Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-09-13; City Council; Resolution 2022-220RESOLUTION 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 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. 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) Item #6 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 intransportation 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 inaccordance 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 whileexercising 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 othercompensation for the Services will be allowed except for items covered by subsequentamendments to this Agreement. If the City elects to extend the Agreement, the amount shall notexceed 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 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 this 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 and 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 insurance will be obtained from an DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F 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 coverage, 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 written 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 general 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 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 made 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 subcontractors 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 j.pack@fehrandpeers.com Phone No. 442-339-2734 DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F 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 Statement 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, employees, 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 progress 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 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 employee 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 the 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-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 authorityto bind Contractor to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR FEHR & PEERS, a California corporation By: By: (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: 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 followingtwo groups. Group AChairman, President, or Vice-President Group BSecretary, Assistant Secretary, CFO or Assistant Treasurer Otherwise,the corporation must attach a resolution certified by the secretary or assistantsecretary 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 City Attorney Approved Version 6/12/18 PSA23-1900TRAN City Attorney Approved Version 6/12/18 8 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F 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 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 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 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 ElCaminoRealCannon R d Poinsettia Ln La CostaAv College B lFaraday A v PalomarAirportRd Alga Rd ElFuerte S tAlicanteRdMelro se DrAvenid a E n cinasCarlsbadVillageDr LevanteSt RanchoSanta FeRdHig hla nd Dr ChestnutA vPaseo D el Nort eMon r o e S t Ca lle BarcelonaAd am s S tJeffersonStVa l l e y S t BatiquitosDrPont iac D r T rie ste Dr C orintiaSt Marron Rd HillsideDr SunnyC reek R dSta t e S t Cadenc iaSt Gateway RdDo n na D r Ma d i s o n S t CalleAcervoSkyline RdOak Av Mi mosaDrOceanSt Carrillo WyArmadaDr Olivenhain RdOrion StLeg o la ndDr SanLuis LionsheadA vCelin d aDr Glasgow DrCamin o Junip ero Ani llo WyKelly DrSierra Mor ena Av Haymar Dr Harwic h Dr CaminoSerbalRanchoBravad o ElArb ol Dr SitioBayaRomeria St Cre st Dr LapisR dGr a n d P a c i f i c D r Twain AvOlympia Dr Camino Hills DrLokerAvWest Forest Av Navarra Dr Camino ArenaLas Olas Ct Acacia Av SaddleDrWalnut Av Sitio CalienteSiti o F r o n t e r a GarfieldSt Calle PalmitoTrail E a s e m e n t Agua HediondaLagoon CARLSBAD PacificOcean 5 Buena VistaLagoon Batiquitos Lagoon MerkleReservoir OCEANSIDE VISTA ENCINITAS 2 3 1 4 65 7 8 15 14 109 1112 13"#" 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 CARLSBADActive 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F 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 REALC STEL CAMINO REALALBERT M. TEGLIABLVDF STCOLMA BLVD F ST DRI V E W A Y T OWOO D L AW NMEM O R I A L P A R K DRIVEWAY TOWOODLAWNMEMORIAL PARKEl 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 REALC STEL CAMINO REALALBERT M. TEGLIABLVDF STCOLMA BLVD F ST DRI V E W A Y T OWOO D L AW N MEM O R I A L P A R K DRIVEWAY TOWOODLAWNMEMORIAL PARKEl 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 REALC STEL CAMINO REALALBERT M. TEGLIABLVDF STCOLMA BLVD F ST DRI V EW A Y T OWOO D L A W NMEMO R I A L P A R K DRIVEWAY TOWOODLAWNMEMORIAL PARKEl 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 AveE Vista WayE Vista Way 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.Considerseparated 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F --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 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 Depar tmentSubmitsProject List to CIP Committee C IP Committee IdentifiesDuplicate/ConflictingProject F ina nce Departm entReviewsProject List toEnsure Adequate Funding Renews &Approves CIPProjects for Adoption byCity Council C ity Manager LegendExisting ProcessInformal Steps Currently Being Performed by Transportation DivisionProposed Additions to Process/Formalize CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROCESS ROADMAP TO LIVABLE STREETS Carlsbad CATS0328 CITY OF CARLSBAD Active Transportat ion 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 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 - 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 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 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 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 Complete Communities website. Mobility Zones 1, 2, and 3 have greater VMT-reducing potential. 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 --· ---c:Jc;.,-,.--• 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F 32 Jason Pack, PE PrincipalMatt Benjamin, AICP, RSP1 PrincipalKendra Rowley, PE AssociateRon Milam, AICP, PTP PrincipalKaty Cole, PE PrincipalAndrew Scher, EIT Engineer/Planner IIIShane Russell, EIT Engineer/Planner IIIAngelica Rocha Engineer/Planner IIIHeather McGuffin Administrator III Maddie Hasani Engineer/Planner IIISaima Musharrat Senior Engineer/Planner IAdministratorJason Moody PrincipalJulie Cooper Vice PresidentAssociatePaul Martin, PE, TE, LCIGrant WritingAaron Silva, PE Project ManagerJoshua Iniguez, Design Engineer IISam Sharvini PlannerJuan Zermeno Design EngineerMark Teague, AICP PrincipalJasmine A. Osman AssociateDirect CostsTotal HoursTotal CostsTASKS $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 7.1 a 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 EstimateDocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F Jason Pack, PE PrincipalMatt Benjamin, AICP, RSP1 PrincipalKendra Rowley, PE AssociateRon Milam, AICP, PTP PrincipalKaty Cole, PE PrincipalAndrew Scher, EIT Engineer/Planner IIIShane Russell, EIT Engineer/Planner IIIAngelica Rocha Engineer/Planner IIIHeather McGuffin Administrator III Maddie Hasani Engineer/Planner IIISaima Musharrat Senior Engineer/Planner IAdministratorJason Moody PrincipalJulie Cooper Vice PresidentAssociatePaul Martin, PE, TE, LCI Grant WritingAaron Silva, PE Project ManagerJoshua Iniguez, Design Engineer IISam Sharvini PlannerJuan Zermeno Design EngineerMark Teague, AICP PrincipalJasmine A. Osman AssociateDirect CostsTotal HoursTotal CostsTASKS$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 6212 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 Fees42 424 5.1a 2 36 60 36 $1,590 168 $40,550 5.1bFee Burden Comparison Memo4224 5.1b 4 $0 34 $6,320 6 VMT MITIGATION PROGRAM 6 VMT MITIGATION PROGRAM 64 $12,510 6.1Identify VMT Reducing Strategies22 2 16 6.1 2 $0 24 $4,680 6.2VMT Reduction Cost Analysis22 824 6.2 4 $0 40 $7,830 7 NEXUS STUDY 7 NEXUS STUDY 160 $39,250 7.1aDraft and Final Project List8424 7.1 a 4 $0 40 $8,240 7.1bNexus Study Documentation848 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 Tool4440 7.1a 6 $0 54 $9,860 8.2Final Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance428 7.1b 2 $0 16 $3,480 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 117 $23,260 9.1Draft Environmental Analysis42 7.1 2 18 50 $600 76 $14,630 9.2Final Environmental Analysis22 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: B848F6E6-2E85-4A7E-AE19-E0B05097173F ----