan (SMP). Specifically, we will finalize
a vetted project list to be incorporated into
the fee program, paired with concept plans
for the top-ranked projects that provide
a clear blueprint for implementation.

TASK 4.1: REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY

IDENTIFIED PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
As an extension of Task 3, the Fehr & Peers
team will compare the current SMP project
list to other relevant project lists, such as the
CIP and current TIF, to identify synergies and
opportunities for project coordination. This
project comparison will be the first step in a
project phasing plan, developed in detail in
Task 4.4, by analyzing how elements of the
SMP projects could overlap with the timelines
of previously planned and ongoing projects.

TASK 4.2: PRIORITIZE SUSTAINABLE

MOBILITY PLAN (SMP) RECOMMENDATIONS
Project prioritization is an important first step in
guiding the implementation of SMP projects. The
assigned priority will reflect the project’s potential
value to the community, independent of cost,
which will be considered in the phasing plan along
with other factors that influence the timing of the
project. We will work with staff and stakeholders
to develop a method for re-prioritizing of the
SMP project list. This process may include some
of the same factors used in the previous SMP
prioritization process, but will add new criteria
and weighting that emphasizes the importance of
closing major gaps in the complete streets network
(e.g., east-west routes) and overcoming major
barriers such as I-5 and the LOSSAN corridor. We
will also consider potential for synergies between
SMP projects and other planned projects and
programs (reviewed in Task 4.1), including the
City’s pavement management plan, in order to
maximize the return on infrastructure investments.

Once the team has agreed on the new prioritization
criteria, we will run the results on the full set of
21 DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 21 of 42
22 SMP projects. (Note: Some projects may need
to be excluded from the MTIF project list based
on the outcome of the Nexus Study since the
MTIF will specifically include project or portions
of projects that support land use growth.)
WHERE HAVE WE BEEN Carlsbad CATS
01 ElCamino
Real
Cannon R d
Poinsettia Ln
La Costa Av
College Bl
F a raday Av
Palomar Airport Rd
Alga Rd
ElFuerte St
AlicanteRd
MelroseDr
AvenidaEncinas
Carlsbad Village Dr
Levante St
Rancho San taFeRd
HighlandDr
Chestnut Av
PaseoDelN
orte
Monroe St
Calle Barcelona
Adams St
JeffersonSt
Valley St
Batiqui t os Dr
Pontiac Dr
Trieste
Dr
Corintia S t
Marr o n Rd
Hillside D r
Sunn y Creek Rd
State St
Cadencia St
Gateway Rd
DonnaDr
Madison St
Calle
Acervo
Skyline Rd
Oak Av
M
im
osa
D
r
OceanSt
Carril lo Wy
Arm
adaDr
O livenhain Rd
Orion St
Legoland
Dr
San Lu is
Lionsh ead Av
Celinda
D
r
Glasgow Dr
Camino
Junipero
Anillo W
y
Kelly Dr
SierraM
orenaAv
Haymar Dr
Harwich Dr
Camino Serbal
Rancho Bravado
ElArbolDr
SitioBaya
Romeria St
CrestDr
Lapis Rd
Grand Pacific Dr
Twain Av
OlympiaDr
Camino Hills Dr
Loker Av West
Forest Av
Navarra Dr
Camin
o Arena
Las Olas Ct
Acacia Av
SaddleD
r
Walnut Av
Siti
o Caliente
Sitio Frontera
GarfieldSt
Calle Palmito
Trail Easement
Agua Hedionda
Lagoon

CARLSBAD
Pacific
Ocean
5 Buena Vista
Lagoon
Batiquitos Lagoon
Merkle
Reservoir

OCEA NSIDE
VISTA

ENCIN ITA S
2 3
1 4
6 5
7 8
15 14
109
11 12
13 "#" refers to disparate projects and does not
correlate with any type of ranking
# Prioritized Corridor
Major Activity Attractors
16 FIGURE 1. PRIORITIZED CORRIDORS FOR LIVABLE STREETS PROJECTS 4 CITY OF CARLSBAD Active Transportation Strategy
Prioritized Corridors from the Carlsbad Active
Transportation Strategy, created by Fehr & Peers
Criteria Weighting Working Session
To finalize the prioritization methodology,
we recommend holding a “criteria weighting”
working session with the internal project team.

This session will serve as an exercise with City
staff to adjust the weights of the chosen criteria
and to “ground truth” our methodology. During
the workshop, Fehr & Peers staff would lead an
interactive exercise during which we adjust the
weights of the new criteria in real time to review
the impact on the final project rankings. The goal
would be to use the local understanding of City
staff, the knowledge of political support, and
other criteria that is difficult to quantify, to help
calibrate the results of the methodology and help
ensure the final list resonates with local leaders.

Prioritization is only the first step in determining
how and when projects will be implemented,
and it is rarely practical to implement projects
one-by-one in order of priority. A phasing plan
will be included in the Implementation and
Funding Strategy developed as part of Task

4.4 and will apply practical considerations
to determine the timing of the prioritized
projects, based on cost, funding availability,
and synergies with other planned projects.

TASK 4.3: PREPARE PLANNING LEVEL

CONCEPTUAL PLANS AND COST ESTIMATES
A key part of what will make the Implementation
Plan actionable will be the project development
as part of this task. The first step will be to
develop Opinions of Probable Construction Costs
(OPCC) for all the projects identified in Task

4.2, based on relevant project descriptions in
the Sustainable Mobility Plan, that can be used
within the nexus program. We will work with City
staff to develop a contingency and potential
escalation for use in the OPCC, anticipating the
long-term schedule for implementation of many
projects. We will develop conceptual level plans
(15%) for up to 12 top-ranked projects that will
further refine project design and cost estimates
for positioning for near-term funding pursuits.

The OPCC estimates will include quantities on a
per mile or per intersection basis. For example,
costs per mile may include such items as striping,
new curb and gutter, new or widened sidewalk,
repaving, bike lane enhancements such as raised
or striped buffers, Class I bikeways, street lighting,
retaining walls, storm water enhancements, and
other relevant engineering items for inclusion in the
cost estimates. Intersection level costs may include
signal modifications, bridge structures, or safety
enhancements such as protected intersections.

Example of a 30% concept plan, created by Fehr &
Peers
The Fehr & Peers team will work with the city to
identify a subset of the top-ranked projects from
Task 4.2 that will move forward for conceptual
DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 22 of 42
design plans. Based on the budget available, we
anticipate this including up to 12 projects, depending
on the complexity and extent of each project. Our
approach for the concept plans could include a
combination of sketch-level 15% design concepts as
well as more detailed 20%-30% design concepts.

For example, for projects that are low complexity,
with mostly corridor-level improvements such as
striped bike lanes, or that otherwise would require
more project development outside of the scope of
this project such as extensive public outreach, 15%
design concepts would be appropriate. We have
assumed a 15%-level concept would be no longer
than two miles in length, include cross-sections
with a plan view sketch (i.e., plan lines on an aerial), and include annotations that denote intersection
treatment assumptions.

For top-ranked projects
that are higher complexity, more detailed (~30%)
design concepts could be developed to help the
city and the public better understand what the
project will look like. We have assumed that these
more detailed design concepts would include a
focused area, such as a single intersection or a
typical block, and would be laid out in CAD for ease
of moving forward into subsequent design stages.

We will work with the city to review the results
of the project prioritization and to finalize the
| Colma El Camino Real Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Plan Town of Colma | 51 | Local Vision | 52

WOODLAWN

MEMORIAL PARK

GREENLAWN

MEMORIAL PARK

GREEK ORTHODOX
CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL
DETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED.

EL CAMINO REAL
C ST

EL CAMINO REAL
ALBERT M. TEGLIA

BLVD F ST

COLMA BLVD
F ST

DRIVEWAY TO

WOODLAWNMEMORIAL PARK

DRIVEWAY TOWOODLAWNMEMORIAL PARK
El Camino Real Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Plan
Figure 1
See Inset for Bus Boarding Island with In-lane Stop Option Bus Boarding Island with
In-lane Stop Option
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Landscape
Existing Signal
Proposed
New Signal
Proposed Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon (PHB)
Existing Stop SignRemoved Bus Stop
Proposed Bus Stop Existing Bus Stop to RemainOpportunity Area (e.g. Green
Infrastructure)
Painted Truck Apron

WOODLAWN

MEMORIAL PARK

GREENLAWN

MEMORIAL PARK

GREEK ORTHODOX
CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL
DETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED.

EL CAMINO REAL
C ST

EL CAMINO REAL
ALBERT M. TEGLIA

BLVD F ST

COLMA BLVD
F ST

DRIVEWAY TO

WOODLAWNMEMORIAL PARK

DRIVEWAY TOWOODLAWNMEMORIAL PARK
El Camino Real Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Plan
Figure 1
See Inset for Bus Boarding Island with In-lane Stop Option Bus Boarding Island with
In-lane Stop Option
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Landscape
Existing Signal
Proposed
New Signal
Proposed Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon (PHB)
Existing Stop Sign
Removed Bus Stop
Proposed Bus Stop Existing Bus Stop to RemainOpportunity Area (e.g. Green
Infrastructure)
Painted Truck Apron

WOODLAWN

MEMORIAL PARK

GREENLAWN

MEMORIAL PARK

GREEK ORTHODOX
CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL
DETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED.

EL CAMINO REAL
C ST

EL CAMINO REAL
ALBERT M. TEGLIA

BLVD F ST

COLMA BLVD
F ST

DRIVEWAY TO

WOODLAWNMEMORIAL PARK

HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALK
High-visibility crosswalks are designed with lon-
gitudinal marking and use high-visibility material
instead of regular paint . They are more visible to
approaching drivers than standard crosswalks,
improving safety for pedestrians crossing the street .

NO RIGHT TURN ON RED
No right turn on red prohibits drivers from making
a right turn when they have a red light . This helps
reduce conflicts between right-turning vehicles
and bicyclists or pedestrians moving through the
intersection . No right turn on red is recommended
from side streets onto El Camino Real at every
signalized intersection throughout the corridor .

SEPARATE BICYCLE SIGNAL PHASE
Separate bicycle phases at a signalized
intersection give people biking a green light while
right-turning vehicles have a red arrow signal . By
removing the conflict with right-turning vehicles,
especially at locations with a high volume of right-
turning vehicles, they make it safer for people to
bicycle through an intersection .

CURB EXTENSION
Curb extensions widen the sidewalk or extend
the landscaping at an intersection or mid-block
crossing . They increase pedestrian safety by
shortening the distance for pedestrians to cross the
roadway, make pedestrians more visible to drivers,
and reduce the speed of turning vehicles .

BUS BOARDING ISLAND
Bus boarding islands are platforms where pedestrians wait for and board the bus . They allow for the bikeway to be separate from the bus path of travel requiring buses to stop in the travel lane to pick up and drop off passengers . Bus-boarding islands eliminate potential conflicts between bicycles and buses at stops and maintain the continuity of a separated bikeway . They can improve transit service reliability and increase vehicle delay .

SEPARATED BIKEWAY
Separated bikeways physically separate
bicyclists from vehicle traffic using grade
separation, landscaping, physical barriers or
flexible posts . They provide a safer and more
comfortable bicycling experience .

CONTINUOUS SIDEWALK
Continuous sidewalks fill the gaps between
existing sidewalks, increasing access and
connectivity for people walking throughout the
corridor .
"Yes, please use the bus
island design where ever
possible! Seems like this
would be better than mixing
buses and people biking . "
"I love the idea of bus boarding
islands! they're really needed
all along the ECR and I think it
would be great if Colma set the
bar for the rest of the county"
"Boarding islands are an
extremely good idea! Please be
sure to provide signs warning
cyclists about potential mixing
with pedestrians in these
areas . "

CORRIDOR CONCEPT DESIGN
A full corridor design for Segment A and Segment B was developed and refined based on the preferences shared by the stakeholders and community, including through the third and final phase of outreach . Call-out boxes help describe the key design elements .

Example of a 30% concept plan design, focused on a block or intersection, created by Fehr & Peers Arcadia Ave
E Vista Way E Vista Way
E Taylor St
E
Bobier Dr
Mo nte Mar Rd
Palomar Pl
War
mlands Ave

RECOMMENDATIONS
E Vista Way North

RECOMMENDATIONS
E Vista Way South
Add leading pedestrian intervals at Warmlands
Avenue. Stripe high visibility crosswalks and
install sidewalk with curb ramps for pedestrian access.

Improve lighting north of Warmlands Ave
Consider exclusive pedestrian phase for
east-west direction and add new high-visibility
crosswalk on north leg.

Advanced intersection warning signage
for stopped traﬃc ahead. Consider raised
median to install signage.

Installed 2018:

Exclusive pedestrian phase
Installed 2020:

New sginal
Corridor-level considerations:

Extend bike lanes from south of T aylor
Corridor-level considerations:

More frequent bicycle lane legends
so as not to be confused with a parking lane.

Consider separated bike lanes
Raised Median for access control
and turn restrictions

NORTHBOUND APPROACHING BOBIER
Note: Conceptual, not for construction.

Additional detailed analysis and engineering design required.

Vista Local Road Safety Plan
Example of a 15% concept plan, created by Fehr & Peers
23 DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 23 of 42
- -
Ill
-
6 24
approach for the number of concepts and level of
detail. Concept plans will be presented and refined
based on public engagement as described in Task

2. The revised top-ranked project concepts and
related cost estimates, and final list of prioritized
projects, will move forward into the nexus study.

TASK 4.4 - DEVELOP DETAILED

IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING STRATEGY
The Fehr & Peers team will develop a detailed
implementation strategy that will assist the
City in delivering these SMP projects and
will include two main elements: a funding
strategy and a final phasing plan.

Funding Strategy
To ensure that there are appropriate financial
resources available to complete the identified
projects, we will analyze the City’s funding capacity
and funding gaps. Specifically, we will review the
total cost of the SMP projects, the maximum allowed
fee that can be attributable to new development,
and coordination with key stakeholders and the
City to identify the likely fee amount that will be
moved forward. We will also work with the City’s
CIP group to get the highest priority projects
programed within the City’s CIP efforts. For the
gap between the City’s potential funding and
the total cost of the recommended projects,
the Fehr & Peers team will provide a strategy to
assist with delivering the un-funded portions.

The funding strategy for each SMP project will
consider a variety of factors including estimated
cost, improvement types, competitiveness for
outside grant funding, and synergies with other
projects and funding sources. For example,
a lower cost project along a high-collision
corridor with appropriate countermeasures may
be a good candidate for the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding.

For such a project, the strategy could be to use
both the Fee Program and HSIP funding, with the
Fee Program serving as the local contribution
or to cover non-safety-related elements.

Phasing Plan
The phasing plan will be developed based on the
prioritization, project cost, funding opportunities,
design and construction complexity, and the timing
of synergistic projects. The phasing plan will
generally organize projects into near-, mid-, and
long-term phases. For high-priority projects, we
will look for opportunities for the City to deliver
on low-cost elements of the project in the near-
term, while the City procures funding for future
phases of the project. For example, if a high-priority
project that includes a combination of restriping
(bike lanes, marked crosswalks) and civil-related
improvements (curb extensions) coincides with a
near-term resurfacing project, the project could
be split into two phases. The first phase will be
coordinated with the pavement management
project, while the remaining elements could be split
into a later phase and packaged into an ATP grant
application using MTIF funding and the restriping
portion of the resurfacing project as local match.

This could also include executing a high-priority
project as a “pilot project”, or installing the majority of a project using temporary, low-cost materials to
evaluate and identify potential design modifications
before proceeding with a future phase that includes
a higher cost, more permanent, final design.

TASK 4 DELIVERABLES:
• Programing Matrix for Project delivery,
Re-prioritized SMP Project List, Concept Plans/
Design/OPCC Estimates for Top Ranked Projects,
and Implementation Funding Strategy Memo
Example of a 30% concept plan, created by Fehr & Peers
Carlsbad Capital Improvement Project ProcessCarlsbad Capital Improvement Project Process Transportation Division
Brainstorms
CIP
Projects
Uses
Prioritization
Workbook to
Guide Project
List
Interviews
Departments
about Their
Proposed CIP
Projects
Submits
Recommended
List to CIP
Team
Submits
Project List to
CIP Team
Checks in with
Other Public Works
Divisions about Their
Proposed
Project List
Reviews Other
Proposed Projects
& Identifies Livable
Street Improvements
That Can Be Easily
Implemented within
Project Confines
Public Works Department
Submits
Project List
to CIP
Committee CIP Committee
Identifies
Duplicate/
Conflicting
Project Finance Department
Reviews
Project List to
Ensure Adequate
Funding
Renews &
Approves CIP
Projects for
Adoption by
City Council
City Manager
Legend
Existing Process
Informal Steps Currently
Being Performed by
Transportation Division
Proposed Additions to
Process/Formalize

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROCESS
ROADMAP TO LIVABLE STREETS Carlsbad CATS
03 28 CITY OF CARLSBAD Active Transportation Strategy
The Carlsbad Active Transportation Strategy looked
at the process for adopting a project into the CIP list, which we will leverage to implement the highest priority projects from the SMP
DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 24 of 42
TASK 5: WHITE PAPER ON TIF AND

VMT MITIGATION PROGRAMS
TASK 5.1: WHITE PAPER AND

FEE BURDEN MEMO
The initial part of this task will be to develop the
white paper on best practices that will discuss
some basic considerations that other agencies
have implemented, including testing whether
the fee program is VMT increasing, neutral, or
reducing; whether the program should consider a
VMT-based nexus; whether the program should be
based on a MMLOS nexus; or whether the program
should be some type of a blended approach
when establishing the nexus. Furthermore, the
paper will explore potential options related to
mandatory impact fees vs. optional impact fees.

The white paper will also explore how the MTIF or a
supplementary programmatic mitigation program
may offer an option for project level mitigation.

The programmatic mitigation options
that will be explored are:
• Fee Program: mandatory versus
in-lieu or optional fees
• VMT Exchange
• VMT Bank
As with all VMT mitigation, these programs
require substantial evidence to demonstrate
that the projects included in the programs
would achieve the expected VMT reductions.

Although implementation of these programs
would require an upfront cost, they have several
advantages over project site TDM strategies.
• CEQA streamlining – These programs provide
a funding mechanism for project mitigation,
especially under cumulative conditions.
• Greater VMT reduction potential – Since these
programs coordinate citywide land use and
transportation projects, they have the potential
to result in greater VMT reduction potential
than site-level TDM strategies applied on a
project-by-project basis. Additionally, these
programs expand the amount of feasible
mitigation for reducing VMT impacts.
• Legal defensibility – The VMT reduction
programs can help build a case for a
nexus between a VMT impact and funding
for capital improvement programs.

The white paper will describe VMT reduction
options including capital/infrastructure projects
and programmatic options that could be
included in the various programmatic mitigation
approaches. For each measure, an overview of
the measure, expected citywide VMT reduction
percentage, and other considerations will be
provided. The Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate
Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity
(CAPCOA 2021) (GHG Handbook) will be used to
estimate the VMT reduction for each measure
that is sensitive to the Carlsbad context.

The white paper will also provide a summary
of programs that have been implemented
or are in process within the State.

Another important consideration that will be
covered in the white paper is the regulatory
approach/CEQA process for creating the fee/
mitigation program. There are various examples
of how fee programs are used to provide mitigation
for individual land use projects and, as noted in the
RFP, for the program to qualify as CEQA mitigation,
the discretionary action to adopt the program
requires CEQA review. Note that if a fee program
is mandatory, it should be considered as part of
the project analysis, it is not technically mitigation
because payment of the fees is required as part
of the project action. The following provides a
summary of regulatory approaches that the City
may want to consider as part of this project (these
will be covered thoroughly in the white paper):

1. Simple Environmental Approach (included in this
scope)
• Addendum to General Plan EIR: Demonstrate
that the Fee Program is an implementation
tool for the GP goals/policies.
• Usefulness In Streamlining for Land
Development Projects: Tiering from the
General Plan EIR for VMT impact disclosure
is NOT possible with this approach. However,
if the fee program is fully funded, the VMT
reduction associated with the fee payment
(which can be provided as a VMT reduced
per dollar paid) can be used in the land
development project’s cumulative analysis to
reduce the project’s VMT. If the fee program
is not fully funded, the reduction associated
with the program can’t be used to reduce a
project’s VMT. Alternatively, the program can
include funded and unfunded projects and only
the VMT reduction associated with the funded
25 DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 25 of 42
-
26 projects would be applied. The project would
need to disclose it’s own impact findings.
• Usefulness in Streamlining for the Roadway
Projects Contained in the Fee Program: The
total VMT induced by the fee program projects
can be offset by the VMT reduced by the
fee program projects. The remaining VMT
reduction can then be used for mitigation
toward land development projects. Note
that this simple approach does not provide
environmental coverage for the roadway
projects in the program itself. However,
OPR specifically exempts certain roadway
improvement projects from VMT analysis
if they are not vehicle capacity enhancing.

Likewise there are usually CEQA exemptions
that would likely apply to many of the
traditional bike and pedestrian improvements.
2) Moderate Environmental Approach
• Addendum to the General Plan EIR that
includes a programmatic environmental
evaluation for the Fee Program Projects:

Complete the “simple environmental
approach” and project programmatic
environmental documentation for the fee
program projects themselves. We expect
that some of the components of the fee
program projects already have coverage
(for example through a different planning
document) or the types of infrastructure
identified would be categorically exempt.
• Usefulness In Streamlining for Land
Development Projects: Same as
“simple environmental approach”.
• Usefulness in Streamlining for the
Roadway Projects Contained in the Fee
Program: Same as “simple environmental
approach” but with programmatic
coverage for the fee program projects.
3) Robust Environmental Approach
• Supplemental (or Focused) General Plan EIR:

Do a general plan amendment to include
policies associated with VMT and the roadway
projects identified through the fee program
analysis. Evaluate citywide VMT associated
with future growth in the City and determine
if there is a significant transportation based
VMT impact. There is an option to either
include the fee program projects in the
General Plan or utilize the fee program as a
mitigation measure to address citywide VMT
impacts. If necessary, determine if the fee
program (and other mitigation to the extent
feasible) reduces the impact. Either way,
disclose a significant and unavoidable impact
that recognizes that the exact timing of the
fee program projects is unknown. Note that
only the fully funded component of the fee
program can be used in the VMT analysis).
• Usefulness In Streamlining for Land
Development Projects: Tiering for VMT
impacts would be available. If a project
is consistent with the General Plan and
paying the fee (and incorporating other
VMT mitigation as identified in the
General Plan Supplemental EIR), then the
project can rely on the findings of the
Supplemental EIR. No additional VMT analysis
would be necessary for the project.
• Usefulness in Streamlining for the Roadway
Projects Contained in the Fee Program:

The General Plan Supplemental EIR would
evaluate the VMT induced and reduced
by the fee program roadway projects.

Additional VMT analysis would not be
needed for the projects in the fee program
(note that other environmental resource
areas may need to be covered as part of
the individual project assessment).

The CEQA approaches described for a
mandatory fee program are generally
applicable to a voluntary program as well.

We also propose to develop a Fee Burden
Comparison Memo that will review the total
fee burden on development in Carlsbad and
compare it back to available fee burden placed
on developments in other areas of Southern
California (to assist in defining how competitive
Carlsbad is for fee burden compared to other
areas). This white paper will be discussed with the
stakeholders and City staff to develop an initial
approach to establishing the project nexus.

TASK 5 DELIVERABLES:
• Best Practices White Paper, Fee
Burden Comparison Memo
DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 26 of 42
TASK 6: VMT MITIGATION PROGRAM
TASK 6.1: IDENTIFICATION OF VMT

REDUCING STRATEGIES
Fehr & Peers will identify the SMP projects that
are VMT reducing. Since the SMP projects are
primarily complete streets projects that incorporate
bicycle and pedestrian facilities, we expect that
the majority of the projects will result in VMT
reduction citywide. Since this scope focuses on
using the fee program for mitigation, VMT reducing
programs and non-capital projects are not legally
eligible for inclusion in the program. The types of
projects that reduce VMT include low stress bicycle
facilities (Class I, II and Class IV), transit station
improvements, new roadway connections that
will lead to a shorter path of travel, allocation of
transit exclusive right-of-way, improved first/last
mile connections, road diets/complete streets, and
other roadway improvements that provide options
for travel other than the personal automobile.

TASK 6.2: VMT REDUCTION COST ANALYSIS
The total VMT reduction associated with each
SMP project will be calculated using the GHG
Handbook and expanding the analysis presented
in the white paper. In addition, any induced VMT
created by capacity increasing SMP projects will
be calculated. The VMT reduction will be used to
offset any VMT increases by the SMP projects. The
resulting VMT reduction will then be converted to a
VMT reduction per dollar spent as part of the MTIF
using the cost estimates prepared during Task 4.

We will provide VMT per dollar spent for the MTIF
fully funded projects and the whole program
(funded and unfunded projects). The VMT reduction
associated with the fully funded component of
the MTIF can be used as VMT mitigation (or more
accurately as part of a land development project’s
VMT analysis) to reduce that project’s VMT.

TASK 6 DELIVERABLES:
• Total VMT reduction (or induced
increase) for each SMP project.
• Combined Total VMT reduction for
the fully funded SMP projects
• Combined Total VMT for all SMP projects
• VMT reduction per dollar spent
as part of the MTIF
TASK 7: NEXUS STUDY
The Fehr & Peers team will then move on to the
nexus study, which will establish a reasonable
relationship between the fee, the project list, and
proposed development. We will zwork with the City
to determine the complete list of projects and define
the development that should be assumed in the
assessment (e.g., RTP/SCS land use assumptions,
General Plan Buildout, Housing Element Buildout,
or some hybrid land use assumption). We will also
complete a deficiency assessment to meet the
requirements of AB 1600 (e.g., new development
cannot pay to fix existing deficiencies). We
will also address the requirements included in
Section 9 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance,
also known as the Regional Transportation
Congestion Improvements Plan (RTCIP).

The nexus study will generally follow the following
key considerations that we will work with the
stakeholders and City staff to develop:

In addition to establishing the nexus, we will work
with staff to evaluate the benefits/detriments to
establishing a citywide fee vs. a district-based
fee. (Please note, this is largely dependent
on where the needs are (and whether they
correspond with future development), how much
flexibility the city wants in applying the funds,
and the cost to administer a more complicated
fee program. Also, most agencies, as they
mature, tend to adopt a citywide fee to provide
greater flexibility in delivering projects.)
The final nexus study will also provide a summary
of the fee burden comparison and a staff report
for consideration/adoption. We will develop a fee
schedule that will allocate fees by land use type
for City use and will also evaluate some methods/
approaches to transfer fee burden between
land uses (such as reducing retail fee burden by
27 DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 27 of 42
28 TASK 8: TIF/VMT MITIGATION ORDINANCE

AND FEE CALCULATION TOOL
The Fehr & Peers team will provide a sample
ordinance for consideration by the City that can be
used for project adoption. Also, we will document
the results of Tasks 1-7 in a technical document to
memorialize how the TIF was developed. The final
document will provide the following key components:
• Future facilities eligible for TIF fund -
ing per the nexus study
• Methodology for the fee and fee schedule (in -
cluding identification of the appropriate nexus)
• Updated administrative, monitor-
ing, and reporting requirements
• Ordinance language for the TIF
• Two rounds of staff review of the deliverables
We will develop a spreadsheet-based TIF calculation
tool and will work with the City to identify the
best place to develop it (e.g., a stand-alone tool
or one integrated with other City tools, like the
MMLOS tool and/or a VMT calculator if one is
available). The RFP discusses the tool’s capability
to estimate fees based on VMT, but that will only
be necessary if the nexus is VMT-based. We will
work with the City to develop the appropriate
tool based on the nature of the fee program.

TASK 8 DELIVERABLES:
• Final Report, Interactive Tool, Ordinance
To support our work on the VMT reduction ordinance
for the City of San Diego, Fehr & Peers identified VMT
reduction strategies based on a project’s location and
the associated citywide VMT reduction potential.

TASK 9: CEQA ASSESSMENT
The Fehr & Peers team includes Mark Teague from
PlaceWorks who will lead the CEQA assessment.

Our scope of work assumes that we will be
providing environmental coverage consistent
with the “simple approach” described under
the white paper task. This approach will allow
a project to apply VMT reduction associated
with payment of the MTIF (based on the amount
of VMT reduced per dollar paid developed
in Task 7) as part of their VMT analysis.

Although we will work with City staff to define
the most appropriate way to document potential
impacts associated with the TIF update, it is
likely that doing an addendum to the General
applying pass-by reductions if it is a trip-based
nexus/fee schedule and/or transferring some of
that demand over to residential if appropriate).

Finally, the Fehr & Peers team will work with the
City to recalibrate the existing fees and standards
to accommodate the TIF program and provide the
staff report for the City’s use and verify compliance
with the SANDAG Transnet Extension Ordinance.

TASK 7 DELIVERABLES:
• Draft and Final Project Lists and Nexus Study

Finalize the project list
and develop high-level
cost estimates
Establish the maximum
allowable fee (e.g.,
account for existing
deficiencies)
Finalize the nexus for
the project (MMLOS,
VMT, etc.)
Work with the City
on fee adoption (fee
schedule, will the City
adopt a lower fee, etc.)
Identify funding gaps
and programs/grants to
fill those funding gaps
DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 28 of 42
Mobility Zone 4 is VMT inefficient; the average number of vehicle miles traveled per capita or per employee is greater than 85% of the region.

Full details of the regulations are available on the Comple te Communities websit e.

Mobility Zones 1, 2, and 3 have greater VMT-reducing poten tial. Mobility Zone 4 has less VMT reducing potential.

Mobility Zones developed for the City of San Diego’s
VMT In lieu fee.

Plan EIR (SCH#2011011004) would be the most
efficient. Our scope assumes that we will complete
an addendum to the General Plan EIR which
includes discussion with staff, an administrative
draft, and a public draft of the addendum. This
brief document does not require circulation
or response to public comment, but must be
part of the decision process and any hearing(s)
conducted to adopt the project. PlaceWorks will
prepare the addendum and provide a discussion
for the staff report supporting the environmental
determination. Based on our experience in other
jurisdictions, our approach balances schedule
and budget and provides a program that delivers
multimodal projects and provides VMT mitigation
while avoiding a lengthy CEQA process.

We recognize that the RFP indicates that a
subsequent or supplemental EIR be prepared
with the goal of “allowing for full mitigation
for projects consistent with a General Plan for
which the MTIF, VMT exchange, and/or VMT
program was designed to mitigate a VMT impact
in the General Plan EIR.” Also, the RFP indicates
that the impact analysis includes the identified
projects that are part of the fee program.

This approach aligns with the “robust” option
described in Task 5 for the white paper. This
approach requires an amendment to the General
Plan to include a VMT policy and then evaluates
the General Plan land uses and the SMP projects
to assess VMT impacts (and potentially other
CEQA resource area impacts). The projects
in the fee program would be included in the
citywide VMT analysis and could either be part
of the mitigation for the citywide VMT impact or
incorporated as implementation of the goals and
polices in the General Plan (in which case the VMT
reductions would be part of the impact analysis,
not the mitigation) In general, we would expect a
significant and unavoidable impact with statement
of overriding considerations for VMT. There are
considerations that affect the schedule and cost
of this approach such as the need to revisit GHG,
air quality, or other environmental findings in the
General Plan EIR. The robust approach is expected
to increase the cost of Task 9 by approximately
$150,000-$200,000 and would extend the
schedule by approximately 12-18 months.

We recommend that the regulatory/CEQA options
are explored as part of the Task 5 white paper to
fully vet the most appropriate path for using the
MTIF to reduce land development VMT impacts.

As an additional insight, Fehr & Peers is currently
working with the City (as a sub-consultant to the
environmental team) on the Housing Element EIR.

As part of that process, we anticipate providing
EIR tiering opportunities for streamlining housing
projects in the City. As part of that separate
project, our team will be evaluating VMT associated
with all housing in the City and performing impact
analysis. It is likely that the conclusions will identify a significant VMT impact with a statement of
overriding consideration. This will allow housing
projects that are consistent with the General
Plan Housing Element that incorporate any
VMT related mitigation identified in the Housing
Element EIR to tier off the VMT impact analysis
and significant impact disclosure without the need
to perform additional VMT analysis. Our team
will offer synergies between the two projects
and explore opportunities for collaboration
and efficiency between the two efforts.
29 DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 29 of 42
--· ---c:Jc;.,-,.--•
30 2022 2023

TASKS AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR M AY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR M AY JUN JUL 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

1.1 Kick-off Meeting 1.1

1.2 Bi-Weekly Virtual Meetings 1.2
2 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH 2 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH

2.1 Public Outreach Plan 2.1

2.2 T raffic & Mobility Commission Meetings (4) 2.3

2.3 Planning Commission Meetings (2) 2.4

2.4 City Council Meetings (3) 2.5

2.5 Stakeholder Outreach Events (4) 2.6

2.6 Outreach Summary Memo 2.7
3 REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS AND POLICES 3 REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS AND POLICES

3.1a Document Review 3.1a

3.1b Data Review (Streetlight, Wejo, Collision) 3.1b

3.2 GIS Mapping 3.2

3.3 Slideshow Summary 3.3
4 SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN (SMP) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 4 SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

4.1 Review of Projects and Programs (Maps/Matrix) 4.1

4.2 Prioritize SMP Recommendations 4.2

4.3 Conceptual Plans and Cost Estimates 4.3

4.4 Implementation and Funding Strategy 4.4
5 WHITE PAPER ON TIF /VMT 5 WHITE PAPER AND NEXUS STUDY

5.1a White Paper: TIF and VMT Best Practices 5.1a

5.1b F ee Burden Comparison Memo 5.1b
6 VMT MITIGATION PROGRAM 6 VMT MITIGATION PROGRAM

6.1 Identify VMT Reducing Strategies 6.1

6.2 VMT Reduction Cost Analysis 6.2
7 NEXUS STUDY 7 NEXUS STUDY

7.1 a Draft and Final Project List 7.1 a

7.1 b Nexus Study Documentation 7.1 b
8 TIF /VMT ORDINANCE AND FEE CALCULATION TOOL 8 TIF /VMT ORDINANCE AND FEE CALCULATION TOOL

8.1 Interactive F ee Calculation T ool 8.1

8.2 Final T ransportation Impact F ee Ordinance 8.2
9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANAL YSIS (DRAFT AND FINAL) 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANAL YSIS (DRAFT AND FINAL)

9.1 Interactive F ee Calculation T ool 9.1

9.2 Final T ransportation Impact F ee Ordinance 9.2
Outreach Plan, Stakeholder List Prelim.

Project List,
White Paper
Final Project List, Cost Estimates & Fees Final Fee Study & Implementation Plan 2023 2024

V ALUE ADDED INNOV A TION
Schedule
DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 30 of 42
2022 2023

TASKS AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR M AY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR M AY JUN JUL 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

1.1 Kick-off Meeting 1.1

1.2 Bi-Weekly Virtual Meetings 1.2
2 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH 2 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH

2.1 Public Outreach Plan 2.1

2.2 T raffic & Mobility Commission Meetings (4) 2.3

2.3 Planning Commission Meetings (2) 2.4

2.4 City Council Meetings (3) 2.5

2.5 Stakeholder Outreach Events (4) 2.6

2.6 Outreach Summary Memo 2.7
3 REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS AND POLICES 3 REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS AND POLICES

3.1a Document Review 3.1a

3.1b Data Review (Streetlight, Wejo, Collision) 3.1b

3.2 GIS Mapping 3.2

3.3 Slideshow Summary 3.3
4 SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN (SMP) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 4 SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

4.1 Review of Projects and Programs (Maps/Matrix) 4.1

4.2 Prioritize SMP Recommendations 4.2

4.3 Conceptual Plans and Cost Estimates 4.3

4.4 Implementation and Funding Strategy 4.4
5 WHITE PAPER ON TIF /VMT 5 WHITE PAPER AND NEXUS STUDY

5.1a White Paper: TIF and VMT Best Practices 5.1a

5.1b F ee Burden Comparison Memo 5.1b
6 VMT MITIGATION PROGRAM 6 VMT MITIGATION PROGRAM

6.1 Identify VMT Reducing Strategies 6.1

6.2 VMT Reduction Cost Analysis 6.2
7 NEXUS STUDY 7 NEXUS STUDY

7.1 a Draft and Final Project List 7.1 a

7.1 b Nexus Study Documentation 7.1 b
8 TIF /VMT ORDINANCE AND FEE CALCULATION TOOL 8 TIF /VMT ORDINANCE AND FEE CALCULATION TOOL

8.1 Interactive F ee Calculation T ool 8.1

8.2 Final T ransportation Impact Fee Ordinance 8.2
9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANAL YSIS (DRAFT AND FINAL) 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANAL YSIS (DRAFT AND FINAL)

9.1 Interactive F ee Calculation T ool 9.1

9.2 Final T ransportation Impact Fee Ordinance 9.2
Outreach Plan, Stakeholder List Prelim.

Project List,
White Paper
Final Project List, Cost Estimates & Fees Final Fee Study & Implementation Plan 2023 2024

V ALUE ADDED INNOV A TION
Schedule
31 DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 31 of 42
32 Jason Pack, PE
Principal
Matt Benjamin,
AICP , RSP1
Principal
Kendra Rowley, PE
Associate
Ron Milam, AICP ,
PTP
Principal
Katy Cole, PE
Principal
Andrew Scher , EIT
Engineer/Planner III
Shane Russell, EIT
Engineer/Planner III
Angelica Rocha
Engineer/Planner III
Heather McGuffin
Administrator III
Maddie Hasani
Engineer/Planner III
Saima Musharrat
Senior Engineer/
Planner I
Administrator
Jason Moody
Principal
Julie Cooper
Vice President
Associate
Paul Martin, PE, TE,
LCI
Grant Writing
Aaron Silva, PE
Project Manager
Joshua Iniguez,
Design Engineer II
Sam Sharvini
Planner
Juan Zermeno
Design Engineer
Mark T eague, AICP
Principal
Jasmine A. Osman
Associate
Direct Costs
T otal Hours
T otal Costs
TASKS $305 $305 $220 $350 $265 $160 $160 $150 $140 $180 TASKS $155 $140 $300 $240 $185 $270 $270 $147 $130 $121 $250 $150 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 55 $14,765

1.1 Kick-off Meeting 1 2 1 1.1 1 1 1 $330 7 $2,145

1.2 Bi-Weekly Virtual Meetings 8 16 12 1.2 4 3 5 $0 48 $12,620 2 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH 2 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH 265 $58,830

2.1 Public Outreach Plan 4 6 2 12 16 2.1 6 $0 46 $8,460

2.2 T raffic & Mobility Commission Meetings (4) 8 8 4 2.3 16 5 4 6 $1,000 51 $12,580

2.3 Planning Commission Meetings (2) 4 4 2.4 8 2 4 4 $500 26 $6,620

2.4 City Council Meetings (3) 6 6 2.5 12 4 4 6 $500 38 $9,220

2.5 Stakeholder Outreach Events (4) 4 4 8 16 16 2.6 6 6 12 $2,400 72 $16,670

2.6 Outreach Summary T echnical Memo 1 1 2 16 4 2.7 4 4 $0 32 $5,190 3 REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS AND POLICIES 3 REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS AND POLICES 134 $32,790

3.1a Document Review 4 4 8 16 3.1a 4 $0 36 $7 ,160

3.1b Data Review (Streetlight, Wejo, Collision) 4 4 8 4 16 3.1b $6,000 36 $13,680

3.2 GIS Mapping 2 4 4 8 24 3.2 4 $0 46 $8,790

3.3 Slideshow Summary 2 2 2 4 3.3 4 2 $0 16 $3,160
4 SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN (SMP) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 4 SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 802 $141,700

4.1 Review of Projects and Programs (Maps/Matrix) 4 8 12 4.1 2 $0 26 $5,060

4.2 Prioritize SMP Recommendations 8 12 32 16 4.2 4 $0 72 $13,320

4.3 Conceptual Plans and Cost Estimates 16 120 160 4.3 24 8 8 32 100 140 $1,200 608 $105,360

4.4 Implementation and Funding Strategy 12 16 24 4 4.4 4 4 8 24 $0 96 $17 ,960 5 WHITE PAPER ON TIF /VMT 5 WHITE PAPER ON TIF /VMT 202 $46,870

5.1a White Paper: T ransportation Mitigation F ees 4 2 4 24 5.1a 2 36 60 36 $1,590 168 $40,550

5.1b F ee Burden Comparison Memo 4 2 24 5.1b 4 $0 34 $6,320 6 VMT MITIGATION PROGRAM 6 VMT MITIGATION PROGRAM 64 $12,510

6.1 Identify VMT Reducing Strategies 2 2 2 16 6.1 2 $0 24 $4,680

6.2 VMT Reduction Cost Analysis 2 2 8 24 6.2 4 $0 40 $ 7, 8 3 0 7 NEXUS STUDY 7 NEXUS STUDY 160 $39,250

7.1 a Draft and Final Project List 8 4 24 7. 1 a 4 $0 40 $8,240

7.1 b Nexus Study Documentation 8 4 8 7.1 b 2 28 50 20 $1,510 120 $31,010 8 TIF /VMT ORDINANCE AND FEE CALCULATION TOOL 7 NEXUS STUDY 70 $13,340

8.1 Interactive F ee Calculation T ool 4 4 40 7.1 a 6 $0 54 $9,860

8.2 Final T ransportation Impact Fee Ordinance 4 2 8 7.1 b 2 $0 16 $3,480 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANAL YSIS 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANAL YSIS 117 $23,260

9.1 Draft Environmental Analysis 4 2 7.1 2 18 50 $600 76 $14,630

9.2 Final Environmental Analysis 2 2 7. 2 1 16 20 $350 41 $8,630 TOTAL LABOR FOR ALL TASKS 90 101 205 22 20 168 160 144 36 60 72 89 86 144 56 16 32 100 24 140 34 70 $15,980 3,738 $383,315 Fehr & Peers EPS Mark Thomas PlaceWorks V ALUE ADDED INNOV A TIONCost Estimate DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Sept. 13, 2022
Item #6 Page 32 of 42
Jason Pack, PE
Principal
Matt Benjamin,
AICP , RSP1
Principal
Kendra Rowley, PE
Associate
Ron Milam, AICP ,
PTP
Principal
Katy Cole, PE
Principal
Andrew Scher , EIT
Engineer/Planner III
Shane Russell, EIT
Engineer/Planner III
Angelica Rocha
Engineer/Planner III
Heather McGuffin
Administrator III
Maddie Hasani
Engineer/Planner III
Saima Musharrat
Senior Engineer/
Planner I
Administrator
Jason Moody
Principal
Julie Cooper
Vice President
Associate
Paul Martin, PE, TE,
LCI
Grant Writing
Aaron Silva, PE
Project Manager
Joshua Iniguez,
Design Engineer II
Sam Sharvini
Planner
Juan Zermeno
Design Engineer
Mark T eague, AICP
Principal
Jasmine A. Osman
Associate
Direct Costs
T otal Hours
T otal Costs
TASKS $305 $305 $220 $350 $265 $160 $160 $150 $140 $180 TASKS $155 $140 $300 $240 $185 $270 $270 $147 $130 $121 $250 $150 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 55 $14,765