HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-06; Traffic and Mobility Commission; ; Implementing the Sustainable Mobility Plan and Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee StudyMeeting Date:
To:
Staff Contact:
Subject:
March 6, 2023
Traffic and Mobility Commission
Nathan Schmidt, Transportation Planning and Mobility Manager
nathan.schmidt@carlsbadca.gov, 442-339-2734
Implementing the Sustainable Mobility Plan and Multimodal
Transportation Impact Fee Study
Recommended Actions
Receive an overview on the city’s implementation plan for the Sustainable Mobility Plan and
Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee Program.
Executive Summary
The City of Carlsbad’s Sustainable Mobility Plan (SMP) is the main plan that guides
implementation of the city’s General Plan Mobility Element. The plan provides a broad range of
improvements for reducing vehicle miles traveled in the city, mitigating the impacts of growth
and development, and accommodating all the ways people get around the city, not just cars
and single-occupied private automobiles.
City staff are working on the planning process to implement projects identified in the SMP and
how to pay for them to be completed.
Given the high priority for traffic safety, staff will present an overview of how the projects were
identified and prioritized. With the adoption of recent traffic safety plans such as the Local
Roadway Safety Plan and Safer Streets Together Plan, there is opportunity for feedback on how
the projects are prioritized if necessary.
Staff will also present plans to update how the projects will be funded through the Multimodal
Transportation Impact Fee. This new fee would be collected from developers so they’d pay for
the impacts their projects will have on the city’s transportation network. Instead of charging
developers a fee based on cars, the city would be able to collect development fees to help fund
improvements in all the ways people travel around the city, like bike infrastructure and wider
sidewalks.
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 1 of 23
Discussion
Implementation Plan for the Sustainable Mobility Plan
The City Council adopted the SMP in January 2021. The plan provides a broad range of
improvements for reducing vehicle miles traveled in the city, mitigating the impacts of growth
and development, and accommodating all the ways people get around the city, not just cars
and single-occupied private automobiles. The plan serves as a master document that
incorporates 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 to reduce single occupancy travel
The first task in the implementation process is to develop a strategic plan for completing the
projects in the SMP which will serve as a blueprint for getting the projects completed. This
strategy will include an engineering feasibility analysis of the plan’s top-priority projects and
programs, covering the preliminary cost estimates, conceptual improvement plans, roadway
cross-sections and funding sources.
Sustainable Mobility Plan prioritized project list
The SMP includes a total 322 individual projects which have been grouped by location into 97
project areas as provided in the list in Exhibit 2. These projects were prioritized for
implementation based on the following criteria:
• Access to transit, schools, and key destinations
• Areas that generate high Vehicle Miles Traveled and pollution factors
• High collision areas
• Demographic data including population and employment density
The SMP’s prioritized project list is provided in Exhibit 2. The current plan’s project list and
prioritization will remain much the same, however some refinements can be made to consider
potential synergies between plans developed after adoption of the SMP such as the Local
Roadway Safety Plan, the Safer Streets Together Plan, and the feasibility analysis and cost
estimates developed as part of the implementation plan.
Traffic Impact Fee vs Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee
Part of this process also includes creating realistic funding strategies for the design and
construction of the recommended projects. One way of funding these projects is to update the
city’s current Traffic Impact Fee and develop a new approach to funding transportation
infrastructure through something called the Multimodal Transportation 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, primarily based on cars. The genesis of the program was the city’s General Plan,
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 2 of 23
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, “require 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.”
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. This new fee would be collected from developers so they’d pay for the
impacts their projects will have on the city’s transportation network. Instead of charging
developers a fee based on cars, the city would be able to collect development fees to help fund
improvements in all the ways people travel around the city, like bike infrastructure and wider
sidewalks.
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 (VMT) 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
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.
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 3 of 23
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.
Next Steps
Staff will return to the Traffic and Mobility Commission over the course of the implementation
plan process to provide updates on the project phasing and draft study to develop the
Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee program.
Exhibits
1. Consultant Scope of Work
2. Sustainable Mobility Plan Prioritized Project List
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 4 of 23
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 743 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.
Exhibit 1
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 5 of 23
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
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 6 of 23
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
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 7 of 23
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
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 8 of 23
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
ElCaminoReal
Cannon R d
Poinsettia Ln
La CostaAv
College Bl
Faraday A v
PalomarAirportRd
Alga Rd
ElFuerte St
AlicanteRd
Melro
se
Dr
Avenid
a
E
n
cinas
CarlsbadVillageDr
LevanteSt
Rancho SantaFeRd
Hig
hla
nd
Dr ChestnutAv
Paseo
D
elNorte
M
o
n
r
o
e
S
t
Calle Barcelona
Ad
a
m
s
S
t
JeffersonSt
Va
l
l
e
y
S
t
BatiquitosDr
Po
n
t
i
a
c
D
r
Trieste
Dr
C orintiaSt
Marron Rd
HillsideDr
SunnyCreek Rd
Sta
t
e
S
t
Cadenc iaSt
Gateway Rd
Do
n
na
D
r
Ma
d
i
s
o
n
S
t
Calle
Acervo
Sk
y
l
i
n
e
R
d
Oak Av
M
imosaDr
OceanSt
Carrillo Wy
Armada
Dr
Olivenhain Rd
Ori
o
n
S
t
Leg
o
land
Dr
SanLuis
LionsheadA v
Celin
da
Dr
Glas
g
o
w
D
r
Camin
o
Junip
ero
Anillo Wy
Kell
y
D
r
Sierra
Morena
Av
Haymar Dr
Harwic h Dr
CaminoSerbal
RanchoBravad o
ElArb
ol
Dr
SitioBaya
Ro
m
e
r
i
a
S
t
Cre
st
Dr
LapisRd
Gr
a
n
d
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
D
r
Twa
i
n
A
v
Olympia
Dr
Cami
n
o
H
i
l
l
s
D
r
LokerAvWest
Forest Av
Navarra Dr
Camin
o Are
n
a
Las Olas Ct
Acacia
A
v
SaddleDr
Walnut
A
v
Sitio Ca
l
i
e
n
t
e
Siti
o
F
r
o
n
t
e
r
a
GarfieldSt
Cal
l
e
P
a
l
m
i
t
o
Trail Easement
Agua HediondaLagoon
CARLSBAD
PacificOcean
5
Buena VistaLagoon
Batiquitos Lagoon
MerkleReservoir
OCEANSIDE
VISTA
ENCINITAS
2 3
1
4
65
7 8
15
14
109
11
1
2
1
3
"#" refers to disparate projects and does notcorrelate 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 StrategyPrioritized 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 March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 9 of 23
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
WOODLAWNMEMORIAL PARK
GREENLAWNMEMORIAL PARK
GREEK ORTHODOX
CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONALDETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED.
EL CAMINO REAL
C S
T
EL CAMINO REAL
ALB
E
R
T
M
.
T
E
G
L
I
A
BLV
D
F S
T
CO
L
M
A
B
L
V
D
F ST
DRI
V
E
W
A
Y
T
O
WOO
D
L
A
W
N
MEM
O
R
I
A
L
P
A
R
K
DRI
V
E
W
A
Y
T
O
WOO
D
L
A
W
N
MEM
O
R
I
A
L
P
A
R
K
El Camino Real Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Plan
Figure 1
See Inset for Bus Boarding Island with In-lane Stop Option
Bus Boarding Island withIn-lane Stop Option
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Landscape
Existing Signal
ProposedNew SignalProposed PedestrianHybrid Beacon (PHB)Existing Stop SignRemoved Bus Stop
Proposed Bus Stop Existing Bus Stop to RemainOpportunity Area(e.g. GreenInfrastructure)
Painted Truck Apron
WOODLAWNMEMORIAL PARK
GREENLAWNMEMORIAL PARK
GREEK ORTHODOX
CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONALDETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED.
EL CAMINO REAL
C ST
EL CAMINO REAL
ALB
E
R
T
M
.
T
E
G
L
I
A
BLV
D
F ST
CO
L
M
A
B
L
V
D
F ST
DRI
V
E
W
A
Y
T
O
WOO
D
L
A
W
N
MEM
O
R
I
A
L
P
A
R
K
DRI
V
E
W
A
Y
T
O
WOO
D
L
A
W
N
MEM
O
R
I
A
L
P
A
R
K
El Camino Real Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement PlanFigure 1
See Inset for Bus Boarding Island with In-lane Stop Option
Bus Boarding Island withIn-lane Stop Option
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Landscape
Existing Signal
ProposedNew SignalProposed PedestrianHybrid Beacon (PHB)Existing Stop SignRemoved Bus Stop
Proposed Bus Stop Existing Bus Stop to RemainOpportunity Area(e.g. GreenInfrastructure)
Painted Truck Apron
WOODLAWNMEMORIAL PARK
GREENLAWNMEMORIAL PARK
GREEK ORTHODOX
CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONALDETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED.
EL CAMINO REAL
C ST
EL CAMINO REAL
ALB
E
R
T
M
.
T
E
G
L
I
A
BLV
D
F S
T
CO
L
M
A
B
L
V
D
F ST
DRI
V
E
W
A
Y
T
O
WO
O
D
L
A
W
N
MEM
O
R
I
A
L
P
A
R
K
DRI
V
E
W
A
Y
T
O
WOO
D
L
A
W
N
MEM
O
R
I
A
L
P
A
R
K
El Camino Real Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement PlanFigure 1
See Inset for Bus Boarding Island with In-lane Stop Option
Bus Boarding Island withIn-lane Stop Option
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Landscape
Existing Signal
ProposedNew SignalProposed PedestrianHybrid Beacon (PHB)Existing Stop SignRemoved Bus Stop
Proposed Bus Stop Existing Bus Stop to RemainOpportunity Area(e.g. GreenInfrastructure)
Painted Truck Apron
Coordination with the San Mateo County’s Public Works Department about the improvements on El Camino Real is required during the PS&E phase
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 V
i
s
t
a
W
a
y
E V
i
s
t
a W
a
y
E Taylor St
E Bobier Dr
Monte Mar Rd
Palomar Pl
Warmlands Ave
RECOMMENDATIONSE Vista Way North
RECOMMENDATIONS
E Vista Way South
Add leading pedestrian intervals at WarmlandsAvenue. 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 trac 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 Taylor
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 controland 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
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 10 of 23
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
Transp ortation DivisionBrainstormsCIPProjects
Uses PrioritizationWorkbook to Guide Project List
InterviewsDepartmentsabout Their Proposed CIPProjects
Submits RecommendedList to CIPTeam
SubmitsProject List toCIP Team
Checks in withOther Public Works Divisions about Their Proposed Project List
Reviews OtherProposed Projects & Identifies Livable Street ImprovementsThat Can Be EasilyImplemented withinProject Confines
Public Works DepartmentSubmitsProject List to CIP Committee C IP Committee
IdentifiesDuplicate/ConflictingProject Fina nce DepartmentReviewsProject List toEnsure Adequate Funding Renews &Approves CIPProjects for Adoption byCity Council
C ity Manager
Legend Existing Process Informal Steps Currently Being Performed by Transportation Division Proposed Additions to Process/Formalize
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROCESS
ROA
D
M
A
P
T
O
L
I
V
A
B
L
E
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
Carl
s
b
a
d
C
A
T
S
03
28 CITY
O
F
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
Activ
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
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 SMPMarch 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 11 of 23
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
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 12 of 23
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
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 13 of 23
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
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 14 of 23
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
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 15 of 23
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
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 16 of 23
30
2022 2023
TASKS AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY 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 Traffic & 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 Fee 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
7.1a Draft and Final Project List 7.1a
7.1b Nexus Study Documentation 7.1b
8 TIF/VMT ORDINANCE AND FEE CALCULATION TOOL 8 TIF/VMT ORDINANCE AND FEE CALCULATION TOOL
8.1 Interactive Fee Calculation Tool 8.1
8.2 Final Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance 8.2
9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS (DRAFT AND FINAL)9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS (DRAFT AND FINAL)
9.1 Interactive Fee Calculation Tool 9.1
9.2 Final Transportation 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
VALUE ADDED INNOVATION
Schedule
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 17 of 23
2022 2023
TASKSAUGSEPTOCTNOVDECJANFEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL
1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
1.1Kick-off Meeting 1.1
1.2 Bi-Weekly Virtual Meetings 1.2
2 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH 2 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
2.1Public Outreach Plan 2.1
2.2 Traffic & Mobility Commission Meetings (4)2.3
2.3 Planning Commission Meetings (2)2.4
2.4City 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
3.1aDocument Review 3.1a
3.1bData Review (Streetlight, Wejo, Collision) 3.1b
3.2GIS Mapping 3.2
3.3Slideshow Summary 3.3
4 SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN (SMP) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 4 SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
4.1Review of Projects and Programs (Maps/Matrix) 4.1
4.2Prioritize SMP Recommendations 4.2
4.3Conceptual Plans and Cost Estimates 4.3
4.4Implementation and Funding Strategy 4.4
5 WHITE PAPER ON TIF/VMT 5 WHITE PAPER AND NEXUS STUDY
5.1aWhite Paper: TIF and VMT Best Practices 5.1a
5.1bFee Burden Comparison Memo 5.1b
6 VMT MITIGATION PROGRAM 6 VMT MITIGATION PROGRAM
6.1Identify VMT Reducing Strategies 6.1
6.2VMT Reduction Cost Analysis 6.2
7 NEXUS STUDY 7 NEXUS STUDY
7.1aDraft and Final Project List 7.1a
7.1bNexus Study Documentation 7.1b
8 TIF/VMT ORDINANCE AND FEE CALCULATION TOOL 8 TIF/VMT ORDINANCE AND FEE CALCULATION TOOL
8.1Interactive Fee Calculation Tool 8.1
8.2 Final Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance 8.2
9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS (DRAFT AND FINAL)9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS (DRAFT AND FINAL)
9.1Interactive Fee Calculation Tool 9.1
9.2Final Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance 9.2
Outreach Plan, Stakeholder ListPrelim. Project List, White Paper
Final Project List, Cost Estimates & Fees Final Fee Study & Implementation Plan
2023 2024
VALUE ADDED INNOVATION
Schedule
31
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 18 of 23
32
Ja
s
o
n
P
a
c
k
,
P
E
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
Ma
t
t
B
e
n
j
a
m
i
n
,
AI
C
P
,
R
S
P
1
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
Ke
n
d
r
a
R
o
w
l
e
y
,
P
E
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
Ro
n
M
i
l
a
m
,
A
I
C
P
,
PT
P
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
Ka
t
y
C
o
l
e
,
P
E
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
An
d
r
e
w
S
c
h
e
r
,
E
I
T
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
/
P
l
a
n
n
e
r
I
I
I
Sh
a
n
e
R
u
s
s
e
l
l
,
E
I
T
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
/
P
l
a
n
n
e
r
I
I
I
An
g
e
l
i
c
a
R
o
c
h
a
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
/
P
l
a
n
n
e
r
I
I
I
He
a
t
h
e
r
M
c
G
u
f
f
i
n
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
o
r
I
I
I
Ma
d
d
i
e
H
a
s
a
n
i
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
/
P
l
a
n
n
e
r
I
I
I
Sa
i
m
a
M
u
s
h
a
r
r
a
t
Se
n
i
o
r
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
/
Pl
a
n
n
e
r
I
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
o
r
Ja
s
o
n
M
o
o
d
y
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
Ju
l
i
e
C
o
o
p
e
r
Vi
c
e
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
Pa
u
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
,
P
E
,
T
E
,
LC
I
Gr
a
n
t
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
Aa
r
o
n
S
i
l
v
a
,
P
E
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Jo
s
h
u
a
I
n
i
g
u
e
z
,
De
s
i
g
n
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
I
I
Sa
m
S
h
a
r
v
i
n
i
Pl
a
n
n
e
r
Ju
a
n
Z
e
r
m
e
n
o
De
s
i
g
n
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
Ma
r
k
T
e
a
g
u
e
,
A
I
C
P
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
Ja
s
m
i
n
e
A
.
O
s
m
a
n
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
Di
r
e
c
t
C
o
s
t
s
To
t
a
l
H
o
u
r
s
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
s
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 Traffic & 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 Technical 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: Transportation Mitigation Fees 4 2 4 24 5.1a 2 36 60 36 $1,590 168 $40,550
5.1b Fee 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 $7,830
7 NEXUS STUDY 7 NEXUS STUDY 160 $39,250
7.1a Draft and Final Project List 8 4 24 7.1a 4 $0 40 $8,240
7.1b Nexus Study Documentation 8 4 8 7.1b 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 Fee Calculation Tool 4 4 40 7.1a 6 $0 54 $9,860
8.2 Final Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance 4 2 8 7.1b 2 $0 16 $3,480
9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 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 VALUE ADDED INNOVATION
Cost Estimate
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 19 of 23
Ja
s
o
n
P
a
c
k
,
P
E
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
Ma
t
t
B
e
n
j
a
m
i
n
,
AI
C
P
,
R
S
P
1
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
Ke
n
d
r
a
R
o
w
l
e
y
,
P
E
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
Ro
n
M
i
l
a
m
,
A
I
C
P
,
PT
P
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
Ka
t
y
C
o
l
e
,
P
E
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
An
d
r
e
w
S
c
h
e
r
,
E
I
T
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
/
P
l
a
n
n
e
r
I
I
I
Sh
a
n
e
R
u
s
s
e
l
l
,
E
I
T
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
/
P
l
a
n
n
e
r
I
I
I
An
g
e
l
i
c
a
R
o
c
h
a
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
/
P
l
a
n
n
e
r
I
I
I
He
a
t
h
e
r
M
c
G
u
f
f
i
n
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
o
r
I
I
I
Ma
d
d
i
e
H
a
s
a
n
i
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
/
P
l
a
n
n
e
r
I
I
I
Sa
i
m
a
M
u
s
h
a
r
r
a
t
Se
n
i
o
r
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
/
Pl
a
n
n
e
r
I
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
o
r
Ja
s
o
n
M
o
o
d
y
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
Ju
l
i
e
C
o
o
p
e
r
Vi
c
e
P
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
Pa
u
l
M
a
r
t
i
n
,
P
E
,
T
E
,
LC
I
Gr
a
n
t
W
r
i
t
i
n
g
Aa
r
o
n
S
i
l
v
a
,
P
E
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Jo
s
h
u
a
I
n
i
g
u
e
z
,
De
s
i
g
n
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
I
I
Sa
m
S
h
a
r
v
i
n
i
Pl
a
n
n
e
r
Ju
a
n
Z
e
r
m
e
n
o
De
s
i
g
n
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
Ma
r
k
T
e
a
g
u
e
,
A
I
C
P
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
Ja
s
m
i
n
e
A
.
O
s
m
a
n
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
Di
r
e
c
t
C
o
s
t
s
To
t
a
l
H
o
u
r
s
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
s
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
1.1Kick-off Meeting1 2 1 1.1 1 1 1 $330 7 $2,145
1.2 Bi-Weekly Virtual Meetings8 16 12 1.2 4 3 5 $0 48 $12,620
2 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH 2 PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH 265 $58,830
2.1Public Outreach Plan4 6 212 16 2.1 6 $0 46 $8,460
2.2 Traffic & 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
2.4City Council Meetings (3)6 6 2.5 12 4 4 6 $500 38 $9,220
2.5 Stakeholder Outreach Events (4)4 4 816 16 2.6 6 6 12 $2,400 72 $16,670
2.6 Outreach Summary Technical Memo1 1 216 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
3.1aDocument Review 4 4 816 3.1a 4 $0 36 $7,160
3.1bData Review (Streetlight, Wejo, Collision) 4 4 8416 3.1b $6,000 36 $13,680
3.2GIS Mapping2 4 4824 3.2 4 $0 46 $8,790
3.3Slideshow Summary2 2 24 3.3 4 2 $0 16 $3,160
4 SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN (SMP) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 4 SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 802 $141,700
4.1Review of Projects and Programs (Maps/Matrix) 4 812 4.1 2 $0 26 $5,060
4.2Prioritize SMP Recommendations8 123216 4.2 4 $0 72 $13,320
4.3Conceptual Plans and Cost Estimates16120160 4.3 24 8 8 32 100 140 $1,200 608 $105,360
4.4Implementation and Funding Strategy12 16244 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
5.1aWhite Paper: Transportation Mitigation Fees4 2 424 5.1a 2 36 60 36 $1,590 168 $40,550
5.1bFee Burden Comparison Memo4 224 5.1b 4 $0 34 $6,320
6 VMT MITIGATION PROGRAM 6 VMT MITIGATION PROGRAM 64 $12,510
6.1Identify VMT Reducing Strategies2 2 2 16 6.1 2 $0 24 $4,680
6.2VMT Reduction Cost Analysis2 2 824 6.2 4 $0 40 $7,830
7 NEXUS STUDY 7 NEXUS STUDY 160 $39,250
7.1aDraft and Final Project List8 424 7.1a 4 $0 40 $8,240
7.1bNexus Study Documentation8 48 7.1b 2 28 50 20 $1,510 120 $31,010
8 TIF/VMT ORDINANCE AND FEE CALCULATION TOOL 7 NEXUS STUDY 70 $13,340
8.1Interactive Fee Calculation Tool4 440 7.1a 6 $0 54 $9,860
8.2Final Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance4 28 7.1b 2 $0 16 $3,480
9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 117 $23,260
9.1Draft Environmental Analysis4 2 7.1 2 18 50 $600 76 $14,630
9.2Final Environmental Analysis2 2 7.2 1 16 20 $350 41 $8,630
TOTAL LABOR FOR ALL TASKS90 1012052220168 160 1443660 72 89 86 144 56 16 32 100 24 140 34 70 $15,980 3,738 $383,315
Fehr & Peers EPS Mark Thomas PlaceWorks VALUE ADDED INNOVATION
Cost Estimate 33
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 20 of 23
SMP
ID
SMP
Rank
Corridor or
Area Corridor or Area Name From To VB
M
P
CA
T
S
CM
R
PM
P
TM
P
BM
P
SM
P
CI
P
LR
S
P
Pa
v
M
P
Sa
f
e
t
y
Pe
d
A
c
c
e
s
s
Ga
p
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
O
p
s
Pl
a
c
e
m
a
k
i
n
g
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
60 1 Area Village Area N/A N/A X X X X
1 2 Corridor Carlsbad Bl N City Boundary Carlsbad Village Dr X X X X X X
33 3 Corridor Carlsbad Village Dr Ocean St Interstate 5 X X X X X X
53 4 Area Buena Vista Lagoon N/A N/A X X X X
20 5 Corridor El Camino Real N. City Boundary Palomar Airport Rd X X X X X X
32 6 Corridor Christiansen Wy Garfield St Washington St X X
31 7 Area Las Flores Drive SB Ramps NB Ramps X X
30 8 Corridor Marron Rd N. City Boundary
1100' east of El
Camino Real X X X X X
52 9 Area Buena Vista Creek Ecological Reserve N/A N/A X X X
45 10 Corridor Palomar Airport Rd Carlsbad Bl El Camino Real X X X X X X X X X X
40 11 Corridor Tamarack Av Interstate 5 El Camino Real X X X X
68 12 Area Jefferson Elementary School Area N/A N/A X X
9 13 Corridor State St Laguna Dr Oak Av X X X
41 14 Corridor Cannon Rd Carlsbad Bl El Camino Real X X X X
5 15 Corridor Carlsbad Bl Palomar Airport Rd Poinsettia Ln X X X X X X X X
34 16 Corridor Carlsbad Village Dr Interstate 5 El Camino Real X X X
59 17 Area Lincoln Plaza Area N/A N/A X X X X
61 18 Area Barrio Area N/A N/A X X X
2 19 Corridor Carlsbad Bl Carlsbad Village Dr Tamarack Av X X X X X X X X X
70 20 Corridor Kelly Dr and Park Dr El Camino Real Alondra Wy X X X X
18 21 Corridor Paseo Del Norte Cannon Rd Poinsettia Ln X X X X
54 22 Area Buena Vista Elementary School Area N/A N/A X X
76 23 Area Connector Study Area N/A N/A X X X X
11 24 Corridor Roosevelt St Laguna Dr Magnolia Av X X X X X X
12 25 Corridor Madison St Laguna Dr Carlsbad Village Dr X X X
13 26 Corridor Madison St Carlsbad Village Dr Magnolia Av X X X X
35 27 Corridor Carlsbad Village Dr El Camino Real College Bl X X X
64 28 Area Valley Middle School Area N/A N/A X X X X
72 29 Area Kelly Elementary School Area N/A N/A X X
42 30 Corridor Cannon Rd El Camino Real eastern terminus X X X
47 31 Corridor Poinsettia Ln Carlsbad Bl El Camino Real X X X X X X
7 32 Corridor Railroad Carlsbad Bl Tamarack Av X X
15 33 Corridor Jefferson St Carlsbad Village Dr Pine Av X X X X X X X X
Exhibit 2
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 21 of 23
SMP
ID
SMP
Rank
Corridor or
Area Corridor or Area Name From To VB
M
P
CA
T
S
CM
R
PM
P
TM
P
BM
P
SM
P
CI
P
LR
S
P
Pa
v
M
P
Sa
f
e
t
y
Pe
d
A
c
c
e
s
s
Ga
p
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
O
p
s
Pl
a
c
e
m
a
k
i
n
g
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
24 34 Corridor College Bl N. City Boundary El Camino Real X X X X
24 34 Corridor College Bl El Camino Real Palomar Airport Rd X X X X
43 35 Corridor Faraday Av Cannon Rd El Camino Real X X X X X X
55 36 Area Calavera Hills PMP N/A N/A X X
37 37 Corridor Chestnut Av Carlsbad Bl Interstate 5 X X X X X X
56 38 Area Hope ES School Area N/A N/A X X
62 39 Area Carlsbad High School Area N/A N/A X X X X
14 40 Corridor Jefferson St Interstate 5 overpass Carlsbad Village Dr X X X X
74 41 Area Legoland N/A N/A X X X X
19 42 Corridor Monroe St Marron Rd Carlsbad Village Dr X X X X X X X
21 43 Corridor El Camino Real Palomar Airport Rd Olivenhain Rd X X X X X X
4 44 Corridor Carlsbad Bl Cannon Rd Palomar Airport Rd X X X X X
6 45 Corridor Carlsbad Bl Poinsettia Ln La Costa Av X X X X
16 46 Corridor Harding St Carlsbad Village Dr Magnolia Av X X X
46 47 Corridor Palomar Airport Rd Carlsbad Bl El Camino Real X X X X X
46 47 Corridor Palomar Airport Rd El Camino Real E. City Boundary X X X X X
83 48 Area
Aviara Elementary and Middle Schools
Area N/A N/A X X
90 49 Area La Costa Heights N/A N/A X X
92 50 Corridor La Costa Av / Cam Coches Olivenhain Rd Rancho Santa Fe Rd X X X X X
38 51 Corridor Chestnut Av Interstate 5 El Camino Real X X X
94 52 Area La Costa Canyon High School Area N/A N/A X X
23 53 Corridor College Bl N. City Boundary El Camino Real X X X X X
82 54 Area Pacific Rim N/A N/A X X
71 55 Area Canyon Park N/A N/A X X
79 56 Area Aviara Community Park N/A N/A X X
8 57 Corridor Avenida Encinas Cannon Rd Poinsettia Ln X X X
48 58 Corridor Poinsettia Ln El Camino Real Melrose Dr X X X
50 59 Corridor La Costa Av Carlsbad Bl El Camino Real X X X X
80 60 Area Poinsettia ES N/A N/A X X X
89 61 Area La Costa Meadows N/A N/A X X X
39 62 Corridor Tamarack Av Carlsbad Bl Interstate 5 X X X
3 63 Corridor Carlsbad Bl Tamarack Av Cannon Rd X X X X X X X X X
26 64 Corridor Aviara Pkwy Palomar Airport Rd El Camino Real X X
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 22 of 23
SMP
ID
SMP
Rank
Corridor or
Area Corridor or Area Name From To VB
M
P
CA
T
S
CM
R
PM
P
TM
P
BM
P
SM
P
CI
P
LR
S
P
Pa
v
M
P
Sa
f
e
t
y
Pe
d
A
c
c
e
s
s
Ga
p
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
O
p
s
Pl
a
c
e
m
a
k
i
n
g
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
51 65 Corridor La Costa Av El Camino Real Rancho Sante Fe Rd X X X X X X X
67 66 Area Carlsbad Highlands Ecological Reserve N/A N/A X X
85 67 Area Avenida Encinas N/A N/A X X X
93 68 Area Mission Estancia N/A N/A X X
22 69 Corridor Tamarack Ave El Camino Real Carlsbad Village Dr X X X
27 70 Corridor Melrose Dr Palomar Airport Rd Rancho Santa Fe Rd X X X X X
29 71 Corridor Olivenhain Rd El Camino Real La Costa Ave X X X
25 72 Corridor El Fuerte St Poinsettia Ln Alga Rd X X X
58 73 Area Calavera Hills ES N/A N/A X X
69 74 Area Agua Hedionda Lagoon N/A N/A X X
49 75 Corridor Alga Rd El Camino Real Melrose Dr X X X
65 76 Area Magnolia ES N/A N/A X X X X X
44 77 Corridor Faraday Av El Camino Real E. City Boundary X X X X X X X X X
84 78 Area Aviara Oaks PMP N/A N/A X X X X
28 79 Corridor Rancho Santa Fe Rd Melrose Dr La Costa Ave X X X
17 80 Corridor I-5 Chinquapin Av Cannon Rd X X
73 81 Corridor Coastal Corridor Cannon Rd Palomar Airport Rd X X
91 82 Area El Camino Creek N/A N/A X X
75 83 Corridor The Kirgis Trail Connections Twain Av Existing Trail X X X
10 84 Corridor Tyler St Oak Av Chestnut Av X X X X X X X
36 85 Corridor Oak Av Lincoln St Washington St X X X X
81 86 Area Carillo ES N/A N/A X X
86 87 Area Batiquitos Lagoon N/A N/A X X
78 88 Corridor SDG&E Utility Rd Plum Tree Ct Poinsettia Ln X X
57 89 Area
Calaveras Elementary & Middle School
Area N/A N/A X X X X X X
88 90 Corridor SDG&E Utility Rd Alga Rd El Fuerte X X
63 91 Area Hidden Canyon Park N/A N/A X X X X X X
77 92 Corridor Carlsbad Raceway Park Melrose Dr Lionshead Av X X X
66 93 Corridor SDG&E Corridor (Calavera Hills 2) N/A N/A X X X
87 94 Area Batiquitos Lagoon Ecological Reserve N/A N/A X X X
95 95 Corridor Grand Ave Grand Ave terminus Pio Pico Dr X X X X X X
March 6, 2023 Item #3 Page 23 of 23
To: Traffic and Mobility Commission
From: Steve Linke (splinke@gmail.com)
Date: March 6, 2023
Subject: March 6, 2023 Implementing the SMP and MTIF Study (Item #3)
An update to the traffic impact fee program has been long overdue for many years, so it is
positive that it is finally happening, and that projects for non-vehicle modes of travel are
being included. However, the commission should ask the following questions:
• There is no mention of the remaining vehicle capacity capital projects in the staff report. Are
they being included in this impact fee update, as well?
o One example is the College Boulevard gap closure between El Camino Real and Cannon
Road. Some of the heaviest traffic in the city circulates in the adjacent sections of those
streets, which have been failing the vehicle LOS congestion standard for many years.
There is already enough pre-existing traffic to fill one lane in each direction of a College
Boulevard gap closure, and new developments in that area will fill a second lane in each
direction. Staff failed to include this project in the program despite annual monitoring
showing growing congestion. Is that project being included in the current update?
• Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) assessments have been required since 2020. Almost all
developments have been exempted, screened out, or allowed to use custom calculations to
claim little or no impact. Will these or similar methods be available to developers to avoid the
VMT-based impact fee program, as well?
• After spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, there were promises from Fehr & Peers that
the General Plan Mobility Element that they wrote in 2015 would ensure funding of multimodal
projects (see Item #2 on your agenda), but very few projects have arisen from that. What
confidence should we have that the additional hundreds of thousands of dollars to create this
new impact fee program will actually work?
• If this question wasn’t asked for the last item, it can be asked for this item: Is the updated traffic
impact fee program going to be capable of funding all multimodal projects adjacent to new
development (direct impacts) concurrent with their construction? The answer is “NO,” which is
why the MMLOS system and growth management also remain important.
Implementing the Sustainable
Mobility Plan and Multimodal
Transportation Impact Fee Study
Nathan Schmidt, Transportation Planning and Mobility Manager
March 6, 2023
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive an overview on the city’s implementation plan for the
Sustainable Mobility Plan and Multimodal Transportation
Impact Fee Program.
Item 3 –Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee
2
TODAY’S PRESENTATION
•Background
•Sustainable Mobility Plan Implementation Plan
•Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee
•Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
•Questions and comments
3
Item 3 –Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee
3
MOBILITY
Item 3 –Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee
4
5
SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY PLAN
Item 3 –Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee
•Adopted by City Council in January 2021
•12+ years of citywide multimodal planning
studies
•Multimodal focus
•Transportation network as a system instead
of spot treatments for next decade
5
6
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM
Item 3 –Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee
•Adopted by City Council in March 2008
•Fee is assessed on developers based on
their projects impact on city streets
•Designed to fund transportation
improvements primarily based on cars
6
Grant Funding
•San Diego Association of Governments
•Federal Highway Association
•Caltrans
Developer Funding
•Direct Mitigation and Frontage Improvements
•Transportation Impact Fees
•Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program Fees
•Other financing mechanisms
Taxes
•TransNet (half-cent sales tax)
•Gas Tax
7
HOW ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ARE FUNDED
7
8
TRANSPORTATION EVALUATION PROCESS
Project
Proposed
Evaluate
impacts to
mobility
network
Direct
improvements
Multi-Modal
Transportation
Impact Fee
Construction
Improved
mobility +
connectivity
for all transit
modes
8
9
NEW -MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEE
•Replace current Traffic Impact Fee program
•Fee will ensure new development pays their
fair share to construct the Sustainable
Mobility Plan projects
•Fees will be based on the SMP
Implementation Plan
9
10
SMP IMPLEMENTATION / MTIF PROCESS
1.SMP Implementation Plan
•Review SMP project prioritization
•Conduct engineering feasibility analysis
•Conceptual plans & cost estimates
•Funding strategy & phasing plan for
implementation
SMP IMPLEMENTATION / MTIF PROCESS
2. MTIF
•Determine new developer fees
•Review best practices and peer agencies
throughout California
•Nexus Study: Establishes the legal nexus between
the fee, the project list and proposed
development
•City Council adoption of MTIF Ordinance
11
SMP IMPLEMENTATION / MTIF PROCESS
12
SMP IMPLEMENTATION / MTIF PROCESS
3. Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Program
•Identify SMP projects that reduce VMT
•Calculate VMT reduced
•Determine VMT per dollar spent
•Fee developers pay based on the VMT their
project generates
•Fee could mitigation VMT impacts and paid
separately from the MTIF
13
SMP PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
Item 3 –Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee
•322 individual projects -grouped together by
location into 97 prioritized project areas
•Projects were ranked based on following criteria:
•Access to transit, schools and key destinations
•Areas that generate high VMT and pollution
•High collision areas
•Demographic data including population and
employment density
14
SMP PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
Item 3 –Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee
•Project list provided in Exhibit 2
•Concept plans will be developed for top 12
project areas
•Cost estimates will be prepared for all
projects
•Feedback on prioritization
15
NEXT STEPS
Item 3 –Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee
•Staff will return to the Traffic & Mobility
Commission multiple times with progress
updates and opportunities for feedback
•Future discussions will include project
phasing, review of SMP concept plans and
cost estimates, and the draft MTIF study
16
PROPOSED ACTION
Receive an overview on the city’s
implementation plan for the Sustainable
Mobility Plan and Multimodal Transportation
Impact Fee Program.
Item 3 –Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee
17