NOTICE AND AGENDA REGIONAL PLANNING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP CITIES/COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP

Transcription

1 FOLLOW-UP JOINT WORKSHOP NOTICE AND AGENDA REGIONAL PLANNING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP CITIES/COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP FOLLOW-UP JOINT WORKSHOP FOR THE CYCLE 4 CALL FOR PROJECTS FOR THE TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM Monday, April 24, to 11 a.m. SANDAG Board Room 401 B Street, 7th Floor San Diego, CA Please take the elevator to the 8th floor to access the meeting room Please silence all electronic devices during the workshop SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 511 or visit 511sd.com for route information. Secure bicycle parking is available in the building garage off Fourth Avenue. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) , (619) (TTY), or fax (619)

2 Welcome to SANDAG. Members of the public may speak to the joint workshop on any item at the time the joint workshop is considering the item. Please complete a Speaker s Slip, and then present the slip to the Clerk of the joint workshop. Members of the public may address the joint workshop on any issue under the agenda item entitled Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person unless otherwise directed by the Chair. The working groups may take action on any item appearing on the agenda. Public comments regarding the agenda can be sent to SANDAG via comment@sandag.org. Please include the agenda item, your name, and your organization. comments should be received no later than 12 noon, two working days prior to the meeting. Any handouts, presentations, or other materials from the public intended for distribution at the meeting should be received by the Clerk of the joint workshop no later than 12 noon, two working days prior to the meeting. In order to keep the public informed in an efficient manner and facilitate public participation, SANDAG also provides access to all agenda and meeting materials online at Additionally, interested persons can sign up for e-notifications via our e-distribution list at either the SANDAG website or by sending an request to webmaster@sandag.org. SANDAG operates its programs without regard to race, color, and national origin in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. SANDAG has developed procedures for investigating and tracking Title VI complaints and the procedures for filing a complaint are available to the public upon request. Questions concerning SANDAG nondiscrimination obligations or complaint procedures should be directed to SANDAG General Counsel, John Kirk, at (619) or john.kirk@sandag.org. Any person who believes himself or herself or any specific class of persons to be subjected to discrimination prohibited by Title VI also may file a written complaint with the Federal Transit Administration. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) , (619) (TTY), or fax (619) SANDAG agenda materials can be made available in alternative languages. To make a request call (619) at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Los materiales de la agenda de SANDAG están disponibles en otros idiomas. Para hacer una solicitud, llame al (619) al menos 72 horas antes de la reunión. 如有需要, 我们可以把 SANDAG 议程材料翻译成其他語言. 请在会议前至少 72 小时打电话 (619) 提出请求. SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 511 or visit 511sd.com for route information. Bicycle parking is available in the parking garage of the SANDAG offices. To access the meeting room please arrive on the 8th floor. 2

3 FOLLOW-UP JOINT WORKSHOP OF THE REGIONAL PLANNING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP, CITIES/COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP Monday, April 24, 2017 ITEM NO. 1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS (Chairs of the Regional Planning Technical Working Group, Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee, and Active Transportation Working Group) RECOMMENDATION The chairs of each working group will introduce themselves and will solicit self-introductions. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS Members of the public shall have the opportunity to address the joint workshop on any issue within the jurisdiction of SANDAG that is not on this agenda. Anyone desiring to speak shall reserve time by completing a Request to Speak form and giving it to the joint workshop coordinator prior to speaking. Public speakers should notify the joint workshop coordinator if they have a handout for distribution to the joint workshop. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. +3. SUMMARY OF THE JOINT KICK-OFF WORKSHOP APRIL 6, 2017 INFORMATION A summary of the April 6, 2017, Joint Kick-off Workshop between the Regional Planning Technical Working Group, Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee, and Active Transportation Working Group and notes from the break-out discussions will be provided. +4. TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM: POTENTIAL RECOMMENDED CHANGES FOR CYCLE 4 CALL FOR PROJECTS (Carolina Ilic) DISCUSSION SANDAG held a joint workshop on April 6, 2017, to kick-off the Cycle 4 Call for Projects and discuss options to address required changes to the grant programs. The working groups are asked to discuss and provide input on the potential recommended changes in the following areas: Goals and program objectives, Funding caps per project category in each grant program, Self-certification process to meet eligibility prerequisites of locally-adopted Climate Action Plans (CAPs) and Complete Streets (CS) Policies, Funding amounts for preparation of CAPs and CS Policies for jurisdictions that do not have them, and Evaluation criteria to incorporate greater emphasis on greenhouse gas emission reductions. Draft recommendations will be presented to the Regional Planning Committee and the Transportation Committee in June and July. 3

4 +5. SERIES 14 REGIONAL GROWTH FORECAST PROGRESS REPORT (Clint Daniels, Rachel Cortes) INFORMATION The Regional Models team present the work underway to prepare the Series 14 Regional Growth Forecast. This report provides an overview of the proposed new regional forecasting methods, background on an expert review panel held in March to review these new methods, the progress on the local jurisdiction feedback for the subregional forecast, as well as next steps and schedule updates. 6. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT MEETINGS INFORMATION The next working group meetings are scheduled as follows: Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee: Thursday, June 1, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. Regional Planning Technical Working Group: Thursday, June 8, 2017, at 1:15 p.m. Active Transportation Working Group: Thursday, May 11, 2017, at 10 a.m. + next to an item indicates an attachment 4

5 San Diego Association of Governments JOINT WORKSHOP OF THE REGIONAL PLANNING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP, CITIES/COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP April 24, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3 Action Requested: INFORMATION SUMMARY OF THE JOINT KICK-OFF WORKSHOP APRIL 6, 2017 File Number Please Note: The audio file of the meeting is available on the SANDAG website at sandag.org, on the webpages of the Regional Planning Technical Working Group (TWG), Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC), and Active Transportation Working Group (ATWG). The meeting of the Joint Workshop of the TWG, CTAC, and ATWG was called to order by TWG Vice Chair Jeff Murphy at 9:06 a.m. 1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS The chairs and/or vice chairs of each working group introduced themselves and solicited self-introductions. 2. TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM CYCLE 4 CALL FOR PROJECTS: ANTICIPATED FUNDING AMOUNTS AND REQUIRED CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS CYCLES Carolina Ilic, Senior Regional Planner, provided an overview of anticipated funding amounts for each program and the various changes required in the Cycle 4 Call for Projects. The Call for Projects is anticipated to be released December Applications would be due March 2018, and funding award recommendations would be considered July FACILITATED GROUP DISCUSSION: FEEDBACK ON PROGRAM OBJECTIVES, FUNDING PERCENTAGE ALLOCATIONS, AND FUNDING CAPS Coleen Clementson, Principal Regional Planner, facilitated a group discussion to reaffirm or propose adjustments to the goals and program objectives, discuss the funding percentage allocations for each grant type, and seek input on whether the funding caps should be modified. 5

6 TWG, CTAC, and ATWG members proposed recommendations to modify the first ATGP Goal as follows: Encourage the planning and development of complete streets and provide multiple travel choices for the region s residents, visitors, and businesses though safe and well-connected bicycle and pedestrian networks. TWG, CTAC, and ATWG members also proposed recommendations to modify the first and fifth ATGP Program Objectives as follows: Encourage the development of a cohesive network of complete streets that is well connected to transit and everyday destinations, such as schools, jobs, shopping, recreation, and health care facilities. Increase community support and awareness for bicycling and walking as a viable transportation choice for all trip purposes. TWG, CTAC, and ATWG members proposed recommendations to maintain the funding percentage allocation of 80 percent for capital and 20 percent for planning for the Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP), and maintain the funding percentage allocation of 75 percent for capital and 25 percent for non-capital for the Active Transportation Grant Program (ATGP). The groups also recommended increasing the funding caps from $2 million to $2.5 million for SGIP capital projects and from $400,000 to $500,000 for SGIP planning projects. In addition, the groups recommended considering flexibility between the funding categories in the ATGP Non-Capital category. 4. OVERVIEW: POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTIONS INTO GRANT PROGRAM CRITERIA Andrew Martin, Senior Regional Planner, and Audrey Porcella, Regional Planner II, described potential options for incorporating greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions into the grant program criteria, as required by a mitigation measure included in the Environmental Impact Report of San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. 5. BREAK-OUT DISCUSSIONS Working Group members visited two break-out stations for 20 minutes each. Topics included: Suggested funding levels for preparation of Climate Action Plans and Complete Streets Policies, and ideas for guidance on self-certification process, and Potential options for incorporating criteria that further reduce GHG emissions into each grant program. 6. REPORTING BACK FROM BREAK-OUT DISCUSSIONS Leaders from various break-out discussion sessions reported the major ideas from their group back to the workshop. Notes from these break-out discussions are attached. 6

7 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 8. ADJOURNMENT AND NEXT STEPS A follow-up joint workshop was confirmed for the morning of Monday, April 24, CTAC Chair Edward Deane adjourned the meeting at 11:56 a.m. Attachments: 1. TWG, CTAC, and ATWG Attendance Sheets 2. Consolidated Discussion Points from Joint Kick-off Workshop, April

8 Attachment 1 Meeting Start Time: 9:06 a.m. Meeting Adjourned Time: 11:56 a.m. JOINT WORKSHOP OF THE REGIONAL PLANNING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP, CITIES/COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP ATTENDANCE FOR APRIL 6, 2017 REGIONAL PLANNING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP JURISDICTION/ORGANIZATION NAME ATTENDING COMMENTS City of Carlsbad City of Chula Vista City of Coronado City of Del Mar City of El Cajon City of Encinitas City of Escondido City of Imperial Beach City of La Mesa City of Lemon Grove City of National City City of Oceanside City of Poway City of San Diego City of San Marcos City of Santee Don Neu David De Cordova, Alternate Kelly Broughton Scott Donaghe, Alternate Rachel Hurst Jesse Brown Kathy Garcia Tracy Elliot Yawn Tony Shute Majed Al-Ghafry, Alternate Diane S. Langager Laurie Winter, Alternate Bill Martin Michael Strong, Alternate Steve Dush Jim Nakagawa, Alternate Tyler Foltz, Alternate Carol Dick Chris Jacobs, Alternate David DeVries Eric Craig, Alternate Brad Raulston Ray Pe, Alternate Jeff Hunt Russ Cunningham, Alternate Robert (Bob) Manis Joseph Lim, Alternate Jeff Murphy, Vice Chair Brian Schoenfisch, Alternate Tait Galloway, Alternate Karen Brindley, Chair Saima Qureshy Melanie Kush John O Donnell, Alternate No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes 8

9 REGIONAL PLANNING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP JURISDICTION/ORGANIZATION NAME ATTENDING COMMENTS City of Solana Beach City of Vista County of San Diego Bill Chopyk Cory Andrews, Alternate John Conley Patsy Chow, Alternate Joe Farace Nick Gustafson, Alternate Yes No No Yes Yes No ADVISORY MEMBERS LISTED BELOW (ATTENDANCE NOT COUNTED FOR QUORUM PURPOSES) Air Pollution Control District Caltrans Local Agency Formation Commission Kathy Keehan, Alternate Andy Hamilton Dara Wheeler Barby Valentine, Alternate Robert Barry, AICP Joe Serrano, Alternate Yes No No Yes No No Metropolitan Transit System Denis Desmond Yes North County Transit District Damon Blythe Yes San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Angie Jamison No San Diego County Regional Water Authority Dana Friehauf No San Diego Unified Port District Lesley Nishihira No U.S. Department of Defense Anna Shepherd No OTHER ATTENDEES Barbara Kent, Caltrans Kuna Muthusamy, City of National City SANDAG STAFF MEMBERS LISTED BELOW Coleen Clementson Valerie Erze Alex Estrella, CTAC Coordinator Tracy Ferchaw Rachel Grant Katie Hentrich Carolina Ilic, TWG Coordinator Danielle Kochman Anna Lowe Andrew Martin Audrey Porcella Rob Rundle Hector Salgado Charles Muggs Stoll Stephan Vance, ATWG Coordinator Allison Wood 9

10 CITIES/COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE JURISDICTION/ORGANIZATION NAME ATTENDING COMMENTS City of Carlsbad City of Chula Vista City of Coronado City of Del Mar City of El Cajon City of Encinitas City of Escondido City of Imperial Beach City of La Mesa City of Lemon Grove City of National City City of Oceanside City of Poway City of San Diego City of San Marcos Marshall Plantz Craig Williams Doug Bilse Frank Rivera Bill Valle, First Alternate Rick Hopkins, Second Alternate Ed Walton Jim Newton, First Alternate Tim Thiele Eric Minicilli, First Alternate Mario Sanchez TBD, First Alternate Yazmin Arellano, Second Alternate Edward Deane, Chair Kipp Hefner, Alternate Julie Procopio, Vice Chair TBD, First Alternate Hank Levien Carmen Kasner, Alternate Greg Humora Kathy Feilen, First Alternate Leon Firsht, Second Alternate Mike James Jeremiah Harrington, First Alternate Stephen Manganiello Kuna Muthusamy, First Alternate Gary Kellison David DiPierro Steve Crosby Jon Collins, First Alternate Linda Marabian Gary Chui, First Alternate Abi Palaseyed, Second Alternate Nic Abboud Paul Vo, First Alternate Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No 10

11 CITIES/COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE JURISDICTION/ORGANIZATION NAME ATTENDING COMMENTS City of Santee Minjie Mei Yes Carl Schmitz, First Alternate No Mohammad Sammak Yes City of Solana Beach Dan Goldberg, First Alternate No Jim Greenstein, Second Alternate No Greg Mayer No City of Vista Tim Shell, First Alternate No Husam Hasenin, Second Alternate Yes Bill Morgan Yes County of San Diego TBD, First Alternate No Michael Long, Second Alternate No Metropolitan Transit District Mark Thomsen No North County Transit District Johnny Dunning, Jr. No 11

12 12

13 13

14 Attachment 2 CONSOLIDATED DISCUSSION POINTS FROM JOINT KICK-OFF WORKSHOP, APRIL 2017 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Criteria 1. Are these programs missing any categories or criteria that would account for a project s or a plan s ability to directly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? Criteria could take into consideration not just the adoption of a Climate Action Plan (CAP), but also whether the jurisdiction is taking steps to implement the CAP. Criteria could require the calculation of a proposed project s expected mode shift as a proxy for measuring its ability to reduce GHG emissions. A criterion could be added that calculates reductions in vehicle miles travelled (VMT). This may not be applicable to Planning/Non-Capital projects and would therefore only apply to Capital projects. For Planning/Non-Capital projects, a criterion could be included that evaluates whether the project/plan will implement the locally-adopted CAP. The consideration of equity seen in Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP) Capital Program Criteria 2D could be incorporated into the Active Transportation Grant Program (ATGP) criteria. Additional points could be awarded to projects that serve disadvantaged and/or low income communities. Community education on reducing GHG emissions could be incorporated as a criterion. The criteria should be kept simple and no new categories should be added. 2. Could any existing categories or criteria have their weighting increased or decreased to better account for a project s or a plan s ability to directly reduce GHG emissions? The weight of the criterion regarding the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Policy No. 033 Points in all grant categories could be changed. (Staff note: This criterion is based on Board Policy No Change would require a Board-level policy decision.) Proposals could be required to quantify VMT reductions resulting from the proposed project. Proposals could be evaluated in part based on the quantification of VMT reductions. The weighting of SGIP Criterion 2D, Addressing Project Area Issues, could be reduced from 3 to 1 (reducing the total possible points from 15 to 5), and the remaining weighted points could be reallocated to SGIP Criteria 2A Support for Public Transit and SGIP Criteria 2B Providing Transportation Choices (one weight each). This would increase the weight for these criteria from 5 to 6 and the points from 25 to 30, resulting in a total possible of 30 points in each of those categories. 3. Could the criteria within any existing category be modified to better measure how that category reflects a project s or a plan s ability to directly reduce GHG emissions? SGIP Capital Program Criteria 2E already focuses on sustainability and could incorporate more specific questions related to GHG emission reductions. More finely grained criteria could be considered. Partial points could be awarded in areas such as Transportation Demand Management (SGIP Capital Program Criteria 1-D4) or Relation to Transit (SGIP Capital Program Criteria 1-D1). Additional points could be awarded to projects in transit priority areas. 14

15 CONSOLIDATED DISCUSSION POINTS FROM JOINT KICK-OFF WORKSHOP, APRIL 2017 A criterion such as connection to a regional transportation facility could be added and receive points on a sliding scale. For example, connections to a major transportation hub could be weighted more heavily than the presence of a single bus stop in a project area. Less weighting could be given to aesthetic considerations/community enhancement (SGIP Capital Program Criteria 2C), with more weight toward aspects of non-transportation based sustainability, such as renewable energy, energy conservation, and form-based codes (SGIP Capital Program Criteria 2E). 4. What are your thoughts on using quantitative versus qualitative criteria to account for a project s or a plan s ability to directly reduce GHG emissions? An open-ended, qualitative criterion would be the most effective way for a jurisdiction to demonstrate how their proposed project implements an adopted CAP. Applicants could be required to quantify GHG emission reductions from proposed projects. Applicants should not be required to calculate the GHG emission reductions of a proposed project (for example, through a level of service analysis). This would create additional work for an applicant, and the calculation methodologies may vary significantly among applicants. 5. The mitigation measure adopted by the Board of Directors says, in part, that new or revised grant criteria shall award points to projects that directly implement local CAPs that reduce GHG emissions, and directly implement parking strategies that reduce GHG emissions. How do you think projects and plans could be awarded points for directly implementing local CAPs and parking strategies that reduce GHG emissions? Because some CAPs are more detailed than others, a qualitative criterion could be added to each grant program asking applicants to demonstrate how their proposals would implement their CAP. A qualitative criterion asking the applicant to describe how the proposed project implements the locally-adopted CAP should not be added, as an evaluator might make a different determination. The criteria could ask for additional information that demonstrates commitment to, and breadth of, CAP implementation efforts. Consultants for the City of San Diego developed a checklist for the implementation of the city s CAP. Elements of the checklist could be incorporated into the grant program criteria. A new category that supports hybrid projects could be considered, where proposals could receive funding for both planning and capital investments at the same time. Pedestrian facilities and bulb outs were suggested as examples of projects that an applicant might be able to plan and build in one grant cycle. 15

16 CONSOLIDATED DISCUSSION POINTS FROM JOINT KICK-OFF WORKSHOP, APRIL 2017 Suggested Funding Levels for Preparation of Climate Action Plans and Complete Streets Policies, and Ideas for Guidance on Self-Certification Process 1. Self-Certification: How should SANDAG structure the self-certification process for locally adopted CAPs and Complete Streets (CS) Policies? What should qualify as a locally-adopted CS Policy? By when should the self-certification process be completed in order for an applicant to be eligible? CAPs and CS Policies should not be required to be part of the General Plan. The criteria should allow flexibility for stand alone CAP and CS Policies adopted by the City Council, as those would have proceeded through a public hearing process, and local jurisdictions are committed to their implementation. The criteria should require CAPs and CS Policies to be incorporated into the General Plan, as that would result in greater enforcement. Definitions of what qualifies as locally-adopted CAPs and CS Policies should be included in the application and/or the Council Resolution. Adopted CS Policies should not be restricted to a formally-named CS Policy but rather qualify based on characteristics of the adopted policy/policies. This could come from the General Plan, a Specific Plan, an element within the General Plan, an interim CS Policy, an Active Transportation Plan, a Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan, etc. A CS Policy should qualify if is consistent with a checklist provided by SANDAG developed in conjunction with local jurisdictions and stakeholders, such as Circulate San Diego. The self-certification process should entail a Council Resolution. Self-certification would mean that the CAP or the CS Policy was approved by the governing body (City Council or Board of Supervisors). Self-certifications should be completed by the time that applications are due (March 2018). Self-certifications should be completed by the time of Board adoption of the funding recommendations (for example, approximately four months after the applications are due). Self-certifications should be completed prior to receiving reimbursement for grant-related expenses (for example, approximately eight months after applications are due). This was suggested due to concerns regarding completing a CAP within one year. Jurisdictions could apply for grant funding but then be placed on a wait list (phased approach) where the funding for the projects could be set aside for a specific period of time in which jurisdictions could meet the CAP and CS requirements. o Question: Under this scenario, how would the project be ranked if there is no CAP in place? How would evaluators know whether the proposed project implements the elements in the CAP? The philosophies of the SGIP/ATGP already support CAP implementation. By limiting the pool of applicants due to lack of CAPs and CS Policies in place, there is potential for some very good projects to go unfunded. 16

17 CONSOLIDATED DISCUSSION POINTS FROM JOINT KICK-OFF WORKSHOP, APRIL Funding: How much funding should be available for jurisdictions that do not have an adopted CAP or CS Policy? (Note: Funding could be made available for a CAP Environmental Impact Report [EIR]). More funding should go toward CAPs and less funding toward CS Policies. The proposed $50,000 to $75,000 range is appropriate for a locally-adopted CAP or CS Policy. More funding could be directed at qualified CAPs that need an EIR associated with the CAP. The program could provide up to $100,000 for a CAP and another $100,000 for a CAP EIR. Funding levels could be open-ended based on the scope of work proposed in the application. The competitive process could require a funding match for CAPs and CS Policies. This would result in more funding overall for CAPs and CS Policies. SANDAG s Energy Roadmap Program could supplement the funding available through the SGIP/ATGP. o Note: The Energy Roadmap Program will provide jurisdictions with regular updates to the GHG inventory (every two years). 3. Other: Are there other questions/topics that could be considered? Could the funding be used to update an existing CAP or CS Policy? If so, could a jurisdiction apply for the SGIP and ATGP funds as well as apply for the CAP or CS Policy update? Does the size of the jurisdiction s population affect the cost of the CAP and CS Policy? Some jurisdictions can certify that they have CAPs in place, but implementing the plan can vary among jurisdictions. How can this be monitored? 17

18 San Diego Association of Governments JOINT WORKSHOP OF THE REGIONAL PLANNING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP, CITIES/COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP April 24, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 4 Action Requested: DISCUSSION TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND File Number ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM: POTENTIAL RECOMMENDED CHANGES FOR CYCLE 4 CALL FOR PROJECTS Introduction SANDAG plans to release the Call for Projects for the fourth cycle of the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP) and Active Transportation Grant Program (ATGP) later this year. On April 6, 2017, a joint workshop was held between the Regional Planning Technical Working Group (TWG), Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC), and Active Transportation Working Group (ATWG) to kick off the Cycle 4 Call for Projects and discuss required changes. A summary of the discussion is included in the workshop summary (Item No. 3 of this agenda packet). This report builds upon the report provided at the April 6 joint workshop and incorporates potential recommended changes from previous funding cycles in the various areas where changes are required and discussion was solicited. The working groups are asked to discuss and provide input on the potential recommended changes. Draft recommendations will be presented to the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) and the Transportation Committee (TC) in June and July. SANDAG anticipates having up to $27 million available for the SGIP and $3.6 million available for the ATGP. Changes required in Cycle 4 are based on requirements from the approval of San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan). The changes include additional eligibility criteria and modifications to the evaluation criteria to provide greater weight to project proposals that directly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The required changes from previous funding cycles can be summarized as follows: Local Climate Action Plans (CAPs) and Complete Streets (CS) Policies are required for a local jurisdiction to be eligible to apply for funding from either grant program; The grant program must provide funding for local jurisdictions to develop a CAP and/or CS Policy if they do not have one or both; and The evaluation criteria must be updated to: o o o Give a greater weight to a project s ability to directly reduce GHG emissions, Consider program alignment with Transit Oriented Development (TOD) readiness metrics, and Consider how well completed grant projects are meeting the grant program objectives. The Call for Projects is anticipated to be released December Applications would be due March 2018, and funding award recommendations would be considered July The schedule is described in more detail in the report. 18

19 Discussion The TransNet Extension Ordinance provides funding for the SGIP and the ATGP. 1 Attachment 1 serves as a summary sheet for the two programs and includes descriptions of each grant program with language directly from the TransNet Extension Ordinance; the goals, program objectives, grant types, and funding percentage allocations established by the Board of Directors for the most recent funding cycle (Cycle 3); anticipated funding amounts for each program for this funding cycle (Cycle 4); and a summary of the required changes to both programs for Cycle 4. Attachments 1a and 1b provide fact sheets for each grant program. Only local jurisdictions are eligible to apply for grant funds. Other entities, such as developers and nonprofit and community-based organizations, may collaborate with the cities or the county but cannot apply directly for the funds. Goals and Program Objectives Before each Call for Projects, the goals and objectives for each program are reviewed and adjusted based upon input from SANDAG working groups, the RPC and TC, and the Board of Directors. Leading up to the April 6 joint workshop, TWG and CTAC members were ed a qualitative survey to help evaluate, from their perspective, how well grant projects that they have completed in their jurisdictions are meeting grant program objectives. The draft results of the review are included in Attachment 2. 2 At the April 6 workshop, participants were asked to share their perspective on whether adjustments to the goals and program objectives should be considered. Any adjustments would need to be consistent with the language directly included in the TransNet Extension Ordinance. Workshop participants expressed support for maintaining the existing SGIP goals and objectives and made suggestions for minor modifications to the ATGP goals and objectives. Based on feedback, the following refinements (shown in track changes) are proposed. POTENTIAL RECOMMENDED CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS FUNDING CYCLES: Modify the first ATGP Goal as follows: o Encourage the planning and development of CS and provide multiple travel choices for the region s residents, visitors, and businesses through safe and well-connected bicycle and pedestrian networks. Modify the first and fifth ATGP Program Objectives as follows: o o Encourage the development of a cohesive network of complete streets that is well-connected to transit and everyday destinations such as schools, jobs, shopping, and recreation, and health care facilities. Increase community support and awareness for bicycling and walking as a viable transportation choice for all trip purposes. In addition, the working groups are asked to review the draft results of the survey forms completed by TWG and CTAC members evaluating whether completed grant projects meet the respective grant program objectives and determine whether additional modifications to the goals and policy objectives should be proposed. 1 The ATGP is referred to as the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Neighborhood Safety Program in the TransNet Extension Ordinance. The TransNet Extension Ordinance sets aside 2 percent of annual TransNet sales tax revenues each for the SGIP and ATGP. The ATGP is supplemented with Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues. 2 Note: The draft survey ed to TWG and CTAC members inadvertently included reference to previous program objectives, which are similar to, but slightly different from, the Cycle 3 objectives. In an effort to be more concise, the survey also summarized the objectives. As a result, the objectives do not match word for word. 19

20 Anticipated Funding The TransNet Extension Ordinance sets aside 2 percent of annual TransNet sales tax revenues each for the SGIP and the ATGP. 3 To date, SANDAG has issued three cycles of funding for each program. Since the program s inception, over $50 million has been awarded to over 100 projects. Pending Board of Directors approval of future SANDAG Program Budgets, approximately $27 million for the SGIP and $3.6 million for the ATGP would be available for this grant cycle, for a combined total of roughly $30 million. This is approximately double from previous funding cycles. These figures reflect anticipated funding from FY 2017, FY 2018, and FY 2019, as well as a combination of conservative estimates from previous grant cycles and cost savings from completed projects. Summary of Previous Funding Cycles and Amounts Information for the first three cycles of both grant programs and estimated dates and funding amounts for the fourth cycle are provided below. Cycle Release of Call for Projects Smart Growth Incentive Program Projects Awarded FY of Funding Available Funding Number of Projects Recommended for Funding 1 December 2008 May 2009 FY09, FY10 $9.4 million 13 projects 2 September 2012 June 2013 FY11, FY12, FY13 $9.6 million 13 projects 3 December 2014 July 2015 FY14, FY15, FY16 $12 million 17 projects 4 Est. December 2017 Est. July 2018 FY17, FY18, FY19 Est. $27 million TBD Cycle Release of Call for Projects Active Transportation Grant Program Projects Awarded FY of Funding Available Funding Number of Projects Recommended for Funding 1 April 2009 June 2009 FY10 4 $7.8 million 29 projects 2 April 2012 Sept 2012 FY11, FY12, 5 FY13 $8.8 million 26 projects 3 December 2014 July 2015 FY14, FY15, FY16 $3 million 12 projects 4 Est. December 2017 Est. July 2018 FY17, FY18, FY19 Est. $3.6 million TBD 3 When the Board of Directors approved the Regional Bike Early Action Program (EAP) in September 2013, it committed a portion of those funds to the EAP, leaving $1 million per year for the ATGP. 4 No TransNet funds from FY 2009 were used in the first ATGP cycle. The first cycle was supplemented by TDA funds. 5 No TransNet funds from FY 2013 were used in the second ATGP cycle. FY 2013 and a portion of FY 2014 TransNet funds were used to fund the Inland Rail Trail as part of the Regional Bike EAP. 20

21 Funding Percentage Allocations and Funding Caps Each program has a capital and a planning (or non-capital) grant type. As currently structured, 80 percent of available funding through the SGIP supports capital projects, and the remaining 20 percent supports planning projects. Jurisdictions may apply for up to $2 million for a capital project and up to $400,000 for a planning project. As currently structured, 75 percent of available funding through the ATGP supports capital projects, and the remaining 25 percent supports non-capital projects, which include planning projects (15%); education, encouragement, and awareness projects (5%); and bike parking projects (5%). Jurisdictions may apply for up to $1.5 million for a capital project. There are varying funding caps for the project categories under the non-capital grant type. In preparation for the Cycle 4 Call for Projects, staff solicited comments on the funding percentage allocations to grant types and funding caps per project category under each program, which have remained consistent since the launch of the programs. Based upon feedback at the joint workshop, the following modifications are proposed. POTENTIAL RECOMMENDED CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS FUNDING CYCLES: SGIP: Maintain the funding percentage allocation of 80 percent for capital and 20 percent for planning. o o Increase the funding maximum for capital projects from $2 million to $2.5 million due to increasing construction costs. Increase the funding maximum for planning projects from $400,000 to $500,000 due to increasing costs of preparing planning documents and associated environmental documents. ATGP: Maintain the funding percentage allocation of 75 percent for capital and 25 percent for non-capital. o Maintain the funding percentage allocations for each of the three non-capital categories as listed below, but in an effort to provide flexibility, use the percentage allocations among the three categories as guidance versus minimums. (Planning: 15%; Education/Encouragement/Awareness: 5%; Bicycle Parking: 5%). Criteria Eligibility Criteria Currently, the grant programs have several eligibility criteria in place. These include, as mentioned above, that applicants must be a local jurisdiction in the San Diego region to apply for grant funds. In addition, projects applying for SGIP funding must be located in smart growth opportunity areas on the Smart Growth Concept Map. The Smart Growth Concept Map is updated before each grant cycle to ensure that the most recent information is reflected. A new eligibility criterion, as required by GHG Mitigation Measure 4A (Attachment 3) from the Regional Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), includes the requirement of locally adopted CAPs and CS Policies as prerequisites to be eligible for grant funding. Per the mitigation measure, the locally adopted CAPs shall include measures to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and achieve further reductions beyond 2020 consistent with adopted regional or local GHG reduction targets. 21

22 To comply with this new eligibility prerequisite, staff anticipates requiring applicants to self-certify via adopted Resolution by the City Council or Board of Supervisors that the local jurisdiction has a locally-adopted CAP and CS Policy (or the equivalent) 6 in place that complies with the mitigation measure. The Resolution would need to be adopted as part of the application process. Working with the working groups and the RPC and TC, staff will develop guidance and a Resolution template for local jurisdictions to self-certify. For transparency, local jurisdictions will be required to provide web links to their adopted CAPs and CS Policies (or the equivalent) that will be made available to the public. Based on feedback from the working groups, the following recommendations are proposed. POTENTIAL RECOMMENDED CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS FUNDING CYCLES: Require the governing body of the local jurisdiction to formally adopt the CAP and the CS Policy in a public setting, either at the time of the SGIP/ATGP application submittal or at a previous time. Include the adoption date(s) of the CAP and the CS Policy in the application. Allow flexibility for the CS Policy to serve as a stand-alone document, consist of policies in the General Plan, or consist of policies in other documents adopted by the governing body, as long as the jurisdiction can provide evidence of how the policies meet CS elements. Make the SANDAG Regional CS Policy and CS Checklist available as a guide for a local CS Policy and for use in the self-certification process. Consider a wait list or phased application approach for jurisdictions that are in the process of finalizing their CAPs or CS Policies, where a certain amount of funding could be set aside for a specific period of time (for example, one year) in which jurisdictions could meet the CAP and CS Policy eligibility requirements. Contract execution and grant funding for successful applicants would be withheld until the jurisdiction adopted the CAP or CS Policy. Funding for the Preparation of Climate Action Plans and/or Complete Streets Policies Per GHG Mitigation Measure 4A, SANDAG will make available competitive funding through the grant programs for the preparation of a CAP and/or CS Policy for jurisdictions that do not have an adopted CAP or CS Policy. In addition, SANDAG is currently providing technical assistance to local jurisdictions for the preparation of CAPs through the SANDAG Energy Roadmap Program (this is further outlined in GHG Mitigation Measure 4E, which along with GHG Mitigation Measure 4A, is included in Attachment 3). Grant funding for the preparation of CAPs can be supplemented with technical assistance that jurisdictions can currently access through the SANDAG Energy Roadmap Program, made available through the Local Government Partnership between SANDAG and San Diego Gas & Electric. SANDAG has gathered information and conducted initial surveys to gauge the range of jurisdictions that may be affected by the provisions of this mitigation measure (Attachments 4 and 5). Initial analysis indicates that approximately one-third of jurisdictions may not have a CAP or CS Policy in place by March 2018 (the anticipated application due date), with some potential overlap between the two categories. 6 It should be considered whether Comprehensive Active Transportation Plans, Bike and Pedestrian Master Plans, Interim CS Policies, CS Policies for specific corridors within jurisdictions, and/or other similar policies constitute the equivalent of a CS Policy. TWG, CTAC, and ATWG members were asked to provide input on this issue at the April 6 joint workshop. 22

23 SANDAG sought input on appropriate funding levels required to prepare CAPs and CS Policies at the April 6 workshop. Initial staff analysis indicated that a range of $50,000 to $75,000 per CAP or per CS Policy would be a suitable starting point, with a proposal to limit the total funding available for CAPs and CS Policies through the competitive process at $1 million. At that time, staff proposed that the funding be taken off the top of the $27 million identified for the SGIP given the higher funding levels for the SGIP. Based on feedback from the working groups, the following recommendations are proposed. POTENTIAL RECOMMENDED CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS FUNDING CYCLES: Provide a higher range of funding for CAPs that are Qualified (i.e., a CAP that meets the requirements of Public Resources Code Section ) than for CAPs that are not Qualified. Provide grants in the following ranges, based on the scope of work included in the project application submitted by the local jurisdiction, and require a 20 percent minimum match: o o o Up to $75,000 for CS Policies Up to $75,000 for CAPs that are not Qualified Up to $150,000 for CAPs that are Qualified Provide funding from the competitive process to all eligible CAP and CS Policy applications, rather than setting an upper funding limit of $1 million. Fund CAPs and CS Policies from the SGIP versus the ATGP. Evaluation Criteria The evaluation criteria for both programs underwent significant updates during the second cycle of the grant programs to ensure consistency with the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and Riding to 2050: The San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan. No changes to the evaluation criteria were made for the third cycle. Between the third cycle and the preparation of the fourth cycle, the Board of Directors adopted the Regional Plan and certified the EIR for the Regional Plan. As noted earlier, the Board of Directors adopted EIR GHG Mitigation Measure 4A, which requires changes to the grant criteria to support GHG emission reductions. In addition, the Regional Plan incorporated, by reference, Appendix U.4 the TOD Strategy. Key Early Action No. 8 from the Regional TOD Strategy calls for evaluating the grant program s alignment with TOD readiness criteria and analyzing completed grant projects to determine how well they are meeting grant program objectives. Greater Weight Toward a Project s Ability to Directly Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions For the fourth cycle, GHG Mitigation Measure 4A requires adopting new or revised grant criteria that give greater weight to a project s ability to directly reduce GHG emissions. SANDAG recognizes that while these grant programs inherently reduce GHG emissions due to their focus on smart growth and active transportation, the criteria for these programs were developed before California s legislative focus on GHG emission reductions, and SANDAG s first SCS, adopted as part of the RTP in The adoption by SANDAG of the Regional Plan in 2015 provides an opportunity to continue to make strides toward greater GHG emission reductions. The grant programs, along with updates to local general and specific plans, the implementation of the regional transit and bike projects included in the Regional Plan, expansion of zero-emission vehicles and related infrastructure, a renewed focus on transportation demand management (TDM), and an increasing focus on automated and connected vehicle technology, can work together to provide opportunities to further reduce GHG emissions. 23

24 Within this context, staff identified a range of options describing how the criteria could be modified to reward projects that directly reduce GHG emissions. Each set of criteria has both qualitative and quantitative criteria. The evaluation panel members score the qualitative criteria, and SANDAG technical staff score the quantitative criteria based on the land use inputs from the most recent Regional Growth Forecast and the transportation network included in the Regional Plan. The following options for modifying the criteria were identified as starting points for discussion. 1. Preserve current criteria, but rearrange the weighting among various categories to give greater weight to criteria that support the GHG mitigation measure. This option may involve taking points away from one or more categories and reassigning them to another or multiple categories or adding points to one or more categories and increasing the overall amount of points that can be awarded. Currently, all grant types under the two programs have a total possible score of 200 points, with the exception of SGIP capital projects, which have a total possible score of 300 points. When considering this option, it must be acknowledged that the weighting for the Regional Housing Needs Assessment must remain at 25 percent of the total possible score per Board Policy No. 033: Implementation Guidelines for SANDAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment Funding Incentives. This option could entail identifying which criteria currently affect GHG emission reductions, whether those criteria are quantitative or qualitative, and focusing point increases in one or more of those identified criteria. 2. Introduce a new criterion or criteria that award points based on a project s ability to reduce GHG emissions. A new criterion or criteria may be qualitative or quantitative. A qualitative criterion would require a new question or questions be added to the application for which applicants would need to provide a written response. Further, the evaluation panel members would be required to score the applicants descriptions. A quantitative criterion, by contrast, may or may not require additional information from the applicant and would be scored by SANDAG Technical Services staff, not by evaluation panel members. The GHG Mitigation Measure 4A identifies the following as new or revised criteria: o Award points to projects that directly implement local CAPs that reduce GHG emissions o Award points to projects that implement parking strategies that reduce GHG emissions 3. Modify existing criteria to better align with objectives in the GHG Mitigation Measure 4A Many of the criteria for these programs account for a project s ability to reduce GHG emissions. However, there are opportunities to enhance or adapt the criteria to better align with the objectives in the GHG Mitigation Measure 4A. For example, the current Demand Analysis criteria category could be adapted to include metrics for the built environment, intersection, and/or transportation density, which addresses a project s ability to realize mode shift and reduce GHG emissions. Another example is adapting the TDM Strategies criterion for SGIP capital grant projects. This criterion could be enhanced to award points for TDM strategies, including parking management strategies, that directly reduce GHG emissions. The working groups would be asked to identify current criteria that lend support to GHG mitigation efforts and propose methods to enhance these criteria to fulfill the intent of the GHG Mitigation Measure 4A. 24

25 Based on feedback from the working groups, the following recommendations are proposed. These are reflected in Attachments 6a 6d, which include the scoring criteria matrices in track changes for each program and grant type showing proposed changes between Cycle 3 and Cycle 4 and identifying the categories that reflect an ability to reduce GHG emissions. Note that changes to weighting are not currently proposed in Attachments 6a-6d. Staff will solicit input on changes to weighting at the joint workshop. In addition, staff is proposing an administrative adjustment to the calculation of the points awarded for matching funds to award points more intuitively and increase transparency of scoring. This change would apply to all grant categories and is reflected in track changes in the attachments. POTENTIAL RECOMMENDED CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS FUNDING CYCLES: Add qualitative criteria asking the applicant to describe how the proposed project implements the locally-adopted CAP and/or how the proposed project implements existing or proposed parking strategies that reduce GHG emissions. Focus the new qualitative criteria on providing additional information that demonstrates commitment to, and breadth of, CAP implementation efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Solicit input from working groups on changes to weighting at the April 24 joint workshop once there is broad consensus on the proposed modifications to the criteria. Transit Oriented Development Alignment and Analysis of Completed Grant Projects As referenced above, the Regional Plan incorporated the Regional TOD Strategy. One of the early actions in the TOD Strategy calls for evaluating the grant programs alignment with TOD readiness metrics and analyzing completed grant projects to determine how well they are meeting grant program objectives. Staff evaluated the alignment of the TOD Readiness Tool metrics against the criteria of each grant program and found that there was general alignment between each TOD readiness category and the evaluation criteria, particularly for the capital grant types (Attachments 7a and 7b). One category where the alignment could potentially be strengthened is labor market connectivity via transit or, in other words, how well locations connect to employment areas via transit. As such, the working groups were asked to consider whether they would want to propose an additional criterion to the SGIP that awards points for connections to major employment areas within a half hour of the smart growth opportunity area, the number of public transit transfers available to major employment areas, or another similar measure. In addition, as referenced earlier, TWG and CTAC members were ed a survey asking for information on how well they thought that the completed grant projects in their jurisdictions meet the grant program objectives. The draft results of the survey are provided in Attachment 2. As an additional piece of information, Attachment 8 provides a summary of all funded SGIP and ATGP projects, by program and jurisdiction. Working group members did not suggest additional adjustments to the evaluation criteria. Based on feedback from the working groups, the following recommendations are proposed. POTENTIAL RECOMMENDED CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS FUNDING CYCLES: No additional changes to the evaluation criteria are proposed based on the TOD alignment or the draft survey of completed grant projects. Clarify input resulting from the working groups April 6 joint workshop on the idea of creating an additional category for a Hybrid grant application category that provides funding for both planning and implementation of capital projects in one grant funding cycle. 25

26 Schedule The following schedule is anticipated for the fourth grant cycle: Spring 2017: Review lessons learned from previous grant cycles and begin identifying potential updates to evaluation criteria with working groups; assemble data for 2017 Regional Housing Progress Report for Board Policy No. 033 point calculations Summer/Fall 2017: Review lessons learned from previous grant cycles and discuss potential updates to evaluation criteria with SANDAG Policy Advisory Committees; update Smart Growth Concept Map based on Series 14 Regional Growth Forecast; finalize 2017 Regional Housing Progress Report December 2017: RPC and TC recommend release of the Call for Projects including updated evaluation criteria; Board of Directors releases Call for Projects for both programs including updated evaluation criteria March 2018: Applications due Spring/Summer 2018: Evaluation panel reviews and ranks applications; RPC and TC review rankings and recommend funding allocations (first for information followed by recommendation) July 2018: Board of Directors approves projects for funding December 2018: Grant agreements executed; jurisdictions begin work Next Steps Based on additional input received, staff will provide the RPC and TC a list of recommended changes from previous funding cycles in the various areas where changes are required and discussion was solicited. Attachments: 1. Information about the TransNet SGIP and ATGP 1a. SGIP Fact Sheet 1b. ATGP Fact Sheet 2. Review of Completed TransNet SGIP and ATGP Projects, April GHG Mitigation Measures 4A and 4E included in the EIR for the Regional Plan 4. Local Climate Planning Efforts 5. Initial Results of Local Jurisdiction CS Policies (or Equivalent) Survey 6. Scoring Criteria Matrix from Each Grant Program (from Cycle 3) 6a. SGIP Capital 6b. SGIP Planning 6c. ATGP Capital 6d. ATGP Non-Capital 7. Alignment of TOD Readiness Metrics with SGIP/ATGP Quantitative and Qualitative Criteria 7a. Alignment with SGIP 7b. Alignment with ATGP 8. Summary of All Funded SGIP and ATGP Projects, by Program and Jurisdiction Key Staff Contact: Carolina Ilic, (619) , carolina.ilic@sandag.org 26

27 Attachment 1 Information about the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program and Active Transportation Grant Program TransNet Extension Ordinance Language (from 2008) SGIP TransNet Ordinance SECTION 2.C.3 Smart Growth Incentive Program: An estimated $280 million will be allocated to the Smart Growth Incentive Program to provide funding for a broad array of transportation-related infrastructure improvements that will assist local agencies in better integrating transportation and land use, such as enhancements to streets and public places, funding of infrastructure needed to support development in smart growth opportunity areas consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan, and community planning efforts related to smart growth and improved land use/transportation coordination. These funds shall be allocated on a regional competitive grant basis. It is intended that these funds be used to match federal, state, local, and private funding to maximize the number of improvements to be implemented. The Commission shall establish specific project eligibility criteria for this program. ATGP TransNet Ordinance SECTION 2.E Bicycle, Pedestrian and Neighborhood Safety Program: A total of two percent of the total annual revenues available (an estimated $280 million) will be allocated to the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Neighborhood Safety Program to provide funding for bikeway facilities and connectivity improvements, pedestrian and walkable community projects, bicycle and pedestrian safety projects and programs, and traffic calming projects. These funds shall be allocated on a regional competitive grant basis. It is intended that these funds be used to match federal, state, local, and private funding to maximize the number of 9 improvements to be implemented. The Commission shall establish specific project eligibility criteria for this program. Current Goals (from Cycle 3) Current Program Objectives (from Cycle 3) Encourage comprehensive public infrastructure projects and planning activities that facilitate compact, mixed-use development focused around public transit, and that aim to increase housing and transportation choices, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve public health. Fund projects that can serve as models around the region and attract private development. Create great places in the San Diego region. Implement a comprehensive approach to influence land development by improving the public realm and encouraging private smart growth projects that, in combination, create great places. Serve as model examples for smart growth development in a variety of settings throughout the region. Contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and vehicle miles Encourage the planning and development of Complete Streets and provide multiple travel choices for the region s residents though safe and well-connected bicycle and pedestrian networks. Promote a comprehensive, neighborhoodbased approach to planning and implementing active transportation improvements and traffic calming by coordinating existing and planned land use and transit to increase connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians. Support the program objectives outlined below derived from the goals in SANDAG Riding to 2050: The San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan. Encourage the development of a cohesive network of complete streets that is wellconnected to transit and every day destinations such as schools, jobs, shopping and recreation. Create safe environments for bicyclists and pedestrians through traffic calming, complete streets design principles, and smart growth placemaking, and promote active transportation as a means of improving health outcomes. 27

28 Grant Types and Percentage Allocations (from Cycle 3) Anticipated Funding for Cycle 4 SGIP travelled, and improve public health by encouraging travel means other than single occupant vehicle. In particular, proposed projects should support public transit usage by improving access to transit and be located in areas served by transit. Support future housing development. Fund proposed Capital Projects that are ready to go and serve as catalysts for further smart growth development. Capital (80%; $2 million cap) Planning (20% plus any rollover from Capital; $400,000 cap) Approx. $27 million ATGP Serve as models for the region by featuring new and innovative active transportation solutions. Provide equitable access and transportation opportunities for all users, regardless of age, ability, race, ethnicity, or income. Increase community support for bicycling and walking as a viable transportation choice for all trip purposes. Support reductions in GHG emissions and increase in levels of bicycling and walking in the region by providing supportive facilities, amenities, and programs for bicyclists and pedestrians. Capital (75% with $500,000 threshold for large projects; 60% maximum toward large projects; $1.5 million cap) Non-Capital (25% plus any rollover from Capital; varying funding caps) o Planning (15%) o Education/Awareness/Encouragement (5%) o Bicycle parking (5%) Approx. $3.6 million Required Changes to Cycle 4 Required changes resulting from San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan actions and EIR Mitigation Measures: Climate Action Plan (CAPs) and Complete Streets (CS) Policies are pre-requisites for eligibility Program must provide funding for CAPs and CS policies for jurisdictions that don t have them Evaluation criteria must be updated to: o Give greater weight to a project s ability to directly reduce GHG emissions o Consider program alignment with TOD readiness criteria and consider how well completed grant projects are meeting grant program objectives 28

29 Planning Attachment 1a SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM FACT SHEET 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA (619) Fax (619) sandag.org SANDAGregion Overview The TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP) provides funding to the region s 18 cities and the County of San Diego for transportation-related infrastructure and planning projects that support smart growth and transit-oriented development in Smart Growth Opportunity Areas (SGOAs) as shown on the Smart Growth Concept Map. Through a competitive process, the SGIP funds projects that catalyze compact, mixed-use development focused around public transit, and increase housing and transportation choices around the region. Smart growth is a compact, efficient, livable, and environmentally sensitive urban development pattern. It focuses future growth and infill development close to jobs, services, and public facilities to maximize the use of existing infrastructure and preserve open space and natural resources. The SGIP is funded by TransNet, the regional half-cent sales tax for transportation projects administered by SANDAG. The program was established as part of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, approved by San Diego County voters in An estimated $280 million is expected to be available for the SGIP over the 40-year lifetime of TransNet. Accomplishments Since the program was launched in 2009, three funding cycles have helped create more walkable, bike-friendly, and transitoriented communities. The SGIP has awarded more than $30 million in TransNet funds throughout the San Diego region. A total of 43 projects have been awarded funding, including 23 capital grants and 20 planning grants. Through the program, business districts and downtowns from Oceanside to Chula Vista have undergone major improvements. Many communities have constructed biking and walking paths, plazas, and made improvements to transit access. The program helps improve the overall health and quality of life of communities in the San Diego region. Program Objectives Projects funded by the SGIP serve as smart growth investment models that act as an asset to communities around the region. The program helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles travelled by encouraging people to walk, bike, or take transit. These projects support use of public transit and contribute to improved public health. Making improvements to the community and creating great places are key objectives of the program. Program Requirements Capital projects can be proposed in SGOAs, which meet certain housing and employment density targets and transit service levels. Planning projects such as specific plans can be proposed in any SGOA to support more compact, walkable, mixed-use communities. For More Information To see examples of completed projects and an interactive map of grant-funded projects that have been completed or are in progress, please visit KeepSanDiegoMoving.com/grants. For additional grant information visit sandag.org/grants. (Continued on reverse) 29

30 Smart Growth Incentive Program Scoring Criteria: Each grant proposal is evaluated by a panel comprised of SANDAG staff, members of nonapplicant jurisdictions, and/or academics with expertise in a related field. Projects are evaluated using the criteria below. Capital Grants Intensity of Planned Development in the Project's SGOA Existing and Entitled Land Development Around the Proposed Capital Project New Affordable Housing Development Transportation Characteristics Community Design Features Quality of Proposed Capital Improvement Project Project Readiness Cost Effectiveness Matching Funds Planned densities relative to Smart Growth Opportunity Area (SGOA) place type targets Expedited approval process Existing and entitled development density within ¼ mile radius of project site New and mix of uses within ¼ mile of project site Low to very low income affordable housing units Project proximity to transit and bike facilities and walkability Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies Urban design characteristics and community context Supports transportation choices: transit, biking, and walking Community enhancement and place-making Incorporates sustainability and universal design principles Completion of major milestones Evidence of local commitment Ratio of grant request to project score Additional funds or in-kind services to be used in addition to grant award Regional Housing Needs Assessment SANDAG Board Policy No. 033 Planning Grants Relationship to Regional Transit Existing, programmed, or planned transit service Smart Growth Development Potential Opportunities to develop smart growth plans and projects in project area at or above target densities for SGOA place type Proposed Project Goals and Objectives Method to Accomplish Project Objectives Implementation Evidence of Local Commitment/ Community Support Matching Funds Project objectives support smart growth development Plan would result in development that increases transportation and housing choices Ability of planning project to accomplish stated objectives Scope of work facilitates objectives and includes public outreach Project readiness Project will result in specific implementation actions Demonstrated commitment to implement smart growth Community engagement Broad and meaningful community support Additional funds or in-kind services to be used in addition to grant award Regional Housing Needs Assessment SANDAG Board Policy No. 033 May

31 Planning Attachment 1b ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM FACT SHEET 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA (619) Fax (619) sandag.org SANDAGregion Overview The TransNet Active Transportation Grant Program (ATGP) provides funding to the region s 18 cities and the County of San Diego for projects that encourage the increased use of active modes of transportation, including biking and walking. Through a competitive process, the ATGP funds capital improvements, planning projects, and programs that educate, encourage, and raise awareness about biking and walking as viable travel alternatives for work, shopping, and other daily activities. The ATGP is funded by TransNet, the regional half-cent sales tax for transportation projects administered by SANDAG. The program was established as part of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, approved by San Diego County voters in An estimated $280 million is expected to be available for the ATGP over the 40-year lifetime of TransNet. Accomplishments Since the program was launched in 2009, three funding cycles have supported dozens of bike and pedestrian projects that improve travel choices for the region s residents. The AGTP has awarded nearly $25 million in TransNet funds throughout the San Diego region. A total of 70 projects have been awarded funding, including 36 capital grants and 34 planning, parking, and education grants. Projects promote bike and pedestrian connectivity to transit, schools, retail centers, parks, work, and other community gathering places. Various campaigns also educate residents about bike safety and right-of-way issues. Projects funded by the ATGP have included the installation of custom bike racks and lockers, mobility and transportation plans, as well as the construction of bike paths and pedestrian crosswalks. The program helps improve the overall health and quality of life of communities in the San Diego region. Program Objectives Projects funded though the ATGP serve as models for the region by featuring new and innovative active transportation solutions. By promoting active transportation as a means of improving health outcomes, the program increases community support for biking and walking as a viable transportation choice for daily trips. Overall, the program helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase levels of biking and walking in the region. Program Requirements Proposed projects must be consistent with SANDAG guidance provided in Riding to 2050: The San Diego Regional Bike Plan and Planning and Designing for Pedestrians: Model Guidelines for the San Diego Region. For More Information To see examples of completed projects and an interactive map of grant-funded projects that have been completed or are in progress, please visit KeepSanDiegoMoving.com/grants. For additional grant information visit sandag.org/grants (Continued on SANDAGregion 31

32 Active Transportation Grant Program Scoring Criteria: Each grant proposal is evaluated by a panel comprised of SANDAG staff, members of nonapplicant jurisdictions, and/or academics with expertise in a related field. Projects are evaluated using the criteria below. Capital Grants Project Connections and Safety Quality of Proposed Capital Improvement Project Supportive Policies and Programs Demand Analysis Project Readiness Cost Effectiveness Matching Funds Connections to regional/local bike and pedestrian networks Connections to transit Creates safety and access improvements Project impact and effectiveness Program objectives and innovation Project accompanied by supportive education and awareness programs Complete streets policy or community active transportation strategy in place Population, employment, and intersection densities Completion of major milestones, such as plans, environmental clearance, right-of-way acquisition Ratio of grant request to project score Additional funds or in-kind services to be used in addition to grant award Regional Housing Needs Assessment SANDAG Board Policy No. 033 Non-Capital Grants ATGP Program Objectives Project meets ATGP objectives Comprehensiveness Methodology Community Support Evaluation Innovation Demand Analysis Cost Effectiveness Matching Funds Proposed plan is extensive and thorough Project accompanies existing or proposed capital improvements Project meets demonstrated need and project goals Inclusive public process Broad and meaningful community support Effectiveness of final project Potential to serve as model for the region Population, employment and intersection densities Ratio of grant request to project score Additional funds or in-kind services to be used in addition to grant award Regional Housing Needs Assessment SANDAG Board Policy No. 033 May

33 D R A F T Attachment 2 REVIEW OF COMPLETED TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS, APRIL 2017 Since 2008, the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP) and Active Transportation Grant Program (AGTP) programs have funded more than 115 projects, and more than 70 have been completed. In anticipation of the Cycle 4 Call for Projects, SANDAG asked local jurisdiction grantees to review completed grant projects and report how well they are meeting the respective grant program objectives. Attached are tables of completed projects by jurisdiction that responded to the survey. SANDAG received completed surveys from local jurisdictions for more than 40 completed projects. Eighty-five to 100 percent of jurisdictions with completed SGIP projects reported that their projects met all of the objectives of the program, and 70 to 95 percent of jurisdictions with completed ATGP projects reported that their projects met all program objectives. The survey results will be presented to the Regional Planning and Transportation Committees to validate the program objectives and determine whether additional refinements should be made to the criteria for each program. Survey respondents included: CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY OF ESCONDIDO CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH CITY OF LA MESA CITY OF NATIONAL CITY CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF SAN DIEGO PLANNING CITY OF SANTEE CITY OF SOLANA BEACH CITY OF VISTA 33

34 DRAFT SURVEY RESULTS CITY OF CHULA VISTA Smart Growth Incentive Program Projects SGIP Program Objectives Better integrate transportation and land use Industrial Boulevard Bike Lane & Pedestrian Improvements Third Avenue Streetscape Implementatio n Project, Phase 1 and 2 Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan & EIR Healthy Communitie s Program Improve the public realm and encourage private projects that create great places Serve as model examples for smart growth in a variety of settings Support future housing Contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging travel means other than single occupant vehicle Comments The Healthy Communities Program included the adoption of the City s Complete Streets Policy as well as adoption of strategies that address any of the SGIP Objectives. Active Transportation Grant Program Projects ATGP Program Objectives Sidewalk Safety Program I Street Sidewalk Improvements Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Main Street Streetscape Master Plan Comments Create bikeway facilities and connectivity to a network of complete streets I Street sidewalk improvements did not include bikeway improvements in scope. REVIEW OF COMPLETED TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS, APRIL

35 ATGP Program Objectives Improve bike and pedestrian neighborhood connectivity to transit, schools, retail, places of work, parks, and support smart growth placemaking Improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians and create innovative solutions that prioritize access for bicyclists and pedestrians Increase community support for bicycling and walking and promote active transportation as a means of improving public health and reducing greenhouse gas emissions Ensure access to jobs, services, and recreation for populations with fewer transportation choices, and create equitable transportation opportunities for all users, regardless of age, ability, race, ethnicity, or income Sidewalk Safety Program I Street Sidewalk Improvements Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update Main Street Streetscape Master Plan Comments Main Street Streetscape Master Plan instrumental in linking the variety of land uses in the area. CV Bikeway Master Plan Update helped us become a designated Bicycle Friendly Community. Adjusting program objectives to encourage reduction of SOV trips. REVIEW OF COMPLETED TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS, APRIL

36 CITY OF ESCONDIDO Active Transportation Grant Program Projects ATGP Program Objectives Ash Street Undercrossing Downtown Escondido Bike Racks Escondido Creek Bike Path Lighting and Restriping West Bernardo Bike Path & Cantilever Comments Create bikeway facilities and connectivity to a network of complete streets Improve bike and pedestrian neighborhood connectivity to transit, schools, retail, places of work, parks, and support smart growth placemaking Improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians and create innovative solutions that prioritize access for bicyclists and pedestrians Increase community support for bicycling and walking and promote active transportation as a means of improving public health and reducing greenhouse gas emissions Ensure access to jobs, services, and recreation for populations with fewer transportation choices, and create equitable transportation opportunities for all users, regardless of age, ability, race, ethnicity, or income REVIEW OF COMPLETED TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS, APRIL

37 CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH Smart Growth Incentive Program Projects SGIP Program Objectives Better integrate transportation and land use Improve the public realm and encourage private projects that create great places Serve as model examples for smart growth in a variety of settings Support future housing Contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging travel means other than single occupant vehicle Palm Avenue Mixed- Use & Commercial Corridor Master Plan Comments SR 75 divides Imperial Beach. This streetscape project with its traffic-calming features reconnects the community with its businesses. This project features landscape islands to create an impressive streetscape design statement. This traffic-calming project of a state highway would encourage non-vehicular modes of transportation and enhance the patronage of local businesses. With this project s traffic-calming features, future housing will be pedestrian, bicycle, and transit oriented. This project features traffic-calming measures such as curb extensions, landscape islands, and bike routes to make safe travel modes by walking, bicycling, and using transit. Active Transportation Grant Program Projects ATGP Program Objectives Create bikeway facilities and connectivity to a network of complete streets Improve bike and pedestrian neighborhood connectivity to transit, schools, retail, places of work, parks, and support smart growth place-making Eco-Bikeway 7th & Seacoast Comments This enabled the City to complete the EcoRoute bicycle route in the City s General Plan which circumnavigates the City ecological features and connects back to the Bayshore Bikeway. Provides connection to the Bayshore Bikeway and the City s Eco Bike route Created a Class 2 bikeway from S.R. 75 to the beach and within close proximity to the 3 city schools Provided connectivity to the Old Palm Ave and Seacoast Dr commercial zone, which includes 933 and 943 bus routes REVIEW OF COMPLETED TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS, APRIL

38 ATGP Program Objectives Improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians and create innovative solutions that prioritize access for bicyclists and pedestrians Increase community support for bicycling and walking and promote active transportation as a means of improving public health and reducing greenhouse gas emissions Ensure access to jobs, services, and recreation for populations with fewer transportation choices, and create equitable transportation opportunities for all users, regardless of age, ability, race, ethnicity, or income Eco-Bikeway 7th & Seacoast Comments By creating a class 2 bikeway it took bicycles off the sidewalk and out of the vehicle traffic lanes. It also created improved pedestrian school students signalized crosswalks Implemented a road diet on Palm Ave and created wider sidewalks We believe there has been a good increase in pedestrian and bicycle traffic along this improved corridor Pre and post traffic surveys by SANDAG sowed increased use from bicycles We believe the improvements from this grant greatly improved transportation choices to the beach front and associated businesses for all persons Project supported underserved community. REVIEW OF COMPLETED TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS, APRIL

39 CITY OF LA MESA Smart Growth Incentive Program Projects SGIP Program Objectives Better integrate transportation and land use Improve the public realm and encourage private projects that create great places Serve as model examples for smart growth in a variety of settings Support future housing Contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging travel means other than single occupant vehicle Downtown Village Streetscape Improvement Project Comments Active Transportation Grant Program Projects ATGP Program Objectives La Mesa Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Master Plan La Mesa/El Cajon Boulevards Intersection Improvements & Pedestrian Infrastructure Spring Street Trolley Station Pedestrian Access Improvements Comments Create bikeway facilities and connectivity to a network of complete streets The Master Plan is the first step towards creating bikeway and sidewalk facilities in a logical and connected network of complete streets. Improve bike and pedestrian neighborhood connectivity to transit, schools, retail, places of work, parks, and support smart growth place-making The Master Plan identifies how to connect all of the neighborhoods and provides sidewalk continuity and encourages active lifestyles. Improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians and create innovative solutions that prioritize access for bicyclists and pedestrians The plan incorporates enforcement and education tools to educate motorists, pedestrians and cyclists to improve safety and awareness throughout the City. REVIEW OF COMPLETED TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS, APRIL

40 ATGP Program Objectives La Mesa Bicycle Facilities and Alternative Transportation Master Plan La Mesa/El Cajon Boulevards Intersection Improvements & Pedestrian Infrastructure Spring Street Trolley Station Pedestrian Access Improvements Comments Increase community support for bicycling and walking and promote active transportation as a means of improving public health and reducing greenhouse gas emissions Ensure access to jobs, services, and recreation for populations with fewer transportation choices, and create equitable transportation opportunities for all users, regardless of age, ability, race, ethnicity, or income The plan encourages active lifestyles and identifies programs to educate residents about the health benefits of cycling and walking. The plan provides a complete street framework that encourages all modes of transportation and reduces traffic congestion, increases alternative transportation options, connectivity and improves public health and safety. REVIEW OF COMPLETED TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS, APRIL

41 CITY OF NATIONAL CITY Smart Growth Incentive Program Projects SGIP Program Objectives Downtown- Westside Community Connections 8th Street Corridor Smart Growth Revitalization Comments Better integrate transportation and land use Both projects provided infrastructure improvements to Improve the public realm and encourage improve pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit, parks, private projects that create great places schools and Downtown National City businesses to better integrate transportation and land use, and provide alternative Serve as model examples for smart growth modes of travel to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Wider in a variety of settings sidewalks, new lighting, landscaping and utility Support future housing undergrounding have enhanced the streetscape through the City s urban core to encourage smart growth, mixed-use Contribute to the reduction of greenhouse development. gas emissions by encouraging travel means other than single occupant vehicle Active Transportation Grant Program Projects ATGP Program Objectives 4th Street Community Corridor D Avenue Corridor Sweetwater River Bike Path Gap Closure Design Plaza Bonita Road Bicycle Parking Enhancements National City Bicycle Master Plan Comments Create bikeway facilities and connectivity to a network of complete streets Improve bike and pedestrian neighborhood connectivity to transit, schools, retail, places of work, parks, and support smart growth place-making These projects constructed new bicycle facilities and pedestrian enhancements that greatly improved connectivity to schools, parks, businesses and transit, while providing alternative modes of travel to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Innovative treatments such as a traffic calming roundabout, green bike boxes at signalized intersections and reverse angle parking provide safety enhancements for bicyclists. Brochures, videos, presentations and REVIEW OF COMPLETED TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS, APRIL

42 ATGP Program Objectives Improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians and create innovative solutions that prioritize access for bicyclists and pedestrians Increase community support for bicycling and walking and promote active transportation as a means of improving public health and reducing greenhouse gas emissions Ensure access to jobs, services, and recreation for populations with fewer transportation choices, and create equitable transportation opportunities for all users, regardless of age, ability, race, ethnicity, or income 4th Street Community Corridor D Avenue Corridor Sweetwater River Bike Path Gap Closure Design Plaza Bonita Road Bicycle Parking Enhancements National City Bicycle Master Plan Comments community bike events were made available to the public to provide education and safety tips, obtain feedback, and promote walking and bicycling as alternative modes of transportation. REVIEW OF COMPLETED TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS, APRIL

43 CITY OF OCEANSIDE Active Transportation Grant Program Projects ATGP Program Objectives Create bikeway facilities and connectivity to a network of complete streets Improve bike and pedestrian neighborhood connectivity to transit, schools, retail, places of work, parks, and support smart growth place-making Improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians and create innovative solutions that prioritize access for bicyclists and pedestrians Oceanside Boulevard Transit Access & Beautification Mission Avenue Improvements 2 Year Education, Encouragement, and Awareness Project North Coast Transit Station Bike Station Comments Mission Ave Project: Road diet slowed traffic and installation of Sharrows provided safer environment for both bikes and peds. Oceanside Blvd: Project added pedestrian access to Sprinter Station, local retail and employment centers Mission Ave: Created Walkable Community, along corridor, increased retail along with street side cafes 2 Year Ed/En/Aw: Over 500 adults schooled in safe biking. Safe riding and walking assemblies held at elementary schools along with weekend bike rodeos. Over 14,000 attended assemblies/2000 attended rodeos. Bike Station: Over 20 active memberships providing bike commuters safe and convenient parking at the Transit Center. REVIEW OF COMPLETED TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS, APRIL

44 ATGP Program Objectives Oceanside Boulevard Transit Access & Beautification Mission Avenue Improvements 2 Year Education, Encouragement, and Awareness Project North Coast Transit Station Bike Station Comments Increase community support for bicycling and walking and promote active transportation as a means of improving public health and reducing greenhouse gas emissions 2 Yr Ed/En/Aw: 6 PSAs produced promoting biking shown on local cable TV Ensure access to jobs, services, and recreation for populations with fewer transportation choices, and create equitable transportation opportunities for all users, regardless of age, ability, race, ethnicity, or income Oceanside Blvd.: Project not only created needed walkway but created a pleasant environment that makes pedestrians feel comfortable walking to the transit line. Bike Station: Comments received from Bike Station members stated that secure and safe bike parking is most important in their consideration to use bikes in their commute. REVIEW OF COMPLETED TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS, APRIL

45 CITY OF SAN DIEGO PLANNING Smart Growth Incentive Program Projects SGIP Program Objectives Euclid & Market Village Master Plan Chollas Triangle Master Plan Imperial Avenue & Commercial Street Corridor Plan Mid-City SR 15 BRT Station Area Planning Study The Complete Boulevard Planning Study Comments Better integrate transportation and land use Improve the public realm and encourage private projects that create great places Serve as model examples for smart growth in a variety of settings Support future housing Contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging travel means other than single occupant vehicle Active Transportation Grant Program Projects ATGP Program Objectives Commercial Street Streetscape Project (via BRIDGE Housing) Chollas Creek to Bayshore Bikeway Multi-Use Path Design EIR & Feasibility Study for Bike Master Plan Update San Diego Pedestrian Master Plan Phase 4 Linda Vista Comprehensive Active Transportation Strategies Comments Create bikeway facilities and connectivity to a network of complete streets REVIEW OF COMPLETED TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS, APRIL

46 ATGP Program Objectives Improve bike and pedestrian neighborhood connectivity to transit, schools, retail, places of work, parks, and support smart growth place-making Improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians and create innovative solutions that prioritize access for bicyclists and pedestrians Increase community support for bicycling and walking and promote active transportation as a means of improving public health and reducing greenhouse gas emissions Ensure access to jobs, services, and recreation for populations with fewer transportation choices, and create equitable transportation opportunities for all users, regardless of age, ability, race, ethnicity, or income Commercial Street Streetscape Project (via BRIDGE Housing) Chollas Creek to Bayshore Bikeway Multi-Use Path Design EIR & Feasibility Study for Bike Master Plan Update San Diego Pedestrian Master Plan Phase 4 Linda Vista Comprehensive Active Transportation Strategies Comments REVIEW OF COMPLETED TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS, APRIL

47 CITY OF SANTEE Active Transportation Grant Program Projects ATGP Program Objectives Create bikeway facilities and connectivity to a network of complete streets Improve bike and pedestrian neighborhood connectivity to transit, schools, retail, places of work, parks, and support smart growth place-making Improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians and create innovative solutions that prioritize access for bicyclists and pedestrians Increase community support for bicycling and walking and promote active transportation as a means of improving public health and reducing greenhouse gas emissions Ensure access to jobs, services, and recreation for populations with fewer transportation choices, and create equitable transportation opportunities for all users, regardless of age, ability, race, ethnicity, or income Carlton Oaks Drive Class II Bike Lanes San Diego River Trail South Side of the San Diego River Town Center Parkway/ Olive Lane/ Prospect Avenue Bike Project Comments REVIEW OF COMPLETED TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS, APRIL

48 CITY OF SOLANA BEACH Active Transportation Grant Program Projects ATGP Program Objectives Create bikeway facilities and connectivity to a network of complete streets Improve bike and pedestrian neighborhood connectivity to transit, schools, retail, places of work, parks, and support smart growth placemaking Improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians and create innovative solutions that prioritize access for bicyclists and pedestrians Increase community support for bicycling and walking and promote active transportation as a means of improving public health and reducing greenhouse gas emissions Ensure access to jobs, services, and recreation for populations with fewer transportation choices, and create equitable transportation opportunities for all users, regardless of age, ability, race, ethnicity, or income Comprehensive Active Transportation Strategy Comments Future construction projects will most likely meet these objectives. Since the CATS study was a planning document, these items weren't specifically addressed. The CATS study identified missing links in both the bicycle and pedestrian corridors that would meet this objective once construction is of the facilities takes place. Future construction projects will most likely meet these objectives. Since the CATS study was a planning document, these items werenâ t specifically addressed. Solana Beach has a very active bicycle/pedestrian advocacy group. This group used the momentum developed during the CATS study to secure a GO by BIKE mini-grant from SANDAG to encourage Solana Beach residents to use their bikes as a healthy and environmentally friendly transportation alternative. The CATS study identifies projects that would meet this objective once constructed. REVIEW OF COMPLETED TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS, APRIL

49 CITY OF VISTA Smart Growth Incentive Program Projects SGIP Program Objectives Better integrate transportation and land use Improve the public realm and encourage private projects that create great places Serve as model examples for smart growth in a variety of settings Support future housing Contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging travel means other than single occupant vehicle Downtown Specific Plan Update Comments This project provided transportation studies and facility upgrades to identify and support changes in transportation demands related to changes in land use, from commercial/retail to mixed use. By identifying and providing transportation system upgrades in areas that were impacted by the land use changes, congestion was minimized, making the new mixed-use areas great places that now are attracting private projects. Vista s projects follow a model that was pioneered by other agencies in the region, but Vista s projects are as important to Vista now as the other projects were to their sponsor agencies in the past. The transportation system upgrades and land use changes are supporting mixed use and low-income housing in Vista s urban core near transit facilities. By supporting mixed-use and housing in the urban core near transit facilities, residents are able to work close to home or use transit to commute to job centers away from their homes. Active Transportation Grant Program Projects ATGP Program Objectives Boys and Girls Club Sidewalk Improvements Inland Rail Trail Phase IIIB Right-of-Way Engineering Safe Pedestrian Crossing at Longhorn Drive Bicycle Master Plan Comments Create bikeway facilities and connectivity to a network of complete streets The Inland Rail Trail project will provide the backbone of Vista s bikeway facilities, and the development of the Bicycle Master plan identified the connections between the Inland Rail Trail and Vista s other bikeways that will serve to provide a network of connections between the existing transportation corridors and the newer complete streets. REVIEW OF COMPLETED TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS, APRIL

50 ATGP Program Objectives Improve bike and pedestrian neighborhood connectivity to transit, schools, retail, places of work, parks, and support smart growth place-making Improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians and create innovative solutions that prioritize access for bicyclists and pedestrians Increase community support for bicycling and walking and promote active transportation as a means of improving public health and reducing greenhouse gas emissions Ensure access to jobs, services, and recreation for populations with fewer transportation choices, and create equitable transportation opportunities for all users, regardless of age, ability, race, ethnicity, or income Boys and Girls Club Sidewalk Improvements Inland Rail Trail Phase IIIB Right-of-Way Engineering Safe Pedestrian Crossing at Longhorn Drive Bicycle Master Plan Comments Vista s Active Transportation Program projects were focused on areas where demands for facilities to allow safe walking and bicycling was high. These facilities connect the neighborhoods where people live to the places they need to get to access transit, attend school, shop, work, and play. By providing dedicated facilities for bicycles and pedestrians, Vista s Active Transportation construction projects reduce conflicts with vehicular traffic and improve safety for all transportation facility users. All of Vista s Active Transportation Program projects are strongly supported by the communities they serve. Because Vista s projects identified and provided bicycling and walking facilities in areas where demands for those facilities is high, the public is using the facilities in large numbers and their increased use of active transportation option is not only healthy, but also reduces motorized vehicle trips and greenhouse gasses. Vista s Active Transportation Program projects help provide new transportation options for all users, especially those with limited motorized options who rely on walking and bicycling. REVIEW OF COMPLETED TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS, APRIL

51 Documentation and Photos: Downtown Specific Plan Update (Image of Cover and Map from the report attached. Entire report available for download upon request) Boys and Girls Club Sidewalk Improvements (Photo attached) Inland Rail Trail Phase IIIB Right-of-Way Engineering (SANDAG has many photos of the Inland Rail Trail. There is not a good graphic image of our Right of Way Engineering grant) Safe Pedestrian Crossing at Longhorn Drive (Photos attached) Bicycle Master Plan (Image of Cover and Map from the Plan attached. Entire Plan available for download upon request) REVIEW OF COMPLETED TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM PROJECTS, APRIL

52 Attachment 3 GHG Mitigation Measures 4A and 4E included in the Environmental Impact Report for San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan GHG-4A: Allocate Competitive Grant Funding to Projects that Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (SANDAG) SANDAG shall revise the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive and Active Transportation Grant Programs in the following ways to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions: Adopt new or revised grant criteria to give greater weight to a project s ability to directly reduce GHG emissions. Criteria include, but are not limited to, awarding points to projects that directly implement local climate action plans that reduce GHG emissions, or that directly implement parking strategies that reduce GHG emissions. Require locally adopted climate action plans (CAP) and complete streets policies as prerequisites to be eligible for grant funding. The locally adopted CAPs shall include measures to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and achieve further reductions beyond 2020 consistent with adopted regional or local GHG reduction targets. If a local jurisdiction does not have an adopted CAP or complete streets policy, SANDAG shall make available competitive funding through the grant programs for preparation of a CAP and/or complete streets policy. In addition to grant funding, SANDAG shall provide technical assistance to local jurisdictions for the preparation of CAPs as described in GHG-4E. These changes shall be adopted and effective for the fourth cycle of funding for both programs, which is expected to be released in December GHG-4E Assist in the Preparation of Climate Action Plans and Other Measures to Reduce GHG Emissions (SANDAG) SANDAG shall assist local governments in the preparation of CAPs, and other policies/measures to reduce GHG emissions. SANDAG shall assist local governments in identifying all feasible measures to reduce GHG emission to 1990 levels by 2020, and achieve further reductions beyond 2020 consistent with adopted regional or local GHG reduction targets. Specific forms of SANDAG assistance include, but are not limited to: Assisting its member agencies in obtaining funding for, directly funding, updating and implementing CAPs and other climate strategies through continued implementation of the SANDAG Energy Roadmap Program. Providing funding and energy planning assistance to local governments to implement projects that save energy and reduce energy-related GHG emissions. As described in GHG-4A, for local jurisdictions that do not have an adopted CAP, SANDAG shall make available competitive funding through the grant programs for preparation of a CAP. 52 April 2017

53 Attachment 4 Local Climate Planning Efforts Jurisdiction South Bay GHG Inventory (latest year) Adopted (year) Climate Action Plan Developing General Plan Relationship Chula Vista , 2008 Update underway Policy Doc National City Adopted w/ GPU Coronado 2005 Imperial Beach 2005 North Coast Oceanside 2013 (2017) Developing w/ GPU Carlsbad Adopted w/ GPU Encinitas Update underway (2017) Developing w/ GPU (tied to Housing Element) Solana Beach 2012 (2017) GPU MM Del Mar Policy Doc North County Inland Vista GPU MM San Marcos GPU MM Escondido Adopted w/ GPU Poway 2005 East County La Mesa 2010 (2017) GPU MM Lemon Grove 2013 (2017) Developing w/ GPU Santee 2013 (2017) Standalone (w/ EIR) El Cajon 2012 San Diego , 2015 GPU MM County of San Diego (unincorporated) (rescinded) Update underway GPU MM 53 Updated October 19, 2016

54 Attachment 5 Initial Results of Local Jurisdiction Complete Streets Policies (or Equivalent) Survey Last Updated: March 30, 2017 Jurisdiction Complete Streets Policy Adopted or Underway? Year Adopted Year of Anticipated Adoption Complete Streets Policy Equivalent? Carlsbad No N/A N/A The General Plan includes a new Mobility Element that includes an emphasis on Livable (Complete) Streets. Within the Mobility Element are Goals and Policies for Livable (Complete) Streets. Potentially Eligible to Apply for SANDAG Grants? Yes Chula Vista Yes 2015 N/A Yes Coronado No N/A N/A The Bicycle Master Plan establishes the types of bikeway facilities that should be implemented within the City and identifies opportunities to integrate with the existing regional bikeway system in the San Diego metropolitan area. The Active Transportation Plan will be an identification and prioritization of non-vehicular transportation issues and goals in Coronado and a set of strategies for implementing those goals. Undetermined Del Mar Yes N/A 2017/2018 Yes El Cajon No No No Encinitas Yes 2017 N/A The City Council adopted an Interim Complete Streets Policy on March 29, Additionally, the City is currently conducting a Coastal Mobility and Potential Yes Livability Study, which entails three focused studies (Rail Corridor Vision Study, Parking Study and Active Transportation Plan) that will support a future update to the City s Circulation Element and will provide opportunity to further address Complete Streets implementation. Escondido No N/A N/A The adopted GP of May 2012 has a specific section devoted to complete Yes streets analysis Imperial Beach Yes N/A 2018 Yes 54

55 Initial Results of Local Jurisdiction Complete Streets Policies (Or Equivalent) Survey Last Updated: March 30, 2017 Jurisdiction Complete Streets Policy Adopted or Underway? Year Adopted Year of Anticipated Adoption Complete Streets Policy Equivalent? La Mesa No N/A N/A The 2013 La Mesa General Plan Circulation Element acknowledges, on page CE-4, AB 1358 The California Complete Streets Act In addition, page CE-19 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan includes the following policy: Policy CE : Apply a Complete Streets approach to future transportation infrastructure projects. The 2013 General Plan Circulation Element includes discussion about TDM, transit (LRT and buses), and nonmotorized transportation (pedestrian infrastructure and bicycle infrastructure). The La Mesa Urban Trails Mobility Action Plan, adopted on February 23, 2016, discusses connecting sidewalks between high priority neighborhoods and key community destinations such as parks and recreation, hospitals and local retail. The purpose of the plan is to improve and provide options for non-motorized access to transit, parks, retail schools and other key destinations. The Plan includes identification of urban trail routes, guidelines for wayfinding signage, and recommended infrastructure signage. Lemon Grove Underway N/A 2017 In process of drafting a Complete Streets Element; Council action anticipated by the end of National City No N/A N/A 1) National City General Plan Update, adopted by City Council in June 2011, incorporates a complete streets network called Community Corridors and associated policies; 2) Bike Master Plan was adopted in February 2011; 3) ADA Transition Plan was adopted in October 2012; 4) Active Transportation Plan known as SMART Foundation (Safe Multi-modal Accessible Routes to transit, schools, parks, shops, services and recreation), was completed in February Potentially Eligible to Apply for SANDAG Grants? Yes Yes Yes Oceanside Yes 2012 N/A Yes Poway No N/A N/A City s General Plan does include a bikeway and trails plan. The City is currently conducting a Complete Streets Report and policy for Poway Road Corridor that will be adopted in Fall Undetermined 55

56 Jurisdiction Initial Results of Local Jurisdiction Complete Streets Policies (Or Equivalent) Survey Last Updated: March 30, 2017 Complete Streets Policy Adopted or Underway? Year Adopted Year of Anticipated Adoption Complete Streets Policy Equivalent? Potentially Eligible to Apply for SANDAG Grants? San Diego No N/A The City s General Plan Mobility Element as adopted in 2008 meets this Yes requirement. An overall goal of the Mobility Element is to further the attainment of a balanced, multi-modal transportation network that improves mobility and minimizes environmental and neighborhood impacts. The element includes a wide range of policies related to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit and congestion relief in a manner that strengthens the City of Villages land use vision. The Mobility Element identifies the proposed transportation network and strategies which have been designed to meet the future transportation needs generated by the land uses. In fact, the Mobility Element is cited as an example of a general plan that has multi-modal goals and policies, and the City s Street Design Manual is listed as an example of a multi-modal transportation implementation document in the Update to the General Plan Guidelines: Complete Streets and the Circulation Element, published by the State Office of Planning & Research (December 2010). San Marcos No Response Undetermined Santee Yes N/A 2017 Yes Solana Beach Yes 2014 N/A Yes Vista Yes 2012 N/A Yes County of San Diego Yes N/A 2017 Yes 56

57 CAPITAL GRANTS SCORING CRITERIA MATRIX CAPITAL GRANTS - SGIP Attachment 6a Notes: Blue highlighting = Potential to increase the category s weighting because that category reflects an application s ability to result in greenhouse gas reductions Points calculated by SANDAG are marked with an asterisk (*) in the Scoring Matrix NO. CATEGORY PTS CRITERIA POINTS POSSIBLE WEIGHT SCORE POSSIBLE % 1. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREA AROUND THE PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENT 26% A. Intensity of Planned Development in the Project s SGOA A1.* Planned Densities Relative to SGOA Place Type Thresholds A2. Expedited Approval Process For Metropolitan Center/Urban Centers/Town Centers: Up to % 3 Exceeds minimum residential requirements by 100 percent or more 2 Exceeds minimum residential requirements by percent 1 Exceeds minimum residential requirements by percent AND 3 Exceeds minimum employment requirements by 100 percent or more 2 Exceeds minimum employment requirements by percent 1 Exceeds minimum employment requirements by percent OR For Community Centers/Rural Village/Mixed-Use Transit Corridor: 6 Exceeds minimum residential requirements by 100 percent or more 4 Exceeds minimum residential requirements by percent 2 Exceeds minimum residential requirements by percent Specific plan, master EIR, or other mechanism allows for administrative approval of development projects. B. EXISTING and ENTITLED Land Development Around the Proposed Capital Project B1.* B2.* EXISTING Development Density within ¼ mile radius of proposed capital project site ENTITLED Development Density within ¼ mile radius of proposed capital project site % For Metropolitan Center/Urban Centers/Town Centers: Up to % 3 Exceeds minimum residential requirements by 100 percent or more 2 Exceeds minimum residential requirements by percent 1 Exceeds minimum residential requirements by percent AND 3 Exceeds minimum employment requirements by 100 percent or more 2 Exceeds minimum employment requirements by percent 1 Exceeds minimum employment requirements by percent OR For Community Centers/Rural Village/Mixed-Use Transit Corridor: 6 Exceeds minimum residential requirements by 100 percent or more 4 Exceeds minimum residential requirements by percent 2 Exceeds minimum residential requirements by percent For Metropolitan Center/Urban Centers/Town Centers: Up to % 3 Exceeds minimum residential requirements by 100 percent or more 2 Exceeds minimum residential requirements by percent 1 Exceeds minimum residential requirements by percent AND 3 Exceeds minimum employment requirements by 100 percent or more 2 Exceeds minimum employment requirements by percent 1 Exceeds minimum employment requirements by percent OR For Community Centers/Rural Village/Mixed-Use Transit Corridor: 6 Exceeds minimum residential requirements by 100 percent or more 4 Exceeds minimum residential requirements by percent 2 Exceeds minimum residential requirements by percent B3.* Mix of Uses (Single-family residential, retail, office, civic, parks, visitor within 1/4 mile of project site): 3 Multi-family residential + 6 other uses 2 Multi-family residential other uses 1 Multi-family residential other uses Up to % TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS FOR THIRD CYCLE OF FUNDING CAPITAL GRANTS 57

58 CAPITAL GRANTS NO. CATEGORY PTS CRITERIA POINTS POSSIBLE WEIGHT SCORE POSSIBLE % B4.* New Uses 2 New uses will be added to the project area % C. New Affordable Housing Development C1.* New Affordable Housing Percent of income-restricted affordable housing provided in proposed new development (within ¼ mile of project site): Up to % percent of units affordable percent of units affordable percent of units affordable C2.* Low to very lowincome affordable units percent of units in the development are restricted to low to very low-income residents % D. Transportation Characteristics (Within walking and biking distance of proposed capital project) D1.* Relation to Transit Scale of actual walking distance to existing or programmed transit station or transit stop: Up to % Regional or Corridor Transit Station: 12 Project abuts or is onsite 10 Project is within ¼ mile 8 Project is within ½ mile Transit Stop with High-Frequency Local Bus Service (15 minutes all day): 6 Project is within 1/4 mile D2.* Bicycle Facilities EXISTING or PLANNED bicycle lanes, bike boulevards, cycle tracks, or separated bike paths (Class I) (as identified in San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan or local bicycle master plan): Up to % 2 Direct connection to proposed project 1 Facilities within ¼ mile radius of project D3.* Walkability Intersection Density per square mile: Up to % or greater Less than 100 D4.* TDM Strategies 2 EXISTING TDM programs or policies in place Up to % 1 X PROPOSED TDM programs or policies, including implementation Strategy Existing or proposed parking strategies that reduce GHG emissions E. Community Design Features E1. Urban Design Characteristics and Community Context 6 Design Characteristics of existing community, AND/OR proposed design characteristics prescribed by documented guidance for the area or jurisdiction through design guidelines, form-based codes, or renderings of proposed development. Up to % 2. QUALITY OF PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 30% A. Support for Public Transit 5 How well does the project support use of regional public transit service in the project area? Up to % B. Providing Transportation Choices C. Community Enhancement 5 How well does the project support transportation choices that would reduce vehicle miles traveled, specifically walking and bicycling? 5 How well does the project enhance the public realm in the project area, to engender support for smart growth, through place making and creating regional destinations? Up to % Up to % TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS FOR THIRD CYCLE OF FUNDING CAPITAL GRANTS 58

59 CAPITAL GRANTS NO. CATEGORY PTS CRITERIA POINTS POSSIBLE WEIGHT SCORE POSSIBLE D. Addressing Project 5 How well does the project address identified special needs and Up to % Area Issues concerns of the community, such as improving access for elderly, disabled, low-mobility populations, or increasing public safety? How well does the project preserve and appropriately integrate cultural and natural resources in the project area? E. Sustainability 2 How well does the proposed project incorporate Green Streets / Up to % Low-Impact Development principles to address stormwater runoff, energy conservation, and landscaping and street trees? F. Universal Design 2 How well does the project incorporate Universal Design principles to ensure access for users of all ages and abilities? Up to % G. Climate Action X How well does the proposed project implement an adopted Climate Up to X X X X% Planning Action Plan? 3. PROJECT READINESS 11% A.* Major Milestones Completed 1 1 Environmental Clearance Right-of-way Acquisition Up to % 1 Final Design 1 Project Fully Funded (matching funds secured OR grant will fully fund project) B. Evidence of Local 2 Project is supported by the community, and is the result of a Up to % Commitment comprehensive, public participation process that significantly involved a diverse group of stakeholders. 4.* COST EFFECTIVENESS 5% Ratio of grant Project grant request, divided by score in Categories 1 and 2, Up to % request to project score ranked relative to each other. 5.* MATCHING FUNDS 3% Points for matching funds are awarded based on a scale with a matching fund percentage range of 0% to 50%. See point scale below. by dividing the total project cost as proposed in the application by the grant request. The project(s) with the largest quotient will receive ten points, and the project(s) with no matching funds will receive no points. Up to % 6.* REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT POLICY NO. 033 POINTS 25% Points are awarded per jurisdiction based upon the methodology adopted in Policy No Up to % TOTAL PROJECT SCORE % Matching Funds Point Scale: Maximum points = 10 points Match Fund Percentage Points 0% % % % % % % % % % 9 45% and above 10 % TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS FOR THIRD CYCLE OF FUNDING CAPITAL GRANTS 59

60 PLANNING GRANTS S CORING CRITERIA MATRIX PLANNING GRANTS - SGIP Attachment 6b Notes: Blue highlighting = Potential to increase the category s weighting because that category reflects an application s ability to result in greenhouse gas reductions Points calculated by SANDAG are marked with an asterisk (*) in the Scoring Matrix NO. CATEGORY/CRITERIA 1.* Relationship to Regional Transit Is the transit infrastructure and service within the SGOA existing, programmed, or planned? 2. Smart Growth Development Potential POINTS POSSIBLE WEIGHT SCORE POSSIBLE % % Evidence of opportunities to develop smart growth plans or projects at or above the densities for the area s smart growth place type in the proposed planning area. Evidence of existing or proposed parking strategies in the proposed planning area that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions % 3. Proposed Project Goals and Objectives How well do the proposed objectives support smart growth development in the project area? Would the plan result in development that increases transportation and housing choices? How well does the proposed project implement an adopted Climate Action Plan? % 4. Method to Accomplish Project Objectives How will the planning project accomplish stated objectives? How well does the Scope of Work facilitate meeting the objectives and include public outreach? % 5. Implementation Is the planning project ready to go? Will it result in specific implementation actions such as zoning changes or a master EIR? % 6. Evidence of Local Commitment/ Community Support How has the applicant demonstrated a commitment to implement smart growth (ordinances, policies, incentives)? How will the planning process engage the community? Is the proposed project supported by the community? % 7.* Matching Funds Points for matching funds are awarded based on a scale with a matching fund percentage range of 0% to 50%. See point scale below. by dividing the total project cost as proposed in the application by the grant request. The project(s) with the largest quotient will receive twenty points, and the project(s) with no matching funds will receive no points % 8.* Regional Housing Needs Assessment Policy No. 033 Points Points are awarded per jurisdiction based upon the methodology adopted in Policy No % TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE % TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS FOR THIRD CYCLE OF FUNDING PLANNING GRANTS 60

61 PLANNING GRANTS Matching Funds Point Scale: Maximum points = 20 points Match Fund Percentage Points 0% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % and above 20 TransNet SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS FOR THIRD CYCLE OF FUNDING PLANNING GRANTS 61

62 CAPITAL GRANTS SCORING CRITERIA MATRIX CAPITAL GRANTS - ATGP Attachment 6c Notes: Blue highlighting = Potential to increase the category s weighting because that category reflects an application s ability to result in greenhouse gas reductions Points calculated by SANDAG are marked with an asterisk (*) in the Scoring Matrix No. CATEGORY PTS CRITERIA 1. PROJECT CONNECTIONS AND SAFETY (24 % of total points) POINTS POSSIBLE % A.* Regional Bicycle Network 6 Project will directly connect to the Regional Bikeway Network Up to 8 4% or 8 Project will construct part of the Regional Bikeway Network B. Local Bicycle Network C. Existing Pedestrian D.* Network Connection to Transit 8 Closes a gap between existing bicycle facilities Up to 8 4% 8 Closes a gap in the existing pedestrian network Up to 8 4% 6 Bicycle improvement within 1 ½ miles of a regional transit station Up to 12 6% and/or E. Safety and Access Improvements 2 Pedestrian improvement within 1/4 mile of a local transit stop 4 Pedestrian improvement directly connects to a local transit stop 4 Pedestrian improvement within 1/2 mile of a regional transit station 6 Pedestrian improvement directly connects to a regional transit station Completes connection in existing network at location with documented safety hazard or accident history within the last seven years: 2 1 to 2 correctable crashes involving nonmotorized users 4 3 to 4 correctable crashes involving nonmotorized users 6 5 or more correctable crashes involving nonmotorized users and/or Up to 12 6% 6 Creates access or overcomes barriers in area where hazardous conditions prohibit safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians. 2. QUALITY OF PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (20.5% of total points) A. Project Impact and Effectiveness Up to 5 How well will the proposed traffic calming address the identified need in the project area? Are the proposed solutions appropriate for the situation? Up to % Up to 5 How well will the proposed pedestrian improvements address the identified need in the project area? Up to 5 How well will the proposed bicycle improvements address the identified need in the project area? B. Program Objectives How well does the project meet the ATGP program objectives? Up to 18 9% C. Innovation Up to 4 Is this project an FHWA or state experimentation effort? Up to 8 4% Does the project utilize innovative solutions or propose solutions that are new to Up to 4 the region and can potentially serve as a replicable model? TransNet ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS FOR THIRD CYCLE OF FUNDING CAPITAL GRANTS 62

63 CAPITAL GRANTS No. CATEGORY PTS CRITERIA POINTS POSSIBLE % 3. SUPPORTIVE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (3% of total points) A. Complementary Are capital improvements accompanied by supportive programs such as an Programs awareness campaign, education efforts, and/or increased enforcement? Up to 3 1.5% B. Supportive Plans and Policies Demonstrated complete streets policy in an approved plan or completed community active transportation strategy? How well does the project implement an adopted Climate Action Plan? Evidence of existing or proposed parking strategies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Up to 3 X X 1.5% 4.* DEMAND ANALYSIS (GIS) (7.5% of total points) Factors contributing to score: population and employment, population and employment densities, intersection density, vehicle ownership, and activity centers. Up to % 5.* PROJECT READINESS (10% of total points) Completion of Major Milestones 2 Neighborhood-level plan, corridor study, or community active transportation strategy. Up to 20 10% 4 Environmental Clearance 4 Right-of-way Acquisition 10 Final Design 6.* COST EFFECTIVENESS (5% of total points) Ratio of grant Project grant request, divided by score in Categories 1 through 5, ranked request to project relative to each other. score 7.* MATCHING FUNDS (5% of total points) Matching funds can be from any of the following sources: 1. Identified and approved capital funding from identified source 2. Approved match grant 3. In-kind services. Points for matching funds are awarded based on a scale with a matching fund percentage range of 0% to 50%. See point scale below. by dividing the total project cost as proposed in the application by the grant request. The project(s) with the largest quotient will receive ten points, and the project(s) with no matching funds will receive no points. Up to 10 5% Up to 10 5% 8.* REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT POLICY NO. 033 POINTS (25% of total points) Points are awarded per jurisdiction based upon the methodology adopted in Policy No % TOTAL PROJECT SCORE % TransNet ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS FOR THIRD CYCLE OF FUNDING CAPITAL GRANTS 63

64 CAPITAL GRANTS Matching Funds Point Scale: Maximum points = 10 points Match Fund Percentage Points 0% % % % % % % % % % 9 45% and above 10 TransNet ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS FOR THIRD CYCLE OF FUNDING CAPITAL GRANTS 64

65 NON-CAPITAL GRANTS S CORING CRITERIA MATRIX NON-CAPITAL GRANTS - ATGP Attachment 6d Notes: Blue highlighting = Potential to increase the category s weighting because that category reflects an application s ability to result in greenhouse gas reductions Points calculated by SANDAG are marked with an asterisk (*) in the Scoring Matrix No. CATEGORY CRITERIA 1 ATGP Program Objectives 2 Comprehensiveness 3 Methodology 4 Community Support 5 Evaluation 6 Innovation 7* Demand Analysis (GIS) POINTS POSSIBLE PLANNING EEA 1 PARKING ALL How well does the proposed project address ATGP objectives? PLANNING How comprehensive is the proposed plan? 15 n/a n/a EEA PROGRAMS BIKE PARKING ALL ALL ALL Does this effort accompany an existing or proposed capital improvement project? Does this effort accompany an existing or proposed capital improvement project? Does this effort accompany existing or proposed parking strategies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions? How well will the planning process or proposed effort meet the demonstrated need and project goals? How well will the planning process or proposed effort implement an adopted Climate Action Plan? n/a 15 n/a n/a n/a 10 X X X X X X PLANNING Does the planning project include an inclusive process? 15 n/a n/a EEA PROGRAMS BIKE PARKING EEA PROGRAMS BIKE PARKING ALL PLANNING BIKE PARKING 8* Cost Effectiveness Does the project involve broad segments of the community and does it have broad and meaningful community support? How will the project evaluate its effectiveness? Is this project new to the region and have the potential to serve as a replicable model for other cities in the region? Factors contributing to score: population and employment, population and employment densities, intersection density, vehicle ownership, and activity centers. n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 ALL Project grant request, divided by score in Categories 1 through 7, ranked relative to each other * Matching Funds Matching funds can be from any of the following sources: Identified and approved capital funding from identified source Approved match grant In-kind services ALL Points for matching funds are awarded based on a scale with a matching fund percentage range of 0% to 50%. See point scale below. by dividing the total project cost as proposed in the application by the grant request. The project(s) with the largest quotient will receive twenty points, and the project(s) with no matching funds will receive no points * Regional Housing Needs Assessment - Policy No. 033 Points ALL Points will be allocated according to methodology described in Policy No TOTAL POINTS (EEA) Education, Encouragement, and Awareness Programs TransNet ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS FOR THIRD CYCLE OF FUNDING NON-CAPITAL GRANTS 65

66 NON-CAPITAL GRANTS Matching Funds Point Scale: Maximum points = 20 points Match Fund Percentage Points 0% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % and above 20 TransNet ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS FOR THIRD CYCLE OF FUNDING NON-CAPITAL GRANTS 66

67 Attachment 7a Alignment of TOD Readiness Metrics with SGIP Quantitative and Qualitative Criteria TOD Readiness Metrics SGIP Capital SGIP Planning Category Metric Metric Name Aligning Metric Comment Aligning Metric Comment Location of Transit Network 1A 1B 1C 1D Type of Transit Labor Market Connectivity Catchment Area Connectivity Daily Ridership 1-D1. Relation to Transit; 2-A. Support for Public Transit 1-D2. Bike Facilities; 2-B. Providing Transportation Choices Walking and biking choices 1. Relationship to Regional Transit 2A Station Area Density 1-B1. Existing Development Density w/in 1/4 mile radius of proposed capital project Relative to placetype Local Market Readiness The Land Resource Government and Regulatory Support 2B Subarea Market Performance (Residential) 2C Subarea Market Performance (Office) 2D Development Activity 1-B2. Entitled Development w/in 1/4 mile radius of proposed capital project Relative to placetype 3A Developable Area 3B Pattern of Ownership 1-B3. Mix of Uses; 3C TOD Fabric 1-B4. New Uses; Results in development that Activity centers near multi-family 3. Proposed Project Goals 1-D3. Walkability; increases transportation and housing and intersection density and Objectives 1-E1. Urban Design Characteristics and housing choices Community Context 3D Major Site Constraints 4A TOD District Designation 1-D4. TDM Strategies; Commitment to implement smart 6. Local Commitment/ 2-B. Providing Transportation Choices; Walking and biking choices growth (ordinances, policies, Community Support 2-C. Community Enhancement incentives) 4B Zoning 1-E1. Urban Design Characteristics and Design guidelines, form-based Community Context codes, renderings 5. Implementation Results in zoning changes 4C Environmental Review Status 1-A2. Expedited Approval Process; 3-A. Major Milestones Completed Specific Plan or Master EIR 5. Implementation Results in Master EIR 4D Infrastructure and Facilities Funding Level of Benefit 5A Place Typology 1-A1. Planned Densities Relative to Placetype 5B Multiple High-Speed Services 1-D1. Relation to Transit 5C Planned Housing Density 1-A1. Planned Densities Relative to Placetype 5D Planned Employment Density 1-A1. Planned Densities Relative to Placetype 5E Developable Area 5F 5G Affordable Housing Equity 1-C1. New Affordable Housing; 1-C2. Low to Very Low-Income Units; 6. RHNA 2-D. Addressing Project Area Issues; 2-E. Sustainability; 2-F. Universal Design; 6. RHNA Low income and minority (LIM) 8. RHNA 8. RHNA 2. Smart Growth Development Potential 2. Smart Growth Development Potential Opportunities to produce densities at or above placetype requirements Opportunities to produce densities at or above placetype requirements 67

68 Attachment 7b Alignment of TOD Readiness Metrics with ATGP Quantitative and Qualitative Criteria TOD Readiness Metrics ATGP Capital ATGP Non-Capital Category Metric Metric Name Aligning Metric Comment Aligning Metric Comment Location of Transit Network Local Market Readiness 1A Type of Transit 1D. Connection to Transit 1B 1C 1D Labor Market Connectivity Daily Ridership 1A. Regional Bike Network; 1B. Local Bike Network; 1C. Existing Pedestrian Network; 1E. Safety and Access Improvements Bike and pedestrian connections to transit 2A Station Area Density 4. Demand Analysis Total pop/emp as well as densities 4. Demand Analysis 2B 2C 2D 3A 3B Catchment Area Connectivity Subarea Market Performance (Residential) Subarea Market Performance (Office) Development Activity Developable Area Pattern of Ownership Builds or connects bike and pedestrian networks vs existing; creates access or overcomes barriers 1. ATGP Program Objectives Total pop/emp as well as densities The Land Resource 3C TOD Fabric 4. Demand Analysis; 2A. Project Impact and Effectiveness Intersection density as well as activity centers; Effect on traffic calming, pedestrian improvements, bike improvements 4. Demand Analysis Intersection density as well as activity centers Government and Regulatory Support Level of Benefit 3D Major Site Constraints 4A TOD District Designation 3B. Supportive Plans and Policies Complete streets or active Broad and meaningful 4. Community Support transportation strategy community support 4B Zoning 4C Environmental Review Status 5. Project Readiness Environmental clearance 4D Infrastructure and Facilities Funding 5A Place Typology 5B Multiple High-Speed Services 1D. Connection to Transit 5C Planned Housing Density Existing only Existing only 5D Planned Employment Density Existing only Existing only 5E Developable Area 5F Affordable Housing 5G Equity 8. RHNA; 8. RHNA; Zero car HH as measure of Zero car HH as measure of equity 4. Demand Analysis 4. Demand Analysis equity 68

69 Attachment 8 Smart Growth Incentive Program Projects Grantee SGIP Project Description of Project Activities Grant Amount Project Cycle Status Chula Vista Industrial Boulevard Bike Lane & Pedestrian Improvements CAPITAL: Provides sidewalk and bicycle improvements near Harborside School and the Palomar Blue Line Trolley Station. $283,900 Cycle 1 Complete Chula Vista Third Avenue Streetscape Implementation Project CAPITAL: Implements streetscape enhancements, traffic calming, and improved pedestrian crossings in Chula Vista's Third Avenue Village. $2,000,000 Cycle 1 Complete Chula Vista Palomar Gateway District Specific Plan & EIR PLANNING: Plans for smart growth development and the EIR necessary to allow the implementation of transitoriented development around the Palomar Street Trolley Station. $399,632 Cycle 1 Complete Chula Vista Healthy Communities Program PLANNING: Develops a city-wide Healthy Communities Program to inform amendments to the General Plan and other key implementation documents. Also includes the preparation of design concepts for a Healthy Corridors Pilot Project. $100,000 Cycle 2 Complete Chula Vista Third Avenue Streetscape Implementation Project Phase 2 CAPITAL: Implements streetscape enhancements, traffic calming, and improved pedestrian crossings in Chula Vista's Third Avenue Village. $1,344,671 Cycle 2 Complete El Cajon El Cajon Transit Center Transit-Supportive Land Use and Mobility Plan PLANNING: Analyzes the study area surrounding the El Cajon Transit Center to plan a new vision for the area. $400,000 Cycle 3 Active Escondido Escondido Transit Center Active Transportation Connections CAPITAL: Fills gaps in the active transportation network immediately adjacent to the Escondido Transit Center (ETC). $1,270,000 Cycle 3 Active Imperial Beach Palm Avenue Mixed-Use & Commercial Corridor Master Plan PLANNING: Proposes the transformation of the Palm Ave/SR-75 corridor into a "Main Street" through public right-ofway improvements, traffic calming, and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit enhancements. Involves the preparation of preliminary designs and environmental documentation. $400,000 Cycle 2 Complete 69

70 Smart Growth Incentive Program Projects Grantee SGIP Project Description of Project Activities Grant Amount Project Cycle Status Imperial Beach Palm Avenue Mixed-Use and Commercial Corridor Master Plan PLANNING: Builds upon the 2009 Palm Avenue Master Plan and develops street improvement plans. $400,000 Cycle 3 Active La Mesa Downtown Village Streetscape Improvement Project CAPITAL: Enhances the La Mesa Downtown Village area by constructing a variety of streetscape improvements and a new public plaza. $2,000,000 Cycle 2 Complete La Mesa North Spring Street Smart Growth Corridor (Partial Funding) CAPITAL: Enhances public infrastructure, supports future private development and contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gases. $992,503 Cycle 3 Active Lemon Grove Lemon Grove Trolley Plaza CAPITAL: Improves pedestrian access from buses to the Trolley and integrates planned mixed-use development around the station area. $1,895,000 Cycle 1 Complete Lemon Grove Main Street Promenade Extension Planning Project PLANNING: Proposes multi-modal enhancements to the Main Street Promenade Extension corridor and creates opportunities for recreation and social gathering. Includes the preparation of preliminary designs and environmental documentation. $400,000 Cycle 2 Complete Lemon Grove Broadway Downtown Village Specific Plan (DVSP) Expansion PLANNING: Expands the Downtown Village Specific Plan while promoting mixed use development. $175,000 Cycle 3 Active Lemon Grove Lemon Grove Avenue Realignment Project CAPITAL: Realigns and reconstructs segments of Lemon Grove and North Avenue s trolley/railroad crossing. $805,000 Cycle 3 Active National City 8th Street Corridor Smart Growth Revitalization CAPITAL: Improves bicycle and pedestrian access from the 8th Street Trolley to the National City Town Center and enhances streetscape for public markets and other civic events along the corridor. $2,000,000 Cycle 1 Complete National City Downtown-Westside Community Connections CAPITAL: Enhances National City's right-of-way by providing streetscape improvements and incorporating placemaking features such as public art. $2,000,000 Cycle 2 Complete 70 3/1/2017

71 Smart Growth Incentive Program Projects Grantee SGIP Project Description of Project Activities Grant Amount Project Cycle Status National City Downtown Specific Plan Update PLANNING: Updates the original plan adopted in 2005 to incorporate new elements related to smart growth. $320,000 Cycle 3 Active National City Downtown-Westside Wayfinding and Community Gateways CAPITAL: Installs new wayfinding/gateway signs throughout the downtown and Westside communities. $825,000 Cycle 3 Active National City Westside Mobility Improvement Project CAPITAL: Enhances bicycling and pedestrian connections in the downtown and Westside Specific Plan areas and encourages smart growth development. $2,000,000 Cycle 3 Active Oceanside San Diego San Diego San Diego Seagaze Drive Downtown Mobility Project 4th & 5th Avenue/Nutmeg Pedestrian Crossing & Traffic Calming 4th Avenue/Quince Pedestrian Crossing & Traffic Calming Chollas Triangle Master Plan CAPITAL: Enhances the quality of Seagaze Drive through innovative smart growth supporting infrastructure. CAPITAL: Enhances pedestrian crossing with curb extensions and in-pavement flashing crosswalks. CAPITAL: Enhances pedestrian crossing with curb extensions and in-pavement flashing crosswalks. PLANNING: Provides a master plan with specific land use and mobility recommendations to encourage a mixed-use, transit-oriented village supported by park, open space, and creek enhancements. $357,497 Cycle 3 Active $577,000 Cycle 1 $231,000 Cycle 1 Project transferred July 2013 to SANDAG for consolidated implementation through the Regional Bicycle Plan Early Action Program. Project transferred July 2013 to SANDAG for consolidated implementation through the Regional Bicycle Plan Early Action Program. $275,000 Cycle 1 Complete San Diego Euclid & Market Village Master Plan PLANNING: Provides a focused mobility and land use master plan for the Orange Line Trolley station area at Market Street. $400,000 Cycle 1 Complete 71 3/1/2017

72 Smart Growth Incentive Program Projects Grantee SGIP Project Description of Project Activities Grant Amount Project Cycle Status San Diego Imperial Avenue & Commercial Street Corridor Plan PLANNING: Produces a new land use and mobility strategy for the corridor with urban design guidelines for streetscape and development projects. $400,000 Cycle 1 Complete San Diego Mid-City SR 15 BRT Station Area Planning Study PLANNING: Analyzes the development potential, proposes urban design guidelines, and creates a nonmotorized access plan for the SR 15 BRT station areas in Mid-City. $225,000 Cycle 1 Complete San Diego Park Boulevard/City College/San Diego High Pedestrian & Transit Access Improvements CAPITAL: Improves safety and walkability for pedestrians and improves transit access near the entrances for two urban schools: City College and San Diego High. $300,000 Cycle 1 Complete San Diego Park Boulevard/Essex Street Pedestrian Crossing & Traffic Calming CAPITAL: Improves safety, walkability, and transit access for the intersection of Park Boulevard and Essex Street by providing popouts and an in-pavement lighted crosswalk. $224,000 Cycle 1 Complete San Diego East Village Green/14th Street Promenade Master Plan PLANNING: Develops a master plan for East Village Green, Downtown San Diego's largest proposed open space, and the 14th Street Promenade, a proposed linear park, to provide a safe pedestrian and bicycle connection between City College and Barrio Logan. $300,000 Cycle 2 Complete San Diego Island Avenue Green Street Mobility Improvements CAPITAL: Constructs a series of widened sidewalks and corner bulb-outs along Island Avenue. $1,000,000 Cycle 2 Complete San Diego Morena Boulevard Station Area Study Phase 2 PLANNING: Supports mixed-use, transit-oriented development in the Mid-Coast Trolley Line station areas by preparing amendments to Linda Vista and Clairemont Mesa planning documents, processing rezones, and developing a programmatic environmental document. $400,000 Cycle 2 Active 72 3/1/2017

73 Smart Growth Incentive Program Projects Grantee SGIP Project Description of Project Activities Grant Amount Project Cycle Status San Diego The Complete Boulevard Planning Study PLANNING: Studies two primary areas along the Boulevard Rapid Bus line and proposes improvements that can contribute to the sustainability, economic vitality, and well-being of the surrounding communities. $171,617 Cycle 2 Complete San Diego Wayfinding Signage CAPITAL: Installs approximately 300 new wayfinding signs throughout Downtown San Diego to direct residents, visitors and workers to popular destinations. $335,329 Cycle 2 Complete San Diego 6 th Avenue Bridge Promenade Feasibility and Conceptual Design PLANNING: Conducts a feasibility and conceptual design study for an enhanced pedestrian connection. $200,000 Cycle 3 Active San Diego 14 th Street Pedestrian Promenade Demonstration Block CAPITAL: Designs and constructs the first block of the 14 th Street Promenade. $1,000,000 Cycle 3 Active San Diego Grantville Trolley Station/Alvarado Creek Enhancement PLANNING: Restores the Alvarado Creek with bridges and walking/cycling trails. $400,000 Cycle 3 Active San Diego Kearny Mesa Smart Growth Employment Area Plan (Partial Funding) PLANNING: Updates the land use and zoning strategy to expand the employment potential of the project area. $105,000 Cycle 3 Active San Diego Pacific Beach Greenways, Parks and Transit PLANNING: Identifies new public spaces, improves mobility, supports transit and fosters development in an existing smart growth area. $400,000 Cycle 3 Active San Diego San Ysidro Wayfinding Signs CAPITAL: Designs and installs wayfinding signs in the San Ysidro Port of Entry District. $350,000 Cycle 3 Active San Marcos Armorlite Complete Street Corridor CAPITAL: Constructs multi-modal improvements along Armorlite Drive, a Class I bike path on the North side of the street, and the extension of Class II or III bike facilities to the Mission Sports Park. $1,000,000 Cycle 2 Active Vista Vista Downtown Specific Plan Update PLANNING: Updates the Vista Downtown Specific Plan to support smart growth and multimodal connections. $148,383 Cycle 2 Complete 73 3/1/2017

74 Smart Growth Incentive Program Projects Grantee SGIP Project Description of Project Activities Grant Amount Project Cycle Status Vista* Paseo Santa Fe Phase II CAPITAL: Improves the infrastructure and street scape in Vista s Town Center while slowing traffic and improving multimodal mobility within the Town Center. $2,000,000 Cycle 3 Active The Vista Paseo Santa Fe project also received both Cycle 3 SGIP Funds and 2015 ATGP/ATP Exchange Funds. 74 3/1/2017

75 Active Transportation Grant Program Projects Grantee ATGP Project Description of Project Activities Grant Amount Project Cycle Status Carlsbad Carlsbad Installation of Audible Pedestrian Signals & Countdown Pedestrian Signals Active Village Campaign CAPITAL: Installs audible pedestrian signals & count-down pedestrian signals at twenty-one signalized intersections in the City of Carlsbad. EEA (Education Encouragement Awareness): Develops a multimedia campaign to promote the benefits of walking and biking in Carlsbad and Carlsbad Village, and aims to increase bicycling and walking for everyday trips, improve connectivity and create a pilot program that is scalable for other cities in the region. $150,660 Cycle 1 Complete $271,211 Cycle 2 Complete Carlsbad Bike the Village: 100 Racks BIKE PARKING: Builds upon the Carlsbad Village s Bike Rack Pilot Program and other related capital improvement projects in the vicinity and installs 80 additional custom racks and 6 bike corrals. $33,000 Cycle 2 Complete Carlsbad Carlsbad CATS PLANNING: Develops a comprehensive active transportation implementation strategy (CATS) for livable streets. The plan will be tested by implementing up to five pilot projects. $150,000 Cycle 2 Complete Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail - Reach 1 CAPITAL: Enhances safety and improves circulation and access for all modes of transportation between Carlsbad and Oceanside across a natural barrier and completes the northern sections of the Coastal Rail Trail into Oceanside. $800,000 Cycle 2 Complete Carlsbad* Carlsbad Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue Pedestrian Improvement Project CAPITAL: Enhances facilities for pedestrians, transit users and bicyclists. $270,000 $1,054,000 Cycle Funds Exchange Active Chula Vista Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan Update PLANNING: Updates the City of Chula Vista's existing bikeway network. $150,000 Cycle 1 Complete Chula Vista Sidewalk Safety Program - I Street Sidewalk Improvements CAPITAL: Installs ADA sidewalks and pedestrian ramps. $116,220 Cycle 1 Complete 75 3/1/2017

76 Active Transportation Grant Program Projects Grantee ATGP Project Description of Project Activities Grant Amount Project Cycle Status Chula Vista Main Street Streetscape Master Plan PLANNING: Provides a plan using Complete Street principles, and improves access to nearby recreational facilities, and promotes water conservation through improved landscaping features. $299,981 Cycle 2 Complete Chula Vista F Street Promenade Streetscape Master Plan PLANNING: Develops a Streetscape Master Plan and preliminary design drawings for a multi-use Promenade in Chula Vista. $491, Funds Exchange Active Chula Vista Walk & Bike Chula Vista Education Encouragement Awareness Campaign EEA (Education Encouragement Awareness): Builds a positive multimedia campaign, coordinate and promote new walking and biking infrastructure projects to increase awareness of access. $100,000 Cycle 3 Active Chula Vista Multi-Modal Pedestrian / Bikeway Master Plan PLANNING: Develops plans to promote and upgrade interconnected pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities within the City of Chula Vista. $250,000 Cycle 3 Active Coronado Coronado Del Mar Del Mar El Cajon Coronado Bicycle Master Plan Comprehensive Active Transportation Strategy Bike Parking Facilities Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities Along Camino Del Mar, Jimmy Durante and Via De La Valle Be Safe, El Cajon PLANNING: Plans for existing and future bicycle facilities within the City of Coronado. PLANNING: Develops a complete multimodal transportation network in Coronado. BIKE PARKING: Planning and implementation of bike parking facilities, including bike racks and lockers, throughout the city. CAPITAL: Provides street and sidewalk improvements to enhance pedestrian and bicycle connectivity around the Del Mar Fairgrounds. EEA (Education Encouragement Awareness): Initiates a multi-media, multi-lingual, multimodal and multi-faceted education and awareness campaign to encourage active transportation. $75,000 Cycle 1 Complete $90,000 Cycle 3 Active $25,000 Cycle 2 Complete $812, Funds Exchange Active $50,000 Cycle 3 Completed Escondido Ash Street Undercrossing CAPITAL: Constructs an undercrossing at Ash Street/SR 78 for the Escondido Creek Channel Bike Path. $457,357 Cycle 1 Complete 76 3/1/2017

77 Active Transportation Grant Program Projects Grantee ATGP Project Description of Project Activities Grant Amount Project Cycle Status Escondido Downtown Escondido Bike Racks BIKE PARKING: Installs bike lockers and decorative bike racks at Escondido City Hall and various locations throughout the downtown business and retail core. $14,378 Cycle 1 Complete Escondido Escondido Creek Bike Path Lighting and Restriping CAPITAL: Installs lighting and restriping for the existing Class I bike path along Escondido Creek Channel from Broadway to Ash Street. $157,500 Cycle 1 Complete Escondido West Bernardo Bike Path & Cantilever CAPITAL: Installs a Class I bike path and trail connection as the second phase of the Lake Hodges Bikeway Access Project. $1,425,000 Cycle 1 Complete Escondido Escondido Imperial Beach Imperial Beach La Mesa Escondido Creek Bikeway Missing Link Escondido Creek Trail Signalized Bike/Ped Crossing at El Norte Parkway Project Eco-Bikeway 7th & Seacoast Bikeway Village Bayshore Bikeway Access Enhancement Project La Mesa Bicycle Facilities Master Plan CAPITAL: Completes a half mile gap in the Escondido Creek Class I Bike Access Project. CAPITAL: Provides active transportation connectivity for the Escondido Creek Trail. CAPITAL: Provides construction of Class II and Class III bikeways, and expands the local pedestrian network along Palm Avenue. Provides an important connection from the Bayshore Bikeway to Seacoast Drive. CAPITAL: Enhances 13 th Street and improves access to the San Diego Regional Bayshore Bikeway. PLANNING: Plans for existing and future bicycle facilities within the City of La Mesa. $1,092, Funds Exchange Active $335,000 Cycle 3 Active $1,500,000 Cycle 2 Complete $1,800, Funds Exchange Active $75,000 Cycle 1 Complete La Mesa La Mesa/El Cajon Boulevards Intersection Improvements & Pedestrian Infrastructure CAPITAL: Reconfigures the intersection between La Mesa Boulevard and El Cajon Boulevard to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and incorporates additional streetscape enhancements. $361,000 Cycle 1 Complete 77 3/1/2017

78 Active Transportation Grant Program Projects Grantee ATGP Project Description of Project Activities Grant Amount Project Cycle Status La Mesa Spring Street Trolley Station Pedestrian Access Improvements CAPITAL: Provides pedestrian improvements to reduce conflicts between pedestrians entering and exiting the Spring Street Trolley Station and motor vehicles. $88,000 Cycle 1 Complete Lemon Grove ADA Transition Plan PLANNING: Develops plans for updating ADA compliance to existing facilities within City of Lemon Grove $50,000 Cycle 3 Active National City National City Bicycle Master Plan PLANNING: Plans for existing and future bicycle facilities within the City of National City. $35,000 Cycle 1 Complete National City Sweetwater River Bike Path Gap Closure Design - Plaza Bonita Road CAPITAL: Prepares the Environmental Document and Final Design Plans for a Class I bike path on Plaza Bonita Road. $130,000 Cycle 1 Complete National City 4th Street Community Corridor CAPITAL: Provides roughly 2.0 miles of Class II bicycle facilities, including bicycle detector loops and bicycle boxes. The project includes installation of high-visibility crosswalks, and traffic calming elements. $450,000 Cycle 2 Complete National City Bicycle Parking Enhancements BIKE PARKING: Installs bicycle racks throughout National City s bicycle network, providing cyclists with secure and convenient parking for end-of-trip storage. $50,000 Cycle 2 Complete National City D Avenue Corridor CAPITAL: Provides approximately 2.5 miles of Class II and III bicycle facilities, including bicycle detector loops and bicycle boxes at all signalized intersections. The project also includes installation of highvisibility crosswalks and traffic calming elements. $600,000 Cycle 2 Complete National City National City National City Division Street Road Diet Euclid Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Enhancements (Design Only) National City Bicycle Parking Enhancements CAPITAL: Constructs improvements to reconfigure Division Street and add approximately 1 mile of Class II buffered bike lanes. CAPITAL: Implements a road diet and installs high visibility crosswalks and a traffic signal at the 6 th Street intersection. BIKE PARKING: Installs bike racks throughout National City s bike network. $875,000 $425, Funds Exchange 2014 Funds Exchange Active Active $50,000 Cycle 3 Active 78 3/1/2017

79 Active Transportation Grant Program Projects Grantee ATGP Project Description of Project Activities Grant Amount Project Cycle Status National City Citywide Midblock Crossing Enhancements CAPITAL: Provides pedestrian-level lighting enhancements at 14 existing mid-block crossing locations throughout the City. $625,000 Cycle 3 Active Oceanside 2 Year Education, Encouragement, and Awareness Project EEA (Education Encouragement Awareness): Provides adult and student education for active transportation skills and concepts, bilingual Public Service Announcements, and bike route maps of Oceanside bike facilities. $180,808 Cycle 2 Complete Oceanside Mission Avenue Improvements CAPITAL: Provides a mix of bicycle, pedestrian, and roadway improvements including: increased sidewalk width with curb bulb-outs, streetscape improvements, and Class III bicycle improvements. $1,500,000 Cycle 2 Complete Oceanside North Coast Transit Station Bike Station BIKE PARKING: Provides a 200 sq. ft. bike station for 30 bicycles to provide secure, indoor bike parking, which bicyclists can access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. $100,000 Cycle 2 Complete Oceanside Oceanside Boulevard Transit Access & Beautification CAPITAL: Improves the sidewalk and landscaping along Oceanside Boulevard, facilitating pedestrian access to transit stations and destinations. $400,000 Cycle 2 Complete Oceanside Bike/Bus Safety Public Outreach Project EEA (Education Encouragement Awareness): Create and install public service messages on 15 buses to educate the public on the meaning of sharrows. $90,000 Cycle 3 Active San Diego Bicycle Detection at Signalized Intersections CAPITAL: Installs bicycle detection systems and pavement markings at 20 signalized locations in the City of San Diego. $73,500 Cycle 1 Complete San Diego Commercial Street Streetscape Project CAPITAL: Provides new sidewalks, curbs, trees, light, furniture, traffic calming devices, a gateway element, and public plazas around the perimeter of a proposed mixed use/mixed income development in Logan Heights. $893,000 Cycle 1 Complete San Diego EIR & Feasibility Study for Bike Master Plan Update PLANNING: Provides the EIR for the City of San Diego's Bicycle Master Plan Update. $150,000 Cycle 1 Complete 79 3/1/2017

80 Active Transportation Grant Program Projects Grantee ATGP Project Description of Project Activities Grant Amount Project Cycle Status San Diego Kelton Road Midblock Pedestrian Improvements Project CAPITAL: Installs bulbouts and inpavement lighted crosswalk on Kelton Road between Zircon Street and Luber Street, at the entrance of Johnson Elementary School. $248,400 Cycle 1 Complete San Diego Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Education Program EEA (Education Encouragement Awareness): Provides pedestrian and bicycle safety classes at elementary and middle schools citywide. $290,000 Cycle 1 Complete San Diego San Diego Pedestrian Master Plan Phase 4 PLANNING: Develops a pedestrian master plan for several communities in the City of San Diego, including San Ysidro, Midway, Old Town, Ocean Beach, College, Pacific Beach, and Kensington. $150,000 Cycle 1 Complete San Diego UC San Diego Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan PLANNING: Creates a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plan to link campus commuters to the City of San Diego's bicycle and pedestrian paths, local transit stops, and regional transit stations. $75,000 Cycle 1 Complete San Diego Chollas Creek to Bayshore Bikeway - Multi-Use Path Design CAPITAL: Provides environmental review and design for an envisioned Class I Multi-Use Path to connect between Southeastern San Diego, Barrio Logan, the San Diego Bay and Downtown San Diego for everyday non-motorized travel. $441,250 Cycle 2 Complete San Diego Downtown Complete Streets Mobility Plan PLANNING: Establishes a comprehensive Complete Streets approach for downtown San Diego. $300,000 Cycle 2 Complete San Diego Linda Vista CATS PLANNING: Develops a Comprehensive Active Transportation Strategy (CATS) for the Linda Vista Community Planning Area, providing direct and convenient connections to various destinations, while increasing bicyclist and pedestrian safety. $300,000 Cycle 2 Active San Diego Microwave Bicycle Detection (The Intersector) CAPITAL: Installs microwave-based bicycle detection devices at various intersections that distinguish between bicycles and vehicles and adjusts signal timing to better accommodate cyclists. $200,000 Cycle 2 Complete 80 3/1/2017

81 Active Transportation Grant Program Projects Grantee ATGP Project Description of Project Activities Grant Amount Project Cycle Status San Diego San Diego/ Caltrans San Diego River Bike Path & Mission Center Boulevard Improvement: Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon SR 15 Bike Path Final Design & Environmental Document CAPITAL: Improves pedestrian safety with the installation of the Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon using the Hawk Signal at the project intersection. CAPITAL: Provides the final design and environmental documentation for a Class I bikeway along the east side of SR 15 between Camino Del Rio South and Adams Avenue. $293,000 Cycle 2 Complete $350,000 Cycle 1 Complete San Marcos Barham Drive Urban Trail Improvement Project CAPITAL: Designs and constructs an urban trail on the south side of Barham Drive from Twin Oaks Valley Road to the CSUSM SPRINTER Station and provides pedestrian enhancements. $700,000 Cycle 1 Complete San Marcos Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan PLANNING: Identifies needed improvements to the existing network and new routes to provide bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. $80,000 Cycle 2 Complete San Marcos San Marcos Boulevard Complete Street Multi-Way Boulevard PLANNING: Project creates a multimodal transportation corridor and prepares a set of Complete Street concepts for the future redevelopment of San Marcos Boulevard. $124,000 Cycle 2 Complete Santee Carlton Oaks Drive Class II Bike Lanes CAPITAL: Modifies the existing striping on Carlton Oaks Drive to install new Class II bike lanes. $30,200 Cycle 1 Complete Santee San Diego River Trail - South Side of the San Diego River CAPITAL: Improves trail by installing a Class I bike path with decomposed granite shoulders for pedestrians. $281,750 Cycle 2 Complete Santee Town Center Parkway/ Olive Lane/ Prospect Avenue Bike Project CAPITAL: Improves safety for bicyclists by installing Class II bike lanes, narrowing vehicle lanes, adding bike lanes at intersections and adjusting video detection to detect bicycles. $134,000 Cycle 2 Complete Santee Citywide Bike Lanes Project CAPITAL: Constructs several bike lanes throughout the City of Santee. $156,000 Cycle 3 Active Santee Riverwalk Drive Crossing Project CAPITAL: Installs new concrete bulb-outs, pedestrian ramps, pedestrian warning signage, sharrows, parking lanes and enhanced area lighting. $216,900 Cycle 3 Active 81 3/1/2017

82 Active Transportation Grant Program Projects Grantee ATGP Project Description of Project Activities Grant Amount Project Cycle Status Solana Beach Solana Beach Vista Comprehensive Active Transportation Strategy (CATS) Stevens/Valley Avenue Corridor- Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project Boys & Girls Club Sidewalk Improvements PLANNING: Comprehensive update of the bicycle master plan, and consideration of pedestrian facilities and traffic calming needs, especially around schools, transit and commercial neighborhoods. CAPITAL: Enhances bike lanes, crosswalks and sidewalks to improve the use of the roadway. CAPITAL: Builds new sidewalk and a pedestrian crossing to the Vista Boys and Girls Club and Vista Academy of the Performing Arts. $136,000 Cycle 2 Complete $500,000 Cycle 3 Active $146,844 Cycle 1 Complete Vista Inland Rail Trail Phase IIIB Engineering Rightof-Way CAPITAL: Provides the right-of-way engineering for a multi-use facility along the SPRINTER line. $500,000 Cycle 1 Project transferred April 2013 to SANDAG for implementation through the Regional Bicycle Plan Early Action Program. Vista Safe Pedestrian Crossing at Longhorn Drive CAPITAL: Builds an enhanced pedestrian crossing in front of Rancho Buena Vista High School. $50,649 Cycle 1 Complete Vista Bicycle Master Plan PLANNING: Updates the City of Vista s 2002 Bicycle Master Plan. Provides connections to neighboring bikeways in adjacent communities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, San Marcos, and unincorporated parts of the County. $150,000 Cycle 2 Complete Vista* Paseo Santa Fe Phase II CAPITAL: Improves the infrastructure and street scape in Vista s Town Center while slowing traffic and improving multimodal mobility within the Town Center. $3,700, Funds Exchange Active County of San Diego County of San Diego Active Transportation Plan PLANNING: Integrates several existing plans and programs into a comprehensive Active Transportation Plan for the unincorporated communities of San Diego County. $500, Funds Exchange Active SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway Segments 7 & 8 CAPITAL: Constructs 1.78 miles of a Class I regional bike facility. $1,078,000 Cycle 1 Complete 82 3/1/2017

83 Active Transportation Grant Program Projects Grantee ATGP Project Description of Project Activities Grant Amount Project Cycle Status SANDAG Bicycle Locker Retrofits & Upgrades EEA (Education Encouragement Awareness): Installs electronic lockers at various station locations along the Blue Line Trolley. $50,000 Cycle 1 Complete SANDAG Bicycle Locker Wireless Communication EEA (Education Encouragement Awareness): Establishes a wireless connection at transit centers that have electronic bicycle lockers. $50,000 Cycle 1 Complete SANDAG Bicycle Map Printing & Distribution PLANNING: Funds the printing and distribution of the San Diego Regional Bike Map. $25,000 Cycle 1 Complete The Vista Paseo Santa Fe Project received both Cycle 3 SGIP Funds and 2015 ATGP/ATP Exchange Funds. The Carlsbad Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue Pedestrian Improvement Project received both Cycle 3 ATGP Funds and 2015 ATGP/ATP Exchange Funds. 83 3/1/2017

84 San Diego Association of Governments JOINT WORKSHOP OF THE REGIONAL PLANNING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP, CITIES/COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION WORKING GROUP April 24, 2017 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 5 Action Requested: INFORMATION SERIES 14 REGIONAL GROWTH FORECAST PROGRESS REPORT File Number Introduction SANDAG has made progress on the regional and subregional components of the Series 14 Regional Growth Forecast. This report provides an overview of the proposed new regional forecasting methods, background on an expert review panel held in March to review these new methods, the progress on the local jurisdiction feedback for the subregional forecast, as well as next steps and schedule updates. Discussion New Regionwide Forecasting Methods Starting in the 1970s, SANDAG periodically (every three to five years) prepares a joint economic, demographic, and land use forecast for the San Diego region. While the primary purpose of the forecast is for transportation planning, it is widely used by public and private users throughout region. Since the 1980s, SANDAG used a custom-built model known as Demographic and Economic Forecasting Model (DEFM) to produce forecasts for population and employment, as well as other items, all at the county-level. DEFM combined a cohort-component demographic model with an equilibrium-type econometric model. Overall, the DEFM model was complicated, although the outputs that it produced were always used in a straightforward way. Beginning in FY 2016, the Board of Directors allocated resources to move away from DEFM and create a new modeling framework for regional forecasting. The proposed new modeling framework is simpler, more agile, and supports the development of multiple scenarios driven by both demographics and economic factors. By developing multiple, nuanced scenarios, SANDAG will be able to produce regionwide forecasts based on numerous combinations of assumptions. This will allow SANDAG to produce multiple scenarios that more adequately represent the uncertainty associated with demographic and economic forecasting. The full documentation of the proposed forecasting approach is available in Attachment 1. This documentation was shared with the expert panel in March. Revisions are planned based on feedback from the expert panel, and those revisions are described in more detail in this report. 84

85 Series 14 Regionwide Forecast Expert Review Panel On March 9, 2017, SANDAG hosted a panel of expert economists and demographers to review the methods and data proposed for the next update of the regionwide forecast. A complete list of the panelists and their affiliation is included in Attachment 2. SANDAG provided the panel with documentation on the proposed methodological approach to the forecasting model a week in advance to maximize discussion and feedback at the meeting. During the meeting, SANDAG listened to the panel s recommendations to improve the proposed methodology. The discussion allowed the panelists to make comments on the proposed methodology as well as make suggestions for what to include and what to remove. After the meeting, SANDAG compiled notes from the meeting and asked the panel for additional feedback. The entire document with the finalized meeting notes is available as Attachment 3. The panelists felt that the method SANDAG developed was an efficient and effective way to model the regional population, housing, and jobs. Overall they felt that complexity is not something to aim for and that it is more effective to have an efficient model that is transparent. Panelists also felt that there are many current-day trends that SANDAG could explore, such as the ageing patterns of the population, cohort-specific spending habits, migration, and commuting patterns in Southern California as well as how to vary birth and death rates over time. Series 14 Regionwide Forecast Proposed Workplan After receiving feedback on the meeting notes, SANDAG created a draft work plan with short-term and long-term methodological changes as well as areas to research that will potentially inform additional changes for future forecasts. The current draft of this workplan is available as Attachment 4. The immediate items that SANDAG is working on, which will be incorporated into the Series 14 Regionwide Growth Forecast, are: 1. Use an independent employment forecast for the region and develop a migration scenario that will supply the population necessary to fulfill this target jobs forecast. 2. Account for in-commuting and in-migration from Southern California and Baja separately from the migration and commuting rates from the rest of the state and the U.S. 3. Use birth rates and death rates provided by the California Department of Finance as a baseline scenario. 4. Run a Monte Carlo simulation around the resulting scenarios of the forecast. Attachment 4 also discusses potential additional work elements, including research that SANDAG will perform to determine if certain suggestions can be incorporated into Series 14, or if the suggestions are longer-term ideas which could be incorporated into Series 15 or later forecasts. In the coming months SANDAG will engage selected members of the expert panel who are local to San Diego to review the finalized methodology with their suggestions, as well as review the resulting output for the regionwide forecast. 85

86 Jurisdictional Feedback on Series 14 Land Use Inputs Starting in December 2016, SANDAG has been meeting with planners from all the jurisdictions, asking each jurisdiction to review and provide feedback on opportunities for development within their area. The focus has primarily been on identifying sites (i.e. parcels) within each jurisdiction where additional housing capacity is available. SANDAG used the parcel-level capacity from the last forecast (Series 13), current zoning, and recent housing and commercial developments as the starting point for this review. A sample map from Carlsbad is included as Attachment 5. Currently staff is working to reconcile and incorporate the feedback provided from each jurisdiction into the forecast database for the entire region. Staff will follow up with each jurisdiction to provide them with an updated Series 14 capacity number and a PDF version of the outreach map showing the placement of the additional capacity if it is desired. These parcel-level capacity numbers will be the input dataset for the new subregional model, UrbanSim. SANDAG will provide an update on the subregional modeling methods in a future report. Staff hopes to finalize the capacity numbers for all the jurisdictions in the next month and have a subregional run of the forecast later this year. SANDAG has also reached out to other land use organizations (e.g., San Diego Unified Port District, public universities, sovereign tribal areas, and military) in the region to collect data on land use, employment, housing, and population. This information will also be finalized in the following weeks. Next Steps Staff will continue work on the regional and subregional forecast elements, continue to refine the input data and methodology, and provide updates to the Regional Planning Technical Working Group and the Regional Planning Committee. Attachments: 1. SANDAG Regional Growth Forecast Methodology 2. Series 14 Expert Review Panelists 3. Regionwide Forecast Expert Review Panel Notes 4. Series 14 Regional Growth Forecast Draft Work Plan 5. Series 14 Jurisdiction Outreach Example Capacity Map Key Staff Contact: Rachel Cortes, (619) , rachel.cortes@sandag.org 86

87 Attachment 1 SANDAG REGIONAL GROWTH FORECAST METHODOLOGY Introduction Starting in the 1970s, SANDAG periodically (every 3 to 5 years) prepares a joint economic, demographic, and land use forecast for the San Diego region. While the primary purpose of the forecast is for transportation planning, it is widely used by public and private users throughout region. For a number of years, SANDAG used a custom-built model known as DEFM (Demographic and Economic Forecasting Model) to produce forecasts for population and employment, as well as other items, all at the county-level. DEFM combined a cohort-component demographic model with an equilibrium-type econometric model. Overall, the DEFM model was complicated, although the outputs that it produced were always used in a straightforward way. Staff has proposed that SANDAG move away from DEFM and create a new modeling framework for regional forecasting. This new modeling framework is simpler, more agile, and supports the development of multiple scenarios. By developing multiple, nuanced scenarios we will be able to produce regionwide forecasts based on numerous combinations of assumptions. We hope that the ability to produce multiple scenarios will allow us to have a range of plausible forecasts that together will adequately express the uncertainty associated with demographic and economic forecasting. The San Diego region is special in both its population composition and its geographic location. We are locked in by Mexico on the south, the Pacific Ocean on the west, mountains on the east, and Camp Pendleton on the north, with very little developable land left for expansion. San Diego is home to several military bases and major universities, which means that we have large military and college populations. This proposed methodology is simpler yet it captures the complexity and specifics of the region s population and economy. Given the importance of the forecast, SANDAG has decided to convene a panel of demographic and economic experts to review our new methodology and data sources, in order to ensure that the model is appropriate for forecasting population, employment, and income for the San Diego region. As experts in your fields, we are asking for your input in three main areas: For the San Diego region Is the overall modeling framework that we are proposing appropriate for making demographic and economic projections? Are we using appropriate data sources to make those projections? And are we making reasonable assumptions about the way the population is likely to behave many decades into the future? 87

88 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Summary Our new approach to regional socioeconomic forecasting could be described as populationcentric. In the short run regional employment is constrained and controlled by the regional population. Obviously, in the long run, labor force can change above and beyond natural increase, through in-migration. While most economists view migration as a response to economic conditions, we take a different position: there is ample evidence showing that when it comes to large regions, migration is a reflection of demographic and social trends and patterns, largely disconnected from the business cycle. In that sense, population dynamics is responsible for employment in the long run as well. The fundamental tenet of our modeling approach is this: by asserting a certain set of San Diego-specific demographic parameters (fertility, survival, migration) and applying them in a cohort-component model we obtain a population projection. And by asserting a certain set of social and socioeconomic parameters (unemployment rate, labor force participation rate, average wage, etc. again, all specifically designed for San Diego), we are then able to translate the population into various socioeconomic metrics used in regional planning, such as jobs, income, and taxable retail sales. These demographic and socioeconomic parameters make up a vector of inputs; taken together, these inputs constitute a particular scenario. Scenarios can be developed in many different ways. As an initial step, we have used longterm historical averages and trends to formulate what can be termed a baseline scenario. While a baseline scenario is certainly plausible, other scenarios could be plausible as well. The baseline scenario does not represent our best guess about what will happen in the future, just what will happen if we project observed rates into the future. Another important consideration in our approach is that individual parameters are treated conceptually as being independent from each other, and therefore they can be developed independently. For example, individual parameters can be based on observed historical data, or borrowed from an external forecast, or produced by expert judgement, or selected to match a specific what if scenario. The fact that we do not explicitly tie these parameters together, which is typically done with a system of simultaneous equations, means that we recognize the region s ability to support different combinations of the parameter levels (in the equilibration framework, which we purposefully do not use, this would be called allowing for multiple equilibria ). What ultimately guarantees the reasonableness of the results derived from our proposed methodology, is that all the demographic and socioeconomic parameters themselves have fairly narrow bands of reasonable values, and are quite stable historically. Another way to express our modeling philosophy is to say that we create a population projection first, and then derive employment that this population would be able to support, given labor force participation and unemployment parameters specific to the San Diego region. What this achieves is an explicit structural balance between population and employment forecasts that is so often missing from regional forecasts. However, the fact that we start with population does not mean that we cannot run the process in the other 88

89 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, direction, from jobs to population. We can take any target employment forecast, and working off it, estimate the migration rates that would be required to create a population that would have enough workers to fill all the projected jobs (along with the specified unemployment and labor force participation parameters). In fact, the expansion of the workforce can be simulated not only by altering migration rates, but also by changing labor force participation as well as in-commuting rates (accounting for workers who commute from outside San Diego county). In that sense, it does not matter what we produce first, population or jobs, what matters is the mutual dependency: once one component is determined, the other is solved for through an identity. 89

90 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Demographic Model Flow Chart... 6 Figure 2: Applying Migration Rates... 8 Figure 3. Employment Model Flow Chart Figure 4. Applying Unemployment Rates Figure 5. Average Annual Wages by Sector Calculation Figure 6. Calculate Annual Wages for Workforce Figure 7. Income Flow Model Figure 8. Total Income Calculation Figure 9. Taxable Retail Sales and Income for San Diego County, 1989 to Figure 10. Military Personnel by Installation in San Diego county, Figure 11. Overall Unemployment Rate for San Diego County, 1990 to Figure 12. Sectoral Shares of Jobs in San Diego county, 2014 and Figure 13. Birth Rates for Women in San Diego County, Figure 14. Death Rates for Males by Race/Ethnicity and Age in San Diego County, Figure 15. Death Rates for Females by Race, Ethnicity and Age in San Diego County, Figure 16. Migration Rates by Age Group for San Diego County, Figure 17. Householder Rates for Females in San Diego County by Age and Race/Ethnicity, Figure 18. Householder Rates for Males in San Diego county by Age and Race/Ethnicity, Figure 19. Labor Force Participation Rates for Males in San Diego county by Age Group and Race/Ethnicity, Figure 20. Labor Force Participation Rates for Females in San Diego county by Age Group and Race/Ethnicity, Figure 21. Unemployment Rates for Males by Race, Ethnicity and Age Group in San Diego County, Figure 22. Unemployment Rates for Females by Race, Ethnicity and Age in San Diego County, Figure 23. Total Population in San Diego county by Forecast, 2000 to Figure 24. Age Composition of Migrants and Residents in San Diego County, Figure 25. Number of Annual In- and Out-Migrants in San Diego County, Figure 26. Net Migration in San Diego county by Forecast, 2000 to Figure 27. Births in San Diego county by Forecast, 2000 to Figure 28. Deaths in San Diego county by Forecast, 2000 to

91 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, THE REGIONWIDE FORECAST MODELING PROCESS The basic idea of our approach is to evolve population through time and to derive a set of economic variables based on that evolved population. The demographic, employment, and income models are all displayed in this document as flow charts, which show the progression of data from the base population to the outcome variables by the application of rates. The boxes in these flow charts are color-coded. Yellow boxes represent the rates that were calculated using publicly available data sources. More information on the data sources and the rate calculations are available in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. Boxes in red represent the application of the rates to the population counts. More information on the assumptions we made when applying these rates over time can be found in Appendix C. In most cases, the assumptions for the rate in the baseline scenario are based on historic trends and long-term averages. Boxes in blue represent population counts that are either entered into the model or derived from applying rates to a population within the model. Lastly, boxes in blue with a thick blue outline represents a model output. This document will first discuss the demographic model (Figure 1). Then in the second section we will discuss the employment model (Figure 3) and income model (Figure 7). 91

92 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, DEMOGRAPHIC MODEL The first component of the region-wide model is the demographic model. This demographic model is essentially a cohort-component model that takes a base population stratified by demographic characteristics, applies the pre-computed rates, which govern the demographic transitions, and thereby creates a projection of the future population of San Diego County. There are several steps in the data model, some occur simultaneously, so the easiest way to show the relationship between these steps and the progression from step-tostep is visually with the flow chart shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: Demographic Model Flow Chart 92

93 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Base Population A base population is the starting population that we use in the creation of the population forecast. For the purposes of this forecast, we start with 2010 decennial census data stratified by race, ethnicity, sex, and single-year age. However, in the future we intend to use SANDAG s own population estimates as the base population (stratified by the same characteristics). 1 The forecast horizon year is 2050, although there are no technical barriers that would preclude us from using a different forecast horizon. The selection of 2050 is stipulated by the needs of the regional transportation planning process. In most of the steps, the base population is segmented by population type, namely household population or group quarters (GQ) population. We separate these populations in several steps of the model, because in many cases we treat the GQ population differently from the household population due to the special considerations of this population. We will discuss the differences in the treatment of the GQ and the household population wherever applicable in the steps below. 2 Apply In- and Out-Migration Rates The first rates that we apply to the base population pertain to the in- and out-migration of the resident population of San Diego County. There are four migration rates that we apply to the base population domestic in-migration, domestic out-migration, foreign in-migration and foreign-out migration. 3 A snippet of the overall Demographic Flow Model that pertains to the application of migration rates is shown in Figure 2. 1 For more information on using SANDAG s yearly population estimates within the forecast process please see Appendix A. 2 For a more detailed definition of the GQ and household population, please see Appendix A. 3 Please see Appendices A, B, and C for more information on the data, rates and assumptions used to account for migration to and from the region. 93

94 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Figure 2: Applying Migration Rates In step 2 of the flow chart, we apply the domestic and foreign in-migration rates by singleyear of age cohort to the base household population. The rates are defined as the proportion of the cohort-specific population that is expected to move in to, or out of, San Diego county in a given year. Domestic migration refers to migration with origins or destinations within the United States, foreign migration refers to migration with origins or destinations outside of the United States. In the baseline scenario, the future domestic migration rates are kept constant at the current levels. An adjustment is made to the future foreign in-migration rate in the baseline scenario to ensure that the count of net international migrants stays constant over time (at the level reported in the U.S. Census Bureau s population estimates data for ). The in-migrating household population is computed; it will be added later to the next year s total population. We estimate the out-migrating household population by applying the domestic and foreign out-migration rates to the same base household population. Next, we subtract the out-migrating population from the base household population; this updates the base population with the population in 2015 that will not out-migrate in the next year. This is the population we transition through the model, applying other transformations discussed in later steps, in order to update the base household population from year-to-year. The in-migrating population that we obtain by applying the domestic and foreign inmigration rates is added to the total resident population in a later step after the 94

95 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, population is aged by one year. This means that the in-migrating population is not subjected to the birth and death rates that are applied in the next steps of the process. For all types of GQ populations, migration rates are not applied. This is done to maintain a stationary GQ population with the same demographic characteristics from year-to-year. In the case of the military population living in households, the military dependents (the nonmilitary persons who live in military housing with someone who is active duty military) are also not subjected to migration rates. We assume that the demographic characteristics of the military dependent population is also unchanged from year-to-year. 4 Apply Birth Rates After we determine a non-migrating population as shown in Figure 2, cohort-specific birth rates are applied to the females of childbearing ages in the newly updated base household population. Births rates are age/race/ethnicity specific; they were developed from the vital statistics data. Birth rates are not kept constant over time. In the baseline scenario, we alter the future birth rates in accordance with the expected trends in fertility. The births obtained in this step are then added as zero-year olds by race/ethnicity/sex to the total population after the household population is aged forward by one year in step six. We do not apply birth rates to the GQ population because births are less likely to occur to females in these types of living arrangements due to their age or living circumstances. Apply Death Rates Death rates are applied to the newly updated base household population (with the outmigrants removed). Death rates are age/race/ethnicity/sex specific; they were developed using the local vital statistics data and national life tables. Death rates are not kept constant over time. In the baseline scenario, we alter the future death rates in accordance with the expected trends in survival. The surviving population is calculated by subtracting the deaths that occur in the non-migrating base household population, from the non-migrating base household population. For all types of GQ populations, deaths are estimated and are tabulated separately. Death rates are applied to the GQ population to account for the deaths that occur in the county to GQ residents. However, these deaths do not affect the year-to-year population in the county, because the GQ population is replaced each year with a GQ population matching the characteristics of the base year s GQ population. Age Population One Year Once the birth and death rates are applied to the non-migrating population, the population is aged by one year. There are exceptions to this specifically the group quarters (GQ) population, which is not aged but stays the same from year-to-year. Special consideration is also made for active-duty military households. We apply the vital rates to this population; 4 See Appendix C for more information on assumptions about the GQ population in the county. 95

96 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, however, from year-to-year the counts and characteristics of this population are assumed to be static. Of course, vital events do occur to military households, but because military households are relocated frequently, we make sure that we do not carry forward the family members who are added by births or subtracted by deaths. 5 Apply Householder Rates Lastly, we apply householder rates to the updated base household population. These rates are derived from 2010 decennial census data; they represent cohort-specific probabilities that a person will head a household. 6 In the baseline scenario, the householder rates are kept constant for all future years. Special Rules for Group Quarters and Military The military GQ and college GQ populations remain unchanged from year-to-year. For institutionalized GQ and other GQ, the next year s populations are estimated using a cohort-specific ratio (the ratio of the GQ population to the household population in the 2010 decennial census data), which is applied to the next year s household population. This allows us to grow the institutionalized GQ and other GQ population throughout the forecast, in proportion to the household population. 5 See Appendix C for more information on the assumptions made to account for special populations. 6 See Appendix A for a discussion of the Summary File 1 (SF1) 2010 decennial census data. 96

97 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, EMPLOYMENT MODEL The second model that we use is the employment model. This model uses population data obtained from the demographic model, and a set of pre-computed rates to derive labor force, employment, jobs, and total wages for the region. Just like with population, jobs and income are projected via a sequence of interrelated steps. This section will discuss the base population, as well as the rates and the methods used, which are shown in Figure 3 to forecast employment and wages for San Diego County. Figure 3. Employment Model Flow Chart 97

98 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Base Population The demographic model is run first and the next year s population is used as an input to the employment model. Similar to the demographic model, the employment model operates with annual frequency. Apply Cohort-Specific Labor Force Participation Rates The first step of the employment model is to apply the cohort-specific labor force participation rates to the base household population. Labor force participation rates are derived from the ACS PUMS data; they represent a probability that a person of specific age/race/ethnicity/sex is employed or looking for work. 7 In the baseline scenario, these rates are kept constant over time at the current levels. The result is a cohort-specific estimate for the labor force in the region. The cohort-specific labor force is then aggregated to obtain the total labor force in San Diego County. Apply Unemployment Rates As you can see from Figure 4 below, the initial cohort-specific unemployment rates are applied to the cohort-specific labor force, while the overall unemployment rates are applied to the total regional labor force. Subsequently, the initial estimate for the cohort-specific unemployed is adjusted, in order to match the total unemployment derived from the overall (not cohort-specific) unemployment rate. Figure 4. Applying Unemployment Rates The overall unemployment rate for the region in the baseline scenario is set to 5.89% 8, which is the 20-year ( ) average. Obviously, the unemployment rate in the future will not stay constant year to year; however, our focus is on the long-range employment trends rather than on predictions for a specific year, therefore, an average is sufficient for our purposes. When aggregated, cohort-specific employment becomes total workforce. 7 See Appendix A for more information on the ACS PUMS data. 8 See Appendix B for more information on the calculation of this rate. 98

99 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Out-Commuting Rate The out-commuting rate is developed from the ACS data on County-to-County Journey to Work Commuting Flow Data. It measures the share of resident workers who are commuting out of San Diego county for their employment. In the baseline scenario, that rate is kept constant at the current level of 2.0%. Applying this rate to the total workforce gives us the total workforce that is not employed within the county, and the total workforce that is employed within the county. Jobs per Local Worker Rate Once we determine the workforce that is employed locally, we apply the jobs per local worker rate 10. There is an important difference between the count of workers and the count of jobs. Jobs are wage and salary positions filled by workers; some workers have more than one job, while some workers are self-employed. 11 This rate converts workforce employed locally into jobs, i.e., jobs that are filled by local residents. In the baseline scenario, that rate is kept constant at the current level of 90.1%. Regional Jobs Rate Next we apply the regional jobs rate, which allows us to estimate the number of jobs in the San Diego county that are filled by non-san Diego county residents. 12 In the baseline scenario, this rate is kept constant over time at the current level of 104.4% (that means that 4.2% of the jobs in San Diego county is filled by residents of other counties). Combined together, the wage and salary jobs taken by local and non-local residents constitute the total wage and salary jobs for San Diego County. Sectoral Shares Once the total wage and salary jobs are estimated, we allocate them into economic sectors using projections for jobs by sectoral shares. California Employment Development Department (CA EDD) develops county-specific projections for employment by sector (2- digit NAICS) for year We first convert these projections into shares, then interpolate 9 At the time of the calculation of the out-commuting rate, the latest data available was the dataset. Earlier, the Census Bureau has released a dataset based on ACS data. We will update these data, and any other datasets, when new data become available. 10 The rate is expressed as (J/E) *(LH/WH), where J is CA EDD estimate (2014) of wage and salary jobs (by place of work), E is CA EDD estimate (2014) of employed persons (by place of residence), LH is ACS ( ) estimate for employed residents (by place of residence; hence Live Here ), and WH is ACS ( ) estimate for workers employed (by place of work, hence Work Here ). All the listed estimates are for San Diego County. 11 See Appendix A for more information on wage and salary jobs. 12 The rate is expressed as WH/WHLH, where WHLH is ACS ( ) estimate for local residents who are also employed locally; hence Work Here Live Here. The estimate is for San Diego County. 13 See Appendix A for discussion of CA EDD NAICS2 data. 99

100 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, the shares from 2012 to 2022, and finally extrapolate the shares through 2050 using the rate of change from 2012 to After the future sectoral shares are applied, the result is total jobs by sector for the county. Average Annual Wages by Sector Next, we use baseline projections for future average annual wages by sector 14. These projections were developed by first estimating the average annual growth rate (1.15%) for real wages in San Diego (across all sectors) over 25-year period ( ), and then applying that growth rate to the sector-specific average wages from The application of the wage rates is depicted in Figure 5 below. The annual average wages are applied to the total jobs by sector. We aggregate the total annual wages by sector to derive the total annual wages from jobs located in the county. Figure 5. Average Annual Wages by Sector Calculation Figure 6. Calculate Annual Wages for Workforce 14 See Appendix A for discussion of BLS QCEW data. 100

101 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Total wages are then separated into those attributed to local residents and those attributed to in-commuters. Then an average wage (across all sectors) for local residents is calculated and applied to local residents working outside of San Diego County. Combining the wages for local residents employed locally with the wages from local residents employed elsewhere, gives us total wages for San Diego workforce. This section of the flow chart is found above, in Figure

102 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Income Model The final component of the region-wide forecast is the income model. This part of the modeling system takes data from the demographic and the employment model, applies a set of income-related rates and averages, calculates non-wage income, total income, and finally translates total income into taxable retail sales. The model is depicted in Figure 7 below. and shows the data transformations through the model. Figure 7. Income Flow Model 102

103 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Cohort-Specific and Income Type-Specific Rates For each cohort and for each type of non-wage income 15, we estimate two parameters: share of people in the cohort that is expected to receive a specific type of income and the average amount of that type of income. These parameters, derived from the PUMS data, are used as rates. In the baseline scenario, the rates are kept constant over time at their current levels (this means that the average type-specific non-wage income is assumed not to grow in real terms). These rates are then applied to the cohort population derived from the demographic model to calculate non-wage income. At the end, wage income and non-wage income are combined into total income (Figure 8). Figure 8. Total Income Calculation Taxable Retail Sales Rate The last step in the income model is derivation of the taxable retail sales. This is done by applying the taxable retail rate to the total income. Figure 9 below. shows the taxable retail sales and personal income from 1989 to The ratio of these two measure can be seen in the red lines. The ratio of taxable retail sales to income has been remarkably stable over time, averaging 53% from 1989 to Non-wage types of income include: self-employed; retirement; social security; supplementary security; public assistance; interest, dividends, and rental; other (e.g., VA payments, unemployment compensation, alimony). 103

104 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Figure 9. Taxable Retail Sales and Income for San Diego County, 1989 to , % 90% 100,000 80% in Millions (current dollars) 80,000 60,000 40,000 53% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20,000 20% 10% 0 0% Taxable Retail Sales (TRS) Ratio: Income to TRS Linear (Personal Income) Personal Income Linear (Taxable Retail Sales (TRS)) Linear (Ratio: Income to TRS) Source: California Board of Equalization, decennial census and American Community Survey data 104

105 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, APPENDIX A: DATA SOURCES The data in this model come from publicly available sources that are accessible online. This section will outline the data sources that were used to create the base population and calculate the rates that we apply to carry the population through time. We acknowledge that there may be alternative data sources that we are not currently using and we would like to hear about the strengths and weaknesses of the available data and how they can be best used in our forecast process. Base Population Data We are also in the process of updating our population estimates methods. The goal is to create an integrated process between the estimates and the forecast. In the future we intend to make the population estimates data the baseline for the forecast, by updating the base year of the forecast when we update the population estimates each year. Because this is still in progress, we used the 2010 decennial census data for San Diego county as the baseline, supplementing it with available data when possible. The base population is derived from data for San Diego county from Summary File 1of the 2010 decennial census released by the U.S. Census Bureau, and the single-year files from 2005 to 2015 of the American Community Survey s (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), also released by the U.S. Census Bureau. The data are stratified by five race/ethnic groups (non-hispanic white, non-hispanic black, non-hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander, non-hispanic Other and Hispanic, Any Race), sex, single-years of age (0 to 101 data are available for older ages, but for our purposes, we collapse those over 101 years old into the 101 category). We use non-hispanic versions of all the race/ethnicity groups and treat Hispanic as a separate group. Those in the Hispanic group may be of any race. Non-Hispanic Other includes those who responded their race group is other and those who chose more than one race on their questionnaire. The U.S. Census Bureau defines group quarter (GQ) facilities as a place where people live or stay, in a group living arrangement that is owned or managed by an entity or organization providing housing and/or services for the residents. This is not a typical household-type living arrangement. These services may include custodial or medical care as well as other types of assistance, and residency is commonly restricted to those receiving these services. People living in group quarters are usually not related to each other. 16 GQ data are available in the decennial census and the ACS by the following type detail: College GQ: students living in residence halls or dormitories. Military GQ: military personnel living in barracks, dormitories and military ships

106 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Correctional Facilities GQ: detention centers, prisons, jails, military disciplinary barracks, juvenile correction facilities, juvenile group homes, juvenile residential treatment centers. Other GQ: nursing or skilled nursing facilities, hospice facilities, military treatment centers, psychiatric hospitals or psychiatric units in hospitals, hospitals with patients with no usual home, residential schools for the disabled, emergency and transitional shelters, adult group homes, adult residential treatment centers, religious group quarters, worker living quarters and job corps centers. Birth Data Birth data were examined from a variety of sources, but ultimately the data that are used in calculating the rates and account for births between 2010 and the current year are from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) for San Diego county. Birth data are available from CDPH about two years after the date of occurrence on a yearly basis. The data are available for download at the county-level from their website and include detail on race/ethnicity and sex of the child from 1995 to current year (currently the latest year available is 2013). Data are available for females ages 15 to 55 and for the following race/ethnicity groups: Hispanic (any race), non-hispanic white, non-hispanic black, non-hispanic Asian, non- Hispanic American Indian or Alaskan Native, non-hispanic Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, non-hispanic Two or More Races, and non-hispanic other or unknown. Death Data Counts of deaths to residents of San Diego county is also available for download from the NCHS and CDPH. Both data sources contain detail on the age at death, sex, and race/ethnicity of the decedent. We downloaded data from the NCHS for 1999 to 2015 and from 1994 to 2013 from the CDPH. To calculate death rates we used NCHS life tables, which are available from 2001 to From 2001 to 2008 life tables were available by sex and the race groups white and black. In 2008 the NCHS started to create life tables by ethnicity and published non-hispanic white, non-hispanic black and Hispanic life tables by sex. We use these life tables to create race/ethnicity and sex specific death rates. Migration Data Single-year PUMS data from ACS are used to derive age-specific migration rates for San Diego County. Data are collected from the survey question asking where did you live last year? With this information we created in-migration rates for domestic and foreign migration as well as out-migration rates for domestic migration. Householder Data Householder data are based on Summary File 1 of the 2010 decennial census for San Diego county. We found that PUMS-based rates are different than the SF1 rates. In particular, they are lower at the younger ages. This resulted in a slight drop in the number of households in the first few years after The rates calculated from the SF1 table avoid this problem. 106

107 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Military Population Data Military population data come from the 2010 decennial census and the ACS PUMS data for San Diego county. Respondents are asked if they are active duty military. According to the ACS data, about 67,000 persons in San Diego county identify as active duty military. Along with the military population living in GQ, the total military population in the San Diego region is over 100,000 persons. Military data are also available from the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) in a yearly report called Demographics: Profile of the Military Community. It contains tables with demographic information about the military population in the United States. Information about military employees as well as their dependents by installation is available in the reference table: United States Installation Population by State. 17 Figure 10. Military Personnel by Installation in San Diego county, 2015 Base Service Branch Active Duty Military Personnel Dependents Total Installation Population Camp Pendleton Marine Corps 41,146 37,256 78,402 Coronado NAV AMPHIB Base Navy 5,218 6,967 12,185 Fleet ASW Training Center Pacific Navy 1,340 2,303 3,643 MCAS Miramar Marine Corps 8,217 8,238 16,455 Naval Medical Center San Diego Navy 3,769 4,757 8,526 North Island NAS Navy 7,223 9,689 16,912 San Diego MC Recruit Depot Marine Corps 6,276 2,415 8,691 San Diego NAVSTA Navy 27,387 30,777 58,164 San Diego NAVSUBBASE Navy 1,322 2,187 3,509 San Diego NSC Navy Total , , ,191 Source: 2015 Demographics, A Profile of the Military Community, DMDC. Available at: Figure 10 above shows the data available for San Diego county by military installation. These data are available every year on about a one-year lag. We may decide that incorporate these installation-specific data in the forecast as well after we do some testing Report.pdf 107

108 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, College/University Population Data Data on the population who attend of the local colleges or universities is also tabulated from decennial census data and the ACS based on the population who are living in college GQ in San Diego county. The college GQ population are those living in on-campus housing. We are also in contact with the local universities so that we can incorporate their future plans for additional housing into the forecast. Cohort-Specific Labor Force Participation Rates Cohort-specific labor force participation rates are calculated using 2005 to 2015 single-year ACS PUMS data on the employed, unemployed and population not in the labor force who reside in San Diego county. These rates are created by single-year-of-age cohort, race/ethnicity and sex. Overall Unemployment Rate The unemployment rate is calculated using historical data for San Diego county from CA Employment Development Department (CA EDD) for the 20-year period from 1996 to The CA EDD collects information on the employment status of all persons ages 16 and older. Figure 11 shows the overall unemployment rate in San Diego county from 1990 to The average of 5.9% comes from the 20-year average for San Diego county shown below in red. The jump from 2016 to 2017 is from transitioning the observed values in 2016 to the 20-year average rate in one year. 108

109 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Figure 11. Overall Unemployment Rate for San Diego County, 1990 to % 12% 11% 10% Percent Unemployed 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 5.9% Year Observed 20-year average Moving Average Cyclical Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Cohort-Specific Unemployment Rate The cohort-specific unemployment rate is developed from the single-year ACS PUMS data for 2005 to 2015 for San Diego county. It is developed from questions pertaining to the respondent s employment. Employment information is collected for respondents ages 16 and older. Out-Commuting Rate The out-commuting rate is also developed from ACS data the County-to-County Journey to Work Commuting Flow data from for San Diego county. 18 Jobs per Local Worker The jobs per local worker rate is calculated from 2014 California EDD data and the ACS County-to-County Journey to Work Commuting Flows dataset for for San Diego county

110 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Another important consideration for San Diego county is that fact that workers may also come from across the border from Mexico. It is estimated that about 50,000 cars and 20,000 pedestrians cross the border from Mexico in the United States. 19 By using the San Diegospecific rates for jobs and workers we hope to capture the employment held by this daily population. Regional Jobs Rate The regional jobs rate is also calculated using the ACS County-to-County Journey to Work Commuting Flows dataset for San Diego county. Average Annual Wages by Industry Sector Average annual wages data come from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), which is a count of employment and wages reported by employers 21 published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). These data cover 98% of all U.S. jobs and are available at the county, MSA, state and national-level by industry sector. We use the data specific to San Diego county. Average annual wages are computed by dividing total annual wages by annual average employment. These data are specific to the North American Industry Classification System two-digit (NAICS2) codes and measure average annual pay in constant dollars. Wage and Salary (W&S) jobs are jobs from which an individual receives an income and are compensated for their time. 22 Unless specified, in this document, when we refer to jobs we are referring to wage and salary jobs. Industry sectors are classified based on the NAICS, which is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments 23. With a few exceptions, most of the sectors are 2-digit NAICS. The exceptions are: public education reported separately from other state and local government employment; Department of Defense civilian employment is reported separately from other federal employment; accommodations and food services are reported separately (combined, they make up NAICS sector 72). The two-digit codes that we developed are considered broad industry sectors with the following categories: 1. Farming 2. Mining, and Logging 3. Utilities 4. Construction 5. Manufacturing 6. Wholesale Trade _Border_FactSheet_ pdf 20 We will continue to update the rates once updated data are available

111 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Retail Trade 8. Transportation and Warehousing 9. Information 10. Finance and Insurance 11. Real Estate, Rental and Leasing 12. Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 13. Management of Companies and Enterprises 14. Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services 15. Educational Services 16. Health Care and Social Assistance 17. Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 18. Accommodation 19. Food Services 20. Other Services 21. Federal Government Excluding Department of Defense 22. Department of Defense 23. State Government Education 24. State Government Excluding Education 25. Local Government Including Education 26. Local Government Excluding Education Figure 12 below shows the 26 industry sectors for San Diego county for 2014 and projected to As we can see, there are some small changes to the sector shares over this period, but overall the shares as they are observed in 2014 are maintained in Of course, as with any of the assumptions that we made for the baseline scenario described in this document, we are able to vary the sectoral shares over time to create alternate scenarios. 111

112 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Figure 12. Sectoral Shares of Jobs in San Diego county, 2014 and 2050 Share of All Jobs 12% 11% 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Health Care & Social Assistance Retail Trade Professional, Scientific & Tech Food Services Manufacturing Admin & Support & Waste Services Local Gov't Including Education Local Gov't Excluding Education Construction Other Services Wholesale Trade Finance & Insurance Sectoral Shares Data on the share of each of the 26 industry sector as they are classified in NAICS2 to the total jobs in the region are taken from publicly available data from the California Employment Development Department (EDD). The California EDD published 10-year projections on employment by industry by county for the state every two years 24. The most current projections by industry for San Diego county are for 2014 to Income-Model Rates The two measures that are generated to be included in the income model are all developed from ACS PUMS data from the single-year files from 2011 to 2013 for San Diego county. 25 The two measures that use cohort-and income type-specific rates and average incomes use the following eight age cohorts: 18 to 24, 25 to 34, 35 to 44, 45 to 54, 55 to 59, 60 to 64, 65 to 74, and 75 and older. The types of income that are included in the rate are: self-employed income, retirement income, social security income, supplemental security income, public assistance income, interest, rental and dividend income, and other income (e.g. Veteran s Assistance pay, unemployment compensation, alimony). These income types do not include wage and Educational Services State Government Education Accommodation Real Estate, Rental & Leasing SANDAG Industry Arts, Entertainment & Recreation Information Fed Gov't Excluding DoD Department of Defense Mgmt of Companies & Enterprises Transportation & Warehousing State Gov't Excluding Education Farm Utilities Mining and Logging We will continue to update these rates once new data are available. 112

113 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, salary income. Retirement, social security, and supplemental security incomes all apply to the population 65 years and older. Share of People with Self-Employed Income and Wage and Salary Income The share of people with self-employed and wage and salary income is also developed from the ACS PUMS single-year files from 2011to 2013 for San Diego county. Taxable Retail Sales Coefficient Data on taxable retail sales comes from the California Board of Equalization (BOE). 26 The BOE maintain historical data on taxable retail sales for counties and cities within California. We took the historical record of taxable retail sales for San Diego county and created an average value of the ratio of taxable retail sales to income

114 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, APPENDIX B: RATE CALCULATIONS We use publicly available survey and registration data to create cohort-specific rates and the base population. There sometimes may be demographic detail that is missing or suppressed due to small sample size, suppression by the publisher or unavailability of information. For all rates that are calculated using 2010 decennial census data or ACS PUMS data, if single-year of age detail is unavailable, we use available age groupings and interpolate to single-years of age. If race/ethnicity detail is not available, we typically apply the same rates to all race/ethnicities. All rates are calculated for San Diego county as a whole unless otherwise indicated. In the formulas below the ASRE cohort refers to the age/sex/race and ethnicity cohort; ARE refers to age/race and ethnicity cohort. Birth Rates Birth rates are calculated by five-year age cohort for women of childbearing ages (15 to 49) by race and ethnicity as: NNNNNNNNNNNN oooo llllllll bbbbbbbbhss AAAAAA cccchoooooo NNNNNNNNNNNN oooo wwoonnnnww AAAAAA cccchoooooo Interpolation is used to convert five-year age groups to single years of age. Death Rates Single-year of age death rates are calculated using National Center of Health Statistics (NCHS) life tables by converting the life table survival rate to death rates by subtracting the survival rate from 1. Death rates are stratified by race and ethnicity of the decedent. Householder Rates Using 2010 decennial census data, we obtain a count of the household population for the county and identify the persons who are household heads. Householder rates are calculated as the probability that a person in a certain demographic cohort (age, race/ethnicity and sex stratified) will be the head of a household. NNNNNNNNNNNN oooo HHooNNssNNhoooooo HHHHHHooss iiii SSSSSS DDDDDDDDDD CCCCCCCCCCCC AAAAAAAA CCCChoooooo CCCCCCCCCC oooo tthee HHooNNssNNhoooooo PPPPPPNNllHHbbllooww iiii SSSSSS DDDDDDDDDD CCCCCCCCCCCC AAAAAAAA cccchoooooo Householder rates are calculated based on 5-year age groups for residents 18 years and older, which are interpolated to create single-year rates. Domestic In-migration Domestic in-migration is calculated as: PPPPPPPPPPPPPP WWhoo LLLLLLLLLL OONNbbssllooNN oooo SSSSSS DDDDDDDDDD CCooNNwwbbCC (bbbbbb iiii tthee UU. SS. )iiii tthee PPPPPPPP YYNNHHNN SSSSSSSSSSSS yyyyyyyy oooo aaaaaa CCCChoooooo PPPPPPPPPPPPPP WWhoo LLLLLLLLLL iiii SSSSSS DDDDDDDDDD CCooNNwwbbCC iiii tthee PPPPPPPP YYNNHHNN SSSSSSSSSSSS yyyyyyyy oooo aaaaaa CCCChoooooo Domestic Out-migration Domestic out-migration is calculated as: 114

115 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, PPPPPPPPPPPP WWhoo LLllllNN OONNbbssllooNN oooo SSSSSS DDDDDDDDDD CCCCCCCCCCCC iiii tthee CCNNNNNNNNwwbb YYYYYYYY BBBBBB iiii SSSSSS DDDDDDDDDD CCCCCCCCCC iiii tthee PPPPPPPP YYYYYYYY SSSSSSSSSSSS yyyyyyyy oooo aaaaaa CCCChoooooo PPPPPPPPPPPPPP WWhoo LLllllNNoo iiii SSSSSS DDDDDDDDDD CCCCCCCCCCCC iiii tthee PPPPPPPP YYYYYYYY SSSSSSSSSSSS yyyyyyyy oooo aaaaaa CCCChoooooo Foreign In- and Out-migration Foreign in-migration is calculated as: PPNNNNssoowwss WWhoo LLllllNNoo OONNbbssllooNN tthee UUwwllbbNNoo SSbbHHbbNNss iiii tthee PPPPPPPP YYNNHHNN SSSSSSSSSSSS yyyyyyyy oooo aaaaaa CCCChoooooo PPPPPPPPPPPPPP WWhoo LLllllNNoo iiii SSSSSS DDDDDDDDDD CCCCCCCCCCCC iiii tthee PPPPPPPP YYNNHHNN SSSSSSSSSSSS yyyyyyyy oooo aaaaaa CCCChoooooo We use this rate of foreign in-migration with a zero rate for foreign out-migration. This is because there are no data the out-migration of foreign persons in the ACS or decennial census. We adjust in-migration rates so that total in-migrants are the same as or similar to estimates of foreign in-migration from the California Department of Finance (DOF) and from the population estimates data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Instead of estimating a foreign out-migration, we hold foreign out-migration as zero over the time period and use adjustments to bring foreign in-migration in line with these other data sources. This gives us a net foreign migration that is steady throughout the forecast period. Cohort-Specific Labor Force Participation Rates Cohort-specific labor force participation rates are calculated as: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE PPNNNNssoowwss AAAAAAAA cccchoooooo + UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU PPNNNNssoowwss AAAAAAAA cccchoooooo EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE PPNNNNssoowwss AAAAAAAA cccchoooott + UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU PPNNNNssoowwss AAAAAAAA cccchoooooo + PPPPPPPPPPPPPP NNoobb iiii tthee LLHHNNooNN FFFFFFFFFF AAAAAAAA cccchoooooo Overall Unemployment Rate We use 1995 to 2014 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to calculate the average overall unemployment rate for the region. Between 2010 and 2016 we use observed unemployment rates to calibrate the output we obtain from applying the overall unemployment rate. Starting with 2017 we would use the overall unemployment rate to adjust unemployment based on cohort-specific rates to reach this average rate over time. If we have to adjust the number of unemployed people higher or lower to reach this overall rate, we make sure that we are being consistent with available data. For example, if we need to grow unemployment from the cohort-specific rate to reach the overall unemployment, we would have more unemployed young people, or older people, than those in their prime working years. Using this adjustment factor allows us to stay consistent with observed data as well as take into account historical trends in unemployment for the region. Cohort-Specific Unemployment Rates The cohort specific unemployment rate is calculated as: EENNPPllooCCNNoo PPNNNNssoowwss AAAAAAAA cccchoooooo EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE PPPPNNssoowwss AAAAAAAA cccchoooooo + UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU PPNNNNssoowwss AAAAAAAA cccchoooooo Out-Commuting Rate The out-commuting rate measures the share of resident workers who commute out of San Diego county for their employment. It is calculated as: 115

116 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, WWWWWWWWeeeeee wwhoo wwoonnww oonnbbsslloooo SSSSSS DDDDDDDDDD CCCCCCCCCCCC aaaaaa llllllll llwwsslloonn SSSSSS DDDDDDDDDD CCCCCCCCCCCC SSSSSS DDDDDDDDDD CCCCCCCCCCCC wwoonnwwnnnnss wwhoo llllllll iiii SSSSSS DDDDDDDDDD CCooNNwwbbCC Regional Jobs Rate The regional jobs rate is calculated as: WWWWWWWWNNNNss wwhoo wwoonnww llwwsslloonn SSSSSS DDDDDDDDDD CCCCCCCCCCCC WWWWWWWWNNNNss wwhoo wwoonnww llwwsslloonn SSSSSS DDDDDDDDDD CCCCCCCCCCCC aaaaaa llllllll llwwsslloonn SSSSSS DDDDDDDDDD CCCCCCCCCCCC Jobs per Local Worker Rate The Jobs per Local Worker rates converts workers (measured at the person-level) to jobs by: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE oooo WW&SS JJJJJJJJ bbbb PPllHHFFNN oooo WWWWWWWW iiii SSSS CCCCCCCCCCCC EEssbbllNNHHbbNN oooo WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWhoo LLllllNN iiii SSSS CCCCCCCCCCCC EEssbbllNNHHbbNN oooo EENNPPllooCCNNoo PPNNNNssoowwss bbbb PPllHHFFNN oooo RRNNssllooNNwwFFNN iiii SSSS CCCCCCCCCCCC EEssbbllNNHHbbNN oooo WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWhoo WWWWWWWW iiii SSSS CCCCCCCCCCCC Cohort Specific and Income Type-Specific Rates NNNNNNNNNNNN oooo PPPPPPPPPPPP RRNNFFNNllllllwwDD IIwwFFooNNNN oonnoonn nnnnnn WW&SS jjoonnss AAAAAAAA CCCChoooooo bbbb IISSccccIIII TTTTTTTT NNNNNNNNNNNN oooo PPPPPPPPPPPP EENNPPllooCCNNoo iiii SSSSSS DDDDDDDDDD CCCCCCCCCCCC AAAAAAAA CCCChoooooo bbbb IISSccccIIII TTTTTTTT Share of People with Self-Employed Income and Wage and Salary Income The share of people with both self-employed and wage and salary income is calculated using questions about income on the ACS survey. We found that about 30% of persons who reported that they received self-employed income also received wage and salary income. Cohort-Specific and Income Type-Specific Average Income We calculated the average income for age, sex and race/ethnicity-specific cohorts by the seven non-wage and salary incomes that were listed in Appendix A for San Diego county. Taxable Retail Sales Coefficient The taxable retail sales coefficient is calculated from an average of historic data on the of the ratio of personal income to taxable retail sales for San Diego county. 116

117 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, APPENDIX C: FUTURE ASSUMPTIONS The rates described in Appendix B are used as the levers to effect population, housing and jobs in the region. If in-migration rates are high, then population will rise; if unemployment is low the number of employed people will rise, etc. This section of the document will describe the different assumptions that we made to project those rates into the future. These assumptions do not represent our best guess at what the future will look like, they just represent the extension of historically observed rates into the future. In most cases these assumptions give us a baseline forecast, basing what the future population will look like based on what it has looked like in the past. We have already started the process of running multiple scenarios of this forecast by changing the rates overtime. Based on the input of this panel as well as extensive testing of differing scenarios, we will replace these baseline rates with rates that may better reflect the future of the region. Birth Rates We decided to include women ages 15 to 49. because of the increasing age at birth that has been observed in the United States in recent years. Data are available up to age 54. but we decided to stop at age 49. because of the small number of observed births to women over age 50. We calculate rates using available data from 2010 to 2014 and calibrate the number of resulting births to the real counts for 2010 to The 2050 rate is calculated as: 0.9 tthee llhhbbnnssbb oonnssnnnnllnnoo bbbbbbbbh NNHHbbNNss AAAAAA CCCChoooooo so that the 2050 rate is 10% lower than the 2014 rates. We decide to use 10% to have a baseline that varies only slightly over time but still represents a plausible scenario for deaths in the future. Of course it possible to develop a more nuanced baseline scenario for not only the death rates, but any of the rates described in this text. Birth rates from 2015 to 2049 are linearly interpolated to reach this 2050 rate. We apply this logic to all birth rates across all age cohorts and to all race/ethnic groups uniformly. Birth data are available by eight race and ethnicity groups (see Appendix A). For the purposes of calculating birth rates we used the same births rates for those identifying as non-hispanic other as we used for non-hispanic whites. Because we do not have race of the infant, we use the race of the mother as a proxy. On birth certificates, the mother and the father are asked several demographic questions. Usually the data on the mother are more complete than the data on father. Data on the mother are always complete because it is imputed in cases where it is missing. This is a common practice in social science research

118 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, The births that result from applying these rates are assigned a sex ratio of 51% male and 49% female, to mirror the sex ratio of birth observed in the United States. Figure 13. Birth Rates for Women in San Diego County, 2014 Figure 13 shows the observed birth rates for women of child-bearing ages in San Diego county by race, ethnicity and age. The rates shown in the above graph represent the rates that we reduced by 10% for the year 2050 and interpolated to obtain race, ethnicity and sex specific rates between 2014 and Death Rates Death rates were calculated using NCHS life tables from 2011 by race/ethnicity and sex. Life tables are only available by three race/ethnic groups: non-hispanic white, non-hispanic black and Hispanic. Therefore, we used the sex-specific deaths rates for non-hispanic whites as the rates for non-hispanic Asians and non-hispanic other. 118

119 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, We used observed deaths in to calibrate deaths resulting from death rates to ensure that observed deaths match calculated deaths in the beginning years of the forecast. Our baseline forecast assumes that death rates in 2050 are calculated as: 0.9 tthee llhhbbnnssbb oonnssnnnnllnnoo oonnhhbbh NNHHbbNNss AAAAAAAA CCCChoooooo so that the 2050 death rates are 10% lower than the 2014 rates. We linearly interpolate between the latest available year of data and the 2050 rates. Similar to the birth data, we calibrate the rates between 2010 and 2014 with actual death counts. We have also tested scenarios where we assumed all groups had the same death rates as the lowest mortality and highest mortality race/ethnicity and sex groups. For these high and low scenarios, we interpolated the rates between 2014 and 2050 where current data was not available. However, these only represent preliminary attempts to forecast deaths into the future. Figure 14 and Figure 15 below. show the observed death rates for men and women in the county by race, ethnicity and age. The rates shown in the above graph represent the rates that we reduced by 10% for the year 2050 to account for higher survival rates. We interpolated to obtain race, ethnicity and sex specific rates between 2014 and

120 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Figure 14. Death Rates for Males by Race/Ethnicity and Age in San Diego County,

121 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Figure 15. Death Rates for Females by Race, Ethnicity and Age in San Diego County, 2014 Migration Rates Migration rates are calculated as four distinct rates and applied to the base household population in two steps first to obtain the out-migrating population and second to obtain the in-migrating population. Migration rates are calculated from data for specific ages (1, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25, 40, 50, 60, 70) and single-year of age rates are developed from interpolation. Due to the small sample sizes, race/ethnicity and sex detail is not available and all cohorts use the same rates. Below in Figure 16, we can see the migration rates by age that we calculated as described earlier in this document. As we can see, the domestic in-migration and domestic outmigration derived from using this methodology show similar in and out flows, resulting in a domestic net migration rate that is near zero at all ages. The baseline scenario for the Series 121

122 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Forecast will assume these rates for all race/ethnicity/sex cohorts throughout the time period. Figure 16. Migration Rates by Age Group for San Diego County, Domestic In-Migration We calculate the observed domestic in-migration between 2005 and For a baseline of domestic in-migration for the future, we hold this rate constant over the forecast period. We are assuming that the future rates of domestic in-migration will be similar to the observed historical rates. Domestic Out-Migration Domestic out-migration is also calculated based on observed counts between 2005 and We also hold domestic out-migration rates constant over the forecast period. This baseline rate assumes that historic rates of domestic out-migration will continue into the future. 122

123 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Foreign In-Migration We also calculated foreign in-migration based on historical data from 2005 to Once we arrived at a foreign in-migration rate, we set the future rates to 0.5% of this computed total. Foreign Out-Migration Unfortunately, there is a lack of survey or registration data measuring the out-migration of foreign persons from the United States. As such, we assume that foreign-out migration is zero for the duration of the forecast period. Householder Rates Block rates by five-year age intervals are calculated first, then single-year of age rates are calculated based on interpolation. We assumed that the age, sex and race/ethnicity-specific householder rates are constant over time. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show the resulting householder rates for males and females by age and race/ethnicity. These graphs represent the baseline scenarios that we will apply by age/race/ethnicity/sex specific to the population over age 18 in San Diego county throughout the forecast horizon. 123

124 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Figure 17. Householder Rates for Females in San Diego County by Age and Race/Ethnicity,

125 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Figure 18. Householder Rates for Males in San Diego county by Age and Race/Ethnicity, Special Populations For GQ populations, we maintain the ratio of the GQ population to the household population found in the base year of the data. Then, each cohort from year-to-year keeps that same ratio of GQ to household population. Although the ratio is maintained, this method does allow for growth within the GQ and household population. For example, if seniors live in GQ at a 10 to 1 ratio as compared to living in households, we can maintain this ratio while still allowing the senior population to grow based on population aging and a lack of outmigration of seniors. Average Annual Wages by Sector Using historical data on average annual pay (by sector), we developed projections of average annual wages over time. We assume that the differential in pay across the sectors 125

126 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, will persist; however, we assume that all sectors will grow at the same annual rate 1.15% per year. Cohort-Specific Labor Force Participation Rates We assume that the historical cohort-specific labor force participation rates will be maintained into the future. We apply the cohort-specific rates from 2010 out to Figure 19 and Figure 20 show the labor force participation rates for males and females by race and ethnicity and age group for San Diego County. These rate were developed using the methodology described earlier and represent the historical average that we will carry forward for the baseline scenario into the future. Figure 19. Labor Force Participation Rates for Males in San Diego county by Age Group and Race/Ethnicity,

127 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Figure 20. Labor Force Participation Rates for Females in San Diego county by Age Group and Race/Ethnicity, Cohort-Specific Unemployment Rate We assume that the historical cohort-specific unemployment rates will be maintained into the future. We apply the cohort-specific rates from 2010 out to Below in Figure 21 and Figure 22. are the cohort-specific unemployment rates for men and women in San Diego County. The data in these figures are based on the data available from the ACS PUMS from and represent the cohort-specific unemployment rates that we apply throughout the forecast period by cohort. 127

128 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Figure 21. Unemployment Rates for Males by Race, Ethnicity and Age Group in San Diego County,

129 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Figure 22. Unemployment Rates for Females by Race, Ethnicity and Age in San Diego County, Overall Unemployment Rate We use an overall unemployment rate of 5.91% that we calculated based on 20 years of historical data. We assert this rate over the entire forecast period, we do not attempt to change it over time. We have discussed the option of running scenarios with fluctuations to unemployment over time, but as of now we have made no assumption about the future value of the unemployment rate for San Diego county in the future. Regional Jobs Rate The regional jobs rate is calculated in order to adjust the number of jobs within San Diego County, to account for jobs that are filled by non-san Diego county residents. We assume that the rate of regional jobs will stay the same into the future. 129

130 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Cohort-Specific and Income Type-Specific Rates We assume that the observed percentage of people who receive a specific type of income will remain the same over the forecast period, so we apply the rate derived from the ACS PUMS data to all cohorts out to Share of People with Self-Employed Income and Wage and Salary Income We apply the share of people who earn both self-employed and wage and salary income to the total employed population as calculated from single-year ACS PUMS data from 2011 to We hold this share constant throughout the entire forecast period. Cohort-Specific and Income Type-Specific Average Income We hold average incomes constant and assume no change in the real dollar value over the forecast period. Retail Taxable Sales Coefficient We hold the ratio of taxable retail sales to personal income, found by averaging the historical rate, constant over the forecast period. 130

131 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, SUPPLEMENTAL FIGURES Figure 23. Total Population in San Diego county by Forecast, 2000 to 2050 Figure 23, uses SANDAG s Series 13 Forecast along with preliminary data from the Series 14 Forecast to compare our resulting total population to other available forecast for San Diego County. Using the baseline scenarios that we discuss earlier in this document, we arrive at a total population for the county that is just under 4 million residents. This is lower than all other forecasts, except for the California Department of Finance s forecast from

132 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Figure 24. Age Composition of Migrants and Residents in San Diego County, Figure 24 shows the breakdown of the population in San Diego county by age group, along with the number of in- and out-migrants by age group. As you can see, the migration mainly occurs in the young-adult age groups, from 18 to 34. At these age groups there is not only significant in-migration to the county, but also significant out-migration from the county. 132

133 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Figure 25. Number of Annual In- and Out-Migrants in San Diego County, Figure 25, displays data prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau that tracks the flow of people between counties in the United States. In the latest version of this dataset we can see that foreign in-migration only accounts for about 1% of the total population of the county and that about 4% of the population migrates into the county from other places in the United States. By comparison, about 5% come leave the county for other locations in the United States. This means that the total in-migration from domestic and foreign sources is about the same as the number of people who leave San Diego county each year for other places in the United States. 133

134 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Figure 26. Net Migration in San Diego county by Forecast, 2000 to 2050 Figure 26 shows the net migration that is assumed from two independent forecasts, along with SANDAG s Series 13 and preliminary Series 14 forecasts. Because we assume that birth and death rate are ultimately stable over the time period, it is net migration that ultimately determines the rate of population growth. In the baseline scenario of Series 14, we assume stable net migration over the time period. 134

135 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Figure 27. Births in San Diego county by Forecast, 2000 to 2050 Figure 27 shows resulting births in one other independent forecast from Moody Analytics, along with the last region-wide forecast and the preliminary forecast from SANDAG. Because births counts are a function of both the composition of the population base and the birth rates that are assumed throughout the forecast, there are noticeable differences between the resulting births from the three forecasts. 135

136 This document is a draft version prepared for the Regional Growth Forecast Expert Review Panel convened on March 9 th, Figure 28. Deaths in San Diego county by Forecast, 2000 to 2050 As you can see in Figure 28, the preliminary baseline scenario for Series 14 results in more deaths than the last region-wide forecast and forecasts from Moody s. This is a reflection of population ageing in the county. 136

137 Attachment 2 Series 14 Expert Review Panelists Erik Bruvold President, National University System Institute for Policy Research Ira Hirshman, Ph.D. Principal Economist, WSP Parsons Brinkerhoff John Husing, Ph.D Founder, Economics & Politics, Inc. Elizabeth Laderman, Ph.D. Research Economist, San Francisco Federal Reserve Stephen Levy Director and Senior Economist, Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy (CCSCE) Ryan Ratcliff, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Economics, University of San Diego Lynn Reaser, Ph.D. Chief Economist, Fermanian Business & Economic Institute Ethan Sharygin, Ph.D. Demographer, California Department of Finance Stanley Smith, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Economics and Research Demographer, University of Florida Jeff Tayman, Ph.D. Guest Lecturer, Department of Economics, UC San Diego John Weeks, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Geography, San Diego State University 137

138 Regionwide Forecast Expert Review Panel Notes Attachment 3 Regionwide Forecast Expert Review Panel Notes Population Driven Migration versus Jobs Driven Migration As proposed, the model consists of three sections: a demographic model, an employment model, and an income model. Currently, SANDAG runs the demographic model first, deriving the number of jobs in the region from the labor determined by population. The panel first discussed this part of the forecast, providing feedback on why this is or is not the appropriate method. Typically, MPO s in the state use the opposite flow first forecasting the number of jobs in the region and then forecasting the migrant population who will come into the region to fill those jobs. If you take away the ability for migration to be jobs driven, you lose the ability to discuss economic competitiveness in San Diego with the Board of Directors or others. What will happen if we ramp up spending on defense, etc.? Perhaps write up about how the model will differ if the model was reversed and present this to the board. This will allow you to share with the board both versions of the proposed model. Historically, people leave areas when the jobs leave those areas not the other way around. SANDAG needs the ability to account for the additional population that will come into the region if jobs are added or lost. Although migration is a demographic phenomenon, what drives it is typically economic to start a new job, to find a new job, to buy a home, etc. The model needs to account for the fact that Southern California is an ecosystem that has a good deal of movement between the counties and cities and between Baja and San Diego for employment. Southern Riverside is an escape valve for the lack of housing in San Diego County. SANDAG cannot discount the fact that if jobs are available in San Diego, people will make a less than desirable commute. The DOF s new (2016) population estimates have shown an increase in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, this should be accounted for in SANDAG s model. SANDAG should consider accounting for undocumented migration. Also, should a consideration be made for potential refugee populations in the region in the future? If the number of people coming into the region for work grows, the transportation network will grow to allow for it. Eventually the baby boomers will be gone and so will the NIMBYs therefore SANDAG cannot continue with present-day rates of in-migration throughout the forecast. This model has lumped all types of out-migration together, but there may be good reason to disaggregate it people who come here for work daily but live elsewhere versus the population who leave San Diego to live elsewhere each year. This breakdown of the population will affect taxable sales. March 24,

139 Regionwide Forecast Expert Review Panel Notes Look at the longer-term trends and distinguish between in- and out- migration flows this will give SANDAG more information on how to account for these trends in the calculation of the rates. Use the decennial census long forms to get migration by more characteristics and base the characteristics of the in-migrant on the characteristics of the people living in Southern California. SANDAG should consider using state-level PUMS data to get more demographic characteristics of in- and out-migrants in the region. Race and ethnicity needs to be accounted for in the rates used for in and out migration not just age of the migrant. If we ignore the housing bubble and bust, then migration rates over time are relatively constant. If we take the long view, maybe out-migration doesn t fluctuate that much. Nationally we see that migration rates are slowing, it started earlier than even the charts that were shown during the meeting would indicate. This may be because industries are not as concentrated as they once were and there is no real incentive to move between places to find jobs within the same industry there s not a big pay increase. SANDAG should consider using an econometric model for short-term (5 years) econometric forecast, then roll this into the longer-range forecast using the demographic rates. This takes what works from the proposed model structure. It is difficult to project things like jobs more than 5 to 10 years into the future using historical rates. Most econometric models are based on a demand approach, in the long term SANDAG should focus on a supply approach. Currently, migration in the region is driven by jobs but even more so by housing costs and availability. Is there a way to account for this in the model? Even though we have discussed using an econometric model, but by using an econometric model SANDAG would also have to make assumptions. The question is if the economic assumptions SANDAG must make are any better than the demographic assumptions it would have to make. The forecast horizon is the most important consideration the only thing we have confidence in longterm is the demographics of the population, not the future economy of the region. Using a populationdriven migration forecast may be the better option. When DEFM (SANDAG s previous regionwide forecasting model) was created, there was a strong connection between jobs and migration, but after the year 2000 this relationship falls apart. If you get the demographic assumptions right, you will have a good forecast. The proposed methodology is clear and easy to explain. If SANDAG wants it could use an independent job forecast along with the demographic model it is proposing. Keep the demographic modeling approach, but make it (in some way) a function of economic variables, this would retain the current framework but gets at the changes some panelists feel the model needs. March 24,

140 Regionwide Forecast Expert Review Panel Notes Both scenarios are testable SANDAG should look at an employment driven versus a population driven forecast. SANDAG could do this each year and see how it translates into changes over the forecast horizon. How to Vary Vital Events Over Time The methodology documentation outlined the baseline scenarios of births and deaths used in preliminary model runs. The panel discussed the assumptions made for these baseline rates as well as possible other sources for birth and death data and assumptions to incorporate into the model. SANDAG needs to provide reasoning behind each birth and death rate scenarios that are used in model runs, perhaps look to other data sources to see how birth rates and death rates are used in projections. For example, SANDAG could use the California Department of Finance or U.S. Census Bureau s birth and death rates from their population projections instead of taking time to develop birth and death scenarios on its own. For birth and death rates SANDAG should try several scenarios and compare the outcomes. It is important to do research about births and deaths in the region and base the future assumptions on this research. The California Department of Finance uses San Diego-specific mortality and fertility rates. For fertility rates DOF has determined the level of education is a better predictor of behavior than the race/ethnicity of the mother. To do this SANDAG would need to project level of education this isn t something we do currently. SANDAG should consider using a Brass logit model to lower death rates by XX%, use this to explore different scenarios. SANDAG should consider the availability of San Diego county-specific or California-specific life tables. SANDAG should be sure to incorporate the current trends in adult mortality that are being observed in the United States increases to male and female mortality due to drug use see if this is also happening in San Diego County. SANDAG should look at a longer time series of birth data to get an idea of the convergence of birth rates by the mother s race. There is also a trend towards an older age at first birth. By looking at a longer time series SANDAG will get a better idea of how to develop scenarios as well as help to defend the scenarios that it develops. Housing Units and Household Formation The proposed methodology documentation does not discuss the way housing units will be forecasted. Housing units by type are determined at the jurisdiction-level using SANDAG s housing unit data and information from local jurisdictions. March 24,

141 Regionwide Forecast Expert Review Panel Notes Board of Directors typically want to have discussions around how different demographic phenomenon will affect the region s population kids living with their parents longer, nativity s effect on living arrangements, etc. For this reason, SANDAG cannot lock in 2010 headship rates SANDAG must vary those rates over time. If SANDAG wanted to consult outside experts it could enlist Dowell Myers of USC and the California Housing and Community Development agency. SANDAG should bring housing unit forecasting back to the region-level. Income and Industry Sectors The proposed model uses EDD industry projections to the year 2022 and then carries these sectoral shares forward over time. This section has notes on the panel s thoughts about using these data in the model as well as scenarios SANDAG can look into to vary employment over the forecast horizon. Median income is a better indicator of taxable sales than average income, but medians are not available from EDD. Consider looking for a source that can give you medians. EDD data and BLS data are out of date is there a better source? Do some research to see which is better predictor of taxable sales the median income or the average income. The proposed model takes projections by sector from the EDD to 2022 and then extends these projections to Is it a good idea to assume that the sectors will remain the same after 2022? It is a good idea to diversify the sectors. SANDAG may also want to estimate a model that assumes everyone is self-employed by 2050 in this situation a person is self-employed and offers their services to different employers. This may mitigate the effects of the hollowing out of the middle class. SANDAG should consider looking at occupation versus industry. You can get median incomes by occupation easier than by industry. However, there is not any reason to think that occupation projections are better than industry projections. SANDAG should consider using a shift-share analysis for the county. Will the model be able to accommodate the changing spending habits of an ageing population? As people age they have less income, and they may tend to spend more money on non-taxable sales. Younger cohorts know that they will live longer than previous generations maybe they will spend less money and save more. Look to the Consumer Expenditure Survey (or maybe Google?) to examine consumption by cohort to see how it could change over time. It is likely that you would want to bring it down over the horizon. SANDAG s model does not currently account for wealth and capital gains. March 24,

142 Regionwide Forecast Expert Review Panel Notes SANDAG s model needs to account for three specific things that will change the amount of money spent on taxable sales in the future: 1) e-commerce, 2) non-taxable sales, 3) declining gas sales as more electric cars are on the roads. Additional Comments This section is for comments about the proposed methodology that were not related to the above subsections. The proposed methodology discusses ranges of estimates. Does this mean a confidence interval, or a high, medium and low migration scenario? The panel does not recommend using an out of the box model, it is better to develop SANDAG s own model to be transparent. Several MPOs in the state have bought models like REMI and have spent a lot of time and effort interpreting the results. It would be better for SANDAG to develop separate tools one to forecast the population, housing and jobs and one to look at the what-if scenarios that you are interested in exploring. It s not plausible that one model can do everything SANDAG wants it to do. There is typically limited interest in looking at forecast output, people are typically more interested in the what-if scenarios; so, it would make sense to invest in a tool that did that well. SANDAG may want to buy something (a model) that would be a small cost but would be more complex and it may be able to answer all the questions we want it to answer. SANDAG may want to sacrifice some accuracy to get a tool that will work for many purposes. More complex models do not make better models complexity does not add accuracy. Consider researching studies that look at the complexity, and resulting accuracy, of forecasting or econometric models. Run a Monte Carlo simulation on the different scenarios to look at variation. March 24,

143 Attachment 4 Series 14 Regional Growth Forecast Draft Work Plan Short-term (Can be incorporated into Series 14) 1. Apply a shift-share method to an external jobs forecast for California and/or US to develop SANDAG s regional jobs forecast. 2. Use an external jobs forecast for the region and/or SANDAG s regional jobs forecast (from #1 above) as a target; develop a population migration scenario that supports the target jobs forecast. 3. Account for migration and commuting to/from Southern California counties and Baja. a. Use Department of Finance (DOF) estimates for Southern CA counties, develop our own estimates for Baja b. Consider using historical housing index for Southern California counties. c. Look at (Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamic) LEHD data to see if in-commuting is happening, and if so, from how far away. 4. Use DOF or Census Birth and Death rates. 5. Run a Monte Carlo simulation. Long-term (May be incorporated into Series 15 or later) 1. Develop a short-term econometric forecast (up to 3-5 years) which we roll into a long-term demographic forecast. 2. Develop a series of models that can do all the things we are asked to do. a. SANDAG will likely need 3 or 4 models a scenario planning model, an econometric simulation model (not Regional Economic Models Inc. (REMI), consider Eco Northwest), a taxable sales model, a short-term econometric model, etc. Research Projects (Possibly Series 14 or maybe in later forecasts) 1. Look at long-term in- and out-migration trends for San Diego county using decennial census long-form data by characteristics. 2. Look at metro areas similar to San Diego county to get a bigger pool of migrants from American Communities Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data, to disaggregate the migrant population by race, ethnicity, sex and age. 3. Create a scenario where the entire population is self-employed by 2050 research which data are available and what assumptions we would have to make. 4. There is currently no spending module in the forecast if we want to incorporate differential cohort spending into the model, we should research how spending varies by cohort and decide how to incorporate this into the model. a. Look at Consumer Expenditure Survey (or similar) to research how consumer spending varies by cohort or characteristics. This could help vary spending over time. 143

144 5. Use county-level life tables. 6. If jobs data are available by occupation, use them instead of industry. 7. Tabulate birth rates by level of education ask DOF if they get micro data from the state. 8. If higher rates of adult mortality are expected to persist, incorporate them into the forecast long-term. 144

145 Attachment 5 Series 14 Jurisdiction Outreach Example Capacity Map 145

146 Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP) and Active Transportation Grant Program (ATGP) Cycle 4 Call for Projects Joint Follow up Workshop among TWG, CTAC, and ATWG April 24, 2017 Agenda Item 1 Welcome and Introductions 2 1

147 Agenda Item 2 Public Comments 3 Agenda Item 3 Summary of the Joint Kick Off Workshop on April 6,

148 Agenda Item 4 TransNet SGIP and ATGP: Potential Recommended Changes for Cycle 4 Call for Projects 5 Summary from Kick Off Workshop Anticipated funding amounts: $27 million for SGIP, $3.6 million for ATGP Required changes from previous cycles: CAPs and CS policies required for eligibility Provide funding for CAPs and CS Policies for jurisdictions that don t have them Update evaluation criteria to give greater weight to GHG emission reductions, align with TOD metrics, and align with grant program objectives 6 3

149 Overview of Potential Changes Goals and program objectives Funding allocations and maximums Eligibility criteria Self certification process for locally adopted CAPs and CS Policies Funding for CAPs and CS Policies Evaluation criteria Greater emphasis on GHG reductions TOD alignment and completed grants 7 Goals and Program Objectives of Most Recent Cycle SGIP Goals Encourage comprehensive public infrastructure projects and planning activities that facilitate compact, mixed use development focused around public transit, and that aim to increase housing and transportation choices, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve public health. Fund projects that can serve as models around the region and attract private development. Create great places in the San Diego region. Objec tives Implement a comprehensive approach to influence land development by improving the public realm and encouraging private smart growth projects that, in combination, create great places. Serve as model examples for smart growth development in a variety of settings throughout the region. Contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and vehicle miles travelled, and improve public health by encouraging travel means other than single occupant vehicle. In particular, proposed projects should support public transit usage by improving access to transit and be located in areas served by transit. Support future housing development. Fund proposed Capital Projects that are ready to go and serve as catalysts for further smart growth development. ATGP Encourage the planning and development of Complete Streets and provide multiple travel choices for the region s residents though safe and wellconnected bicycle and pedestrian networks. Promote a comprehensive, neighborhood based approach to planning and implementing active transportation improvements and traffic calming by coordinating existing and planned land use and transit to increase connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians. Support the program objectives outlined below derived from the goals in SANDAG Riding to 2050: The San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan. Encourage the development of a cohesive network of complete streets that is well connected to transit and every day destinations such as schools, jobs, shopping and recreation. Create safe environments for bicyclists and pedestrians through traffic calming, complete streets design principles, and smart growth placemaking, and promote active transportation as a means of improving health outcomes. Serve as models for the region by featuring new and innovative active transportation solutions. Provide equitable access and transportation opportunities for all users, regardless of age, ability, race, ethnicity, or income. Increase community support for bicycling and walking as a viable transportation choice for all trip purposes. Support reductions in GHG emissions and increase in levels of bicycling and walking in the region by providing supportive facilities, amenities, and programs for bicyclists and pedestrians. 8 4

150 Potential Recommended Changes: Goals and Program Objectives Modify the first ATGP Goal as follows: Encourage the planning and development of CS and provide multiple travel choices for the region s residents, visitors, and businesses through safe and well connected bicycle and pedestrian networks. Modify the first and fifth ATGP Program Objectives as follows: Encourage the development of a cohesive network of complete streets that is well connected to transit and everyday destinations such as schools, jobs, shopping, and recreation, and health care facilities. Increase community support and awareness for bicycling and walking as a viable transportation choice for all trip purposes. Review draft results of the survey forms completed by TWG and CTAC members and determine whether additional modifications to the goals and policy objectives should be proposed. 9 Funding Anticipated funding amounts: $27 million for SGIP, $3.6 million for ATGP Current funding allocations and maximums 10 5

151 Potential Recommended Changes: Funding SGIP: Maintain the funding percentage allocation of 80 percent for capital and 20 percent for planning. Increase the funding maximum for capital projects from $2 million to $2.5 million Increase the funding maximum for planning projects from $400,000 to $500,000 ATGP: Maintain the funding percentage allocation of 75 percent for capital and 25 percent for non capital. Maintain the funding percentage allocations for each of the three non capital categories, but use the percentage allocations as guidance versus minimums. 11 Potential Recommended Changes: Eligibility Criteria Require the governing body of the local jurisdiction to formally adopt the CAP and the CS Policy in a public setting, either at the time of the SGIP/ATGP application submittal or at a previous time. Include adoption date(s) in the application. Allow flexibility for the CS Policy to serve as a stand alone document, policies in the General Plan, or policies in other documents adopted by the governing body, as long as the jurisdiction can provide evidence of how the policies meet CS elements. Make the SANDAG Regional CS Policy and CS Checklist available as a guide for a local CS Policy and for use in self certification. Consider a wait list or phased application funding approach for jurisdictions finalizing their CAPs or CS Policies, where certain funding could be set aside for a specific period of time (ex. 1 year) to meet the CAP and CS Policy eligibility requirements. Contract execution and grant funding would be withheld until adoption. 12 6

152 Potential Recommended Changes: Funding for CAPs and CS Policies Provide higher range of funding for CAPs that are Qualified (i.e., PRC Section ) than for CAPs that are not Qualified. Provide grants in the following ranges, based on the scope of work and require a 20% minimum match: Up to $75,000 for CS Policies Up to $75,000 for CAPs that are not Qualified Up to $150,000 for CAPs that are Qualified Provide funding to all eligible CAP and CS Policy applications, rather than setting an upper funding limit of $1 million. Fund CAPs and CS Policies from the SGIP versus the ATGP 13 Potential Recommended Changes: Evaluation Criteria related to GHG Emissions Add qualitative criteria asking applicant to describe how proposed project implements the locally adopted CAP and/or existing or proposed parking strategies that reduce GHG emissions Focus the new qualitative criteria on providing additional information that demonstrates commitment to, and breadth of, CAP implementation efforts to reduce GHG emissions Solicit input on changes to weighting once there is broad consensus on the proposed modifications to the criteria. Matrices Attachments 6a 6d Matching Funds calculation: All grants matching fund percentage range of 0 50% 14 7

153 15 SGIP Capital 1. Land Use and Transportation Characteristics around Project 26% a. Intensity of Planned Development in SGOA: 3% b. Existing and Entitled Land Development in SGOA: 7% c. New Affordable Housing: 3% d. Transportation Characteristics: 9% 4. TDM Strategies Potential New Question: Existing or proposed parking strategies that reduce GHG emissions X% e. Community Design: 4% 2. Quality of Proposed Capital Improvement 30% a. Support for Public Transit: 8% b. Providing Transportation Choices: 8% c. Community Enhancement: 7% d. Project Area Issues: 5% e. Sustainability: 1% f. Universal Design: 1% g. Climate Action Planning: X% Potential Question How well does the proposed project implement an adopted CAP? 3. Project Readiness 11% 4. Cost Effectiveness 5% 5. Matching Funds 3% 6. RHNA Policy No. 033 Points 25% SGIP Planning 1. Relationship to Regional Transit 7.5% 2. Smart Growth Development Potential 10% Potential New Question: Evidence of existing or proposed parking strategies in the proposed planning area that will reduce GHG emissions. 3. Proposed Project Goals and Objectives 10% Potential New Question: How well does the proposed project implement an adopted CAP? 4. Method to Accomplish Project Objectives 15% 5. Implementation 17.5% 6. Evidence of Local Commitment / Community Support 5% 7. Matching Funds 10% 8. RHNA Policy No.033 Points 25% 16 8

154 17 ATGP Capital 1. Project Connections and Safety 24% a. Regional Bicycle Network: 4% b. Local Bicycle Network: 4% c. Existing Pedestrian Network: 4% d. Connection to Transit: 6% e. Safety and Access Improvements: 6% 2. Quality of Proposed Capital Improvement Project 20.5% 3. Supportive Policies and Programs 3% a. Complementary Programs: 1.5% b. Supportive Plans and Policies: 1.5% Potential New Question: How well does the project implement an adopted CAP? X% Potential New Question: Evidence of existing or proposed parking strategies that reduce GHG emissions X% 4. Demand Analysis (GIS) 7.5% 5. Project Readiness 10% 6. Cost Effectiveness 5% 7. Matching Funds 5% 8. RHNA Policy No. 033 Points 25% ATGP Non Capital 1. ATGP Program Objectives 2. Comprehensiveness Proposed New Question: Does this effort accompany existing or proposed parking strategies that reduce GHG emissions? 3. Methodology Proposed New Question: How well will the planning process or proposed effort implement an adopted CAP? 4. Community Support 5. Evaluation 6. Innovation 7. Demand Analysis (GIS) 8. Cost Effectiveness 9. Matching Funds 10. RHNA Policy No. 033 Points 18 9

155 Potential Recommended Changes: Evaluation Criteria related to TOD Alignment and Completed Grant Projects No additional changes proposed based on the TOD alignment or completed grant projects Clarify input on the idea of additional category for a Hybrid grant application category that provides funding for both planning and implementation of capital projects in one grant funding cycle Anticipated Schedule Spring 2017 Review lessons learned and begin discussing potential updates to program objectives/criteria with WG s Begin collecting housing data Summer/Fall 2017 Review lessons learned and begin discussing potential updates to program objectives/criteria with PACs Update Smart Growth Concept Map; finalize housing report December 2017 Release Call for Projects March 2018 Applications due Spring/Summer 2018 Evaluations and project rankings Recommendations Board approval Fall 2018 Work begins 10

156 Agenda Item 5 Series 14 Regional Growth Forecast Progress Report 21 Agenda Item 6 Adjournment and Next Meetings ATWG: May 11th CTAC: June 1st TWG: June 8th 22 11

157 Series 14 Growth Forecast REGIONAL PLANNING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP MEETING APRIL 24, 2017 Demographic Model Employment Model Income Model 1

158 Regionwide Model Development Development began in FY16 to replace the model used in Series 13 and prior forecasts Simpler more agile modeling framework Demographically and economically driven population, jobs and housing growth Series 14 Regionwide Expert Review Panel On March 9 th, SANDAG held a half day, on site meeting with 11 demographers and economists from around the country. Staff developed documentation of the proposed model. After the meeting, staff SANDAG developed detailed notes. 2

159 Series 14 Regionwide Expert Review Panel Some specific suggestions about how to customize the model: Southern California/Baja in commuting and in migration Employment driven migration Use Department of Finance s birth/death/migration rates for a baseline scenario A range of scenarios Series 14 Regionwide Expert Review Panel Convene a smaller group of local members of the expert panel to review our methodological changes and the resulting output. Regionwide model output will serve as the input for the regionwide population, housing and jobs for the subregional model. 3

160 Land Use Inputs for Series 14 Subregional Forecast Staff asked jurisdictions to review zoning and Series 13 capacity as well as scheduled development events for updates to capacity. 17 of 19 jurisdictions have completed their review Land Use Inputs for Series 14 Subregional Forecast Input these updates to create a Series 14 capacity layer for the entire region. 4

161 Next Steps Continue to work with expert panel and working groups on the regionwide methodology and results. Provide jurisdictions with updated capacity numbers and maps if needed. Regional Modeling Staff Contacts: Clint Daniels (619) Rachel Cortés (619)

162 Circulate San Diego th Avenue, Suite 402 San Diego, CA Tel: Fax: April 21, 2017 Carolina Ilic, AICP Senior Regional Planner SANDAG 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA RE: SANDAG Grant Funding - Eligibility Criteria Regarding Complete Streets Policies Carolina, On behalf of Circulate San Diego, whose mission is to create excellent mobility choices and vibrant, healthy neighborhoods, I would like to formally submit recommendations outlining the eligibility of local jurisdictions Complete Streets policies as they relate to funding through SANDAG s Smart Growth Incentive Program and Active Transportation Grant Program. In essence, we agree with SANDAG s staff recommendations outlined in the agenda for the April 24, 2017 Joint Workshop. 1. Require the governing body of the local jurisdiction to formally adopt the Complete Streets policy in a public setting, either at the time of grant submittal or at a previous time, and include the adoption date of the policy in the application. Approval from a governing body helps to strengthen the city s commitment to building Complete Streets and to educate local leaders on the intent and reasoning to do so. 2. Allow flexibility for the CS Policy to serve as a stand-alone document, consist of policies in the General Plan, or consist of policies in other documents adopted by the governing body, as long as the jurisdiction can provide evidence of how the policies meet Complete Streets elements. For this current grant cycle, a broad variety of Complete Streets policies should qualify. The National Complete Streets Coalition, which has set the national standard on model policies, recognizes similar documents. Specifically, the Coalition recognizes many types of statements as official commitments to a Complete Streets approach, including legislation, resolutions, executive orders, internal policies, Creating excellent mobility choices and vibrant, healthy communities.