No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout23-Council Office fntemd into Record at C"""cillr,myOeVCms Mtg: hv _~'-d ~~...~ re A,,"',da Item ~:3 (/ i;. ),r.,. n BIA . City of San Bernardino 300 N. D Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 ~_C~ City Clerk/CDC Secy City of San Bernardino Baldy View Chapter January 9, 2006 RE: Proposed Development Impact Fees Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc. 8711 Monroe Court, Suite B Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 ph 909.945.1884 fx 909.948.9631 www.biabuild.com Dear Mayor Valles and City Council Members: The City of San Bernardino is uniquely positioned to experience tremendous residential development and economic growth. The Building Industry Association (BIA) is excited about playing an important role in this unprecedented crossroads in the city's history and we seek to pay our "fair share" for new infrastructure to accommodate the demands of a growing and thriving community. However, we are concerned that a dramatic increase in development impact fees would restrict the residential and commercial growth in the City of San Bernardino. As such, we respectfully request that the City Council delay consideration to adopt the proposed fees so that city staff and the consultant can review and respond to our comments and questions in a formal workshop. The proposed increase of about 100%, from approximately $12,000 to $24,000 on development impact fees would ultimately add to the cost to purchase a home, severely crippling the chances of countless families aspiring to purchase a home in San Bernardino. Sadly, this dream continues to fade for many families. For example, in December, 2005, the California Association of Realtors determined that the Riverside/San Bernardino region has an 18% affordability index. In fact, the same study said that the average sales price in the area has spiked from $317,990 to $394,840 over the past year alone. These price trends can be attributed to low new housing inventory failing to keep pace with increasing demand. Similarly, US Census data suggests that for every $1,000 increase in the cost of home, over 400,000 families are priced out of the new home market. Indeed, a recent study that the National Association of Homebuilders conducted concluded that when the median price of a house increases by $5,000 in San Bernardino County, over 6,200 families get priced out of the market. An Atl1liatc of the National Association of Home Builders and the California Building Industry Association We fear that the proposed increase of over $12,000 will shut out potential homebuyers and respectfully request consideration of our overview of the proposed fee accuracy and suggested method of implementation. Fee Overview: The BlA has reviewed the study Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of San Bernardino that Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC completed. During our initial meeting with City staff last week, we inquired about the following aspects of the fee study: Overall: How did the study determine proportionality for things like the master facilities plan? What proportions will current residents pay into the system? How is that factored into the calculations? There is no timetable on the facilities improvements plan. We respectfully request that the City create a capital improvements plan that will outline in detail the proposed uses and timetables for the proposed fees. How close is the city to buildout? How much of a population increase is expected? How do these numbers factor into the calculation? What are the current single-family and multi-family housing totals in the city, and what are the estimated numbers for these categories at buildout? What is the current population living in single-family residences and multi- family residences by category, and what are the projected numbers for these housing types at buildout? Police: What is the current level of service within the City (ratio of officers to population)? In the facilities section, what constitutes equipment/other ($1,114,626)? How is this different from the next section that outlays equipment? How did the study determine the $26,315.78 per new car ($2,500,000/95) or $19,841.27 per new officer for communications fees? Fire: How did the study determine land acquisition and construction costs? Have there been recent bids to back up this information? Are the current residents paying a portion of the Admin/maintenance facility, vehicle storage facility, and training centers? What are the squad vehicles and what is the nexus? There is no justification outlay in the draft fee report. From where is the existing $600,000 fund balance coming? For what will it be used? Circulation: Do the study's cost estimates come from Measure I requirements? Is the fee in conjunction with Measure I, or is it in addition to the fees levied for it? Does the total number include all capital infrastructure? Please provide a copy of SAN BAG's most recent calculations for the City's Measure I outlays. Library: How did the study determine land and construction costs? Does the contingency line item in the library section represent the books that plan to be purchased? Where will the new library be located? What percentage will existing residents contribute? Public Facilities: There is no land cost- is this increasing square footage on already purchased land? Aquatics Facilities: What is the breakdown between what new development will pay and existing units? What, in more detail, is the $2 million line item for administration building in relation to the pool? Parkland: The study says that the current parkland ratio is 2.69 acres per 1,000 residents. Will the new parks maintain or increase that current ratio? How were the parkland acquisition and construction costs determined? If a builder puts a park in their community as part of the conditions of approval, does the city have some sort of specific credit system in place to recognize the contribution? Will current residents help to pay for existing park improvements? What is the current open space ratio between open space and developed land? Will the proposed purchase ofland for open space maintain or increase this ratio? Is the current open space that is in the city going to be re-zoned? Or is it open space that is zoned for residential/commercial/industrial use? Increased parklands will create an increased need for police services to monitor the parks. Is there a current plan in place to address this issue? Is there a plan in place that shows where the City plans to purchase land for the new proposed parks? Is there a plan in place for the ongoing maintenance of the parks? We would also like to discuss the possibility of a two-year phase-in of the fees in order to ensure that there is a more gradual increase in housing costs for aspiring homeowners. We also respectfully request an extension from July 2005 to the time of implementation in exempting all approved tentative tract maps from the new fee. The BlA Baldy View Chapter is sensitive to the ongoing issues the City of San Bernardino must consider regarding development and growth. We desire to work with you in dealing with these ongoing challenges and look forward to working with you to ensure that San Bernardino remains a great place for current and future residents to live, work, and play. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, ~~~ Jeff Simonetti VP of Govermnent Affairs BlA Baldy View Chapter CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO -REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Councilmember Susan Lien Longville, Subject: Development Impact Fees Second Ward Dept. Council Office Date: December 21, 2005 MCC Date: January 9, 2005 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: November 21, 2005 -Development Impact Fee Workshop December 5, 2005 -Development Impact Fee Workshop December 19, 2005 -Development Impact Fee Workshop Recommended Motion: That staff be directed to work with the Councilmembers regarding their specific development fee impact adjustment concerns and that staff move forward to prepare the necessary resolutions and ordinances. (This motion does not authorize the maximum fees specified in the consultant's report.) i Signature Contact Person: Councilmember Susan Longville Phone: 5222 Supporting Data Attached: Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) . _ Finance: .;ouncil Notes: Agenda Item No. Master Facilities Plan for the City of San Bernardino, California January, 2006 Copyright, 2006 by Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means -- graphic, electronic, mechanica/, including any photocopying, recording, taping or taping or information storage and retrieval systems without written permission of Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. 2545 East Chapman Avenue, Suite 103 Fullerton, CA 92831 (714) 992-9020 -l%b January 6, 2006 Honorable Mayor and City Council Via Mr. Fred Wilson, City Administrator City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 RE: City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Honorable Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator Wilson, The following Document, the proposed Master Facilities Plan (MFP) is hereby submitted for City Council review and consideration. The proposed MFP is the result of many hours of work between City staff and Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. staff. This document represents a long-range program of identification and recognition of the entirety of infrastructure and physical needs necessary to meet the service demand of an ever-growing residential population and business community. The information included in the proposed MFP is primarily based on the City of San Bernardino Comprehensive General Plan and other official documents. The City's five-year Capital Improvement Plan and the proposed Development Impact Fees will be a function of the entire list of proposed projects listed in this document. Stated in a slightly different way, the list of projects contained herein, needs to be agreed to by the City Council in order to increase the validity of both of the two above mentioned documents. The Capital Facility Plan contains the following: • A Table of Contents • A Guide to the Master Facilities Plan • A Summary Schedule • A section containing the future Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment capital needs • A section containing the future Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment capital needs Page Two, January 6, 2006 Master Facilities Plan Letter to the City of San Bernardino • A section containing both local and regional future Circulation System (Streets, Signals and Bridges) projects • A section containing the future Library and Collection improvements • A section containing the future Public Use Facilities project needs • A section containing the future Aquatics Center Facilities project needs • A section containing the future Parkland and Open Space Acquisition and Pczrk Improvement projects RCS appreciates the efforts of the following staff for their assistance in generating the information provided within this report. Mike Eckley, Public Safety Systems Manager Robert G. Eisenbeisz, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer Mat Fratus, Fire Battalion Chief Julie Jensen, Administrative Analyst -Police Department Mark Lancaster, RCE, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer Teresa Martin, Administrative Services Manager -Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department Lynn Parker, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer Larry Pitzer, Fire Chief Terri Rahhal, Principal Planner Lemuel Randolph, Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director Dennis Reichardt, Deputy Fire Chief Lori Sassoon, Assistant City Administrator Dan Ustation, Park Superintendent Gwendolyn Waters, Police Lieutenant We look forward to meeting with the City Council in order to implement and achieve maximum use of this comprehensive plan. Sincerely, SCOTT THORPE Senior Vice President h' _ Ci of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Table of Contents ,.. ,. ;Guide to the Master Facilities Plan 1 Project Cost Summary 7 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment I1 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Cost Summary 12 LE-01 Expand Law Enforcement Facilities Space 13 LE-02 Acquire Additional Patrol/D~eetective/Specialty Vehicles 14 LE-03 Acquire Officer Assigned Equipment 15 LE-04 Acquire Advanced Computer/Data Sharing Systems 16 LE-0S Police Station Debt Service 17 Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment 1 S Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Cost Summary 19 FD-01 New Fire Station #233 20 '"` FD-02 New Fire Station #233 Response Fleet 21 FD-03 Relocate Fire Station #221 22 FI}-fl4 Expand Fire Station #224 23 FD-OS Relocate Fire Station #226 24 FD-06 Relocate Fire Station #229 25 FD-07 Relocate Fire Station #230 26 FD-08 Renovate Station #221 as Administrative?Maintenance Facility 27 ' `FD-09 Construct a Vehicle Storage Building 28 I FD-10 Construct Training Facility 29 FD-11 Acquire Two Command Vehicles 30 ' FD-12 Acquire Four Squad Vehicles 31 FD-13 Acquire Three Sedans and a Utility Truck 32 FD-14 Acquire a Reserve Engine 33 FD-IS Acquire Additional Assigned Fire-fighter Equipment 34 !`' FD-16 Headquarters Station #221 Debt Service 35 '''' FD-17 Verdemont Station #232 Debt Service 36 Circulation System (Streets, Signals and Bridges) 37 Circulation System Cost Summary 38 ST-01 40th Street, Acre Lane to Electric Avenue 42 ST-02 Sth Street, Sterling to Victoria 43 ST-03 Sth Street, Warm Creek to Pedley ~ Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Table of Contents ST-04 Alabama Street, 3rd to City Limits 45 `ST-0S Campus Parkway (Pepper-Linden), Kendall to I-215 46 ST-06 Central (Palm Meadows), Tippecanoe to Mountain View 47 ST-07 Coulston, Tippecanoe to Mountain View 48 ST-08 Connector, 3rd Street to Sth Street 49 ST-09 Del Rosa, 6th Street to 9th Street SO ST-10 Electric, Mountain View to Northpark Sl ST-Il "G"Street,1Ki11 to Rialto Avenue 52 '. ST-12 "H" Street, Kendall to 40th 53 ST-13 Kendall, Cambridge to Pine 54 ST-14 Lena Road, Mill to Orange Show SS ST-IS Little League Drive, Palm to I-215 56 ST-16 Little League Drive, 1215 homage to Belmont 57 ST-17 Little Mountain, Devil Creek Channel to 48th SS ST-18 Mill, Pepper to Meridian 59 ST-19 Mount Vernon Bridge 60 ST-20 Mountain View, Thompson to Electric 61 ST 21 Mountain View Bridge at Mission Creek 62 ST 22 Mountain View, Riverview to Central 63 ST 23 Mountain View, I-10 to San Bernardino Ave. 64 ST-24 Mountain View Avenue Railroad Grade Crossing 6S ST-25 Palm, Cajon to I-215 SB Ramp 66 ST-26 Pine, Kendall to Belmont 67 ST 27 Perris Hill Park Road, 21st to Pacific 68 ''' ST-28 Rancho, Colton City Limits to Sth 69 ST-29 Rialto, Sierra to Waterman 70 ST-30 Rialto, Lena to Tippecanoe 71 ST-31 State Street, 16th to Foothill 72 ST-32 State Street. Foothill to I-21S 73 ST-33 Tippecanoe, Mill to Hamman 74 ST-34 University Parkway, Hallmark to BNSF Grade Separation 75 ST-3S Waterman, Sth to Baseline 76 ST-36 Victoria, Richardson to Mountain View 77 ST-37 Traffic Signal @ Little League Drive and I-215 Frontage 78 ': ST-38 Traffic Signal @ Little League Drive and Belmont 79 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 . _ _ City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Table of Contents ST-39 Traffic Signal @ Palm and Cajon 80 ST 4U Traffic Signal @ Palm and Industrial 81 l ST,41 Traffic Signal @ Palm and I-21S ramps 82 ST-42 Traffic Signal @ Palm and Irvington 83 ! ST-43 Traffic Signal @ Palm and Belmont 84 ST-44 Traffic Signal @ Campus Parkway (Pepper-Linden) and Industrial 85 ST-45 Traffic Signal @ Campus Parkway (Pepper-Linden) and I-215 Ramps 86 ST,46 Traffic Signal @ Campus Parkway and Northpark 87 ST-47 Traffic Signal @ Sierra (CSUSB) and Northpark 88 ST-,48 Traffic Signal @ Kendall and 48th 89 ST-49 Traffic Signal @ Little Mountain and 30th 90 '! ST SO Traffic Signal @ Little Mountain and 48th 91 ST Sl Traffic Signal Qa Little Mountain and Northpiark 92 ST S2 Traffic Signal @ State and I-210 93 ST-S3 Traffic Signal @ Merdian and Rialto 94 ST-54 Traffic Signal @ Macy and Mill 95 ST SS Traffic Signal @ Rancho (State) and Foothill 96 ° ST-56 Traffic Signal @ Miramonte and 27th 97 ST S7 Traffic Signal @ Mountain and Kendall 98 ST-SS Traffic Signal @ Mountain and 48th 99 ST-59 Traffic Signal @ Mountain and Northpark 100 ST-60 Traffic Signal @ "I"Street and Inland Center Drive 101 ST-61 Traffic Signal @ "H" Street and Marshall 102 ST-62 Traffic Signal ~ Auto Plaza and Fairway 103 ': ST-{3 Traffic Signal @ "E" Street and Century 104 ST-64 Traffic Signal @ "E" Street and Orange Show Lane IOS ST-65 Traffic Signal @ Arrowhead and Orange Show Lane 106 ST-66 Traffic Signal @ Arrowhead and Central 107 ST-67 Traffic Signal @ Mountain View and 13th 108 ` ST-68 Traffic Signal @ Mountain View and Marshall 109 ST-69 Traffic Signal @ Electric and 48th 110 ST-70 Traffic Signal @ Dolittle and Mill 111 ST-71 Traffic Signal Q Lena and Orange Show Road 112 ST-72 Traffic Signal @ Lena and Central 113 ST-73 Traffic Signal @ Lena and Rialto 114 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 ty Ci of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Table of Contents ST-74 Traffic Signal ~ Lena and 3rd 115 ST-75 Traffic Signal @ East Carnegie and Hospital Lane 116 i ST-76 Traffic Signal @ Tippecanoe and Rialto 117 ST-77 Traffic Signal @ Del Rosa and Marshall 118 ST-78 Traffic Signal Q Duel Rosa and 6th 119 ST-79 Traffic Signal @ Sterling and Marshall 120 ST-80 Traffic Signal @ Sterling and Lynwood 121 ST-81 Traffic Signal @ Sterling and 6th 122 ': ST-82 Traffic Signal @ S. Mountain View and Central (Palm Meadows) 123 ST-83 Traffic Signal ~ S. Mounhain View and I-10 Westbound Ramp 124 ST-84 Traffic Signal @ Guthrie and Pacific 125 ST-85 Interchange/Ramps @ I-215 and Palm Avenue (SB, County) 126 ST-86 Interchange/Ramps @ I-21 S and Pepper Linden (Campus Parkway) (SB) 127 ST-87 Interchange/Ramps @ 1215 and University Parkway (SB, County) 128 ST-88 Interchange/Ramps @ I-210 and Waterman (SB, Highland, County) 129 ST-89 Interchange/Ramps @ I-210 and Del Rosa (SB, Highland, County) 130 ST-90 Interchange/Ramps @ I-210 and Victoria (SB, Highland, County) 131 ST 91 Interchange/Ramps ~ I-ZIO and 5th (SB, Highland, Redlands) 132 ST-92 Interchange/Ramps @ I-10 and Tippecanoe 133 ST-93 Interchange/Ramps @ I-10 and Pepper (SB, County, Colton) 134 ST-94 Interchange/Ramps @ I-10 and Mounhain View (SB, Loma Linda, Redlands, Co 135 ST-95 Tippecanoe Bridge over the Santa Ana River 136 '. ST-96 Grade Separation @ Palm Avenue (SB) 137 ST-97 Grade Separation @ Rialto (SB) 138 ST-98 Grade Separation @ State Street/University (SB) 139 `' ST-99 Grade Separation @ Hunts Lane (SB, Colton) 140 ': ST-100 Grade Separation @ Rancho Avenue 141 Library Facilities and Collection 142 Library Facilities and Collection Cost Summary 143 LB-01 General Library Square Foot Expansion 144 LB-02 Expansion of Library Collection 145 LB-03 Main Library Debt Service 146 Public Use Facilities 147 Public Use Facilities Cost Summary 148 CC-01 Public Use Facilities 149 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Table of Contents CC-02 DAelmann Heights Gymnasium 150 CC-03 Nicholson Community Center ISI CC-04 Construct Additional Public Use Space 152 Aquatic Facilities 153 Aquatic Facilities Cost Summary 154 "'>AQ-01 Construct WaterPooUAtiraction 1SS'' >, At?-02 Construct Locker/Administration Building IS6 Park Land Acquisition and Development 157 Park Land Acquisition and Development Cost Summary 1 SS PK-01 Construct Six S.0 Acre Neighborhood Parlrs IS9 PK-02 Construct Seven 10.0 Acre Passive Community Parks 160 PK-03 Construct Four 25.0 Acre Active (sports) C.Q,mmunity Parks 161 PK-04 Miscellaneous Park Improvements 162 PK-0S Open Space Acquisition (159.4 acres) 163 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GUIDE TO THE MASTER FACILITIES PLAN The Master Facilities Plan is a compilation ofprojects identified by City staff as being needed by the City of San Bernardino through theoretical General Plan build-out of the City. The Plan is based on input from City staff, recommended prof ects contained in Cityplanning documents for infrastructure and an occasional recommendation from RCS staff. The Master Facilities Plan provides for three major types ofprojects. The first group ofprojects provides for the maintenance, repair and rehabilitation of the City's varied infrastructure, including its streets, storm drains and other public facilities. These projects represent a portion of the needed replacement of the City's General Facilities fixed assets identified below, as more than $1.451 billion in depreciable fixed assets, which are being consumed, conservatively over fifty years, at a rate of nearly $29.0 million annually (after the removal of $245.7 million in non-depreciating parkland). Keep in mind that the hundreds of millions of dollars currently invested in local' streets, storm drainage improvements, utility systems are not represented in this list. The following table indicates the replacement values of the various infrastructure owned by the City. Table MFP-1 Replacement Value of Existing City Infrastructure Infrastructure Replacement Value Law Enforcement $46,301,202 Fire Su ression $59,305,645 Circulation System $812,276,000 Libr Facilit /Collection $30,724,058 Public Use Facilities $54,620,225 A uatics Facilities $19,015,237 Parkland/Improvements $428,855,01 l Sub-total All Assets $1,451,097,378 Less Non-depreciating Park Land ($245,668,817) Total De reciable Assets $1,205,428,561 The second type ofprojects are needed to serve future development and include such projects as widening of streets, creation of additional parkland or construction of a new fire station. These projects are proposed to be funded through the development impact fees recommended in the Page 1 Guide to the Master Facilities Plan companion to this document called Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of San Bernardino. The last type of projects is proposed to enhance the quality of life for all City residents and spur economic growth in the community. These projects would include the construction of a community center or library expansion. Goal of the Master Facilities Plan. The Master Facilities Plan is not intended to be the final word on capital improvement projects needed for the City, but rather a starting point for discussions between City management staff, decision-makers (i.e., the City Council) and the public prior to the formulation of a two or three Year Capital Improvement Plan (C1P). The Master Facilities Plan begins the process of identifying all needed projects for the City through build-out. This document, as all capital improvement programs should be, is rooted in the philosophy that for the document to have any meaningful value to future residents and staff members, it must be constantly updated and revised as new legislation is adopted and as the environment and the City itself changes over the years. In short, the Master Facilities Plan is intended as a fluid, not static, document. Thus, it is essential that periodic updates be performed to add new projects or delete completed or no longer needed projects. The Master Facilities Plan represents the starting point for fulfillment of the following purposes: Planning -The Plan implements the standards and goals contained in the City's General Plan when applicable and proposes improvement projects which are constructed and located in conformance with the General Plan. Financial Planning - A Facilities Plan or CIP should consider the scheduling and availability of financing sources in order to achieve an orderly and comprehensive process. Individual project descriptions in this document detail the project's relationship to other recommended improvements and other scheduling constraints. This effort should always be a high priority of the City in order to insure that efforts between departments are coordinated and to avoid construction made more costly by duplication of construction efforts (i.e. a water pipe installed one year after a road is constructed). A sound capital planning process can also help to rationally plan projects for the purposes of long-term financing. Taxpayers can accrue savings when capital financing is coordinated such that long-term financing can be sized and timed to achieve the lowest possible financing costs. Budgeting -The following projects should provide the outline for preparation of the Five- YearCapital Improvement Plan in the future. The first year of the CIP then is incorporated into the City's Annual Budget. Note: The current effort does not include the identification Page 2 Guide to the Master Facilities Plan of what year the projects will be needed, therefore the project costs default to the last column. However, the project costs are defined in terms of 2006-07 dollar values. Master Facilities Planning Process. The Master Facilities Plan represents an interdepartmental effort to identify needed projects through the theoretical point ofbuild-out of the City. Management staff were then asked to allocate projects as a first step towards prioritizing all projects for the Plan. Criteria considered by the management team in evaluating projects included: • Does the project generate operating savings or otherwise enhance the ability of the department to deliver services? • Does the project reduce or eliminate safety or health hazards? • Is the project needed to provide adequate levels of service to future residents or prevent deterioration of service to existing residents? • Was the project recommended in any of the City's engineering or planning master plans, the Corporate Plan or any other adopted City document? • Does the project have a significant positive effect on the community? Funding Analysis. The following summary section of this Plan includes a projection of historical, as well as potential, revenue sources for the financing of the listed capital improvement projects. Development impact fee revenues were estimated based on the proposed rates recommended in the Development Impact Fee Report. Also, it was assumed for the purposes of this Report and the Development Impact fee Report that development will occur evenly over the period ofbuild-out for the City. In actuality, new development is expected to maintain the current rate over the next ten years and then decrease during the second ten-year period. Other revenue sources were projected based on discussions with City staff, but are shown only for informational purposes. Given the magnitude of costs shown in this Report, RCS recommends that a more detailed financial strategy for construction of these improvements (i.e., a Capital Financing Plan) be conducted by the City within the immediate future. Such a document would seek to further identify and quantify potential financing sources for the City of San Bernardino. Also, it should be noted that the Master Facilities Plan emphasizes the total capital needs ofthe City, in contrast to the more traditional Capital Improvement Program approach which places more of an emphasis on reducing total needs to only reasonably assured revenue sources. The process of further scheduling proj ects on a year-to-year basis should continue onward during the Capital Improvement Program process. Page 3 Guide to the Master Facilities Plan Organization of the Master Facilities Plan. The Master Facilities Plan is divided into six major sections, according to the category of capital improvement and each will ultimately be quantified as a separate development impact fee in the companion document. The ten types of improvements are: Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment -These are prof ects needed for the City's Police Department, including expansion of the Police Station and acquisition of additional equipment and vehicles. Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment -This program includes facilities necessary to support the level of service recommended by the City's Fire Department. This section contains an explanation of the need for one additional station and the relocation of four existing fire station, vehicles and assigned equipment for needed fire-fighters. Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System -These projects include future street widening's and additional intersection/signal improvements and regional circulation improvements. Projects are separated into two categories ofcirculation improvements, local and regional. Community Library Facilities and Collection -This section explains the proportional expansion of the existing library square feet and number of items in the collection per resident. Public Use (Community Centers) Facilities -These projects include the construction of additional community centers for classes, meetings and general public use. Aquatic Facilities -These projects include the construction of additional public pools and the requisite support buildings. Parks/Open Space and Recreation Facilities -The acquisition and development of new parks, construction of recreational facilities for the City and improvement of existing undeveloped parklands are accomplished through this program. There is a summary list of the proposed projects and project costs found at the beginning of each of these sections. Next, you will find an individual project description for each project submitted detailing the proposed scope of the project, the submitting department, justification and the supporting reference document. The Table on the following page indicates the total project expenditures ($462,281,062) identified as necessary through build-out. Page 4 Guide to the Master Facilities Plan Table MFP-2 Cost of Required Expansions to City Infrastructure Infrastructure Type Project Totals Law Enforcement Facilities $32,594,934 Fire Su ression Facilities $47,244,872 Local Circulation System $104,469,000 Re Tonal Circulation System $70,439,250 Library Facilit /Collection $15,587,124 Public Use Facilities $18,340,025 A uatics Facilities $5,232,932 ParklandlImprovements $163,693,175 Total $457,601,312 Fairness and reason (as well as the more important State statutes and Federal court decisions) dictate that not all of the projects will qualify for impact fee funding (i.e. some projects are replacements or service level increasing, etc.). There are no existing impact fee fund balances and thus they will not finance any of the total project needs. Any remaining amount of the total project costs would have to be financed by other sources such as fees, existing taxes or voter approved additional taxes, inter-governmental transfers and the occasional grant. Relationship to Development Impact Fee Report. The Master Facilities Plan was prepared in conjunction with the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) Report, also prepared by RCS. Projects listed in the DIF Report correspond to projects found in this document and contain the same numbering sequence as the Master Facilities Plan. The DIF Report is also divided into fourteen major chapters according to the same order of projects described on the previous page. Thus, a reader who wants more information on Law Enforcement project #1 (police station expansion) found on Schedule 3.1 of the DIF Report should turn to Proj ect No. LE-O1 of the Master Facilities Plan. For readers of the Master Facilities Plan who wish to understand the determination of impact fee funding more fully, refer to the Development Impact Fee Report. Page 5 Guide to the Master Facilities Plan Endnotes 1. Local" infrastructure is defined as infrastructure within neighborhoods or within the footprint of the development as opposed to spine infrastructure.. As an example, 6" sewer collection lines are generally limited to neighborhoods while 12" lines (spine) collect wastewater from neighborhood to transmit it to the treatment plant. Page 6 City of San Bernardino Total Master Facilities Plan Through Summary -All Projects Build-out LE-01 Expand Law Enforcement Facilities Space $15,665,521 LE-02 Acquire Additional Patrol/Detective/Specialty Vehicles .$4,031,420 LE-03 Acquire Officer Assigned Equipment $643,608 LE-04 Acquire Advanced Computer/Data Sharing Systems $2,500,000 LE-OS Police Station Debt Service $9,754,385 FD-O] New Fire Station #233 $5,363,371 ` FD-02 New Fire Station If233 Response Fleet $650,000 FD-03 Relocate Fire Station x'221 $7,157,347 FD-04 Expand Fire Station X24 $1,518,943 FD-OS Relocate Fire Station X4'226 $5,363,371 FD-06 Relocate Fire Station A229 $5,363,371 FD-07 Relocate Fire Station ,#230 $5,363,371 FD-OS Renovate Station ,4221 as Administrative/Maintenance Facility $3,309,869 FD-09 Construct a Vehicle Storage Building $1, 089,101 FD-10 Construct Training Facility ,$4,690,822 is FD-I1 Acquire Two Command Vehicles $90,000 FD-12 Acquire Four Squad Vehicles $480,000 ? FD-13 Acquire Three Sedans and a Utility Truck $94,500 . ,' FD-14 Acquire a Reserve Engine $1,275,000 ', FD-15 Acquire Additional Assigned Fire-fighter Equipment $58,740 FD-16 Headquarters Station ,4221 Debt Service $1,794,425 FD-17 Verdemont Station #232 Debt Service $3,582,641 ST-01 40th Street, Acre Lane to Electric Avenue $2,170,000 ST-02 5th Street, Sterling to Victoria $3,200,000 I ST-03 Stb Street, Warm Creek to Pedley $480,000 ST-04 Alabama Street, 3rd to City Limits $1,600,000 4 ST-OS Campus Parkway (Pepper-Linden), Kendall to I-21 S $4, 800,000 ST-06 Central (Palm Meadows), Tippecanoe to Mountain View $3,200,DOb ST-07 Cou/ston, Tippecanoe to Mountain View $3,520,000 ST-OS Connector, 3rd Street to Stb Street $3,200,000 ST-09 Del Rosa, 6th Street to 9th Street $1,600,000 "ST-10 Electric, Mountain View to Nortbpark $3,200,000 ST-I1 "G" Street, Mill to Rialto Avenue $1,600,000 ST-IZ "H" Street, Kendall to 40th $64Q000 i ST-13 Kendall, Cambridge to Pine $3,500,000 ST-14 Lena Road, Mill to Orange Show $6,400,000 ". ST-15 Little League Drive, Palm to I-215 $2,400,000 ST-16 Little League Drive, I-215 frontage to Belmont $1,600,000 ST-17 Little Mountain, Devil Creek Channel to 48th $400,000 ST-I S Mill, Pepper to Meridian $800,000 ST-19 Mount Vernon Bridge $3,200, 000 7 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 City of San Bernardino:: _ Total Master Facilities Plan Through Summary -All Projects Build-out ST-20 Mountain View, Thompson to Electric $640,0'00 ST-21 Mountain View Bridge at Mission Creek $1,152,000 ST-22 Mountain View, Riverview to Central $6,912,000 ST-23 Mountain View, I-10 to San Bernardino Ave. $1,200,000 ST-24 Mountain View Avenue Railroad Grade Crossing $24Q000 ': ST-2S Palm, Cajon to I-21S SB Ramp $760,000 ST-26 Pine, Kendall to Belmont $800,000 ST-27 Perris Hil/ Park Road, 21st to Pacific $1,280,000 ST-28 Rancho, Colton City Limits to Sth $2,240,0'00 ST-29 Rialto, Sierra to Waterman $1,600,000 ST-30 Rialto, Lena to Tippecanoe $2, 400,000 ST-31 State Street, 16th to Foothill $7,400,000 ST-32 State Street. Foothill to I-215 $8,000,000 ST-33 Tippecanoe, Mill to Hamman $S, 600,000 ST-34 University Parkway, Hallmark to BNSF Grade Separation $1,200,000 ST-3S Waterman, Sth to Baseline $S, 760, 000 ST-36 Victoria, Richardson to Mountain View $200,000 ST-37 Traffic Signal ®Little League Drive and I-215 Frontage $200,000 ST-38 Traffic Signal ®Little League Drive and Belmont $200,000 ST-39 Traffic Signal @ Palm and Cajon $200, 000 '. ', ST-40 Traffic Signal ®Palm and Industrial $120, 000 ST-41 Traffic Signal ®Palm and I-215 ramps $330,000 is ST-42 Traffic Signa/ ®Palm and Irvington $150,000 ST-43 Traffic Signa/ ®Palm and Belmont $200,000 ST-44 Traffic Signal ®Campus Parkway (Pepper-Linden) and Industrial $200,000 ST-45 Traffic Signal ~ Campus Parkway (Pepper-Linden) and I-ZIS Ramps $3SQ 000 ST-46 Traffic Signa/ ®Campus Parkway and Northpark $200,000 '. ST-47 Traffic Signal ®Sierra (CSUSB) and Northpark $200, 000 4 ST-48 Traffic Signal @ Kendall and 48th $175,000 ST-49 Traffic Signal ®Little Mountain and 30th $200,000 ST-SO Traffic Signal ®Little Mountain and 48th $175, 000 ST-SI Traffic Signal ~ Little Mountain and Northpark $175,000 ST-52 Traffic Signal ®State and I-210 $35Q000 ST-53 Traffic Signal @ Merdian and Rialto $200,000 ST-54 Traffic Signal ®Macy and Mill $200, 000 ST-SS Traffic Signal ®Rancho (State) and Foothill $250, 000 ST-56 Traffic Signal ®Miramonte and 27th $200,000 ST-57 Traffic Signal ®Mountain and Kendall $200,000 <.' ST-SS Traffic Signal ®Mountain and 48th $200, 000 ST-59 Traffic Signal @ Mountain and Northpark $175,000 ' ST-60 Traffic Signal ®"I" Street and Inland Center Drive $200, 000 8 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 City of San Bernardino Total Master Facilities Plan Through Summary - AI/ Projects Build-out ST-61 Traffic Signal ®"H" Street and Marshall $200,000 i ST-62 Traffic Signal ®Auto Plaza and Fairway $200,000 :' ST-63 TraflSc Signal ®"E" Street and Century $200, 000 ST-64 Traffic Signal ®"E" Street and Orange Show Lane $200, 000 i ST-6S Traffic Signal ®Arrowhead and Orange Show Lane $150,000 ST-66 Traffic Signal ®Arrowhead and Central $175,000 3 ST-67 Traffic Signal ®Mountain View and 13th $200,000 ST-68 TraflS'c Signal ~ Mountain View and Marshall .$200,000 ST-69 Traffic Signal ®Electric and 48th $200,000 ST-70 Traffic Signal ®Doliltle and Mill $100, 000 :' ST-71 Traffic Signal ®Lena and Orange Show Road $200,000 ST-72 Traffic Signal ®Lena and Central $200,000 ST-73 Traffic Signal ®Lena and Rialto $200,000 ST-74 Traffic Signal ~ Lena and 3rd $200,000 ST-75 Traffic Signal ®East Carnegie and Hospital Lane $150,000 :' ST-76 Traffic Signal ®Tippecance and Rialto $200,000 ST-77 Traffic Signal ®Del Rosa and Marsha/1 $200,000 ST-78 Traffic Signal ®Del Rosa and 6th $I SQ 000 ST-79 Traffic Signal ®Sterling and Marshall $200, 000 ST-80 Traffic Signal @ Sterling and Lynwood $200,000 '. ST-81 Traffic Signal @ Sterling and 6th $200,000 ST-82 Traffic Signal ®S. Mountain View and Central (Palm Meadows) $200,000 > ST-83 Traffic Signal ®S. Mountain View and I-10 Westbound Ramp $200,000 ST-84 Trafl% Signal ®Gutlirie and Pacific $200,000 '. ST-85 Interchange/Ramps ®I-215 and Palm Avenue (SB, County) $1,930,000 ST-86 Interchange/Ramps ®I-21 S and Pepper Linden (Campus Parkway) (SB) $20, 000,000 ST-87 Interchange/Ramps ®I-215 and University Parkway (SB, County) $1,56Q000 ST-88 Interchange/Ramps ~ I-210 and Waterman (SB, Highland, County) $7,280,000 ST-89 Interchange/Ramps ®I-210 and De/ Rosa (SB, Highland, County) $S, 790,000 ST-90 Interchange/Ramps ®I-210 and Victoria (SB, Highland, County) $10,000,000 ST-91 Interchange/Ramps ®I-210 and St6 (SB, Highland, Redlands) $320, 000 >i ST-92 Interchange/Ramps ®I-10 and Tippecanoe $7,000,000 j ST-93 Interchange/Ramps ®I-10 and Pepper (SB, County, Colton) $37Q000 ST-94 Interchange/Ramps @ I-10 and Mountain View (SB, Loma Linda, Redlands, County) $3,040,000 ST-95 Tippecanoe Bridge over the Santa Ana River $2,936,250 ST-96 Grade Separation ®Pa/m Avenue (SB) $2,349,000 ST-97 Grade Separation ®Ria/to (SB) $2,232,000 ST-98 Grade Separation ®State Street/University (SB) $2,140, 000 ST-99 Grade Separation ®Hunts Lane (SB, Colton) $1,143,000 i ST-100 Grade Separation ®Rancho Avenue .$2,349,000 < LB-Ol Genera/ Library Square Foot Expansion $5,152,818 9 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 City of San Bernardino Total Master Facilities Plan Through Summary -All Projects Build out LB-02 Expansion of Library Collection $5,083,041 LB-03 Main Library Debt Service $5,351,265 CC-Ol Verdemont Community Center $4,125,000 CC-02 Delmann Heights Gymnasium $1,925,000 CC-03 Nicholson Community Center $1,925,000 CC-04 Construct Additional Public Use Space $10,365,025 AQ-01 Construct Water Pool/Attraction $3,224,863 ': AQ-02 Construct Locker/Administration Building $2,008,069 PK-01 Construct Six 5.0 Acre Neighborhood Parks $23,296,374 PK-02 Construct Seven 10.0 Acre Passive Community Parks $54,358,213 '! PK-03 Construct Four 25.0 Acre Active (sports) Community Parks $77, 654, 600 iPK-04 Miscellaneous Parklmprovements $1,000>~ PK-OS Open Space Acquisition (159.4 acres) $4,015,018 Total - A// Projects $454,232,342 10 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 City of San Bernardino Law Enforcement Facitit~es, Vehicles and Equipment T M ry ti oppo 8 m N ar h V ~O O r1 a ~ ~.i ~ O ao ~n LL ro Q ~ y h tl M q 0 0 'o ~ o~ h ~ ~, `p' ~ ~ N ~ ~ 0 i N ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 g 8 N O ~ I ~ ~ c S P N a m 3i 6°s 3, °d, s, Q n O i ~ o 8 o o a N U N O Q a h ~Uj ~ QI 'u p ~V W ' y h ti Q ~" y n ~ U `~' o U ~ a ~ s ~ y J ~ ti J ~ C m ~e o R u ~ V t+ Q. Q u C f_q ~ C ~ u C U ~ N u a ~, C~ E d a w ~ ro 3 a ~ $ .g °c o a a L' E k ~' ~ U '. ~ ti a~ '~ '8 3 ~ c ro U ~ G ~ ~ ~ 3 ~- W W W~ W o~ 1 ~ > U~~ a a a a a' ~ City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Expand Law Enforcement Facilities Space Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Police Department LE-O1 Project Description: Acquire land for and expand facilities to house the City's additional law enforcement services. The added space would need to be approximately 32,308 square feet to be able to maintain the current levels of service afforded to the existing community by the current 80,000 square foot facility. The additional space would house the additional administration, patrol, investigation, records, traffic control, analytical and support staff, short-term evidence storage, report writing space, training, meeting and locker/shower facilities and other space needs required to maintain current building standards. Included in the cost estimate is the acquisition of about five and half acres for the building and additional visitor/employee parking. Justification/Requirement for Project: The ultimate-use law enforcement building will be required to house the build-out staff as the full impact of development of all currently undeveloped acreage in the City occurs. The current 80,000 square feet of the facilities dedicated to law enforcement affords approximately 256.4 square feet of building space for each of the existing 312 officers (and defines the current building standard of space/officer) and the new facility will extend that standard into the future by acquiring about 32,308 square feet for the additional 126 officers need to maintain the existing levels of service. No decision has been made regarding the location or configuration of the additional space bu[ the Department intends on constructing two decentralized stations, one on the north and one in the south areas of the City. Ca~sequences of Not Completing Project: ' The capital items contained in these Master FacIlity Plans is not meant to imply that either the additional space or officers to be added as a result of development is neither adequate or sufficient. It is only implied that these MFP projects contained within the Law Enforcement Chapter would allow the City to maintain [he level of service (LOS) at General Plan Build-out with 438 officers (in 112,308 SF) as is currently afforded with the 312 officers (in 80,000 SF). Reference Document: Project Timing: None, the proposed space needs are limited to impact-based needs and The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay are defined by the "proportionality" requirement of the impact fee acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this calculation. engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-I / Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Lispection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,248,489 $1,248,489 Lard Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,257,795 $1,257,795 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,370,262 $11,370,262 ' Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $674,349 $674,349 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,114,626 $1,114,626 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,665,521 $15,665,521 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 13 General Fund revenues, Law Enforcement Impact Fees or potentially aspecifically-defined tax measure. Istiuaty. ZOOb City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Acquire Additional Patrol/Detective/Specialty Vehicles Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Suhmittmg Department(s): Project No.: Police Department LE-02 Project Description: Acquire 95 miscellaneous additional response vehicles required by law enforcement including a combination of patrol, unmarked and specialty vehicles at an average of $42,436 per equipped vehicle. These 95 additional vehicles are necessary to maintain the current 0.75 vehicles per officer ratio with the addition of 126 officers. The current standard of 0.75 vehicles per officer is based upon the 234 vehicles divided by the existing 312 officers. ' lustiGcation/Requirement for Project: As the residential and business community continues to grow, [he Police Department will receive a statistically determined increase in the number of law enforcement calls for service. The expansion of [he police station is discussed in LE-O1. As the law enforcement force expands, additional vehicles are needed to equip the additional officers consistent with the pro-rata expansion of the sworn staff and building size. Consequences of Not Completing Project Inability to maintain the current ratios of vehicles per officer will severely reduce the City's ability to maintain current beat strength and a reduced level of services would result. ' Reference Document: Project Timing: None, the proposed vehicle needs are limited to impact-based needs The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay and are defined by the "proportionality" requirement of the impact fee acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this calculation. engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-1 / Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 througG all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 COntLle CI1Cy $~ $~ $~ $~ $~ $~ EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,031,420 $4,031,420 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,031,420 $4,031,420 Potential Fwldmg Sources: 14 General Fund revenues, Law Enforcement Impact Fees or potentially aspecifically-defined tax measure. iatiuary, 2008 . (~3 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Acquire Officer Assigned Equipment Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment SubmittUtg Department(s): Project No.: Police Department LE-03 Project Description: Additional equipment assigned to 126 officers necessary maintain the existing level of service. The list includes, but is not limited to: protective vest, handgun, badges/patches/name tags, flashlight, nylon belt/attachements, uniforms, etc. The cost includes an amount for undertaking the back-ground check, psychological exam, physical/medical exam, and polygraph for the successful candidates. '. Justification/Requirement for Project The equipment is necessary for an officer to function in the field. The list is mostly safety and communications equipment but also includes the significant recruiting costs. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Officer safety would be compromised and the ability to function would be impaired. Reference Document: Project Timing: None, the proposed space needs are limited to impact-based needs and The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay are defined by the "proportionality" requirement of the impact fee acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this calculation. engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-/0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/h~spection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EguipmenUOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $643,608 $643,608 ' TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $643,608 $643,608 ! Potential Fw~ding Sources: I S General Fund revenues, Law Enforcement Impact Fees or potentially aspecifically-defined tax measure. IaauarY. ZOOb (c) City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Acquire Advanced Computer/Data Sharing Systems Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Police Department LE-04 Project Description: Acquire Specialty and Communications Equipment/Improvements and Computer Data Sharing Equipment Acquire hardware and software for advanced fingerprint, DNA, dispatch, jail management, crime analysis, field report writing and record keeping systems. These new systems are necessary to allow the Department to maintain services to an ever increasing population and business community. Also included is the acquisition of additional hand-held communications equipment (pagers/radios) for the 126 additional officers and communications equipment (radios/MDCs/modems) for the 95 additional vehicles. Justification/Requirement for Project The amount and sophistication of crime is ever increasing. The City will need to acquire new computer software designed to provide new information sharing tools and greater investigatory capability. The transfer of information gathered from computer systems to officers in the field as well as proper and necessary communications with those same officers is an absolute requirement for the safety of the City's citizens and the officers themselves. Again, nothing is implied regarding the sufficiency of the proposed additions. The proposed additions are limited to capital required to maintain the existing level of service, be it the City's desired Level of Service or not. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure to acquire new advances in electronic data processing and communications equipment would force the City to operate without the assistance of other agencies. Reference Document: Project T;mL~g: None, the proposed space needs are limited to impact-based needs and The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay are defined by the "proportionality" requirement of the impact fee acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this calculation. engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-ll Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 Potential Funding Sources: 16 General Fund revenues, Law Enforcement Impact Fees or potentially aspecifically-defined tax measure. (~3 Ianuery 2006 1 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ _ Project Title: Program: Police Station Debt Service Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Su6mittmg Department(s): Project No.: Police Department LE-OS Project Description: ,:: ': Make remaining payments on the Police Sta[ion debt service schedule. Justification/Requirement for Project: The debt service payments must be made. Consequences of Not Completing Project-. Default on the payment schedule is not an option. Reference Document: Project Timing: Police Station Debt Service Schedule. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in [he scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-II Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Ltspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,754,385 $9,754,385 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EquipmentlOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,754,385 $9,754,385 Potential Fwtding Sources: 17 General Fund revenues, Law Enforcement Impact Fees or potentially aspecifically-defined tax measure. (cl Ianurry, 2066 ~'ity of San Bernardino Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and equipment 18 Q 8 8 8 p 8 U ..M O M ~ M M M ~ ~ ~ O ~ O `°1 O~~ ~ 7 ~ ~ C U ~ ` ~o !n h ~o ~o ~o p ao ~ S. ~ ~ t~ V~ ~ 4 C N M ~ h M M M M O `a di V di N 6A n '~1 N ~ a 3 EOu h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~9 c` a ~ ~ ~ ~ LL Q N M Q. N ~ ~ O . O 'n ..1. v M 25 M ~ M M M ~ ° ~ h n p $ 'r O ~i d n ac M M ryi O; o; ~ 8 ~ ~ n °p d 'o'vo ~ ~ b M ~ ~ `"'1 M M M M OpO 69 ~ di N ~ n h N 0 4t~, ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W h H O ~ N Er (3j 0 N 8 a o P g a N m 0 pp pp oo 0p 0 0 oo p o oo p o oo p o po pp po w ':: cq ay ~9 e9 ~ ~ ~A W ~ K a9 ~ ~9 vi ~ K K N O O °N I ~ S N i o i . . : m a U F° ~ O ~ ~ ro q v R' m v 4 U N 9 ~ ~ ro c~°" ~ ~ Q 9 .b O U h ~ y -0 u O •a C @ u 4 U $a~ L ~ w L~ ~ ~ y r1 ~ ~ :C u~ ~' u ~' o J 4 ° ,• ~ J M ~~~yyc Mc c g 5 p egg u a ~ ro y q vi e w 4~ ~, fE ° c~ a a u~ c fn ~ ~ a a a ~ y o k ~ u, k, g u 8 u ~ '' ~ Z a a a a a U<<< e< x> E ti ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ 4 4 4 ~ 4 ~ R 4 ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ '° ~ y c ro ~ ;coo c c c o c a o c d d o o ' oa 19 > U~ ~L 2 w R ~C ~c w w w w~ w Q~~ w Q ~C z" ~ City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ,, Project Title: Program: New Fire Station #233 Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Suhmitting Department(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-O1 Project Description: Acquire land for and construct a 6,700 square foot station capable of housing a response company in the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan Area. The 2 X 2 floor configuration would consist of two 20' wide by 80' deep response vehicles bays (3,200 S.F.) in order to adequately house a standard Type Ipumper/engine and a Type III engine. The remaining 3,500 square feet would be used for living quarters, utility/storage and a staff conference room for up to four firefighters. Justification/Requirement for Project: The specific plan area is projected to consist of the construction of 465 detached dwellings, 558 attached dwellings, a 600 room hotel and approximately 1,045,000 square feet of conference/commercial space. Typically, this limited amount of development would not warrant the need for a separate station. However, given the somewhat geographic separation from the rest of the City and its close interface with the contiguous wildland, a station is required. Most likely, the construction of this station and acquisition of the response vehicles would be required as condition of approval in the Development Agreement. Consequences of Not Completing Project: The proposed development could not be approved due to the poor response time from the City's existing stations. Reference Document: Project Timing: Fire Department staff planning. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 tl~rough alJ EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspectia~/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $327,429 $327,429 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,830 $1,600,830 ' Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,008,466 $3,008,466 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,823 $160,823 Equipment/OUter $0 $0 $0 $0 $265,823 $265,823 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,363,371 $5,363,371 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 20 General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially avoter-approved tax measure. City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: New Fire Station #233 Response Fleet Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-02 ' Project Descriptlws Acquire a Type I engine and Type III engine for assignment to Station #233. Given the continuous growth of brush in the contiguous wildland areas and trees on privately owned property, additional wildland interface equipment will be necessary. Justification/Requirement for Project The station requires response fleet consistent with the needs and risks posed by the area it will serve. Property owners typically plant small trees on their new property as part of the initial landscaping efforts. As these trees mature and grow, they become potential conduits for spreading fire from adjacent wildland areas into developed areas. The Department needs additional resources to have a fast strike capability to deflect such fires. Consequences o£Not Completing Project: The proposed development could not be approved due to the poor response time from the City's existing stations. ' Reference Document: Project Timing: Fire Department staff planning. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OH 2008-09 2009-10 througG all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Land AcquisiHwt/Right o£ Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' EquipmentlOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $650,000 $650,000 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $650,000 $650,000 Potential Funding Sources: 21 General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially avoter-approved tax measure. Isituary, 2110G (c) City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ' Project Title: Program: Relocate Fire Station #221 Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-03 Project Description: Acquire land for and construct an 8,700 square foot station capable of housing two response companies near 9th Street and Waterman Avenue The 3 X 2 floor configuration would consist of three 20' wide by 80' deep bays (4,800 S.F.) in order to adequately house a standard pumper/engine and a second front-line vehicle. The remaining 4,900 square feet would be used for living quarters, utility/storage and a staff conference room. The station is required to relocate the engine companies from the existing Station #221 location. Justification/Requirement for Project: It is proposed that the existing Station #221 complex become (only) the Fire Administrative headquarters/maintenance/storage facility. The existing fire fleet maintenance shops (14,492 S.F) must be demolished to allow for the proposed I-215 widening. The existing bays at Station #221 are suitable to function as the new fire flee[ maintenance operation. To make room for the relocation of the maintenance operation, the Station #221 fire/medic response capabilty will need to be relocated to a suitable nearby location. Consequences of Not Completing Project The maintenance facffity wIll have to relocated regardless and the City would not be able to relocate the Station to a more advantageous location. Lastly, the additional traffic expected from the intensification will likely increase response time from Station #7. Reference Document: Project Timing: Fire Department staff planning. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-/0 tJ~rough all EXPEND/TURES Build-out Ycars Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $463,181 $463,181 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,829,520 $1,829,520 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,246,965 $4,246,965 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $232,833 $232,833 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $384,848 $384,848 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,157,347 $7,157,347 Potential Funding Sources: 22 General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially avoter-approved tax measure. Ianuery, '2405 (c} City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Tide: Program: Expand Fire Station #224 Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Sufimittmg Department(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-04 Project Description: Acquire 0.30 acres for and expand the station by about 3,000 square feet for an additional paramedic squad. lustiScation/Requirement for Project Additional development will generate the demand for an additional paramedic squad. Consequences of Not Completing Project: All medic responses would need to respond from existing facilities. Reference Document Project Timing: Fire Department staff planning. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-ll Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-our Years Design/L~spection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,091 $120,091 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $135,736 $135,736 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,098,074 $1,098,074 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $62,212 $62,212 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $102,830 $102,830 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,518,943 $1,518,943 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 23 General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially avoter-approved tax measure. 3artuary, 21766 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ _ Project Title: Program: Relocate Fire Station 1f226 Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submittd~g Department(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-OS Project Descriptlon: Acquire land for and construct a 6,700 square foot station capable of housing a relocated single response company (roughly three four fire-fighters). The 2 X 2 floor configuration would consist of two bays 20' wide by 80'deep bays (3,200 S.F.) in order to adequately house a standard pumper/engine and aback-up. The remaining 3,500 square feet would be used for living quarters, utility/storage and conference room. The facility would be in the vicinity of Dcl Rosa Avenue and Date Avenue. Justification/Requirement for Project: i ,; The addition of approximately 21,000 residential dwelling units and 80.5 million square feet of business space will result in an approximateley 39% increase in calls at General Plan build-out. Typically, such an increase would statistically result in requiring four new stations. However, staff and aCity-wide Committee have determined that the anticipated new development could be accommodated with one new station and the relocation of four others. This is significant in that it allows for the accommodation of nearly 40% more calls-for-service with a minor increase r' (about 8%) in on-going staff costs. An additional factor is the continual incease in traffic from probable residential intensification, response times from the existing responding stations, wIll likely increase due to the additional traffic load. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Additional stations would have to constructed, a counter productive step to maiximizing staff costs. Reference Document: Project Timing: Fire Department staff planning. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-!! Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/L~spection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $327,429 $327,429 Lard Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,830 $1,600,830 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,008,466 $3,008,466 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,823 $160,823 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $265,823 $265,823 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,363,371 $5,363,371 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 24 General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially avoter-approved tax measure. (~3 Iauuary, 2ooG City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail >,: , Project Title: Program: Relocate Fire Station #229 Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-06 Project Description: Acquire land for and construct a 6,700 square foot station capable of housing a relocated single response company (roughly three four fire-fighters). The 2 X 2 floor configuration would consist of two bays 20' wide by 80'deep bays (3,200 S.F.) in order to adequately house a standard pumper/engine and aback-up. The remaining 3,500 square feet would be used for living quarters, utility/storage and conference room. The facility would be in the vicinity of Rialto Avenue and Rancho Drive. lustil:cation/Requirement for Project: The addition of approximately 21,000 residential dwelling units and 80.5 million square feet of business space will result in an approximateley 39% increase in calls a[ General Plan build-out. Typically, such an increase would statistically result in requiring four new stations. However staff and aCity-wide Committee have determined that the anticipated new development could be accommodated with one new station and the relocation of four others. This is significant in that it allows for the accommodation of nearly 40% more calls-for-service with a minor increase ' (about 8%) in on-going staff costs. An additional factor is the continual incease in traffic from probable residential intensification, response times from the existing responding stations, will likely increase due to the additional traffic load. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Additional stations would have to constructed, a counter productive step to maiximizing staff costs. Reference Document: Project Timing: Fire Department staff planning. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. ; ; 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-/0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $327,429 $327,429 Land Acquisition/RightofWay $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,830 $1,600,830 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,008,466 $3,008,466 Cm,tingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,823 $160,823 EguipmendOtl,er $0 $0 $0 $0 $265,823 $265,823 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,363,371 $5,363,371 ' Potentla/ Funding Sources: 25 General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially avoter-approved tax measure. Isauary, Z06G (r) City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _, Project Title: Program: Relocate Fire Station #230 Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Suhmitti~g Department(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-07 Project Description: Acquire land for and construct a 6,700 square foot station capable of housing a relocated single response company (roughly three Four fire-fighters). The 2 X 2 floor configuration would consist of two bays 20' wide by 80'deep bays (3,200 S.F.) in order to adequately house a standard pumper/engine and aback-up. The remaining 3,500 square feet would be used For living quarters, utffity/storage and conference room. The facility would be m the vicinity of Waterman Avenue and Mill Street. JustiEcation/Requirement for Project: The addition of approximately 21,000 residential dwelling units and 80.5 million square feet of business space will result in an approximateley 39% increase in calls at General Plan build-out. Typically, such an increase would statistically result in requiring four new stations. However staff and aCity-wide Committee have determined that the anticipated new development could be accommodated with one new station and the relocation of four others. This is significant in that it allows for the accommodation of nearly 40% more calls-for-service with a minor increase (about 8%) in on-going staff costs. An additional factor is the continual incease in traffic from probable residential intensification, response times from the existing responding stations, will likely increase due to the additional traffic load. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Additional stations would have to constructed, a counter productive step to maiximizing staff costs. Lastly, the additional traffic expected from the intensification will likely increase response time from Station #7. Reference Document: Project Timing: Fire Department staff planning. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Budd-out" column. 20/0-ll Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/h~spection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $327,429 $327,429 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,830 $1,600,830 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,008,466 $3,008,466 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,823 $160,823 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $265,823 $265,823 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,363,371 $5,363,371 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 26 General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially avoter-approved tax measure. (~3 ianuary, 2006 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Renovate Station #22l as Administrative/Maintenance Facility Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-08 r Project Description: Convert the existing station #221 to function as the department's headquarters, maintenance and supply facility. The station current supports ' the administration function and would continue to do so. The project consists of converting the vacated fire operations space into the fire fleet maintenance, storage and supply center. The facffity would probably need approximately 3,200 additional square feet (see FD-O8). Justification/Requirement for Project: The Department would have to find other resources for this function becuase [he current maintenance facilities will be acquired by the State for the i-215 widening. Consequences of Not Completing Project: The Department would be limited to current limited public awareness equipment. ' Reference Document: Project Timing: Fire Department staff planning. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in [he scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Buffd-out" column. 2010-I l Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $286,628 $286,628 Land Acquisition/RigGt of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,606,848 $2,606,848 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $156,958 $156,958 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $259,435 $259,435 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,309,869 $3,309,869 ' Potential Funding Sources.• General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially avoter-approved tax measure. There will also b eipts from the required purchase of the existing maintenance facIlity by CALTRANS. (o) Iaauary, 200b City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Construct a Vehicle Storage Building Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment SubmittL~g Department(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-09 Project Description: Construct an 3,200 square foot vehicle storage building to store [he Department's various reserve vehicles, minor fleet repair, warehouse operations and medical/station supplies. The facffity is planned to be located at the proposed combined Headquarters Facility (ex-Station tt221). Justification/Requirement for Project: The relocation of the maintenance operations from the current "H" Street location will require some additonal space for parts storage and vehicle maintenance. The existing bays would function as the major repair areas and would probably house the lifts/hoists. Additionally, the City has a number of reserve vehicles or vehicles not assigned to any specific station and they need to be stored in a covered facility to increase the vehicle longevity. Consequences of Not Completing Project: The maintenance function would not have enough space. Reserve vehicles would need to be stored or at existing stations. Reference Document: Project Timing: Fire Department staff planning. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. - 2010-1/ Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years S Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $94,354 $94,354 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $858,900 $858,900 ContL~gency $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,207 $51,207 EquipmenUOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $84,640 $84,640 ~' TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,089,101 $1,089,101 Potential Fw~ding Sources: 2g General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially avoter-approved tax measure. (cj Ia6tiary, 2t701's City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Tide.• Program: Construct Training Facility Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-10 Project Description: Acquire about three acres for and construct a training facility. No specific location has been determined but industrial use areas work well. The facility would include a "live fire" training facility for "hands-on" manipulated training. The project would include amulti-story "burn" ' training tower/hose rack. Probable improvements would include a drafting pit, pipe/trench, classrooms, observation tower and other numerous situation devices or props including potential aircraft response. Justification/Requirement for Project: The proposed facility would enable the Fire Department to continue to meet mandated and recommended training requirements. Training while on-site and on-duty is cost-effective. Additionally, squads undergoing training would be available as 2nd alarm response crews. Lastly, the pumping capabffities of each pumper can continue to be tested without risk to the pumps. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Training would continue in its current ad hoc manner at various locations. i Reference Document: Project Timh~g: Fire Department staff planning. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-ll Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $290,149 $290,149 Land Acquisition/RightofWay $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,372,140 $1,372,140 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,691,483 $2,69],483 Cattmgency $0 $0 $0 $0 $127,050 $127,050 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $210,000 $210,000 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,690,822 $4,690,822 Potential Funding Sources: 29 General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially avoter-approved tax measure. City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Acquire Two Command Vehicles Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-1 I Project Description: Acquire two command vehicles. Justification/Requirement for Project: The need for additional command vehicles is the result of a growing department potentially culminating up to thirteen stations and almots 170 fire-fighters. The additional growth from residential and business development in the community will increase the likelihood of simultaneous responses necessitating additional command vehicles. Consequences of Not Completing Project: The existing number of command vehicles would have [o be sufficient. Reference Document: Project Timing: Fire Department staff planning. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "BuIld-out" column. 20/0-// Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-IO through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design//nspection/Admmistratlon $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Constructiw~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EquipmendOthar $0 $0 $0 $0 $90,000 $90,000 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $90,000 $90,000 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 3Q General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially avoter-approved tax measure. City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Acquire Four Squad Vehicles Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-12 Project Description: Acquire four squad vehicles. ' Justification/Requirement for Project: Consequences of Not Completing Project Reference Document: Project Timing: Fire Department staff planning. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-ou[" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Bulld-out Years Design/L~spection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Land Acquisition/RigGt of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment/Oilier $0 $0 $0 $0 $480,000 $480,000 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $480,000 $480,000 Potential Funding Sources: 3 ] General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially avoter-approved tax measure. (c1 Iauuary, 200b City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ Project Title: Program: Acquire Three Sedans and a Utility Truck Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Suhmittmg Department(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-13 Project Description: Acquire Fire Administrative Vehicles Acquire three sedans for inspections services and a utIlity truck for fleet maintenance. Justification/Requirement for Project: There will be an increase in the number of annual inspections. Additionally, there is need for an additional utIlity vehicle for routine pick-up and delivery of needed supplies and fleet maintenance parts. Increased Fire suppression response capabilities by improving the fire-fighting conditions. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Inspectors and fleet maintenance staff would not be able to work under optimum conditions. Reference Document: Project Timing: Fire Department staff planning. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $94,500 $94,500 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $94,500 $94,500 Potential Fwndinng Sources: 32 General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially avoter-approved tax measure. (c) Iaunary, 201Yb City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ _ , Project Title: Program: Acquire a Reserve Engine Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Su6mi[th~g Department(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-14 ~ Project Description: Acquire a reserve engine/pumper at $425,000. Justificatlon/Requirement for Project: The addition of the proposed stations requires the addition of six front-line engine/pumpers to be assigned to the new stations. Three additional engine/pumpers are required to maintain a 50% reserve capability. Consequences of Not Completing Project: The front-line vehicles would become over-used and subjectto a greater rate of break-down without routine and scheduled maintenance, requiring back-up vehicles. Reference Document: Project Timing: Fire Department staff planning. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/htspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment/Otl~er $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,275,000 $1,275,000 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,275,000 $1,275,000 Potential Funding Sources: 33 General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially avoter-approved tax measure. iapuaty. ZC16b< City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Acquire Additional Assigned Fire-fighter Equipment Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-15 Project Description: Acquisition of equipment assigned to each firefighter. It costs the City some $4,895 to recruit/outfit each firefighter and there will be a need for 12 additional firefighters assigned to the proposed Station N223. ' Justification/Requirement for Project: Firefighters require specialty equipment and cannot perform their unusual or specific duties without it. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Sharing of personal equipment is not an option. Reference Document: Project Timing: Fire Department staff planning. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 tl~rough atl EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Land Acquisition/RigGt of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cons7uction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $58,740 $58,740 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $58,740 $58,740 Potential Funding Sources: 34 General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially avoter-approved tax measure. (t~ 7adi~ry, 201p6 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Headquarters Station t/221 Debt Service Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment SubmittLrg Department(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-16 Project Description: Make remaining payments on the Headquarters debt service schedule. Justification/Requirement for Project: The debt service payments must be made. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Default on the payment schedule is not an option. Reference Document: Project Timing: Debt service schedule. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-/1 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 tl~rough all EXPEND/TURFS Build-out Years Design/L~spection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,794,425 $1,794,425 Lard Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Constructia~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EquipmenUOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,794,425 $1,794,425 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 35 General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially avoter-approved tax measure. IanuaiY. 3arb (n) City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Tide: Program: Verdemont Station x232 Debt Service Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-17 Project Description: Make remaining payments on the Valdemonte Station debt service schedule. Justification/Requirement for Project The debt service payments must be made. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Default on the payment schedule is not an option. Reference Document: Project Timing: Debt service schedule. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Ihrougli all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,582,641 $3,582,641 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EquipmentlOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,582,641 $3,582,641 Potential Funding Sources: 36 General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially avoter-approved tax measure. Iaauery 2UO~b::. City of San Bernardino Circulation ?~ystem Streets, Signals and Bridges 37 0 0~~~8~~~g~~~~~~8~~~~~~~~gs~Q~~g$ U '. o o ° 8 ~ o '~ o a ti M ~ ~ 8 8 '~^ 8 ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e8 h cq 69 ~i ~3 ~ ~ " `' K .ti ti ~ sv es ss 0 8 0 S N o ~ h ~ S U N 5 0 h o N o N e O a y N O Q u ~ y h , i '~1 N y ~ ti .R m ~ ro h N u ~' e ai ~ ~ aY ~ ,+~ a E a 'a S uO ~ u ~ ~ ~' ~ ~O $ V S ~ ~ 4 U pq ~ ° U ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ° y gp ~ ~ ~ Y ~ s ~~ryggq ~ pa°' 0 0 0 ~ ~ Vj ~ "~ ~ G ~ ~ C ~ Y "' , y 0. ~ `.' > ~ a b O ~ ~ o N q~p aC C fA ~ M ~ '~ ~ p q y, o ti ti u C ,~, O ~ ~ O C `n ,~ 'C "~ 8 4 ~ ~ y ~ a g ~$ o a Ql ,Zj +1 ~ ss uu ~g a ~ 4 ~ ~ .`~, ~ 'C ,~ ;p~ ~ g~ ~ J a`. J J q ~' 0. ~ ~ p ~ ~ v q ~' ~ ~ ~' a 3 g~ K° .$ ~n ~i ~ a u ~3 ~ w 8~8 g~g 9 9 S S c3~ ~ ~ u y y o O ~ Q Q~ 7 Q '- N V h F F F F ~ Q ~ Y ~ ti ~ ti ^ ~ ~ ~ N N a e ~ O j 'C V y y y y ~ y h y q ~ i i i i i i i i N ~ N N N N N ~j y h H ~ y y y y ~ ~ h F F ti F ti N f: ~ O a ~ N MT R R R R Q Q R R Q Q Q Q R Q Q R R Q 5~ R Q W v ZS Z5 ~ 25 25 ~ 25 25 ~ ~ 25 25 ZS 25 ~ ZS Zi Zi ~ 25 25 ~ ~ ~ 2i Zi N O ~i h h o o ~ ~ o~ ~ 8$$ 8~ 8 8 8~~ h ,8~ 8 9; ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ h 8 8~ 8 8 8 R N vn~ N N N M N M N " N ~r 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 64 di di 69 di \h 69 69 df di di ~H df 69 h bH Vf ~ vi ~ K 69 9 h Q y 9 ti U ~ c ~ o a> $ 'gi'n 8 8$$ 8~ 8 8 4 8~ 4 8~ 8 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 8 h 8 8 8 y ~ ~ ~ 8~~ cV ER al 0 ~ I 8 N 0 i S N i' ~ °h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~S ~ ~ ~ ~9 69 ~ ~i ~ ~ K K K ~ a ~ ~ K Si ~ ~ ? O 0 ~ U h S 4 N a o p o o op p p p o p OO p oo j 0 o N N r 0 m a g N ~a w p ti C N N u 9 e ~ F ~ [~`~' d4 ~ o v a 'I; y 9 ~' ~ ~ ~ ~, u~~ i fez ~ ~ ~ a ~ t ro s .9 a o g ~ 3 Aa 2 pa s o a a ~a a ~ N yy '~ g g g ~ ~ ~ q ~ ~ ~ 6n b ~ 9 4 C ti ~ 7 S 6 0 ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ v~ ro g , ~ x , +R1 S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 0 'o sus 4~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~a~~? a ~ ~ ~ E F ~ 8 o A ~ ,~ ~ ~3 a a a ~ a y ~ ~3 :1 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o a~ G ,~ E ~ a ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ Chi ~ 6 @1 ~ C~ @1 ®1 @r ~ ®1 ~ ~ @1 @1 ~ G ~ @1 ®1 ~ m ~ 1 i 1 i i 1 i 1 i `r \ 1 i i R 1 h ~ ~ y ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ~ y o •" ~ y~~ o~ 'q u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u v u u u u u u O~ U ~, p ~ gg~ ~qq ~ a ~ " e e e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e e ~ ~ e e e e ~ e ~ ~ E O 0.7 vi y F .'~ 3 J F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F ~ ~ p ~ '~ m N h G N M h b h oc q N M y h t~ 4 0, N M h b l~ co y~ J W ry ~ M M M ~ M M M M M T y ~ v Y ~ Y Ri v v '9i h h h ~i h h h h m~~ C ~r F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F E: [.~, F. F:~ F. F E: F: f: O 9 ~ U~ U v] v1 vi u'i vi h h h h vi ~ h y ~ h y y h y ~ h F h ~ h ~ h h h 2' > '.:.: :i: '. .,„ Zi ~ 25 25 ~ 2i 25 2i ..25 ~ ~ ZS 25 ~ ~ ZS ~ ~ ~ 25 ~ ti ~ ~ ~ 25 N " o ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 8 ~ 8 ~ ~ 8 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ 8 ~ ~ rn N ~ h ~ vi ~ cq h ~ ~9 ~i ~ q h df K h h h K ~9 K 6 i ~5 ~ 69 ~ Q ' ° ° ° 8 U ~ ~ ti -. ~ ~ ~ o ': v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ '~ v ~ 8 8 4 8 8~ ~ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 h 8~~ 8 8 8 8 8 8 a . ~ N N N N N N N -~ N N N N N N N V ~ ~ ~ 6's ~ ~ ~9 wi dT 69 s9 69 vi K di wf 69 h K di ~i K Vi K 69 ~ g ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 i 8 0 8 N o S o N i a o s' m >r r 9 a E 4 ~ m a ffi $ ~ ~ m a N q ~ u ~ ~ ~ U ~ -. a a ° 3 ~ e y ~ o ~ ~ 3 p o ~ v '~ aq ~, y C '3 ~ ~lC~ V y ~S'i ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ R tj O O V ~ ~ .q ~ y \ 4 R~ Po $ ~ a U U I, ~ ~ w ° ° ~ ~ ° ° O C'3 a ~ ~ ~ ° c e 9 9 ° w y B !5t 3 •9 •9 '~ ~ ° ° ~ ~ e9~ 9 e9~ ~g ~s 9 ~ cn qqro 5g ~i o ~S ~ ~ 3 'gg~ 9gg ~$ 7t ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ x° 5 ~ S b ~ u c c0 E ~' 5 ~ ~ ~ 8 8 3 'p^ a ~ 9g k ~ 'gC gr 'g~ ~ ~ E ~U' O a ~ ~ ~ W w t C ~ ~ V ~ ~ a ~ h A ~ ~5 ~i rri o-i ~i U' o ~ ,,, ®1 ®1 ~ @1 ~ l~ @1 ~ ®1 U C~ @1 lei ® ®1 U ~ ® @1 ~ C~ ®1 @1 6 ~ ~ m (n /y~ h y h h y y h ~ h h h h h h h h y y h y h ~ h ~ h : U (,u 44U~ 4 u U {emu U G U u {~t.> u {~U. t~ U G yU U U {~U U U t~ 4U (~U p~ V a e n e e a e~ a~ s a e e a a a a e a c e e e e e e ~ ~ ~L .a F F F F N f., F F F [v F f. h F, h F. F. E. ~ ~" QS ~ ~ ~ ` ~ y Lj ~ a N h n eo a O ti N Q h b oo q ~r N d~ C h o b b~ b b b ~ ~ n ~ ~ n l` n oo F F. i. E. F E. H Iti H E. F E. f. F I. I. F, F E. : ~ O U ~ U v1 ~/1 ~/i v1 ~/i ~ Vj h ~/1 VJ v1 ~/! b h v1 h h U1 v1 v1 h ~/I v1 h h h 2 ~ a T M ,,, p` o Q$~ Ri o ~ a o M a a ~ a ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ti ~ s ~ Q a p 'SI o ~ ° k, ~ ~ ° `c?, biz yetis ~ i i ~ _ U Gn o a~ v LL ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O p O 8 O ep} ~O q ti M Q Q Q 6 ~ ~ 6~. O M O M O Q M ~ ~ ~ M Q olp O 'Lf o to h o "~ n `9 M ti ti ti ~i ti ro 0 8 0 8 N Si ~ ~9 ~H ~ ~ ~, ~9 ~i Si K K y ai y ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ U c S N a m O o N < o ., } N V ~ d ~ ~ ~ a ~ ti w L' ~ a: 'Q ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ a -• A C~ U o m m 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c4 ~ e ~ ~ ~ a U ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ a oC ~ ~ 3 ~ F~ 'Q .D~ -. Q w ~ ~ o C W ~ ~ '9 a -. u U° o U C ~ 4 2 m a v ~ ~ ~" 2 cl o y J y N N N N N N N O O O ,9 p ~ ~ -0 y _N Chi ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ C~ C~ o @1 ~ ~ Cab @1 a 'v '. ~ 1 % N W ~9 b b W N N N a o, a a, a a a a a a ,~, a g o g ro cn 0 ~a~ ~ e ~ ~ ~" u u u u u u u u u u ~ a a~ a a 5 -p e a S 5 ~3 S S S S S 5 S ti C~ ~ E ~ a., ,, ro " ~ ~ m 3 ,~ ~ w~ oao & a a a `d, a `8, a s 8; 8 ~ a 41 ~ ro ti i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i . "~ ^ h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h O > City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ _ , Project Title: Program: 40th Street, Acre Lane to Electric Avenue Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-O1 Project Description: Widen 40th Street from two lanes to four lanes for from Acre Lane to Electric Avenue adding approximately 0.35 lane mlles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane mfles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while [he existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at l5% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the Genezal Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able [o use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-mIles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-mIles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-mlles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip mlles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane mIles of existing collectors/arterials. Catsequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow a[ the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with [he City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Bufld-out" column. 20/0-/1 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-our Years Design/Inspection/Admen/stration $0 $0 $0 $0 $260,400 $260,400 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,736,000 $1,736,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $173,600 $173,600 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,170,000 $2,170,000 Potential Fwtdmg Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction o~some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) ~ .7snu2rY.400b City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ,... i Project Title: Program: 5th Street, Sterling to Victoria Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-02 ,,,,.r Project Description: Widen 5th Street from two lanes to four lanes from Sterling to Victoria adding approximately 2.0 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 a[ General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justficatiwt/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-mIles a[ General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57 % increase in the number of daIly trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles [o roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There '> are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane mIles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is ; absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cos[ estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is no[ a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "BuIld-out" column. 20/0-ll Tota! PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $384,000 $384,000 Larrd Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,560,000 $2,560,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $256,000 $256,000 EguipmenNOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 ' Potential Funding Sources: 43 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) Iaaue:y, 2W~G City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ ; g , Project Title: Pro ram: 5th Street, Warm Creek to Pedley Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-03 Project Description Widen 5th Street from two lane [o four lanes from Warm Creek to Pedley adding approximately 1.0 lane mile of arterial/collector to the City s existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15 % of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. JustiTicatlon/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete [he General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now fmd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daffy trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily [rip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of No[ Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default [o the "Build-out" column. 20/0-I/ Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-/0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,600 $57,600 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $384,000 $384,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $38,400 $38,400 EquipmenHOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $480,000 $480,000 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: [}4 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c3 J ~ .IanparY,2U6Y* i. City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Alabama Street, 3rd to City Limits Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System SubmittL~g Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-04 Project Description: Widen Alabama Street from two lanes to four lanes from 3rd Street to City Limits adding approximately 1.0 lane mffe of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while [he existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 mffes) of the major road mffes. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. lusdficatlon/Requirement for Project: z This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have ', previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daffy trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Buffd-out" column. 2010-/l Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPEND/TURFS Build-out Years Design/L~spection/Admmistretiwt $0 $0 $0 $0 $192,000 $192,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,280,000 $1,280,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $128,000 $128,000 Equipment/Od~er $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 Potential Funding Sources: 45 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ _ Project Title: Program: Campus Parkway (Pepper-Linden), Kendall to I-215 Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-OS I Project Description: Construct the four lane Campus Parkway Extension from Kendall to I-215. Also construct a partial diamond interchange. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-01 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at IS% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 dally trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not CompletL~g Project Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". ' Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. ,: _ -: 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 tluough all EXPEND/TURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $576,000 $576,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,840,000 $3,840 000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $384,000 $384,000 ' Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,800,000 $4,800,000 Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of6some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 3anuary 2002'> (c3 , . City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ' Project Title: Program: Central (Palm Meadows), Tippecanoe to Mountain View Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Suhmittmg Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-06 Project Description: Widen Central Avenue from tow lane to four lanes from Tippecanoe to Mountain View adding approximately 2.0 lane miles of ' arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-Ol through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 mIles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: ' This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and wIll assist in accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles a[ General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane mIles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow a[ the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Leve] "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project TimL~g: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of [his current effort. Therefore all ' Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. ' 20/0-ll Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $384,000 $384,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,560,000 $2,560,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $256,000 $256 000 ' EquipmentlOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 ' Potential Funding Sources: 47 A combination of unobliga[ed monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 7anuary, 201ir City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Coulston, Tippecanoe to Mountain View Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-07 Project Description: Widen Coulston from tow lane to four lanes from Tippecanoe to Mountain View adding approximately 2.2 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 wIll represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road mIles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15 % of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daIly trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daIly trip-mIles to roughly 7,973,974 daffy trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daIly trip mIles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary [o complement [he existing 668 lane mfles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Faflure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups ? from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-JJ Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-/0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/L~spection/Admmistratiw~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $422,400 $422,400 Lartd Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Constructiwn $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,816,000 $2,816,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $281,600 $281,600 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,520,000 $3,520,000 Potential Funding Sources: 48 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) Isn~ry, appb City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ' Project Title: Program: Connector, 3rd Street to 5th Street Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Pro%ect No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-O8 Project Description: Construct a four lane connector from 3rd Street to 5th Street adding approximately 2.0 lane miles of arterial/collector to [he City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road mffes. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soffs testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily [rip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able [o use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daffy trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inabffity to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Pro%ect Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. , .-. 20/0-I1 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 tl~rougG all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design//nspecfion/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $384,000 $384,000 Land Acquisition/RigGt of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,560,000 $2,560,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $256,000 $256,000 EquipmendOd~er $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 49 A combination of unobliga[ed monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (cj Ietiaary, 2006 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail g _ Project Title: Pro ram: Del Rosa, 6th Strect to 9th Street Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-09 Project Description: Widen Del Rosa from two lanes to four lanes from 6th Street to 9th Street adding approximately 2.0 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.49fi of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.69 (688.32 mffes) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required [o complete [he General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles a[ General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily ` trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. _ ,.; 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through al] EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/htspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $192,000 $192,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,280,000 $1,280,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $128,000 $128,000 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction o5s0ome projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. R3 jsrtuaiY, 2005 Ciry of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Electric, Mountain View to Northpark Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Suhmittmg Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-10 Project Description: Widen Electric Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from Mountain View to Northpark adding approximately 2.0 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan buffd-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at IS% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daIly trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daffy trip-mIles, an increase of 2,923,685 daffy trip mffes. There are limits as to how many additional lane mIles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane mfles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability [o widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups From other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default [o the "Build-out" column. , , 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $384,000 $384,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 i Cwtstruction $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,560,000 $2,560,000 _' Conti~~gency $0 $0 $0 $0 $256,000 $256,000 EquipmenUOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 Potential Fwidy~g Sources: 51 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (r1 Iaai~ry, 200b City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: "G" Street, Mill to Rialto Avenue Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-11 Project Description: Widen "G" Street from two lanes to four lanes from Mill Street to Rialto Avenue adding approximately 1.0 lane mile of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 wIll represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at l0% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that [hey have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-mIles from the current 5,050,289 dally trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip mlles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not CompletLrg Project Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at [he intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and rs identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with [he City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 througG all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/L~specUou/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $192,000 $192,000 Land Acquisitiw~/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,280,000 $1,280,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $128,000 $128,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 ' Potential Fw~di.~g Sources: A combination of unobliga[ed monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction o~some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) 78auyry, 2t1Q6 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: "H" Street, Kendall to 40th Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Suhmitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-12 Project Description: Widen "H" Street from two lanes to four lanes from Kendall to 40th Street adding approximately 0.4 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688,32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of [he major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. ' Justification/Requirement far Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles a[ General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-mIles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-tulles to roughly 7,973,974 daffy trip-mIles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow a[ the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-/ l Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $76,800 $76,800 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $512,000 $512,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,200 $51,200 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $640,000 $640 000 ' Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 5 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. aau2ry, 206!6 R3 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ _ > Project Title: Program: Kendall, Cambridge to Pine Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s) Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-13 Project Description: Widen Kendall Drive from two lanes to four lanes from Cambridge to Pine adding approximately 1.5 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane mffes. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-Ol through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 a[ General Plan buffd-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road mffes. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip mffes. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement [he existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Documeut: Project Timing: Staff cos[ estimates that are consistent with [he City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to [he "Build-out" column. ,.; -' 2010-// Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through eJl EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design//nspectiw~/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $420,000 $420,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,800,000 $2,800,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $280,000 $280,000 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 Potential Fw~di~~g Sources: 54 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) J8nil0ry, 2110E -. Ciry of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Lena Road, Mffl to Orange Show Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-14 Project Description: Construct Lena Road as a four lane roadway from Mill Street to Orange Show Drive. adding approximately 4.0 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of ' the major road mffcs. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soIls testing and project administration costs have been included at 15 % of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily [rip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Comp/eting Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-// Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 through all EXPEND/TURES Build-out Years Design/htspectiw~iAdmmistration $0 $0 $0 $0 $768,000 $768,000 Land Acquisition/Riglrt of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,120,000 $5,120,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $512,000 $512,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,400,000 $6,400,000 Potential Funding Sources: 55 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. Iaauary, ZIIOt'r (rf City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Little League Drive, Palm to I-215 Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Su6mittmg Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-15 ' Project Description: Widen Little League Drive from two lanes to four lanes from Palm Avenue to the I-215 Frontage Road adding approximately 1.5 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of [he proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of [he total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. i Jus~caUon/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in '' accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily ' trip-mIles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-mIles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daffy trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane mIles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability [o widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-1 l Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPEND/TURFS Build-out Years Design//nspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $288,000 $288,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,920,000 $1,920,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $192,000 $192,000 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,400,000 $2,400,000 Potential Funding Sources. 56 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some ' projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) January, Zill)b~ > City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Little League Drive, I-215 frontage to Belmont Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-16 Project Description: Widen Little League Drive from two lanes to four lanes from the I-215 Frontage Road to Belmont Avenue adding approximately 1.0 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road mIles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at I$% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project.' This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daIly ', trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daIly trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip mIles There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane tulles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". ` Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to [he "Build-out" column. 20/0-ll Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/hnspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $192,000 $192,000 ' Larnd Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,280,000 $1,280,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $128,000 $128,000 ' EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 '> TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $],600,000 $1,600,000 Polen6al Funding Sources: '7 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. IaaunKY, (c) City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Tide: Program: Little Mountain, Devil Creek Channel to 48th Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-17 Project Description: Widen Little Mountain Drive from two lanes to four lanes from Devil Creek Channel to 48th Street adding approximately 0.25 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 wlll represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The Ci[y can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "lammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-IO dirougG all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/L~spection/Admmistradon $0 $0 $0 $0 $48,000 $48,000 ' Lard Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $320,000 $320 000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,000 $32,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 '< TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $400 000 ' Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 5 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. fej Iammry.20.6tr City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ _ , Project Title: Program: Mill, Pepper to Meridian Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System SubmittL~g Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-18 Project Description: Widen Mill Street from two lanes to four lanes from Pepper to Meridian adding approximately 0.5 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City s existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily [rip-miles at General Plan buIld-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily [rip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane mfles), thus optimum lane mfle configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce [he Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". s: Reference Document Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. ;,: a; 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-our Years Design/h~spection/Admy~istration $0 $0 $0 $0 $96,000 $96,000 Land Acguisitlwt/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cw~struction $0 $0 $0 $0 $640,000 $640,000 Conrmgency $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,000 $64,000 ' Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $800,000 $800,000 Potential Funding Sources: 5 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (n) 7aauary, 20QCr. City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ g Project Title: Pro ram: Mount Vernon Bridge Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-19 Project Description: Widen the Mt. Vernon Bridge to four lanes. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.490 of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.69 (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 1590 of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 5890 increase in daily trip-mffes at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-mffes from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-mffes to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-mles, an increase of 2,923,685 daffy trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane tulles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges [o Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. -_:::. _ ' 2010-// Total > PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OB 2008-09 2009-/0 U~rough all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/h~spection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $384,000 $384,000 ' Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,560,000 $2,560,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $256,000 $256,000 ' Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 ' Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction o6f~some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (s) Iauuary, SC10fr> City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ' Project Title: Program: Mountain View, Thompson to Electric Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-20 Project Description: Widen Mountain View Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from Thompson Place to Electric Avenue adding approximately 0.4 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 mffes) of the major road mffes. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justiticatiw~/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in dally trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily [rip-miles [o roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane mIles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service ' (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default [o the "Build-out" column. 2010-/I Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/InspectioniAdministrafiw~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $76,800 $76,800 ' Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $512,000 $512,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,200 $51,200 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ;' TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $640,000 $640,000 ' Potential Fw~dmg Sources: f 1 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c3 Ianuaxy, ~ City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Mountain View Bridge at Mission Creek Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-21 Project Description: Widen the Mountain View Bridge at the Mission Creek Channel. The project consists of widening [he roadway and shoulders. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15 % of construction costs and contingency has been included at ]0% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement far Project This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required [o complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daffy trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daffy trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary [o complement [he existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/ar[erials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all I Element. projects default to the "Buffd-out" column. 20/0-Il Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $138,240 $138,240 Lard Acquisition/RigGt of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $921,600 $921,600 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $92,160 $92,160 EquipmenUOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,152,000 $1,152,000 ' Potential Fm~dmg Sources: 62 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) lanirary, 2005:. City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Mountain View, Riverview to Central Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Suhmitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-22 Project Description: Construct Mountain View Avenue from Riverview Drive to Central Avenue adding approximately 0.5 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6 4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cos[ estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design//nspection/Admmistrafion $0 $0 $0 $0 $829,440 $829,440 Lard Acquisitia~/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,529,600 $5,529,600 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $552,960 $552,960 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,912,000 $6,912,000 Potential Funding Sources: 6 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction oY somc projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. y .y/ y~y Y~~~! dllllV Ciry of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Tide: Program: '! Mountain View, I-10 to San Bernardino Ave. Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System SubmittL7g Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-23 Project Description: Widen Mountain View Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from the I-10 to San Bernardino Avenue adding approximately 0.74 lane mlles of ' arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of [he proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 159'0 of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justificatiat/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete [he General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 ~O increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-mlles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-// Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 througG all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Lspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $144,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $960,000 $960,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $96,000 $96 000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 Potential Fw~dmg Sources.' 64 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. fej ia~ary, 2t105 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Mountain View Avenue RaIlroad Grade Crossing Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-24 _':; Project Description: ' Widen the Mountain View RaIlway Grade Crossing from 1,500 feet north of the railway grade crossing from one lane North and South to two lanes North and South. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan buIld-out whIle the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 mIles) of the major road All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 wIll represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan buffd-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 mIles) of [he major road mIles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15 % of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. ., .', Justification/Requirement for Project: , This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane mIles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Faflure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "lammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-l/ Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years ' Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,800 $28,800 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $192,000 $192,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,200 $19,200 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $240,000 $240,000 Potential Fwzdmg Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction6oT some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) January, ZOOb City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Tide: Program: Palm, Cajon to I-215 SB Ramp Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-25 Project Description: Widen Palm Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from Cajon Boulevard to the I-215 Southbound access/egress ramp. adding approximately 0.5 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. ' Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find a[ maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daffy ' ' trip-mffes from the current 5,050,289 daIly trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inabffity to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to [he "Build-out" column. 20/0-ll Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $91,200 $91,200 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $608,000 $608 000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,800 $60,800 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $760,000 $760,000 ', Potential Fundy~g Sources: ': A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some ' projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (cl 7anuary.200b _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Pine, Kendall to Belmont Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submiriing DeparGnent(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-26 Project Description: Widen Pine Avenue from two lanes to Four lanes from Kendall Drive to Belmont Avenue adding approximately 0.5 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 mIles) of the major road mIles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/sofls testing and project administration costs have been included at IS% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. ' lustificaNon/Requirement for Project This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in [he number of daily trip-mfles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-mfles to roughly 7,973,974 daIIy trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daffy trip mfles. There are limits as to how many additional lane mfles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane mIles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-/1 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/h~spection/Adminisfration $0 $0 $0 $0 $96,000 $96,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $640,000 $640,000 ' ContLtgency $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,000 $64,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $800,000 $800,000 Potential Funding Sources: 67 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) Iauuary, 2005 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Perris Hill Park Road, 21st to Pacific Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Suhmitti»g Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-27 ' Project Description: Widen Perris Hill Park Road from two lanes to four lanes from 21st Street to Pacific Street adding approximately 0.8 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 wIll represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while [he existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at l5 %O of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10%O of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able [o use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane mfles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is _ identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-// Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OE 2008-09 2009-f0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/h~spection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $153,600 $153,600 ' Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,024,000 $1,024,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $102,400 $102,400 ' Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,280,000 $1,280,000 Potential Funding Sources: ( g A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) ~ January, ZOW. City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ _ Project Title: Program: Rancho, Colton City Limits to 5th Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System SubmittU~g Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-28 Project Description: Widen Rancho Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from the Colton City Limits to 5th Street adding approximately 1.4 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane mIles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out whffe the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required [o complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles a[ General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have ' previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daffy trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily [rip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip mIles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Cw~sequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administratiat $0 $0 $0 $0 $268,800 $268,800 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' Constructiwt $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,792,000 $1,792,000 ' Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $179,200 $179 200 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,240,000 $2,240,000 ' ' Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 69 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. ,; , (a) : >' '!' :'.: "' ...', i'alu9r~t 8006 1 ,..: City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Rialto, Sierra to Waterman Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-29 Project Description: Widen Rialto Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from Sierra Way to Waterman Avenue adding approximately 1.0 lane mffe of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-01 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of [he total 735,21 at General Plan buffd-out whffe the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justiflcatlon/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daffy trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able [o use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daffy trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane mIles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-II Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design//nspecfion/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $192,000 $192,000 Land Acquisition/Rigit of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,280,000 $1,280 000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $128,000 $128,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 ' Potential Funding Sources: "]Q A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. fel 7anugry, Z001`s City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Rialto, Lena to Tippecanoe Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-30 Project Description: Widen Rialto Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from Lena Road to Tippecanoe Avenue adding approximately 1.5 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.44'0 of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at IS% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that [hey have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane mIles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-ll Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 tJ~rough all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Admmis7ation $0 $0 $0 $0 $288,000 $288,000 Land Acquisi6on/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,920,000 $1,920,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $192,000 $192,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,400,000 $2,400,000 f Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 1 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c2 78nu0ry, 2110:6 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: State Street, 16th to Foothill Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Suhmitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-31 Project Description: Construct two lanes of roadway along State Street from 16th Street to Foothill Boulevard. The project will connect Slate Street to Rancho Avenue (new road). The project would be undertaken in four phases. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of [he major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/sofls testing and project administration costs have been included at IS% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily [rip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now Find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daIly trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip mi]es. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is ,: identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $888,000 $888,000 Lard Acyuisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,920,000 $5,920,000 I Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $592,000 $592,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 { TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,400,000 $7,400,000 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: '72 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 3anuarY.30Qr*r (cl City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ' Project Tide: Program: State Street. Foothill to I-215 Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Suhmitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-32 Project Description: Widen State Street from two lanes to four lanes from Foothill Boulevard to the I-215. adding approximately 8.0 lane miles of arterial/collector ' to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane mIles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. ' Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able [o use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-mIles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/ar[erials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Faflure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". ' Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with [he City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-/1 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-JO d~rough all EXPEND/TUBES Build-out Years Design/Lspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $960,000 $960,000 Land Acquisition/RigGt of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,400,000 $6,400,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $640,000 $640 000 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 ' Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of Funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. Ianuary, 2a0G ,; City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ' Project Title: Program: Tippecanoe, Mill to Harriman Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-33 '. Project Description: Widen Tippecanoe from four lanes to six lanes from Mill Street to Harriman adding approximately 3.5 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15 % of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required [o complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daffy trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from [he current 5,050,289 daffy trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is ' absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane mffes of existing collectors/arterials. Cw~sequences of Not Completing Project: ' Failure or inability [o widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-ll Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/h~spection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $672,000 $672,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,480,000 $4,480,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $448,000 $448,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' ' TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,600,000 $5,600,000 Potential Funding Sources: 74 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c3 '. Iaatrtry, 2006' City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ' Project Title: Program: University Parkway, Hallmark to BNSF Grade Separation Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-34 Project Description: Widen University Parkway from two lanes to four lanes from Hallmark Parkway to the BNSF Grade Separation adding approximately 0.75 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 mIles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at ]0% of construction costs. lustiGcation/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-mIles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable [o be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 574f increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at [he intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-IO through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years ' Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $144,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $960,000 $960,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $96,000 $96,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 ' Potential Funding Sources: 75 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ -. - _ ' Project Title: Program: Waterman, 5th to Baseline Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Suhmittu~g Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-35 Project Description: Widen Waterman Avenue from four lanes to six lanes from 5th Street to Baseline Street adding approximately 3.6 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-mffes from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daffy trip-mIles, an increase of 2,923,685 daffy trip mfles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane mIles of existing collectors/arterials. Catsequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPEND/TURFS Build-out Years Design//nspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $691,200 $691,200 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,608,000 $4,608,000 ' Cw~tingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $460,800 $460 800 EquipmentlOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,760,000 $5,760,000 Potential Funding Sources: ~ A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction o~some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (03 ;raaUa,y, City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Victoria, Richardson to Mountain View Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-36 ' Project Description: Widen Victoria Avenue and make various improvements from Richardson to Mountain View. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-O1 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15 % of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at ' maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daffy trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges [o Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". ' Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. :,. 20/0-lI Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-/0 tJtrough all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years i Design/L~spection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16 000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: ~'] A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. tat 7P~ry, 2l)UZYi City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Little League Drive and I-215 Frontage Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-37 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Little League Drive and I-215 Frontage Road. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals and wfll represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has ' generated 83.8 % (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and wIll assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that [hey have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily [rip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane mIles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". ' Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cos[ estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all ' Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land AcquisitiomRiglr[ of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160 000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: R A combination of unobliga[ed monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction oT some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (n) 78QU~ry.20dG City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Tide: Program: ' Traffic Signal @ Little League Drive and Belmont Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Suhmittmg Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-38 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Little League Drive and Belmont Avenue. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs havc been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane ' miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. ' Consequences of Not Completing Project Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all .i'. Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-our Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 ' Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160 000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Otl~er $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: qq A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction o'f some ' projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (n) ~38at~ry, ZOOG City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Palm and Cajon Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System ' ; : Suhmitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-39 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Cajon Boulevard. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 wIll represent a only 16.24'0 of the total 297 signals at General Plan buIld-out whIle the existing community has generated 83.8 % (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daffy trip-mIles at General Plan buIld-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway wffl provide an alternative for ' drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, [hat they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-mffes from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane ' miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane mffes of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level oC Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of [he intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". ' Reference Document: Project Timing: ' Staff cost estimates that are consistent with [he City's Circulation Project timing is no[ a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Buffd-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 tl~rougG all EXPENDITURES Build-out Ycars Design/Inspectiw~/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acguisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 ' Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potentlal Fw~ding Sources: gQ A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition oC approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) IanaarY.2006: City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Palm and Industrial Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-40 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Industrial Parkway. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8 % (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized [o complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daffy trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges [o Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of [his current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to [he "Build-out" column. 20/0-ll Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,400 $14,400 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $96,000 $96,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,600 $9,600 EquipmenNOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $120,000 Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construc[ion8~some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (~l 78dUSry, 200t`r City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ' Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Palm and I-215 ramps Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Suhmittmg Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-41 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Palm Avenue and I-215 Ramps. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals and will represent 16.2 % of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating [he nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily [rip-miles from the current 5,050,289 dady trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-JO through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Desigu/h~spection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,600 $39,600 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $264,000 $264,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,400 $26,400 ' EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $330,000 $330,000 ' Potential Fw~dmg Sources.' $2 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 3anuary, 21)65 fc) City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail r Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Palm and Irvington Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-42 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal a[ the intersection of Palm Avenue and Irvington Avenue. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 ' through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles From the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. Theze are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at [he intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. ; 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design//nspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,000 $18,000 Lard Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Constructiw~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $120,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,000 $12 000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 Potential Fm~dmg Sources: A combination of unobliga[ed monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The constructiono~ some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Palm and Belmont Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-43 i Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Belmont Avenue. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of [he total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soIls testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justiticatiw~/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daffy trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". ' Reference Document • Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all i Element. projects default to the "Bufld-out" column. 20/0-Il Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 tluough all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection~'Admmistration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/RigGt of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 84 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (cJ Isauary, 200Yr- City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Campus Parkway (Pepper-Linden) and Industrial Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System ' Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-44 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Campus Parkway and Industrail Parkway. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 wIll represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily [rip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project Failure or inabffity to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at [he intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with [he City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-// Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OE 2008-09 2009-/0 through a/I EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design//nspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' Cwtstruction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Cw7tmgency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 i Potential Funding Sources: gs A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) Iity, 200fr City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Campus Parkway (Pepper-Linden) and I-215 Ramps Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-45 Project Descriptlon. Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Campus Parkway and I-215 Ramps. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals and will represent 16.24'0 of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals a[ General Plan bufld-out white the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/sofls testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. lusGficatlon/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inabflity to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default [o the "Build-out" column. 2010-/l Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 U~rougi all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Admmistratlon $0 $0 $0 $0 $42,000 $42,000 Lard Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cwnstruction $0 $0 $0 $0 $280,000 $280,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,000 $28,000 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $350,000 $350,000 Potential Funding Sources: g6 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (rl Ianvary, 2005 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ' Project Title: Program: i Traffic Signal @ Campus Parkway and Northpark Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-46 ' Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Campus Parkway and Northpark Boulevard. This signal, when developed, wIll be one of 48 new ' signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained m ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has ', ,! generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soIls testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-tulles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane mIles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce [he Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-J l Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-our Years Design/L~spection/Admi~tistration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/RigGt of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 ' Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 EguipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: $'] A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. Isauary, 20gfi (c) ' City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Sierra (CSUSB) and Northpark Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-47 ' Project Descripflon: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Sierra (CSUSB) and Northpark Boulevard. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 wffl represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs ' have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. ' Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and wffl assist in accommodating the nearly 58 increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane ' miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design//nspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Lard Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 i Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16 000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 ' Potential Funding Sources: gg A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. < <; ;Iaauary 2G06 fat ':. > . City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ _ Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Kendall and 48th Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Su6mittmg Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-48 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Kendall Drive and 48th Street. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justificafion/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daffy trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-mffes from the current 5,050,289 daily ;' trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daffy trip-mffes, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane mIles of existing collector/arterial roads. ' Consequences of Not Completing Project. Failure or inabffity to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is no[ a component of this current effort. Therefore all f Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. ZOl0-l1 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPEND/TURFS Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,000 $21,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $140,000 $140 000 ContL~gency $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000 $14,000 EquipmenNOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 > TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 89 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 7sn~,y, Zl1Qir (L) City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Little Mountain and 30th Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-49 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Little Mountain Drive and 30th Stteet. This signal, when developed, wlll be one of 48 new signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs, Justification/Requirement for Project This intersection needs to be signalized [o complete the General Plan Circulation System and wffl assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-mIles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, [hat [hey have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-mIles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-mIles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily [rip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document. Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of [his current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisitiwt/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: 90 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) 78naa~Y, 2005 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title.' Program: Traffic Signal @ Little Mountain and 48th Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Suhmitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-50 Pro%ect Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Little Mountain Drive and 48th Street. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2`90 of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out whIle the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soffs testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10`90 of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and wIll assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable [o be widened, [ha[ [hey have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane mIles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane mIles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Complethtg Project: Faffure or inabflity to construct bridge widths where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". ' Reference Document Pro%ect Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-/1 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-/0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design//nspecfion/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,000 $21,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Constructiw~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $140,000 $140,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000 $14,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 Potential Funding Sources: 1 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) January, 2006: City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Little Mountain and Northpark Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-51 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Little Mountain Drive and Nor[hpark Boulevard. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan buIld-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daffy trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to construct bridge widths where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-II Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 througG all EXPEND/TURFS Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,000 $21,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $140,000 $140,000 ContU~gency $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000 $14,000 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 Potential Funding Sources: C~2 ' A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) 7art11~ry, 217LKs:: City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ _ Project TiNe: Program: Traffic Signal @ State and I-210 Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-52 '; Project Description: Construct a traffic signal a[ the intersection of State Street and I-210 Ramps. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2 % of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs [o be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable [o be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability [o construct bridge widths where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the _,, intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. ,., ,,, 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $42,000 $42,000 ' Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $280,000 $280,000 ConW~gency $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,000 $28 000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $350,000 $350,000 ' Potential Funding Sources: 93 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (~1 Ianusiy ZOOiG City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Merdian and Rialto Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Suhmittmg Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-53 Project Descriptias Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Meridian Avenue and Rialto Avenue. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals and wlll represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan bufld-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at Genera] Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from [he current 5,050,289 daffy trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daffy trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences ofNof Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Leve] E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to [he "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Lspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160 000 ' Cw~tu~gcncy $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 EqulpmenUOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction o~some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c1 78auary. 200it City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Macy and Mill Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Suhmittti~g Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-54 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Macy Street and Mill Street. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8 % (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, [hat they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completh~g Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of ' streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-I / Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-our Years Design/h~spectlon/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisitiw~/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: 95 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Rancho (State) and Foothill Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-55 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Rancho Avenue (State) and Foothill Blvd. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8 % (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15 % of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. lustlficatiwn/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-m$es from [he current 5,050,289 daily >, trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPEND/TUBES Build-out Years ' Design//nspectlon/Admivstration $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $30 000 ' Lard AcquisitlomRight of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 Potential Funding Sources: 96 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) 7an~ry, ZOQfs City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: ' Traffic Signal @Miramonte and 27th Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-56 Project Description: MConstruct a traffic signal at the intersection of Miramonte Drive and 7th Street. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8 % (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from [he current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups From other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all ' Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-// Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Admmistratlon $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 EguipmenUOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200 000 Potential Funding Sources: 97 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. Iaauary, 2006 (c2 l City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Deta><1 Project Title: Pro ram: g Traffic Signal @ Mountain and Kendall Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-57 Project Description. Construct a traffic signal a[ the intersection of Mountain Drive and Kendall Drive. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan buIld-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of [he total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at ]0% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize [he General Plan maximum 735.2 lane mffes of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project-. Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 tl~rougG all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design//nspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisitlon/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 EquipmenUOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potentia/ Fw~di,~g Sources: 9g A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c2 iaatiary, 21166 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Pro ram: g Traffic Signal @ Mountain and 48th Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-58 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Mountain Drive and 48th Street. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements ' and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timhig: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with [he City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. _ 20/0-/I Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/h~spection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Lard Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 ' Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 99 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (n) Iarti~rY.200b_ City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Mountain and Northpark Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-59 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Mountain Drive and Northpark Boulevard. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% ' of the total 297 signals at General Plan buIld-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Just cation/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow a[ the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,000 $21,000 Lattd Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $140,000 $140,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000 $14,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 Potential Funding Sources: 1 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. Ianuary, R1 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ "I" Street and Inland Center Drive Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-60 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of "I" Street and Inland Center Drive. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2 of the total 297 signals at General Plan buffd-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justificatiw~/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able [o use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daffy '; trip-mIles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip mIles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of ' streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to [he "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 U~rough all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years ' Design/L~spection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 ' Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: 1 ~ 1 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (n3 Ian~ry, 2t10Y'' City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ "H" Street and Marshall Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-61 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of "H" Street and Marshall Boulevard. The project consists of constructing intersection I; improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 wffl represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . ' Reference Document Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-II Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-our Ycars Design//nspection/Admi~~istration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Lend Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CODStrllCtiOn $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 ' Potential Fw~dmg Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction O~ome projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) 78au9ry, 2Wi's City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Auto Plaza and Fairway Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Suhmitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-62 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Auto Plaza Drive and Fairway Drive. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while [he existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable [o be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project-. Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations re"strict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is no[ a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20J0-1 / Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-JO tJtrougG all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/RigGt of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 ' Potential Funding Sources: 1 ~3 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (t:3 7sa~ry, 200ti City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ "E" Street and Century Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-63 ' Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of "E" Street and Century Avenue. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soffs testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at ]0% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan. Circulation System and wfll assist in accommodating the nearly 58 increase in daffy trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in [he number of daIly trip-mIles from the current 5,050,289 daIly trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily [rip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-lI Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/h~spectia~/Admmistratlon $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24 000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 ' Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 r Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 104. A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ "E" S[reet and Orange Show Lane Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-64 Project Description: ' Construct a traffic signal at [he intersection of "E" Street and Orange Show Lane. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of [he total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while [he existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15 % of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. i; Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-mffes to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Nof Completing Project. Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all _s Element. projects default [o the "Build-out" column. 2010-1 / Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land AcquisitioniRight of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Constructiw~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160 000 Cwrtu~gency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 105 A combination of unobliga[ed monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some ' projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (G' 3anuary. 317Qb City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Arrowhead and Orange Show Lane Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Su6mittmg Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-65 i Project Descriptim~: Construct a traffic signal a[ the intersection of Arrowhead Avenue and Orange Show Lane. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% ' :' of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out whlle the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project This intersection needs [o be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced From roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-mIles from the current 5,050,289 daIly trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane mIles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Faffure or inabffity to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of ': streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting :;:'. upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. ,. . 20J0-JI Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-JO tJ~rough all EXPEND/TURFS Build-our Years ' Design/Inspection/AdmLiistration $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,000 $18,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cw~struction $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $120,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,000 $12 000 Equipment/Otl~er $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction~oT some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. '.;; '.;; ! aanuory 20gG Sa3 ". . '.. City of San Bernardino '` Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Arrowhead and Central Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitlmg Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-66 i Project Descriptiwn: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Arrowhead Avenue and Central Avenue. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2 ' of the total 297 signals at General Plan buffd-out whlle the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at IS% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. ' Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daIly trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daIly trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane ' mfles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "lammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-/ l Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,000 $21,000 ' Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' Constructiwn $0 $0 $0 $0 $140,000 $140 000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000 $14,000 EguipmendOdner $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 Potential Funding Sources: 1 O7 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (~3 iaauary, ZOOG City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ _ Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Mountain View and 13th Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-67 Project Description: ' Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Mountain View and 13th Street. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 wfll represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15 % of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daffy trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the Genera] Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completutg Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups From other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-I l Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/h~spection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160 000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: ] ~$ A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 7 f~3.,... aau~cY, 200ir City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ _ Project Title: Program: ' Traffic Signal @ Mountain View and Marshall Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System SubmitrLig Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-68 ' Project Description: Construct a traffic signal a[ the intersection of Mountain View and Marshall Boulevard. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of [he total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8 % (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daIly trip-miles a[ General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daIly trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Nor Completing Project: Failure or inabllity to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce [he Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of > '' streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of [he intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with [he City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-l/ Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPEND/TURFS Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 ' Lw~d Acquisitiw~/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 ' Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction1o7~ome projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (s) ~ January, 21106 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal ~ Electric and 48th Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-69 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Electric Avenue and 48th Street. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 wffl represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and wIll assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles a[ General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57 `9o increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of [he intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/L~spectimi/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 ' Lard Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 ' Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: 1 1 ~ A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ _ Project Tide Program: Traffic Signal @ Dolittle and Mill Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-70 ' Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Doolittle Street and Mill Street. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2`90 of the total 297 signals at General Plan buIld-out whIle the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/lolls testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating [he nearly 58% increase in daily [rip-miles a[ General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". ' Reference Document• Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design//nspection/AdmLristration $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,000 $12,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000 $80,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000 $8,000 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 ' Potential Fmrdmg Sources: 11 1 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (n) January, ROOb~`. City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ _ Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Lena and Orange Show Road Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-71 Project Description Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Lena Road and Orange Show Road. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8 % (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/solls testing and project administration costs have been included at 15 % of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. lusliGcation/Requirement for Project: f This intersection needs to be signalized [o complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily [rip-mIles from the current 5,050,289 daffy !' trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completi~~g Project: Failure or inabIlity to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce [he Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . ' Reference Document Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to [he "Build-out" column. 2010-I1 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 ' Potential Fmiding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction o~some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (r) Jfinu~y, 2x06;: City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: ' Traffic Signal @ Lena and Central Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-72 Project Descriptlon: Construct a traffic signal a[ the intersection of Lena Road and Central Avenue. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of [he total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs [o be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting From new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can cxpect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting ' upstream of [he intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-ll Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 ' EquipmendOtl~er $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: 1 13 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (~1 Iaauary, 201rb < City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ _ ,: Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Lena and Rialto Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-73 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Lena Road and Rialto Avenue. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan bulld-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project This intersection needs to be signalized to complete [he General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at ! maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". ' Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-IJ Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 through nll EXPEND/TURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Admmistratim~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction o~ ome projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (?3 Ianua~y, R110t'rz City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Tide: Program: Traffic Signal @ Lena and 3rd Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-74 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Lena Road and 3rd Street. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan buIld-out whffe the existing community has generated 83.8 % (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. ' Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily [rip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able [o use but now find a[ maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Faffure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Buid-out" column. 20/0-I1 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2005-09 2009-JO through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: 11 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The constructio~df5some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. ': ''. 7 (c1 ;, snuary, 2006 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ East Carnegie and Hospital Lane Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-75 Project Descriptiw~: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of East Carnegie Drive and Hospitality Lane. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 wIll represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8 % (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15 % of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justlfication/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized [o complete the General Plan Circulation System and wIll assist in accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daffy trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily [rip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary [o maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all ' EXPENDJTURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,000 $18,000 Lard Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $120,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,000 $12,000 EguipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 j' TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 Potential Funding Sources: 1 16 A combination of unobliga[ed monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (e) 7auir0rY.2Wt*r City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Tippecanoe and Rialto Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-76 Project Descriptiw~: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Tippecanoe and Rialto Avenue. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8`90 (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-/l Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/h~spectiom'Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 ' Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 ' Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 EquipmentlOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 ! Potential Funding Sources: 1 1 ~ A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (n3 Iaauary, 2066 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: ' Traffic Signal @ Del Rosa and Marshall Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-77 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Del Rosa Avenue and Marshall Boulevard. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8 % (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and wIll assist in accommodating the nearly 58% ' increase in daily trip-mIles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been dis laced from roadwa se menu, unable to be widened, that the have reviousl been able to use but now find at P Y g Y P Y maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57~ increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily ' trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daffy trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 Lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 > Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 < TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The constructi 1 1 of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) Ian~rY, 2171YCr~ City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Del Rosa and 6th Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-78 ' Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Del Rosa Avenue and 6th Street. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8 (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. ' Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daIly trip-mIles at General Plan buIld-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway wIll provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find a[ maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 570 increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Cwnsequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-II Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years r Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,000 $18,000 ' Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $120,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,000 $12,000 ' Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 Potential Funding Sources: q A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction oC some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. Iaau9ry, 2Ubfr (cS ' City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Sterling and Marshall Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-79 Project Descriptiwt: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Stering Avenue and Marshall Boulevard. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at ': maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. ,,:<; , _ 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Fwtdmg Sources: I2~ A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. Iaaua~y. 2006 (c2 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Deta><1 _ Project Title: Program: ' Traffic Signal @ Sterling and Lynwood Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System SubmittL~g Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-80 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal a[ the intersection of Sterling Avenue and Lynwood Drive. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15 % of construction costs and contingency has been included at ]0% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating [he nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at ' maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from [he current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daffy trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream o£ the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/RigGt of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Constructiw~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: I Z A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of~somc projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, For which a credit would be received. (e3 ?A~r7. City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Sterling and 6th Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-81 ' Project Description: '' Construct a traffic signal at [he intersection of Sterling Avenue and 6th Street. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15 % of construction costs and contingency has been included at ]0% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in [he number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all ' Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisitiwi/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Conti»gency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 '? TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: 122 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c3 75nt#2ry, 200Y+ City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal Q S. Mountain View and Central (Palm Meadows) Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-82 Project Descriptiwr Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of South Mountain View and Central (Palm Meadows). The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan buIld-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15 % of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. I Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-mffes at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, [hat they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane mlles of existing collector/arterial roads. Caisequences of Not CompletLrg Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. ; 2010-1 J Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OR 2008-09 2009-10 tJ~rougG atJ EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Lzspectiw~/AdmL~istration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 EquipmentlOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 123 A combination of unobliga[ed monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) January, City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ _ Project Tide: Program: Traffic Signal @ S. Mountain View and I-10 Westbound Ramp Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-83 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of South Mountain View and Westbound I-10 Ramp. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2 of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out whffe tkte existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and wffl assist in accommodating [he nearly 58%o increase in daffy trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find a[ maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane ' mIles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting ' upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . ' Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default [o the "Buffd-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design//nspection/Admmistratiw~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Lard Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Cwitmgency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 EguipmenbOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: ] 24 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. I$nuary, 2l'lOYr City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic Signal @ Guthrie and Pacific Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-84 Project Descriptiws Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Guthrie Street and Pacific Street. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out whIle [he existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15 % of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. lustificatiw~/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daffy trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream oC the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . ' Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-II Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OE 2008-09 2009-10 through aU EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 Conti,igency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 ' EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: 125 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (n3 : 3anuary, 2171Yi` City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Deta111 Project Title: Program: Interchange/Ramps @ I-215 and Palm Avenue (SB, County) Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Suhmittmg Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-85 Project Description: Construct interchange improvements at I-215 and Palm Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. Justification/Requirement for Project: .., Improve safety and mobility and to enhance the operational efficiency of this regional facility. Secondarlly, improving this regional facility ` increases mobility on the local circulation system. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Reduced mobility along with increased congestion and greater frequency of routine delays. Reference Document: Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OE 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPEND/TURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection'Admmistration $0 $0 $0 $0 $231,600 $231,600 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Constructiw~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,544,000 $1,544,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $154,400 $154 400 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,930,000 $1,930,000 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 126 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) :Tanttary, 2466 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Interchange/Ramps @ I-215 and Pepper Linden (Campus Parkway) Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System (SB) Suhmitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-86 Project Description: i Construct interchange improvements at I-215 and Pepper Linden (Campus Parkway). This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. lustiGcation/Requirement for Project: Improve safety and mobility and to enhance the operational efficiency of [his regional facility. Secondarily, improving this regional facility increases mobility on the local circulation system. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Reduced mobility along with increased congestion and greater frequency of routine delays. Reference Document: Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-/0 through all EXPEND/TURES Build-out Years ' Design//nspecfion/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,400,000 $2,400,000 Lard Acquisitia~/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000,000 $16,000 000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 Potential Fwidmg Sources: 12,7 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. ~IaauarY, (r3 is City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Interchange/Ramps @ I-215 and University Parkway (SB, County) Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Suhmitti~~g Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-87 Project Description: Construct interchange improvements at I-215 at University Parkway. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. Justification/Requirement for Project: Improve safety and mobility and to enhance the operational efficiency of this regional facility. Secondarily, improving this regional facility increases mobility on the local circulation system. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Reduced mobility along with increased congestion and greater frequency of routine delays. Reference Document: Project Timy~g: Project timing is no[ a component of this current effort. Therefore all ",,.;; projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-1 l Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $187,200 $187,200 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,248,000 $1,248,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $124,800 $124,800 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,560,000 $1,560,000 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 12g A combination of unobliga[ed monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 7aquary, R110t'r City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _, Project Title: Program: Interchange/Ramps @ I-210 and Waterman (SB, Highland, County) Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Su6mittmg Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-88 Project Description: Construct interchange improvements at I-210 at Waterman Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. Justification/Requirement for Project: Improve safety and mobility and to enhance the operational efficiency of this regional facility. Secondarily, improving this regional facility increases mobility on the local circulation system. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Reduced mobility along with increased congestion and greater frequency of routine delays. ' Reference Document: Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design//nspecHon/Adminis7aHon $0 $0 $0 $0 $873,600 $873,600 Lard Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,824,000 $5,824,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $582,400 $582,400 EquipmenUOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,280,000 $7,280,000 Potential Funding Sources: 129 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some ' projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Interchange/Ramps @ I-210 and Del Rosa (SB, Highland, County) Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-89 Project Description: Construct interchange improvements at I-210 at Del Rosa Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. Justification/Requirement for Project: Improve safety and mobIlity and to enhance the operational efficiency of this regiona] facIlity. SecondarIly, improving this regional facIlity increases mobility on the local circulation system. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Reduced mobIlity along with increased congestion and greater frequency of routine delays. Reference Document: Project Timh~g: Project timing is not a component of [his current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Buffd-out" column. 20/0-II Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/h~spectlon/Admmistratlon $0 $0 $0 $0 $694,800 $694,800 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,632,000 $4,632,000 Cw~tingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $463,200 $463,200 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,790,000 $5,790,000 Potential Funding Sources: O(~ A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction oT some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 7ant~nJ. ZOO~r (c) ': City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Interchange/Ramps @ I-210 and Victoria (SB, Highland, County) Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Su6mittmg Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-90 Project Description: Construct interchange improvements at at I-210 at Victoria Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of [he total project. Justification/Requirement for Project: Improve safety and mobility and to enhance the operational efficiency of this regional facIlity. Secondarily, improving this regional facffity increases mobility on the local circulation system. Cw~sequences of Not Completing Project: Reduced mobility along with increased congestion and greater frequency of routine delays. Reference Document: Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. ,. 20/0-ll Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 ' Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $800,000 $800,000 EquipmenUOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 Potential Fundir7g Sources: 131 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (r3 7aduary, 2170G £ City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Interchange/Ramps @ I-210 and 5th (SB, Highland, Redlands) Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-91 ' Project Descriplion: Construct interchange improvements at I-210 at 5th Street. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. Justification/Requirement for Project: Improve safety and mobility and to enhance the operational efficiency of [his regional facility. Secondarily, improving this regional facility increases mobility on the local circulation system. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Reduced mobllity along with increased congestion and greater frequency of routine delays. Reference Document: Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Buf1d-out" column. 20/0-Jl Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 200E-09 2009-10 tlirough all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years ' Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $38,400 $38,400 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Constructiw~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $256,000 $256 000 , ' Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,600 $25,600 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $320,000 $320,000 Potential Funding Sources: ] 32 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. ZOOb (rf City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ Project Title: Program: Interchange/Ramps @ I-10 and Tippecanoe Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System SubmittL~g Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-92 Project Description: Construct interchange improvements at I-10 at Tippecanoe Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. Justification/Requirement for Project: Improve safety and mobility and [o enhance the operational efficiency of this regional facffity. Secondarily, improving this regional facility increases mobility on the local circulation system. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Reduced mobility along with increased congestion and greater frequency of routine delays. Reference Document Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to [he "BuIld-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 200E-09 2009-]0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administratiw~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $840,000 $840,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,600,000 $5,600,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $560,000 $560,000 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 Potential Fw~dy~g Sources: ] 33 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 78ausiy, ZOQb (c3 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ _ _ ' Project Title: Program: Interchange/Ramps @ I-10 and Pepper (SB, County, Colton) Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-93 Project Description: Construct interchange iprovements at I-10 at Pepper. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. Justification/Requirement for Project: Improve safety and mobility and [o enhance the operational efficiency of this regional facility. Secondarily, improving this regional facility increases mobility on the local circulation system. Cw~sequences of Not CompletL~g Project: Reduced mobility along with increased congestion and greater frequency of routine delays. Reference Document: Project Timh~g: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Utrough all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspec[ion/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $44,400 $44 400 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cw~structlon $0 $0 $0 $0 $296,000 $296,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,600 $29,600 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $370,000 $370,000 Potential Funding Sources: 134 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 78aaarS', 2(l0:ti (t;3 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ _ '; Project Title: Program: Interchange/Ramps @ I-10 and Mountain View (SB, Loma Linda, Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Redlands, County) Suhmitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-94 Project Description: Construct interchange improvements at I-10 at Mountain View Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. Justification/Requirement for Project: Improve safety and mobility and to enhance the operational efficiency of this regional facility. Secondarily, improving this regional facffity increases mobility on the local circulation system. Consequences of Nor Completh~g Project: Reduced mobility along with increased congestion and greater frequency of routine delays. Reference Document: Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default [o the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPEND/TURES Build-our Years Design/h~specrion/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $364,800 $364,800 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,432,000 $2,432,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $243,200 $243,200 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,040,000 $3,040,000 Potential Funding Sources: 55 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction oT some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. Taauary,ROQb (al ''. ,! City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Tippecanoe Bridge over the Santa Ana River Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-95 Project Description: Widen the existing 756 long bridge by twenty-four feet. Justification/Requirement for Project: Increases the flow of traffic, and thus the circulation system LOS, over the current bottleneck bridge. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Reduced mobility along with increased congestion and greater frequency of routine delays. Reference Document: Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-II Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years '' Design/inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $352,350 $352,350 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,349,000 $2,349 000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $234,900 $234,900 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,936,250 $2,936,250 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction o~ some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (n) - IsmmrY, 24116 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ' Project Title: Program: Grade Separation @ Palm Avenue (SB) Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System SubmittL~g Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-96 Project Description: Construct a grade separation a[ Palm Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by a number of sources This portion represents the City's share of the total project. Justification/Requirement for Project: Enhance safety by providing a ver[icle separation between rail road traffic and vehicular traffic. This project also improves operation of the intersection as stoppage of vehicular traffic will no longer be necessary. Consequences of Not Completing Project. Reduced mobility along with increased congestion and greater frequency of routine delays. Reference Document: Project Timing: Project timing is no[ a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 tJ~rough all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years I Design/L~spection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $281,880 $281,880 Land Acquisition/RigGtof Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,879,200 $1,879,200 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $187,920 $187,920 EquipmentlOtJ~er $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,349,000 $2,349,000 Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The cons[ructionlo~ some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. anwgry ZOOG; (01 .' City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Grade Separation @ Rialto (SB) Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-97 ' Project Description: Constrct a grade separation at Rialto Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by a number of sources. This portion represents [he City's share of the total project. Justification/Requirement for Project Enhance safety by providing a verticle separation between rail road traffic and vehicular traffic. This project also improves operation of the intersection as stoppage of vehicular traffic will no longer be necessary. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Reduced mobility along with increased congestion and greater frequency of routine delays. Reference Document: Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPEND/TURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administratia~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $267,840 $267,840 Land Acquisilion/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cw~struction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,785,600 $1,785 600 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $178,560 $178,560 EquipmentlOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,232,000 $2,232,000 ' Potential FundL~g Sources: R A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction3t'some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c3 3anuaty, City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title• Program: Grade Separation @ State Street/University (SB) Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Suhmittmg Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-98 Project Description: Constuct a grade separation at State Street/University. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be fmanced by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. Justification/Requirement for Projech. Enhance safety by providing a verticle separation between rail road traffic and vehicular traffic. This project also improves operation of the intersection as stoppage of vehicular traffic will no longer be necessary. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Reduced mobility along with increased congestion and greater frequency of routine delays. Reference Document: Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $256,800 $256,800 Land Acquisition;'Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,712,000 $1,712,000 Ca~tmgency $0 $0 $0 $0 $171,200 $171,200 EquipmentlOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 '' TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,140,000 $2,140 000 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: q A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The constructiol of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (~3 Ianuary, 200fr City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Grade Separation @ Hunts Lane (SB, Colton) Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-99 Project Description: Construct a grade separation at Hunts Lane. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. Justification/Requirement for Project Enhance safety by providing a verticle separation between rail road traffic and vehicular traffic. This project also improves operation of the intersection as stoppage of vehicular traffic will no longer be necessary. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Reduced mobility along with increased congestion and greater frequency of routine delays. Reference Document: Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of [his current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. . 20/0-ll Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years ' Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $137,160 $137,160 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $914,400 $914,400 Conntingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $91,440 $91,440 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,143,000 $1,143,000 Potential Fwndmg Sources: 14~ A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (rf Ia6jlary,ZOW City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Grade Separation @ Rancho Avenue Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-100 Project Description: Construct a grade separation over the existing rail road tracks. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. Justification/Requirement for Project. Traffic along Rancho Avenue backs up while the train goes by and requires substantial time to recover. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Reduced mobility along with increased congestion and greater frequency of routine delays. Reference Document: Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. ;, 2010-1 l Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OB 2008-09 2009-IO through alI EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design//nspectia~/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $281,880 $281,880 Lazed Acquisition/RigGt of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,879,200 $1,879,200 ContL~gency $0 $0 $0 $0 $187,920 $187,920 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,349,000 $2,349,000 Potential Funding Sources: 141 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. City of San Bernardino Library .Facilities ~nci Collection 142 e w ~ ~ ti 0 '.: h. O M V1 '~ ~ ~ . ,p. h 7 ,i ~ aD 0 h ~ h O O b O M h N ~ W 's ~ ~ ~ O ti gi 6 N ~ 8,.:: ~ P. I g N ~, $ ~, ~ O I n 8 ~ ~ ~ a E O ~ I i U 0 8 Q N ° a m o a N e m t O V% a y U O 4 'ro <3 Q > ;:, h U m ~ c o a~ d ~ o LL a ~' ~ U J ,,O ~ ~ o J ~ u C y ~ V C ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ o 'V 0. ~ w ~ o ~ c Cp ~ 9 °c' U ~i '~ ~ ~ ~ E 143 ,~ U ~ d t^1 1 ~+ro.a 4 4 4 04 ~ U ~ ~l ~ ~ ~ 2 N City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: General Library Square Foot Expansion Library Facilities and Collection Su6mittmg Department(s): Project No.: Public Library LB-O1 Project Description: Acquisition of land and construction of a total of 27,509 square feet of library expansion in one or more locations in order to maintain pace with new development-generated residential poulation growth. Impact fees will finance approximately 16,103 square feet of the total 27,509 square feet. Justification/Requirement for Project: The proposed expansion will provide the square footage necessary to maintain the current ratio of floor space to residential patrons as is offered at this point in time. The current level of service standard is 0.41 square feet of library space per resident, while the City-owned standard rs 0.23 square feet per resident. Should the library not be expanded, the space per resident would drop by about 25 % to about 0.30 square feet at build-out. The additional 27,509 square feet represents the amount of square feet necessary to maintain the current levels of service provided by the existing building space. Consequences of Not Completing Project: This proposed project does not assume expansion of the current library or construction of a branch library, it merely represents the cost of the additional square footage necessary to maintain current levels. Additionally, it does not represent that the current 0.41 square feet per resident as currently adequate or insufficient, merely a statement of the actual standard. Reference Document: Project Timing: None. The impact fee revenue would be collected over a long period of time, thus no specific time frame for the construction of the additional square feet is offered. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-JO through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Lrspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $531,384 $531384 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $724,615 $724,615 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,542,563 $3,542,563 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $354,256 $354 256 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,152,818 $5,152,818 Potential Funding Sources: 144 General Fund, or if adopted, the proposed development impact fees. ;Taavary 200b City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Expansion of Library Collection Library Facilities and Collection Su6mittmg Department(s): Project No.: Public Library LB-02 Project Description: Acquisition and processing of approximately 79,482 additional books or other items to increase the Public Library's collection in order to maintain pace with new residential home construction and occupancy. Justification/Requirement for Project The proposed expansion will provide the additions to the collection of library "items" necessary to maintain the current ratio of books to residential patrons as is offered at this point in time. The current level of service standard is 1.19 "items" per resident based upon 236,980 items and 199,803 potential patrons. Should the current collection of items not be expanded, the number of items per patron standard would drop by about 25~ to about 0.89 books per person. The 79,842 additional books that could be acquired if the impact fees was adopted, represents the additional collection items necessary to maintain the current levels of service provided by the existing collection. Consequences of Not Completing Project: The proposed purchase of books/volumes does not represent that [he current 1.19 books/resident as currently adequate or insufficient, merely a statement of the actual standard. Reference Document: Project Timing: None. The impact fee revenue would be collected over a long period of time, thus no specific time frame for the construction of the additional square feet is offered. 20/0-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/h~specHon/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,083,041 $5,083,041 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,083,041 $5,083,041 ,, Potential Fw~dmr Sources: 145 General Fund, or if adopted, the proposed development impact fees. 3aavarj'. ZOgG City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Main Library Debt Service Library Facilities and Collection Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Public Library LB-03 Project Description: Make remaining payments on the Main library debt service schedule. Justification/Requirement for Project: The debt service payments must be made. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Default on the payment schedule is no[ an option. Reference Document: Project Timing: Debt Service Schedule. None. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years ! Design/Inspection/Administratiw~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,351,265 $5,351,265 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,351,265 $5,351 265 Potential Funding Sources: ] 46 ', General Fund, or if adopted, the proposed development impact fees. Ianu2ry, 2U05 City of San Bernardino Public use Fa~.~itles 147 M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rn y O O a a M ~ ~ `.5 ~ ~ W ~ R R 5~ ~ 2S 2S ~~o o LL .., ti~ O ~ a a M N ~ ~ O g~ O N S N c E ~i ~ ~, ~, O o n ~ 8 m 0 ''~~~~ ''~' o s O b ~' S N ~ y a <" p 4 h d Ri h Q h ~ U a,~ o U A ~ $ y J U u~ y J a9 y ~ ' ~ ~ " U -0 e N ~ pp ~ U ~ W Q rota ~ ~g ~ °c o ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ y U '. G` ~ ~ 'a C ~ A 2 C'> E cC ~ ~ ~, ro .'ao R RU 4 ~UU ~ a 148 U~~ ,,: U U~ U 2" ~ City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Verdemont Community Center Public Use Facilities Submitting Department(s). Project No.: Community Services CC-O1 Project Description: Acquire land for and construct a 15,000 Community Center in the Verdemont area. The City's existing standard of public use space is 0.994 square foot per resident. This is based upon the inventory of 198,619 square feet of public use space for the City's 199,803 residents (199,619/199,803 = 0.993). Based upon this existing standard and the potential for 67,094 additional residents at General Plan build-out, the City could adopt and impose impact fees that would construct an additional 66,691 square feet of public use space. The 66,691 additional square feet would maintain the 0.994 S.F. per resident standard. lustificatiw~/Requirement for Project: The City has a public use facilities standard of 0.994 square feet per resident based upon the total 199,619 square foot dedicated to community and recreation services for the existing 199,803 residents. To maintain that standard through General Plan build-out the City would need to construct an additional 66,691 square feet of community service or recreation center space for use by the final projected 266,897 plus population. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Without adding (something) to the City's inventory of space avaIlable for community groups of all sizes and needs, the standard of 0.994 square foot per person would drop to about 0.744 square foot per person and the existing facilities would have too many competing needs to meet the full demands of any one group. Reference Document: Project Timing: None. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was no[ included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $495,000 $495,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,300,000 $3,300,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $330,000 $330,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,125,000 $4,125,000 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 149 General Fund revenues, Public Use Development Impact Fees, miscellaneous state and federal grants. (c1 IsrtUBtY, 200b City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ _ Project Title: Program: Delmann Heights Gymnasium Public Use FacIlities Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Community Services CC-02 Project Description: Construct a 7,000 square foot gymnasium a contiguous to the Delmann Heights Community Center. The City's existing standard of public use space is 0.994 square foot per resident. This is based upon the inventory of 198,619 square feet of public use space for the City's 199,803 residents (199,619/199,803 = 0.993). Based upon this existing standard and the potential for 67,094 additional residents a[ General Plan build-out, the City could adopt and impose impact fees that would construct an additional 66,691 square feet of public use space. The 66,691 additional square feet would maintain [he 0.994 S.F. per resident standard. Jus~caUon/Requirement for Project: The City has a public use facilities standard of 0.994 square feet per resident based upon the total 199,619 square foot dedicated to community and recreation services for the existing 199,803 residents. To maintain that standard through General Plan build-out the City would need to construct an additional 66,691 square feet of community service or recreation center space for use by the final projected 266,897 plus population. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Without adding (something) to the City's inventory of space avaflable for community groups of all sizes and needs, the standard of 0.994 square foot per person would drop to about 0.744 square foot per person and the existing facilities would have too many competing needs to meet the full demands of any one group. Reference Document: Project Timing: None. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/hnspection/Admmistration $0 $0 $0 $0 $231,000 $231,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 _.;'. Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,540,000 $1,540 000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $154,000 $154,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,925,000 $1,925,000 Potential Fwnding Sources: 15~ General Fund revenues, Public Use Development Impact Fees, miscellaneous state and federal grants. (nj ~ ~~Ianuary, 211.06 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Nicholson Community Center Public Use Facilities Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Community Services CC-03 Project Description: Construct a 7,000 square foot gymnasium a contiguous to the Nicholson Community Center. The City's existing standard of public use space is 0.994 square foot per resident. This is based upon the inventory of 198,619 square feet of public use space for the City's 199,803 residents (199,619/199,803 = 0.993). Based upon this existing standard and the potential for 67,094 additional residents at General Plan build-out, the City could adopt and impose impact fees that would construct an additional 66,691 square feet of public use space. The 66,691 additional square feet would maintain the 0.994 S.F. per resident standard. JusNticetiw~/Requirement for Project: The City has a public use facilities standard of 0.994 square feet per resident based upon the total 199,619 square foot dedicated to community and recreation services for the existing 199,803 residents. To maintain that standard through General Plan build-out the City would need to construct an additional 66,691 square feet of community service or recreation center space for use by the final projected 266,897 plus population. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Without adding (something) to the City's inventory of space available for community groups of all sizes and needs, the standard of 0.994 square foot per person would drop to about 0.744 square foot per person and [he existing facilities would have too many competing needs to meet the full demands of any one group. Reference Document: Project Timing: None. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-I1 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $231,000 $231,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,540,000 $1,540,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $154,000 $154,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,925,000 $1,925,000 Potential Fw~dy~g Sources: 151 General Fund revenues, Public Use Development Impact Fees, miscellaneous state and federal grants. 7, City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Tide: Program: Construct Additional Public Use Space Public Use Facilities Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Community Services CC-04 Project Description: The City's existing standard of public use space is 0.994 square foot per resident. This is based upon the inventory of 198,619 square feet of public use space for the City's 199,803 residents (199,619/199,803 = 0.993). Based upon this existing standard and the potential for 67,094 additional residents at General Plan build-out, the City could adopt and impose impact fees [hat would construct an additional 66,691 square feet of public use space. The 66,691 additional square feet would maintain the 0.994 S.F. per resident standard. Justification/Requirement for Project: The City has a public use facilities standard of 0.994 square feet per resident based upon the total 199,619 square foot dedicated to community and recreation services for the existing 199,803 residents. To maintain that standard through General Plan build-out the City would need to construct an additional 66,691 square feet of community service or recreation center space for use by the final projected 266,897 plus population. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Without adding (something) to the City's inventory of space available for community groups of all sizes and needs, the standard of 0.994 square foot per person would drop to about 0.744 square foot per person and the existing facilities would have too many competing needs to meet the full demands of any one group. Reference Document: Project Timing: None. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-I1 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OE 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,243,803 $1,243,803 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,292,020 $8,292,020 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $829,202 $829,202 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,365,025 $10,365,025 Potential Funding Sources: 152 General Fund revenues, Public Use Development Impact Fees, miscellaneous state and federal grants. (n) Ianuary.2l70Yr City of San B~rnardinv Aquatics Facilities 153 '.<I ~i~. ..:i:: M m ~ a N V v O ~ R ao N ' 1 b h ~ ~ J, U ro o _ o a .., . ,..~ ~ ~ 8 0 0 ~ ti N ~ ~ ~ O $~ O N ~ ~ ~ g 8 F a 'a 0 5 ~ a 8 m 0 ~ ~ ~ o O N b m S N s o ': h F 1 n m :'._. '~. h 0 y U O y U $ J ~ ~ B ~ v~ ~ o ,~ ~ ~ ° a < ~ ~ ~ gg Q ro a' ~ '; 3 ~ y cn h c •a ~ U ~ o °w ~ E U ~ ~ ~- ~w y ~ a ~ U~Q z,: 154 Ciry of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ' : Project Title: Program: Construct Water Pool/Attraction Aquatics Facilities Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Parks, Recreation and Community Services AQ-O] Project Description: The City's existing standard of pool surface space is 0.309 square foot per resident. This is based upon the provision of 61,690 square feet of pool surface space for the City's 199,803 residents (61,690/199,803 = 0.309). Based upon this existing standard and the potential for 67,094 additional residents at General Plan build-out, the City could adopt and impose impact fees that would construct an additional 20,732 square feet of pool surface space. The addition of 20,732 square fee[ would be adequate fora 50 meter (by 25 yard) competition pool (12,188 square feet of surface) and a 30 yard by 30 yard general purpose pool (8,100 square feet) or for perspective, it could be used to construct three pools the size of the one at the Mills aquatic center. Justification/Requirement for Project: The 20,732 additional pool surface square feet would maintain [he 0.309 square feet of pool surface per resident standard. Cw~sequences of Not Completing Project: Without adding to the City's inventory of pool space available for its residents, the standard of 0.309 square foot per person would drop 25% to about 0.231 square foot per person and the existing facilities would become more crowded and the experience would be decreased in value. ' Reference Document: Project Timing: ' Staff planning. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-/l Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Adminis[ration $0 $0 $0 $0 $386,984 $386,984 Lard Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cw~struction $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,579,890 $2,579,890 ' Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $257,989 $257,989 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,224,863 $3,224,863 Potential Funding Sources: 155 General Fund revenues, Aquatics Program Development Impact Fees, miscellaneous state and federal grants. (c3 7aa~ry, 2UOis City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail :, Project Title: Program: Construct Locker/Administration Building Aquatics Facilities Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Parks, Recreation and Community Services AQ-p2 Project Description: The City's existing standard of pool locker/maintenance building space is 0.484 square foot per resident. This is based upon the provision of 2,563 square feet of pool building space for the City's 5,300 residents (2,563/5,300 = 0.484). Based upon this existing standard and the potential for 67,094 additional residents at General Plan build-out, the City could adopt and impose impact fees that would construct an additional 8,118 square feet of pool building space. lusti6cation/Requirement for Project The 8,118 additional pool building square feet would maintain the 0.121 of building square feet per resident standard. Consequences of Not Completing Project: ' Without adding to the City's inventory of locker room building available for its residents, the standard of 0.121 square foot per person would drop 25% to about 0.090 square foot per person and the existing facilities would become more crowded and the experience would be decreased in value. Reference Document: Project Timing: Staff planning. The timing of the capital construction or acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project costs default to the "Build-out" column. All costs are at nominal, or current dollar value. 2010-/ / Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-IO through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/haspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $240,968 $240,968 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,606,455 $1,606,455 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,646 $160,646 EquipmentlOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,008,069 $2,008,069 Potential Funding Sources: 156 General Fund revenues, Aquatics Program Development Impact Fees, miscellaneous state and federal grants. fO1 Iantiary, 200b City of San Bernardino Parkland Aequisltrvn axzd Faculties Improvements is~ M a~ ° ~ rn ~ ~ ~ oMO € a Q ~ ~ i N ~'1 b M b ++~~A,, ;r ~ tyj f~ ~ n M C 6N'9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'. b9 O N 3 p 10., ro N M b~ M b O C ~ : c.l V' t~ -. r1 O ti I N U 8 N 0 v ~ N O ~ n S o N o N ~i O O O O O~ p f9 6'9 bs bi bs O .:,:: ~ O 0 1 1 8 N a ,;; o' y 0. y y O a ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ 4 4 ~ ~ ~a. o a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y U A ~ ~ ~ ~~j ~ m y J 6~ :i ~ O ~ q ~', i O J U < '~ U O ~, ~ fA ~ ~ Q ~ ~ O O W 'C O !O .f~ y : p 'a 41 y ~ 4 U ~ ~ q Q a G b y GL 3 ~ ~'. G ~ N m ' -~ '. W y h '~ ~'. ~ r ~, '. ? 4 q v, C ~ ~ Q U U U ~ Off': ~ ~ a ~ ~, 0. . L'„' m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 15 8 ~ U 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0..: ~ ~ City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ', Project Title: Program: Construct Six 5.0 Acre Neighborhood Parks Park and Open Space Land Acquisition and Development Su6mittmg Department(s): Pro%ect No.: Community Services Department PK-O1 Project Description: Acquire land for/develop six 5.0 acre neighborhood parks designed to meet neighborhood access to youth and adults for nearby non-programmed sports and activity use. Examples of improvements would include a turfed sports field, a small scale baseball backstop for "pick-up" play, a concrete basketball court, a small playground climbing apparatus, a drinking fountain, small restroom, and picnic tables and ' benches. Project design, project administration and inspection costs are included in the $340,945 per acre construction cost. Land costs are included at $10.00 per square foot. Justification/Requirement for Project: A neighborhood park, according to the National Parks and Recreation Association, is "Easily accessable to neighborhood population- geographically centered with safe walking and bike access. May be developed as a school-park facility." There are no specific plans for the possible combinations of parks (e.g. neighborhood, community or sports parks) to be configured from the 200 acres of parks that could be financed by a park development impact fees. Such plans would be All park improvements must meet the American with Disabilities Act requirements of access for all. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Demands for local and acessable park facilities would go unmet for this area. Reference Document: Project Timing: None, the future needs are merely based upon the standards The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay representing Quimby Act provisions and users statistics. acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Tots] PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 tl~roug/~ a!I EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Admu7istration $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,508,846 $2,508,846 Land Acquisition/RigGt of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,068,000 $13,068,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,432,942 $6,432,942 ContLigency $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,286,586 $1,286,586 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,296,374 $23,296,374 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 159 Park Impact Fees, Quimby Fees, General Fund contributions, State Park grants and occasional federal grants (c) 7$use3ry, 8006: City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail _ , ;' Project Title: Program: Construct Seven 10.0 Acre Passive Community Parks Park and Open Space Land Acquisition and Development Su6mittmg Department(s): Project No.: Community Services Department PK-02 Project Description: Acquire land for/develop seven 10.0 acre community parks designed to meet area-wide passive needs for nearby non-programmed sports, activity and picnicing use. Community parks are intended to meet passive uses for families and groups. Improvements would include informal sportsfields, play areas with playground apparatus, restrooms, numerous picnic tables a number of them under shade structures, barbeques, benches and non-lighted tennis, basketball and volleyball courts. Passive parks may also have a concrete stage, bandshell or a large gazebo. There would also be sidewalks, security lighting and park signage. Project design, project administration and inspection costs are included in the $340,945 per acre construction cost. Land costs are included at $10.00 per square foot. Justification/Requirement for Project: A community park, according to the National Parks and Recreation Association as an "Area of diverse environmental quality. May include areas suited for intense recreational facilities, such as a[heletice complexes, large swimming pools. May be an area of natural quality for outdoor recreation, such as walking, viewing, sitting, picknicing. May be any combination of the above, depending upon site suitability and community need. There are no specific plans for the possible combinations of parks (e.g. neighborhood, community or sports parks) to be configured from the 200 acres of parks that could be financed by park development impact fees. Such plans would be All park improvements must meet the American with Disabilities Act requirements of access for all. Consequences of Not Completing Project: The City currently maintains a 2.69 acres per 1,000 person standard. Im light of the addition of 12,354 detached homes and 8,599 attached homes, additional parks will need to be constructed. There are no specific plans for the possible 200 acres of parks that couldbe financed by park impact fees. Failure to maintain existing park acres will ultimately decrease the usage and viability of the parks reducing the accessability of recreational activities. Reference Document: Project Timing: None, the future needs are merely based upon the standards The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay representing Quimby Ac[ provisions and users statistics. acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-1 / Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-OS 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/h~spection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,853,974 $5,853,974 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,492,000 $30,492,000 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,010,198 $15,010,198 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,002,041 $3,002 041 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $54,358,213 $54,358,213 Potential Funding Sources: 1(~ Park Impact Fees, Quimby Fees, General Fund contributions, State Park grants and occasional federal grants (t:) laauaty City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Construct Four 25.0 Acre Active (sports) Community Parks Park and Open Space Land Acquisition and Development Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Community Services Department PK-03 Project Description: Acquire land for/develop four 25.0 acre sports parks designed to meet area-wide active needs for nearby programmed sports, activity and ;, ;y minor picnicing use. Sports parks are intended to meet active uses for associations and large groups. Improvements would include lighted baseball and softball fields, lighted soccer/football fields. Other improvements typically include groups fo five or six full-sized basketball courts and a number of lighted tennis courts. Project design, project administration and inspection costs are included in the $340,945 per acre construction cost. Land costs are included at $10.00 per square foot. ' Justification/Requirement for Project A community park, according to the National Parks and Recreation Association as an "Area of diverse environmental quality. May include areas suited for intense recreational facilities, such as a[heletice complexes, large swimming pools. May be an area of natural quality for outdoor recreation, such as walking, viewing, sitting, picknicing. May be any combination of the above, depending upon site suitsbIlity and ' community need. There are no specific plans for the possible combinations of parks (e.g. neighborhood, community or sports parks) to be ' configured from the 200 acres of parks that could be financed by park development impact fees. Such plans would be All park improvements must meet the American with Disabilities Act requirements of access for all. Consequences of Not Completing Project: The City currently maintains a 2.69 acres per 1,000 person standard. Im light of the addition of 12,354 detached homes and 8,599 attached homes, additional parks will need to be constructed. There are no specific plans for the possible 200 acres of parks that couldbe financed by park impact fees. Failure to maintain existing park acres wIll ultimately decrease the usage and viability of the parks reducing the accessabIlity of recreational activities. Reference Document: Project Timing: None, the future needs are merely based upon the standards The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay representing Quimby Act provisions and users statistics. acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-ll Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/L7spectimvAdminis7atlon $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,362,828 $8,362,828 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,56Q000 $43,560,000 I' Cons7uction $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,443,144 $21,443,144 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,288,628 $4,288,628 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,654,600 $77,654,600 Potential Fm~di.~g Sources: 161 Park Impact Fees, Quimby Fees, General Fund contributions, State Park grants and occasional federal grants Iaau~ry, 217tAG: City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Miscellaneous Park Improvements Park and Open Space Land Acquisition and Development Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Community Services Department PK-04 Project Description: Improvements could include, but would not be limited to: basketball courts, playground climbing apparatus, drinking fountains, restrooms, picnic tables, barbeques and benches. basketball courts, playground climbing apparatus, drinking fountains, restrooms, picnic tables, barbeques and benches. Park construction costs are estimated at $357,437/acre for the 39.5 acres of mixed active/passive parkland development. Project design, project administration and inspection costs are included in the $340,945 per acre construction cost. Land costs are included at $10.00 per square foot. Justification/Requirement for Project Some of the 537.3 acres of existing parks are in need of additional facilites to meet local needs that could not have been anticipated at the time the park was designed and constructed. Additionally, changes in the demographics of [he area surrounding the various parks may have also changed the way the park is used or could allow the park to reach fuller use. All park improvements must meet the American with Disabilities Act requirements of access for all. Consequences of Not Comp/eting Project The City currently maintains a 2.69 acres per 1,000 person standard. Im light of the addition of 12,354 detached homes and 8,599 attached homes, additional parks will need to be constructed. There are no specific plans for the possible 200 acres of parks that couldbe financed by park impact fees. Failure to maintain existing park acres will ultimately decrease [he usage and viability of the parks reducing the accessabiltty of recreational activities. Reference Document: Project Timing: None, the future needs are merely based upon the standards The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay representing Quimby Act provisions and users statistics. acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default [o the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $800,000 $800,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 EquipmendOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ,i TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Potential Fw~dmg Sources: 162 Park Impact Fees, Quimby Fees, General Fund contributions, State Park grants and occasional federal grants (c) laiuary, 200t's City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Open Space Acquisition (159.4 acres) Park and Open Space Land Acquisition and Development Suhmitting Department(s): Project No.: Community Services Department PK-OS Project Description: Acquire approximately 169.5 acres of open space in order to maintain [he existing ratio of open space to developed space within the City's limits. The open space land could be in either large tracts or linear strips [hat could be used to connect the City's many trails. Justification/Requirement for Project The construction of new homes, condominiums, apartments and businesses will eliminate what are now open spaces. The impact fee, if adopted and imposed uniformly, would enable the City to acquire 169.5 acres of open space at approximately $1.00 per square foot. There are no costs for development of the open space but natural trails and minimal improvements like trailheads could be expected. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Open space would not be acquired and perhaps many of the existing trails could no[ be connected. Reference Document: Project Timing: None, the future needs are merely based upon the standards The timing or scheduling of [he capital construction or capital outlay representing current space and users statistics. acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of [his engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. i' 2010-1 ] Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/h~spection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' Land Acquisition/Rightof Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,015,018 $4,015,018 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,015,018 $4,015,018 Potential Fw~dy~g Sources: 163 Park Impact Fees, Quimby Fees, General Fund contributions, Stale Park grants and occasional federal grants (tl Ia~ry, 2006 END OF PLAN 164 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of San Bernardino, California January, 2006 Copyright, 2005 & 2006 6y Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. AI/ rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means -- graphic, electronic, mechanical, including any photocopying, recording, taping or taping or information storage and retrieval systems without written permission of Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. 2545 East Chapman Avenue, Suite 103 Fullerton, CA 92831 (714) 992-9020 3 ~-~-oE> January 6, 2006 Honorable Mayor and City Council Via Mr. Fred Wilson, City Administrator City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 RE: 2005-06 Development Impact Fee (DIF) Calculation Honorable Mayor, Council and Administrator Wilson: The City continuously experiences private development of vacant parcels and absorbs the demands for service created by that development and will continue to do so for some time. Revenue and Cost Specialists, L.L.C., was contracted to undertake a comprehensive identification of the capital projects and capital acquisitions necessary to preserve the existing Levels ofService (LOS) currently offered to and enjoyed by (after having have been paid for by) the existing community from the diminution of those existing LOS due to the addition of new residential and business development in San Bernardino and calculate the development impact fees (DIFs) necessary to fund those required projects. Council and City staff, responsible for providing services to a continually expanding residential and business community, must recognize that the magnitude of the impact fees is a direct function of the nearly $457.6 million cost of the capital projects identified in the Master Facilities Plan as desired or required. Regardless, anyone in the position of the Council members may find themselves reluctant to adopt the impact fees because they appear "too high". It is incumbent upon this Report and RCS Staff to convince the City Council of the justification and importance of the proposed impact fees The following Report calculates some new and some updated impact fees for San Bernardino based on the aforementioned changes and the City's changing requirements for public safety, streets and signals, storm drainage and other quality of life facilities. The adoption of the updated DIFs will enable this City Council, as well as succeeding Councils, to continue to ensure that the City will be able to meet the basic infrastructure needs of new growth, without unduly burdening the existing population and business community for these development- generated capital costs. Adoption of the recommended development impact fees contained herein and imposition upon the remaining development opportunities in San Bernardino, would generate approximately Page 2 January 6, 2006 Letter to the San Bernardino City Council and Staff $411.0 million in a combination of public improvement dedications and revenues limited for use on the many capital expansion projects deemed as development generated depending upon what level of development impact fees are adopted. The identification of $457.6 million in capital needs generated by new development, is not taken lightly, but must be examined in perspective to the cost of existing infrastructure, facilities, vehicles and equipment that a new development will share in the use and enjoyment of upon City review, approval, construction and finally, occupancy. To offer such a perspective, a major element in this Report is a proportional analysis, or comparison of what is being asked of future residents, in the form of dedicated public improvements or an in-lieu (impact fee) payment, with the cost of the City's existing infrastructure (land, facilities, and equipment), contributed by the existing population and business community. The dedications, taxes and assessments contributed to date by the existing community over numerous decades of development have generated just over $1,451.1 million (at current replacement costs) in infrastructure or capital improvements to San Bernardino. The following table identifies those existing commitments (or equity if you will), by infrastructure. Current Equity Service Provided Investment Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles & E ui ment $46,301,202 Fire Su ression, Facilities, Vehicles and E ui ment $59,305,645 Local Circulation S stem (Street, Si als & Bridges) $812,276,000 Libra Facilities and Collection $30,724,058 Public Use Facilities (communi centers $54,620,225 A uatics Facilities $19,015,237 Parkland/Open Space Ac uisition and Development $428,855,011 Total Existing Infrastructure Re lacement Value $1,451,097,378 It is not intended for the recommended development impact fees to address all of the City's capital needs, as identified on the various schedules in this Report. As per California Government Code 66000 et. seq. and common fairness, development impact fees cannot address current capital deficiencies. The proposed fees will recognize and meet the needs of the City's growing population and business community. However, with the adoption of impact fees, other City discretionary revenue resources that may have been used to meet growth-generated needs for expanded services and facilities will now be available for those accumulating replacement and rehabilitation projects. Page 3 January 6, 2006 Letter to the San Bernardino City Council and Staff The information required to develop the City's capital costs and equity data was generated by the San Bernardino staff, without whose help and cooperation, this Report would have been impossible to complete. The following management and support personnel were instrumental in working on a near daily basis with RCS to gather or generate the information and data so critically necessary for the legal support of impact fees. They are: Mike Eckley, Public Safety Systems Manager Robert G. Eisenbeisz, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer Matt Fratus, Fire Battalion Chief Julie Jensen, Administrative Analyst -Police Department Mark Lancaster, RCE, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer Teresa Martin, Administrative Services Manager -Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department Lynn Parker, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer Larry Pitzer, Fire Chief Terri Rahhal, Principal Planner Lemuel Randolph, Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director Dennis Reichardt, Deputy Fire Chief Lori Sassoon, Assistant City Administrator Dan Ustation, Park Superintendent Gwendolyn Waters, Police Lieutenant Without their hard work and willingness to provide the best data available, this Report could not have been completed to the degree of accuracy and completeness that it has. I would like to highlight the efforts of Terri Rahhal, Principal Planner, for her role in compiling the critical land use data-base information. The quality of information and resulting calculation were directly improved by her efforts. The Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report is now submitted for your review and consideration. RCS is prepared to assist in increasing the Council's and community's understanding of this very significant part of the City's revenue structure. Sincerely, Scott Thorpe, Senior Vice President CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Chapter 1 -Background and Introduction 1 Chapter 2 - Demographics and Findings 18 Proposed (Marginal Needs-based) Development Impact Fee Schedule 28 Chapter 3 -Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment 29 Chapter 4 -Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment 38 Chapter 5 -Circulation System (Streets, Signals and Bridges) 52 Chapter 6 -Library Facilities and Collection 79 Chapter 7 -Public Use (community center) Facilities 85 Chapter 8 -Aquatics Facilities 90 Chapter 9 - Parkland/Open Space Acquisition and Facilities Development 94 Appendix A -Summary of Recommendations ..................................114 Appendix B -Expanded Land-use Database ....................................116 Appendix C -Master Facilities Plan .............................Separate Document Chapter 1 Background and Introduction The City of San Bernardino has retained Revenue & Cost Specialists' to update a few of the City's existing impact fees and to add a few that have not yet been addressed. The City has further expressed a desire that its Development Impact Fees (henceforth referred to as DIFs) be calculated in such a manner that all possible efforts be undertaken to support the amount of the fees. Continued periodic review and adjustment of the City's DIFs, such as this effort, would be appropriate and warranted in order to improve the City's ability to support future residents and businesses developing in the City with the infrastructure the need. This DIF Calculation Report is dissimilar to other such efforts in that it includes a significant amount of collateral detail such as a list of all projects to be financed by impact fees, by infrastructure.2 The information contained in the DevelopmentlmpactFee Calculation Report and the Master Facilities Plan offers greater information to undertake policy matters will improve understanding by the development community and will provide an easier tracking (and updating) system for the staff. One additional component of this Report is that it includes a proportional analysis of the infrastructure needs required to support continued development of the City as compared to the existing infrastructure. The addition of the proportional analysis will assist the City Council in adopting a fee structure that recognizes inter-generational equity and increase the lay-person's understanding of what is fair. Lastly, this Report provides the documentation of the City's costs which serve as the basis for calculating Development Impact Fees (DIFs). The updated Development Impact Fees and related information can be found in Chapters 3 through 9 and Appendices A and B of this Report. Appendix C is the Master Facilities Plan which contains the specifics about the projects that support of the fee calculation. Due to its size, Appendix C is a separate document. RCS has met with City staff from the Police, Fire, Planning, Parks, Recreation and Community Services and the Public Works Departments staffto review the supporting data which forms the calculation of DIFs. The results of this review can be found on the schedules located at the end of each Chapter. Inclusion ofthe "Proportional Analysis." As stated earlier, this Report includes a proportional analysis. This analysis is intended to recognize and reconcile the difference between the City's desired level of service required of new development, per statements in the various General Plan elements, with that of the de facto or actual level of service provided to the existing community. This addition will assist the Council in making the difficult policy decisions regarding the City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 1 Chapter One Background and Introduction required additions of new development. Impact Fee Structure. The General Plan provides a range of potential densities for residential development, as such, the DIFs for residential uses need to be calculated on a per dwelling unit basis to reflect more accurately the impacts from a specific development. For example, a property zoned as detached dwelling residential development may contain from three to six units per acre. If fees are calculated on an acreage basis, the developer proposing three units per acre will pay the same amount as a developer constructing six units per acre. Similarly, fees are calculated on a square footage basis for commercial and industrial properties to reflect the impacts of different building intensities for this type of development. A second reason for the proposed DIF fee structure recommended in this Report involves the issue of building expansion or intensification of commercial and industrial areas. For example, if a property owner of commercial or industrial property proposes an expansion to his building, the question exists about how to charge this proposed expansion for its impact on the City's streets, storm drainage system, and other infrastructures. A fee calculated on a building square footage basis will simplify this calculation. CALCULATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES In California, State legislation sets certain legal and procedural parameters for the charging of these fees. This legislation was passed as AB1600 by the California Legislature and is now codified as California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66009. This State law went into effect on January 1, 1989. AB1600 requires documentation of projects to be financed by Development Impact Fees prior to their levy and collection, and that the monies collected actually be committed within five years to a project of "direct benefit" to the development which paid the fees. Many states have such controlling statutes. Specifically, AB1600 requires the following: 1. Delineation of the PURPOSE of the fee. 2. Determination of the USE of the fee. 3. Determination of the RELATIONSHIP between the use of the fee and the type of development paying the fee. Citv of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 2 Chapter One Background and Introduction 4. Determination of the relationship between the NEED for the facility and the type of development project. NOTE: Numbers 2 & 4 will be reversed throughout the chapters in this Report because it is apparent that need should be identified before use. 5. Determination of the relationship between the AMOUNT of the fee and the COST of the portion of the facility attributed to the specific development project. This Report, with some additions, utilizes the basic methodology consistent with the above requirements of AB1600. Briefly, the following steps were undertaken in the calculation of impact fees for the City and are listed below: 1. Define the level of service needed within the General Plan area for each project or acquisition identified as necessary. In some areas, certain statistical measures are commonly used to measure or define an acceptable level of service for a category of infrastructure. Street intersections, for instance, are commonly rated based on a Level of Service scale of "A" to "F" developed by transportation engineers. 2. Review the Land use map and determine the existing mix of land uses and amount of undeveloped and developed land. The magnitude of growth and its impacts can thus be determined by considering this land use data when planning needed infrastructure. The inventory can be found in Table 2-1. 3. Identify all additions to the capital facilities or equipment inventory necessary to maintain the identified levels of service in the area. Then, determine the cost of those additions. 4. Identify a level of responsibility, identifying, as termed in this Report, the relative need (or as referred to in the accompanying schedules as "PERCENT NEED") for the facility or equipment necessary to accommodate "growth" as defined, and as opposed to current needs. 5. Distribute the costs identified as a result of development growth on a basis of land use. Costs are distributed between each land use based on their relative use of the capital system. For example, future street costs were distributed to each land use based on their trip generation characteristics. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 3 Chapter One Ba~round and Introduction OTHER ASSUMPTIONS OF THE REPORT In addition to the land use assumptions contained in the next Chapter of this Report, other important assumptions of this study include the following: "Normal" Subdivision Improvements Omitted. Not included in either of the project lists or consequent calculations are the "local" public improvements generally associated with and identified as being the sole responsibility of the developer through the subdivision or development review process. This type of "on site" improvement would include all capital construction within the boundaries of any development, such as street lights, curb, gutter, sidewalks and neighborhood "local" streets. These improvements would continue to be the direct responsibility of the developer, with or without the addition of Development Impact Fees. Land Costs. Land acquisition cost estimates were developed after discussions with City officials. Arguments for higher or lower costs can be made; however, the herein contained per acre amounts appear to be the most appropriate current figures for the purposes of this study. "Zone-based" Fees for DIFs. In some categories of infrastructure, primarily storm drainage, the DIFs may need to recognize subregion or smaller portions of the City with extraordinary service costs or infrastructure needs. Subregions are generally the result of some geographical feature such as a river or hilly terrain that creates a differing need for infrastructure in the subregion. A reservoir that must be built at substantial costs to allow a small area of the City, above the current level of other reservoirs, to be developed, while there is no benefit to any other area of the City would be a prime example. A specific overlay or surcharge fee may be necessary in order to eliminate the possibility of others who will not receive any benefit from the reservoir from being required to assume responsibility for payment of that reservoir. As will be explained in later chapters in this Report, RCS is recommending only the limited use the azone-based fee for fire suppression services for the Arrowhead Springs area. Exclusion of Tax "Credits" for Undeveloped Land. It has been argued by some that a credit for capital-related revenues, such as gas taxes, should be made against the development impact fees calculated or imposed by a city. Using the state gas tax as an example, proponents of a DIF credit argue that a city will receive increased annual gas taxes because of the additional population generated by future residential development. It is therefore argued that a developer should receive a credit for any associated gas tax revenues collected as a result of the residents or businesses that occupy the new dwellings against any Circulation System impact fee imposed by the City based on either of two separate arguments. The first argument for a gas tax credit supposes that the additional gas taxes created by City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 4 Chapter One Background and Introduction residential development are used to pay for the maintenance of existing streets, which is the responsibility of existing development. Since the new streets constructed via impact fees will not require rehabilitation or reconstruction for another 10 to 20 years, the gas tax generated by new development is therefore a windfall to the City and should be credited against the DIF.. What this argument fails to consider is that any new resident or business to the City will begin to contribute immediately to the use and deterioration of all City streets. A cursory review oi° City finances will reveal that the portion of the State gas tax received by cities falls far short of meeting the City's needed street improvements and repairs in any given year. The gas taxes "generated" by new development simply cannot meet the maintenance costs of either the new streets associated with the development or the existing streets which the new resident uses on a daily basis. The second argument proposes that the developer pays his "full share" of constructing new roads when he pays the City's Circulation System DIF and that the gas taxes generated by his development are unfairly used to make improvements to the existing street system. It is most cities' experience that gas taxes are barely adequate to meet streets-related operational costs, and if they are sufficient to meet these costs, the remainder is used for capital-related maintenance projects. The amount of gas tax revenues used for expansion of the existing street system is usually, and specifically in San Bernardino's case, a nominal amount of the total. For these reasons, a credit is not considered for Circulation DIF in this Report. A similar discussion can be made for the other fees considered herein, and therefore no credits against such fees are included in this calculation of impact costs. Financing Costs. Since financing costs reflect an actual, and generally significant, outlay of funds for an agency, they are included in the project costs where debt financing will likely be necessary due to the immediacy of the need for the facility or infrastructure to show the full costs of such facility or infrastructure and insure that new development also pays its "fair share" of these costs. These costs are indicated on the project "detail" spreadsheets (3.1, 4.1, 5.1, etc.). Appropriate Expansion. Debt service is a reasonable cost of construction of many, but not necessarily all, public facilities and infrastructure. The following example illustrates. DIFs are collected in incremental amounts, but facilities are not expanded in those same incremental amounts. As an example, a community center fee, based upon a standard of 1.2 square feet per Detached Dwelling, may be collected for each residential dwelling in the City, but after collecting the fee fora 100-unit subdivision, it would be impractical to expand the community center 120 square feet. Fees are collected, placed in a separate fund, generating interest until such a time that a 2,000 to 3,000 square foot expansion is possible. During that build-up time, the community center will experience some temporary overcrowding as the standard drops from 1.2 S.F./dwelling to about 0.9 S.F./dwelling. This "temporary overcapacity" clearly may be an City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 5 Chapter One Background and Introduction inconvenience, bringing about some crowding and an increased unavailability for rental or event reservation until enough DIFs have been collected for a practical expansion to bring the community center facility back up to the original standard. In short, a development of 120 homes may be brought "on-line" (occupancy approved) and bring about a temporary reduction in community center facility standards without endangering the citizens' health and safety. However, such a "temporary overcapacity" in storm water collection is not at all possible. Capacity for the collection removal of storm water must be available prior to the construction that increases the impervious surface (and thus storm water runoff) of the parcel. If the local storm collection line is currently at capacity (peak or otherwise), no additional units may be brought on line until additional collection capacity can be created. Again, there is a practical size of addition to construct and it is not likely practical for developers to wait until there is enough added demand (and fees) to pay for the facility addition. As a result, financing through some type of debt instrument may be the only alternative. Circumstances vary from city to city as to what facility expansions are critical and which can absorb temporary overcapacity for limited periods of time. Financing would only be included for facilities where, based upon staffs estimate, the immediacy of need for the facility requires debt financing. In such cases, the debt service payments would be discounted to today's cost to account for the diminishing value of the dollar and would be in keeping with the cost methodology used in this study to show projects in current costs. To consider the face value of bond payments when determining costs, on the other hand, would be inaccurate as it would treat the value of a dollar today the same as the value of a dollar twenty years from now. Such an approach would tend to overvalue the costs of debt service requirements and therefore cause an agency to overcharge on its development impact fees. No project requiring debt service has been included in the Master Facilities Plan. REQUIRED PROPORTIONALITY TEST A test for proportionality is important, if for no other reason, than because it attempts to achieve community inter-generational equity, i.e., fairness in balancing the infrastructure investment made by existing residents and businesses with the investment asked of new residents and businesses that will benefit from the existing infrastructure. In short, previous generations of businesses and residents have contributed to the development of the City's existing infrastructure and this fact should be recognized by future residents and businesses by contributing a like (but no more than) amount towards completing the various infrastructure systems. It is one thing to identify the many public improvement projects needed through build-out. It is an entirely different thing to assume that all of the identified improvements are required to meet the demands of the new development. Clearly, some projects are replacements of the existing infrastructure as opposed to capacity increasing prof ects. Within the category of the latter, they may also be further classified into two categories; City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 6 Chapter One Background and Introduction 1. Projects dealing with existing deficiencies, i.e., projects required regardless ofwhether there is additional development or not. An example3 would be a traffic intersection currently controlled by stop signs that meets traffic warrants for a traffic signal, but is unfunded. An additional example would be the replacement of an existing, but aged facility. 2. Projects that are required as a result of development. An example of this would be a signal that is currently controlled quite adequately by stop signs, but because of development in the near and "downstream" areas, will ultimately need to be signalized. All impact fee calculations claim to be fair. Most DIF calculations will identify the desired or needed capital projects, explained as required as a result of the new development. But, what is fair and equitable? Is it fair to require future residents and businesses in a city to construct, via payment of impact fees, a new Police Station when the current station is merely rented or leased space? On the other hand, if a community already has all of the parks they will need at build-out, are they precluded from imposing an impact fee to recoup some of that expenses incurred in constructing the maximum needed park improvements prior to the maximum demand? These are difficult questions that maybe made clearer and easier by reviewing the following examples. Comparison of Needed Infrastructure with Existing Infrastructure. The answer to these difficult questions may best be answered by comparing various infrastructure scenarios. This can be accomplished by looking closely at the planned community ofHappy Valley4 for a few scenarios to explain the three possible conditions that can occur regarding the agency's current infrastructures and the demand upon them. We will use the provision of fire protection, a service that most of us as nonprofessional firefighters can somewhat understand. These three "conditions" include, the fire suppression system infrastructure construction: 1. is On-target, 2. has been Deficient, or; 3. has created Excess Service Capacity. Adoption of a Standard - According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), a standard two-bay fire station (estimated for purposes of this example to cost about $3,000,000) can meet the needs of 5,000 homes or 10,000,000 square feet of business pad. If these standards were adopted as Happy Valley's public safety element of the City's General Plan, they would be known as the de jure or stated (or desired) standard (i.e., the standard the community would like to meet). The inductive impact fees (or cost per proportional unit served) for this de jure standard would then be (on the following page): City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 7 Chapter One Background and Introduction Table 1-1 Calculation of N.F.P.A. Impact Cost Land Use Station Cost Units Served Im act Fee Residential Units $3,000,000 5,000 $600.00 er home Business S.F. $3,000,000 10,000,000 $0.30 er S.F. Service Base -Happy Valley's General Plan indicates that there will be 10,000 residential units and about 20,000,000 square feet of commercial/industrial space at build-out, creating a need for four stations. The station impact cost calculation is following: Table 1-2 Determination of Required Number of Stations Number Units served by Stations of Units One Station Re uired Residential Units 10,000 5,000 2 Stations Business S.F. 20,000,000 10,000,000 2 Stations Re uired Stations at General Plan Build-out 4 Stations Infrastructure is "On-target" -The need for four stations appears simple and the Happy Valley Council need only impose the impact fees identified in Table 1-1. Currently, Happy Valley has 6,250 residential units and 7,500,000 square feet ofcommercial/industrial building pad and is half "built-out" (in terms of fire calls-for-service). The existing development in Happy Valley is generating half of its ultimate (General Plan build-out) fire calls-for-service. This is demonstrated in Table 1-3 on the following page: [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page]. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 8 Chapter One Background and Introduction Table 1-3 Development of Current Infrastructure is "On-Target" Number Units served by Stations of Units One Station Re uired Residential Units 6,250 5,000 1.25 Stations Business S.F. 7,500,000 10,000,000 0.75 Stations Total Number of Stations Re uired Currentl 2.00 Stations Conversely, Happy Valley has the remaining half of its fire demand (in terms ofcalls-for-service) yet to come. Left to build are 3,750 detached dwelling units and 12,500,000 square feet of business floor space, and when constructed would generate the following capital needs identified on Table 1-4 following: Table 1-4 Remaining Development and Station Requirement Number Units served by Stations of Units One Station Re uired Residential Units 3,750 5,000 0.75 Stations Business S.F. 12,500,000 10,000,000 1.25 Stations # of New Stations Re uired from Land to be Develo ed 2.00 Stations If the development impact costs calculated in Table 1-1, ($600 per residence and $0.30 per square foot of business pad) were adopted and imposed as fees, The city of Happy Valley would collect, by General Plan build-out, enough capital revenues to construct the remaining two stations and proportionality, between existing and future residents and businesses, would be evident. Table 1-5, on the following page, demonstrates this: City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 9 Chapter One Background and Introduction Table 1-5 Remaining DIF Collection Number Impact Amount of Units Fee Collected Residential Units 3,750 $600.00 $2,250,000 Business S.F. 12,500,000 $0.30 $3,750,000 Amount Collected in Irn act Fees $6,000,000 Cost of a One New Station $3,000,000 Stations to be Built with Irn act Fees 2.00 And everyone in the community of Happy Valley is adequately served by the four stations having been reasonably financed by the entire community. Infrastructure is in Deficient Condition -Consider, however, the implications if the current Happy Valley residents and businesses had shown the earlier limited commitment to contribute enough financing to construct only one station when, based upon their own adopted standards and level of development, they should have two stations? Clearly three more stations would be needed on the path to General Plan "build-out." Initially, we can easily dismiss as completely inequitable the possibility of requiring the remaining future home and business owners to finance all three remaining stations. But would it be fair and equitable to charge new residents the $600 per home and new businesses the $0.30 per business square foot in order to build the remaining two stations required to meet the N.F.P.A. standards? The simple and direct answer is no. The Happy Valley community has not (with only one station constructed at half build-out) demonstrated their full and complete commitment to meeting the N.F.P.A. standards, and as a result would not have a strong case to assert that others who build after them need to contribute towards the construction of multiple (two) fire stations at a higher service rate by including the "missing" second station, especially when the community has been served by the lower level of service with one station. The service provided by the single existing station is the community's de facto (or "in fact") standard service level. With one station, the contributed equity to build the single station would be half of the impact fee proposed in Table 1-1, or $300/residential unit and $0.15/square foot of business space, respectively (see Table 1-6, on the following page). City of Sara Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 10 Chapter One Backeround and Introduction Table 1-6 Impact Fee at Deficient Condition Number Existing Amount of Units Contribution Collected Residential Units 3,750 $300.00 $1,125,000 Business S.F. 12,500,000 $0.15 $1,875,000 Amount Contributed by Existin Communit $3,000,000 Cost of One New Station $3,000,000 Station(s) built with Community's Contribution 1.00 If Happy Valley has only built one station at half General Plan build-out, we would be forced to conclude that the City is currently deficient by one station. If the future residents were asked to pay at a rate that would build two stations (the $600/$0.30 rates) the City would have three stations at General Plan build-out, one financed and built by the first half of the community, and two financed and built by the second half of the community. The first half of the community would, in effect "inherit" one half of a station at no cost to themselves. In short, Happy Valley's impact fees would fail the proportionality test. The inequity would then be exacerbated when the community decides to build the final "missing" last station (of four) from aCity-wide assessment or from annual General Fund receipts, paid for by the entire community, including those who just paid for the two new stations via the adopted fire impact fees. The only truly and completely etc uitable option is for the City to adopt impact fees at the $300/residence and $0.15/square foot rates. Adoption of this fee would be referred to as the Community Financial Commitment or Equity-based Impact Fees. Admittedly, the City will go further into a deficit position in terms of the number of required stations, from being deficient by one station at half General Plan build-out to a deficiency of two stations at General Plan build-out, but the ratio of deficiency (or overall proportionality) would remain a constant SO% of the stations needed at either time. The community, if they are truly serious about meeting the NFPA recommended standard, would then need to assess the entire community to raise the needed money in some fashion for financing the remaining two stations either in the form of an assessment or dedication of general receipts of the City. Infrastructure - "Excess Capacity" -One final but important scenario remains and must be considered. In this scenario the existing residents of Happy Valley were the industrious sort and (at half General Plan build-out) had constructed three stations when they were at the point when they only needed two stations. Clearly there is excess capacity in each of the three existing stations. In City of San Bernardino Development Irrapact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 11 Chapter One Background and Introduction this case, the Happy Valley's current de facto standard would be well above the de jure or target standard. Statistically, each of the three stations would have 1/3 excess capacity (for providing services) and should be busy only about two-thirds of the time. Should the impact fee be limited only to the marginal $300 per residence and $0.15 per business square foot required to construct the one remaining required station? If so, the future residents receive a gift of the extra (third) station. There will be tough decisions ahead to be made by the Happy Valley City Council. Marginal or Recoupment Fee? The Happy Valley City Council should adopt, at a minimum, the $300/residence and $0.15/square foot business space rates to insure that the fourth station would be built. This would be referred to as the marginal needs-based fee. This would be a benevolent gesture, giving the new residents a free ride on the cost of the (already built and paid for) third station. Or in the alternative, the Council can recognize that the $3,000,000 used to build the third station was a loan from the existing community's General Fund receipts, and needs to be repaid by the future community receiving an instantaneous level of fire protection the day they receive their occupancy permits, through the imposition and collection of impact fees.b In this case, the $600/residence and $0.30/square foot of business space impact fees should be adopted, imposed and collected. The impact fee would accumulate $6,000,000 through build-out, with $3,000,000 required to repay the General Fund in delayed revenue (for Station #3) and $3,000,000 necessary to construct the fourth station. This would be referred to as the fair share or recoupment-based at General Plan build-out fee. And more importantly, at General Plan built-out, long term equity would be achieved as each home and business would have contributed the same $600 per residence and $0.30 per square foot. Exceptions to Proportionality Test. The previous discussion applies particularly well to above ground or facility-based services such as public-use centers, pools, police and fire stations, civic centers maintenance yards or other fixed location and fixed capacity facilities that serve the entire population.. However, it does not necessarily work well on ground level or below system infrastructure such as streets, utilities, and storm drainage, where the continuation of a deficient system into the future is not at all possible and the lack of additions would ensure the complete inability to approve any further private construction without creating unsafe conditions to a specific area. As an example, if the agency's storm drainage system is currently deficient and creates some period flooding but not necessarily in dangerous amounts, the agency may not be able to approve and allow any more future development unless the stone drainage run-off created by the new development, is properly collected and released at a river or flood control channel. Additionally, a currently deficient water system, i.e one with only the most minimal of distribution pipes, may not be able to serve any more future development without a substantial increase in the capacity of the water distribution system. Specific Plan or Benefit to a Specific Area. An additional exception occurs when the need or benefit from a specific facility is generated by a finite or easily defined area such as a specific plan or a new Ciry of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 12 Chapter One Background and Introduction area of the agency that is significantly outside of the existing agency's urban in-fill service area or the specific plan is primarily the sole beneficiary of the infrastructure to be constructed. An example may be a small area of the City, proposed for say 2,000 homes, but separate from the rest of the City in such a way that, to meet the General Plan's stated fire suppression standard level of service of a five minute response time, it requires a separate fire station but serving less than any of the other stations, which on average serve 5,000 homes. There is little argument as to why the remaining residents and businesses should not need to finance that higher station cost per home served. This is not uncommon in an area geographically separated from the major, or urban, part of the community. An example would be a small area separated by a river or up on a hillside or in a canyon. The Arrowhead Springs area may well fit this definition and in fact, the proposed Station #223 would not be needed were it not for the more isolated, very low density/high open space acreage Arrowhead Springs development. Density ma~also be a factor. Fire infrastructure system improvements to date maybe spread over amore compact density (say 6-7 homes per acre) than the remaining development in town (say 2-3 homes per acre). Most likely, the fire system infrastructure costs per home for the lesser density will be far higher than the infrastructure costs required to serve the more compact but higher density. Again, the Arrowhead Springs area meets this exception in that the existing twelve fire stations serve a compact density of about 5.4 detached dwellings per acre, while the future residential development will result in about 2.7 detached dwellings per acre. Public Utilities. The impact fee treatment for municipal utilities is particularly clear in that the utility's operating and capital funds do not receive any General Fund financial support and they do not typically charge stand-by fees to vacant property. This means that the entire utility system has been supported only by user fees (payments by the utility's customers). Or stated in another way, it is user-financed. In many cases the utility may have significant extra capacity because most infrastructure cannot be expanded in small defined portions that exactly match the pace of new development, (e. g. water reservoirs are generally expanded on 1.0 million gallon portions, not 1,000 gallons at a time). Should not this excess capacity be paid for by new users that connect to the system who will benefit from the excess capacity has been constructed and identified? A water distribution system may also have significant distribution system capacity to reach homes and businesses in more outlying areas. RCS recently assisted with a city where the existing water users, currently representing only 55% of the water use demand at General Plan build-out, had already constructed nearly 70% of the entire water system. The 15% difference amounted to just over $7.0 million. Does this mean the excess capacity paid for by the existing users should be a gift to the future users? Does the Government Code §66000 et. seq. prevent this city from recouping the advanced costs invested by the current users that will be the direct benefit of future users? Simply stated, excess capacity can and should be identified wherever possible, and recovered'. The excess capacity must be identified in terms of"existing project segment" and how it will benefit the future users must be identified. Any recoupment must be placed back in the fund that financed the excess capacity, in this case the Water Fund. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 13 Chapter One Background and Introduction Equity, such as between existing and future users and between users that require additional infrastructure not required of others, is the attempt of this Report. Excess capacity is often difficult to identify and even more difficult to convince others of. The City is probably much like Happy Valley, with excess or overcapacity in some areas of infrastructure, and perhaps slightly deficient in others, as you will see in the remainder of the Report OTHER ISSUES Some members of the building industry have claimed that the addition of impact fees unfairly creates an inflated resale price for existing homes. The argument is that if the public agency adopts a $15,000 to $20,000 impact fee per detached dwelling home, then the price for an existing home is "artificially" increased by the same amount. We will use the example of a detached dwelling that cost the developer $200,000 to construct and complete to a point that the occupancy permit is approved. Full Cost of a Residential Detached Dwelling. The $200,000 represents only the above ground costs. The true and actual cost of a new home is the cost of acquiring the parcel, necessary government approvals and permits, construction supplies, labor, debt service on the above, on- site9 public improvements, and the hidden cost of extending public services10 to that home! These public service extension costs include (but are not limited to): • The addition of law enforcement personnel requiring the expansion of the police station space and miscellaneous emergency response vehicles • Additional fire stations and emergency fire, rescue and paramedic response vehicles. • Arterials and collector road widenings, additional signalization and bridges. • Additional capacity in downstream storm drainage pipes and outfalls. • Additions to water delivery capability, including source, treatment, storage and delivery. • Additions to the sewage capability, including collection, treatment and disposal. • Additions to the maintenance capabilities (i.e., municipal corporation yard and maintenance vehicles) necessary to maintain the above added infrastructure. • Additional parks, library, and public meeting space for recreational/social purposes. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 14 Chapter One Background and Introduction Thus while the cost of constructing the above ground portion of a detached dwelling home may be $200,000, the "downstream" costs identified above may be in the area of $15,000 to $20,000 per detached dwelling home or in the area of 7.5% to 10.0% of the above ground cost. If this argument is not clear, picture a 2,800 square foot home, costing approximately $200,000 to construct the above ground structure, located in the middle of an empty square mile, no roads, no utility service, no public safety response, no flood control and no recreational facilities. What is the market value of this home? Probably not even the $200,000 that it cost to construct the structure. All of a sudden, the $20,000 impact fee for all the infrastructure needed to support that one home, seems like a reasonable choice, assuming one can find an public agency capable of providing infrastructure support to the newly developed residential dwelling. The true and complete cost of a new detached dwelling is the cost of building the structure and the cost of extending the municipal services to the dwelling regardless of who pays for the actual costs of extending those services. To some degree these service-related infrastructure costs have been recognized, the only question remaining is who should for pay them? Effect on Market Price. Again, let us assume that a cumulative (i.e. all infrastructure provided by a city) $20,000 impact fee imposed upon new detached dwelling home construction increases the market price of an existing detached dwelling. Wouldn't this just be the recognition that the existing detached dwelling already has those physical links to the municipal services? A slightly different way of looking at this argument is that the existing family homes each have a "share" in a municipal corporation" and the share is valued at the cost of the connection to the various municipal utilities, transportation system, flood protection and public safety. It is a logical step then to require any newly constructed home to purchase a "share" at an equal cost. CHAPTER ORGANIZATION Within each infrastructure Chapter there will be a minimum of three and a maximum of four cost/fee tables. They will be: The first schedule, the Allocation of Project Cost Estimates identifies the project, its costs and the relationship, in a percentage, to development. "Marginal Needs"-based Impact Fee -This schedule will identify the impact fees that would need to be adopted to meet the basic capital needs identified in the Report (on the first schedule at the end of the Chapter, i.e., 3.2, 4.2, 5.2 etc.) for that infrastructure. With adoption of this level of impact fees, one could claim that new development is occurring without any additional cost to the existing residents and businesses. You could not, however, claim that new development is paying its `fair share." City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 15 Chapter One Background and Introduction Existing Commitment or "Equity"-based Impact Fee -This schedule will identify the cost (in current nominal dollar value) of the existing infrastructure, including land, physical improvements and capital equipment. This is the average amount that has been"invested"by the current community of residents and businesses. This equity will be expressed in terms of the cost to construct or acquire the assets at current costs. If the average "equity" (for detached dwellings for example) on this table is greater then the average cost on the previous "Marginal Needs" table, then the infrastructure system is "front- ended" or has excess capacity. Earlier residents and businesses of the community have put more of the system into place than will the remaining unbuilt portions of the community, (as they build). The existing community has advanced money to build capacity into the infrastructure system to meet the needs of residents and businesses not yet there! The scenario where Happy Valley had already built three fire stations while it only had the current demands for two stations is an example of a front-ended system. Adoption of this level of impact fee would allow the City to claim that new development is not being required to pay to eliminate existing deficiencies. Fair Share at General Plan Build-out Average-based Impact Fee or (existing capacity fee) - When a system is front-ended, or where there is evidence of greater equity than of the marginal needs-based costs, there will be a third table (4.4 or 5.4) that will identify the average cost of the system required at "build-out" (the cost of the existing infrastructure system plus the cost of the future system needs). It will be the average of the "marginal" and the "equity" tables combined and then divided by the General Plan built-out community that would represent an amount, that if adopted, would equalize the cost of the system between the future community with that of the existing community. The difference between the "marginal" amount and the larger "equity" amount would be "recoupment" of front-ended or advanced costs (or of delayed revenues). However, if the average equity (again using a detached residential dwelling as an example) is less than the average cost on the previous marginal-needs table (for the same detached dwelling), it is an indication that system construction has been lagging or is currently deficient. When the marginal needs are greater than the equity, the fees are limited to the equity figures, based upon the argument that it would be inequitable to require future residents and businesses to contribute greater amounts than have the existing residents and businesses. Where marginal needs are greater than current equity, there is no need for the third table (Fair Share at General Plan Build- out) in these cases. In short, if the existing community has not been inclined to construct an infrastructure system proportionally as the community developed, what basis does the community have to require the future residents to invest more, thus by eliminating, to some degree, the deficiencies created by the existing community? There can be no such rational argument. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 16 Chapter One Background and Introduction Adoption of this level of fee would allow the City to claim that development is paying its fair share. CHAPTER ENDNOTES 1. The firm had been previously known as Manageme~u Services Lestitute, but the same partners reorganized as Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.. 2. For greater detail of each project, refer to the City's Master Facilities Plan.. 3. Examples using other infrastructure will be used from time to time in this report. 4. "Happy Valley" has been used as an imaginary community for purposes of DIF example for about nine years. Clearly no insult is intended to any real or imagined community of Happy Valley. It is also a Happy Valley because there is no inflation and the value of a dollar remains nominal. 5. Actually, the permitted structure receives fire protection services as it is being constructed. 6. This example assumes that each of the existing three stations is debt-free and owned out-right. 7. This action would be more supportable with a recent. appraisal of the existing utility assets. 8. Not necessarily in a manner that indicates a danger, just below the standard being asked of the future residents. 9.On-site improvements include local streets and medians, curbs and sidewalks, sewer lines, water lines, street lights, storm gutter or drainage pipes, electrical power lines and all of the other requirements of the City's building requirements on the privately held property, hence the "on-site" reference. "Off-site" improvements are increased capacity needs that occur "down-stream" from the private property. The on-site public improvements generally become a city asset upon acceptance of the on-site public improvements made by the developer while the property upon which the on-site improvements, are still privately owned. 10. The City of San Bernardino does not necessarily provide all of these services. They are only highlighted to make a point about the types of municipal services typically required to support a residential dwelling. 1 1. Not unlike a share in a corporation such as I.B.M. or A.T. & T. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 17 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings This Chapter provides an inventory of developed and undeveloped land within the City and presents a summary of recommended DIFs detailed in the following chapters of this Report. The City still possesses a few sizeable areas of vacant land zoned for residential, lodging, commercial and industrial uses and will continue so with a few future annexations. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS This Report contains an inventory of developed and undeveloped land within the City limits of San Bernardino. The undeveloped land inventory forms the base for distribution of the estimated costs of impacts from new development. The developed land inventory forms the base for distributing the cost of the existing infrastructure for comparison and for the de facto identification of the existing levels of service (LOS) provided by those existing infrastructure. Table 2-1, below, provides an inventory of all private land uses contained within the current City limits and a few annexations that have been deemed "probable"'. The acreage amounts indicated on Table 2-2, and page 20, are based on the General Plan's land use inventory and a staff analysis of privately held parcels.2 The detailed land-use database can be found in Appendix B at the end of the Report. Table 2-I Detailed Land Use Inventory City of San Bernardino Developed Undeveloped Total City Sphere of Influence Acres # of Units Acres # of Units Acres # of Units Detached Dwelling Units 7,566.0 40,663 4,516.0 12,354 12,082.00 53,017 Attached Dwelling Units 1,613.0 19,415 811.0 8,599 2,424.00 28,014 Mobile Home Units 746.0 4,475 1.0 6 747.00 4,481 Commercial Lodging 98.2 2,455 126.0 625 224.20 3,080 Commercial/Office KSF 2,403.0 54,508 1,594.0 31,783 3,997.01 86,291 Industrial Uses KSF 2,631.0 45,843 2,795.0 48,700 5,426.00 94,543 Total -City Sphere 15,057.2 9,843.00 24,900.21 Private Residences 9,925.0 64,553 5,328.0 20,959 15,253.0 85,512 Commercial Lodging Rooms 98.2 2,455 126.0 625 224.2 3,080 Business Square Feet 5,034.0 100,350 4,389.0 80,483 9,423.0 180,833 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 18 Chapter 2 Demo~phics and Finding Land Use Definitions. This Report classifies properties as either one of three residential land uses or several different categories of commercial/industrial development. These land uses are defined3 below: Residential Land Uses: • Detached Dwelling Residential Corresponds to an allowable use within the City's land use designation of RE -Residential Estate, RL -Residential Low, and RS - Residential Suburban and some RU-Residential Urban. • Multiple Family Residential -Corresponds to an allowable use within the City's land use designation of some RU -Residential Urban and RM -Residential Medium, RMH -Residential and RH -Residential High. • Mobile Home Residential -This category of land use encompasses a number portions of the City's land use designations of Mobile Home Park designation in the Zoning Code. Business/Commerce Land Uses: • Commercial Lodging -This category does not have a specific separate corresponding designation within the Zoning Code but is separated due to nexus. This use may be constructed in CG -Commercial General or CR -Commercial Regional. • Commercial Uses - As utilized in this Report, Commercial uses include the general category of retail services and thus includes outlets ranging from restaurants to auto repair shops to shopping centers. This category includes the relevant portions of the CN -Commercial Neighborhood, CG -Commercial General, CR -Commercial Regional, CH-Commercial Heavy, CC- Central City areas and portions of the UBP -University Business Park areas. • Office Uses - As utilized in this Report, Office includes the general category of medical and professional uses. This category includes the relevant portions of the CO -Commercial Office Districts, UBP -University Business Park and OIP - Office Industrial zones. • IndustriaUManufacturing Uses -This category contains all businesses engaged in heavy manufacturing or industrial development in the single industrial zone such as IL -Industrial Light, IH-Industrial Heavy and IE-Industrial Extractive. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 19 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings Definitions of Land Use Status. For each of the major land use categories detailed above, land is categorized as either Developed or Undeveloped. Definitions regarding the status of each land use are as follows: Developed Acreage -Includes land in the City which is fully developed and is in conformance with the zoning designation for that area, or land which has received a building permit but which is not yet constructed. Acreage in this category may also include non-conforming use areas of the City which contain extensive development prior to annexation or before changes to the General Plan were made. RCS has made no projections regarding properties which are currently classified as "Developed" but which may undergo redevelopment in the future. The City may wish to establish a policy now about how to charge impact fees for these redeveloping properties, especially in the situation where an older property (i.e., a building constructed in the 1960's) may never have paid an impact fee to the City. Undeveloped Acreage -Refers to all non-public vacant acreage located within the City. This category also includes any largely vacant properties anticipated to be redeveloped in the future. Table 2-2 Summary of Undeveloped and Developed Acreage Sphere of Influence Developed % of Vacant % of Total Acres Total Acres Total Acres Detached Dwellings 7,566.0 30.3% 4,516.0 18.1% 12,082.0 Attached Dwellings 1,613.0 6.5% 811.00 30.3% 2,242.0 Mobile Home Dwellin s 746.0 3.0% 1.0 0.0% 747.0 Comm. Lodging Units 98.2 0.4% 126.0 0.5% 224.2 Commercial/Office S.F. 2,403.0 9.7% 1,594.0 6.4% 3,997.1 Industrial S.F. 2,631.0 10.6% 2,795.0 11.2% 5,426.0 Total 15,057.2 60.5% 9,843.0 39.5% 24,900.2 Table 2-2, previous, provides a summary of the detailed land use inventory, limited to privately held property, provided on Table 2-1. Staffs land use inventory reveals that there are presently City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 20 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings 15,057 acres of privately-held developed land within the City's current City boundaries. Conversely, there remain 9,843 acres of vacant or substantially undeveloped land in the City. Undeveloped land represent approximately 39.5% of the total 24,900 privately held acres within the City of San Bernardino (including the probable annexations previously identified). Detached dwelling residentially designated land constitutes the greatest amount (18.1%) of vacant acreage of all the land uses. These statistics can be misleading however, considering that the existing detached dwellings generate a dwelling density of about 5.4 units per acre whereas future Detached dwellings will constructed at more limited 2.7 dwelling unit per acre. CommerciaUIndustrial Development. In order to assess the costs of impact from commercial or industrial building intensification or building expansions, this Report includes a calculation of impact fees both on an acreage basis and per gross square foot basis for commercial and industrial development. In order to accomplish this, City Planning staff estimated the average square feet of building coverage developed per net acre of land for future development (sometimes referred to as the average FAR, or Floor Area Ratio), shown following: Commercial/OfjOce Development - 19,940 G.S.F. per Acre (about 46% F.A.R.) Industrial Development - 17,240 G.S.F. per Acre (about 40% F.A.R.) POPULATION PROJECTIONS A second component in determining the magnitude of impact of future development and the necessary facilities needed to mitigate that impact is a realistic assessment of the build-out population of the City. Many of the facilities contained in this Report are sized according to either the estimated population at theoretical "build-out" or upon service levels which are based in part upon an estimation of the population to be served. Library facilities, parks and recreation facilities and community center facilities and equipment are examples of cost areas which rely heavily on population projections to determine space and facility needs. Park standards are usually stated in terms of the number of acres of park land per 1,000 persons, for instance. There are at least two generally accepted methods for projecting future population levels in a City: (1) past growth trends projected forward and (2) population holding capacity based on the General Plan land-use element. Each of these methods can be useful even though both possess certain limitations. There are several serious flaws in projecting the build-out population of a community using the past growth trends methodology. While this method is relatively simple and therefore easy for the general public to understand, it does not give consideration to when an area is actually built out. Eventually there comes a point in time where the amount of available land to build on is negligible. This technique does not help explain when that point is reached. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 21 Chapter 2 Demographics and FindiraQs Also, the past growth trends approach is not sensitive to policy changes made by Council or land use issues contained in the City's General Plan. For these reasons, this technique is more useful in projecting short-term population levels and should not be used to forecast the built-out population of an area. This Report relies on the methodology ofholding-capacity, (described in the following section), to project future service levels and facility requirements. Holding Capacity Analysis. The methodology used in this Report to forecast the built-out population of San Bernardino is the current holding capacity approach. This method calculates the sum of existing development and potential development allowable under current land use regulations, using average densities found in the City. The first step in projecting the City's population using the holding capacity approach is to inventory the remaining undeveloped acres within the City limits, which was previously accomplished in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 of this Chapter. The next step is to estimate the potential dwelling units allowed per acre and then multiply the potential number of units by the average number of residents per unit. Table 2-3, found on the following page, projects the additional number of dwelling units and potential population for the City of San Bernardino through build-out. The number of potential new dwelling units was calculated by multiplying the amount of vacant acreage for each land use zone by the average densities (i.e., number of units allowed per acre) indicated in the City's General Plan. The number of persons per unit for new residential units is based on the 2000 U.S. Census and ranges from 3.501 and 2.517 persons for detached dwellings and mobile homes respectively to 2.771 persons for attached dwellings. Based on these assumptions, future residential development is expected to add approximately 63,370 additional residents° to the City of San Bernardino, joining the approximately 199,803 citizens already living in City, resulting in a total estimated population at build-out (based upon the inclusion of existing City limits and the Arrowhead Specific Plan) of 263,173 residents.5 The estimated General Plan build-out population of approximately 263,174 residents using this holding capacity approach is typically lower than the population forecasts based on the mathematical models described previously. This latter scenario is probably more likely to occur. As the residentially zoned land remaining to be developed continues to be built on during the next ten years, the City is likely to see the number of new dwelling units developed decrease each year. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 22 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings Table 2-3 City of San Bernardino Average Dwelling Occupancy, by Type (2000 United States Census Data) Number Less Number Total Number Average Percentage Existing Residential of Units Vacant Occupied of Occupants Occupancy Occupied Detached Residential Detached Total 37,296 3199 34,097 119,367 3.501 91.42% Mobile Home Total 4,362 622 3,740 9,412 2.517 85.74% Other 110 29 81 143 1.765 0.00% Attached Residential Duplex to Quadplex 5,741 1084 4,657 13,993 3.005 81.12% Five or more 13,194 1795 11,399 29,044 2.548 86.40% Attached 2,711 511 2,200 7,551 3.432 81.15% Total -MFR 21,646 3,390 18,256 50,588 2.771 84.34% Existing -State Department of Finance 01/01/05 Population 199,803 Potential G.P. Build-out Population Anticipated Occupahcy Probab/e Dwelling Anticipated At Historic Occupancy Rates Units Rate occupancy Density Population Undeveloped Detached Dwellings 12,354 91.42% 11,294 3.501 39,540 Undeveloped Attached dwellings 8,599 84.34% 7,252 2.771 20,095 Undeveloped Mobile Home's 6 85.74% 5 2.517 13 Population to be added development 59,648 59,648 Potential "Build-out" Population, at Historic Vacancy Rates. 259,451 259,451 Potential G.P. Build-out Populatipn Anticipated Occupancy Probable Dwelling Anticipated At 100% Occupancy Hate Units Rate Occupancy Density Population. Undeveloped Detached Dwellings 12,354 100.00°/a 12,354 3.501 43,251 Undeveloped Attached dwellings 8,599 100.00% 8,599 2.771 23,828 Undeveloped Mobile Home's 6 100.00% 6 2.517 15 Population to be added development 67,094 67,094 Potential Maximum "Build-out" Population. 266,897 266,897 (1) Summary File 3 (SF3), available at http://factfinder.census.gov (2) Current population based upon State of California Department o/Finance data. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 23 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings SUMMARY OF FINDINGS City staff and RCS have identified just over $457.6 million in needed and desired capital improvement projects required through the City's General Plan build-out, including both projects related to existing deficiencies and those needed solely to support future growth. Based on these costs and the schedules found at the end of each of the remaining chapters of this Report, costs attributable to future development were derived on a per unit basis for residential land uses and on a per square foot of pad basis for commercial and industrial land uses. Schedule 2.1, found at the end of this Chapter, provides a summary detail of the maximum DIFs for each type of infrastructure and land use category that could be considered (given more precise data). The feesb are summarized in Table 2-4, following: Table 2-4 Summary of Development Impact Fees (Assumes Recoupment for Excess Capacity) Recommended Land Use Development Im act Fees Detached Dwellin Units $16,134/Dwelling Unit Attached Dwelling Units $12,518/Dwelling Unit Mobile Homes $10,629/Dwelling Unit Commercial Lod in $3,297/Lodging Unit Commercial/Office Uses $5.710/S uare Foot Industrial Uses $3.193/S uare Foot Specific impact fee rates for each land use can be found at the end of each chapter relating to each infrastructure. Schedule 2.1 at the end of this Chapter also identifies the probable impact fee revenue, the capital cost total and the difference, by individual infrastructure type (e.g. fire). However, while some of the impact fee calculated in this Report identify the potential for recoupment of the costs of previous development-generated capital projects (excess capacity) as was described in Chapter One, the detail of the existing value of the various systems, does not approach the level of accuracy required to adopt a recoupment style impact fee. As such the recommended Development Impact Fees are those indicated following in Table 2-5. The adoption of the recommended minimum impact fees supported by the calculations in this Report City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 24 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings (Schedule 2.2) would finance about 89.8% of the needed capital facilities by raising some $411.0 million. There are no impact fee fund balances, but other sources, primarily sale of assets, represent $0.6 million or 0.1% of the total. Funding from other capital revenue sources will be required for the remaining unfunded $46.0 million through build-out and represent 10.0%. Table 2-5 Summary of Recommended Development Impact Fees (Based Upon The Larger of Marginal Needs or Equity-based Impact Fees) Recommended Land Use Development Im act Fees Detached Dwellin units $13,392/Dwellin Unit Attached Dwellin Units $10,687/Dwellin Unit Mobile Homes $9,197/Dwellin Unit Commercial Lodgin $1,699/Lodgin Unit Commercial/Office Uses $2.716/S uare Foot Industrial Uses $1.359/S uare Foot Specific impact fee rates for each land use can be found at the end of each chapter relating to a specific infrastructure. Schedule 2.2 at the end of this Chapter identifies the probable impact fee revenue, the capital cost total and the difference by individual infrastructure type, (i.e. police, fire, etc.). Schedule 2.2, identifies the individual and total impact fees by land-use and provide a calculation of the potential collection through build-out at the proposed Marginal-needs Based impact fee rates and the cost of the total infrastructure needs, and is the recommended impact fee schedule for adoption. FORMAT OF THIS REPORT The following chapters of this Report contain the detailed information relative to the calculation of DIFs recommended by RCS for the entire City. Appropriate textual explanations are contained in each chapter, with a chapter devoted to each of the seven sets of DIF cost schedules, listed following and three appendices. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 25 Chapter 2 Demo~phics and Findings CHAPTER 3 -Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment CHAPTER 4 -Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment CHAPTER 5 -Local and Regional Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System CHAPTER 6 -Library Facilities and Collection CHAPTER 7 -Public Use (community center type) Facilities CHAPTER 8 -Aquatics Facilities CHAPTER 9 -Park Land/Open Space Acquisition and Facilities Development APPENDIX A -Summary of Recommendations APPENDIX B -Detailed Land-use Database APPENDIX C -Master Facilities Plan NOTE REGARDING TEXTUAL MATHEMATICS: It is important to note that the use of a computer provides for calculations to a large number of decimal points. Such data, when included in text and supporting textual tables, has been rounded to no more than two decimals for clarity and thus may not replicated to the necessary degree of accuracy as the spreadsheet schedules at the end of each chapter. Should there be any difference between tables within a chapter and the schedules at the end of the same chapter, the schedules shall prevail. CHAPTER ENDNOTES 1. The annexations included in the land-use database are A) Arrowhead Springs. See Appendix B for greater detail of each area. 2. The figures are consistent with the most recent Land Use Element. 3. Summary of the City of San Bernardino General Plan Update. 4. Assuming that the vacancy factor retains its traditionally high occupancy factor as evidenced in 2000 Census (averaging 88.6%). The estimated 63,371 additional residents is the average of full occupancy and the roughly 88.6% average occupancy assuming a increase in the average occupancy. 5. Ibid. 6. The total is limited to impact fees contained within this Report and excludes other current Impact Fees, such as utilities. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 26 = ~ LL LL .c •c '_ '~ N y N 6 d ° ° 6 ~y ° N r ~ h " ~ M rC' 6 ~ 1~Ory NM ~ ~ G ,- ~ r t^ 7 c0 Of ~ O Q~ ~ N ~ M ~ p„ ~ ~ O ym r ~ N h r Q+ N ~ryy Q h ~ p. O ~., Q1 C l3- S ~ N O ~j ~tj ~ M '~ Vj $ ~ ~p t0 V ' r ~ Yf W ~ h y ~ ~ ~y o a G. H ~ r O ~ N VHY M1 N (4 ~ {p O cM+~ O a e .r-. r r f': O h O ~ M ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ N~ ~ M K 'C d G. r M O O ~ ~ ~ N M- dS ~ ! N ~ t0 m A ~O ro', y~ bi ~ M ~ M ~ ` ~ V! O- '8 O_ ~ YY N. t~tl G 7 m ~ 1 d ff t O O N Q, Q Q ~ N a O FA ~ ~ N. N ~ ~ N ~ V M ~ M ~ N r M O ~ 1p M rl. M N N h N r N ~ ~ K N vj ~ d r ~ (fl H d d d M ~ ~ Y3 d LL d d W ~ m V d. d: LL U- LLO ~ ~ j d 1L G~ M O p O~ qp a ~ ~ p "' ~ N CO ~ N VS ~ l7 N? O ~ ~ h ~ ~ M N O ~ CJ "~ o'f V .y+ ~ iy u. .- ~ iy. ~ O p "?9. Z Z Z ys ~ a u ~ d g LL h a o N o ~ ~ O o o~ .h- ~ ~ vQ E 9 rcoi ~ ° e' h- r' h ch E c C M- M 'p N rD ci O r M ~ ~ d ~ M ~ N N ~ !A d fD O O r~ d ~ t0 ~ y d Il ~ M r~ M d U d d'. LL U- ~ iA M U d ,~. d ,~ Z Z Z y N 9 '~ ~ ~ ^ N O ~ ~ ~ O ~ N ~ ~ h ~ ~ N ~ d 6 M ~ ~ O p m df N N Q a- O~ t'D Q dYa `n by dy e' cn R h- ~ m ~ ° °h ~ a o 4tl y d. d. O ~ N iR ~ ~ O V r ~ ~ C E 7. fq 'O m d ,~ ~ ~ d T M ~' ~ ~ ~ E O M M M ~ °y3 $ ho, ro a. M O N ~ m ~ r W- O O Ql ~- A d E U w h N o o N `4 N~ o m N r ~p `r d Ey lii 0 a N M N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M O f0 t9 r N 0 ~ yj `C'1 V! ~ Cl N ~ M N ~ M fA ~' ~ N d ll N m~ ~ o o N 91 Q~ d N ~ N m~ o ~ o m. m a u O N td r8 d ass ~ ~ ~ vs » ~' ~ Tn ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ H c y v a ~'C.. u. a_ v E._ v r" 7 r - c 'y G a t a N. a. eN ~n pO po o g m y ~- N LL ~ N N O T W m N O- O ~ N ~ ~ W N d d E 4e d a0 ~ 9 R O N O N m M ~ ~ ~ N» o 0 o r ~ ~ mo, ~ ~ ~ M ~ !1i a~i ~ o c LL r ~ '» er *A ~n o vi h of yi y W ~ tgi U .r G y ~ a d.. ~ ~ vs ,R. ~ ~O y i rt tUd ~ 0 m ~ ai v Z amts t E ~ ~ w 'LL o ~ = d RS = ~ ~ d. 7 ~ c Y iy, LL ~ ~ 0 .C U u. ~ j w c m N c c c ~ !E m m ~' d 27 r ~a U~~ E a m U d v~ I~~ •`-° ~ c y~ Z'NN ~ L~ m E E~ o~~ c U •u~ O U j ~ tC fl. ti. ~ ~ ~ 'n E Eo c , ~ d ~,q g U y~~ U p 4~ U U S ? N LL N UN~m _ 8 > LL ~ d d d d d d d a a a a a a m ~ op pp~~ lp~~ pp p O d II ~ f0 ~q fD O f7 f0 M ^ ^ M Ol O O M O N O y 11 N n n N M Nn pOp .'- ~ O M N U~ M O H K H 19 On! ~~O f0 N Ol n Onl pO p NN. d ttl •- H H V c0 H O M O) T fD fD O a o n o o M o 0 0 0 M o o u~ cv ~ d c ~ o°i_ m o a g o Vf Ni » c: o vi ~ c N td7 ,O. rn W f0 f0 rn rn N N N M co ~ a d f9 f9 fA N N N N W MM N N ~ 'd' C (!J h ~ LL LL LL p ~~yy d Cy O ~ O O O O 10/1 f0 fOD fM0 tl! d G a U Z Z Z fq O fnM M t9 ~ M t0 (D N R fD O O O N N O O N O r. N N rn O M n f9 fA f9 N.. N f9 f9 ~ ~ y y W. FA f9 f9 _' V ~ ~ ~ N ~ M ~ ~ N N N ~ 6IL d Z Z Z ~ ~ H ~ ~ LL lL (L~ fq ~ d ~ ~ a p~ y h ~ ~ OM r a N ~ ~ OM tQ~ ~ f9 f9 O {mayv~ Oj O y C d N. d d d N O ~ ~ t`O) a 19 Ol N 'a d d d W N C~~77 M M r' n y- T LL LL LL r..- ~ N ,d.. ~ O O O "' N W eD a0 y "' 6. '`S LL tpp Z Z Z ~ ~ h ~ H d V '(A_ 'p N n ° v M a cc n a o 0 o n n o o a~ ~ ro OC f0 N V M O M M 69 (9 b9 ^ f9 (9 ~ ~n » to ~ E ~ ~' ~ m d d d rn M N» ~' M m iR E a ~ LL LL LL In f0 'N N t(I M O C a 'v -b y o 0 0 o o ~n v~ d O J LL U:. L. Z Z Z M f9 fA "' ~ ~ ~ d d m i° N E a n m m rn o co M co 0 0o a to so 0 0 0#~j H o d y ~ M N M M rn V M O N N a f9 f9 N N O rn M N V V ep IA N fp f0 n N oD r n N uyu777 `p~ {p y d. N. ~ ~ ~ ~ O O M rn N M N N C rn d c a+ vi » o co » n n rn~ M M ~i d a o~€ p~ c? n N~ a a v a~ ~1 $ G1 O f9 ~ N (V O ~ n ~ O ~0 ~' ^ fD V 6 eL~. b'f !A f9 H. Hi f9 a ~ £ ~ O O ~ O a ~ U v -y LL E y m ~n rn o M m a u~ a o o_ in n; n o 0 o n '% d M N a N M o a n rn O O M M f9 f9 O M ~ ^ V ~ N N aD f0 fD M eD N r eD N M fD OD eD O 00 C ltl ui. v~ » fn o of v of fc ~c of ai: ai of o n o. 0 D. Sri d m' 3: in in vi N o ~ °v c~9 of ~ a a N» '~ H ~ LL E m N~ ~ a rrni o 0 o d E ~ ~ C u ~ c in » of of in in yrn w y Il U J y c d m~ a•E _ _ d w M M M N N N N O O O O M M O O N ~~' O~ O C ro. M ~O M V O O OD aD N O O po O [9 O n ~ 'O ~ j y M M N M N O n rn ~- O R a M. M O W ~ ~ G a y ~ N ~ f9 f9 f9 df OM ~ ~ M b9 m rn Onf N. N O V fNq~ O fdi T C ~ m y w p ~ O fD f9 'N N t00 N a L O B O m ~ ~ y ~ E rn m~ LL~ y~ j C Q ~ 'E d C V O 9 N d M W N N O f0 aG O eD O M M O O V N' ~ E L.L = ~ Al M M n O rn a O rn N N O p O di fA M M p jy C N O M N N O M rn N N V ~ $ ~ rn O ~ O V ? Y d ~ M di b9 f9 19 O O Ol In fp Op fV N a N W ~ A O d F9 f9 O n f9 a0 rn N N' N rn I~ y d d' 3 d W y. O O f0 N W N N I~ C'W J ~ m ~ H f9 ~ ly ~ W W M M. N d OP O 9 N O W L H (9 Vi H W Q U S c3.o LL ~' vo~~~~ o ~ ~ ~ _ Z C j N'O rW. W Y > c ~ y d ~ L d~ N ~ a c, ~ d y a a~ ~ .5 y y ti m y. N m~ d Z ~ S c '''QQQ°`~' ~ Yy ~ ~ c_ c °i d Y ~ ~ CV C O Q- U ; d d - ~ y d d$ Q y E c ~ ~ d. ~ cd ` L c ~ o~ c m ro~ ~ o~ E ro~> > b EE fn U fA u"' U o Q~ U U 5 0 ¢Y' ~ U U S U u'~ O U c~ Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment The Existing System Infrastructure. The San Bernardino Police Department currently operates out of an 80,000 square foot facility on North "D" Street. An expansion of the City-owned facilities dedicated to law enforcement uses will need to occur before General Plan build-out to allow the Department to deal with additional staffing necessary to absorb the growth-created additional calls-for-service while maintaining the existing level of service. Additionally, the Department has 234 vehicles with various added equipment costing a total of $4,031,420 or an average of about $42,436 per vehicle'. The 312 sworn officers are each assigned equipment such as leathers, armament, clothing, and safety apparel costing an average of $5,108 per full-time officer for a total of $1,479,000 for the 312 officers. The Department also has some $7,735,000 invested in computer, communications and specialty equipment. The last asset is the $341,250 is the law enforcement specialty equipment. There is no existing Law Enforcement DIF fund thus no fund balance. Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Underdeveloped or Vacant Parcels. Residents and businesses benefit from law enforcement services in three ways: directly, indirectly and through standby availability. Direct services are those where a resident or business owner requires a direct response, usually as a result of being the victim of a crime. Direct service results in the form of a law enforcement officer contacting the victim. Indirect benefits, such as crime prevention programs, free patrol time and other law enforcement services that serve all businesses, citizens and visitors, are impossible to calculate for a specific beneficiary. An example of indirect benefit would be the apprehension of a burglar in your neighbor's home. Had the burglar not been arrested he/she may have broken into someone else's home on another day. Most residents and businesses may go for many years before ever requiring a call for service. However, these fortunate residents and businesses still benefit from law enforcement services, if in no other way than in the knowledge that a law enforcement officer is available, through adequate planned stand-by, to respond if you require public safety assistance. The addition of new residential units and new businesses will increase the demand upon the law enforcement service level by creating more direct calls-for-service, more areas requiring preventive patrol, and in general, more opportunities for crimes to be committed. The development of vacant or underutilized parcels into residential or business units will also generate more calls. The residents and business-owners occupying those residences and businesses will create the increase in law enforcement "calls-for-service." More homes and City of Sari Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 29 Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities Vehicles and Equipment businesses will mean more responses to the burglaries, domestic disputes, noise complaints, shoplifting, and miscellaneous incidents that will occur in the new homes and businesses. If the law enforcement force capabilities (the base) are not expanded, then the increasing number of calls-for-service (the rate) will reduce the amount of "free" hours available for preventative patrol. This inability to expand the capabilities would ultimately drive the Department into a full reactionary mode. The additional calls-for-service would limit the amount of time for training, planning, pro-active crime prevention and other non-direct services. Table 3-1, below, summarizes an analysis of the calls-for-service received by the Police Department in recent twelve month periodZ. The breakdown of calls into the land uses that generated them, divided by the number of developed units (during the same period) generated a "calls-for-service" factor. Table 3-1 Law Enforcement Calls Generated by Land Use (12 month period) Develpped Calls Total Calls Per Land Use Dwellings For Dwelling or or K.S.F. Service K.S.F. Detached Dwellin Units 40,663 67,790 1.667/LJnit Attached Dwellin Units 19,415 28,660 1.476/Unit Mobile Homes (in Parks) 4,475 4,220 O.943/tJnit Commercial Lodgin 2,455 2,280 O.929/Unit Commercial/Office K.S.F. 54,508 41,110 0.754/KSF Industrial Uses K.S.F. 45,843 180 O.OO4/KSF NOTE: K.S.F. = 1,000 square feet. As an example, there were approximately 67,790 calls-for-service that generated a response to one of the 40,663 attached dwelling units in the City. The result indicates that, on average, each dwelling will generate just under two calls per year (1.667). The same analysis was undertaken for the remaining land uses. Since these calls-for-service by land use are an average, they were used to project the number of additional calls that could be expected by multiplying the calls per residential unit or business acre by the number of anticipated number of new residential dwellings or business acres. To determine the number of additional officers necessary to meet this increase from future developments, the number of increased calls resulting from new City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 30 Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities Vehicles and Eauipment development was then divided by the average number of calls requiring a response by an officer. The Purpose of the Fee. Additional calls-for-service can be expected, and the cost of adding officers necessary to respond to those calls can also be determined. Those new costs can be translated to a fee, or an amount, necessary to be collected to offset the added equipment and capital facility costs necessary to accommodate the required additional staffing. These costs include equipping and housing the additional officers. Providing that the fee is adopted and imposed, new development will finance the capital costs of expansion of the Police Department. The continued costs of the annual salary and benefits for those additional officers, will need to come from increases in property and sales tax generated by the new residences and businesses and their occupants. The Use of the Fee. The revenues raised from a properly calculated and legally-supported Law Enforcement Impact Fee would be limited to capital costs related to that growth. The fees would be used to expand the law enforcement station, increase the number of response and investigator's vehicles, and properly equip additional officers. Conversely, the Law Enforcement Impact Fee receipts could not be used to repair the existing building, replace existing vehicles, or replace normal vacancies. Where the amount of equity of the existing community is larger than the marginal needs fee, the difference may be returned to the General Fund as repayment from the developing properties for the creation of the excess capacity. However, this is not the case with the Law Enforcement Impact Fee (see remainder of Chapter) because the proposed capital projects were limited to those necessary to maintain the existing levels of service and the proposed building would result in ana increase over the existing standard. The Relationship Between the Need for the Fee and the Type of Development Proiect. Department records were used to demonstrate that differing land uses generate differing numbers of calls. Clearly, a retail store is more likely to suffer shoplifting incidents, whereas a residence is more likely to experience a domestic disturbance or break-in. It is not likely that a single development will generate the need for a single officer. However, cumulatively the calls generated from various developments will create the need for an additional officer and ultimately an additional patrol beat. On an acreage basis, an acre of Detached Dwelling dwellings will generate less calls than an acre of multi-family dwellings. The impact fee is accordingly higher. The complement of 312 sworn officers currently absorbs the 144,240 (rounded) annual calls by responding to just under 462 annual calls-for-service3 each to privately-owned and developed parcels annually. Based upon the addition of 58,031 calls-for-service (per Schedule 3.2) from new development (at General Plan build-out), the City will need to add 126 officers to maintain City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 31 Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities Vehicles and Equipment the same response capabilities that are provided now. This is not to imply that the existing level of services or the ratio of officers to calls-for-service is the desired level of service, it is merely identified as the curreHt level of service. To adequately equip the 126 sworn officers, the City will need to add ninety-five additional response vehicles at a total cost of $4,031,420 to maintain the existing ratio of 0.75 vehicles per sworn officer (234 vehicles divided by 312 officers) and for the personnel equipment at a combined cost of $643,608 (126 full-time officers X $5,108 in assigned equipment costs). The Relationshi Between the Use of the Fee and the T e of Develo ment Pa 'n the Fee. Again, use of the fee is a similar argument to the need for the fee, As the development occurs, the impact is generated and the impact fee would be collected as the development occurs (generally at plan check permit). The collected fee would be put to use to acquire equipment for additional officers, vehicles and additional building space necessary to respond to those additional calls, without reducing the capability ofresponding to calls from the existing community. The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Proiect. The building size expansion calculation is based upon the existing average square foot of space per budget approved sworn officer, currently about 256.4 square feet per officer based upon the 80,000 square foot headquarters station. The result is the need for an additional 32,308 square feet to maintain the existing average of 256.4 square feet per officer standard while adding the 126 officers required to maintain the existing level of service afforded by current budget appropriations. The current effort to meet the additional space needs is outlined in MFP project detail page identified as LE-O1. No developer would be required to construct any portion of the law enforcement facility as a condition of development. All contributions will be in the form of an impact fee representing their fiscal contribution matching their increased demand. Marginal Needs-based Fees. Table 3-2, on the following page, summarizes the resulting impact fees (from Schedule 3.2) for development to pay to contribute to the expansion of the Law Enforcement capabilities of the City in order to allow the City to extend the same level of service to the City's newest citizens and businesses. [This space left blank to allow the following table to be on a single page]. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 32 Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Enuipment Table 3-2 Marginal Needs-based Costs Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fees Allocation Total Cost Land Use of Costs Per Unit or SF Detached Dwellin Units $8,105,619 $656/iJnit Attached Dwelling Units $4,995,481 $581/Ilnit Mobile Home Units $2,227 $371/Unit Commercial Lod in Units $228,528 $366/Unit Commercial/Office Uses $9,432,023 $0.297/S.F. Industrial Uses $76,671 $0.010/S.F. Existing_Equity-based Comparison. The current equity in law enforcement assets is limited to the existing 80,000 square foot headquarters facility with a replacement value of $36,569,997, the 234 law enforcement vehicles ($9,930,000), personal-assigned equipment for the 312 officers ($1,479,020), combined communications and specialty equipment of $8,076,570. There is no Law Enforcement DIF fund balance. The existing police facility has a remaining debt of $9,754,385 on revenues borrowed to construct it. When this combined, net, equity figure of $46,301,202 is distributed to the current community (via Table 3-3 on the following page as summarized from Schedule 3.3), we find that the existing equity is very nearly the same as the calculated Law Enforcement Marginal Need-based Impact Fees (or proportionality test fees), indicating that the existing community has invested about the same as would be required from future development if the Marginal Needs-based Impact Fees (per Table 3-2 and summarized from Schedule 3.2) were adopted. In short, the Marginal Needs-based Impact Fees pass the proportionality test in that the capital needs generated by future development are generally proportional with the existing capital inventory, or at least are not higher. This is not surprising given that the future space, vehicle and equipment needs are based upon a straight line projection of the existing levels of service supported by the existing law enforcement infrastructure. As an example, the addition of 32,308 square feet of law enforcement space would merely maintain the existing 256.4 square feet per existing officer for the 126 additional officers required at build-out to maintain the existing levels of service (126 new officers multiplied by the 256.4 square feet per officer equates to 32,308 additional square feet). City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 33 Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Table 3-3 Current Law Enforcement "Equity" Allocation Total Equity Land Use of E uit Per Unit or SF Detached Dwellin Units $21,761,447 $535/Unit Attached Dwellin Units $9,199,760 $474/Unit Mobile Home Units $1,354,745 $303lUnit Commercial Lod in Units $732,184 $298/Unit Commercial/Office Uses $13,194,198 $0.242/S.F. Industrial Uses $58,868 $0.005/S.F. RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES Since the Equity-based position of the existing community is just less than the Marginal Needs- based fees (necessary for expansion) indicating the City's investment in Police capabilities as supported by infrastructure is slightly behind the needs at General Plan build-out), the equity driven fees, identified in Table 3-3 and Schedule 3.3 would be the most equitable fee schedule to adopt. CHAPTER ENDNOTES 1. A typical fully-equipped police cruiser costs approximately $50,000. The $42,436 is the average of the Department's 234 vehicles ranging in cost from the low of 16 motorcycles at about $10,000 each to the single SWAT van at $300,000. 2. Data from a ten percent random sampling of calls from a recent continuous twelve month period. 3. Limited to privately owned parcels, but there are additional calls to public property such as schools, parks, and roadway right-of--way that could not be included, thus are a function of calls to private property. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 34 N W N O ~ O CD O O O O O O O) N U y ~ CV ~ ~ COO O Cfl ~ tH CA EA v d; c ~ ' a ~ ~ v~~ ~o~° ~ ~' a Q ~' ,~O ~ ~ 40 ~ ~L ~ o v~ .., a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H £ h C 0 0 0 0 0 f~ 0 0 0 h CO '_" O O O O O O O O O O cp U ~ ~ ~2 °oo°o°oo 0 000 0 0 Q •- ~ u. ooooin ~ o00 ~ ~ Q U o ~ ~ 4$ ~ ~ ~ •, m U o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a U C O O O O O [h O O A M o ro~ o 0 0 0 o m o 0 o rn y V~ w.,. ~ Z OOP O O ~ O O O O) N ~, O N N ~ ~ U O M O In ~ O O O ~ ~ tNA V COO O M ~ E!j C9 EA ~ V7 M M O V V V ~ c~°o_o~ionn ~ u°'i ~ i ~...U. N M N N y ;y F» v> E» Co Co ~ W E» uv ~n U c C to N ~ ~ Z a H ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ c ~, ~ a a~ 0 ~ ~ a ~ ~ fd U m a cC Q ~ O ILLLLSLJI H ' U E a O U w ~ ~ Z 7 ~ ~ 3 7 T W LL m E J ~ ~ a~ 7 m ~ N <d ~ Q li (n O 0 C cva ~' '~ ~ ~ c c ~ N~ ~u> w E 3 E 4 ~ ~ m J - cO m T - J y ~' .U ~ a ~ H - Q ~ e a C " 0 W j U O~ U ~ o ~o RS ~ ° ~ °" Z ~ aci aci O ~ y~ ,~o E io m o m ~ E E ~ Q~j w. ,Q U a N~ ~ U U CCU ~C (may' w0 C Q N N O O y Q~ V} c O O ~ c c fli U ~',:.~VU w~a~~c ww a ~ y ~ ° 3 3 ~ c4~,~ JQ06 ~ ~ y !•' 'p N N N U ~ in O ~ ~ ~ ~ ' C ~ V ro aaQQ" ~ ~ `-° E u~aaaa ~ ~ a ~ 4 ~I cn r N C7 V Cn C `O O~ ~ O O O O O ~ °' c ~ ~ ~ W W W W W ~ U No m ~ O Q~ ~ J J J J J Z r U M Cry Q C ` ~ ~ ° a W 35 ~ O ~ U c ,L,` ~ > cq U°NQJ c p... m, N j j ~ y ~ ~, ~ ~ d m ~ a~ m a~ t Q CQQ~~~ 4 Q a 4 Q a y U p3~ ~ ~ M ~ N O u' o Q Q (!1 69 ~ Eq fg ~ ~ y. - N O LL Z wy. n COO O ~ 007 N ~ N U N O (O ai ~ n J ~ ~ N c d d ~ ~ 4 C' ~n o n v n n O N ~ ~ N O 0 ~ U a e » E» F» in F» ~ q4 0 4 c'. ~ C (O V N ~ O CO ~ y ~ ~(7 N O N c0 eO{ O C~ ~ N V ~ N k~ ~ V 0 V ~ (n N. ~3 ~ ~3 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 p y O O ~ryfp dO' nm O O 007 07 Co1 v c~ N O .- d' O 0. a. .cq' 0. 0 N N CO0 cN0 r ~ ~- CV ~ m ~ 0°0 CEO T '0~ V ~ ~ CO lA O) ~- %C N N N C. Cn0 ~ ~ N l~A O 1.: .p. O d' 0 O) n O .- O O O O U' v ~ C N In 0 CO N (D O ,Q ~ Ch l° CD n n ~ ~ N O O W ~ j co V ~ D ~ N J h CO ~- ~ (O a ifl C~ a ~ N 0 01 'V'.. ~ C 00 ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ao ~ ~ N ~ V U ~ ¢ J y J ~ ~ y ~ J vi ~ ~ C C ~ ~- N c~ RS ~ ~ C C C U Y ~ - ~ O w y d m 4 '~ ~ c °' a~ ~ O d ~ N N~~ v, ~ p E is a 7 0 ~ C ~ ~ U e'X c ~i = a> a~ ~ ~o ~ X 0 2 O ~S ° cLi S E E N m ~ C W a O¢~ U U~ ~ .°'c >, o ~' 3 c 36 cp cq U°N~~ ri ~ _ j e e c c~~ d n ~ ~ C ~ ~ G`) a~i C) G`) a1 y 4 W ~a C C1 y O. Q Q Q Q Q N ~ c Y 07 (aj ~ ~ ~ `c•3 ~ o rn c o ¢ ~ '~ W E ~ c d y. o o ~ Eti>OUjfn d CJ o d d m c N °~j ~ LL E-E ~ ° E ~ o °o °o oMO N W ~ ~ ~ ~ v~° c ~ ~ ui ~i co ui ~O ~ 3 _`o a o 'c o 0 W y~~ N N ~ J W W W E W o 3 3 3 3 0 3 U c ,c c c c ~ av c d m m d d .O ~ C C ~ O O~ M N U.U U UU ~1Q O' ,~ G1 CO f~ N ~ ~t [fl 7 C.. C_.. C' C.C C C :C O' <N EA (fl EA to W~ .T. ~' ~' ~ td ~,' o a .v a Q' •Q d Via; p o r W W W W _W ~ W O d n O to 7 a0 a0 N 1~ O b. O l! ~ ~ a O V c0 M O O O N O.. OD ~ ~ a n ~ c0 N O1 O O O.tn M p U ;y m ~ N v m Os O O> sf :C, i ,. cD a~ in co m ~n O c0 M h tO ~ uI UroU n .- r~ ~ .- E» cq u~ rn v n ~ n O. ~ ~ N fA Efl ch ~ M!A iR d9 <9 R \ fH U> 0 0 0 0 0 0 d p i O h C7 CO O C7 O O1. C ~, O M M ~ N tQ, C y V ~ N N O ". Cm1. ~ U 4 ° ~ aa N d ch O f~ O ~ Cn0 N~ O L N tD M r m o7 b C~ U to O m O oo W a V E (O ~ to to h O c0 N M O tb N . ^J .- ~ O O O O 1H ~ O N N O N 41 W V. ~J. (O N ~ N d' ~ ~ ~ F Q ~ 0 I~ (O M M~~ C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO I~ ~ N to O I Of CO N OD ~ OD (O ~ M M n O V t\ O N N ~ ~ ~, 1~ y O O O O ~ ,U ~ N V N a U m ~ m ~ U~Q U ~N ~ ~ M lA IA M N M I M In 1A lA O C7 (O f~ to O V 1- ~ (D ~ f~ N O ~ 4 y cD v v a ~n m o co d: a a ~n ~ W C °v rn v c~i u~i ~ C~ °arn~~i~a U >,j~ a~ p W j \ ~ O c7 (O c0 M ti ~ o ~ m co ~ m o c~ u~ ~ p q ~n co n a co b C U N f~ ~ N N In E N Q ~ C) V J aE y ~ J c °' rn ~ CA h c °I '=' •pl w ~ lNl ~ ~ c c~~ y O ~ c c c o ~ 4 C C "~ 3 a~ d ~ O a~'i 3 ~ ~ ~ p ~ cii N~ •C ~ J ~ p E m ~a j ~ 0 E m ro Q o ~ (ry ~ j ~ $ m ~ ~ E E ~ ~ ~ Y a E E ~ m ~ ,,, o c ~ ~ o 0 0 -° ~ ~ ° ° ° ~ 37 °' ~ o~ EW a o¢~ U U s ~oa~UU 3 c UNV°~ Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment The Existing System. The Fire Department currently responds to calls for fire, medical and other emergencies from one of twelve existing stations. The existing Fire Department facilities consists of: • Fire Station #221 (four bays wide by two vehicles deep) is the 19,617 square foot Headquarters station and is located on an 85,813 square foot parcel at 200 East 3`d Street. The fire operations currently housed in this station are planned to be relocated to optimize overall City-wide coverage. • Station #222 (two bays wide by two vehicles deep), is located at 1202 West 9`h Street and is 6,062 square feet on a 36,000 square foot parcel. • Station #223 (two bays wide by two vehicles deep) is situated on a 37,500 square foot parcel and is 4,604 square feet and is located at 2121 North Medical Center Drive. • Station #224 (two bays wide by two vehicles deep) is located at 2641 North "E" Street and is 5,762 square feet on a 35,500 square foot parcel. • Station #225 (two bays wide by two vehicles deep), is 4,604 square feet and is located at 1640 Kendall Drive on a 20,000 square foot parcel. • Station #226 (two bays wide by two vehicles deep) is a 4,604 square foot facility on a 40,000 square foot lot located at 1920 North Del Rosa Avenue. This station is planned to be relocated to optimize overall City-wide coverage and keep annual staffing costs to a minimum. • Station #227 (two bays wide by two vehicles deep) is the department's smallest at 2,475 square feet and is located on a 18,000 square foot parcel at 282 West 40`" Street. • Station #228 (two bays wide by two vehicles deep) is located at 3398 Highland Avenue. The 3,685 square foot facility is on a 89,298 square foot parcel. • Station #229 (two bays wide by two vehicles deep) is a 4,030 square foot building on a 36,000 square foot parcel located at 202 North Meridian Street. This station is planned to be relocated to optimize overall City-wide coverage and keep annual staffing costs to a minimum. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 38 Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities Vehicles and Equipment • Station #230 (two bays wide by two vehicles deep), located at 502 South Arrowhead Avenue, is 5,540 square foot building on a 30,000 square foot parcel. This station is planned to be relocated to optimize overall City-wide coverage and keep annual staffing costs to a minimum. • Station #231 (three bays wide by 1.5 vehicles deep) is located on a 65,340 square foot parcel at 450 Vanderbilt Way. The structure is 6,552 square feet. • Station #232 (two bays wide by two vehicles deep), at 7,700 square feet, is the second largest station and is on the second largest parcel at 69,696 square feet. The facility is located at 6065 Palm Avenue. • The two maintenance shops, which combine for 14,392 square feet, or about five bays wide by two vehicles deep, are located at 1208 North "H" Street on a 36,480 square foot parcel. These two facilities will need to be relocated as part of the planned I-215 widening. The land value and replacement construction costs of the existing stations is approximately $43,443,998 less the $3,641,381 in remaining debt on Stations #221 and #232. Not surprisingly, the City also has a sizable fleet of City-owned response and prevention units consisting of: • Seventeen engines, twelve Pierce Dash's and five Seagraves, • Three ladder trucks, a Seagrave, a Pierce Dash and an American La France, • Five International Pierce Hawk Type III brush trucks, • Six Chevrolet Suburban or Tahoe Command or support vehicles, • Eighteen miscellaneous sedans primarily used by management and inspection staff, • Two Arson vehicles, one K-9 vehicles and one investigator, • A Pierce Saber Heavy Rescue Unit, • A Pierce Saber air/lighting support vehicle • A Pierce Saber HAZMAT unit, and: • Four utility trucks, a repair truck, a van and a utility trailer. The total investment in the vehicle compliment is about $13,796,199. State or County vehicles and equipment have not been included in the above figures. The City's fire-fighter assigned equipment, at $4,895 per firefighter, is approximately $778,305 total for the staff of 159 full- time firefighters. The Department has acquired approximately $1,829,500 in electronic and communications equipment and there is $3,099,024 in specialty fire-fighting equipment. And lastly, there is no current Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicle and Equipment Fund thus no fund balance. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 39 Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities Vehicles and Er~uibment The net current equity of the stations, parcels and the response fleet (with specialty equipment) is approximately $59,305,645. This figure represents what it would cost to establish the existing Department response capability at current vehicle, equipment, land acquisition and construction costs. The relevance of this figure will be established later in this Chapter. Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Underdevel~ed or Vacant Parcels. While it can be said that numerous factors are considered when determining the number and location of ftre stations in any city, it can be stated without any logical argument that all new private development in the City will have an effect on the City's current ability to respond to fire, rescue, and emergency calls-for-service. The effect, simplified but not trivialized, is twofold. Initially, each new residential and business development will create, on average, more calls-for-service increasing the likelihood of simultaneous (and thus competing) calls-for- service, Additionally, as development spreads further from any existing station or stations, as large-scale development is often likely to do, the distances (and thus response times) will increase, taking the existing truck companies out-of-service for greater periods of time. The capacity of any fre station is finite and will reach practical limits (through call frequency and total time). When that capacity is exceeded, the level of service afforded to existing development will be greatly reduced. Or stated in another way, if development continues without the addition of fire stations, the existing station could be overwhelmed, making a timely response for emergency service a virtual coin flip. That is, will the existing truck companies be available to respond to your needs or will they most likely be out-of-service on a call in a different part of the community? The Purpose of the Fee. In order to continue to be able to respond to anever-increasing number of expected calls, the City staff has determined the need for the addition of one station and a sizable expansion of the existing station to accommodate an additional full-time engine company. Having the right type and number of fire stations in the right locations will enable the Chief and City Council to allocate firefighters, apparatus, and equipment in a rational way for maximum use of resources. Conversely, the penalties are high and extremely visible, for poor fire station location or no facility location. Adverse effects are felt by the City staff, the council, and indeed by the existing taxpayers. With poor location or no additional location, response times, (via distance or out-of-service due to a previous call}, can become excessive, and if a tragedy occurs, the incident will be well publicized. Often, response time is mistakenly referred to for only the first-in unit, and this can be a grave error. Instead, response time must consider all the forces necessary to place the incident under control. If the first unit arrives within five minutes but cannot provide the necessary water flow, or perform the needed functions due to a lack of staffing, the five minute response becomes insignificant and irrelevant. Thus an increase in the number and type of response vehicles is City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 40 Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment also necessary to match and equip the needed additional staff. The following sections identify the manner in which the City plans to meet the demands of additional calls-for-service. The Use of the Fee. The revenues raised from a properly calculated and legally-supported Fire Facilities and Equipment Impact Fee would be limited to capital costs related to that growth. The fees would be used to construct new stations or expand existing stations (to increase the response capacity of that station) and increase the number of emergency response vehicles. Conversely, the Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Impact Fee receipts would not be used to repair any existing fire stations or replace any existing emergency response vehicles. Additional facilities are planned to come on-line, as needed, as development creates additional demands beyond the capability (volume or calls and distance) of the existing stations. The capital capacity expansions include: FD-Ol, Construct Station #223 (Arrowhead Springs) -The project consist of constructing the City's final Station #223. This station is required to serve the 1,000 plus dwelling units and the 600 room/1,000,000 square foot conference/commercial center. Typically a station could serve more than this amount of development, but its geographic separation and distance from any other stations will drive the need for a separate station. FD-02 is the response fleet, a type I engine and a type III engine to equip the station. As a result, the station and equipment could be required as a condition of approval in a Development Agreement or Specific Plan Agreement. FD-03, Relocate Station #221 Fire/Medic Operations, FD-08 Renovate Station #221 as an Administrative/Maintenance Facility and FD-09 Construct a Vehicle Storage/Maintenance Building. These three projects are related. The current maintenance facility on North "H" Street (representing five bays wide by two vehicles deep) will need to be vacated to accommodate the planned widening of the I-215 Freeway. Additionally, the current fire/medic operations at Station #221 needs to be relocated to a more advantageous location to achieve the long term benefits of the long range station relocation plan. As a result, there are plans to renovate the existing four bay wide by two vehicle deep "floor" area at station #221 to accommodate the fire vehicle maintenance operation. FD-08 includes the addition of a structure approximating three bays wide by two deep to make up for the loss of some space from the existing maintenance facility to the existing station #221 and also provide for some vehicle storage. FD-04, Expansion of Station #224 from 5,762 square feet to 8,700 square feet in order to accommodate a paramedic squad. FD-O5, FD-06 and FD-07 Relocation of Stations #226, #229 and #230 -Typically the addition of a 7,021 calls-for-service over the current 17,914 calls-for-service to privately held property City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 41 Chapter 4 Fire S~hression/Medic Facilities Vehicles and Equipment would generate the need for a number of additional fire stations. However, the City staff and a Citizens Committee determined that the relocation of four existing station would accommodate the 39% increase in calls for service. The fourth station (#221) to be relocated was addressed in FD-03. The relocation of existing stations rather than the addition of new stations is more advantageous to the City in that it serves to limit annual operations costs. FD-10, Land Acquisition for and Construction of a Training Facility. The training facility would consist of a four-story live fire tower for hands-on manipulated training, a drafting pit, various training apparatus and a four hundred square foot classroom. The addition of a training facility would allow for more coordinated training in a single facility and safer water draft testing. Acquisition ofAdditional Fleet, FD-i 1, Two Command Vehicles, FD-12, Four Squad Vehicles, FD-13, Three Prevention Sedans and a Utility Truck, and FD-14, a Reserve Engine. -The additional fleet is required to meet the needs f the 39% increase in calls-for-service to new development. While it is fortuitous that the City can accommodate the additional calls for service with largely the existing number of stations (Arrowhead Springs, not-with-standing), some additions to the fleet is required, but are being kept to a minimum. FD-015, Firefighter Equipment Additions for an additional twelve full-time firef ghters necessary to staff the Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan Area station and have adequate leave coverage. FD-16 and FD-17, payment of the remaining debt on the Headquarters Station #221 and the Verdemont Station. The proposed projects and costs are identified on Schedule 4.1 and are detailed in the Master Facilities Plan (Appendix C). The total cost of completing the General Plan build-out fire infrastructure system is $47,244,872 and is a net $46,644,872 after an estimated $600,000 in sale of assets from the sale of Station #226, #229 and #230 is applied to the proposed total cost. Not included in the calculation is the reimbursement to be received from CALTRANS for their acquisition of the maintenance facility. However, any such reimbursement would be credited towards existing needs, not future development generated capital needs so would not affect the calculation of the impact fees. Where the amount of equity of the existing community is larger than the Marginal Need-based impact fee, the difference could be returned to the City's operations fund as repayment from the developing properties for the creation of the excess capacity. However, this will not be the case with the Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities and Equipment Impact Fee. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 42 Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities Vehicles, and Equipment The Relationship Between the Need for the Fee and the Type of Development Proiect. Fire service response standards extended to new development should be consistent with the fire response currently enjoyed by the City's existing citizens and business community by constructing new facilities, or the result will be a deterioration in the level of service provided both to the existing residents and future citizens and businesses within the City of San Bernardino. It follows that it is appropriate to assess future development to contribute additional fire facilities. To project the impact of future development on fire services, it was first necessary to quantify the current impact on services from each of the City's land uses. Then, a determination of the costs of future capital facilities necessary to meet this increased demand was made. The following section illustrates the relative impact from each land use on fire services and facilities. While the majority of these requests for service were made by San Bernardino citizens from their residences, a large percentage of requests were generated from new commercial, office and industrial uses within the City. A survey of each land use and its existing effect on requests for calls-for-service was conducted to project the impact of future development on fire services. The survey was undertaken in a similar manner as the process used to determine law enforcement demand (Specifically described in Chapter 3, Law Enforcement). Only requests for fire, medical and rescue services to privately held property were counted. Requests for service to public property, such as City parks and public right-of--way or intersections, were excluded thus distributing these calls pro-rata through the requests for service from privately held property. This is based upon the argument that all public land serves privately held land in some manner. Table 4-1, on the following page, identifies the number of requests for service received by the Fire Department during the past calendar year by land use (detached dwelling, attached dwellings, mobile homes, commercial lodging, commercial and office KSF, and industrial KSF). The number of requests for service received by the Fire Department during the year was then divided by either the developed acreage, the existing number of dwelling units to determine the number of requests generated per commercial or industrial acre or per dwelling unit. [This space left blank to place the following table on a single page]. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 43 Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities Vehicles, and Equipment Table 4-1 Average Annual Existing Responses Per Unit Or Acre Dwellings, Calls Annual Calls Land Use Units or for per Unit or S uare Feet Service 1,000 S.F. Detached Dwellin s 40,663 8,142 0.200/Unit Attached Dwellings 19,415 4,799 0.247/Unit Mobile Home Dwellin s 4,475 718 0.160/Unit Hotel/Motel Units 2,455 232 0.095/LJnit Commercial/Office KSF 54,508 3,989 0.073/KSF Industrial KSF 45,843 34 0.001/KSF Of residential land uses, an attached dwelling unit is slightly more likely to require an emergency fire service response at 0.247 annual responses per unit, than a detached dwelling at 0.200 annual responses per unit. Commercial/office development is shown to generate 0.073 responses per 1,000 square feet of developed land, while industrial development generates the least calls-for-service demand of 0.001 calls per 1,000 square feet. The lower business demand by industrial uses should be expected given the greater density of employees and patrons in a commercial establishments when compared to an industrial businesses of a similar size. However, it should be noted that while there are fewer calls for industrial properties, significant training is required to be prepared for industrial responses, (i.e., trenching response and hazardous materials training). Table 4-2, on the following page, indicates that on a comparative basis, an acre of attached dwelling development creates the highest demand for fire services, thus the impact fee is the highest on an acreage basis. [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page]. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 44 Chapter 4 Fire S~pression/Medic Facilities Vehicles, and Equipment Table 4-2 Calls-for-service by Land Use Acre Calls per Units or Calls Land Use Unit or KSF KSF/Acre er Acre Detached Dwellin 0.200 4.39 0.879 Attached Dwellin 0.247 11.56 2.857 Mobile Home Dwelling 0.160 6.00 0.962 Hotel/Motel Unit 0.095 13.74 1.298 Commercial/Office Uses (KSF) 0.073 21.589 1.580 Industrial Uses (KSF 0.001 17.424 0.013 Based on the existing rate of responses by land use, the increased number of fire service responses generated by future residential, commercial, industrial and office development was extrapolated. This was accomplished by multiplying the average responses per unit or acre by the number of undeveloped units, rooms or acres. This data is summarized in Table 4-2. Table 4-3 Additional Annual Fire Responses Generated by Future Development (Rounded) Fire Undeveloped Additional Land Use Responses Units or Acres Fire Responses Per Unit (rounded) Detached Dwellin Units 0.200./unit 12,354 units 2,473.7 calls Attached Dwellin Units 0.247/unit 8,599 units 2,125.5 calls Mobile Home Units 0.160/unit 6 units 1.0 calls Commercial Lodging Units 0.095/unit 625 units 59.1 calls Commercial/Office Acres 0.073/KSF 31,738 KSF 2,325.9 calls Industrial Acres 0.001/KSF 48,700 KSF 36.1 calls Total -- -- 7,021.3 calls City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 45 Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities Vehicles and Equi ment Marginal Needs-based Impact Fees. The list of projects to complete the Fire Suppression/Medic Infrastructure System totals a net $46,644,872. Approximately $14,832,132 represent current deficiencies or replacements. Table 4-4, following, distributes the remaining $31,812,740 in improvement costs needed to serve new development through General Plan build-out, distributed over the development anticipated in the same area using the calls-for- service data previously described. Table 4-4 Marginal Needs-based Fire Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Impact Fees Allocation Total Cost Land Use of Costs Per Unit or SF Detached Dwelling Units $11,208,063 $907/LJnit Attached Dwellin Units $9,630,407 $1,120/IJnit Mobile Home Units $4,531 $755/Unit Commercial Lod in Units $267,775 $428/Unit Commercial/Office Uses $10,538,398 $0.332/S.F. Industrial Uses $163,565 $0.003/S.F. The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee. The use of the fee is equivalent to the need for the fee. The impact fee would be collected as the development occurs (generally at building permit). As the development occurs, the impact is generated. The collected fee would be put to use to acquire additional fire-fighters, emergency response vehicles and an additional fire station necessary to respond to those additional calls- for-service, with/out reducing the capability of responding to calls from the existing community. The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the FacilitX Attributed to the Develonment Project. A replacement value of the existing fire infrastructure (stations, response fleet and related safety equipment) of $59,305,645 was referenced. This represents the current investment or commitment towards fire suppression capability by the existing community. When this figure is distributed over the existing community in the same manner as the future costs, by the land use demands, an investment, or financial "commitment" (or "equity" for that matter) per unit can be determined. As an example, each detached dwelling unit has "invested" a very significant $663 into fire suppression capital. There is no rational argument for requiring any differing commitment from future businesses or citizens. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 46 Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities. Vehicles, and Equipment The current community's commitment has been to establish the single station capability paid for via past impact fees and General Fund receipts. To allow future residents to benefit by use of all of the capital needs without contributing additional assets, would be clearly unfair to the existing residents. Table 4-5, following, summarizes the distribution of the $59,305,645 in replacement cost to the existing community, (Schedule 4.3 shows it in greater detail). Table 4-S Current Fire Suppression/Medic Infrastructure "Equity" or Current Community Investment Allocation Total Equity Land Use of E uit Per Unit or SF Detached Dwelling Units $26,954,704 $663/Unit Attached Dwellin Units $15,887,450 $818/Unit Mobile Home Units $2,376,993 $531/LJnit Commercial Lodging Units $768,053 $313/LJnit Commercial/Office Uses $13,205,885 $0.242/S.F. Industrial Uses $112,560 $0.002/S.F. Resulting impact Fees. Of importance is the fact that the equity-based costs on Table 4-5 are just slightly lower (by about 27% to 28%) than the Marginal Needs-based fees as demonstrated in Table 4-4. This indicates that the City is slightly behind in its cumulative investment in needed fire facilities, vehicles and equipment. Table 4-5, as supported by Schedule 3.3 is the recommended schedule of Fire Impact Fees. The recommended fees would generate approximately $24.7million to be used on the projects identified on Schedule 4.1 and the Master Facilities Plan. OTHER NOTES AND ISSUES 1. A recently identified trend is one where newly constructed industrial developments, initially charged the lower industrial use impact fee, often end up being commercial uses and generate the greater demand created by commercial land uses. If this trend is left unnoticed, the Fire Department, as well as other City services, will be faced with the greater demand from commercial uses, but will be left only with the collection of the lower industrial impact fee rates. To avoid this under- collection, the City should impose an impact fee representing the difference between the commercial City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 47 Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities Vehicles and Equipment impact fee and the previously paid industrial land-use impact fee when a CUP is approved and tenant improvement plans are submitted indicating a commercial use. CHAPTER ENDNOTES There are no endnotes. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 48 M W N m O M '- r In O lf7 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O (y U U ~ '~y I~ O f~ V' N N N M I~ V 0 0 0 0~ fA ~ V M O O ~ C D M O M O N N N M (O aD O O~ O~ M r O O n M CO O U M O~ M M M M M O O O v l!7 O N N O O N : ~~., CO N r 0 0 0 M O N M M M~ N W O O ro. ro M CO O~ T m M O) M M EA ~ EA N fA to V c0 CO M ~p N Z L Q Q~ M M N V V <t M M fA _ M N N 7 'Q V Q O 6Y 69 EA ffl f9 fA fH lfl EA ~ M/fl L LL ~ e N C O .,,, o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V1 U p... f~ p O l0 O r r r fp (fl (p Q O O p O O r O O O O CD ` vj ~ t~ O O '- Op In l(') l!'I r r e- pO O oO pO S O O. CWD O pOO O cNp ~y. U ~ ~ Q ~ 8 g N: O O) ~..6~. N N. N $ ~ C O ~ Q ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O r r r ~- '- r ~- r. ~- lJ. w ~ O O (O O O O O a f~ O O O O O In O N 0 0 0 N ffl f9 ~ fA In ~ ~ W [Y p^j 49 fn fA (fl fA NV fA ~ fA M M M `y ~ o U ~ ~ r v ` a uNi~u`ninm~ m rNi ~ 2 R1 S cp V V 'd' M h M f~ N aD O ~ V Q Q ~ fA V) Hi ~ f9 ~ ~ fA E9 w C1 ~ Q G 0 0 0 'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n o 0 0 0 0 ~ C OO 001 Q1 0000 M OO O o ~ ~ aoo`~iova'a ~~~~$oooog ch oo$ ao V ~ ¢ ~2 ocnoadcCOOnti~occc>c$c ~ coc ~ a O I~ M M r N 0 0 0 0 0 In N O O O N f~ O tF ~ 1~ n n O O N O O O O a' N a f~ HJ O O f~ M O M O M M M M r c0 O O 1n O r d' O M O O M M O I~ aD ri M c7 Oi ~ O O O~ In M A N ~ O O ~ CO (O (O CO O ao O O M O n In O O d' O O ~ M CO .-- In M M M M O (O EA ~ fA N EA I~ N N O N O b9 _ fA _ Efl EA W ~ U~ EA fA 6~9 ~ fA M ~ f9 EA fA ~ ~ w.. N U N fn ftl ~ Z o y ~ W ~ z v Z ~ ~- ~ ~2 U Z ~ .o ~ }- W ~ oC c ¢ ~ d _m ~ ~ U ~ ¢ ~ ctl ~ ~ ~ m p V U c m Z ~ ~ c c C Q w LL U m ° C h m 'Q ¢ a°'i d~ o E m w ~" N U ` d ~ LL~ LL d Cro C ~ 7 ~ U_ H U N 47 N ~ ~ N O~ ~ ~I ~ U W a T LL ~ W C N ~c~ m H~~ ~ LL H W ~ E m N = LL N O lL O cd 'p U Ol 7 ~ w C N N V N N C+07 v) N ._T. j V~ N~~ 0 m Ll. C ~ cUd w0, V ro CC N N N N N~ - L cV C D7 N N ~ c '~ c ~ h ,CO M ~ c ~ c c c ° .U A > ~ ~ y c N ~ 'vi 1- a Croi O` V Q ~ ~ o 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~o w ¢ o ~ ~ ~ 7 lL ~ t ~ c c m ~ is io is c c E 7 ~ ~ m o a ~ 8i E ro ~ o o!~ 16 iniglq ° aLi.c °Cn~ aZi oin'ia °" ti ~ U ro ,~ ~ Q m iu a~ ~ a~ ~ m m > ~ o ~ ~ _' ~ y ~ u~ ~ ~ 4 h y Cn cn iL `- LL lL LL ~ m ~ 3 o L ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ E ~~' ro ~ d m LL a~ a~ a> d ~ ~ H LL H cC ¢ `m o ii co ~ 'o is 7 7 a~ d a~ o a~ 7 E 7 ~' O . li. LL N c iC iV N > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q a in C C 4~i CU 3 ; ~ a ~ o o °c c c ~ ~ '~ .7 .7 -oo ~ c ~ ro h ro m a~ a~ o~ a~ o 0 o Q a' Q Q Q~ ~ W ti ro 44~L ZZCCt~¢Q~oCUU¢Q¢Q¢2> ~ N o. C .- N M V N (O I~ W O O r N M d~ M~ ~ O~ O ~ O O O O O O O O O r r .- r r .- ~ ~ W O O~ h N i i i i i i i i i ~ i i i i i i i f- ° in m ~ v. y e 00~000~~0~~0~~~0~ OU o C O ~ -J LL LL LL LL LL LL l1 LL LL LL LL LL LL LL lL LL LL Z ,-- U ~ ~ ~ Q N ~ U N Q ~ ~ r N O'~ Q U 1i c .r .,., ~ = N y o ~ ~ ~ d c v~ u~ o. ~ M m u~.. it d Q. W N T; 6 ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~j Mph' 4 C1 ~ ~ .G Cli ll. Q ~ O OO O d O ~ ~ N d O O Q? ~ d r" ~ t0 C ~ p.. Z +N.. y. (V ~ r r Gam.. y ~ N Q m Cf5 +- m o °- y rn N r N ~ M N ~ ~ m ~ ~ '^ ~p ~J. O ~ ~j r ~ ~ ~ id. O ,~, a ~' U ~ G a t~a+s h ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ W O C N tp *fi O T ~ r ~ ~ O ~ O Q O 0 C ~ N O ~ N 4 o U M ~ 07 U m ~ N 4 O N ~ r t(S O ~ ~ CO N. ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ C? y r` r N ~ d' V O N N N r. O N ~ ~ p O ~ N N r O ~ O C O ~ O N G C3 ~ O et ~ O ~ v ~ LL. Y N N ~x ~ p. Ms{{ LLl m r r N O) ~ to J ~ > ~ ~ r N 67 Y C N ~ cn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N U ~ J. Q N 11. .G Q N ~' `" j a N N O o v ~ c c rn Y u- ~,.. U E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ N < ~ q~y y~ c 3 3~ is R~ O v ~ LL ~ o h o 'v .4 ~ S ~ Q~ C "p'~ 9 S N m . N N~ w L L ~ ~ ~ 9 01 N m ,~ cL N C~ Z ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ O C ~ 25 ~ ~ ~ 0> .~C~ ~ d ~ LL c ~ a 4 a Q a Q" o. V ~ lh op ,~ ch N ONp ~ y '~~ C ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ M N O ¢ :v. ~ ~ o j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ E a N a~ O O N ~' 7 V V N ~LL ~ ff W ~ ~ LL 'cdm co v crc ~ EEn.m ~ ~O O ~ r M N N n "~ .C O LL fn U U C. N '- C py~ ~ R7 ~ ~ N. p N N N `f ~ [L u ~N p. ly U LC L4 U. 'tLL ~ N K U' c ~ c c c a s""v m m d~ m O c> cn o cfl co r~ ,~. > > > > > C k O~ W N M~ U U U U U o p w N In M W ~ f19 ~ C C. _C C C C.. C. -0 Q. f9 EA fA ~ ~ W ~ ~ Y ~ ~ v L W l pow ~ aQavoa'~ Q F W W LL7 W W I E1J -c C C_ C_ C_ t c c_ o y v o co c~ ~n o ua o rn o ~ o ~ O N M~ M M <1'- O1 O O N 0~ fA o ~ n v_ m o m in SD 07 r~ o u> ,o ~ v n co ao ui ~i co •- c0 In N ~ M ~ 01 M fh:~ ~ ~ MfA Q, W CA ~ ro. V n O M N oO m ~ v U q .- ~ ~ O O O O O O C-. -ryry ~ O n 0 IA M ,C ~ OOi O M aOD ~ ~ V~ N N~ O O O y ~ '~ 00 a' M r ~ p: t~U~ ~ c e ~ O n O N M .- N 0I c0 N O O V' CO M n O a O ~ M a0 ,p- N N O O O V .- n n N 0 .ti, ~ ro~ O O O O O O ~ ;t? W~ M cva U ~ ~ ~ E y ~ c7 N ~ ~ O c7 M in ~ ~ ap c+) ~ E ~ m n in o v ~ ~i co ~ n o ~ 4 0~ co v d_ v ~n m o li o a r ~ ~ c y °v of a ~i ~ ~ c ~ ov of ~ ~i ~ a •' W ~~Y J aj W C O h ~ uMi co ~ m a cMO LL. ~ ~ C C~j O~ n ~ N N .~- ~ O O ~ E y 4 ~ o o U U p.p ~ ~ .- r J ~ '~-' .N.. LL J' 0 C N O7 fn ~ O Q ~ C ~ W y ~ E U Ll ~ c m .c ~ ~ Y ~"; m e v 'pi ~ c~~a ~ ro 4 c ~ c °' ~ o a ~ a~ '~ ~ O 'c <n ~ m~ 'y .`Q•i ~ p E m m ~' ~ ~ E ~n ro~ o ~' ~ ~ 4 ~ cti r E E .N ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ 'c ~ ~ ~ ~ J Q ~ ~ o 0 o a C d o 0 o a m ~ O ~ ~ ~ 4` ~ ¢ ~ U U S .Ri 0 ¢ ~ U U c 51 ~ ~i Ci~°vU Chapter 5 Circulation System Improvements (Local Streets, Signals & Bridges and Regional Interchanges & Grade Separations) The following Chapter will discuss the circulation improvements planned for the City through build- out of the existing City limits as identified in the Land-use Database Table in Chapter 2. Initially. The reasons are practical in that combining this infrastructure will provide greater flexibility in establishing priorities in what is essentially a singular transportation issue with a common nexus, a combination of trip-end' generation and average trip distance. It is not uncommon that a single transportation capital project involves both a street improvement and signal improvement. The proposed improvements to the Circulation System consist of one hundred projects consisting of either local circulation system projects (ST-O1 through ST-84) and regional (SANBAG) projects (ST-85 through ST-100). For various reasons, most specifically accounting, two separate impact fees, for local projects and regional projects, will be recommended. The following portion of the Chapter will address the local circulation development impact fee and the regional circulation development impact fees will be address at the end of the Chapter. Local Circulation Improvements Development Impact Fee Calculation. The Existine Local Circulation Sstem. The City currently has and maintains an extensive system of roadways available for transportation of goods and services, as well as for educational, recreational, and social purposes. Streets that fall under the jurisdiction of the City of San Bernardino would be classified as one of five common types of roadways for the purposes of this Report. The City's General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element generally describes the various roadway type definitions asz: [The City's] vehicular circulation network consists of a hierarchy of roadways that have primarily developed as a grid system. Due to barriers, such as rivers, mountains, canyons, freeways, railroads, and San Bernardino International Airport and Trade Center, many of the streets do not extend across the City and the grid becomes discontinuous. 1. Classification of Streets For the purposes of analysis and evaluation of roadway needs, a roadway functional classification system has been established for the City of San Bernardino. The roadway classifications are briefly described in the following paragraphs and the typical cross- sections associated with each classification are shown later in this Section (Item a. Freeways/Highway - Freeways/Highways are controlled-access, separated roadways that provide for high volumes of vehicular traffic at high speeds. There are four freeways within the City of San Bernardino and one highway: City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 52 Chapter 5 Local and Regional Circulation System Improvements • The San Bernardino Freeway (I-10) is the major east-west freeway providing access west to Los Angeles and east to the desert communities and beyond. • Interstate 215 provides north-south freeway access to Riverside and San Diego counties to the south and the high desert communities to the north. • Interstate 210 provides local east-west service between I-215 and State Route 330. As of 2005, this freeway was under construction and was also known as State Route 30 and will become the future I-210 when completed. • State Route 18 provides a connection from I-210 to the mountain resorts/communities of Lake Gregory. b. Major Arterials -These roadways can accommodate six or eight travel lanes and may have raised medians. These facilities carry high traffic volumes and are the primary thoroughfares linking San Bernardino with adj acent cities and the regional highway system. Driveway access to these roadways is typically limited to provide efficient high volume traffic flow. Examples of Major Arterials include: • Waterman Avenue • Mount Vernon Avenue • Highland Avenue • Baseline Street c. Secondary Arterials -These roadways are typically four-lane streets, providing two lanes in each direction. These highways carry traffic along the perimeters of major developments, provide support to the major arterials, and are also through streets enabling traffic to travel uninterrupted for longer distances through the City. Examples of Secondary Arterials Include: • Little Mountain Drive • 9th Street • Arrowhead Avenue (North of Scn Street) • Sierra Way d. Collector Streets -These roadways are typically two-lane streets that connect the local streets with the secondary arterials allowing local traffic to access the regional transportation facilities. Examples of Collector Streets include: • California Street • 6cn Street • Meridian Avenue City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 53 Chapter S Local and Regional Circulation System Improvements e. Local Streets -These roadways are typically two-lane streets that are designed to serve neighborhoods within residential areas. There are several variations on local streets depending on location, length of the street, and type of land use. Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Undeveloped Parcels. Undeveloped parcels create few trip-ends beyond an occasional visit to the site for weed abatement purposes, planning purposes or to consider a sale or development of the vacant parcel. None of these trip-ends are on a routine basis. However, a developed parcel will generate a statistically predictable amount of trip-ends and trip-miles, depending upon the specific land use of the development. Thus it can be stated that a vacant parcel, when developed into a specific use, i.e., residential or business, will generate more traffic than it did when it was vacant. Similarly, a change in the use of the property may also increase the number of trip-ends, i.e., the demolition of a low trip-generating insurance office into reconstruction as a new a high trip generating fast-food restaurant. All new development contributes to cumulative traffic impacts, which are difficult to measure and mitigate on a prof ect-by-prof ect, basis but which have significant and widespread cumulative impacts on the City's existing road system. Factors that will increase the competition for existing lane miles existing in the City include the following: • The construction of private commercial uses on the 1,594 acres currently identified as undeveloped commercial uses will generate 1,185,494 new daily trip-miles, just under 40.5% of the total new trip-miles expected at build-out. This figure could vary significantly depending upon the type of commercial uses constructed and possible zoning changes or conditional use permits issued. • An increase in the City's full-time population through the construction of about 20,959 additional dwelling units contributing approximately 626,194 new trip-miles daily or just under 21.4% of the newly expected daily trip-miles. • The addition of 2,795 acres of industrial development generating the potential for an additional 1,100,622 daily trip-miles, just under 37.7% of the total new trip-miles in the City. Again, it is possible that some parcels zoned for industrial uses will end up being commercial uses after obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. For that matter there are existing industrial buildings contiguous to the City's many arterials and collectors that have become commercial venues. • The addition of some 625 commercial lodging units will increase traffic demand by 11,375 or about 0.4% of the anticipated new daily trip-miles. When all (or most) of the available vacant land in the City and the four probable annexation areas, is developed, the City can expect an additiona12,923,685 daily trip-miles. For perspective, the City currently experiences approximately 5,050,289 daily trip-miles from the existing residences and City of Sari Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 54 Chapter S Local and Regional Circulation System Improvements businesses. The roughly 2,923,685 newly anticipated trip-miles represents just slightly under a 57% increase over the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles. The bad news is that the City is faced with more than a half again increase of the daily trip-miles at build-out. Even worse is that there are only 46.9 additional arterial/collector lane miles, a minor 6.4% increase over the current 688.3, that can be added to the existing arterial/collector lane-miles to mitigate the expected increase. The Purpose of the Fee. In the City, most of the planned arterials and collectors exist in some form, perhaps not yet fully widened to allow for the full number of lanes. Thus the collection of circulation system impact fees would be used to finish off these existing, but, uncompleted, or not yet maximized roads. The same can be said for bridges, a number of them are included on the list to be completed to their maximum planned width, again maximizing the carrying capacity. Additionally, the fees would be used to complete the system of signals that insures the smooth movement of vehicles through intersections. Included are circulation projects needed to alter existing arterials, connectors or collectors that currently exist, but due to additional trip-ends are becoming ineffective at moving vehicles. An example would be the final widening of Waterman Avenue from 5`h to Baseline Street, to its completed width. This project is required because additional citizens and business-owners will use the existing street along with the current users rendering it, again, ineffective at moving traffic at a reasonable pace, primarily during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours of traffic. While it is quite impractical to widen the road, acceptable traffic pace can be maintained with a combination of turn lane channelization and signal improvements. Again, given the magnitude ofgrowth projected in this Report, numerous intersection improvements and construction of new traffic signals will also be needed to avoid congestion and gridlock in the future. Traffic planners have long known that the critical constraint in a typical roadway network is usually not the roadway itself but the intersections. While the street capacity maybe theoretically adequate to carry traffic volumes at build-out, motorists may experience congestion and even gridlock at the intersections of the street. While the City of San Bernardino will certainly undertake a number of major street widening projects, an equally important component of traffic circulation is the installation offorty-eight traffic signals and lane reconfiguration at critical intersections in the city. The importance of a properly signalized intersection is two-fold. First, the City can build only so many major collector streets and there are limits as to how wide they can be3. Second, north-south collectors will, by definition, intersect with east-west collectors assuring that someone will have to stop, either at a stop sign or a traffic signal. The traffic carrying capacity of each collector can only be maximized by assuring orderly flow of traffic by signalizing those intersecting collectors. This is especially important in light of the fact that there is little room left for any additional collectors and arterials, all of the General Plan arterials and collectors are already constructed and, for the most part, are at full width and thus maximum capability. All that is left to maintain current traffic flows is the construction of the remaining traffic signals. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 55 Chapter 5 Local and Regional Circulation Svstem Improvements None of this is intended to eliminate the time-honored practice of the developer constructing the full width roadway and being reimbursed for the portion greater than would otherwise be required of the developer. This impact fee calculation and resulting fee collection would simply improve the reimbursement capability. Local and Regional Circulation Projects. The City's total Master Facilities Plan Circulation System improvements section identified one hundred general transportation projects covering the City costing $174,908,250. Each of the projects will increase some capacity to a circulation system to meet the over 57% increase in daily trip-mile capacity needs. Eighty-four of the projects (ST-O1 through ST-84) are considered local in nature. That is, they are needed to move traffic generally within the City. The remaining sixteen projects (ST-85 through ST-100) represent only the local portions of far more costly freeway interchange and ramp projects that have been identified by SANBAG as beneficial to the City's new residents and businesses. The two types of projects, regional and local, will be distributed separately so that they can be separate impact fees to foster better accounting for them. Both will be distributed over the same land-use database. The individual projects and costs are identified on Schedule 5.1 at the end of the Chapter and detailed in the Master Facilities Plan. The Use of the Fee. The collection of a Local Circulation System Impact Fee would be used to construct the proj ects (or portions ofproj ects numbered ST-O1 through ST-84) identified in Schedule 5.1 at the conclusion of this Chapter's text. The collected fees will be used to create additional lane miles, bridge lanes and signals with which to accommodate the additiona12,923,685 additional daily trip-miles expected from further development of the City. Where the amount of equity of the existing community is larger than the marginal needs-based impact fee, the difference between the two may be recouped and returned to the General Fund as repayment from the developing properties for the creation of the excess capacity from previous General Fund proceeds or previous exactions and impact fees. Such is not the case with this category of infrastructure. The following table (5-1) identifies some of the key system attributes of the circulation improvements system. The attributes identify that approximately 63.3% of the total trip miles at General Plan "build-out" are represented by the existing community who have contributed a greater percentage (88.6%) of the cost of the entire system. This generally indicates that the City is slightly "advanced" in terms of the construction of the entire circulation system infrastructure. Or another way to state it is that the existing drivers will generate less than two-thirds of the ultimate "build-out" trip-miles, but have constructed nearly four-fifths of all required circulation system improvements. It is a very short but unfair leap away to assume that the remaining 36.7% of the traffic trip-mile generators should contribute the remaining 11.4% of the financing to construct the remaining lane miles and other circulation improvements. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 56 Chapter 5 Local and Regional Circulation Svstem Improvements Table 5-1 Comparison of Local Circulation System Attributes Infrastructure Existing Future Total at Factor Communit Communit Build-out Number of Tri -miles 5,050,289 2,923,685 7,973,974 ~~.d, Ppr~~ta e of Total, _ 63.3°l0.~ ~ 36.7% 100,0% Cost of Total S stem $812,276,000 $104,469,000 $916,745,000 Percenta e of Total 88.6% 11.4% 100.0% The Relationship Between the Need for the Fee and The Type of Development Project. Schedule 5.1 identifies the additional traffic to be generated by new development, by type of development. The technical volume, Trip Generation (Manual) 7th Edition, produced by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, has been used to identify the nexus, or relationship between the type of development and the projected number of trips that development will generate. A 400-unit detached dwelling unit residential specific plan would generate about 13,840 daily trip-miles and atwenty-acre commercial-retail development would generate 8,348 daily trip- miles. Each would pay its proportionate share of the tota12,923,685 newly created the Citytrip- miles expected at General Plan build-out. In the case of the residential detached dwelling development, the daily trip-miles generated by the 400 new homes represents about 0.47% of the tota12,923,685 new trip-miles anticipated at build-out, thus they would be required to pay or construct projects on the list to an amount equal to 0.47% of the total development-related project costs. The twenty acre commercial development would generate 0.29% of the additional trip-miles and thus would be responsible for 0.29% of the remaining circulation system project costs. Circulation System Cost Distribution by Average Land Use Trip Frequency and Distance New Trip Adjustment for Pass-bv or Diverted Trips Schedule 5.2 contains asub-schedule that identifies adjustments to new total trip-ends. As an example, an acre of general commercial use would be expected, on average, to generate about 301.83 trip-ends daily. However, approximately 15% of those trip-ends, or about 45 trip-ends per day, are pass-by trip-ends, that is, the trip-end is not truly an end but is actually one in a series of stops, i.e. at various commercial establishments, with a different location such as a residence as the final trip-end or destination of the series of trip-ends. In order to beconsidered apass-by trip, the location of the stop must be contiguous to the generator° route, i.e. the route that would have been used even City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 57 Chapter S Local and Regional Circulation System Improvements if the stop had not been mades. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) indicates that: Pass-by trips are attracted from passing the site on an adjacent street or road-way that offers direct access to the generator. Pass-by trips are not diverted from another roadway. Pass-by trip-ends are fully adjusted (reduced at 100%) from the average trip-ends (per day) generated by the six land uses identified in Schedules 5.2 and 5.3. A diverted trip is similar to a pass-by trip-end in that it is an extra stop between, as an example, a motorists's work site and his or her residence. The diverted trip differs slightly from the pass- by trip in that it requires a minor deviation from the normal generator route and the temporary stop. In short, a diverted trip creates a separate side trip using additional (and different) lane miles from that of the normal route from the motorist's place of employment and his or her home. These trips increase the traffic volume from the generator route, but only for brief distances. The ITE states that diverted trips: are attracted from traffic volume on roadways within the vicinity of the generator (route) but require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway to gain access to the site. These trips could travel on highways or freeways adjacent to the generator, but without access to the generator. Diverted linked trips add traffic to streets adjacent to a site, but may not add traffic to the area's major travel routes.' These diverted trips will be adjusted (reduced at 50%) from the full trip count for each of the land uses identified in Chapter 2. The ITE also indicates that "both pass-by and diverted linked trips may be a part of a multiple-stop chain of trips".8 Again, the sub-schedule at the bottom of Schedule 5.2 indicates the total trip-ends and the reduction due to the number pass-by trips (at 100%) and diverted trips (at 50%). The trip pass- by and diversion percentages were generated and are supported by a study conducted by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in conjunction with various U.S. and California agencies. Additionally, the same SANDAG data schedule referenced above provides information for a trip distance factor component to the nexus. Based upon that data, a trip to an industrial work- site has the greatest distance at 9.0 miles. A trip to an office averages 8.8 miles, a residential trips averages 7.9 miles, a trip from a hotel or motel (once in residence) averages 7.6 miles, and an average trip to a commercial site is the smallest at 4.3 miles. This indicates that drivers are generally willing to travel further distances to work and for treatment at medical offices than they are to shop. Both frequency (trip-ends) and distance (average miles per trip) have been combined into the nexus by multiplying frequency times distance. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 58 Chapter S Local and R_gional Circulation System Improvements The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paving the Fee. There is very little difference between this and the above category. The fee collected will be based on the projected number of trip-ends the proposed development will generate in relationship to the total 2,923,685 additional projected t~-miles at build-out. Any amount imposed as a circulation system improvements Development Impact Fee will be placed in a sepaxate fund (collecting interest), and is to be used only on the projects identified on Schedule 5.1 as development-related. From time to time the City may require an applicant for a private project to construct a street or signal improvement (or portion thereof) that is on the list of required improvements at the end of this Chapter. This method is often undertaken to expedite the project at the request of the applicant/developer. The developer should receive a credit for any monies expended on this required improvement against their circulation improvements impact fee. If one does not already exist, an ordinance addressing the issue of credits should be prepared and added to San Bernardino Municipal Code. The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project. The calculation of the circulation system Impact Fee is based upon the recognition that differing types of developments generate differing amounts of trips. The fee is based upon the projected number of trips generated by the proposed private development project. Impact fee receipts will be accumulated until they reach the amount that could construct a meaningful project to alleviate or mitigate the demands of those new developments. Table 5-2 (summarized from Schedule 5.2) following, identifies the Marginal Needs-based Circulation system Impact Fee Schedule for the City, based upon a net cost of $104,469,000 in proposed projects. [This space left blank to place the following table one a single page]. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 59 Chapter 5 Local and Regional Circulation System Improvements Table 5-2 Marginal Needs-based Local Circulation System Impact Fees Allocation Total Cost Land Use of Costs Per Unit or SF Detached Dwelling Units $15,273,556 $1,236/CTnit Attached Dwelling Units $7,097,690 $825/LJnit Mobile Home Units $3,895 $649/LJnit Commercial Lodgin $406,451 $650/Unit Commercial/Office Uses $42,360,026 $1.333/S.F. Industrial Uses $39,327,383 $0.808/S.F. Alternative Cost Methodolo~v. Amore precise calculation of costs for specific types of land uses (i.e., banks, hospitals, convalescent homes, etc.) can be determined by multiplying the average cost per trip of $35.73 by the applicable daily trip-mile rate. An example of this calculation can be found in Schedule 5.2 at the end of the Chapter and applied to Table 5-3, on the following page. These tables list trip rates and costs for various residential, resort, industrial and commercial developments. A fee system based on a lengthy schedule of trip mile rates theoretically provides more accuracy and therefore equity in determining specific uses' impact on the City's circulation system, but at the same time may increases the City's costs to administer the fee. Amore extensive listing of traffic generator by land use is available in Trip Generation as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington D.C. [This space left blank to place the following table on a single page] City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 60 Chapter 5 Local and Regional Circulation System Improvements Table 5-3 Detail of Local Circulation System Marginal Need-based Impact Fees for Specific Commercial Uses Adjusted Average Trip-end Additional Cost per Cost per 1,000 Square LAND USE Trip-ends Distance to Trip Trip-miles Trip-mile Feet or Dwelling Utit nESrDENTric LAND r/sES (pcr Unit): Detached Dwelling 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.60 $35.73 $1,236.26 /Unit Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 $35.73 $868.24 /Unit Condominium/Townhome 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $35.73 $757.48 /Unit Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $35.73 $646.71 /Unit RESORT/TgURIST (per Unit or Entry Door): Hotel 6.29 7.6 0.5 23.9 $35.73 $853.95 /Room All Suites Hotel 3.77 7.6 0.5 14.3 $35.73 $510.94 /Roam Mote] 4.34 7.6 0.5 16.5 $35.73 $589.55 /Room INDUSTRIAL (per 1;000 SF): General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 2R8 $35.73 $993.29 /BSF Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 $35.73 $961.14 /KSF Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 $35.73 $439.48 /KSF Warehousing 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.8 $35.73 $707.45 /KSF COMMERCIAL. (per 1,000 SF)r Office Park 7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6 $35.73 $1,164.80 /KSF Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $35.73 $786.06 /KSF Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $35.73 $1,468.50 /KSF Bldg. Materials/Lumber Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $35.73 $2,254.56 /KSF Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 $35.73 $1,800.79 /KSF Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $35.73 $189.37 /KSF Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $35.73 $453.77 /KSF Medical-Dental Office 22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $35.73 $3,490.82 /KSF General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $35.73 $1,125.50 /KSF Shopping Center 30.20 4.3 0.5 64.9 $35.73 $2,318.88 /KSF Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 $35.73 $878.96 /KSF Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 $35.73 $4, 834.27 /KSF High-Turnover Restaurant 8.90 4.3 0.5 19.1 $35.73 $682.44 /KSF Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 $35.73 $3,347.90 /KSF Walk-in Bank 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 $35.73 $1,071.90 /KSF Other: (not available per KSF Cemetery (peg acre) 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $35.73 $235.82 /Acre Service Station (only) 109.56 4.3 0.5 235.6 $35.73 $8,417.99 /FP/Day (4) Service Station & Market ]05.81 4.3 0.5 227.5 $35.73 $8,128.57 /FP/Day (4) Service Station/Market/Wash 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $35.73 $7, 631.93 /FP/Day (4) NOTFS: 1. ADT =Average Daily Trips 3. Adjusted for Pass-6y and Diverted Trips. 2. KSF = TLousand Square Feet of Gmss Floor Area 4. FP/Day =per 'Fueling Position' per day. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 61 Chapter 5 Local and Regional Circulation System Improvements This set of proposed fees would generate the marginal needs amount of revenue necessary to construct the needed circulation construction projects. These figures then need to be compared to the financial commitment or equity distribution demonstrated by the existing community. Table 5-4, below (and summarized from Schedule 5.3) identifies the assets of the existing system (at current construction and acquisition costs). The $818,276,000 total consists of the circulation plan existing lanes (and curb, gutter and sidewalks) at $563,570,000, the 249 signalized intersections at $62,000,000 and a remarkable $186,706,000 that has been invested in the circulation system bridges. There is no impact fee fund balance. When the net $812,276,000 is distributed over the existing community, using the identical nexus factor (e.g. trip-miles) used for distribution of future costs, the existing community has contributed the following, on average, by land use: Table 5-4 Existing Community Financial Commitment or Local Circulation System or Equity-based Proportionality Test Allocation Total Equity Land Use of E uit Per Unit or SF Detached Dwellin Units $226,288,754 $5,565/Unit Attached Dwellin Units $72,133,537 $3,715/Unit Mobile Home Units $13,027,518 $2,911/Unit Commercial Lodgin $7,186,384 $2,927/LTnit Commercial/Office Uses $327,005,536 $5.999/S.F. Industrial Uses $166,634,271 $3.635/S.F. It should be noted that the existing community has contributed, on average, a greater amount than would be required of future development to meet all of the marginal needs for build-out and all users. Tables 5-2 (Marginal Needs-based impact fee) and 5-4 (Current Financial Commitment or Equity-based Proportionality Test impact fees) identify the amount of the pre- building. A detached dwelling, has contributed, on average about $5,565 (Table 5-4) towards the construction of the circulation (street, signals and bridges) system, while with adoption of the Marginal Needs-based impact fees a single family detached home would be asked to contribute $1,326 towards finishing the system, or only about 22% of the existing contribution of the same detached dwelling units. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 62 Chapter S Local and Regional Circulation System Improvements Payback to System Users. The resulting costs identified in Tables 5-2 and 5-4 indicate that there is clearly excess capacity in the existing circulation system, or at least a disproportionate contribution between existing and future users of the City's Circulation System. In short, the existing community has "pre-built" the circulation system and thus, there could be some potential for recoupment of capital costs expended in advance of their need must be considered. As a result the City should consider the possibility of recoupment of excess capacity charges to narrow the difference between the contribution of the future community with that of the existing community. Table 5-5, following, combine the total Circulation System costs identified in Schedules 5.2 and 5.3 ($916,745,000) and divides it by the total General Plan build-out trip- miles (7,973,974) for the average contribution. However, to make such a claim, for recoupment of excess capacity, a greater calculation (i.e. appraisal)of the existing assets would need to be made than the more cursory valuation made for the purposes of this rough proportional analysis. Table 5-5 Fair Share of Local Circulation System at Build-out Impact Fees Allocation of Total Equity Land Use S stem Cost Per Unit or SF Detached Dwellin Units $210,894,391 $3,978/Unit Attached Dwelling Units $74,397,936 $2,656/[Jnit Mobile Home Units $9,324,534 $2,081/LJnit Commercial Lod ing $6,444,598 $2,092/LJnit Commercial/Office Uses $370,037,436 $4.288/S.F. Industrial Uses $245,646,104 $2.598/S.F. Alternative Cost Methodoloey. Amore precise calculation of costs for specific types of land uses (i.e., banks, hospitals, convalescent homes, etc.) can be determined by multiplying the average cost per trip of $114.97 by the applicable daily trip-mile rate. An example of this calculation can be found in Schedule 5.4 at the end of the Chapter and applied to Table 5-6, on the following page. These tables list trip rates and costs for various residential, resort, industrial and commercial developments. A fee system based on a lengthy schedule of trip mile rates theoretically provides more accuracy and therefore equity in determining specific uses' impact on the City's circulation system, but at the same time may increases the City's costs to administer the fee. Amore extensive listing of traffic generator by land use is available in Trip Generation as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington D.C. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 63 Chapter S Local and Regional Circulation System Improvements Table 5-6 Detail of Local Circulation System Existing Financial Commitment or Equity-based Impact Fees for Specific Commercial Uses Adjusted Average Trip-end Additional Cost per Cos[ per 1,000 Square LAND USE Trip-ends Distance to Trip Trip-miles Trip-mile Feet or Dwelling Unit RESIDEN7'XAL LAND USES (per Unit):. Detached Dwelling 8.76 79 0.5 34.60 $114.97 $3,977.96 /Utit Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 $114.97 $2,793.77 /Unit Condominium/Townhome 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $114.97 $2,437.36 /Unit Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $114.97 $2, 080.96 /Unit RESORT/TO(IRLST (per Unit or•.Entry Door): Hotel 6.29 7.6 0.5 23.9 $114.97 $2,747.78 /Room All Suites Hotel 3.77 76 0.5 14.3 $114.97 $1,644.07 /Room Motel 4.34 76 0.5 16.5 $114.97 $1,89700 /Room INDDSTR[AL (per 1,000 SF): General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 278 $114.97 $3,196.17 /KSF Hearylndustrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 $114.97 $3,092.69 /KSF Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 $114.97 $1,414.13 /KSF Warehousing 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.8 $114.97 $2,276.41 /KSF COMMERCIAL (per 1,000 SFj: OtEce Park 7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6 $114.97 $3, 748.02 /KSF Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $114.97 $2,529.34 /KSF Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $114.97 $4, 725.27 /KSF Bldg. Materials/Lumber Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $114.97 $7,254.61 /KSF Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 $114.97 $5,794.49 /KSF Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $114.97 $609.34 /KSF Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $114.97 $1,460.12 /KSF Medical DentalOtEce 22.21 8.8 0.5 977 $114.97 $11,232.57 /KSF General OfEce Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $114.97 $3, 621.56 /KSF Shopping Center 30.20 4.3 0.5 64.9 $114.97 $7,461.55 /KSF Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 $1]4.97 $2,828.26 /KSF Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 $114.97 $15,555.44 /KSF High-Turnover Restaurant 8.90 4.3 0.5 19.1 $114.97 $2,195.93 /KSF Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 $114.97 $10,772.69 /KSF Walk-in Bank 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 5114.97 $3,449.10 /KSF Qther: (uotavsilable 'perl'fSF'); Cemetery (per acre) 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $114.97 $758.80 /Acre Service Station (only) 109.56 4.3 0.5 235.6 $114.97 $27,086.93 /FP/Day (4) Service Station & Market 105.81 4.3 0.5 227.5 $114.97 $26,155.68 /FP/Day (4) Service Station/Market/Wash 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $114.97 $24,55759 /FP/Day (4) NOTES: 1. ADT =Average Daily Trips 3. Adjusted for Pala-hy aad Diverted Trips. 2. KSF =Thousand Square Feet ofGross Floor Area 4. FP/Day =pet 'Fuelivg Pasi[ioa' per day. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 64 Chapter 5 Local and Regional Circulation Svstem Improvements Regardless, the results of the proportional analysis indicate that the $1,236 Marginal need-based Impact Fee that could be imposed and required of each new detached dwelling, as an example, is quite a bargain when compared too the existing contribution oflong-term residents and businesses. Instead of pursuing recoupment, RCS recommends that the City pursue a more comprehensive Circulation Master Plan update to identify additional circulation capital projects that can either add arterial/collector lane miles or improve the movement of the anticipated 57% increase in daily-trip miles. If not, the minimal amount of projects currently listed on Schedule 5.1, will not likely maintain the level of service currently afforded to the citizens and businesses by the existing circulation infrastructure in light of a prof ected 57% in daily trip-miles. The prof ect list on Schedule 5.1 should be increased with alternative circulation projects or transportation need-decreasing projects and have the fees identified in Schedule 5.2 still stay below those of the community's existing financial commitment. In other words, there is room for additional projects. Recommended Local Circulation System Development Impact Fee. Regardless of the demonstrated imbalance between the current "equity" distribution and the future "marginal" needs, the "Marginal Needs-based" D1Fs for the six broad land uses, as identified in Table 5-4 and Schedule 5.3 is recommended as the fairest set of fees with the option for the staff to apply the per trip fee from Schedule 5.2 multiplied by the specific use Table 5-3 or the more extensive listing of traffic generation by land use available in Trip Generation as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington D.C. Regional (SANBAG) Circulation Improvements Development Impact Fee Calculation. The following is an excerpt from a SANBAG policy document. Its states in part: BACKGROUND San Bernardino County Voters approved Measure I, the half-cent sales tax for countywide transportation improvements, in November 2004. The Measure I Ordinance requires each jurisdiction in the urbanized areas of San Bernardino County to adopt a development mitigation program to address regional transportation needs. The Ordinance states that by November2006, each jurisdiction in the San Bernardino Valley and Victor Valley must adopt a mechanism that: • Requires all future development to pay its fair share for transportation facilities that are needed as a result of the new development; and • Complies with the Land Use/Transportation Analysis and deficiency Plan provisions of the Congestion management Plan (CMP) set by state law. SANBAG Board Adopted the updated CMP November 2, 2005. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 65 Chapter S Local arad Regional Circulation Svstem Improvements PROGRAM OVERVIEW SANBAG's development mitigation program ensures that the new development pays it fair share for the construction of regional transportation infrastructure, including freeway interchanges, major streets and railroad grade separations. Local flexibility is a key component. The program does not include a uniform regional fee; instead it allows each jurisdiction to design its own approach to reach specified levels of fair share contributions from new development. Using a generally accepted methodology, SANBAG has set a fair share requirement from each city, town or unincorporated area, and it is the responsibility of the municipalities to demonstrate that they will reach the required level of development contribution. This could involve development impact fees, community facilities districts or a range of other funding techniques that are based on contributions from new development. The SANBAG regional projects are identified as projects ST-85 through ST-100. The costs associated with these proj ects represent only the City's portion of the much larger cost of the prof ect. The total identified to be raised from new development from within the San Bernardino City limits is $70,439,250 for the sixteen projects identified in Schedule 5,1. The nexus previously utilized in distributing the local circulation project costs is also used to distribute the regional circulation projects. The use of trip-miles is explained in pages 57 and 58 of this Chapter. Table 5-7, following and summarized from Schedule 5.5, distributes the $70,439,250 over the 2,623,685 anticipated trip-miles resulting from additional development through General Plan build- out. They represent the recommended development impact fee schedule for the collection of revenues for financing the SANBAG regional circulation improvements. Table 5-7 Marginal Needs-based Local Circulation System Impact Fees Allocation Total Cost Land Use of Costs Per Unit or SF DetachedDwellin Units $10,298,356 $834/Unit Attached Dwellin Units $4,785,685 $557/CJnit Mobile Home Units $2,616 $436/Unit Commercial Lod in $274,054 $438/LTnit Commercial/office Uses $28,561,665 $0.889/S.F. Industrial Uses $26,516,873 $0.544/S.F. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 66 Chapter 5 Local and Regional Circulation System Improvements Alternative Cost Methodology. Amore precise calculation of costs for specific types of land uses (i.e., banks, hospitals, convalescent homes, etc.) can be determined by multiplying the average cost per trip of $24.09 by the applicable daily trip-mile rate. An example of this calculation can be found in Schedule 5.5 at the end of the Chapter and applied to Table 5-7, on the following page. These tables list trip rates and costs for various residential, resort, industrial and commercial developments. A fee system based on a lengthy schedule of trip mile rates theoretically provides more accuracy and therefore equity in determining specific uses' impact on the City's circulation system, but at the same time may increases the City's costs to administer the fee. Amore extensive listing of traffic generator by land use is available in Trip Generation as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington D.C. [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page]. City of Sara Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 67 Chapter 5 Local and Re,~ional Circulation System Improvements Table 5-3 Detail of Regional Circulation System Marginal Need-based Impact Fees for Specific Commercial Uses Adjusted Averagc Trip-end Additional Cost per Cost per 1,000 Square LAND USE Trip-ends Distance to Trip Trip miles Trip-mile Feet or Dwelling Unit ~SIDENTIAL LAND' (ISES (per Unit); Detached Dwelling 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.60 $24.09 $833.51 /Unit Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 $24.09 $585.39 /Unit Condominium/Townhome 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $24.09 $510.71 /Unit Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $24.09 $436.03 /Unit RESORT/TOURIST (per Unit or Entry Door): Hotel 6.29 7.6 0.5 23.9 $24.09 $575.75 /Room All Suites Hotel 3.77 R 6 0.5 14.3 $24.09 $344.49 /Room Motel 4.34 7.6 0.5 16.5 $24.09 $397.49 /Room INDUSTRIAL (per 1,0'00 SF): General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 $24.09 $669.70 /KSF Heary Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 $24.09 $648.02 /KSF Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 $24.09 $296.31 /KSF Warehousing 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.8 $24.09 $476.98 /KSF COMMERCIAL (per 1,0'00 SF): Office Park 7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6 $24.09 $785.33 /KSF Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 524.09 $529.98 /KSF Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $24.09 $990.10 /KSF Bldg. Materials/Lumber Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $24.09 $1,520.08 /KSF Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 $24.09 $1,214.14 /KSF Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 S.3 $24.09 $127.68 /KSF Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $24.09 $305.94 /KSF Medical-DentalOflice 22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $24.09 $2,353.59 /KSF General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $24.09 $758.84 /KSF Shopping Center 30.20 4.3 0.5 64.9 $24.09 $1,563.44 /KSF Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 $24.09 $592.61 /KSF Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 $24.09 $3,259.38 /KSF High-Turnover Restaurant 8.90 4.3 0.5 19.1 $24.09 $460.12 /KSF Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 $24.09 $2,257.23 /KSF Walk-in Bank 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 $24.09 $722.70 /KSF Other: (not available per KSF Cemetery (per acre) 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $24.09 $158.99 /Acre Service Station (only) 109.56 4.3 0.5 235.6 $24.09 $5, 675.60 /FP/Day (4) Service Station & Market 105.81 4.3 0.5 227.5 $24.09 $5,480.48 /FP/Day (4) Service Station/Market/Wash 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $24.09 $5,145.62 /FP/Day (4) NOTES: 1. ADT =Average Daily Tripe 3. Adjusted for Pass-6y aad Diverted Trips. 1. KSF =Thousand Square Peet ofGroas Floor Area 4. FP/Day = pcr 'Fueling Position' per day. City of Sari Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 68 Chapter 5 Local and Regional Circulation System Improvements RECAP OF RECOMMENDED CIRCULATION SYSTEM IMPACT FEES For Local Circulation Improvements Development Impact Fees: • Adopt Schedule 5.2 for most land-uses and the per trip-mile rate on Schedule 5.2 to be used in conjunction with the Table 5-2 or most current edition of ITE manual (and the trip length figures from SANDAG at the bottom of Schedule 5.2) for unusual land-uses (e.g. an amusement park). For Regional Circulation Improvements Development Impact Fees: • Adopt Schedule 5.5 for most land-uses and the per trip-mile rate on Schedule 5.3 to be used in conjunction with the Table 5-5 or most current edition of ITE manual (and the trip length figures from SANDAG at the bottom of Schedule 5.5) for unusual land-uses (e.g. an amusement park). [This space left vacant to place the chapter endnotes on a single page]. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 69 Chapter 5 Local and Regional Circulation System Improvements CHAPTER ENDNOTES 1. A trip is defined as a series of one or more trip-ends. A trip-end is a single stop in a trip. As an example, a drive from home to work is a trip. Each individual stop along the way for to drop children off at school, get gas, buy a lunch, drop off the laundry, and the arrivals at that workplace is a trip-end. The arrival back home in the evening is a trip-end also. There term "trip" has no effect on the calculation and only means "a drive". 2. For a complete set of examples, see City of San Bernardino General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element, Section. 3. Again, this is supported by the limited 46.9 lane miles of arterials and collectors that can be added to the existing 688.3 lane miles of arterials and collectors, in light of an over 50% increased in the demand of daily trip-miles. 4. The normal route between a daily work-site and the residence of the motorist. 5. As an example, a motorist travels the same route from work to home daily. On some number of occasions, the motorist stops at a market along the route to pick up some groceries. These stops at the market would be considered pass-by trip-ends in that they do not generate an additional trip-ends along that route. 6. Trip Generation Handbook, Sixth Edition, Institute of Traffic Engineers, 1099 14'h Street, NW., Suite 300, Washington D.C. 20005-3438, Chapter 5, Section 5.1, Pass-by, Primary and Diverted Linked Trips, page 29. 7. Ibid, page 29 8. Ibid, page 29 9. Traffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101, Brief Guide to Traffic Generation Rates compiled in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Transportation, the California Department of Transportation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 1995. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 70 G~ ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O p U~ fA Efl to fA E9 lfl 69 EA 69 fA fA fA fA EA fA fA 69 (fl fA ifl EA fA ifl EA fA EA y ~ G CO Z ~ ~ ~ ~ N O ~ ~ Q ~ m U ~ U ¢ U , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~" C .,, o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o U ~q y C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C Ri GT ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C p ro y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ ~~, ~'z .V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y ro U C~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $; ~ p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O O O O O J U O` h O c0 O O O N O O O O V O O O O O O O V In O a CO O W r N V c0 c0 N In N M N O O In V V CO ~ a0 N (O r O N N I~ W N Z + N c'7 ~ V c7 r~ M ch ~ M t0 N ~ EA ~.,~ EA _' ~ _ <fl to fA _ ~ ~ `1 ~ ~ fA (fl fA fH EA ffl b9 EA fA EA fA 69 EH ffl fA EA fA EA fA •vr (Q y Q U ~ V C .,, o 0 o e o 0 o a o 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 iii y o pp opp 0© 0 0 0 0 pp 2gg $ 0 0 0 0$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 pp 0 Gp ~ M O q 0 Q. q q q. g 0 0 q © g q O O q q 0 0 0 0 q O q 0 0 V .C._. C ` 0 0 0 O. 0 0 O 0 0 O'O O O H 0 0 CO fJ O O O O b O Q 0 O b. .,, 4'Z goocxooooooooogooqoooooqoooq r w r r r r r r w rr r- r +" r rrr r r r r r r r r r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ~ ~ fA fA fA fA fA ui fA EA fA fA fA fA fA fA fH f9 fA EA fH fA EA EA EA EA to fA fH ,. o U ro G a~ o o ~ ~ ,¢ 0 d U 0 0 0 a o o 0 0 0~ p a 4 o m o o L ~o a o 0 0 0 0 o Tn Q~ ~ 0 0 pp 0 o a ppp $ 0 0 0 0$ o o$$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V ~ y g q O~ q 0 O Q Q q. O O qO q OO g 0 Q 0 0 0 O g O O y W. ~ 0 0 O 00 0 0 O. 0 0 0 O PJ Q-O O O.O O Iq O O OO 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..;, ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O O O O O t~{ I~ O aD O O O N O O O O V O 0 0 0 0 0 0~~ O a (O O W .E r N d' CO aD N to N O N O O M~ 'd' CO A N N GO r M N N~ M N U N ~ d' f7 O'~ C`') C") ~ ch O N _ f!f fA rj fA _' ~ _ EA EA fA _ ,y V~ fA fA fA 69 EA EA fA fA fA U~ E9 fA 49 EA lfl (fl FA ~fl 3 d N c C I 'ro ~ C O C C ~N ~ c m H _ O O L 0 0 (nom N U ~ ~ dO' ¢ '~ C N~~ m ~ ~ C O ~ ~ ¢ Y C> fC ~ C ` V t0 'O N U ~ y ~ ~ ~ `~' aci v m aY°~i a> r o 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ O w m ~ ro~ E a a?~ h o c L N c V W .y V o ra o. n. o m o E o E C W° o~ ~~~~r o¢t c d ~ cod 3 cca~mQ y U E ~- ° o m e J Q W y ~ N A N O O. 3 Q7 O O N f9 O O ttl R N U ~ a~ '~ O d (n O N J ~ c o o ° o° a~ >~- o O a '> A rn o m o o c~ E~ E y C Q ~ m U~ d m c~ m rn ai ai o ~ L a > a~ N o O y 0.,,, O ~ E ° c Er> ~ m ~y o.°~ o > >p~m~m~! ¢ , om O m m o c 3 3 3 3 3 ~ V vi ¢ ~ Y E a M L o~ Y E~ o a~ '~ o o a~ 0 0 0 - cv ~ ~ E y, +., _fn~ m mH -co ° - -~~ ~~c a~ ova t~ C O O S aoi a> a~ m a d c°~~ ~ a°i U°°~ o a o c c c c c cd ~ ~ A N N y O U y V_~= O N N N~ '~y ~N N N fC U Y y y0 w _ O~~ fn N m o. ~ y c Q ~ N Cn ~ N a> a> a~ a ~ c c c c c U ~ m N ~ L t r ~ aci 'o o a~ ° c c "' y~_ '0 0 0 0 'o o~ c~ a ~ ~ ~ CO ,~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ U U U U D W ~ Y J J J J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~- ~ ~ O ~y N ch V In O r O T O r N c7 ~ In O~ W m O N c") O r Q ~ fd ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N O O O V J N i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ~ ~C ,~,+0 O U C H- 1- H F- H H H~ 1- H F- F- H H I- F- H H I- H H I- H I- H V- H ~ ~ U N Q U ~ cnmmmmmmcnmmmmmcncnmmcnmmmmmmcnmm ~, Q C r ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C (fl fA fA f9 f9 fA 69 69 fA f9 fA fA 69 69 fA fA fH f9 (fl 69 fA fA (fl 69 fA fA 69 ~ ~ ,~ aQC~ G ~ m ~ O N U d U Q U a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C .~, o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o U ~l " y C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ V ~ C m~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO ` Q Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y ro c3 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oU o00000000000000ooooouiouiuiooo pO voooooocoooooNCOU~oo~noonon n~noo Z V U O~ N (O d~ V O CO N n N N N N '- M N N c9 N N N r c7 N N Q ~ N N n CO In 0 M FA to 69 fA fA 69 to 69 fA fA fA fA fA fA lfl fA fA EA C ~ ~ 4 .4 EA 69 fA fA fA fA EA f9 O K R ~ v C ,,, 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o a o 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O p p pp 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ G O O O O g 0 0 0 O~ O O O O Q O O O 4 0 0 0 0 0 O O v ooooocooocicooOOO0OOOOOOOOOCicoO U ti d Z g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o q o 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r .- ~ r r'. r r r r e r r r r r r r r r y,. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O `~' j~ fA fA (fl fA fA fA fA EA fA fA f9 f9 fA (9 E9 fA fA U! EA fA fA EA EA f9 fA EA (A y v U o 2$ R1 Z ~ g p '.CUB. a U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O p p o 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zi CC a `' o0oooooaooooo$o~iooooo000000 CO ~ y ~ g 0 0 0 O O O O g O 0 0 O.O b OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. O V~ N ~1 Z G3 O O Cj CU O fJ O O O O O O' O O O O O fJ O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 0 O O O d' 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO O O O O N (O N O O l!7 O O n O n n lA O O p N CO V V O CO N n N N N N r C7 N N M N N r N C7 N N V N N n oD ~ .- ~ E9 EA fA fH f9 E9 fA fA f9 f9 f9 fA 69 fA fA b9 EA fH fA W Vi Ui fA f9 f9 E9 f9 fA (D d ttl ~ 'C ~ y N 7 ~ N C i C O ~ ~ ~ i0 N N td fb C C C Q ~ m m y Cn LL O -C C h i Y w m r' E J J L O ~p y 'O N ~ i 1 ~ O. O. ~ ~ m N N O ~ L L L"' a az o h ~ 3~ m °- aai aai c Z c°7 a Z O U m m m m E c d a m•° a o y L C ~' C N In ~ O (C fd (C q Q ~ ~ o~ c_ E 3 3 3 m co c c c CC -_ .ro Y Y Y ~ ~ R! ~ ~ ~ ~ ] > > U 'C N ~ m N N N ~ ~ C C C N ~ ~ rn m d d d N ~ ~ C m c m L N E E m o m m -o a a a~ m a ~ C) ',: R{ ~ ~ c g m m c c c c c N N rn U_ o 0 o c c c cVn h h C E E C °o o~ m a~ o J J m m m m cc a n a~ m~~~ >, J ill ~ J U LL 2~ m m ~ m m m m~ o ro ~ m o== m e E E E E E E E E a~ c ~ m m O w p p~ C U~ at o cu o viJJddddO.000CnY~ JJCn~~ C~ V~ ~ Q S p O ti ~ Y L N CaJ@J@J@J@J@JCdJCaJCdJ@J@J@J~J@J@JCaJ@l@J U U try N ~ L~ O N N N ~C ~0 ctl N N N N cC N N N td N m ~ ~ ~ v O O~~ m d U C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C O- C O O Qj U aci ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ rn o~ rn o~ rn rn rn o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ o~ rn m m U ~ ~ a o<nJ n•v, E ,~<ninv>inininu~ininininininininu~~nv~ o O ~ ., m~ ,~ fry ~ o o m m m m~ o ~ ~ ,o~- ~ ti"-. w w w .~"- w w ~ ~ U lfj C O C ~ m N iC iU a ~ m ~ N i6 i0 iU N itt N i0 iC iC N id N i0 % N id iV ~ O (/~ tp O O ~ Q Q Cn Cn H ~ ~ > F H H F- F H 1- M- H 1- H 1- 1- ~ H F- H 1- cd v. 0 ro ro N N M 07 oN7 07 [~+7 M M e7 007 007 a~~ V V~~ V V V t~ 0 N~~ O O O U V C i i i i ~ i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ~ t ~, O O I- I- H H H- F- H H H F- I- H H H I- I- H H H I- H H I- F- F- H H ~ U N Q U '~ cncncncncnv~cncncncnv~cncncnv~cn<nu>cnv~cncncncncncnu~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ,O 69 EA EA fA fA EA EA 69 fA 69 fA fA fA fA fA EA 69 E9 fA fA fA fA E9 H~ fA E9 fA y $' ~ o V V c rn U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U C ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r/1 "' y C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O G '^' Ri ~ ~j, O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c U ~'G, c ~ 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a_(j oooouioooooouSooooo0000000000 in o 0 o n o 0 0 0 o in n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~n o o in 0 0 0 '~. ~" N N N N N N N N N r N N N N N N N N N N N N 2 V o ~ FaF»F»f»i»f»F»u~f»EaF»vif»uiF»i»F»u>En<aifle»uii»e»F»c» c ~ a$ o ~ y U ` U ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C w, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C y V~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O S O O:O O O O O O O O O O O O~~ C~ D O O O O O O O O O O ¢ ~Q O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O.O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r r r r r r. r r r r::r r r r r r r r r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fA to fA (fl fA fA fA fA fH fA EA fA E9 EA E9 fA fA fA fA EA EA (fl EA FA FA fA fH U o U ~ A ~' c or c~ g~ ~ro~' Q° U o 0 o a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 o a o ~l C[ 3 "' O O O O O O O: O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 c° R m O o 0 0~~~ o 0 0 0 0 0'~ o S g g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 02 oOOOCOOO.oOOCOCici'ciro 00OOOOOOOOOo 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..,'~ oooo~noooooouiooooo0000000000 ay inooonooooo~nnoooooooo~noo~nooo N N N N N N N N N N N N r N N N N N N N N N (J fA fA fA fA fA fA fA (fl fA d9 f9 f9 fA f9 69 fA fA b9 E9 (fl fA (fl EA EA to <A (A 111 N N ~ ~ ~ J J ~ ~ 3 3 _ 'a ~ y -_ N O L fC L C (L/~ (n N Q ~ O N U L N T~~~ M~ O O _O to -~ y LL RI d -O N 3 O C C r~ L = L <tl O O~ a ^ ~ L '"' m ~ '~a aci ~ ~ aci a ~ to .a N L o (tl N N O O C~ l.L O O U Cry Cry L O N C~ f0 L N C ~ H C ~Y ~ Z-~-o-o-o'o•o eo= rn ° m~~ co t° >.Y y.C?m ~ caaa~ c c c c c c ~ yag ~u c m~ ~ ~~a~JCa p ro ms m m m ccv m m m ca m m» v -o O U oC ci aO1i o c c •o a s ~a ~a c c c S E C ~ ~ c c c a~ aoi N e d fO c c m~ •o a a a c c ca `a m cc ~ U 0 0 rd 'IC 'N ~ ~ L N N '~ cV U C C C c N fC vi N O) O m J ro y y C L E c c c ~ a~ iA 3 3 c c '~ °7 m m m ro Q ~ o o c c c ~ 4 ,~ tC ,O ~ m>>>~ o o o>> c ~ = c c c c N a Q Q h C ,Q ~ O O O e 2 O LLl W O O _N ~p N N N N Ri Q_ N N N N N v O~ C CC ~ c Q e a Q Q~~ W ~ J J J J W~ ~ ~ CA (n Cn ~ ~ U ~ ~ Cai@~@~@~Ud Ud Ua @~@~Ua @iUd @~@~@i@~Ua @~@~@~Ud Ud Ud Ud @iG@i b~Uh ~ Q~ ~" C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C O- ~ 4•~ Q~ rnrnrnmmrnrno~rno~rnrnrnrnrnrno~rnrno~mmrnrnmmm cn N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ y w m j 4 (n o v o 0 o g o cv ~ cv o 0 0 0 o cv cv _o _v g o ~ o ~ cv v v U ~ C Q O C i9 i6 N N N ~ N N iC i0 iC N m N N N N id iC N iC iU N m in N i0 C (ry ~O COU ~ F-1-HHHHHHHF-F-F-HHHHFHI-F-I-F-F-HHHH ~ ~ U ro ~ ~~~~~coocrocNOCMOC~c`nocCOOCno~c°ooni ~~~~~nCOnnomoo 33 ~ N i i i i i i i i ~ i i ~ i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i c •C ~, O O V ~ H I- F- H H F H H 1- H F- H H H H H F- F- I- H H F F H H F- f- o U `' O ~ ~ Cn Cn Cn fn Cn Cn lA to cA Cn Cn fn Cn lA N In Cn N lA (n CA Cn In In Cn cn Cn ~ v~ UcvQU ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ o ~ fflcaf»oooooooooo~nooooo ~n f»f» ~n ('a. O O O O O O O O O O N O 0 0 0 0 N N NQ' ro p~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f0 T N O c0 O) M Q1 d M O (O o0 O O N O n~ M~ M a~ a M M 7 SC '~ ~ O O M N I~ O M O M O m M N r r M v v Z y O. O r~ M O~ f~ ~ M N N N N N O O M C OS N ~ O fA N fA fA fH FA fA fA fA ffl fA fA ffl ~ ~ t ao O ~ ~ Q Q fA fA ~ m y.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U v~ y. C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O n O O r~ - CO ~q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O N fli C V t C } O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C2 O Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V V 0. ~ Q r r r r r r r LI. 7 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N I7 ~ U O O O fA E9 fA fA ffl f9 fA f9 fA f9 fA fA fA EA fA EA O <A fA 00 ~ ~NyU ~ C O O O M O~ c j aro o o e~ ~ i» n U ~ C .,, 0 0 0p 0 0 0 0 0,' o 0 ~j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0pp o 0 0 0 h O O 1~ lb O P O O 0~ 4 Q G OO O q q~ O O O O M O O M E V ~". ~ d~ O O O O ~ O O. G'] O O O O O CO fO O O cJ O. ~ CJ O 0. Q, r r r LL v ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O fA f9 fA fA fA fA fA fH fA fA fA fA fA f9 fA fA fA fH fA fA fA fA f9 U ~ O ~ ~ ~ N C ~ ~ O m U ro ~' ~ $ o U O O O O O O O O O O O O 'O O O O O O O O D o C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d~ O O~ Q O O O O O O O ~V o ro y U~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0~ o a 0 0 0 0 ooodooooooooocooooo0 0 °o°o ° c V ~ ~ ~ 2 r r 5 ~ d L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a 000000000oooo~nooooo ~n f»f» ~n d O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O 0 0 0 0 N N y -."'., O O O O O O O O O O O O O f0 O N O M O QO M N '~. ~n O O O M O CO ~D m O N O I~ ~ M V M~ a~ O O y (fj N N N O O~ N I~ O M O M O O M N r r M m O) ~ '~ r O r I~ to O~ f~ ~ M N N N N r N ~ ~ L ,y fA N~ fA 69 69~ fA fA f9 fA U! fig fA f9 h h_ O W fA f» T C m m N m -o E ~ ~ ~ z ~ E T~ T n ~ ~ ~ Z U o E ra(jpU o-c cJ ~ ~ d 'K -o m ~ U ~ o ~ O ? a~ ~ -o o fl- cmvn ~ ~ ~ U a a ~ a ~ U E rnt m m ~ > ¢ m ~ m aci ~o~m=L ~j 3 ~ ? m is a N »a tnm m o~ c w o? ~ y aci ~ > ~ .N E N~ m ~ y ~ .N o ~ c a ~ U- Q ~ ~ o~ m ~ ~m ~U as ~ d y a o E o. > a~ m o o~ c m m > ~ m m N ccv ro U~ a°i ~c m~ ~ L a a~ Q~ c m ~ W -o d i ~ d n. 7 3?> In a~ U~ N C J C a .L.. (/~ ~ a3i a3i '~ ~ -o a -o a a a ~- a ~ c ~ o a~ ~ 2 ~ y m h` ro c c c c c c c 'a a s c c F c N m a m m cd m ~u m m c c c~ m¢ O a°'i ~ ~ G~ Ri ~ c c~,n,n~noooo m ~o fuav~Jr F- ~ H o N N N N N N N N O O O Y O N r U ~ ~ ~ U C m U RS c c o i i i ~ i i i i i i~ E m m 7 N ~ ca m c J QW~ o ~Ua@~Ua@iUaUdUUaUdCai> E ~ ~ ~" ~ '~~" ~ ~ 7 y y y y fn y y y y y O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 'p E y C ;Q aaao.aao.aaao c ~ fn (n U' O~ c C C c C p Ol a .,, O~ a E E E E E E E E E E _ C C U Cl) @~ Ud (3j m co m~ ro ca m m m mv_ o 0 0 0 o c ~ ~ CC CC CC ~ [C CC ~ fL ~ Q m id m m is is y ~ ~ ~ a~ ~Em~ ~~~m~m~mmm~mmoaaQaQ ~ ~ u ~ C' ~ o~ o' c c c c c c c c c c c~ o 0 0 0 cn cn c~ m ~ A m m m cd m ca m ca to CA CA to Cn U ~ y ~ Q1 L L L L L L L L r L U O ~ C O m m m~ o a~ ~ o a~ d a~ o o a m ro~ w ~ -o ro O C p C C C C C C C C C C~ VI (Iy (!f J ~ ~ O '~ ~ ~ N M~~ fD f~ O O O N M~~ O h W O) O NjJ ~ .~C OO O comcooooocomaornrnrnrnrnmrnrnrnm.- HO c a~ ~ U N Q U ~ m<ncncnmcnmmmmmmmmmmmmm z r ~ E y t Oe ., ~ N ch CD ch ti a. O C h ~i c~ N O O M N l~ l~ m N C ~ N .'~ g j > > > vi uj cn .4 k ~ a1 4~ ~' 4 R a 4 a a ~ ~ k ~ ~ O h OOn cMcv~ O LL 01 01 m co M O O ~U..(~ N oN ~ r,D ch ~ ~ trirl:~aai ~ ~7 ~+9 f9 t9 ~ O fA. IV O' pl z ~ y v O O (O O d' O. ~ C h O to n O n M n CO O M ch N I O. 41 n n c0 In M M O c `d ~ c~i o cfl ~ ~ U •Q rEFcoui~v~ui N U r ~ n ~ fq _ ° ~- E ~~m a a ~ ,'^ ~ o Rt ~ N Q N Q f- o ~ ~ ` v dX 4 ~ Q a ~ ,p N N In O to tl` 0 0 0 0 0 0 O :N M n aMD N N O ~' ^ O) ~ C In to to 0 0 N C a ~ ~ c°D9 ~ ~ N ~ U ~ Ernmrnnc`~oa00o C~ a. ~ u> i» ~y E a in ~ ° C3 c co o v1 co r1 o O a In In In o o In ~°e o Iii cO1o ~ a o r°0i °o,. o ~i ~ ~ ao m ad N ~ 0 h.. M n c7 CO O n CA ~ C D N1 ~ ro 401 N O ~ a ~ cN VO' a ~ ~ N CQ ~7 In n ~ N m ~ O > a K ~W5 in ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 bs t ~ m °n1 °o rO1i I`nn c`no o a ,~ ri ri ri v vi ~i C V c0 O O ~ M 00 U N N ° ¢ ~ a oE- 0. ° r, ao n rn In v N ~ ~ In In In o o In C a ~ v co ° rni v co co co ~ ~ In In In rn N rn ~ n ~ r In o rf ~ti C o. ~ R1 ~ Na M r M O ~ ~ F ~ C q O~ ~ N N ~ d ~ (O r .- N ch (O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N CO ~ to to to ~ M Q ~ M N M W M N ~ a N 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q E w e >, r n E C 0 O V ~ ~ Im o ~ ~ o i ~ c 000000 Sc c~a~ rr~i~orn ~ CS ~ n N a0 r~ v 111 v ~ H C ~l d ~ j ~ ~ j j ~ y~ is co -- N rn rn ~ ¢ In r1 rn N ~ m m j~ in m r In n Z >.~Nmmvcdcdvi o U V r N OS W ~ F- H N O ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ O ~ ` ~ J C G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' Y li O ~ ~ ~' Y ~ ~ ~ E ro s ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ y F- y ~ o~ ~ ~ Y a a C O y 4yi ~ 3 3~ J O v~oi ~ 3 3 °=1 S O N y N m~ C1 ~ J ~p ~ O v v~ J ~ ~v 2 ~ ~ is ai U ~ C O Z C ~ L L ~ N N .N L L d N N ~ 'O ~ co a m~ a E E~ ~ E E C d m o -- -- o v 75 p ~'~ j O Q~ U U~ ~Q~UU ~ c ~ V ~ v~ Uc°v~U ~ r •v ~ '~ ~ > > ~ ~ vi rn rn q$ n a 4 n a a ~ ~' ~ E 5 ~ ~ rn rn m c`~o E cj N N of o co Q ~ ~ fA f9 ~ f9 ~ ~ m ~ U t) N o' ~ o ~ ;o n a o o M v ~ iu m i d E M O O O N N ~ 'w iy C d ~ In N c0 In co a .ci. d. ~ ~ .Q j R' N N r ~ 4. 1 b3 N-. ~ y ~ 4. lid E O Q U. eLd. G ~...y Q S C ~x_ G y ee{~ m O M N In ,T, C9 W C7 C. W o °a, ~ rn n v r° o rMi 'S o a j q m v n ri co ri ~' E G G E9 ~ lfl fA M fA ~ T ~ E9 h Q. M O Q tT t~~ p p Q H W llJ t1J U c c c oc c u~i rni eb ~ ~ n g g ci °tfy O C ,~ e n In In r~ In N ~ 4; 0 0 0 cs co ri r~ co ui v m o cc ci ^'~ O~ j M M N M O M n I\ 0 0~ tp N .- O O CO N lt^ n O N ~ ~ ~ W (O N C7 I~ f~ CO N l`~ i0 N ^ C ~ w c N ~ M fA ~N c0 ~- CO Q~0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ~ b1 Qi oOD aCOO (°O OMD N IA Q .ry C n c0 0 0 0 -t7 C ~,t7k?ry N ~ N O C ~ W .Q T O ~ O U U _ m a m~~ o N N t chi ~~~kk p ~ a ~ °D ~ 0 0 0 0~ J W ~ N In vi N c0 N M (O d d C ~ M c0 c0 f~ N 1 .,~, ~ M N M N V E ro ~ ~ Q C C ((=~]' Q y M to ~ ~ M M '... ~ ~ H. (00 d' Vn^ V N ~ 1 o m ~ c~i u`ri v W ~ ~i W y ~ j ~ o ~ ~ ~ v rn o c~ n I~ O .,,, m Q~ ~n co n v co ~ 2 C ` ~ .- N N l0: Q r: ~ ~ CS- lL ~ E ro Q ~ ~ Q J 4 ~ ~ ~ E C ~ ~ u. J ~ O w V ~ .E 'E U ~ N C~ t~ rn Y li Q N C O RS O ~ 3 a> ~ ~ O N ~ M m~~~ ..1 O p E ro o N N N ~ cp C •w 4 m ~ a E E ~ R ,~°~~, ° °' -° 76 °' ~ O~ E~ 4. O Q~ U U ~ c ~i U°NUCi ~ ,'4r ti v V ~'1V W W N N W W 6) N d G) N N U 4 d Q Q Q Q Q 4 W +v aD co ^ N ~ ~ c ~n ~ o V ~ ~ ~ O COCQ~ eNe~~ h '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ bS E9 ~ C3. ~ O. ~ ~ Ca~Ojjy N V a r m ri n M ti m ~ Q r N .- ~ q ~ ~ Z Q ~ n 6..0.. V CMO V n tnA N ~ ~ U m v '" ~ n O N c0 N to C ^ m a Q i» ~ in u~~ 'a, H o n z~. CUB p C Vl O M M ~ cM7 O O O M T ~ to V ~ O O C M C) ~ IA m M M M V O t0 f~ ~ '~- ~ o a m co o Sri So o 0 0 0 0 0 (p~ ~ O r O ~ C07 W 0. r ,~1 M OD ~ O O (O O pCy V N V' N CI G T N ~ n, y ~ rmi r ° o ~ ~ vnf rn ~ ~ ~ h O :Q aMO coo m `n c~ M m ~ O ~ M N ~ n Q (p .- r N M c0 ~'. m ~ ~ [M OD aD n N C ~ 0 N .- M N ~ O E m m ('} .Q C ~ J S U~ n v ~ o M U 01 y o o a o N vii s ~ J y ^ C N N ~ M W ~ W v, ° ~ ~ N y U amp, w m N a n~ n m $ ~ m ~ a~ o v n N m v m 2 ~ Q 4 L N N M lA N.. ti~ C ~ Q ti U ~ R1 ~ J 4 H ` Q J ro a C O j Qpi c 3 m~ J O a~i u> eF m ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'v '~ = V m ~ ro ~ N O ~ ~ ~ ~ E £ N m ~ O t ~ ~ ~ ~ ° Eo Eo ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ O~ fn ~ 4 ~ Q~ U U ~ ~C O ~ ` > cj UNN~U cr vs ,CO."~NMM ti t+n Olv ri °p °j r~ N ~ G G G G~~ ~~`]N.~.~ c.~N N e J ~ > > ~ ~ vj vj ~ .4 k v m E~~ 4 4 Q 4 4 4~ ~ k U Cl o ~ ~~~pr~ ~i ~hn e~hi ~ o°ji ~ m ~ rn rn rn co co 0 0 ~ Vj ~ 6N 69 ~ ~ ~ d ~ a~~rr`~voi ~ Q o ~ y N w ~- @i ~ a~ m o o co m y a~i E c ycolnnonr~ ti r o o m c~ N ~ I am a nooinmco0 (V O c0 ~ ~ ~ N •4 ~ ~ ~ a0 to 7 a n ~ V O n > ~ 7il ~ ~ ~' E m Q f°- o W ~ ~ N X .ro 3 Q ~~~~s~ w O (O In N n ~ ~ ,e 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 ,CO N ~ (gyp r m ~ ~ ~ (,h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W C~ C ~ In ~ O O~ ~ A. Q. ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ m ~ o m rn m n coo ono m ~ v> o E A. y ~ 4 ca ~n cD v ~n r~ o o .a In ~ In o o In C In o in o n In h c ao co ao ri ui ~ c7 (O (O O (O oD N N N Rf ~" N M V O IA N ~ (O 01 ~ ~ ~ n. ro: N n ~ N In In ~ R ~ ~ O y Ui ~ ~ b9 fA fA f9 ~ 0 a. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N ~ O ~ ~ IoA O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ O n O M In (D O ~ Ch Ch Ch V In N C O d' CO O O a cn+) O N I A U ~ I d y ti o CO rni o n rn N~ m ~~~oo~ y~ ~ ~ (O c7 v CO (O (p ~ C: to N to ~ N T p Rf E N rn ~ O N N 'C a ~ ~ .Q d' ~ T ~ ~ f" N N N ~ d CO .- ~ N M GO I 0 0 0 0 0 0 C V 07 W CO n N I D = In In In In In In ~ ~ C) N M N ~ N Q N: 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ro w ~ ~ e :ate ¢ ~ ~ o ~ v rn co ~ co o I ~ ,.: 000000 ~ ~ H. M N (NO anD o I O'p W ~ ~ M~ O `l ~ O ~ N O M V~ W N N..C cq ~ W ~ H Droy ~ ~ ao Qc ~ a m.. O O ~ to M ti n O m M N oD ~ ` ~ •- N O O V Q to ch 01 N n (O ll C1 ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ .- ~ N rn ~ ~u n m co v co N In o W `d o o V ~ ~ Q m ~ 4 p ~ ~ J ~ ~ .N. N ~ N O ~ ~ ~ ~ o m cn E.. ~ c c~ ~ C C U fry m ~ N o Y u. O w ~'Y ~ a m D O C y ~ ~ m m v Y ~ m c' m ~ ~ Y ~ Rf 4 ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ o ~ ~ a cn O~~ m 3 3 m ~ ~, ~ 3 3 a~ ~, T ~ N B C •., ~ O p E ~e cv ~ c ~ ~ E ro m~ ~ o ~ ~ cp Ry 4 m ~ ~ E E ~ m ~ n ~ ~ ~ d m O ~ p C ro o a> -' o 0 0~ a~ o 0 0~ ~ g ~ ~ O~ O j ~ ~ 6~ U U 5 O Q~ U U S c ~i Uc°vo[U Q Chapter 6 Community Library Facilities and Collection The Existing System. The City's library operations currently offers a total of 80,955 square feet of in four library facilities. When the 80,955 square feet of the building are divided by the area population of 199,803', a "space" standard is established of 0.41 square feet/person, (80,955 square feet -199,803 persons). However, with 49.5% of the debt remaining on the Central Library, (representing approximately 32,076 square feet), the City actually owns approximately 48,868 square feet of library space which results in an debt free standard of 0.24 square feet per residentz. The Chapter will discuss the capability of the 80,955 square feet, but the Library Impact Fee will be based upon the 48,868 square feet of owned space. Demand Uyon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Underdeveloped or Undeveloped Parcels. Stated simply, the 80,955 square feet of library facilities utilized by the City can accommodate only a finite number of collection items and patrons. Additional development will increase the demand on the existing square feet of library pad and the volume collection. The Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the fee is to enable the City to collect a fee necessary to construct additional square feet necessary to ensure that the City's citizens have access to and enjoyment of the library space and collection. Table 6-1, following, indicates that the remaining residential development and typical number of persons per type of residential dwelling will generate a need for a roughly 27,509 additional square feet in order to maintain the existing library facility standard of 0.41 square feet per person. Table 6-1 Square Feet Required to Maintain Existing Facility Standard Residential Number Persons per Density Land-Use of Units Dwellin Yield Detached Dwelling 12,354 3.501 43,251 Attached Dwelling 8,599 2.771 34,251 Mobile Home Dwellings 6 2.517 15 Additional San Bernardino Population to be Served 67,094 Square Foot per Person Existing Standard 0.41 Square Feet Required to Maintain Existing Standard 27,509 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 79 Chapter 6 Library Facilities and Collection The library system also has a collection of 236,980 volumes3 generating a collection standard of 1.19 volumes per resident within the system (236,980 volumes _ 199,803 persons). Table 6-2, following, indicates the additional number of residents to be served and the number of volumes required to maintain the existing standard. The City will need to acquire roughly 79,482 volumes to maintain the existing 1.19 volumes per person in light of the additiona167,094 San Bernardino residents expected at General Plan build-out. Table 6-2 Volumes Required to Maintain Existing Standard Residential Number Persons per Density Land-Use of Units Dwellin Yield Detached Dwelling 12,354 3.501 43,251 Attached Dwelling 8,599 2.771 23,828 Mobile Home 6 2.517 15 Additional San Bernardino Population to be Served 67,094 Volumes per Person Existing Standard 1.19 Volumes Required to Maintain Existing Standard 79,482 The Use of the Fee. The fee, if adopted, would be imposed, collected, and, as needed (and desired), expended on expansion of the amount of library facility space in the four libraries and the number of volumes in the system's collection. The Relationship Between the Need for The Fee and The Type of Development Project. The development of any acreage zoned for residential uses, increases the demand on the finite amount of library space and volumes. Thus, those residential land uses that generate higher amounts of residents (i.e., detached dwelling) will be charged a proportionally higher amount. There is no information available demonstrating a substantive link or nexus between library use and local businesses. The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paving the Fee. Additional square feet will be constructed with the fees collected from residential development and additional volumes will be added to the existing collection. The fees cannot be used for any other purpose. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 80 Chapter 6 Library Facilities and Collection The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project. The cost of acquiring land for additional library space and construction is about $320 per square foot°, (per Schedule 6.1). The 80,955 square feet of library space, when divided by the 199,803 existing potential patrons creates a standard of 0.24 square feet of library space per City resident. The standard of 0.24 square foot standard multiplied by the $320 per square foot of pad cost of library construction results in a charge of $76.80 per additional City resident. Table 6-3 following, demonstrates this. Table 6-3 Establishment of the Library Facilities Standard and Cost per Person to Maintain the Standard Library Facilities Owned Square Feet 48,868 Current City Service Population 199,803 Square Feet per Resident 0.24 Cost of Library Building Construction per Square Foot $320.00 Cost per Additional Resident $76.80 The cost of acquiring additional volumes, called the accession process5, (per Schedule 6.1) is $63.66 per volume. The 236,980 current volumes, when divided by the 199,803 existing service population creates a standard of 1.19 volumes per City resident. The standard of 1.19 volume standard multiplied by the $63.66 per volume results in a cost of $75.76 per additional City resident, in order to maintain the existing standard. Table 6-4 following, demonstrates this. Table 6-4 Establishment of the Library Collection Standard and Cost per Person to Maintain the Standard Library Collection Volumes 236,980 Current City Service Population 199,803 Volumes per Resident 1.19 Cost of Library Collection per Volume $63.66 Cost per Additional Resident $75.76 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 81 Chapter 6 Library Facilities and Collection Resulting Impact Costs. The combined cost per new resident is $152.56 ($76.80 for 0.24 square feet of library space and $75.76 for 1.19 additional volumes). Table 6-5, below, indicates the amount required for pro-rata expansion of the library space per Schedule 6.1. If adopted and imposed on the remaining development, it would collect enough to acquire land for and construct an additional 16,100 square feet of library space and an additiona179,482 volumes. Table 6-5 Summary of Library Space and Collection Impact Costs Residents Cost per Impact Cost Land Use er Dwellin Resident Per Unit Detached Dwellin Detached 3.501 $152.56 $534/Dwellin Attached Dwellin 2.771 $152.56 $423/Dwellin Mobile Home 2.517 $152.56 $384/Dwelling RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES Table 6-5 contains the recommended Public Library (space) and Collection Impact Fees and is supported by Schedule 6.1 at the end of the Chapter. [This space left blank to place the Chapter endnotes on a single page]. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 82 Chapter 6 Library Facilities and Collection CHAPTER ENDNOTES 1. Based upon the Year 2000 State of California Department of Finance City population of 199,803. 2.This is important so that the City is not in the position of requiring a new homeowner to pay, via an impact fee, for maintaining the 0.41 square feet per person standard, then using their property taxes, after the home is constructed, to finish paying for that 0.41 square feet per person via the debt payments. This way the new homeowner pays an impact fee to maintain the 0.24 square foot per person standard, and the their new property taxes would be used to assist, along with everyone else, the remaining debt. 3. A volume is generally a book but can also be a CD, magazine subscription, video tape or some other like item with a similar cost and accession cost. 4.Based upon a construction cost of $275.00 per square foot and a 33.3% floor area ratio thus requiring three feet of land at a conservative $15.00/square foot for each square foot of building pad (for parking and landscaping requirements), thus $45.00 for a three square feet of land (per building square foot) and $275 for building construction = $320/square foot of construction. S.The accession process includes: needs research, ordering, receipt, preparation, entering it into the computer and actual placement on the shelves. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 83 Schedule 6.1 City of San Bernardino 2005-06 Development Impact Fee Study Public Library Standards/Impact Fee Calculation Library Owned Library Library Total Building Percent Building Volumes Resources Dorothy Inghram Branch 3,000 100.0% 3,000 Howard Rowe Branch 5,655 100.0% 5,655 Paul Villasenor Branch 7,500 100.0% 7,500 Norman Feldheym Central Library 64,800 50.5% 32,713 Existing Square Feet ~ 48,868 Existing Number of of Volumes ~ 236,980 Existing Standards: Current Population, 1-1-05 State Dept. of Finance 199,803 199,803 S.F. of Library Space/person 0.24 Books/person 1.19 Library Construction/Square Foot $275.00 S. F. Land Acquisition at $15.00/S.F. & 33% FAR $45.00 Land Acquisition and Construction per Square Foot $320.00 Cost per Book (shelved) (Note 1) $63.66 Building Cost per Person $76.80 Book Cost per person $75.76 Density per Dwelling Unit (2) Cost per land use Cost/Detached Dwelling 3.501 $76.80 $75.76 $534 CosUAttached Dwelling 2.771 $76.80 $75.76 $423 Cost/Mobile Home 2.517 $76.80 $75.76 $384 1. Bowkers 2005 Annual average of $63.66. 2. Per Land-use database and 2000 U. S. Census average dwelling densities. 84 Chapter 7 Public Use (Community Center) Facilities This category of infrastructure, i.e. facilities limited for the public use, differs from general facilities which are facilities used by the City staff to undertake their municipal service duties. Public use facilities are defined as facilities reserved for use by some or all of the defined portion of the public. Examples would include a performing arts building, teen or senior center, sports gymnasium, business conference center or amulti-purpose community center. This important component of the City's offerings to its citizens is, in many cities, included in their Park/Open Space Land Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Schedule. In this Report, the public use facilities impact fees will be continued as a separate impact fee for three reasons. First, few parks contain a public use facility. Secondly, it is difficult to insure that the cost for such a facility is properly included in the average park development cost per acre. Lastly and perhaps most importantly, it has been the experience of RCS staff, that when the cost for community centers is included as a cost of park development, these facilities simply do not get built because the park impact fee revenues get used on the generally large demand for turfed park acres with sports or passive-use park improvements. There is little doubt that this is true in San Bernardino as well and probably could be supported by reviewing the youth and adult sports demands on all of the existing fields. Is there any time during the late afternoons and evenings that the sports fields go unused? Most likely not, thus there would be a competing need with sports fields. The Existing System. The City has a number of structures currently dedicated as community use facilities. Such facilities are available to community groups for meetings and other functions. Indeed, the City has a unique facility whose proposed use is dedicated specifically for use by the business community, recognizing a need rarely shown by RCS's other client cities. Public use buildings, available for the community use, differ from general facilities which are facilities used by the City staff to undertake their municipal service duties. The City has some facilities dedicated to a specific use, such as the Boys and Girls Club, and some available for broader uses, such as the Community Center. Table 7-1, on the following page, shows the City's existing public meeting facilities. [This space left blank to place the following schedule on a single page]. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 85 Chapter 7 Public Use (community center) Facilities Table 7-1 Inventory of Existing Public Meeting Facilities Square Public Meeting Facility Feet Center for Individual Development 14,890 Center for Individual Development Annex 1,950 Delmann Heights Community Center 6,050 Galaxy Ballroom 20,244 Norton Gymnasium 21,020 Hernandez Community Center 16,600 Lytle Creek Community Center 3,754 Mill Community Center 21,965 Nicholson Community Center 5,048 North Norton Neighborhood Center 3,664 Ruben Campos Community Center 9,735 5`" Street Senior Center 16,930 Perris Hill Senior Center 5,684 Pioneer Cemetery Center 1,085 Arrowhead Credit Union Park 5,000 Total Community Use Facility Square Feet 198,619 Based upon an existing population of 198,619, the 199,803 square feet dedicated for public use creates an impressive standard of 0.994 square feet per resident. This standaxd indicates that the City has made a substantial commitment to providing a community center or recreation space for public groups and individuals. Table 7-2, on the following page, demonstrates the calculation establishing the square foot standard: City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 86 Chapter 7 Public Use (community center) Facilities Table 7-2 Calculation of Public Use Facilities Square Foot Standard Public Meeting Square Feet 198,619 Current Population 199,803 Square Foot Standard per Resident 0.994 Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Underdeveloped or Undeveloped Parcels. Simply stated, additional residential dwelling units will increase the population, placing greater demands for use of the existing community centers. The construction of a detached dwelling will create, on average, 3.501 new potential community center users. The addition of a new attached dwelling will create on average 2.771 potential new users. The Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the fee is to determine the cost of expanding the community center and public-use type facilities by some 66,691 square feet to meet the added demands created by the construction of additional residential dwelling units. It should be noted that 66,691 additional square feet of public use facilities may not fully meet the needs of the build-out community and that more square feet of public use space maybe desired by the community. The reference to the 66,691 square feet is merely that it is the amount of the ultimate-sized facilities that could be financed by impact fees. RCS recommends the City undertakes some sort of public-use needs analysis for determining the ultimate size of the facility. The Use of the Fee. The fee, if adopted, would be imposed, collected, and spent on the construction of additional community center space that benefits City of San Bernardino residents, not rehabilitation of any existing public use facility. Currently the City has some non-specific plans to construct a public use facility at Verdemont, Dellmann Heights and Nicholson Parks . Again, no specific plans is in evidence, only that the City is aware it needs more public use space. The Relationship Between the Need for the Fee and the Type of Development Proiect. Different types of residential dwellings generally have differing numbers of residents dwelling within them. Census data indicates the following occupancy statistics for the City: Detached Dwellings 3.501 Persons Per Unit Attached Dwellings .................................2.771 Persons Per Unit Mobile Home Dwellings .............................2.517 Persons Per Unit The Relationsh~ Between the Use of the Fee and the T}~e of Development Paving the Fee. The fee will be used to expand the amount of community center square feet in proportions consistent with the average persons per dwelling. Public use facilities would be expanded in City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 87 Chapter 7 Public Use (community center) Facilities the following amounts below, by type of residential dwelling: Detached Dwelling 3.501 Persons Per Unit X 0.994 Square Feet = 3.480 Square Feet Attached Dwelling 2.771 Persons Per Unit X 0.994 Square Feet = 2.754 Square Feet Mobile Home Dwelling 2.517 Persons Per Unit X 0.994 Square Feet = 2.502 Square Feet The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project The cost of adding 0.994 square feet of building space per person is roughly $273.35 based upon a $275.00 per square foot and the 0.994 square foot standard. A detached dwelling with 3.501 persons requires 3.480 square feet of public meeting space at a cost of $957 (3.480 square feet X $273.35 per square foot, rounded). An attached dwelling requires 2.754 square feet of public meeting space at a cost of about $757 (3.480 square feet X $273.35 per square foot). Resulting Impact Fees. Table 7-3, following, indicates the proposed Public Use Facilities impact fee schedule. Table 7-3 Summary of Public Meeting Facilities Impact Fee Impact Fee Residential Land Use Per Unit Detached Dwellin $957 Attached Dwellin $757 Mobile Home Dwellin $688 CHAPTER ENDNOTES There are no endnotes. City of Sari Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 88 Schedule 7.1 City of San Bernardino 2005-06 Development Impact Fee Study Public Use Facilities Calculation of Existing Standard/Impact Fee Land and Building Center for Individual Development 14,890 Center for Individual Development annex 1,950 Delmann Heights Community Center 6,050 Galaxy Ballroom 20,244 Norton Gymnasium 21,020 Hernandez Community Center 16,600 Lytle Creek Community Center 3,754 Mill Community Center 21,965 Nicholson Community Center 5,048 North Norton Heighborhood Center 3,664 Ruben Campos Community Center 9,735 5th Street Senior Center 16,930 Perris Hill Senior Center 5,684 Pioneer Cemetery Center 1,085 Arrowhead Credit Union Park 50,000 Existing City-owned Public Use Facilities Square Feet 198,619 Current Population 199,803 Square Foot per Resident Standard 0.994 Average Construction Cost per Square Foot $275.00 Square Foot per Resident Standard 0.994 Expansion Cost per New Resident $273.35 Residents Proposed Type of Dwelling per Unit (1) Impact Fee Detached Dwelling (maximum DIF) 3.501 $957 Attached Dwelling (maximum DIF) 2.771 $757 Mobile Home Dwelling (maximum DIF) 2.517 $688 Notes: (r) Per Land-use Database and 2000 U. S. Census average dwelling densities. Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC Fullerton, CA 92831 89 Chapter 8 Aquatic Center Facilities (Limited to Residential) This component of City infrastructure is being separated from the Park Land Acquisition and Development Impact Fee for the same reasons described in the previous Chapter regarding public use (community center) facilities. The Existing System. The City owns five aquatics facilities consisting of a total of 61,690 square feet of swimming pool surface and 24,144 square feet of combination locker/utilities/ office buildings. These facilities are available to individuals and groups represented by the existing 199,803 residents for leisure and general fitness uses. Table 8-1, following, details the six aquatics complexes. Table S-1 Existing City Pools/Utility Buildings Building Pool Square Surface Feet Square Feet Delmann Hei hts Pool 7,344 3,744 Nunez Park Pool 18,032 5,520 Rud C. Hernandez Pool 7,956 3,500 Mill Center Pool 6,750 3,432 Jerry Lewis Swim Center 14,952 5,148 Boys & Girls Club Pool 6,656 2,800 Total S uare Feet 61,690 24,144 Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Underdeveloped or Undeveloped Parcels. Simply stated, additional residential dwelling units will increase the population placing demands upon the existing aquatics centers. The construction of detached and attached residential dwellings will create, on average, 3.501 and 2.771 potential new potential pool users, respectively. The addition of mobile homes (should any mobile parks or individual uses be applied for) will create 2.517 potential new pool users each. The current de facto standards are 0.121 square feet of locker/office building per person and 0.309 square feet of pool surface per person in the City. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 90 Chapter 8 Aquatics Center Facilities The Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the fee is to defray the cost of expanding the aquatics centers to meet the added demands created by the construction of additional residential dwelling units. The City owns the aquatic centers and thus would be the appropriate agency to conduct any construction plans. The Use of the Fee. The fee, if adopted, would be imposed, collected, and spent on the construction of additional aquatics centers that would benefit City of San Bernardino residents, but would not be spent on rehabilitation of the existing aquatic center. The Relationsh~ Between the Need for The Fee and The Type of Development Proiect Different types of residential dwellings generally have differing numbers of people dwelling in them. United States Census 2000 data (see Table 2-3. page 23) was used to determine the occupancy density statistics for the City. They are summarized following: Detached Dwellings 3.501 Persons Per Unit Attached Dwellings 2.771 Persons Per Unit Mobile Home Dwellings 2.517 Persons Per Unit The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee. The fee will be used to expand the pool and aquatics center space in proportions consistent with the average persons per dwelling. The aquatic center pools and locker/utility buildings would be expanded in the amounts on the following page, by type of residential dwelling: Detached Dwellings 1.082 S.F. of locker space and 0.424 S.F. of pool surface Attached Dwellings 0.856 S.F. of locker space and 0.335 S.F. of pool surface Mobile Home Dwellings 0.778 S.F. of locker space and 0.305 S.F. of pool surface The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project. Schedule 8.1 indicates the pool and locker building cost calculations. The pool construction costs are also based upon the fina11989 construction cost of an existing 6,152 square foot (of surface) pool' at $599,845, ($572,000 construction plus architects fees of $27,845) and the 59.5% increase in construction costs from 1989 (index = 4574) to 2005 (index = 7297) as evidenced by the ENR construction cost index for an updated cost of $956,946 or $155.55 per surface square foot (Engineering News Record Construction Cost Indexz) The office/locker/restroom facility and equipment square foot construction cost is also based upon the final 1989 construction cost of an existing 2,800 square foot utility/locker building, with pump/filtering equipment, at $434,155 ($414,000 construction plus architects fees of $20,155) and the 59.5% increase in construction costs from 1989 (index = 4574) to 2005 (index = 7297) as evidenced by the ENR construction cost index for an updated cost of $692,617 or $247.36 per City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 91 Chapter 8 Aquatics Center Facilities surface square foot (Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index3). The two separate per square foot costs above total about $29.93 per person for the locker building expansion ($247.36 X 0.121 = $29.93 per person) and about $48.06 per person for the pool expansion ($155.55 X 0.309 = $48.06 per person), or, $77.99 per person combined. Thus a detached dwelling residence would incur impact costs of $273, (3.501 persons X $77.99, rounded). An attached dwelling residence would generate impact costs of about $216 (2.771 persons X $77.99, rounded). A mobile dwelling residence requires aquatics facility expansion costs of $196 (2.517 persons X $77.99, rounded). Resulting Impact Fees. Table 8-2, following, indicates the proposed Aquatics Facility Impact Fees. Table 8-2 Summary of Aquatics Facilities Impact Fee Impact Fee Land Use Per Unit Detached Dwellin s $273/Unit Attached Dwellin s $216/LTnit Mobile Home Dwellin s $196/CJnit RECAP OF RECOMMENDED AQUATICS FACILITIES IMPACT FEES • Adopt Schedule 8.1 for the three basic residential land-uses. CHAPTER ENDNOTES 1.Poo1 cost figures were acquired from a pool construction project in the City of Carpinteria, CA. 2.Construction Cost Index History (1908-1998), base 1913 = 100, page 41, Engineering News-Record, March 30, 1998, McGraw-Hill Corporation, New York, New York. 3.Ibid. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 92 Schedule 8.1 City of San Bernardino 2005-06 Development Impact Fee Study Aquatics Facilities Calculation of Existing Standard/Impact Fee Calculation Pool Building Existing Square Feet Delmann Heights 7,344 3,744 Nunez Park 18,032 5,520 Rudy C. Hernandez 7,956 3,500 Mill Center 6,750 3,432 Jerry Lewis Swim Center 14,952 5,148 Boys & Girls Club 6,656 2,800 Sub-total Square Feet 61,690 24,144 Existing Standard: Current Population 199,803 199,803 S.F. of Pool Surface or Locker Space/Person 0.309 0.121 Facilities Construction/Square Foot $155.55 $247.36 Construction Cost per Person $48.06 $29.93 Density per Dwelling Unit (1) Cost per land use Cost/Detached Dwellings 3.501 $168 $105 $273 CosUAttached Dwellings 2.771 $133 $83 $216 CosUMobile Home 2.517 $121 $75 $196 1. Per Land-use database and 2000 U. S. Census average dwelling densities. 93 Revenue and Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 Chapter 9 Park and Open Space Land Acquisition and Facilities Development This Chapter summarizes the City's existing inventory of parks and identifies the ratio of park land per resident allowable under the Quimby Act (§66477 of the Government Code) for residential developments involving the subdivision of land and AB1600 (§66000) for the construction of residential developments not involving the subdivision of land. The existing per capita standard is then utilized to calculate the park dedication requirement for future residential development. EXISTING PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM Open space notwithstanding, intensive parks and recreational facilities constitute one of the City of San Bernardino's greatest needs both with respect to facilities for current residents and future citizens. The provision of a well planned park system with a variation in the size and nature of facilities offered, is an important amenity to residents of any city, the City of San Bernardino included. A mixture of passive and active uses and facilities and programs which appeal to a broad spectrum of potential park and trail users is considered optimal in most urban cities. Future residential development, by increasing the City's population, will necessarily impact the City's park system by requiring additional baseball fields and adequate space for various athletic activities. Given the magnitude of growth projected in this Report, the challenge facing the City will be to provide new facilities and park land to serve the recreational needs of these new residents. Without some minor park land acquisition and continued development of currently owned but underutilized park land during the next twenty to thirty years, the City's parks will become overcrowded and overused, with the ultimate result becoming a negative experience for park users. Existing Parks. The City owns forty-six parks representing approximately 537.3 acres of park land. Perris Hill Park (64.4 acres) is the largest park and functions as a community-wide park. Perris Hill Park and the second and third largest parks, the San Bernardino Soccer Complex (50.0 acres) and Seccombe Park (44.0 acres), represent some 30% of the City total park acreage. Table 9-1, on the following page is a summary of the existing park acreage identified more specifically on Schedule 9.1. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 94 Chapter 9 Park and Open Space Land Acquisition and Facilities Development Table 9-1 Current Park Inventory Owned Park Developed Open Space Size Park Size Size Total Acres (Owned) 537.3 537.3 266.9 City Park Standard. Table 9-2, below, is a comparison of the acreage of parks to the City of San Bernardino's current population and indicates that the City presently possesses a total standard of 2.69 acres of owned park land per 1,000 residents, (537.3 acres _ [199,803 residents _ 1,000], rounded). This is slightly below the benchmark of 3.0 acres per 1,000 persons contained in Section 66477 of the California Government Code relating to dedication of parks and the primary reason to adopt park impact fees but, due to the overall number of acres, probably serves the City's population well. However, without the acquisition of more park acres and park improvements and the addition of some 67,000 new residents, the current standard will decrease, as will the park experiences of its many users. Table 9-2 Calculation of Actual City-owned Park Acres Standard Cit Po ulation 199,803 Cit Po ulation - 1,000 199.803 Owned Park Acres 537.3 Park Acres er 1,000 2.69 However, the Quimby Act, to be discussed later, allows a minimum standard of 3.0 acres per thousand population even if the City does not currently reach that standard. This is very important to the City of San Bernardino as the park acres owned standard for the City of San Bernardino is a very reasonable 2.69 acres per 1,000 population. Table 9-3, following, indicates the number of acres the City could acquire and develop, if the Quimby Act Standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 new residents were adopted and imposed. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 95 Chapter 9 Park and Open Space Land Acquisition and Facilities Development Table 9-3 Calculation of Future Developed Park Acres based Upon the Quimby Allowable Standard of 3.0 Acres/1,000 New Residents Future Added Po ulation 67,094 Po ulation Stated in Thousands 67.094 Existin Quimby Act Standard Allowed 3.0 Parks Acres Ac uired throu uimb Act 201.27 Planned Improvements. In addition to the on-going improvement of the existing 537.3 acresz, the City will need to acquire 201.27 park additional acres and develop these new parks to serve the additional residents anticipated to live in the City of San Bernardino at build-out. City staff has not proposed any new park configurations. The 201.27 acres could be constructed in any of the following configurations: Mini or "Pocket" Parks -This the smallest of the parks designations and though generally not planned due to higher maintenance costs, usually are the result of acquiring an unusual parcel of land sometimes with historical significance. La Plaza Park and Newberry park fit this category best. Local or Neighborhood Parks -These parks are generally 3.5 to five acres and serve local (walk-in distance) users. The Colony Park and Harrison Canyon Park well exemplify this category of park. Community or Sport Parks -These parks, to be functional, are usually ten acres or larger and are designed to meet the needs of the entire community. These needs include youth and adult sports organizations, clubs or associations and large scale community events such as 4`h of July celebrations or festivals. Ann Shirrells Park fits the definition of a community sports park. Blair Park, while not a perfect example, is probably the closest the City has to a general use community park, but primarily functions as a sports facility. Special Use Park - As the name implies, these parks serve a limited purpose and due to size or come other factor do meet any of the larger purpose parks previously described. The San Bernardino Soccer Complex and the Pioneer Cemetery Park are good examples of special use parks. Staff has not specifically identified any preferred combination of the above sized parks that would total the roughly 201.27 acres of park land that could be acquired through the adoption of the Quimby Act, deferring probably to the need for a Park and Recreation Facilities Master Plan. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 96 Chapter 9 Park and Open Space Land Acquisition and Facilities Development The park and recreation improvements that could be contained within the 201.27 acres and the allowable Quimby standard (Table 9-3) are both consistent with the City's proposed Park and Recreation Element of the General Plan. The City's current 2.69 acres per 1,000 population standard generally indicates that the City has not here-to-for had a Park impact fee and thus has had difficulty achieving the commonly accepted 3.0 acre per 1,000 residents target set by most municipalities and recreation and park special districts throughout Southern California. Assuming that the 201.27 acres necessary (and financed by) new development are acquired, when General Plan build-out is reached, the City of San Bernardino will need to acquire only an additional 25.1 acres ofpark land outside of the Quimby Act application to achieve a final standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. CALCULATION OF PARK DEDICATION STANDARD Unlike the other facilities discussed in this Report, the California Government Code contains specific enabling legislation for the acquisition and development of community and neighborhood parks by a City. This legislation, codified as Section 66477 of the Government Code and known commonly as the "Quimby Act", establishes criteria for charging new development for park facilities based on specific park standards. This Report will recommend the adoption ofQuimby-style park fees over an AB 1600-style development impact fee for developments requiring the subdivision of land and an AB 1600 fee for non-subdivided land. Allowable Park Standard Again as stated earlier, under Section 66477 of the Government Code, the City may charge new residential development based on a standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 population even if the City does not presently possess a ratio of 3.0 acres per 1,000 for the existing population. Though not relevant to the City of San Bernardino, the Government Code also enables a city to charge development based on a standard higher than 3.0 acres (to a maximum of 5.0 acres) if the City currently exceeds the minimum benchmark ratio of 3.0 acres per 1,000 persons. The law states that "if the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area exceeds the [3 acres of park area per 1,000 person] limit the legislative body may adopt the calculated amount as a higher standard not to exceed 5 acres per 1,000 persons." 3 Park fees may be required by the City provided that the City meets certain conditions including: • The amount and location of land to be dedicated or the fees to be paid shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park by the future inhabitants of the subdivision. • The legislative body has adopted a general plan containing a recreational element, and the park and recreational facilities are in accordance with definite principles and standards contained therein. • The city shall develop a schedule specifying how, when, and where it will use the land or fees, or both, to develop park or recreational facilities Any fees collected under the City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 97 Chapter 9 Park and Open Space Land Acquisition and Facilities Development ordinance shall be committed within five years after the payment of such fees. Determination of Park Standard. As previously identified, the City currently has 2.69 acres of owned and developed park land per 1,000 residents. The current demonstrable standard of developed park land owned is significantly less than the 3.0 acres per 1,000 benchmark cited by the Quimby Act. CALCULATION OF IMPACT COSTS Once a per capita standard for parks is determined, the cost of residential development's impact on the City's park system can then be computed as follows. Park-land Acquisition Costs. Land costs will vary significantly from one proposed park to another. The park land to be acquired should be suitable for park construction and is conservatively estimated at approximately $435,600 per acre (or $10.00/square foot) for parcels in the size (five, ten and twenty acres) required by the City. This is consistent with the cost of land suitable for residential dwelling development. This figure is used in the calculation of the park impact fee. However, the use of this figure could be criticized if a developer can show that the cost of the residential land they are developing is valued less than the $435,600/acre figure. The fee recommendation at the end of the Chapter will recognize this challenge. Park Development Costs. Schedule 9.2 identifies the three major types parks4 that the City will likely construct over General Plan build-outs and the costs of the types and numbers of improvements generally included in that type ofparkb. Public use facilities were not included in the cost calculation, (see Chapter 7). Table 9-4, on the following page, summarizes the average costs to develop an acre of park land for the three types, based on figures which are consistent with the probable improvements and costs to build similar parks incurred by other communities (see Schedule 9.2). The table also indicates the three major types of parks, typical size of those parks and the numbers of those types of parks that could be constructed within the 201 acres the City could finance through adoption of the Quimby Act that would allow the City to provide a balanced coverage of park needs consistent with other park providers. The acres will cost some $39,848,727 to construct for an average construction cost of $199,244 per acre [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page]. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 98 Chapter 9 Park and Open Space Land Acquisition and Facilities Development Table 9-4 Average Park Construction Cost per Acre Type Typical Number Total Cost Total Park of Size of Park per Construction Park In acres Parks Acres Acre Cost Neighborhood Park 5.0 6 30 $134,467 $4,034,010 Community Park 10.0 7 70 $173,122 $12,118,563 Sports Park 25.0 4 100 $236,962 $23,696,155 Total Cost $39,848,728 Total Acres 200 200 Average Cost/Acre $199,244 The $199,244/acre is then increased by 15% to $229,131 to account for the park architectural costs and 24% to $284,122/acre for the project administration, plan check, inspection and materials testing. Lastly, the $284,122 per acre figure is increased by 20% to $340,946 for a typical park project contingency. Average Park Land Acquisition and Development Cost per Capita. The combined park land acquisition and development cost is $776,546 per acre ($435,600 for park land acquisition and $340,946 per acre for the park improvement development). If the City were to charge development for the maximum allowable amount of park acreage as allowed in the Quimby Act and as recommended here, then the City would need to acquire 3.00 acres of new park land for every potential 1,000 new residents to the City. The 3.00 acres of land acquisition and development per 1,000 persons would be $2,329,638 or about $2,329.64 per new resident. Schedule 9.1 calculates the cost to develop 3.00 acres, which again represents the required park land cost for 1,000 persons. Table 9-5, on the following page, indicates the cost per type of residence based upon the average number of occupants per dwelling. [This space left blank to place the following table on a single page] City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 99 Chapter 9 Park and Open~ace Land Acquisition and Facilities Development Table 9-5 Summary of Quimby Park Development Impact Fees for Residential Dwelling Construction Persons Fee Recommended Residential Land Use per per Net Fee Dwellin Person Per Unit Detached Dwellin s 3.501 $2,329.64 $8,156 Attached Dwellin s 2.771 $2,329.64 $6,455 Mobile Home Dwellin s 2.517 $2,329.64 $5,863 The impact fees for Detached Dwelling residential development involving the subdivision of land, as identified in Table 9-5, should be adopted under the auspices of the Quimby Act. The impact fees for residential dwellings not requiring the sub-division of a parcel, will need to be adopted as an AB 1600-supported impact fee.' Park Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Calculation Example. Developers have been allowed to donate sites in the past and it is in the City's best interests to continue this practice. The size of the park needed to serve the proposed residential development is calculated by multiplying the number of single and Attached Dwelling residences to be developed by the average number of people living in the units and then multiplying by three acres per 1,000 residents. The example, demonstrated in Table 9-6, on the following page, calculates the developed park size required for a 750 Detached Dwelling unit development: [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page]. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 100 Chapter 9 Park and Open Space Land Acquisition and Facilities Development Table 9-6 Example of Park Construction In-lieu Fee Acquisition Develop- Total Park Development Requirement Cost ment Cost Cost Pro osed # of Detached Dwellin Homes 750 750 Avera e # of Persons per Dwellin 3.501 3.501 Antici ated Additional Po ulation 2,626 2,626 Basis of Standard ( ersons 1,000 1,000 Added Po ulation divided by 1,000 2.626 2.626 Acres Re uired er 1,000 Po ulation Standard 3.00 3.00 Re uired Acres of Ac uisition/Develo ment 7.88 7.88 Cost per Acre for Ac uisition or Develo ment $435,600 $340,946 Total Park Im act Fee $3,432,528 $2,686,654 $6,119,182 Ac uisition/Develo ment Cost er Acre ($174,230 + $320,099/acre) $776,546 Park Acre Re uirement for the Pro osed 500 SFR Unit Development 7.88 As suggested in the example above, the City and a developer could reach agreement on the park obligation in a number of ways. The following are a few such options. Note that each option produces the required $6,119,182 for 750 detached dwelling development in a number of combinations of land, improvements, or fee payment. Option 1. The developer could make a $6,119,182 Park Land Acquisition and Development Impact Fee payment and the City could use it (and combine with other park impact fees) to construct the park somewhere in the City. However, most large scale developers would probablyprefer that aportion ofthe park requirement be verynear, ifnot within, the proposed subdivision. Option 2. The developer could construct and donate a developed park smaller in size and make a payment for any remaining acres required of the developer. This option is generally used when the proposed residential development is in excess of 750 homes. At no time, however, should a developer be able to receive a credit for constructing their entire park City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 101 Chapter 9 Park and Open Space Land Acquisition and Facilities Development acer obligation as a neighborhood park and ignore the need for sports or community parks. Option 3. The developer could construct a 7.88 acre park and dedicate it to the City. A developed park this size would represent the total $6,119,182 acquisition and development impact fee. This would not likely be an option for the smaller developments resulting in parks less than 3.5 acres in size. Parks of this small size generate significant annual maintenance costs with little benefit beyond the immediate neighborhood, so they are not generally desired. Option 4. The City could combine other impact fees with the developer's 7.88 acre fee or actual park contribution to create a larger park, assuming the developer agrees to make the larger park parcel available. Option 5. The developer could donate 14.05 acres of undeveloped land, ($6,119,182 total park fee requirement - by $435,600/acre cost) and then the City could use other impact fees to develop it. The key to understanding the flexibility of the options above is that each one represents the same amount in terms of a contribution to the City's park system with the result that the same amount has been contributed for each dwelling. Land Acquisition Cost Adjustment Challenge. As mentioned previously, the use of $435,600 as the default park land cost is based upon the assumption that park acreage would likely be close in proximity and thus similar in cost to residential land value ofthe private project the park is intended to serve. However, if the developer or contractor of a home can provide evidence (acceptable to the City), in the form of a recent purchase agreement or appraisal of the property they will be developing that the current land value is worth less than the $435,600/acre (or $10.00/square foot), the impact fee could be adjusted downward accordingly by placing the actual cost of land acquisition into Schedule 9.1. Again, if the City wishes to adopt such an adjustment, the terms under which the challenge may be made and proved should be included in the Impact Fee Ordinance. OPEN SPACE IMPACT FEE COMPONENT Open Space Acquisition Standards and Costs. The City currently owns 266.9 acres of open space within the San Bernardino City limits. Again, based upon a population of 199,803, the standard is 1.34 acres per 1,000 population, (266.9 _[199.903-1000]) =1.34 acres per 1,000 residents). Given the significant amount of open space, albeit privately owned, in the San Bernardino area, existing and new residents will expect that it will continue to exist. This will not necessarily be the case, unless the City takes an active role in acquiring some of the more critical open space parcels. The calculation recognizes that open space, often at a steep grade or slope presupposing development, will be available at far less a cost per acre than park land. This Report uses $1.00 per square foot City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 102 Chapter 9 Park and Open Space Land Acquisition and Facilities Development for open space acquisition. Needless to say, there are typically limited improvements to open space, beyond informal trails and thus an improvement cost component has not been included the Open Space impact fee. At $43,560 per acre and 1.34 acres per 1,000 residents, the cost is $58.37 per new resident, (1.34 X $43,560 = $58,370 =1,000 = $58.37). Table 12-7, following, indicates the fee per type of residential dwelling. Table 9-7 Summary of Open Space Development Impact Fees for Residential Dwelling Construction Persons Fee Recommended Residential Land Use per per Net Fee Dwellin Person Per Unit Detached Dwellings 3.501 $58.37 $204 Attached Dwellin s 2.771 $58.37 $162 Mobile Home Dwellin s 2.517 $58.37 $147 The Park Land and Facilities Development Impact Fee component and the Open Space Acquisition components for residential development are summarized in Table 9-8 following. Table 9-8 Summary of Park Land et. al. Impact Fee and Open Space Impact Fees for Residential Dwelling Construction Park Land Residential Combined Residential Land Use et. ~,1. - Open Space. Impact Fee "~` ~~'~~ ~ ~ ~ Trti act~Fee Itn act Fee Unit Detached Dwellin s $8,156 $204 $8,360 Attached Dwellings $6,455 $162 $6,617 Mobile Home Dwellin s $5,863 $147 $6,010 Open Space Fees for Business Uses. Schedule 12.4 identifies the cost for open space for the City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 103 Chapter 9 Park and Open Space Land Acguisition and Facilities Development business type land-uses. Again, the City has 266.9 acres of open space. There are 1,458.0 acres of developed privately held land within the City's limits. As a result there is 0.01773 acres of open space for each developed privately held acre. The 0.01773 acres of open space per privately held acre is the recommended standard to be applied to the development of vacant acres zoned for commercial, office, and industrial/manufacturing uses. At the same open space land acquisition cost of $1.00 per square foot (or $43,560 per acre), the cost to acquire that 0.01773 of open space would be $772.13. The $772.13 per acre of development will be divided by the varying units from the four differing types of business uses in Table 9-9. Schedule 9.4 is summarized in Table 9-9 below. Table 9-9 Cost Calculation for Business Uses Units Cost/Acre Cost Residential Land Use per of Open per Acre S ace Unit Commercial Lod in Units 5.00 $772.13 $156 CommerciaUOffice S uare Feet 19,940 $772.13 $0.039 Industrial S uare Feet 17,420 $772.13 $0.044 RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES Schedules 9.1 and 9.4 contain the recommended Park and Open Space Land Acquisition and Facilities Development Impact Fees. [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page]. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 104 Chapter 9 Park and Open Space Land Acquisition and Facilities Development CHAPTER ENDNOTES I .Adoption of a Quimby Act fee requires a Park "plan" or General Plan element. 2. The Quimby Act does allow use of revenues raised by the adoption of a Quimby Act Park Impact Fee to be used for rehabilitation of existing parks. 3. California Government Code, Title 7, Division 2, Section 66477 (b). 4. Totaling the roughly 200.0 acres of park land acquisition and development that could be expected to be financed by imposing the proposed impact fees over General Plan build-out. 5. Mini parks are not included in the mix as they are very costly to construct on a per acre cost and generally are expensive maintenance factors. Mini parks are rarely planned for but generally occur as a result of a land donation or as the recognition of a historical site. 6. Public use facilities aze not included in the cost calculations and they have been removed and placed separately in Chapter 7. 7. This is necessary because the Quimby Act is referenced in the Subdivision Codes. Thus it may be necessary for the City to have two sepazate pazk impact funds to insure that no AB 1600 park impact fee revenues are used for rehabilitation purposes. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 105 Schedule 9.1 City of San Bernardino Park Site Inventory Residential Development Impact Fees Quimby Fee for Land Acquisition AB 1600 Fee for Park Construction Acres Developed/ Open Owned or Constructed Space. LT Lease Acres Acres AI Guhin Park 28.00 28.00 0.00 Anne Shirrells Park 12.00 12.00 0.00 Blair Park 34.00 34.00 0.00 Campo Santo Memorial Park 5.50 5.50 0.00 Center for Individual Development 5.00 5.00 0.00 Colony Park 6.40 6.40 0.00 Del Rosa School Field 0.50 0.50 0.00 Del Vallejo School Field 6.00 6.00 0.00 Dellmann Heights Park 19.70 19.70 0.00 Encanto Park 8.90 8.90 0.00 Fifth Street Senior Center Park 0.50 0.50 0.00 Golden Valley School Field 1.00 1.00 0.00 Guadelupe Field 2.25 2.25 0.00 Gutierrez Field 1.98 1.98 0.00 Harrison Canyon Park 6.00 6.00 0.00 Horine Park 5.67 5.67 0.00 Hudson park 10.10 10.10 0.00 La Plaza Park 2.04 2.04 0.00 Littlefield/Shultis Park 15.00 15.00 0.00 Lytle Creek Park 17.90 17.90 0.00 • Meadowbrook Fields 4.96 4.96 0.00 Meadowbrook Park 14.12 14.12 0.00 Mill Park 14.39 14.39 0.00 Newberry Park 1.53 1.53 0.00 Newmark Park 5.02 5.02 0.00 Nicholson Park 9.52 9.52 0.00 Ninth Street Park 3.62 3.62 0.00 North Norton Neighborhood Center 1.00 1.00 0.00 Norton Gym/galaxy Ballroom 3.72 3.72 0.00 Nunez Park 22.04 22.04 0.00 Palm Field 22.30 22.30 0.00 Perris Hill Park 64.40 64.40 0.00 Perris Hill Senior Center 1.00 1.00 0.00 Pioneer Park 5.00 5.00 0.00 Richardson School Fields 1.00 1.00 0.00 San Bernardino Soccer Complex 50.00 50.00 0.00 Seccombe Lake Park 44.00 44.00 0.00 Sierra Park 1.13 1.13 0.00 Sonora Park 0.17 0.17 0.00 Speicer Park 28.00 28.00 0.00 Tom Gould Park 0.51 0.51 0.00 Wildwood Park 24.02 24.02 0.00 Pioneer Cemetary 22.00 22.00 0.00 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 106 Schedule 9.1 City of San Bernardino Park Site Inventory Residential Development Impact Fees Quimby Fee for Land Acquisition AB 1600 Fee for Park Construction Acres Developed/ Open Owned qr Constructed Space LT Lease Acres Acres University Heights 1.00 1.00 0.00 Regency Heights 0.50 0.50 0.00 Irvington/Cable Creek 3.90 3.90 0.00 Shandin Hills Open Space 0.00 0.00 228.00 Hampshire Green Belt 0.00 0.00 8.80 Duffy Street Green Belt 0.00 0.00 5.00 Sterling Beautification Arae 0.00 0.00 2.70 Aquinas Triangle Open Space 0.00 0.00 1.30 Edison Green Belt 0.00 0.00 9.00 Scenic Drive 0.00 0.00 2.10 5th Street Overpass 0.00 0.00 10.00 Total Acres (Owned/Developed) 537.3 537.3 266.9 Current Population 199,803 199,803 199,803 Population/1,000 199.8 199.8 199.8 Current Standard 2.69 2.69 1.34 Acres/1,000 Population Standard (allowed) 3.00 3.00 1.34 Cost per Acre ($10/acre) $435,600 $340,946 $43,560 CostXStandard $1,306,800 $1,022,838 $58,370 Population Served by Standard 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 Cost per Resident $1,306.80 $1,022.84 $58.37 Occupants/ Land Park Open Space Total Park Dwelling. Acquistion Construction Acquistion Impact Fee Detached Dwellings 3.501 $4,575 $3,581 $204 $8,360 Attached Dwellings 2.771 $3,621 $2,834 $162 $6,617 Mobile Home Park 2.517 $3,289 $2,574 $147 $6,010 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 107 Schedule 9.2 City of San Bernardino Parkland Acquisition and Recreation Facilites Development Calculation of Average Park Development Cost Planned Park Size Cost/Acre (1) Total Cost Neighborhood Park #1 5.0 $134,467 $672,335 Neighborhood Park #2 5.0 $134,467 $672,335 Neighborhood Park #3 5.0 $134,467 $672,335 Neighborhood Park #4 5.0 $134,467 $672,335 Neighborhood Park #5 5.0 $134,467 $672,335 Neighborhood Park #6 5.0 $134,467 $672,335 Community Park #1 10.0 $173,122 $1,731,223 Community Park #2 10.0 $173,122 $1,731,223 Community Park #3 10.0 $173,122 $1,731,223 Community Park #4 10.0 $173,122 $1,731,223 Community Park #5 10.0 $173,122 $1,731,223 Community Park #6 10.0 $173,122 $1,731,223 Community Park #7 10.0 $173,122 $1,731 ,223 Sports Park #1 25.0 $236,962 $5,924,039 Sports Park #2 25.0 $236,962 $5,924,039 Sports Park #3 25.0 $236,962 $5,924,039 Sports Park #4 25.0 $236,962 $5,924,039 Total Cost to Construct Parks $39,848,727 Number of Acres 200 0 200 Average Acre Cost for Park Construction $199,244 Park Architectural Plan Design 115% Net-Cost $229,131 Project Administration, Plan Check, Inspection, etc. 124% Net-Cost $284,122 Construction Contingency 120% Net-Cost $340,946 Revenue and Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 108 Schedule 9.3 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Park Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park Unit Cost, Installed : 5 Acre Neighborhood 2Q Acre Community Park Pub Imps, Road/curb, gutter, etc. $121 Linear Foot 1,040 $125,840 2,704 $327,184 Lg Pk Grading/Irrigation/Turf $20,000 Acre 0 $0 15 $300,000 Sm Pk Grading/Irrigation/Turf $25,000 Acre 5 $125,000 0 $0 Plant Material: Trees-5, 24 gallon box/acre $90 Each 60 $5,400 225 $20,250 Trees-15, 15 gallon/acre $175 Each 30 $5,250 75 $13,125 Shrubs-10, five gallon $20 Each 40 $800 150 $3,000 Shrubs-30, one gallon $8 Each 120 $960 450 $3,600 Play apparatus Curbing, 450' per large $25.00 Linear Foot 0 $0 450 $11,250 Curbing, 225' per small $25.00 Linear Foot 225 $5,625 225 $5,625 Play equipment -large $75,000 Lot 0 $0 1 $75,000 Play equipment -medium $60,000 Lot 1 $60,000 0 $0 Play equipment -small $45,000 Lot 0 $0 2 $90,000 Sand/Other Surfacing $3,500 Lot 1 $3,500 3 $10,500 Buildings: Restroom -Small $80,000 Each 1 $80,000 1 $80,000 Restroom -Large $110,000 Each 0 $0 1 $110,000 Equipment storage facility $60,000 Each 0 $0 0 $0 Combined Restroom/Concession $180,000 Each 0 $0 1 $180,000 Parking Lot 4" A.C. W/6" Rock base $5.00 Square foot 12,000 $60,000 40,000 $200,000 V-gutter $8.00 Linear Foot 300 $2,400 800 $6,400 Drain Inlet $600 Each 1 $600 2 $1,200 Drain Inlet connector $200 Each 1 $200 2 $400 Storm drain line $12.00 Linear Foot 300 $3,600 200 $2,400 Drive approach $1,800 Each 1 $1,800 4 $7,200 Perimeter curbing $10.00 Linear Foot 490 $4,900 800 $8,000 Striping $0.30 Linear Foot 400 $120 1,300 $390 Lighting $1,800 Each 2 $3,600 18 $32,400 Lot signage $200 Lot 1 $200 3 $600 Entrance $3,000 Lot 1 $3,000 3 $9,000 Curb and Gutter $9.25 Linear Foot 3,780 $34,965 3,232 $29,896 Storm Drainage Facilities Inlets $800 Each 2 $1,600 4 $3,200 Connections $1,300 Each 2 $2,600 4 $5,200 Lateral (to arterial) $50.00 Linear Foot 45 $2,250 80 $4,000 Sewer Facilities Connection to arterial $2,500 Lot 1 $2,500 1 $2,500 Line in street $65.00 Linear Foot 29 $1,885 80 $5,200 Line in park $15.00 Linear Foot 125 $1,875 1,500 $22,500 Fire Hydrant $3,000 Each 1 $3,000 6 $18,000 Street Lights Standards $1,500 Each 3 $4,500 20 $30,000 109 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 Schedule 9.3 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Park Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park Unit Cost, Installed 5 Acre Neighborhood 20 Acre Community Park Duct work/wiring $950 Each 3 $2,850 12 $11,400 Water Facilities 3" Metered service $2,500 Each 1 $2,500 1 $2,500 Backflow device $2,500 Each 1 $2,500 1 $2,500 Line in street $12.00 Linear Foot 1,320 $15,840 120 $1 ,440 Water fountains $700.00 Each 1 $700 8 $5,600 Fountain lines in park $12.00 Linear Foot 200 $2,400 1,000 $12,000 Benches/Tables Tables, cement pads $1,500 Each 4 $6,000 60 $90,000 Individual Grills $500 Each 2 $1,000 30 $15,000 Benches, cement pads $550 Each 4 $2,200 30 $16,500 Bleachers $3,500 Each 0 $0 0 $0 Large Covered Picnic Area (lot) $75,000 Each 0 $0 2 $150,000 Individual Covered Picnic Pad $15,000 Each 1 $15,000 10 $150,000 User electrical service park $10,000 Each 0 $0 1 $10,000 Electrical service per area $1,250 Each 1 $1,250 6 $7,500 Game Courts $0 $0 Basketball courts $40,000 Each 1.0 $40,000 1 $40,000 Basketball Court Lighting $35,000 Each 0 $0 0 $0 Fenced tennis courts $60,000 Each 0 $0 2 $120,000 Tennis Court Lighting $35,000 Each 0 $0 0 $0 Baseball Field -competitive $50,000 Each 0 $0 0 $0 Ballfield Lighting $250,000 Per two fields 0 $0 0 $0 Baseball Field -recreational $15,000 Each 1 $15,000 6 $90,000 Pedestrian Walkway 5' wide $13.50 Linear Foot 500 $6,750 2,000 $27,000 6' wide $17.50 Linear Foot 100 $1,750 500 $8,750 9' wide $22.50 Linear Foot 100 $2,250 500 $11,250 Miscellaneous Flatwork $3.75 Linear Foot 500 $1,875 8,500 $31 ,875 Small Park Signage $2,750 Lot 1 $2,750 0 $0 Large Park Signage $15,000 Lot 0 $0 1 $15,000 Bike Rack/Pad $1,750 Each 1 $1,750 6 $10,500 Natural Element Improvement (Lake, a $500,000 Each 0 $0 0 $0 Small concrete stage $25,000 Each 0 $0 0 $0 Small Ampitheater stage only, graded $50,000 Each 0 $0 0 $0 Large Ampitheater with bowl $150,000 Each 0 $0 1 $150,000 Total Cost 672,335 $2,596,835 Total Acres 5 15 Average Cost per Acre $134,467 $173,122 110 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 Schedule 9.3 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Park Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park Unit Cost, Installed 20 Acre Spurts Park Pub Imps, Road/curb, gutter, etc. $121 Linear Foot 2,704 $327,184 Lg Pk Grading/Irrigation/Turf $20,000 Acre 20 $400,000 Sm Pk Grading/Irrigation/Turf $25,000 Acre 0 $0 Plant Material: Trees-5, 24 gallon box/acre $90 Each 150 $13,500 Trees-15, 15 gallon/acre $175 Each 50 $8,750 Shrubs-10, five gallon $20 Each 100 $2,000 Shrubs-30, one gallon $8 Each 300 $2,400 Play apparatus Curbing, 450' per large $25.00 Linear Foot 450 $11,250 Curbing, 225' per small $25.00 Linear Foot 225 $5,625 Play equipment -large $75,000 Lot 0 $0 Play equipment -medium $60,000 Lot 1 $60,000 Play equipment -small $45,000 Lot 2 $90,000 Sand/Other Surfacing $3,500 Lot 3 $10,500 Buildings: Restroom -Small $80,000 Each 1 $80,000 Restroom -Large $110,000 Each 1 $110,000 Equipment storage facility $60,000 Each 1 $60,000 Combined Restroom/Concession $180,000 Each 2 $360,000 Parking Lot 4" A.C. W/6" Rock base $5.00 Square foot 40,000 $200,000 V-gutter $8.00 Linear Foot 800 $6,400 Drain Inlet $600 Each 2 $1,200 Drain Inlet connector $200 Each 2 $400 Storm drain line $12.00 Linear Foot 200 $2,400 Drive approach $1,800 Each 4 $7,200 Perimeter curbing $10.00 Linear Foot 800 $8,000 Striping $0.30 Linear Foot 1,300 $390 Lighting $1,800 Each 18 $32,400 Lot signage $200 Lot 3 $600 Entrance $3,000 Lot 3 $9,000 Curb and Gutter $9.25 Linear Foot 1,664 $15,392 Storm Drainage Facilities Inlets $800 Each 4 $3,200 Connections $1,300 Each 4 $5,200 Lateral (to arterial) $50.00 Linear Foot 80 $4,000 Sewer Facilities Connection to arterial $2,500 Lot 1 $2,500 Line in street $65.00 Linear Foot 80 $5,200 Line in park $15.00 Linear Foot 1,500 $22,500 Fire Hydrant $3,000 Each 1 $3,000 Street Lights Standards $1,500 Each 20 $30,000 111 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 Schedule 9.3 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Park Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park Unit Cost, Installed 20 Acre Sports Park Duct work/wiring $950 Each 5 $4,750 Water Facilities 3" Metered service $2,500 Each 1 $2,500 Backflow device $2,500 Each 1 $2,500 Line in street $12.00 Linear Foot 120 $1,440 Water fountains $700.00 Each 8 $5,600 Fountain lines in park $12.00 Linear Foot 1,000 $12,000 Benches/Tables Tables, cement pads $1,500 Each 30 $45,000 Individual Grills $500 Each 10 $5,000 Benches, cement pads $550 Each 15 $8,250 Bleachers $3,500 Each 8 $28,000 Large Covered Picnic Area (lot) $75,000 Each 0 $0 Individual Covered Picnic Pad $15,000 Each 4 $60,000 User electrical service park $10,000 Each 1 $10,000 Electrical service per area $1,250 Each 4 $5,000 Game Courts $0 Basketball courts $40,000 Each 3 $120,000 Basketball Court Lighting $35,000 Each 8 $280,000 Fenced tennis courts $60,000 Each 8 $480,000 Tennis Court Lighting $35,000 Each 8 $280,000 Baseball Field -competitive $50,000 Each 8 $400,000 Ballfield Lighting $250,000 Per two fields 4 $1,000,000 Baseball Field -recreational $15,000 Each 0 $0 Pedestrian Walkway 5' wide $13.50 Linear Foot 1,000 $13,500 6' wide $17.50 Linear Foot 250 $4,375 9' wide $22.50 Linear Foot 250 $5,625 Miscellaneous Flatwork $3.75 Linear Foot 4,000 $15,000 Small Park Signage $2,750 Lot 0 $0 Large Park Signage $15,000 Lot 1 $15,000 Bike Rack/Pad $1,750 Each 6 $10,500 Natural Element Improvement (Lake, a $500,000 Each 0 $0 Small concrete stage $25,000 Each 1 $25,000 Small Ampitheater stage only, graded $50,000 Each 0 $0 Large Ampitheater with bowl $150,000 Each 0 $0 Total Cost $4,739,231 Total Acres 20.00 Average Cost per Acre $236,962 112 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 Schedule 9.4 City of San Bernardino 2005-06 Development Impact Fee Study Open Space Acquisition Impact Fee for Business Use Acres Total Acres of Open Space (per Schedule 12.1) including parks 266.9 Total Privately-held Developed Acres (per Schedule 2.1) 15,057.2 Acres of Open Space per Privately-held Developed Acre 0.01773 Cost of Land (per acre) $43,560 Cost of Open Space Acre per Developed Acre $772.13 Average Impact Fee Unts/Acre per Unit Hotel/Motel Rooms per Acre 5.0 $156 per Room Square Foot Pad per Commercial Acre 19,940.0 $0.039 per S. F. Square Foot Pad per Industrial Acre 17,420.0 $0.044 per S.F. 113 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 Appendix A Summary of Recommendations 114 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 3 -Law Enforcement Facilities and Equipment • Adopt Schedule 3.3, p.37, Financial Commitment (Equity). Chapter 4 -Fire Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment • Adopt Schedule 4.3, page 51, Financial Commitment (Equity) Chapter 5 -Local Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System • Adopt Schedule 5.2, page75, Local Circulation System Marginal Needs-based Impact Fees. Chapter 5 -Regional Circulation (Interchanges and Grade Separations) System • Adopt Schedule 5.5, page78, Regional (SANBAG) Circulation System Impact Fees. Chapter 6 -Library Facilities and Collections • Adopt Schedule 6.1, page 84. Chapter 7 -Public Meeting Facilities • Adopt Schedule 6.1, page 89. Chapter 8 -Aquatics Facilities • Adopt Schedule 8.1, page 93 Chapter 9- Park and Open Space Land Acquisition and Park land Development • Create Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Fund, Note (1). • Adopt Schedule 9.1, pages 106-107 ,for residential uses requiring the sub-division of land for Quimby Act application. • Create AB1600 Park Land Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Fund, Note (1) • Adopt Schedule 9.1, pages 106-107, for residential uses not requiring the sub-division of land for AB1600 application. • Adopt Schedule 9.4, page 113 for Business Uses Open Space Impact Fee. (1). Separate Park Land Acquisition and Development Funds are necessary because the Quimby Act allows use of receipts for rehabilitation of existing facilities whereas the AB1600 requirements prevent such expenditures. 115 Appendix B Expanded Land-use Database 116 City of San Bernardino ~ Developed Undeveloped Total. City Sphere of Influence. .Acres # of Units Acres # of Units Acres # of Units Detached Dwelling Units 7,566.0 40,663 4,516.0 12,354 12,082.00 53,017 Attached Dwelling Units 1,613.0 19,415 811.0 8,599 2,424.00 28,014 Mobile Home Units 746.0 4,475 1.0 6 747.00 4,481 Commercial Lodging 98.2 2,455 126.0 625 224.20 3,080 Commercial/Office KSF 2,403.0 54,508 1,594.0 31,783 3,997.01 86,291 Industrial Uses KSF 2,631.0 45,843 2,795.0 48,700 5,426.00 94,543 Total -City Sphere 15,057.2 9,843.00 r 24,900.21 Private Residences 9,925.0 64,553 5,328.0 20,959 15,253.0 85,512 Commercial Lodging Rooms 98.2 2,455 126.0 625 224.2 3,080 Business Square Feet 5,034.0 100,350 4,389.0 80,483 9,423.0 180,833 Land-use Database Area #1 Developed Undeveloped Total - Urban "in-fill° Acres: # of :Units Acres # of Units Acres # of Units Detached Dwelling Units 7,566.0 40,663 4,428.0 11,889 11,994.00 52,552 Attached Dwelling Units 1,613.0 19,415 745.0 8,041 2,358.00 27,456 Mobile Home Units 746.0 4,475 1.0 6 747.00 4,481 Commercial Lodging 88.2 2,205 1.0 25 89.20 2,230 Commercial/Office KSF 2,403.0 54,431 1,357.0 30,738 3,760.00 85,169 Industrial Uses KSF 2,631.0 45,843 2,795.0 48,700 5,426.00 94,543 Sub-totat Urban In-fill Area 15,047.2 9,327.00 24,374.20 Land-use Database Area #2 Developed Undevelaped Total - Arrowhead Springs S.P.A. Acres # of Units Acres. # of Units Acres # of Units Detached Dwelling Units 0.0 0 88.0 465 88.00 465 Attached Dwelling Units 0.0 0 66.0 558 66.00 558 Mobile Home Units 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 Commercial Lodging 10.0 250 125.0 600 135.00 850 Commercial/Office KSF 0.0 77 237.0 1,045 237.01 1 ,122 Industrial Uses KSF 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 Sub-total Arrowhead SPA 10.0 327 516.00 2,668 526.01 2,995 117 Appendix C Master Facilities Plan (see separate document) ils End of Report City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 119