The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About23-City Manager ORIGINAL CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION From: Fred Wilson, City Manager Subject: Public hearing to consider an ordinance establishing and modifying certain development impact fees, and a resolution setting certain development impact fees. FIRST READING Dept: City Manager's Office Date: March 17,2006 MICC Meeting Date: March 20, 2006 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: November 21, December 5, and December 19,2005 - Council workshop was held to discuss development impact fees January 9, 2006 " Staff was directed to work with the Council members regarding their specific development fee impact adjustment concerns, and to move forward to prepare the necessary resolutions and ordinances February 6, 2006 - Item continued for 30 days March 6, 2006 " Council set a public hearing for Monday, March 20, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. to consider adjusting and/or establishing certain development impact fees, and directed staff to prepare the appropriate resolution(s) and/or ordinance(s) to implement the proposed new and adjusted impact fees, and to proceed with the studies to update the storm drain and Verdemont infrastructure impact fees. Recommended Motion: That the hearing be continued to April 3, 2006; that said resolution be said ordinance be laid over for final adoption. Contact person: Lori Sassoon Phone: 5122 Supporting data attached: staff report ordinance, resolution Ward: all FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: none by this action Source: (Ace!. No.) (Ace!. Description) Finance: Council Notes: ~ Dnto -11 f-~ frdS; ,~/2()16~ Agenda Item No. ;1:/0& ST AFF REPORT Subiect: Public hearing to consider an ordinance establishing and modifying certain development impact fees, and a resolution setting certain development impact fees. Backl!:round: Development continues to move ahead at a record pace throughout the city. The rate of gro\';1h continues to drive the demand for municipal services, which in turn generates the need for expansion of the City's public facilities in order to provide those services. Years ago, the State recognized the need for cities to be able to meet infrastructure demands created by development, and passed AB 1600. This bill specifically authorizes the imposition of development impact fees (OIF's). In order to justify these impact fees, a nexus study is required to demonstrate the connection between development and the need for capital projects. The City has charged impact fees for traffic systems and park development for many years. These fees have not been adjusted for a considerable amount of time. In addition, new impact fees for police and fire facilities and equipment, aquatics facilities, public meeting facilities, and library facilities/materials are being proposed to help fund capital expenditures related to the provision of services to the community that are strained by new development. The new regional circulation systems fee required by Measure I 2010- 2040 is also proposed to be established to comply with that measure. To that end, a consultant was retained to develop the nexus study. and the study began in July. The study demonstrates a need to increase these fees in order to provide funds for capital projects necessitated by development throughout the community. Discussion workshops concerning this issue have been held with the Mayor and Council on November 21, December 5, and December 19. Staff has also met twice times with representatives of the Baldy View Chapter of the Building Industry Association (BIA) to discuss their perspective and concerns. At the January 9 Council meeting, staff was directed to work with individual councilmembers to address their respective issues. Following up on the feedback received from the majority of the Council, although certain councilmembers have expressed concerns, this item was again considered by the Mayor and Council on February 20. After some discussion and comments from IVDA, Hillwood. BIA, and others, the Mayor and Council continued the matter for 30 days. In February and March, staff met with IVDA, Hillwood, and the BIA to discuss the proposed OIF updates and study methodology. A response was prepared and sent to the letter submitted to the Mayor and Council on February 1 by the National Association of Office and Industrial Properties (NAIOP). Copies of the OIF study have been provided to all parties that have requested the documentation. A number of local developers have also contacted staff to obtain information. 1 Subsequent to the March 6 Council meeting, staff has agreed to certain modifications to the DIF study related to the removal of certain traffic systems projects that are proposed to be funded primarily through federal funds. That change has resulted in a minor reduction to the regional and local traffic systems fees. The changes to the DIF study are attached and labeled Addendum #1, dated March 8, 2006. The proposed ordinance and resolution: . Circulation system fee, regional circulation improvements fee, police and fire equipment and facilities fees, aquatics fee, and library facilities and materials fee at the levels shown on Schedule 2.2 of Addendum #1 . Public meeting facilities fee, and park and open space fee phased in over a four (4) year period as follows, based on the date of building permit issuance: o 2006: 70% of amounts shown on Schedule 2.2 Addendum #1 o 2007: 80% o 2008: 90% o 2009 and beyond: 100% Attachment A summarizes the proposed fees. The survey (Attachment B) has also been updated to reflect the fee changes and new fees proposed above. Some councilmembers have expressed concerns that DIF revenues should be used to fund projects in the area in which the fees were generated. Pages 2-3 of the RCS report notes the following: "AB 1600 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... Specifically, AB 1600 requires the following: 1. Delineation of the PURPOSE of the fee. 2. Determination of the USE ofthefee. 3. Determination of the RELA TIONSHIP between the use of the fee and the type of development paying the fee. 4. Determination of the relationship between the NEED for the facility and the type of development project. 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. " As a practical matter, some of the revenues derived from the fees are likely to be used for projects in areas experiencing development, since the needs for new infrastructure are typically found in those areas of the city. 2 In a separate action, staff is working with the consultant to update the existing Verdemont infrastructure fee and storm drain fee. These fee updates will be brought back to the Mayor and Council for approval in May. On a go-forward basis, it is anticipated that the City's development impact fees will be updated annually. Other cities take this routine approach, and it is one that is also supported by the BIA. In a separate matter, IVDA/SBIAA has requested an exemption agreement that would exempt the airport area from paying local and regional traffic systems fees for a defined period of time. That agreement is also scheduled for consideration at the March 20 meeting. Financial Imoact: None by this action. According to the RCS study, the total revenue to be derived from DIF's through build-out (which is anticipated by 2030) is estimated to provide over $400 million to fund facilities and equipment needed to support new development. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Mayor and Common Council: 1. Adopt resolution; and 2. Lay said ordinance over for final adoption 3 Attachment A - Summary of proposed new and adjusted development impact fees Local Circulation s,ystem Fee Regional Circula.ti~n ::;y!!~_m I_~p~~~e~t!~(f~~ (NJ~:Y'!''- Law Enforcement}acJiities,_ ~qu_jp~ent~Vehicles Fee,(N-EW) F.ire ~uPP~~!i!_~i~n~a~~!it~~~.Eq~ipme~!. Vehi~les _FEte (~!=~) Library Fac~!{t~es and _~~U~cJi-~_~- F~~-I~_~\iVf- Aquatics F~c-il~~_i_es-Fef!'(~g~ Public Meeting Facilities -Fee (NEW) Set the fee at 70% of prop-osed lev.el for i606 B(Yivo-o-f proposed ieveffor-io-6i 90%o'--jJ-rop'osed level for200a 1000/0 of proposed-ie-ve-I for 26"~9 and bey~nci Parkland and Open Space Acquisition and Park Improvement Fee Setthefeeat70%ofpropo-sedlevef-for--zooe--- -- - --.- -----... - --. a-o% of- propo-sed-levefTor2007-------- .-. 90% oTproposed levej-for-:iOOB 100% of pr~po~ed level..t~~ ~_Op9__~~d ~~Y9_n_~ Detached dwelling units 'Attci-Cj,ed -dw-ejling-un-i-ts- . MObTIe-h-omeunTts,.---- i Co-mmerciai"lodg-ing . Commercial/office- - ~ Ind:lJ.-stnaluses- ---- 1 Detached dwelling units- I~i!~~h~~~~~~9j~~iis_- ~~bjll:' home_units" -, CommerciaTloa-gmg- [g~~~_~~f~l/_o~i~e-"- 'Industrial uses J. _ _._ __ _ _n_ ____ _" Detached dwelling units i Attactled -dwe<<mg--unlts j~-~~~~~~_l:'_~~t!~ Commercial lodging . CommerCi"alioffTce - - t--------------- --- -l!~dus~i~_u~~_~__ I u___~u_ ; Detached dwelling units l~~~~~ci~-~~_j!~n~ _~~t~_ IMobile home units. ~Comme;:cfaf16dgTng , C-ommerciaVofflce ,lndustr~al uses__ -Detached clweTling units :-~tta~hed ~welfj~~~~it~_ ; M~~lIe home umts. Detached dwelling units 'Attached dwe-uing -units 'Mobile ho"me un-iis.- -- 2006 {70%} 'Detached dwelling-units . Alt!l_c~edciwelling- units Mobile home units. - [J007180"!o) ~_ u Detached dwelling units 'i\ttached 'dwelling units _. :MobI~~~~me"-u~ks-=~~ 2008 (90';;) ,Detached dwelling units ~ Attad,e-cT clweiTIng unIts -- ~ Mobile'home' units..------ l' -- ---- - u ----- ----------- --- i2009 and beyond (100%). t'Oetachecfdwelling units- +-$- -- --------.Attached d-welllng'unlts- i $ !Mobile hom-e- unrts.-- ----- ; S- r----------" T , 12006 (70%}___~ __ i Detached dwelling units -:-Attadiecidwelllng--urilts -~MobHe-ho-me uni-ts" --- --;2067.--(8~~Y -__ __ _ _ _____ 'Detached dwelling units - ~Attachecrdwelling-u-nrts---- - Mobile-homE! unlts.- - --- 2008(90%) . Detached dwellin-g-u-niis __ .0lt~-~~{~~ei~~-.i~_i~ I Mobile home units. - +-'----------- ---..- -1---- 0--.------ --..- 2009 and beyond f1000M - --- + Detached dwelling unrts : Attached-dweiTIng -urirts- 1 Moblie-homeuruis. -. ~ $ ~$ $ ~ $ $ $ $ $ '$ $ 1$ :$ $ $ $ $ '$ $- '$ $ . $-- $ .$ $ $ $ $ $ $ T $ U $_ .~ - j $ i$ $ "feis for ~o~~~_bomes shall ~pply_ to 1l)_~~!!~~~f!:I~_~ I_o~a!e~ J~ m_oEde_ hO,m_~ p~rk~~_or m~~~f~_~_u~~ ~o_~si!:lS located in manufactured housin communities. City Administrator's Office 3/14/2006 $ $ $ $ 3; $ 195 ~ pe!. unit 130 per unit ~o~=p~r u~~! 103 per unit 0.211 ~per sqit 0.12~- ~p_e!~~_q ft -1. 8.cf9 ~per ~n~_ 1,i35- per unit --967-~perunli 9-j3-~ per-~unit 1 . 994 -per sq-ff 1 268j,ersq it 53s--'pe-runit 474 -'per un(t jo:f~er unit- 29~er' unlt- - - 0.242 'peroq ff 0005 :pe, sq ii ---6-63" ~perun~ - 818 .per unit 531 ;per un-it ~_~IIP~r ~n_i(_ 0242 ~er sq ff 0.002 ),erig It ~ 534 :-p-ei-unlt -- 423 : per unit 384~~er unit 273 : p~r uni~ 216 ~pe~ ur:,it 196 . per uf1j~ 670 : per unit s30jperlJr1ii 4~2 wer unit 766--j-pe"r unit 606-~per unlt- 55~ _:~ei_~iii~ it $ . $ n 861- 'per-unit 681'.-per unit ___"_~~_9 ~p'e~ilijLt . ~ $ $ 7,52~~eer unit 5.955 _per Unit -~~~~_JP~~~~~L- ~i ,$ $ ~ ~ In w ;:: () w a: ii: ::E w c z " ... '!; a: o LL Z o '" a: " a. ::E o o w W LL I- o " a. ~ >- ." ~ ii5 o c ~ .. E .. '" c .. '" ~ o ~ U '" o o N ~ ." ~ .. ." a. ~ 1:! .. E " .. a. .. C ~ .. U .~ .. '" 1:! . E a. o .. > .. C e ~ ~ i EI~ u.. . . . " ~,! ~,~ B ~ i ~:.~; ~~:j: ~, ,::lEI . . E 0' ~ . 1; ; ~ .. C lIJj c3 ~~ II 'u M '1, ~.. o .!:!,~! :0 ~ .. :::J : 0.1'" , ], ~I >0-1 .A, ., : E,t;1 i&,:.i , ' . ~ :J: ~ ~ .0 :J I ~ a -' E c . , ". ! I u: !~, gi 10,1&., ,0 , ~!B: ic3,~i '.!:!i ~ ~ii' ~ :]0' l'Ii"O '!j~l~ C 0 <0(,0 ! (; '8~ . z I ~ ~ N 71(3 ~ gg, (f) ~ g E U U) ~ ~ ~~ ~ .... ~ - o .... Me 00 ,~- .~1; ; ~ o 1: C o o 0. '" o o .. .. o ~ o ~ . C ~ , ~ ! ""w . M ;:~ .. '" => .... o ~ ~ ~ _v ~ 14~ -~ "' o C ~ 'i!ri c~ ~ ~ g~ .. ~~ .; . 0: :; .~ ~ v' .~ 0. ~ ~ o o ~ . ~ OM .~ .. M ... OM ... .. ~ ~ g~ .. C . 0: ~ .. o ... o ~ .~ .. >- .... o .. . a: .. ~ ~ : . C o is u :;l M ;( .. ;l :; ~ v o ;( ~ ~ ~ .. :;i ~ .. ~ .. a M :i: '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ M .. M ~ : ~ N ~ .. ~ ~ ~ " . C ~ ~ N ~ ~ o M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::l S : ~ v ~ t M..~>cnloCO>O ~>fJ.:; ~,g=~~ ... e.MQ.. ...tIt AN o .!! 0 !E eM o ~ ~ !i ;, ~-ii:-:-u ~~;:: m.;8 ~i= .~w "5 :t... M :s! - 0-00 :0~ ~ ~ '" z ~ ~ ;;; :: :;i o ~ :;; o o o ;( ~ ~ ~ ~ o :;: ~ o ~ o ~ :;i E ~ o Z . .. C ~ . ~ ~ M ~ ~ o :;: :;: o g :;i N ~ .. N N .. ~ :;: M a ~ = ~ ~ 8 ~ :;i .. V N :; i ~ ~ N ;;; M :; :;: ~ N .. M !i ~ :;i .. ~ N ~ .. ~ ~ N ~ : v ~ ! ! N ~ N ~ ~ N a ~ ~ = ~ o '- ::: ~ . " > o C . is " 8 is z g .. :;i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "': ;;; .. ~ N ;;; .. ~ ~ :! o 8. ;;; ~ ~ ~ .. i ~ -'l Q jj 6 ~ ;! = ~ :;i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = N ~ :;: o o ~ :;i ~ .. o = .. ~ ~ a ~ .. ~ .. N ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ;( 5 " z ;:: .. o a. ::> :J, C ~ g u ex: N .. ~ .. o :; ;( o ~ o ;( ~ ~ ~ ~ o o 0, ;;; N M o .. .. = ~ ~~9 ;; !Jl~ . ~ " . ex: ;; ~ ~ i M a ~ ;;; ::: : ~ o ~ N :! :;i \; ~ ~ ~ ~ ;l .. a B " ri' M ~ ~ t ~ :;: M ~ N ~ ~ :;i ~ o .. ~ ..; .. v o ~ :;: ~ ! .. ~ ~ ri' o ~ v E ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ N o .. ~ :;: ;( ~ M :i ~ ~ .. ~ :; ~ :;; ~ M ~ .. g"- ~I N ..:1 ,tit "i v 0 : .~ ti tit ~ ... .. ! i . '. ': I ~ .. v ;;; , ~ ~ . ~ q.. I ~ o . a. ~ >- o ~ g;: ~ ~' ~ ~I::: ~,~ ;~I:;;~- N;N,NjN lilt ","'" a: . , , I' i : , : ~!~~~ ~~~10.JO. :ti:l!:tl: 0: I v i! , . ~i~i~i~ Il1O'Il1O:Il1O,00 ;'! ~. ..'..'.... ~!~i~l~ f''tf'!.:f'!.IN. :;I;;I:;!:; ::!i ~I i 0, 0' ~l , . SI~J~~~ "I"i"!" ,;!I~'::!I'" ";Fj~l- :;1:;;:;1:; i ' I ~1~1~!s M1M-I,.;I..; ","I"!" ~i~iil= ..;...... , ~1~i51: "1"i"I" ~ ~I ;;;! III! , i ~!= ;s!s ~:::-~-1:- ..:....'.. i i I , , . "'IM''''IM :l:!:i: , ; M",MI'" :i:!=:= , , , I , , i I 1 i I , M:MI!,,!M ~I~I~I~ "1"1"," , ; i I I I Ii' , , I I: I i' ;:1 Ie: ~i i ; i U) ,~ . I I , "'I!~t~ o~o;o ~~I]1~ ~~~i~ ~~~e ~ml~! U)!U)!U)!U) 1'- :,:,~ 101010 !~;~~~.;~- ~,..:..!.. g i~ ~ il " -r-~1r-r- ,> , , ~ riH i :d;( -. , ......,,- ~,~I~ M ~~ ~:~:~ ~i~;=:: l~l~1~' ~'~:~! , "g'gjg :o!o:o j:=!=!:t , ;---- - ~ :-r '-, L < ~I T i f--'--:- ~. , , ..-_.11 : 3'3;3 I i~;t;( I' I ! !~ , , , --t----- -~-m "''','' .~t !~;!;.. _c,~ , ....;....I~ ;i~:t ~1::!11:~ ..I.... 1 , I, , ~~-'i , 1'~!~1~ ! , ...... ' , . i · i '!' , I ' i I' , I! ; 1 -; -I i~l~j~ I I.-~.- ...- '''i''I'' i ' - ---:- ~ , f-+-- , ; I I I : I~,~'~ !~i"'" -i '-J-J--:- I I - '+t- ,I " :~r! I!, ,~I , , I i~i : I ' j~~W- I~! ' I i '~i i i 18: 111::'1 , I ,~ :=: i i Ii ';fl~~ o I;i I ~ ~' i!!1 1:9 ~I i~'~~ UIIll. ....1.N ~ : ~ ~: ~ w g N'N ~i 1;; .:1.: 51 :g 5'> -- . ~.!!'~~ .;J.,UtUt !~I~; '-~.;l;::-i ":.."':J":. '-1'-'''' .., "i" E'EJE ;!:;:~ :-+- :~ ~g :o,oi 1 110.1100.,]1,0. ,~i~l~ I ....'........:1 '-, I ::g.:g:: '" i :..1.... ~ 1 ! ,.~~ ii f I '=I~I= 1< ! I -j i! f+ i i ! i !~!! i I '_~i i: IS! II t T-'.~ ~!~f-ji!. i 1::1: ili : ! i i ! ~ i:i . ~I ' :~"I !.IL :;:1,:;1: .. 10, :::,: "'1 ~. I~, ! f--t-,-t ~ iliL . 51, 11 ~. 1:1 . ..+-:--- ~ jl I; f-- 1 ii~~1 . ' ; I '=1 ~~I ~i : !~,I"JIC'1 1~ N ~! i 'l;jl;,l; ,ul'~'~i ! i'~..~l':' ci 511 ' . ",WI".u. II !. : ITi I ~U.jLI I~ I.~'I. !. . ,. "Iil' j;! ~ 1:~IQf- ~ ~I ~Ijl ~. .. 11:111 ~! I~I~~ sPIi!Ur ~: :u:i:tl~ .~~Il I~I' . I ~~~L f . ~~fl ii' . I '~ill~ o I .. I' ~ l'u.1 ~I ,I g II ilftl. ~I ' ~ , ~I~ ~i r~ ~I';~: ~I.ll,~ ~~!I ~I i~I~I~~ 1.lii1i;1 ~ ~I~~ 1!'111 101 ililll.L1. U::j'sI"! !::, g 515 IE I~ :11 i I ~ '" li! . C , .., .E C .. . .0 . 1; ; w : . ~ .E w g C o 1l ~ c g 0: Z W ;; , c ~ . .. , .. .. 1; C o .. " '1 ~ o ~ . . l! .. . 1; . e- o. .. .. . 1; z -' .!! t: :l' o g :f . C o .. !i ;; . .. .. . ~ i .. .. '" ;; .. E .. t: .. . ~ .. . E o ~ t: :l' 8 '" . c o .. : . !" 11_;) S- f. qLJh( {.i m.tJ/? / {J A--t-- 13 - ~ ~~ c:\'S'- ~~ ~ ~ 01 ~e m~~ u.::IGl ... C' s.. oln 0 !Ii!~J !>:(I)(I) .....~o ....::I'tl IIllD81 ~6al If .t: ~ t5 :5 .~ !Cl~ E~ -- ... ..(1)0 ai!tl oeO .5 0. iij 'tlO....c "'-CI ""~Q)'2 ~~:2Gl (1,1 al_;lz ('\j lij oa:iij ~ (I) ~ ~ .5 ~ '0 E <II ~ {j .~g~~ In U(/)~tll 'I! '2 f '! ~ ..: ::I ::I ::I ;;/ III III l I. l I I 1 . ~ ~ I. I ~ .. 0 . .. j . l; l; l ~ I ~ i. ~.I.. ~ a I ~ '.' e~.~i~11 I~j, t.. ti I' i' ..'1..: Ii..:...... - i .' ,. .. .. .' ..... · .' .... "'.... : '" : ~ i ~ i i a,s. :.l a i le'li '511 :! ; ..... :II ~ ;; 1 . at I III 10 : ; .. : j.1 <<...... :I Ii : l ~ ~ . ~ ~ " ';'i" N il ~. .~ ;..t .1 'ii . ~ ~ ~ s ~ i i lilt l ~ 'l! 13.'. .. .ii .. .. .~ .' ....... ...., ...:..':. , ~ I. ~ ~ ~.. i, ~ ~ i i a~ ~ Ii a iI, 'lll". . '.:. 1"0 ~ ... ... f f .. I... ~ t; ;; ,.':.!f;:; 1IJ ;~.'. '. .....~.:.......'..I. .. r: ~ ~ ~ l a ~ :1 ; ~:~ i: ~..... .~.I I ~ ~ '" r ........ .. .... <.j.........,I... .......;. 1 i i I f I I'" 5 ! ~ a & a ,I, ! a a! . I:. >4 .': It ~ ... 1< :ll. ~ ':1' ::i. ~" ~.. ...... :'ii. '. :....'1. .......1: ~ ~ ~ 1 :: a:l..... ' :!! =.': " .lI!; I:, lx .. '., ,..,. .. "', 'r--I: i i i Ii ~ ~ ~ a a a~ ~ at i ; 'i ti.:.'I., ..:11': ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ II I ~ ..~ ":011. il'" .....; . .... r I>. ':'s'.,.. ",: $ :!! Ii; '" % .. ...!!! :II N'" 2 0;'.' .. a a 52..: >:I-:~ "'~": .. '" a I 5 lil .:,...., on. :i ~ ~ 5 ~ t~ Ci. :s.; J '..:.~"".'I.' ....,:'... .... }.... .. ....... :; ;,; :a: ! ~ ~ ;.~. '.' Iii ~~' 'i"j '.1 .....;.. ...... a ~ a i !! t : ~"i:':'iI :., -.-:: '* II) .. :~::, .\, ... ......... . .. .... .'j'.. ............1.".......'..1 '....... '~!!! ~ ~ ~ ~ ... 3 $ :!! ~ ~ ~.. ! a i ~ ..li i:', 'i ..04 ; ... ... ... ... a a . ~ ~ i i ~ ~ t: ~ il'~ . ........., ;....'.....~.........I. ..IH. N ~ ::;. ..;.~. ~ ~ .. '!IJ: I:: i ......... .. .. ... ...:- .. ~ : . .'1 ~ ~ i i i i ~ ~< ~. i. ~ ~. ~ i.!i... a. i ~ ~.....!.. ;/!' .~ ~ ~ i ...... ~ ~ ~ 3l i ~ ..~.! i ~i It :- ~;I '.' : :i ~ ..tift a .. ~Ii ",:i ~ 1 ' I, .Il;Lf>' " 1"1 :&,'jz......~. ."ri.I.. ......... i i I i I ~! I ..... i ! a ~ : ~ ,.'.1. i i a ii '.......... '>1 I .. ..... I :::.. t;; lit .0 :! llifi ':1 i..... .... ." .. I.<> tt: , .... ! :1 ; 0 i~~ I'a~ i!~ ~j ~ll! ,t J ~ ~ I ~!l B .r ~ = 'III i J I '1'\ 'l~lll!il!-illi~i! 1~~Jtf J J j I i J J' II j J j i J J i I ill ~ Ii: ' 1d l"d9[: 1>0 :;:001: 80 'nEW 'ON ><l:U l' ;' i~ if !~ Ii "'l:i. :!I. iI 1.5 ~2 i i ~ ! ~l llll I~ '6'5 .,,:2 11 ,~ '$.1 1. . M Z ~ :. ~ i ~! ~.~ 'il I:> i .; 15 ~ ~~~z - '" ~ ~ I~ J -~ .. ,,'" " c R ;;) -.! .1l1l- '" Ii: '11 tl ~ ~ ~ i ~!ci!~ oSE~~ z -~ ~. . . ~y. ~i If rI : WO~~ 'ii ~ Iii .~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ",0_ cg .5: ~ ,~ Cij ~ ..... ~ .5: ~ ~ 1ij .~ <Il ~ ~ C: -.J (j I ~ ~ ~ I',:; al ~ 12C3_~ 'ii) oS (J) t:: 16 ~ (3 ~ .5: ~ ~ .~ .!ll c: ~ ~ ~ '- " 13 .~ 2 Cl 'li5~ c: (3~ ,... e: ~ ~ (f,) -S ~ ~ ~ <l.l~&5 ~~"l:) .... .e: t:: ~ ..::: ~ ~~.!!1 e: .... ~ _ I/) t:: ot:8~ t:: <l.l.... _ ~e:~~ ~ t:l..."" <l.l E: Q e <l.l <l.l<l.lo.:::: CXl~....f!? t:: C) 0 t:: c;Jl (Q ~ .S:! C) .- -..;;; , 1Ci;~ o(t)~::l CC)O~ '- 0 ::::: '- (jCIJ'<((j <t'i .S1 -6 <l.l i3 (f,) j~ ~ ~ a:::: "tB ~)l ~ ~ Cl;C: ~~ .~ tl t: .... c.!ll ac "to ~~ ~ <Il ~c: ;::- '- .~I o '" ~ (j ~ ;, 'tj 2 'li5 ~ c: -, ~~ .~ (j t: .... c.!ll 8:0 "to ~~ ~.! ~... ~ ~~ ;yj 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 01010' 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 00 010101 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 00 o OIOi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N 0 0 0 0 00 o OIO! .... 0 co 0 0 0 "I 0 0 0 0 -.t 0 0 0 0 0 0 -.t III c;; 0 -.t W 0 CO" 0001 ~ "I " ~ ~ "I III "I ~ "I ~ W III -.t -.t ~ ~ co "I W ~ "!. "I .... co "'''I to "I:t "I;t' N M ~ " M M M ;;; M ;;; ~ M <D N ;;; ~ M ~ ;;; <D ~ ~ ~ ~ ":N ":IN ...:1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~''''''''I I i ! . I ~ oR <l' Ie!! ~ <l' Ie!! oR ~ ~ oR ~ <l' "if. <l' "if. e!! oR oR ~ "if. "if. "if. ~ oR <l' oR oR oR oR ~I 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 c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i ~I 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 ~To ~10 0 0 010 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I i i oR oR ~ oR oR oR oR oR oR ~ ~ oR oR oR ~ oR oR ~ oR oR oR oR oR oR oR oR ~I~ oR oR oR 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 00 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 c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i 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 ~I~I~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I , ~ oR oR oR oR oR oR ~ "if. "if. oR <l' ~ ~ "if. ~ "if. "if. oR ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oR oR oR oR ~ oR ~ 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 c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i c::i 0000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000 ooooooooooooooooooooooooo~~~qqq cicicicicicicicicicicicicicicicicicicioNNOcicioooooo ~omoooNoooo~ooooooov~~o~wooovoool Nvt.OOON~Nt.ONt.Ot.O~vvt.OvOONt.O~mNN~OONNt.O"I:tV N M t,c} __~ v. M M r:ri ~ M - ~ M c.O N - ~ ffl ri fA W ~ tl9 ffl ffl .......- N"I..,...- N /"0..- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;;; ~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~ I i Iii i III I I , I ;: I I I I cv I 1 III >, I I' "I C , I 'ct; Ol I 2 ~ C .~ I I n;~ e;$ ~,e ! ~ E!;: . Qi -.t I <( IU I I ~ g 5 ~ I : I I ~ i .g u~ n; ~ Ii ~ i I ~ '2 n:I .S: Qi It) OJ c:: u..... m I~ I <1> u C'tI ~ Q) ~,Q) 3: g ~ Q) C C C '-' I U.r::. -g~cCi)~~i2 ~~cB w'~8(1)lrnu i~LO ~ .9- i5 .r::. 00 I Z I ~ cv 00 s:> g -'" I-CO I ~ E ~ i i E I 'I 0 E ~f-:::;LO.r::.lo<(.r::..c_cv- cv o""""''''~I'_~;;; cv - -,_ C5 0> E III cv " a:: _ w a. (i)i .8 , .8 ,(j) 3: .8 .q a.. c r- lo.. C I fJ) co i.(1) (/): co C a. ;: Q} I _ i B Q.> Cij 0 co Cij N () i \"C ! a.: (l) !;; 0 I (l) (j) 0 IN cv 0 0' CV >'-'- E - ~ c.. ' ~ '1'6 CV I E " 0>1 Q; -.::J Lll' E ' -0 e:.;a C '" Qj a:: CV 0 - - > .- 0> 0 '0' > a, C 1- '" ....rc-a>coCijOJoQ)Q}Q)a;"O..c:: ' ,..-1Q}r-Q.>lo >- Q) u en lo.. -"0 "0._ _ .~ .~ 0 I, <I:: .;:: II- .;:: I CI: I I > N I CO '" :::; cv -'n; C - - "" CD _ CD 1 _ . -.1 <( . ...!. , 0 I a:: ;: Co '0 00 C .- cv .0 .- Cl Cl C 0 C ;: ;: ;:,;: 1;:,0' -1-1: -1: E .9- M -5 ::J :::; :.: E :::; cv ~ .~ :: 0 .9! .9! .9! 1.9! 1.9! I ~ II ~ c..'" '" 0; f- - W 0 - '" -::J 0,1 C cv :: > > > I> > 0 '0 a.. a.. ~ 0 ~::E Q) Q) C,) ~ OJ ctl ::J a. Q) c C c c I C 'Cij'i C 1= ~:::- 8 tdl u ~ ~ -;;; & m ~~ aJ-::~~.~I~~ul~ I 0.~1Q ~~"ECi5Ci5 '... .....J , ,0.. c,c c;clclcl- _ <n E c: ::J C _ U t: -g ~ ~ ~i~'I'-=-i:J:J :Ji:J :JI:J EICD";:: ~ 8 8 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 5'1'5i~l~ ~i~i~l~ ~'~I~I~ Lll ~ .... co mlo ~ "I MI" Lll W ....!co.m o:I';~'."';Mi~ Lll'I~I"" 00000 r-.r- ,..- ,..- ,.- ,..- "'-il"'- ,..- ,..- N NININ,N N N N I I r I I i Ii. ';11 I: I I I Iii I I I lili'" I' I,! I I II I f- f- f- f-oo oof- i. f-oo ',f-oo f-oo f-'I f- f- f- f- f- f- f- f- f-I f- f- f-' f- I f- 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.00 00 00100 00 c: .~ ,~ I ~ i I I cvl ::JI Ci cv > <( "~ ~.~ - '0 E ~.~ 8:. ~ wi (; B U~ EI~ Wi> ~ 2 cOQ)~ ~ ~U ~ ~ .:: E u lo.. lo.. Q) <eX: 2 ~ ~ 00>_ Qj ..; 00 Q) Q) Q) co ~ ~ cv E Cii 00- .: "' .r::. OOD o-EE~ v Ul,Ul!<eX: -:I"'IIM1" '? '? 9i9 I- Hf-:i!- 00 00100,00 1 !.. I'll I'S: '-.J .~ca>:c E fO g (5 ._1 E '" 0 ..JI Q; U u.. BI~~~ c'of-(5 .8-.8,..- o ~ C'tl Q) ucvai~ ciCii..J- -EoE~ ~~~~ a::a::a::Cii relre g c:; 'iil I I t f-f-f-f- 00000000 M co "" '" <( U C E ~ ::J u.. <..i ~ ..J vi .~ 0; 'u cv Co 00 tii o U '0 C '" cv ::J C (IJ > cv a:: Ii ~ IiI c: 8l l!! ,9 l(l ;:) g Q) g " .. " 'Iii '"' .... c:Srd () - ~ U ~ .s ~ 1 ~ '0 l'CI -.j li C: I u ,~ l!! ;:) ti l!! ti 2 '"' 2 'Iii .s 'Iii c: iii ~ 8 ~ .s ;::- "- ill) <Il ~ \.> '- ~ ~ c:~li ~ ~ u '- \",;; Q) g '~ 5 --... Q) ti ~ cc S ,9. iii lI) .... ~ ~ .s - E ~ ~ CJ) € ~ ~ ~ Cll~~ ~11l~ .... ,S 5 ~ .... -. ~ tYJ .!!l ~ Cii ~ 0"" o,~ ~ai::U: :: E ~ .'!l ~ 'l-o '0' S1 - ...... ~ ~ ,$(~Cl.:~ ""'(1)""-""'" t:: Cl 0 t:: ~ :g ,~ ~ ....... I~~ oll)~::J ~<:)o!: '- <::::):::::: .- ~C\j~~ 'li S1 -5 Cll ~ ~~ :e \", o.!!! ~a ~1il ~ ill Q;:C: ~~ i: '-' o.!!! ~8 ~~ l: <Il ~c: ~~ i: '-' o.!!! 2:0 '(0 ~~ l:.! ~.. ~ ~~ ~ 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 0 010 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ." ." ." 0 0 0 0 ci ci ci ci 0 0 0 <0 0 <0 "!. ..... cO Lli ~ Lli ." ." ." I ~ ~ i~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ i~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !~ ~ ~ ~ Cl' Cl' 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 q 0 q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci LO ci LO Lli ci ci ci ci ci ci ci Lli ci ci ci 0 0 0 0 C\J C') LO 0 0 LO 0 0 ..... 0 ..... ..... LO 0 0 LO 0 0 0 ..... 0 0 0 C\J C\J C\J C\J ~ C') ~ C\J C\J C') C\J C\J ~ C\J ~ ~ C') C\J C\J C\J C\J C\J C\J ~ C\J C\J C\J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ." ~ ~ ." ." ~ ." ." ~ Cl' ~ ~ ~ ~ Cl' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ Cl' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 Q 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 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ." ." ." ~ ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 0 Q Q 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 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 0000000000000000000000000[1:000000 0000000000000000000000000000000 q q q q q q q q q 0, q q q q q q q q q q o. q q q q\o, o. q o. o. q oooooooooooooooo~o~~ooooooo~ooo oOO~OOOONM~OO~OO~O~~~oo~ooo~ooo OWN~NNNN~M~NNMNN~N MNNNNNN NNN cO Lli ,..: Lli ." ~ ." ~ ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ~ ~ ." ." ." ." ." ." \." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." ." f/l 0. E <ii '" .~ a: 1iiLO -6N .:;' c: ,0 I c o Q) "0'0 ~ ~ ~ @ fa C 2'2 Q) 5t ~'E Q)Q)~ > 00 0 ~~~~ x ~ Q) LOE :::;:::;g", '" Q; ~ N~ ~~t~ ~ .~ -c ..... Ice 0)(1)0-.r:::....... ~ '0"0 uuzo .r:::..r:::.t 0 ~Q)~~ ~ ~cc ~ 5t5t-oz o~~ 0 m mU.r:::.~ 00 Q)mm E ~~c'O M~ ~.r:::.'O g~~_ Z SQ)Q) ~mc-__mc ~~~ B ~~c.r:::.tmm~ ~ ~~~~~~~~fff~~~~~~~=~~~~~~~~ ~@~ ~~~8~2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@~~~~~~ NEEQ)~~~~~~~~~~~~~555~"'~~E~cSmm~ _~ 'E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m@@@ m ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ @.~ @ ~ o'~'~"m ~ ~ ~ "'J: f/l~ Q) OJ E E E E E o.o.o.~~ OJ OJ OJ OJ~ >-0 EICCCUS(/) =J: "'c-- EEE~c----~oc"'::J::J::J ,0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 51 5 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J J J ~ ~ 5 5 5 B51~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ""0..: ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~I~!~ ~ ~ ~l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w m .- c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c C clc c\c C c c c ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C1> ~ ~ Q; "g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g gig g g g g m 2:'c fa t5 (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij m m (ij (ij m co (ij rn rn (ij (ij rn 1m m rn (ij m (ij (ij us i= ::l ~ :> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~M~~~;~~~~~~~~~~~MV~W~~~g~~ .-!- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1~1~!~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)ooIOO,(/)ioo(/)(/)(/)(/)(/) 'It, <ll ,c: ~ C') <Xl N '" <( u c .s ~ :; LJ.. cj ..J ..J <Ii .~ <ii 'u Q) 0. (/) u; o U ~ c '" OJ ::J C OJ > OJ a: "ii ~ iil c:: 8l l!! .S! lQ :::. g Q) g ~ .. ~ 1!j ~ ~ o - ..t::. U ~ .!: ~ I ~ .~ -.I cr :c: ~ c:: !!! ~ ~ ~ u .. 2 u 1!j .!: II) 8 i;; ~ ~ .!: ;:-. '- I ~ ,~ .!l! u '" :c: ~ 1i ~ (j ~ l!! g '" :::. ... ~ 13 ~ 2 8 ~ li; ~ .!: ... E !!l ~ CI) s ~ ~ ~ Cl) ~ &i ~iii~ ... .E c:: (.) 4:: ~ ~ ~ CI) ~...Cil .s CI) c:: c ... ,9. .~ .c:: c:: v CI) '6 Cl)... - 10.; E ~ ~ ~ c~.O' ~ - ...... ~ ~ .$/~Q.:?i5 .....Cl)....-.;;.. c:: Q C c:: ~ ~.~.g ....... 1'(t!2 Clt)~::::' Cl::l C ~ '- C) ::::: .- (.)C\j",,(.) ~ -S1 -5 Cl) t5 CI) )~ ~ :v a:::: ",8 ~i ~:c: ~~ t: ... o.!!! ~8 ~1t1 l:?.! ct... ~~ i: ... o.!!! ~8 ~~ l:?.! ct... i ~~ ~ 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 01 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 (') 0 '" CD en 0 C\I 0 ~ 0 "l C\I .... 0 (') 0 ~I ;;;; 0 ;;;; ,..: .0 0 ~ ,..: C\I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;f. ;f. I~ ;f. ~ ~ ~ ;f. of!. I;f. ;f. I;f. I;f. I;f. I;f. I;f. I;f. ;f. ~ ;f. ;f. Of I;f. I;f. I;f. i;f. I;f. Of ;f. ;f. of!. 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 c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i 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 ~ ~ ~ ~ <h <h ~ ~ <h 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 Ltl .... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ltl 0 0 Ltl 0 0 0 0 0 0 C\I C\I ;;;; ;;;; C\I C\I C\I ;;;; C\I C\I C\I C\I ;;;; C\I C\I ;;;; C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I <h <h <h <h <h <h <h ~ ~ <h <h <h <h <h <h <h <h of!. of!. of!. ;f. ;f. ;f. Of ;f. ~ ~ ;f. ;f. ;f. I~ I~ I~ I~ ~ ;f. ;f. ;f. ;f. ;f. Of ;f. I;f. I;f. ;f. ;f. ;f. of!. 0 0 0 a 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 c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i 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 <h <h ~ <h <h ~ <h <h <h ~ ~ <h <h <h ~ ~ <h <h <h <h <h ~ <h <h <h <h <h ~ ~ ~ <h of!. of!. of!. ;f. Of ;f. ;f. ;f. ;f. ;f. ;f. ;f. of!. ;f. ;f. ;f. ;f. ;f. Of of!. ;f. of!. ;f. ;f. of!. of!. of!. of!. of!. Of ;f. a a a a a a a 0 a a a 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 c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i ci ci c:i ci ci ci ci c:i c:i ci c:i ci ci ci c:: .S! S ~ 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 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 Ltl 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 Ltl .... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ltl 0 0 Ltl 0 0 0 0 0 0 (') 0 '" CD en 0 C\I 0 .... C\I C\I ;;;; ;;;; C\I C\I C\I ;;;; C\I C\I C\I C\I ;;;; C\I C\I ;;;; C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I C\I en 0 Ltl C\I .... 0 (') 0 (') <h <h <h <h <h <h ~ <h <h ~ <h <h <h <h <h <h <h - 0 - ,..: .0 0 <h ,..: ~ ~ <h C\I <h <h <h ;;;; ~ <h CD ~ >: >: >: '" >: c: 'iii' ~ c: ::J c: >: -'" ::J 0 ::J c: 'iii' ~ 0. Cii E 0 U 0 ::J '0 '2 0 >: c.. u u 0 c: '0 '" c: '0 U '" 2 '" a: Vl cD Ql ::J ::J c: '0 =0 0 ::iE '0 0 0. ~ '" c: '0 Ql U c: U E :c '" c: a: E ::J >. Ol :c '" >. Ql Ql 0 cD '" '" :E Ol :c c: Iii 8 '0 c: c: .c ~ :E Ol c: '" '" Ql e::. 1i5 ~ ::J c: -'" :E '" ...J ...J '" Ql c: Cii CD :c 0 ~ ~ Ql Ql ~ CD U ~ '0 ...J ~ ::J '0 c.. ~ cD Ol 0 0 Iii '" c: c: :E ai .c: 0 ~ c: 0 c: ~ Ql .c: .c: a: Ql ::; ~ 0 (/) (/) Ql ~ '" '" ~ Vl 'Q. > 'w E Vl c: >- Ql .c: Cii ~ U ...!.. < ~ 0 .!!l CD '" Ql ~ 1'5 Vl Ql Cii 5 Ol Ol ::iE 0 0 2 Iii '0 '0 '0 E 0. Cii a: 0 ~ <.> Cii c: c: c: ~ .c: J: Iii Iii 0 c: c: 0. > <ii U Ql 0. '" c: (/) .c: Iii 'c Q; .c: 0. '" Ql '0 '0 if Vl .c: 0 '" '" g Ql ~ 0. Ql 0 0 c: c: '0 Cii Vl ~ c.. c.. ::) Cl :> i7i 0. Ql U U Ql ~ c: .c: ~ ~ i= '" '" .c: Ol Cii c: 'u c.. 05 2 '" '0 ::iE 10 -5 Ql Ql '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 ~ ~ ~ c: c: c: ::iE >- :> :> '" c: c: c: c: c: c: c: '0 '0 c: c: c: c: oq- '" Iii Ql ...J '" c.. '" '" Ql Ql Ql '0 '0 '" '0 '0 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" c: c: '" '" :> :> '0 0 if M c: c: '0 '0 '0 c: c: '" '" '0 U Ql '0 Ltl Ltl LlJ 0 0 0 0 CD CD '0 '0 c: Ql 0 '" '" c: c: c: '0; '0; c: ~ 0 0 '" '" '" c: c: '" '" '" N N N N N ~ ~ c: c: '" '0 '0 '0 '0 c: '" '" c: c: '" C\I C\I ~ ~ Ql Ql '0; '0; <.> c: c: c: c: Cii '" Vl Vl Ol Ol Ol ...!.. ...!.. ...!.. ...!.. ...!.. ...!.. ...!.. ...!.. I .c: .c: ~ Ql ?i5 ?i5 ~ ~ c: c: .;: '" '" '" '" U <.> 0 0 ,.: ..: c: ::J ::J ~ U '" '" '" '" Ql a: a: 0 0 @J @J @J @J @J @J @J @J @J 0 0 ::J ::J 1i5 0. ai ai ai ::iE ::iE LlJ . ~ 0 0 Ql 0 c: c: c: c: 0. Q; - L.U .::c .::c Ql Ql Ql Ql '" Ql ::J Vl rJJ Vl Vl Vl rJJ Vl Vl Vl . . ::iE ::iE [jj Cl ....J ....J ....J ....J L.U i= Cl Cl ?i5 ?i5 ?i5 oj oj Cl 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. @J @J @J @J @J @J @J @J @J @J @J @J @J @J @J @J @J @J @J @J @J @J E E E E E E E E E '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii a: a: a: a: a: a: a: a: a: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: Q; Q; Q; Q; Q; Q; Q; Q; Q; Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" <.> <.> <.> <.> <.> <.> <.> <.> <.> <.> ~ <.> <.> .g .g .g .g <.> .g .g g .g .c: .c: .c: .c: .c: .c: .c: .c: .c: ;;:: ;;:: ;;:: ;;:: ;;:: <.> <.> <.> <.> <.> <.> <.> <.> <.> (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij (ij Cii Cii Cii Cii Cii Cii Cii Cii Cii .= .= .= .= .= .= .= .= .= .= .= .= .= .= .= .= .= .= .= .= .= .= E E E c: E E E E c: (') oq- Ltl '" .... CD en 0 ;::: C\I (') oq- Ltl '" .... CD en 0 CO C\I (') oq- Ltl '" .... CD en 0 Cii C\I (') '" '" '" '" '" '" '" .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... CD CD CD CD <Xl <Xl <Xl CD <Xl en en en , , 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 I I l- I- l- I- l- I- l- I- l- I- l- I- l- I- l- I- l- I- l- I- l- I- l- I- l- I- l- I- l- I- t; (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) ... Cl) ,5; ~ (') <Xl N en Ql a: "ii ~ IiI c:: !Q !!! ,S! ill :::. 'ti ~ t.i :::. ~ :::. iii (.> " c:: oS ~ c - ~ u ~ oS ~ ~ ~ '~ c:~~ c:: ~ ~ .S! ~ :::. 'ti ~ ti e (.,) 2 ~ oS - c:: ~ ~ (3 ~ :s ;:. '- 'Sl ~ ,~ .~ ~ ~ c: 5l- ~ ,~ ~ ~ ill ~ ~ 1i; (3 ~ ~ oS ... Il') ~ -5 III ti CI) E ~ ~ CI) ~ ~ ~ ~ IllS~ ~1Il"tJ ... ,E t:: (J ~ ~ III ~ C/) t:l..E ... "(il .... C/) t:: C'" c.~ t::t)CI) ~ Q,).... ... ~ E ~ ~ I\'l t:l.. '"" III E: c e III COIllQio..:~ ~.... ~ t:: Q C t:: ~ ~.~ ,g ...... I~~ C \I') U ~ ~<:;) C ~ '- c::::: '- t)C\j'<(t) ~~ ~ :;; ~B ~i ~c: ~~ t: ... o.!!! ~~ ~~ I:! (g ctc: ~~ e ... o.!!! ~8 ~~ I:!~ ct"" ~ ~~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .,g 8 0 0 0 .,g 0 0 0 0 0 ,,; N 0 ,.; ~ ~ M oq- oq- C\l ~ ~ ,.; N N N ;.; .,g .,g .,g .,g ;f. ;f. 0" 0" 'if- ;f. 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 .,g Ltl .,g .,g fh fh 0 C\l 0 <0 ,,; M oq- a> M N N .,g fh ;f. ;f. ;f. I 'if- ~ ~ ~ 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 .,g .,g .,g fh fh fh fh ;f. ~ ;f. ;f. ~ ;f. ;f. a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c:: ,0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ltl 0 0 0 0 0 0 C\l 0 0 0 0 0 0 <0 ai N 0 ,.; ai oq- M oq- M oq- oq- oq- 0 a> M C\l ~ ~- M ,.; N N N N ;.; N fh fh fh fh fh fh c l'Cl '0 0) c:: ci '0 c ::J l'Cl E 0 ...J cD ~ iii' ~ 0) ~ '2 :; Q; .~ 2 > c a: VJ '0 'iij iii' Q; u C l'Cl > :J C ~ '2 cD 0) 0 < ~ ~ :J ~ l'Cl 0) C C :J Q) 0) 0) '0 c iii' c > C l'Cl 0) ~ l'Cl < l'Cl (/) > ~ CiS ...J 0 0 0) < .s:: 2 VJ ~ :0 E 0) C (,) I n; iij C - Q; n; :J l'Cl @J > Cl. a: CiS J: c:: VJ O@J @J @J @J @J 0. 0) E Ol c c c c c '0 0 .9 .9 .9 .9 l'Cl ~ .~ c:: "@ "@ "@ "@ Q; 0) m l'Cl l'Cl l'Cl l'Cl Ol 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. c c 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) l'Cl l'Cl (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) .s:: (,) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) (,) 0) Q; 0. '0 '0 '0 '0 '0 0. ~ l'Cl l'Cl l'Cl l'Cl 5 i= Cl (5 (5 (5 (5 oq- Ltl to "- CO a> 0 Ol a> a> a> a> a> ~ I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f- (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) , ell 'S: ~ 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 a5 0 0 ~ 0 0 M M C;; ai ,.....- ,...: Ltl ~~ CO ;.; N en M M to .j r-: r-: r-: "- ~ ~ Ltl ;.; ;.; (/) (/) VJ ~ f- '0 Z 0) 0) 0 UJ Z U ~ ~ f- f- U (/) '0' UJ ::J """J """J c: 0 Ol 0 c:: c < ~ Cl. :c ...J 'a' ~ c < l'Cl :J b u u. Z >- f- al l'Cl I 0 ~ ED iij UJ 0) ::J ~ f- iij (/) 0. < 0 VJ f- ~ c 0 l'Cl f- VJ t= '0 I 0 I c.i ED 0 ::J Cl n; ..i (/) ~ 15 ..i f- en a. E .~ UJ n; '0 '0 c 0) l'Cl 0. 5 (/) 1ii cii 0 (/) U UJ '0 ...J c l'Cl Q) :J C Q) a; c:: ~ -5- 5i ... 8 e: ~ I.i: g. ill !!? -~ I.i: ~ ti~ 1lI ... ~o .... !!l ~ ~ ~ .... 1lI t.> ~ ~~ :!! Q) ~ 5 ~ '<t .~ !!! "l;::;~ ~ ~ ... ~cr Cl ... o t: c:: ~ ~ .0 <II.... iij ~ 8 ~ .e- <i: l.lJ ~~~ s;; :;;; 'e: ~ ~ I I: _ .S ~~t::: C\j lli .9: -6 Ql .t: b5 ~ ~ e: ~ e ~ - t: ~ ~ e: ~ .c!l G ~ iSCI) ;>"UCi)' "tl C Ql ~::::!..~ Cl)CI):s1 QlQlCi3 ~~"tl ... ... t:: U \.) ctl ctl ctl .~ 1::l..1::l....::! e: e: ctl _ - i:;. C ... "tl .~, t::t::QlCl) '- Ql CI) ~~2li ctl 0- I Ql E:_-lg~ ~~Ql~ ......QlQl-....:.. t::C)<:t:: ~1O~.g ...... C .~ .:g cth~a ~ C) t'Q .~ G~~~ -.~S1 ~ ~ :::: e: B ~ I 15 .S '<t t::: t: ~ ~ 'e e ~ I Q) ~ .S t: ... t::: (8 !!l ~~ ~ ~- "tl S ~ t\ '<t Q) :!S "l:l ~ -J 1 ~ a: - E ... ... ... Gl '- .,=: '- '- IJ..: IJ..: ~ S S S S tti tti Ul a; a; a; a; a; ~ z:: Cl. Cl. Cl. Cl. Cl. Ul 'c ~ l\il ~ ~ - ~ u: - ~ - C\j - 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ c:) Ul ~ i z ~ v 0 0 co '" v '5. ,... co 0 '" <') N 1lI N ci cO -.i '" v (.") ~ en ,.: E ~ ~ Gl Vi >- Ul c: 0 V <') co 0 0 v ~ <') <Xl <0 ~ 0 N "3 III ~ N N ~ <fl ~ <fl <fl .j N" C3 <fl <fl n; ~ .5 '" <') co III III <') 0 '" 0 <0 <') <Xl ~ t(l ,... to-: N V V c.vi N <fl .j .j Lri 0 ; co '" co co ~" <fl co ,... 0 N" ~ cO .j Lri <fl <fl <fl .. "if. "if. "if. "if. "if. "if. 1 <') III 0 <') III V 0 V 0 v v ~ cO r-.: ci ci -.i c;; 8 ~ v ~ - <Xl ,... '" III V V ,... V <') 0 ,... '" <Xl Ql; V co ~ ~ v. <Xl ,.: <xi ~ III c.vi ~ N '" ~ <Xl V V ~ ~- <Xl ~ N" - co ~ ~ N <') co -.i <'i a:i a:i r-.: N <') N ~ ~ <') N - v '" co III <') 0 I III '" N <Xl v I <') III co ,.... <') N" <xi c;; ,.: ~ <') r-- co ~ ~ co V <') c;; ~ co N '" V III ~ III ~ ~ .j ~ N" ai I-- ~ ~ u.. ...J 'c c: Ul ~ ::l ::l Ol x: u.. g ~ c: Ol Ol '0 CD Ul ~ .5 .c "8 .g x: a; a; ::l Q Ul ~ CD ...J CD ~ Ul Cl Cl E n; n; ::l "0 0 'u 'u n; CD "0 J: Q; Q; z:: CD .;: u z:: Jl! E E Vi 1lI u :0 E E ::l Qi ~ 0 0 0 "0 Cl ~ ::E (.") (.") ..5 - lI) .C:CO--C\jt')CO <') "tj t;, 'MtOtO"N 5i"lt:~C\i--t')C\j co N I <::s Q) m .S >< -J <( t::: >< (.") "'''''''CO<')O C .2 ~ z:: r-.: r-.: r-.: r-.: -.i ai ~ 1lI.9- C> ~ ~ c: ::l Gl~Gl u.. ~ ...J Q) :::: e: o.liS~COIll""O""<,) I '~E'\:f':ct?~ct?~~ .S t::: ~Vi~<XlIllVV~1ll ~ al.:!.~ Vi "0 0 ~ ::l<~ :oaiX a; <;;;~ Cl. a: l2 'I'$.~rf.rf.rf.rf. 000000 ~ ~rJcLl?U')U')~~~ "C Q)____,....,.....ll)CO .i6~E"''''''',...CO<Xl E .9-Vi CD ~ ::l a:~:o < c 'C ~Ll?Ll?~~Ll? ~ iC>.COCOCOC')ll)T""" c:)" C"'.c ('\JC"')...- ~ .- al I ~1:~ I() o CD 1lI ~ (.").~ c.. Cl 000000 >- .... LriC'J _.c_MC")C").q- c: I ~ ~ CD~~ ~"'~ Q) a. "C: c.._~ 0 " 1.t)Lt)U100U') ct i 'ELriLrillicriciai IS 1: 0. CD ~N !g Q) ~ ~ .~ CD C\j" Cl c.. 000000 'ELl?Ll?lI"?U?Ll?Ll? alo!1CDOOOOOO ). 1: 0 E 8 ~.~~ ...J i5~:o 8 < ffi - 000000 Oi .....~.,...crioai ::E c: f/J-r-,...."...Mv...- tl1 CD "5i .9- ~.~ ~ l.: ~Cl ~ i=:: ,... '" '" 1<') N co ~ U')C"')O')NI'c.o ~(ij en ai to ~ to c.C L{') oR. ~ ~o.g N 0 0 Cl~~ 0 U ...J rn -i '<t "0 -i Ul Ul OJ iii .~ _ u.. Vi ~ c: .c Ul ::l ::l::l en g'X:u.. :0 n; Ol Ol _ .- OJ (f) '" 'u CD c: c'c C'l.~ ~ en CD Ul a;=::l"8==en a. a. ::l ~OJCD...JOOJ 'E Ul "0 Cl;:En;~::l >- Vi c: .0 1lI Cl 0 .- .- 0 ...J "O"O:c~~m I () Ul OJ OJ CD OJ .- Ul "0 -EZ::~EE;:; '" c: ~~:OEE~ c.. '" 0):::000'0 ~ CD ~ Cl<::E(.")(.")C ~ ::l c: CD > OJ a: CO) Iri -S1 -6 Q) "5 CI) ~ t::: Q) E ~ e ~ - t::: ~ !!! a ..... G ~ o :::!.. ~ ~ ... f.l ell ~ - "tl 5l E ~~ I~ .~ CI) ~5-Ci)' "tlLUQ) ~....~ CI) 0 ._ Q)"'cXi ~ai"tl ... E t::: (..).~ ~ ~E.!!? E E ell _ 0 t::: o ... (..).~ .S: ai - CI) ~ E .~ 2i ellt:;4t:::Q) E Q ell Q) ", ", t::: :::: Ci5~itCl) Q) '"'- t::: Cl .~ t::: ,r:r;. ,~ t::: .0 V.J ....... ::s ~ .....erE!!! C It) .,. :::l .0 c >:: f.l .- CO.=: (..)C\i(..)(..) "" :5 .~ - .~ "" 1.1.: 1.1.: '- ~ ~8 :5 :5 :5 :5 CIi CIi l..l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c: ~u:: 111 Cl. Cl. Cl. Cl. Cl. Cl. .c: ai ~ ~ E !!l ~ Il) - " ~ ~ - R 0; ~ c: "" ~ ~ E ~ .., 1\1- 1\1- ~ ~ '" E ~ ~ ~ ~ 08 ~ ..... '<t 0 0 C') '<t C') 0 0 0 <Xl C\J :5 ~ ~ Lri N <ri Lri <0 '<t 111 l..l ~ C\J N r-: Q)&~ C\J ~ go al ill .... s <;) u:: oq; en 0 C') co C\J ll) c: . 0 C\J <0 <Xl C') ~~~ en ..... '<t ~ 0 C') ::, ::, l..l oi .j r-: <Vi cD <Vi :9 ~ oq; C\J '<t ;;; ..... C') <0 '" ~ ffl ffl ffl ;;; ffl ~ :. Cl. Cl <;) '0 ~ '<t ..... <Xl '<t <0 ;::: ll) C') ~ <Xl C') c: ::, . ..... ll) ll) C') ll) C\J .g t; ~ cD <Vi r-: cD lli .j 2 ::, <Xl C') C\J <Xl 0 C') III 1i) ~ C\J ~ 0 ~ 0 <0 ~ cD N <Vi r-: r-: cD ~ . C\J ..... ;;; ffl C\J <0 oq; .s: C\J ffl C') ;;; ffl ffl ~ ;p. Cf Cf ~ ;p. ~Ol~ <0 <Xl 0 <Xl <0 ~ <Xl <Xl <0 <Xl C\J ll) s:S::=: ,..: cD ~ 0 0 0 c: .!(! E C\J '<t C\J Q) ill I ~ .S ~'O~ ~ 0 ..... <Xl ~ C\J ~ Ol '<t <Xl en <Xl '<t '<t .5; ~'E en '<t en <0 ~ 0 cD cD 0 .j <Vi cD .11i ~ I 0 '<t <Xl '<t C') C') '<to '<t 0 q ill .S N ~ ~ ~ <0 ~ ~ C\J C') <0 Q) ~ -.i C"i cD cD ,..: N ,... - C') C\J ~ ~ C') C\J E ~ ~ I Q) ~ .S c: ~ Q) ~ C') ll) ll) ll) <Xl C') <0 ~ ..... ll) 0 '<t ~ <0 '<t '<t '<t ll) ~ ~ 0 oi .j N '<t- ll) '<t ~ ll) '<t i ~ J-- ~ <0 C') <0 <Xl C') M ~ <0 ~ '<t en 0 ~ ll) ..... '<t <0 r-: ~ N N l..l oq; !!J !!J lJ... '" 'c C/) Q) ::) ::) Ol ::s:: .~ c lJ... ~ Ol Ol '5> Q) C/) ~ ~ c u ::s:: '0 ~ ~ Qi ::) 0 Q VI c: 3 Qi Q) ...J Q) III 3 VI -.l Cl Cl E c;; c;; ::) ~ '0 0 'u 'u Q) '0 I Q; Q; ~ .<::: Q) u .<::: .!!! E E iii ~ '" u :c E E ~ :;J Q) 0 0 0 '0 Q.; Cl ;( ::: l) l) c VI as ~ III ai < II: u E ill c 0 '" Q) c;; ! ~ a:l ~ 'C '0 c:: c:: l) Cl :;J .2 ill :2 u.. n; ~ cD iii 1Il :; Q; :; c;; u.. ~ c:: t:: 0 Cl 0 C3 - c:: Q. t:: .5 ~ '" 0 '" :; ii: u.. ii: E l) c;; Cl ~ Q) Q; c:: ~ .S: iii Q) c:: c:: C/) ?:' Gl Jj Q) (!J (!J c:: 'S .S: .S: .S: .2 Iff !!! c;; ?:' ?:' ?:' :;J 'S 'S 'S ~ ~ Iff Iff Iff C3 .S: .S: .S: .S: .S: 8 8 8 8 0 ffl cD 0 cD 8 ..... ..... 0 C\J It) ..... 0 N <Vi cD N i <0 <Xl <0 ~ ;.; ffl ~ 0 0 ~ - en <Xl C\J 0 It) 0 lli - I I - I I f-- ..... It) 0 lli ~ I-- ...J ti' >- 8 ..,J g ~ lfj u:: ~ i=:: ~ ffi f.;; cj ..,J ....i oq; ....i vi -~ c;; 'u Q) Q. C/) iii 0 l) '0 c '" Q) ::J C Q) > Q) II: ,... g ~Q) '- 8 E ~ ~ g. 3l l!! C) u;; !l: ~~~ ~~ ~ 'c: ~ l!! ~ <\l U ~&~ l!! 3l ~ ~ u;; "' ~ ~ l!! E '" ~ Q) :@ ~.~ ~ CI) Q 5 - ~ ,_ !!! '-oJ ~ ~ ~ ~o~ ~ ~ ~~:--... l5 ~ ~ f: '0 .S ~ ~ ..". ll'i .S1 -5 III ~ ~ t:: CIl E: ~ e ~ - t:: .g .!!! a .~ ~ ~ ~ co.. ,..J ~ ~CI) CI) ;:o.,CIlii)' 't:l~lll ~ !:ll Cl)t3~ lllCllCa ~ ~'t:l o.._t:: ~ 't:l Cll 1!l III CI) ~~~ .::: .Q t:: 0... I .~ t::o..CI) .S; CIl :J 'EE:~CI) t'CSt""\~"" t:: o......S CIl -.;-"'~ CIlCll....... Cll~Cii~ t:: Cl III t:: Cll ... 0 CI) ~ Cll ',;:, .....~-t::Cll clCl)":l c~.~ ~ '~~ Cll'~ ~t\iu.:~ . ~ ~~ I :!;? '5 f----- co . ~ ~ ~ U "' ~ ~ ~ 'e ~~ I .S ~ .!!1 .5 'e ~ ~ .s ~ ~ ~~ - .1::: .1::: .1::: - l( l( 5 5 5 ~ tti tti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ <::> ,... ~ !:3 I ~ ~ :g '" '" '5 ~ C\j' t') t\i c:l .". ~ ~ ~ .". 0- C!) @I '" '" 0 .r '" .r ~ C"l III 0 r-- co N ~ ~ (;j r--: iii ~ c: 'E 0 z E Q) r-- 0 0 .r '" '" ~ r-- C\I .r 0 C\I (;j en C\I '" "'. co C"l W aj ~ w W N c: ;,; C\I ;,; C\I CXl .r .2 ~ ~ ~ ~ n; '5 !:! .Q '" 0 '" ltl ltl C"l 0 r-- ;:: CXl ltl '" '" ~ '" 0 ltl 0 CXl r--: lli lli en aj en w ltl r-- '" 0 ltl C"l C"l '" C"l '" 0 ~ III C"l W en aj w ltl ;; r--: '" '" ~ ~ .r N ;,; ~ C') C\I co ~ ~ 0 ::!1 ::!1 Cl' ::!1 'if. 'if. II Q Q Q r-- '" ltl C') ;:: '" r-- C') 0 r-- C') M ai ~ ci ::;: <i ci C\I N 0 ~ r- CXl C') '" '" '" ltl ~ co N 0 ltl C') C\I C') ~ ~. 0 <0 '" N .j r--: co w aj en r--: C"l q- ltl (;j r-- ;:: CXl. '" <Xl. ~ <'i ~ r--: - '" ~ ~ N C') '" I <i M ai ai r-: <Ii I C') C\I ~ ~ C') C\I - r-- .r co 0 a; C') I ;; ;; CXl CXl I q- 0 C\I ~ <'i aj .j <'i W <'i ltl C\I CXl CXl ~ C\I q- r-- q- r-- q- CXl CXl C\I q- N '" r-- q- 0 q- r-- C\I Ol r-- C\I N N <'i .j .r' ~ N f-- .~ ~ u.. ...J c 'c en < :::> :::> Cl ~ u.. b c Cl Cl ~ '0, Ql en I- ~ .!: c '8 .g ~ Qi Qi :::> Q l/) ;t Ql ...J Ql ;t l/) 0 0 E iii iii :::> '0 0 'u 'u Ql '0 J: Q; Q; ~ .L: Ql u .L: ~ E E tl <tl u :0 E E Qj ~ ::l 0 0 0 '0 0 ::( :::E u u c ~ Q) :!3 ~ <\l -.I I ~ 0:: C') CXl N Ol <( U c .9 ~ :; u.. oS! 'E I .S t:: ~ ~ ~ ~ 1\j '" <::> ~ <::> lQ I.Q ~ ",' ~ ~ ",' 1:: ",' ).. 8 ~ ~ ili u;; ~ i::: ~ ~ c..:i -.I "' ..,j ..,j vi ~ iii u Ql 0. en tl 0 U '0 c <tl Ql ::l C Ql > Ql a: It) ll) .S1 -6 Cll i3 C/) E Cll ~ ~ ~ tC/) ;"'t1lCi)' "1:l ~ Cll ~.s.g> Cll~dl ~ai"1:l t E ~ t1l~.!!1 ~et1l c ~ ~.~ c::C::-CI) "6 Cll c:: '" E ,!;;! If ~1}'iilal Cll~a~ [Xl Cll ,::, -...;. C::CUc:: ~tOco~ ...... I:) c:: t1l C J, ,52 :l 01:) Ol \.l '- C ~ .:: Ut\JQ:U .- g '5};: g ~ ~ ~ e Cl. g.81 ~ C) u;: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... .!!l 'i: ~ ~ ::l <1l ~ (I) ::. ~ ~~ ~ al ... ,~ ~ C) ... '" ~.~ ~ '5 0 ~ ~ '" i~ ~ <t)t:l c:: ~ ~ ~ (j ~ ~ ~ ;q: C) ~ ~ - 1l !!!!!! 'e- ~ ~ I ~ ~ .S!- a: ~ 1l ~ ~ 'e ~ ~ I .S!- ~ .S1 5 'e ~ ~ I Cll ~ .S!- c;: ... ~ Cll C!l . .!!l ~~ I :S) '5 Cl:l . - ~ ~ ~ 0 '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ;S ~ Cl. Cl. Cl. 0) tq "- ct \',j ~ ."..." ."..." i4 ~ ~ .- Ll.: Ll.: g cri cri ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;i ~ .. 0 0 co en .. ,... co 0 en '" C\l N 0 cD .q: en .. or- en"': ~ ~ m c;; I.l) LO C\l CD ~ 0 15 ~ ~ q L()MLri~m ~~0~~~ """'" 0') IJ") C") C\I C") co ,.... 0 a> ,.... 0 o ..- co en Ll) LO "':"":LOr.:~LO ~ to ~ ~ ~ ~ NO ~",ui' ~ 0 ~ ~ 'i-i-tf.'l-f.'j.? '" Ltl 0 '" Ltl .. 0 o..o....~ 0 <ri ,....: ci c::i ~ c.i .q C;; 0 <Xl ,... en Ltl .. .. .. '" 0 ,... en <Xl .qCO..-~V.CX) ""'~a:) ,....Lncr:) C\l m ..... ex) v v ,.... ,..... CD ~ c.o ....... T""" C\J C"') (0 .q: <"5 cxi cxi ".: N C") C\I ,... ..- (") C\J .. en Ltl en '" Ltl N cO ~ to Ll) C") 0 C\l <Xl .. <0 r--: C') M ~ c.o ,... ..- c.o C\l Ltl <Xl ..j .. '" en .. ,.... L.tl ,.... ~ N Cll ~ 'g <1l ..,j ~ ~ Cl.: !! .!!_ LJ.. 'c Cf) ::J:5 0> ~ Cl CD ~ .~ Q) ~ ~~'c:o..J'.g~ ~ ~ ~ 3 Q gj C Ci E (ij ~ :3 '0 'O,;!'u'u Q)Q)......Q;03~ '5J::~EE1ii '" u :0 E E :J a; ~ 0 0 0 "0 Cl <( ::2; u u c - :; o , :!2 'S III a: cj @J '" 'E Ql E Ql ~ a. .s c .2 n; :; ~ C3 OJ c o '0 Ql ~ o o o cO .. Ltl N .. ;;;; c-- ,... .. en <0 co co N I-- I I ~ , , I-- a; ~ en I-- ....J < I- o I- - .S1 'E I ,S!- ~ ~ ~ ~ Cl. It) "'" to) ~ !II .I:: to - - '" <') to i\rll'i ~ M ~ ~ " N csC:: \',j <') \',j I Cll .S!-lo: ..,j ~ lo: en en en co '" 0 Ql s::. ".: ".: ".: ".: .q: oj g> .9- '5 ~ ~ e: Ql I-- Ql ~ ....J e: III co Ltl ,... 0 ,... '" c.Qlc. ,... <Xl Ltl <Xl '" 0 "C; EO': cxi .0 .q: .q: ".: .0 1---1-- i"'- ~ .2. S 1B~~ '0 ai >< <n;;f. a: Cl ;f. ;f. ;f. ;f. "J' ;f. ;f. 0 0 0 0 0 0 .s l\l E ~ ~ ~ 0 0 Ltl e:;f.Ql a; a; a; ".: .0 cxi 'iij E ,... co <Xl E ,9-1ii Ql ~ ::> a: I- ,- ~ '0 Ltl Ltl Ltl 0 0 ~ ie:>. cxi cxi cxi <"5 Lri ~ e:"'.c C\l '" ~ .- i I ~t:gj o Ql ." o .~ Cl. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >. <"5 <"5 <"5 .q: Lri N _.c~ e: I~ ~ Qlgj~ ~fG~ (1) a.. 'C: Cl._1- 0 Ltl Ltl Ltl 0 0 Ltl i E Lri Lri Lri oj 0 oj t: ,9- Ql ~C\l Ql ~ u >1-- a; is Cl. 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Ltl Ltl Ltl Ltl Ltl Ltl icl!Ql 0 0 0 0 0 0 t:c.E ~ .~ ~ .- I- Cl '0 < ~i", 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ cxi 0 oj e: t: c. ~ ~ ~ "'.... ~ ~ ~ .~ .... ._ i- rfCl ,... en en '" C\l <Xl Ltl '" en C\l ,... co >. - '" oj cD .q: cD cD Lri =!Sa. C\l ns 0 'i:: 01-1- i~l~ 10> LJ.. Cf) '::J c ~ I ::J '" C LJ.. g'o> :~ 'OJ Ql Cf) Ql U ~ '" :.:: .~ C'O ;;:: ::J 0;= ::J 0 Q '" '0 ~ Ql Ql....J Ql Cl~ '" e: EOj OJ ::J '" o .- .u ....J alal J: ~ a; (ij J::J:: Ql Ql E .;: u u - E 1ii 2", :0 E E :J Ql::: o 0 0 '0 Cl< ::2;0 u c c 8 <ti ~ C\j- :! l;) "- d'; <0 ~ C\j >- 8 5 8 ffi ::E ljj u..: ~ f:::: ~ ffi I' ..,j '" '" co N 0) - 1ii .0 0 , U '" '" '0 '" c 0.. '" ~ Ql ~ ~ :J C Ql > Ql a: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO SETTING THE AMOUNT OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 88-140 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Mayor and Common Council find: A. A hearing has been held by the Mayor and Common Council pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 66016 et seq., to consider the levying of development impact fees collected by the Development Services Department, which hearing was held following public notice published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of San Bernardino. B. Pursuant to Government Code Section 660l7(a), the fees newly established and/or modified in Section 2 of this resolution shall become effective 60 days from the effective date of this resolution. SECTION 2. Pursuant to Chapter 3.27 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, the amounts for the development impact fees listed in "Attachment A" to this resolution are hereby established. SECTION 3. Payments of fees established by this resolution shall be due and payable prior to issuance of a building permit after the effective date of this resolution for construction of any residential, commercial, or industrial unit, or installation of electrical and/or plumbing equipment to provide service to a mobile home, with the exception of the following: A. Development projects for which an application for a tentative map was deemed complete prior to July 18, 2005, in accordance with Resolution 2005-255. Such projects will ~D.. ~j 3)g,D I Dlp 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO SETTING THE AMOUNT OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 88-140. be subject to the development impact fees that were in effect prior to the adoption of this resolution. B. Development projects that have received all required entitlement approvals and pre-paid the applicable development impact fees prior to the effective date of this resolution. Such projects will be subject to the development impact fees that were in effect prior to the effective date of this resolution. SECTION 4. A refund of this fee may be made to the person who paid the fee 12 in the event the building permit expires, pursuant to Section 106.4.4 of the California Building 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Code. SECTION 5. All development impact fees established by this resolution, except the regional circulation systems fee, shall be adjusted each July 15 in accordance with the change in the Construction Cost Index as published in the latest "Engineering News Record" or comparable publication as of that date. The regional circulation systems fee shall be updated annually by resolution ofthe Mayor and Common Council based upon an escalation factor which shall be adopted by the San Bernardino Associated Governments Board of Directors, in accordance with Measure I 2010-2040. At least every two (2) years, the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and Master Facilities Plan will be reviewed and updated. SECTION 6. Resolution 88-140 is hereby repealed effective sixty (60) days from the adoption of this resolution. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO SETTING THE AMOUNT OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 88-140 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the , 2006, by the following vote, to wit: _ day of Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT ESTRADA BAXTER MCGINNIS DERRY KELLEY JOHNSON MC CAMMACK City Clerk day of The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this 2006. Patrick J. Morris, Mayor City of San Bernardino Approved as to Form and legal content: " "; ;1 /1/' _ ,/,""">,,...~ 3 Attachment A - Summary ot proposed new and adjusted development impact tees _ 2008 JjlO%).. ________ ! Detached dwelling units $ -- [AttaChed dwellTiig-uni-ts $ . ~~_-~~~~~hj)me ~_~s. -- __u__--- - ->-~~__ ___ --------rro09and bevond-(iOO'/'lc- -. .__ -~----t . - --- _n_'.',._ nn__-'-__ _._ ___________ __ ----1 ~~tached d~~J1_ ~!l~t~____.._ t-~- ,Attached dwelling units , $ ~==~-_=~r-MObfle-h<?_~~~nlfS~-- -. ---s u___n Local Circulation System Fee Regional Circulation System Improvement Fee (NEW) Fire Su-"pr'-sslon Facilities. Eguipment, Vehicles Fee (NEW) Library F!.cilities and Collection Fee (NEW) Aquatics_l'a~lities Fee (NEW) Public Meeting Facilities!'ee (NEW) Set the fee at 700;; ofprOpo.edl"velfor 2006 80% of "r".PosedlE>velf,u2007 --- 90% of proposed level for 2008 i oci'liof proEosecf leVllif~-2009~ andbey"o-n(j- F'arkland and Open Spac,e Acq__uh~ition_and P~r~_lrTlpro,!,_ert:1ent Fee Set th-e fee at 70% of propo.sed Ie-vel for 2006 - - - -- -- . 8()iii~ofproposed-hivel-for-2067~-'" --- -- 90oi~ of proposed levef for200a 1 ()Q% of propo.sed. level for ~p~f~_~cf-~e_yC?n~ Detached dwelling units Attache-d dwelling-Units 'Moblle- homeuu-riits; , Commerclal--Iodging- . Commercial/office - ~_tncf~~tri~[~~~~~ -- J2_et~t?hed ~~e.llln_~ _llf"!its .Atia~~~ dw~_I!i_~_~Ll:I_r1~t~ ;Mobile home units. --Comn'-erclallodglng- 'CommerCiai/office- : 1~-us)!I~L~~~~ : Detached dweTling units .'Atiacheddwelling-unili . Mobile home "urilts-;--- -" --~tomme(C1aTlOdging 'Commerclafioffice' - - .-lI~~~~t~-! -~s_es ! Detached dwelling units + Attacheddweii,ng units '.MObIie-homeu-riits :.------- -Commerciafiodging .Commercial/offiCe -- _}~~~-~iri-aTuses - .----- DetacheCf dwelling units .~~ached-d~ellingunlts : Mo-bileuhome units. .- - -- Detached dwelling unIts $ -, Atta-ctied dwellln~iunits- $ _-_-~-:_~obil! i!Ome UriltS..-~______+-_~ .=~QQ%I-:-:~_u ~ Detached dwelling units --Attached dwelling'ln!ls ~ ~~~!Ie-h~m-e u~jts. j 2007(80%) __ . Detached dwelling units 'A:ttacheddv~;eiITng~uniiS - ~Mobllehomeu-riiis. ~---------- --- - 2006 (70%) "-Oe-tached dwel(irlg -units . ;_A_ttach~<!dw~~~~ll~~_ _ _"_ __~obTI~ hor'!1~_ units. 2007 (80%1 ;betached dwelllngunlts .. Attac-h'-dd";ejljng~unl!s.. --- -MObile home -units. -+--~-_.~--- ~-:"'=:300B.l90%1 -:::-- I Detached dwelling..~n.il~ !Attached dwelling u~~s_ . ________~___~Mobile h~~ ~.n!~~_____ - ----- -- --io09 and bevc)na(-'OO%l: -L[)..~~djl_welli~glHlits .. 'Attached (jweUing unils --- ------~M9bile home ,:!f)its* $ $ . $ .. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ T $ $ .$ $ T- . $ .$ -$- $ ~$ $ . $ $ -'$ $ $ --s-- -$ ~$ _~~5 .P~~_~~~ 130. per unit - - -103 . ~per unlt-- i03-per unit 0211 :Per sq-fi o 12B_:eer .'t-ft .1~l9.y~~it_ 1,235 per unit ------967~e-r unit _ - 9i3:Peiu_nit 1.994 per sq ft ,208 :persqit 535per" unit _4-7 4 _-"p~_un_,i- 303 ~er -unit 298-.per unit 0.242 persq ft 0005 :"er Sq ft ,663 per unit 81ij'per unil --S3-1-per-unif 313 J,er unit o HCper s'lit 0.002 per sq-fi 534 per unit 423 per unit 384 :p~r u~lt 273 : per unIt ;2"16 ~pe"r-unit -196JJer:UnIl- 670 -per unit 530 iperunil ~82 . per U1~it $ $ $ ~?J_JJ_E!r l}_~it _~~~__ ~e_~_uni! ~19lper unit -.~-_._- r-"" , -S5r'per unil- - -757"~peru':l1t- - ~e_8 ~~ru~nit $ $ $ 5;-852 'per unil --:~~: 1'~M~~:~~:F t---- ~ L ,~ - 6,688 per unit 5,:194 '"er-uni! _{.8Q~ ~e":r ~nit 7,524 :-perunitn -5:955 "i'-runit .. _ 5,4091i>-erui1;t__ $ "$ -$ 8,360 -cper Unit 6,6f7-~per-unit - -- ?,9)~flper unit OFees for mobile homes shall a 1- City Administrator's Office 3/812005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. read as follows: Chapter 3.27 is added to the San Bernardino Municipal Code to "3.27.000 General Findings. The Mayor and Common Council finds as follows: (A) The provision of new and expanded facilities and infrastructure is necessary to protect and promote the health, safety, and welfare of all the citizens of the City of San Bernardino by reducing the adverse effects of urbanization and development. (B) It is necessary to enact and implement certain development fees to assure that all development within the City pays its fair share of the costs of providing necessary public facilities and infrastructure to accommodate such new development. (C) A proper funding source for the costs associated with new development is a specific development or facilities fee for each type of facility related to the specific need created by the development and reasonably related to the relative cost of providing such necessary public facilities. (D) The Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report justifies the imposition of each development fee on new construction by analyzing the Master Facility Plan, as defined herein, assigning the costs on a fair-share basis to the various types of development, and assigning the resulting fee per dwelling unit and/or commercial/industrial square footage, based on the anticipated burden of such new dwelling unit and/or commercial/industrial area on City facilities and infrastructure and the need created by such dwelling unit and/or commercial/industrial area for new and expanded facilities and infrastructure. (E) The primary purpose of the fees is to mitigate the impact on City facilities and infrastructure caused by increased demand for facilities and infrastructure from persons generated by new development. (F) The fees will be used to finance public facilities and infrastructure, specifically local circulation system improvements (streets, traffic signals, and bridges); regional circulation system improvements; law enforcement and fire protection facilities, vehicles, and equipment; library facilities and collection; public meeting facilities; aquatics facilities; and parkland and open space acquisition and development. /VD, d') 3/ cAO !O(tJ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. (G) The use of the fees to fund such public facilities and infrastructure is reasonably related to the impacts of residential development and other development on the City as more fully described in the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report. (H) The need for development fees to fund such public facilities is reasonably related to impacts on the City of residential development and other development as more fully described in the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report. (I) To assure fair and legally sound implementation of the development fees established in this chapter, such fees shall be reviewed annually and the amounts of such fees shall be adopted by resolution of the Mayor and Common Council at a public hearing. (J) To assure fair implementation of the development fees established in this chapter, the City must have the latitude to phase the imposition of certain fees. (K) To assure fair implementation of the development fees established in this chapter, the City must have the latitude to defer such fees in special cases, after notice and hearing, where better or more fair financing arrangements would result from such deferral. (L) To assure fair implementation of the development fees established by this chapter, provisions must be made for extending such fees to subsequently annexed land that benefits from the public facilities funded by these fees. 3.27.010 Purpose and applicability. (A) The Mayor and Common Council declare the purpose of this chapter is to provide for the means to finance adequate infrastructure and other public improvements and facilities made necessary by the impacts created by new development in the City of San Bernardino in order to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of San Bernardino. This chapter shall apply solely to construction of new dwelling units, or new commercial or industrial square footage within the city. (B) The following are specifically exempt from the provisions of this chapter: (1) Additions or improvements to dwelling units after construction is complete, unless such additions or improvements (a) increase the number of dwelling units on the property, as defined herein, and (b) are not secondary residential units, as defined herein. (2) Government/public buildings, public schools, or other public facilities. (3) The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any legal, residential structure and/or the replacement of a previously existing dwelling unit. (4) The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any commercial or industrial structure where there is no net increase in square footage of the structure. Any increase in square footage of the structure shall pay the current applicable development impact fees for such mcrease. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. (5) Development projects that are the subject of a Development Agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et seq., prior to the initial effective date of this chapter, wherein the imposition of new fees is expressly prohibited; provided, however, that if the term of such Development Agreement is extended after the initial effective date of this chapter, the development impact fees shall be imposed. 3.27.020 Definitions. (A) "Affected territory" means the corporate boundaries of the City of San Bernardino as these may be amended from time to time. (B) "Commercial/retail/office or industrial/manufacturing development project" means the construction of new or additional gross square footage of building area for commercial, retail office, industrial or manufacturing purposes. (C) "Development impact report" is the "Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report" together with the addenda thereto and any subsequent modifications and/or updates, all of which are on file in the City Clerk's Office. The original version of the document, dated January 2006, was prepared by Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC and summarizes the needed facilities mentioned herein, their estimated costs and sets forth the required nexus findings. (D) "Dwelling unit" means a building or portion thereof designed exclusively for residential occupancy by one family for living and sleeping purposes, including single-family dwellings, multiple-family dwellings, and manufactured housing. (E) "Effective date" means the date that the fees in this chapter are eligible for collection, that date being 60 days after the adoption of this chapter. (F) The "Master Facility Plan" together with and subsequent modifications and/or updates, all of which are on file in the City Clerk's Office, was prepared by Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC and describes each of the facilities mentioned herein and their estimated costs. (G) "Residential development project" means construction of one or more dwelling units. (H) "Secondary residential unit" means a second dwelling unit on the same lot as an existing primary residential. 3.27.030 Law enforcement facilities, vehicles, and equipment impact fee- findings. The Mayor and Common Council find as follows: III 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. (A) The development of residential, commercial, and industrial property in the affected territory will create a need for increased police protection services. As a result, additional officers will be needed to maintain the current level of service. The new officers will require, among other things, expanded station facilities and additional patrol or unmarked vehicles and additional police equipment. (B) Pursuant to Article 11, S 7 of the California Constitution, the City is empowered to enact measures that protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. (C) The provision of expanded station facilities and vehicles is identified in the Law Enforcement Facilities section of the Master Facility Plan and is necessary to provide adequate law enforcement services. (D) The development impact fee report describes in detail the number of calls for service that each major category of land use generates on average, the law enforcement facilities, vehicles, and equipment required to service new development, and estimates of the costs for capital to provide those services. (E) The entire affected territory will derive benefit from the station facilities and vehicles and should be assessed per the provisions of this chapter and pay a fair share of the cost thereof based on the benefit derived therefrom. (F) After consideration of the development impact fee report and testimony at this public hearing, the Mayor and Common Council hereby approve the development impact fee report and the addendum, and based thereon finds that new development in the affected territory will create law enforcement needs that the construction and acquisition of the public improvements funded by this chapter will meet. (G) The Mayor and Common Council also find that the costs of the law enforcement facilities funded by this chapter are apportioned relative to the anticipated impacts created by development within the affected territory, and that the fees are fairly apportioned on individual dwelling units and per square foot throughout the affected territory on the basis of benefits conferred on property proposed for development and the need for such facilities created by the proposed development. (H) The facts and evidence establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the described public facilities and the needs created by the types of development on which the fee will be imposed, and that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the types of development for which the fee is charged. This reasonable relationship is described in more detail in the development impact fee report and the addendum thereto. (I) The Mayor and Common Council also find that the cost estimates set forth in the development impact fee report are reasonable and will not exceed the reasonably estimated total of these costs. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. (J) The law enforcement facilities fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be used only to finance the law enforcement facilities described or identified in the Law Enforcement Facilities section of the Master Facility Plan. (K) The law enforcement facilities fee is hereby imposed on new residential, commercial, and industrial development and the amount of such fee shall be set by resolution of the Mayor and Common Council. 3.27.040 Fire suppression facilities, vehicles, and equipment impact fee -Findings. The Mayor and Common Council find as follows: (A) The development of residential, commercial, and industrial property in the City will create increased calls for fire protection services. As a result, new equipment and expansion of existing facilities to house additional fire fighters and equipment will be needed to maintain current levels of service. (B) Pursuant to Article 11, 9 7 of the California Constitution, the City is empowered to enact measures that protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. (C) The acquisition of new equipment and relocation, expansion, and construction of fire protection facilities are identified in the Fire Protection Facilities section of the Master Facility Plan and are necessary to provide adequate fire protection services within the City. (D) The development impact fee report and the addendum thereto describe in detail the number of calls for service that each major category of land use generates, the fire protection facilities required to service new development, and estimates of the costs of those facilities. (E) The entire affected territory will derive benefit from the new equipment and relocated, expanded, and newly-constructed fire station facilities and should be assessed per the provisions of this chapter and pay a fair share of the cost thereof based on the benefit derived therefrom. (F) After consideration of the development impact fee report and the addendum thereto and testimony at this public hearing, the Mayor and Common Council hereby approve the development impact fee report and the addendum thereto, and based thereon finds that new development in the City will create fire protection needs that the construction and acquisition of the public improvements funded by this chapter will meet. (G) The Mayor and Common Council also find that the costs of the equipment and expanded fire protection facilities funded by this chapter are apportioned relative to the anticipated impacts created by development within the affected territory, and that the fees are fairly apportioned on individual dwelling units throughout the affected territory on the basis of benefits conferred on property proposed for development and the need for such facilities created by the proposed development. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. (H) The facts and evidence establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the described public facilities and the needs created by the types of development on which the fee will be imposed, and that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the types of development for which the fee is charged. This reasonable relationship is described in more detail in the development impact fee report and the addendum thereto. (1) The Mayor and Common Council also find that the cost estimates set forth in the development impact fee report are reasonable and will not exceed the reasonably estimated total of these costs. (J) The fire protection fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be used only to finance the fire protection facilities described or identified in the Fire Protection Facilities section of the Master Facility Plan. (K) The fire suppression facilities fee is hereby imposed on new residential, commercial, and industrial development and the amount of such fee shall be set by resolution of the Mayor and Common Council. 3.27.050 Local circulation system impact fee -Findings. The Mayor and Common Council find as follows: (A) The development of residential and other property in the affected territory will generate additional vehicle travel. This traffic will create a need for expansion of existing streets, signals, and bridges to accommodate increased traffic from new residential development and commercial/industrial development. (B) The Master Facility Plan establishes the costs and a fair method for the allocation of costs and fee apportionment, and the apportioned fees are applicable to all property within the affected territory. (C) The provision of expanded streets, signals, and bridges is identified in the Circulation System section of the Master Facility Plan and is necessary to provide adequate streets and roadways services within the City. (D) The General Plan of the City includes and identifies in the Circulation Element and the transportation provision thereof, among other things, streets, signals, and bridges within the City with the primary purpose of carrying through traffic and providing a network connecting to the state highway system. (E) The entire affected territory will derive benefit from the construction or reconstruction of streets, signals, and bridges and should be assessed per the provisions of this chapter and pay a fair share of the cost thereof based on the benefit derived therefrom. (F) After consideration of the development impact fee report, the addendum thereto and testimony at this public hearing, the Mayor and Common Council hereby approve the development impact fee report and the addendum, and based thereon finds that new 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. development in the affected territory will create streets and roadways needs that the construction and acquisition of the public improvements f4nded by this chapter will meet. (G) The Mayor and Common Council also find that the cost of the streets, signals, and bridges funded by this chapter is apportioned relative to the anticipated contribution to traffic created by residential and other development in the affected territory, and that the fees are fairly apportioned on individual dwelling units and commercial/industrial space throughout the affected territory on the basis of benefits conferred on property to be developed and the need for such streets and roadways created by such development. (H) The facts and evidence establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the described public facilities and the needs created by the types of development on which the fee will be imposed, and that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the types of development for which the fee is charged. This reasonable relationship is described in more detail in the development fee impact report and the addendum thereto. (I) The cost estimates set forth in the development impact fees report are reasonable cost estimates for constructing or reconstructing the streets and roadways proposed therein and the fees collected from residential and other development will not exceed the reasonably estimated total of these costs. (1) The streets, signals, and bridges fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be used only to finance the streets and roadways described or identified in the Circulation System section of the Master Facility Plan. (K) The local circulation systems fee is hereby imposed on new residential, commercial, and industrial development, and the amount of such fee shall be set by resolution of the Mayor and Common Council. 3.27.060 Regional circulation system impact fee -Findings. The Mayor and Common Council finds as follows: (A) The development of residential and other property in the affected territory will generate additional vehicle travel, which impacts regional circulation systems. This traffic will create a need regional transportation system improvements such as freeway interchanges, railroad grade separations, and regional arterial highways to accommodate increased traffic from new residential development and commercial/industrial development. (B) The Master Facility Plan establishes the costs and a fair method for the allocation of new development's share of regional circulation system improvement costs and fee apportionment, and the apportioned fees are applicable to all property within the affected territory. (C) The provision of regional circulation system improvements is identified in the Circulation System section of the Master Facility Plan and is necessary to mitigate the impacts 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. of development upon the regional circulation system within the City as contained in Appendix K of the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan. (D) The SANBAG Development Mitigation Nexus Study identifies the required development contribution levels or fair share amounts for each city and sphere of influence, and the City's regional circulation system impact fee will provide sufficient revenue to meet or exceed the required amounts. (E) The entire affected territory will derive benefit from the construction or reconstruction of regional circulation system improvements and should be assessed per the provisions of this chapter and pay a fair share of the cost thereof based on the benefit derived therefrom. (F) After consideration of the development impact fee report, the addendum thereto and testimony at this public hearing, the Mayor and Common Council hereby approve the development impact fee report and the addendum, and based thereon finds that new development in the affected territory will create regional circulation system needs that the construction and acquisition of the public improvements funded by this chapter and Measure I 2010-2040 will meet. (G) The Mayor and Common Council also find that the share of regional circulation system improvements funded by this chapter is apportioned relative to the anticipated contribution to traffic created by residential and other development in the affected territory, and that the fees are fairly apportioned on individual dwelling units and commercial/industrial space throughout the affected territory on the basis of benefits conferred on property to be developed and the need for such regional circulation system improvements created by such development. (H) The facts and evidence establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the described regional circulation system improvements and the needs created by the types of development on which the fee will be imposed, and that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the types of development for which the fee is charged. This reasonable relationship is described in more detail in the development fee impact report and the addendum thereto. (I) The cost estimates set forth in the development impact fees report are reasonable cost estimates for constructing or reconstructing the freeway interchanges, railroad grade separations, and regional arterial highways proposed therein and the fees collected from residential and other development will not exceed the reasonably estimated total of these costs. (1) The regional circulation system fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be used only to finance the City's fair share of the regional circulation system improvements described or identified in the Circulation System section of the Master Facility Plan. (K) The regional circulation systems fee is hereby imposed on new residential, commercial, and industrial development, and the amount of such fee shall be set by resolution ofthe Mayor and Common Council. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. (L) In accordance with Appendix J of the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan, the Mayor and Common Council shall update regional circulation system project cost estimates on an annual basis. and adjust the regional circulation systems fee based on the updated estimates. The fee adjustments will be based on an escalation factor approved by the SANBAG Board of Directors. 3.27.070 Quimby Act Parkland and Open Space Acquisition and Park Improvement impact fee-Findings. The Mayor and Common Council find as follows: (A) The development of residential and other property in the affected territory will create a need for the construction of park and open space facilities to maintain the current level of service. The park and open space facilities for which payment of a fee and/or dedication of land is required by this section shall be in compliance with the policies, goals and standards contained in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. (B) Pursuant to the Quimby Act (99 66477 of the Government Code), the City may impose by ordinance a requirement for the payment of fees to pay for the actual or estimated costs of constructing planned park and open space facilities. (C) Pursuant to Article II, 9 7 of the California Constitution, the City is empowered to enact measures that protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. (D) Park and open space facilities are essential to San Bernardino to mitigate the negative effects of increasing urban development and to promote the health and welfare of the citizens. (E) The provision of additional parks, recreation, and opera space is identified in the Parkland and Open Space Acquisition and Park Improvement section of the Master Facility Plan and is necessary to provide adequate parks and open space facilities within the City. (F) The development impact fee report and addendum thereto describe in detail the current City standards for parks and open space facilities, the cost for parks and open space facilities construction, and the cost thereof per new single-family, multi-family, and mobile home park or manufactured home park residential unit. (G) The entire affected territory will derive benefit from the park and open space facilities and should be assessed per the provisions of this chapter and pay a fair share of the cost thereof based on the benefit derived therefrom. (H) After consideration of the development impact fee report, the addendum thereto and testimony at this public hearing, the Mayor and Common Council hereby approve the development impact fee report and the addendum thereto, and based thereon finds that new development in the affected territory will create needs for park and open space facilities that the construction and acquisition of the public improvements funded by this chapter will meet. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. (I) The costs of the park, recreation, and open space facilities funded by this chapter are apportioned relative to the anticipated impacts created by development within the affected territory, and that the fees are fairly apportioned on individual dwelling units throughout the affected territory on the basis of benefits conferred on property proposed for development and the need for such facilities created by such proposed development. (J) The facts and evidence establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the described public facilities and the needs created by the types of development on which the fee will be imposed, and that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the types of development for which the fee is charged. This reasonable relationship is described in more detail in the development impact fee report and the addendum thereto. (K) The cost estimates set forth in the development impact fee report are reasonable and will not exceed the reasonably estimated total of these costs. (L) The park and open space facilities fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be used only to finance the park and open space facilities described or identified in the Parkland and Open Space Acquisition and Park Improvement section of the Master Facility Plan. (M) The park and open space land acquisition and facilities development fee is hereby imposed on new residential development. The amount of such fee shall be set by resolution of the Mayor and Common Council, and shall apply to development of residential uses requiring the subdivision of land. Developments ofresidential uses not requiring the subdivision ofland shall pay the AB 1600 park and open space land acquisition and facilities development fee in accordance with Section 3.26.075. (1) The subdivider, as a condition of approval of a tentative map, shall pay a fee in lieu, dedicate land, or both, at the discretion of the Council for park and/or recreational purposes pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66477. (2) It is hereby found and detennined that the public interest, convenience, health, safety and welfare require that 5 acres of land for each 1000 persons residing within the City be devoted to park and recreational purposes. Lands held as public open space, for wildlife habitat, shall not be included in this fonnula. (3) Where a public park or recreational facility has been designated in the General Plan and is to be located in whole or in part within the proposed subdivision and is reasonably related to serving the needs of the residents of that subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land for park and recreational facilities sufficient in size and physical characteristics to meet that purpose. The amount of land shall be detennined pursuant to Section 3.27.070(M)(4). If there is no park or recreational facility designated in the General Plan to be located in whole or in part within the proposed subdivision to serve the needs of the residents of that subdivision, the subdivider shall, pursuant to Council detennination, pay a fee in lieu of or dedicate land in compliance with Section 3.27.070(M)(4). 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. (4) The Council shall consider the following when evaluating the payment of fee in lieu of or the acceptance of land for dedication, or a combination of both: a. Parks and Recreation Element, and any other applicable provision of the General Plan; b. Topography, geology, access and location of land in the subdivision suitable for dedication; c. Size and shape of the subdivision and land suitable for dedication; d. Feasibility of dedication; and e. Availability of previously acquired private property. 3.27.075 AB 1600 Parkland and Open Space Acquisition and Park Improvement impact fee-Findings. The Mayor and Common Council find as follows: (A) The development of residential and other property in the affected territory will create a need for the construction of park and open space facilities to maintain the current level of service. The park and open space facilities for which payment of a fee and/or dedication of land is required by this section shall be in compliance with the policies, goals and standards contained in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. (B) Pursuant to Cal. Government Code SS 66000 et seq., and the City's police powers, the City may impose by ordinance a requirement for the payment of fees to pay for the actual or estimated costs of constructing planned park and open space facilities. (C) Pursuant to Article II, S 7 of the California Constitution, the City is empowered to enact measures that protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. (D) Park and open space facilities are essential to the City of San Bernardino to mitigate the negative effects of increasing urban development and to promote the health and welfare of the citizens. (E) The provision of additional parks, recreation, and opera space is identified in the Parkland and Open Space Acquisition and Park Improvement section of the Master Facility Plan and is necessary to provide adequate parks and open space facilities within the City. (F) The development impact fee report and addendum thereto describe in detail the current City standards for parks and open space facilities, the cost for parks and open space facilities construction, and the cost thereof per new single-family, multi-family, and mobile home park residential unit. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. (G) The entire affected territory will derive benefit from the park and open space facilities and should be assessed per the provisions of this chapter and pay a fair share of the cost thereof based on the benefit derived therefrom. (H) After consideration of the development impact fee report, the addendum thereto and testimony at this public hearing, the Mayor and Common Council hereby approve the development impact fee report and the addendum thereto, and based thereon finds that new development in the affected territory will create needs for park and open space facilities that the construction and acquisition of the public improvements funded by this chapter will meet. (I) The costs of the park, recreation, and open space facilities funded by this chapter are apportioned relative to the anticipated impacts created by development within the affected territory, and that the fees are fairly apportioned on individual dwelling units throughout the affected territory on the basis of benefits conferred on property proposed for development and the need for such facilities created by such proposed development. (1) The facts and evidence establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the described public facilities and the needs created by the types of development on which the fee will be imposed, and that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the types of development for which the fee is charged. This reasonable relationship is described in more detail in the development impact fee report and the addendum thereto. (K) The cost estimates set forth in the development impact fee report are reasonable and will not exceed the reasonably estimated total of these costs. (L) The park and open space facilities fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be used only to finance the park and open space facilities described or identified in the Parkland and Open Space Acquisition and Park Improvement section of the Master Facility Plan. (N) The AB 1600 park and open space land acquisition and facilities development fee is hereby imposed on new residential development. The amount of such fee shall be set by resolution of the Mayor and Common Council, and shall apply to developments of residential uses not requiring the subdivision of land. Developments requiring the subdivision of land shall pay the Quimby Act park and open space land acquisition and facilities development fees pursuant to Chapter 3.26.070. (1) It is hereby found and determined that the public interest, convenience, health, safety and welfare require that 5 acres ofland for each 1000 persons residing within the City be devoted to park and recreational purposes. Lands held as public open space, for wildlife habitat, shall not be included in this formula. (2) The Council shall consider the following when evaluating the payment of fee in lieu of or the acceptance of land for dedication, or a combination of both: a. Parks and Recreation Element, and any other applicable provision ofthe General Plan; 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. b. Topography, geology, access and location of land in the subdivision suitable for dedication; c. Size and shape of the subdivision and land suitable for dedication; d. Feasibility of dedication; and e. Availability of previously acquired private property. 3.27.080 Library facility and collection impact fee-Findings. The Mayor and Common Council find as follows: (A) The development of residential property in the affected territory will create a need for increased library services. As a result, additions to the library collection will be needed to maintain the current level of service. (B) Pursuant to Article 11, ~ 7 of the California Constitution, the City is empowered to enact measures that protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. (C) The provision of additions to the library collection is identified in the Library Facility and Collection section of the Master Facility Plan and is necessary to provide adequate library services within the City. (D) The development impact fee report describes in detail the current City standard for number of library books per person, the number of persons an average single-family, multiple- family or mobile home park residence generates, the library collection required to service new development, and estimates of the costs of additions to the library collection to maintain the current level of service. (E) The entire affected territory will derive benefit from the library collection and should be assessed per the provisions of this chapter and pay a fair share of the cost thereof based on the benefit derived therefrom. (F) After consideration of the development impact fee report and testimony at a public hearing, the Mayor and Common Council hereby approve the development impact fee report, and based thereon finds that new development in the affected territory will create needs for additions to the library collection that the acquisition of the public improvements funded by this chapter will meet. (G) The Mayor and Common Council also finds that the costs of additions to the library collection funded by this chapter are apportioned relative to the anticipated impacts created by development within the affected territory, and that the fees are fairly apportioned on individual dwelling units throughout the affected territory on the basis of benefits conferred on property proposed for development and the need for such facilities created by the proposed development. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. (H) The facts and evidence establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the described public facilities and the needs created by the types of development on which the fee will be imposed, and that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the types of development for which the fee is charged. This reasonable relationship is described in more detail in the development impact fee report. (I) The City Council also finds that the cost estimates set forth in the development impact fee report are reasonable and will not exceed the reasonably estimated total of these costs. (1) The library collection fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be used only to finance additions to the library collection described or identified in the Library Facility and Collection section of the Master Facility Plan. (K) The library facilities and collection fee is hereby imposed on new residential development, and the amount of such fee shall be set by resolution of the Mayor and Common Council. 3.27.090 Public meeting facilities impact fee -Findings. The Mayor and Common Council find as follows: (A) The development of residential property in the affected territory will create a need for increased public meeting facilities. As a result, additional public meeting facilities will be needed to maintain the current level of service. (B) Pursuant to Article 11, 9 7 of the California Constitution, the City is empowered to enact measures that protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. (C) The provision of public meeting facilities is identified in the Public Use Facilities section of the Master Facility Plan and is necessary to provide adequate public meeting facilities within the City. (D) The development impact fee report describes in detail the current City standard for number of public meeting facilities per person; the number of persons an average single-family, multiple-family or mobile home park residence generates, the public meeting facilities required to service new development, and estimates of the costs of public meeting facilities to maintain the current level of service. (E) The entire affected territory will derive benefit from the public meeting facilities and should be assessed per the provisions of this chapter and pay a fair share of the cost thereof based on the benefit derived therefrom. (F) After consideration of the development impact fee report and testimony at a public hearing, the Mayor and Common Council hereby approves the development impact fee report, and based thereon finds that new development in the affected territory will create needs for public meeting facilities that the acquisition of the public improvements funded by this chapter will meet. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. (G) The Mayor and Common Council also find that the costs of public meeting facilities funded by this chapter are apportioned relative to the anticipated impacts created by development within the affected territory, and that the fees are fairly apportioned on individual dwelling units throughout the affected territory on the basis of benefits conferred on property proposed for development and the need for such facilities created by the proposed development. (H) The facts and evidence establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the described public facilities and the needs created by the types of development on which the fee will be imposed, and that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the types of development for which the fee is charged. This reasonable relationship is described in more detail in the development impact fee report. (I) The Mayor and Common Council also find that the cost estimates set forth in the development impact fee report are reasonable and will not exceed the reasonably estimated total of these costs. (1) The public meeting facilities fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be used only to finance additions to the public meeting facilities described or identified in the Community Public Use Facilities section of the Master Facility Plan. (K) The public meeting facilities impact fee is hereby imposed on new residential development, and the amount of such fee shall be set by resolution ofthe Mayor and Common Council. 3.27.100 Aquatics facilities impact fee-Findings. The Mayor and Common Council find as follows: (A) The development of residential property in the affected territory will create a need for increased aquatics facilities. As a result, additional aquatics facilities will be needed to maintain the current level of service. (B) Pursuant to Article 11, 9 7 of the California Constitution, the City is empowered to enact measures that protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. (C) The provision of aquatic center facilities is identified in the Aquatic Center Facilities section of the Master Facility Plan and is necessary to provide adequate aquatic center facilities within the City. (D) The development impact fee report describes in detail the current City standard for aquatic center facilities per person, the number of persons an average single-family, multiple- family or mobile home park residence generates, the aquatic center facilities required to service new development, and estimates of the costs of aquatic center facilities to maintain the current level of service. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. (E) The entire affected territory will derive benefit from the aquatic center facilities and should be assessed per the provisions of this chapter and pay a fair share of the cost thereof based on the benefit derived therefrom. (F) After consideration of the development impact fee report and testimony at a public hearing, the Mayor and Common Council hereby approve the development impact fee report, and based thereon finds that new development in the affected territory will create needs for aquatic center facilities that the acquisition of the public improvements funded by this chapter will meet. (G) The Mayor and Common Council also find that the costs of aquatic center facilities funded by this chapter are apportioned relative to the anticipated impacts created by development within the affected territory, and that the fees are fairly apportioned on individual dwelling units throughout the affected territory on the basis of benefits conferred on property proposed for development and the need for such facilities created by the proposed development. (H) The facts and evidence establish that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the described public facilities and the needs created by the types of development on which the fee will be imposed, and that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the types of development for which the fee is charged. This reasonable relationship is described in more detail in the development impact fee report. (I) The Mayor and Common Council also find that the cost estimates set forth in the development impact fee report are reasonable and will not exceed the reasonably estimated total of these costs. (J) The aquatic center facilities fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be used only to finance additions to the community's aquatic center facilities described or identified in the Aquatic Center Facilities section of the Master Facility Plan. (K) The aquatic center facilities impact fee is hereby imposed on new residential development, and the amount of such fee shall be set by resolution of the Mayor and Common Council. 3.27.110 Accounting and disbursement offees. (A) Each of the fees paid pursuant to this chapter shall be placed in a separate fund, each of which may be further segregated by specific projects. These funds shall be known, respectively, as: (1) The Law Enforcement Development Fee Fund; (2) The Fire Protection Development Fee Fund; (3) The Local Circulation System Development Fee Fund; 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. (4) The Regional Circulation System Development Fee Fund; (5) The Quimby Act Parkland and Open Space Acquisition and Park Improvement Development Fee Fund; (6) The AB 1600 Parkland and Open Space Acquisition and Park Improvement Development Fee Fund (7) The Library Facilities and Collection Development Fee Fund; (8) The Public Meeting Facilities Development Fee Fund; (9) The Aquatics Center Facilities Development Fee Fund. (B) These funds, and interest earned thereon, shall be expended solely for construction and/or acquisition of the corresponding public facilities as shown in the Master Facility Plan, or for reimbursement for construction and/or acquisition of those public facilities. 3.27.140 Development fee credits; prepayment. (A) The owner of a parcel of property otherwise required to pay a fee under this chapter shall receive a credit for the corresponding development fee when that owner constructs or donates a facility, or a portion thereof, identified in the Master Facility Plan, regardless of how it may be financed, that serves the owner's parcel or parcels. The development fee credit shall offset, on a proportionate basis without interest, the corresponding development fee to be paid pursuant to this chapter. The facility must be built in compliance with all applicable laws governing the construction of public improvements. (B) The amount of the development fee credit shall equal the City's most recent estimated cost of constructing and/or furnishing the facility, or the portion of the facility actually completed or purchased, by contract or utilizing City forces. (C) The owner of a parcel of property may be further entitled to a development fee credit where the city determines, on a case-by-case basis, that the construction of the facility, or a portion thereof, will be necessary to provide basic services to the entire City even though it does not directly serve the owner's project or is of greater capacity than that required to serve the owner's project adequately. (D) The amount of the development fee credit shall be determined after inspection and acceptance of the facility at the time of payment of the corresponding facilities fee. (E) If an owner pays the facilities fee assessed under this chapter and later elects, after City approval, to accelerate the development by constructing or purchasing facilities for the project, the owner may apply for and receive a refund, up to the amount of the facilities fee, for such facilities after those facilities are certified by the City Engineer as complying with the appropriate Master Facility Plan, City ordinances, and applicable law. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. (F) To the extent that an owner is granted a development fee credit, such owner shall not be entitled to a future reimbursement for such facility except as provided in ~ 3.27.150. (G) A development fee credit is an obligation of the City that runs with the land and inures to the benefit of each successor in interest of the original landowner until full credit has been received. (H) A developer shall also be entitled to a credit if the City and developer have executed an agreement or there is a preexisting ordinance which specifically exempts the developer from the payment of one or more of the fees enacted under this chapter. The availability of the credit and its amount shall be determined by the City on a case-by-case basis based on the provisions of the applicable agreement. (I) A developer or any public agency may prepay all or any portion of one or more fees under this chapter through the use of funds, revenues or grants that are derived from sources other than those of the City or revenues generated from the fees collected under this Chapter. The Mayor and Common Council are hereby authorized to enter agreements with developers or public agencies to accept any prepayments of one or more of the fees under this Chapter based upon findings and determinations to be made by the Mayor and Common Council to acknowledge said prepayment and to approve any agreement with any developer or public agency to evidence such prepayment. 3.27.150 Reimbursement. (A) The owner of a parcel of property otherwise required to pay a facilities fee under this chapter will be entitled to enter into a reimbursement agreement to reimburse from subsequently collected development fees the direct and verifiable costs of installing or furnishing public improvements, or portions thereof, identified in the appropriate Master Facility Plan where all of the following conditions are satisfied: (I) The owner has constructed a public improvement, or portion thereof, that is identified in the appropriate Master Facility Plan. (2) The City required that the public improvement be constructed to contain supplemental size, capacity, number or length for the benefit of property not within the owner's project. (3) The City approved, prior to construction or furnishing, the proposed budget for the project and finds any change to that budget fair and reasonable. (4) The public improvement, or portion thereof, has been dedicated to the public. (5) The public improvement, or portion thereof, has been built in compliance with all applicable laws governing the construction of public works. (B) The City shall not reimburse the owner for costs related to financing any public facility. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. (C) An owner shall only be entitled to reimbursement to the extent that any public facility project benefits property not within the owner's project. Thus, an owner may receive a development fee credit as provided in Chapter 3.27.140 for the portion ofa public facility that serves the owner's project and reimbursement for the oversized or extra-capacity or extended portion of a public facility that benefits subsequently developed property. (D) In no event shall an owner receive a development fee credit and/or reimbursement in excess of the City's most recent estimated cost of constructing the facility, or the portion of the facility actually completed, by contract or by utilizing city forces. (E) Any reimbursement agreement entered into under this section shall require the City, for a period of up to 15 years, to reimburse the owner from the proceeds of the facilities fees collected from new projects that directly benefit from the facilities financed by the facilities fee or fees and which are the subject of the reimbursement agreement. Reimbursement shall only be made from fees collected to fund improvements which are of the same type as the improvement constructed by the owner, and from no other source. The terms of the reimbursement shall be set forth in the reimbursement agreement. 3.27.170 Deferrals. The Mayor and Common Council are empowered to grant deferral of any fee imposed by this chapter upon the recommendation of the Director of Development Services, except the regional circulation systems fee established in Chapter 3.27.060. Such deferral may only be granted after notice and hearing if, in the opinion of the Mayor and Common Council, properly supported by specific findings, deferral would allow a better or fairer financing arrangement to be developed and imposed. Findings must be based on written and other evidence submitted by the property owner, substantiating the owner's contention that the fee should be deferred. Findings must include facts supporting deferral, including without limitation, findings that in the case of deferral (I) other properties to be benefited by any fee will not be burdened by the review and delay in fee imposition, or, (2) alternative financing methods involving more than one owner have been proposed for review, or (3) delay will result in a more fair funding arrangement. 3.27.180 Application to subsequently annexed land. As areas not presently situated within the City boundaries seek to annex to the City, the Mayor and Common Council shall determine the benefit to such land areas of the public facilities and infrastructure funded by this chapter. The Mayor and Common Council shall impose development fees, in whole or in part, as established by this chapter, upon such annexed areas to the extent necessary to assure that such areas pay their fair share of the actual costs of all necessary public facilities and infrastructure benefiting their projects, unless the Mayor and Common Council determines that such an imposition would cause inequities or that a better or fairer financing arrangement can and should be developed and imposed." SECTION 2. 28 repealed. Chapter 3.26 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code is hereby 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. Section 19.30.320 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code is SECTION 3. hereby repealed. SECTION 4. If any article, section, clause, sentence or term or condition of this Ordinance is held invalid or unenforceable for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance will remain in full force and effect, provided the resulting provisions hereof continue to preserve the material legislative intent of this Ordinance as of the date of adoption by the Mayor and Council. SECTION 5. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66017 (a) this Ordinance shall become effective 60 days from the date of its adoption. 1// /1/ 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.27 TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, AND REPEALING CHAPTER 3.26 AND CHAPTER 19.30.320 OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the _ day of , 2006, by the following vote, to wit: Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT ESTRADA BAXTER MCGINNIS DERRY KELLEY JOHNSON MC CAMMACK City Clerk day of The foregoing ordinance is hereby approved this 2006. Patrick J. Morris, Mayor City of San Bernardino Approved as to Form and legal content: 21 ,.. .. ,.. I.. r [ I I I I I I I E E I I E E t E Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of San Bernardino, California January, 2006 R .. C '. S I evenue ost pecialists, LLC Serving Local Governments Since 1975 .. .. ... '- I'" i. t I'" Ii. I'" L. Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of San Bernardino, California ,. Ii. "" ~ January, 2006 "" l. .. Ii. l'" .. Copyright, 2005 &: 2006 by Revenue &: Cost Specialists, L.L.C. .,. ~ .. All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the copyright bereon may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means -- graphic, electronic, mechanical, includi.ng any photocopying, recording, taping or taping or information storage and retrieval systems without written permission of: ... "" , ... .. Revenue &: Cost Specialists, L.L. C. 2545 East Cbapman A venue, Suite 103 Fullerton, CA 92831 , :!-1) 992-9020 .. ,. .. ,.. .. .... ... .. III t I Serving Local Governments Since 1975 I E E I E I E L t E E E t t t [ '"" .. evenue ost pecialists, LLC January 6, 2006 Honorable Mayor and City Council Via Mr. Fred Wilson, City Administrator City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, C A 92418 RE: 2005-06 Developmellt 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 Lel'els of Service (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 ncw 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 Voice 714.992.9020 Internet: www.revenuecost.com 2545 E. Chapman Avenue. Suite 103. Fullerton, CA 92831 Fax 714.992.9021 ... ... ... . Page 1 January 6, 1006 Letter to the San Bernardino City Council and Staff t E t t t t E t [ [ [ [ $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 milJion 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 proportiollal allalysis, 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 milJion (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. r III .. Current Equity Service Provided Investment Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles & Eauioment $46,301,202 Fire Suppression, Facilities, Vehicles and Eauipment $59.305.645 Local Circulation Svstem(Street, Signals & Bridges) 5812.276.000 Library Facilities and Collection 530.724.058 Public Use Facilities (communitv centers) $54,620,225 Aauatics Facilities $19.015.237 Parkland/Open Space Acauisition and Develooment 5428.855.011 Total Existing Infrastructure Replacement Value $1,451.097.378 t t 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. ,. .. t - III ... III po l. t t t t t t t t t [ po I. po .. t po I. ,. , .. .... i.. Page 3 January 6, 1006 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 Jellsen, Admillistrative Analyn- Police Department Mark Lancaster, RCE, Deputy Public Works Director/City Engilleer Teresa Martin, Administrative Services Manager - Parks, Recreation alld Community Services Department Lynn Parker, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer Larry Pitzer, Fire Chief Terri Rahhal, Principal Planner Lemuel Randolph, Parks, Recreation and Commullity Services Director Dennis Reichardt, Deputy Fire Chief Lori Sassooll, Assistant City Admillistrator 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, 0~- --- Scott Thorpe, Senior Vice President - - - ... ... .. ... ... .. lit .. l1li '" l1li .. .. ... l. .. I l1li to" .. ... .. to" ... ... ... ... .. II'"' .. .. l1li ... .. ... .. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Chapter I - Background and Introduction ....................................... I 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 - ... - .. ... .. ... .. ... .. Ill' .. ,. III Ill' III ... .. ... III ... .. ... .. ... ... ... ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. Chapter 1 Background and Introduction The City of San Bernardino has retained Revenue & Cost Specialists I 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 fmanced by impact fees, by infrastructure.l The information contained in the Development Impact Fee 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 isfair. 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 staff to review the supporting data which forms the calculation ofDIFs. The results of this review can be found on the schedules located at the end of each Chapter. Illelusioll o(the "ProDortiollal Anal\'sis." 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 defacto or actual level of service provided to the existing community. This addition will assist the Council in making the difficult policy decisions regarding the Cit)' of Sail Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report I ~ t ; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ChaDler One Backr!Tound and lntroduction required additions of new development. Imoact 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 ABI600 by the California Legislature and is now codified as California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66009. This State law went into effect on January I, 1989. AB 1600 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, AB 1600 requires the following: I. Delineation of the PURPOSE of the fee. ~ 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. 2 Cit)' of San Bernardino Developmelll/mpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report r " E I I I I I I I I t Ii I I I I I I I ChaDter One Backrrround 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: . I. 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 mao and determine the existing mix ofland 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. Identifv all additions to the caoital facilities or equipment inventory necessary to maintain the identified levels of service in the area. Then, determine the cost of those additions. 4. Identifv a level of resoonsibilitv, 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. Citl" of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 3 t I I I I I I I I I I E E I I I I I I Chamer One Backf!Tound 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 Imorovements 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 mav 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 a zone-based fee for fire suppression services for the Arrowhead Springs area. Exclusion of Tax "Credits" for Undevelooed 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 o(5an Bemardino Del'elopment Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 4 '" , .. E E I I I I I I E E .. J I I I I I I Chaoter One Back~ound 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 of 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 exoansion 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. Financin2 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" 01 these costs. These costs are indicated on the project "detail" spreadsheets (3.1, 4.1,5.1, etc.). Aoorooriate Exoansion. Debt service is a reasonable cost of construction of many, but not necessarily all, public facilities and infrastructure. The following example illustrates. DlFs are collected in incremental amounts, but facilities are not expanded in those same inctemental 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 for a 100-unit subdivision, it would be impractical to expand the community : ,'mer i 2') square feel. Fecs are collected. placed in a separate fund. !,:cncratlng 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.ldwelling to about 0.9 S.F.ldwelling. This "temporary overcapacity" clearly may be an 5 ('ill' nfSan Bernardino Del'l'lo"mellt Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Rep()rt t t m c I I I I I I I I I I I I ; E E ChaDler One Backrn-ound and Introduction inconvenience, bringing about some crowding and an increased unavailability for rental or event reservation until enough DIFs have been colIected 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 stonn water colIection is not at alI possible. Capacity for the colIectionlremoval of storm water must be available prior to the construction that increases the impervious surface (and thus storm water runoffl of the parcel. If the local storm colIection 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 dolIar 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 detern1ining costs, on the other hand, would be inaccurate as it would treat the value of a dolIar 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 imponant, if for no other reason, than because it attempts to achieve community inter-generational equity, i,e., fairness in balancing the infrastmcture investment made by existing residents and businesses with the investment asked of new residents and businesses that will benefit from the existing infrastructure. In shon, 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 hui Id-out. It is an entirely different thing to assume that all of the identified improvements arc required to meet the demands of the new development. Clearly, some projects are I'cl"aCCII/CII[5 ot the existing infrastructure as opposed to capacity illcreasingprojects. Within the category of the latter, they may also be funher classified into two categories; ( ",' "tS"'1 Bel'l/(//,"lI1o Del'cIol'lI/ell1 1111I'(/c[ Fee CaIcllIa/101I (/lId ,VexlIs RCl'ort 6 "" .. ... jii .. E I I i I ; I E E ; t I I I I E I ChalJter One Backl!round and Introduction 1. Projects dealing with existing deficiencies, i.e., projects required regardless of whether there is additional development or not. An example) would be a traffic intersection . currently controned 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 controned 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 an 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 may be made clearer and easier by reviewing the fonowing examples. Comoarison of Needed Infrastructure with Existinlz 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 of Happy Yaney" for a few scenarios to explain the thieepossible conditions that can occurregarding 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 53,000,000) can meet the needs of 5,000 homes or 10,000,000 square feet of business pad. If these standards were adopted as Happy Yaney's public safety element of the City's General Plan, they would be known as the dejure 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 iure standard would then be (on the fonowing page): 7 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation alld Nexus Report "" .. ... I .. t E I I I E I , E ; t t E I ; t E ChaDler One Backf!round and Introduction Table 1-1 Calculation of N.F.P.A. Impact Cost Land Use Station Cost Units Served ImDact Fee Residential Units $3,000,000 5,000 $600.00 per home Business S.F. $3,000,000 10,000,000 $0.30 ner 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 commerciaVindustrial 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 Reuuired Residential Units 10,000 5,000 2 Stations Business S.F. 20,000,000 10,000,000 2 Stations Reuuired 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 of commercial/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]. 8 CitJ of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report "" .. t E I I I I I I I I I f E Ii I E E E ChaDler One BackrFround and Introduction Table 1-3 Development of Current Infrastructure is "On-Target" Number Units served by Stations of Units One Station Reauired 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 Required Currentlv 2.00 Stations Conversely, Happy Valley has the remaining half of its fire demand (in terms of calls-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 Required Residential Units 3,750 5,000 0.75 Stations Business S.F. 12,500,000 10,000,000 1.25 Stations # of New Stations Required from Land to be Developed 2.00 Stations If the development impact costs calculated in Table I-I, ($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: 9 City of San Bernardino DeI'elopmem Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report ... .. t t ; I I I I I I I I E I ... II I I E E ChaCJter One Backf!round and Introduction Table 1-5 Remaining DIF Collection Number Impact Amount of Units Fee Col1ected Residential Units 3,750 $600.00 $2,250,000 Business S.F. 12,500,000 $0.30 $3,750,000 Amount Collected in Imnact Fees $6,000,000 Cost of a One New Station $3,000,000 Stations to be Built with Imnact 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 I-I, or S300/residential unit and SO. I 5/square foot of business space, respectively (see Table 1-6, on the following page). City of San Bernardino Developmelll Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 10 - - "" , liII "" lit I I m I I I E E , E E i E I E E Chamer One Backf!round 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 Existinf! Communitv $3,000,000 Cost of One New Station $3.000,000 Station(s) built with Communitv'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 (off our) from a City-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 equitable option is for the City to adopt impact fees at the S300/residence and SO. IS/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 ofthe 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 constalll 50% 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 De\'elopmelll Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 11 ... .. t ; I E I I I I ; E I r: :.l E [ , I I I ChaDter One Backf!round 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? lfso, 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 Recouoment Fee? The Happy Valley City Council should adopt, at a minimum, the $300/residence and $0. I s/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.6 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 sllare 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 storm 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 Soecific 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 12 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report .. ., .. l1li E I i I I I I ; I , f t E ~ I I E ChaDler One Backf!round 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 infrastnlcture to be constnlcted. 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 fmance 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 densitylhigh open space acreage Arrowhead Springs development. Densitv mav also be a factor. Fire infrastnlcture system improvements to date may be spread over a more 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 infrastnlcture costs per home for the lesser density will be far higher than the infrastnlcture 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 IIser-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. waterreservoirs 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 966000 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 De\'e/opmellllmpact Fee Ca/cll/ation and NexlIs Report 13 II'" ... t '"" Ii. I i I I I I I I I I I I t C I I ChaDter One Backf!round 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 deficientS 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- site" public improvements, and the hidden cost of extendini! public serviceslo 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 out falls. . 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. 14 ( ,':.' ufSall Bef'llard/110 Dnelopmellt Impact Fee CalculatIOn alld Nexus Report ... iIII ... t .. I I I I I I I I I E ~ I I I I I I ChaDter One Backf!round 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 $1 5,000 to $20,000 per'detached dwelling home or in the area of7.5% to 10,0% of the aboveground 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 ORGA~IZA TION 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 ".l/arginal 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 . ::lC .cnd of the Chapter. i.e.. 3.2.4.2.5.2 etc.) for that intrastmctllre. With adoption of this level of impact fees, one could claim that new dl'\'clnpmenl is occurring without any additional cost to the existing residents and businesses. Y Oll could not, however, claim that new development is paying its ''fair share," l iI\ vJ Silnlkm<lrdmv l)c\eiopmClIllmI'<lCI Fec ('aleu/a/lVn alld Scxus Report 15 ... - t E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ChaDler One Backr!round 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 wiII 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 afront-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 a\'erage 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. . em' o(Sall Bernardillo Del'e/opmelll/mpaCl Fee Caleu/alloll alld !'iexus Report 16 .. III t t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ChaDter One Backr!round and Introduction Adoption of this level of fee would allow the City to claim that development is paying its fair share. CHAPTER ENDNOTES I. The firm had been previously known as Management Services Institute, but the same partners reorganized as Revenue & Cost Specialists. LL c.. 2. For greater detail of each project, refer to the City's Master Faciliries Plan.. 3. Examples using other infrastructure will be used from time to time in this repon. 4. "Happy VaUey" has been used as an imaginary community for purposes ofDIF example for about nine years. Clearly no insult is intended to any real or imagined community of Happy VaUey. It is also a Happy VaUey because there is no inflation and the value of a doUar 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 supponable with a recent appraisal of the existing utility assets. 8. !'\ot 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 pnvately 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-slle public improvements made by the developer while the property upon which the on-slle 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 ofmumcipal services typlcally required to suppon a residential dwelling. 11. Npt 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 ... iii E Ii ." I I I I I I I I I I I I I E I I Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings This Chapter provides an inventory of developed and undeveloped land within the City and presents a summary ofrecommended 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 2-1 Detailed Land Use Inventory ICily of San Bernardino 'City Sphere of Influence iDetached Dwelling Units ! Attached Dwelling Units i Mobile Home Units ,Commercial LOdiiing iCommerciaUOffice KSF I, Undeveloped Acres 1/ of Units 7,566.0 40,663 1,613.0 19,415 746.0 4,475 98.2 2,455 2,403.0 54,508 2,631.0 45,843 4,516.0 12,354 811.0 8,599 1.0 6 126.0 625 1,594.0 31,783 2,795.0 48,700 ,Industrial Uses KSF I Total - Cily Sphere II 15,057.2 __ I 9,843.00__ 1 Private Residences I Commercial Lodging Rooms , Business Square Feet 9,925.0 64,553 98.2 2,455 5,034.0 100,350 5,328.0 20,959 126.0 625 4,389.0 80,483 Total Acres 1/ of Units 12,082.00 2,424.00 747.00 224.20 3,997.01 5,426.00 24,900.21 15,253.0 224.2 9,423.0 53,017 28,014 4,481 3,080 86,291 94,543 85,512 3,080 180,833 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 18 II' ill I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ChaTJIer 2 Demo~raDhics and Findin~s 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 defined) 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 Heav)', 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 - Universit)' Business Park and OIP- Office Industrial zones. . IndustriallManufacturing Uses - This category contains all businesses engaged in heavy manufacturing or industrial development in the single industrial zone such as IL - Industrial Liglrt, IH- Industrial Heavy and IE- Industrial Extractive. City of Sail Bernardillo Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 19 - .. "" . I I I I I I I I I I E I I I I I I OWNer 2 DemOf!raDhics and Findinf!s 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. Res 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 ~ 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 Dwellin!!s 1,613.0 6.5% 811.00 30.3% 2,242.0 Mobile Home Dwellings 746.0 3.0% 1.0 0.0% 747.0 Comm. Lod!!ing 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% I 9,843.0 I 39.5% I 24,900.2 I 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 Cin' of Sail Bernardillo Developmellllmpact Fee Calculatioll alld Nexus Report 20 - .. ,. l.. C I I I I I I I I E I I I I I I I ChaDter 2 DemorrraDhics and Findinrrs 15,057 acres of privately-held develooed land within the City's current City boundaries. Conversely, there remain 9,843 acres of vacant or substantially undevelooed 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 dwel1ing density of about 5.4 units per acre whereas future Detached dwellings will constructed at more limited 2.7 dwel1ing unit per acre. Commercia1lIndustrial Develooment. 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/Office Development - 19,940 G.S.F. per Acre (about 46% FA.R.) Industrial Development - 17,240 G.S.F per Acre (about 40% FA.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. Ci(1' a/San Bernardino De\'elopmeI1l1mpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 21 '" ill t m I I I I I I I E I I I I I I I I ChaDler 2 Demof!raDhics and Findinf!s Also, the past growth trends approach is not sensitive to policy changes made by Councilor 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 of Ilolding-capacity, (described in the following section), to project future service levels and facility requirements. Holding Caoacitv Analvsis. 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) of263,173 residents.s 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 decreasc each year. City of San Bernardino De\'elopmelll Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 22 Number Less Number Total Number Existing Residential of Units Vacant Occupied 01 Occupants Detached Residential Detached Total 37,296 3199 34,097 I 119,367 II 3,501 1 91.42%1 IMObile Home Total 4,3621 6221 3,740 II 9,41211 2.5171 85.74%j I Other 110 I 291 81 II 14311 1.7651 O.O~ Iundeveloped Detached Dwellings 12,354 91.42% 11,294 3.501 I Undeveloped AlIached dwellings 8,599 94.34010 7,252 2.771 I Undeveloped Mobile Home's 6 85.74% 5 2.517 I Population to be added development I .. III ,. .. I: I I I I I I I I I I I I Chaoter 2 Table 2-3 City of San Bernardino Average Dwelling Occupancy, by Type (2000 United States Census Data) 1A1Iached Residential Duplex to Quadplex 5,741 1084 4,657 Five or more 13,194 1795 11,399 AlIached 2,711 511 2,200 Total - MFR 21,646 3,390 18,256 I Existing - State Depanment of Finance 01/01/OS Population [POIential G.P. Build-out Population Anticipated At Historic Occupancy Rates Units Occupancy Rate Probable Occupancy DemovraDhics and Findinvs 13,993 29,044 7,551 50,588 3.0OS 81.12OA 2.548 86.40% 3.432 81.15% 2.771 84.34% IPotential "Build-out" Population, at Historic Vacancy Rates. I Potential G.P. Build-out Popu/ation Anticipated At tOO% Occupancy Rate Units Occupancy Rate Probable Occupancy II 199,803 I 'Undeveloped Detached Dwellings 12,354 100.00% 12,354 ! Undeveloped AlIached dwellings 8,599 100.00% 8,599 . Undeveloped Mobile Home's 6 100.00% 6 Dwelling Density Anticipated Population 39,540 20,095 13 I 59,648 I I] 259,451 I 59,648 I 259,451 I Dwelling Anticipated Density Population 3.501 43,251 2.771 23,828 2.517 15 II 67,094 I 67.094 I II 266,897 I 266,897 I I I E I Population to be added development I Potential Maximum "Build-out" Population. (i) Summary File 3 (SF3), available at htrp://lactlinder.census.gov (2) Current population based upon State 01 California Department of Finance data. Cllr afSall Bemardillo Del'e/opmellt/mpact Fee Ca/cu/alioll alld Nexus Report 23 .. ill I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chaoter 2 DemOflraDhics and Findinfls 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 fees' are summarized in Table 2-4, following: Table 2-4 Summary of Development Impact Fees (Assumes Recoupment for Excess Capacity) Recommended Land Use Development ImDact Fees Detached Dwellin!:( Units $16,134/Dwellinf! Unit Attached Dwellinf! Units $12,518/Dwellinll Unit Mobile Homes $IO,629/Dwellino Unit Commercial Lodging $3,297/Lodginll Unit Commercial/Office Uses S5.710/Sauare Foot Industrial Uses $3,193/Sauare 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 :-ccollpment of the costs of pre\'ious development-generated capital proiects (excess capacity) as was described in Chapter One, the detail of the existing value of the \ariolls systems, does not approach the level of accuracy required to adopt a recoupment style impact fee. As such the recommended De\'elopment 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 CUI' of San Bemardino De\'elopmellllmpact Fee CalculatIOn and Nexus Report 24 ,.. .. E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ChaDter 2 DemOrY'aDhics and Findinf!s (Schedule 2.2) would finance about 89.8% of the needed capital facilities by raising some $41 \.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 Imnact Fees Detached Dwelling units $13,392/Dwelling Unit Attached Dwelling Units $10,687/Dwelling Unit Mobile Homes $9,197/Dwelling Unit Commercial Lodging $1,699/Lodging Unit Commercial/Office Uses $2.716/Square Foot Industrial Uses $\.359/Sauare 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 f~~ revenue, the capital cost total and the difference by individual infrastructure type, (i.e. police, fire, etc.). Schedule 1.1, 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 mfonnation 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 D1F cost schedules, listed following and three appendices. 2S City ofSwz Bernardino Developmellllmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report " a. E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ChaDler 2 DemOr!raDhics and Findinr!s 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 illcluded 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 alld the schedules at the end of the same chapter, the schedules shall prevail. CHAPTER ENDNOTES I. 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. :;. 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 oISan Bernard/I/O Del-elopmellT Impact Fee Ca/culatioll and Nexus Report 26 "" III I I I I I I I I I I I ~ - 0 0 I lJ.. Ill'" 1Il~1Il 1Il<u1Il lJ.. ",lJ.. _ at) I OCll '" !,"'Q. ",~.s 1-.ii5 C "''''1Il I alalE "'~Q. 1Il0o III _Qi u..~ > -"CIl I al=>e Q. Cl-c .s:i51 _Ill'" "il.Q CIle I I oE ", .5 Q.(ij'~ 'C 00= ::::J __ - ~ C' <UCIlCllW c>'O__ as~'U5 0 I ~ CD_Q)Q) N c: 0 a: ~ ~ >-....~ cn....Q)cn i5 -EQ.~ o U).- CIl '" I J: ~E:BlJ.. " .-::::Ju.. _ CIl LlCll~<u ~ .i ~ ! .. .. .. I J i '" '" :5 iii iii 1 1 1 i i i Ig ~ .. co g !! m - ... B :;; III ... Ii 1; _ .; .. .. Ii lli ::i .! ~ ~ ;; ;; ;; E '" - l 11 ~ ;I .. ...! . - 0 :!1~J i 0 ~ ell . . .l! .2 ~~ ~~ - . ,..; ,2 .r:! II i 1 ~ :g Cl. 2 J! .! ell :a. : j ;; ~ :: g .! ~ ~ ~ j E ; !! II) - if;. ,,; .~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ J ~ .5 cS i3 E . ;~t. ct I: 'C \ii ~ ~ : ~ "ii Illl.!! i '5 ~ ! ~ ~ .'" o '" s ~ ~ , 1 ~ .!! - II . :::I it a:! 1 ~ ~ M ... = ii M Q _ M . E III II ~ i i i ,jju ell ~ - ,; . ~ "i ~ 51 ::: lli .. = :i ~ ~ vi ; .. co .. .. .. .. .. a a ~ ! I U ~ " . . . at If If 000 z z z ... ... .. '" '" .. a ~ i . . . If If .f o 0 0 z z z .. .. .. ~ ~ ~ .. .. .. . . . If af .f 000 z z z :; :n ~ ~ ~ :l :; :; ! ~ a a ~ ~ a; ~ : I ~ eel Q 0 N It) M N W N ..; N fit .. .. .. tit .. I M c& M ~ m co r.n c:; ... .. fit ... N N ~I~ ala I ~\;! '" ~ .. .. i i Nll'" .. .. N .. o c:i ""'i"" ..I.. gl~ .. .., I . II II ! I ~I ~I "i ii'~ 'u '-.", _ S ! e e ;; g g .iJ (,) (,) .E ~ N .. '" i. I ~ .. a ~ = 9 III I:: III ::: "! '" .. i f s. .. ~ ~ I i r:: ;; I :;; 0. .. .. i ,.: = ;;; ill I i ! i .. ;; eo eo eo eo .. .. ; ill re i N .. .. :R .. .. ;; a a ~ ~ l .. .. .. eo ~ ~ ~ i .. .. - :it i ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ;=u&i ;; .. ~ a a ~ ~ r:i ; N - ~ N .. .. .. .. .. N I III ::: .. .. .. ~ N ri ;; ;:; c:; ~ CIl!. c.. N aM ifi .. .. .. ... .. N ... .. gj ~ ~ ... '" ; li I ! ~ ~ .. .; ;; .. ~ f .. .. ~!i .; ;; a a a a a ~ ~ ~ a a a ~ ~ :;j fti M .. .. .. J': N .. .. ~ M ",' \i ;; - ... ... t:: t:: Ji Ji N N o Q ;; ;; .. .. .. .. ~i;~$:~ !aa~~ a:ufi~",.~:!.~ ~~ C"),... N ..:if.. .. - 0: "~~~.::i ::i ;; ......... ... ~Ii! ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ i g~. I~~~s:~g~. ~f:;. - ~ M ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ laiCli ..-uittia'ui <q' .. N C") N M s:: c:; ,..... ;;; ~ ..U ; =,~~. ~ ~ g ~ g ~ f ~g..~.i~gg r;i~a' 00' ,..: ,..: tti M ;t,.... f'i .... ... uu ~e N ~ g 101 lDi ~ ~'~,;; I ~i ~II;; '" ~ ~ .. ! i ~~Oigi~~~ ! i a ~ ~ i ~_l ~I ti ;;: lal~1 1=1 .!!I G1 ~ I '~i ~ I i ! ~I II i e c ~ iij I ~, II -; ~t -: '0 0: Il tl~ i:1 >. ._ .c Cl. a ill <5 ~ I I 8' .. 1)1 ~~ II .. ~ ... ~ 1~I{i~f~~ ~~i~ ~I~ ~ ~ -" I 01 u u ~ l:l ~ ::: - ; ~ I fl. ~ ~ I ~ ~ E ~ -ilc! ~::; ~ ~ ~ i".... . ii ...... ; ! = . go !~ or C'I.I. ::.~ .- .Ii 0._ ii~ .tj .s ; U e 0 ~~ . e e- - . ! ~ u . . . . . . 0 e ii ..- ;; ~ 0..,. .,. .. '" .. ..- _ 0 0.. :Eli .~.>. .. .. . . 0. 0.. . . . . ~ ~ W ::l ~ .. .. :i m = I'll ~: i.r 'i ! ; U ::l _ uS :s! O!S E ~ 8 ~ I'll c;:: c E -; ~ ~ ~ .~ a: ~:g :5~::,g 'i g.!!! .-. ~ u.. ~ :! .g ! E u o ~ E ::l ~&g8~ ~---- O-NC")~ z-_.......... 27 I I I I I I I I I I I '" al I ~ - ~" Cia. ~E I al- al~- al'"c u.::lal _~E o Co 0 I 8,"'- "'al >-al> I-Cal 'iijC >-::l'O alalal I "'~'" alo," al .&J LL=I _C>- g~'3 I CoOlC' E~w -- ~ _alO c~'O o ~C al I .5c.m: "CO;.Q ...- C I ,"alal'tl E 6) 'C Q) '" alc'iij al I m_Q)Z N cOCl:(ij al ca >0 -- c '5 CIJ ~ 8,'- '" Ol 'tl 'OEcnm al ~E$~ I J: " ._::l~ _ CIJ (')CIJ~," I .. .. 'i! .. ! .. c c c c ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l .. 1 . !. !. !. !. i !. . .. . i:i ~ ... ... I. .. ~ IB ~ ;:: - ... ~ cO .; Ii ;; U ;; ~'G_ ;; ;; :!. 'i! E ::l - f ~ B ~ ;; . I ~. .! ~ f/i._ ::l :! c :3 'i .f~f~ . . .2 .1 . ::: . ,- l.f I 0.;: .2 c ~ . Ii i;;; .. f:d j <ll .. . ~ ,'- .... . S ;; ~ i ~ :~ :g II _" .c .. <ll E . . .. - -e... .. III U) . . ,~ 8 ~ .. n ~ j e s ~ U E . ;ti~ Ii ;.... . ~ Iii : .. "- ii . i ~ 81 '5 e ~ ~f.l en G WI ~ ., 8 ..' 'ii'S . . . ! ! ;: 'S it u! j iil ~ <ll - .. . .. 'Ii .c <ll Iii ~ !! ., .. 0 :Ii :Ii :Ii . . . . . . ... ... ... 0 0 0 z z z ... .. ill ... N N ;; .. .. . . . . . . ... ... ... 0 0 0 z z z ... ... .. .. .. ! '" ... .. .. . . : . . ... ... ... 0 0 0 z z z .. ., .. ... N a .. :t .. : ~ . . ... ... 0 0 0 z z z .. ... l!l l!l Ii .. ., ill ::i .. :t .. .. .. .. .. a a ~ i I i'~ i ;; ;; g g :; fa ~ ~ g :l: .. .. .. a a ! ~ = ! ~ i ~ .: _ a .. Ie fa ! ~ . .... 0 - .: .: i ~ l!l III - co ;; Ii g :t ; a ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ .; 11 i i :t, ~ : a I ~ Ii .; N .. l:l g i ;; aaai~ '" oti ;; N i i .. ;; a a ~ , M iii III ~ ~ ::i ;; - 1i ~ ~ a a a ~ ci ;; ., "! :i ;; ~ ; ~ a i i N ai .; ~ ~ .. ~ :Ii a ~ ~ a a a ~ g = :Ii ::i ~ ~ Q) &l = N ; CD .... CD M oi c.J cti N tiJ ~ .. ,.. rn c;~. :toO ; .. u .. N Iii ~ 13 ~ :i :i a a a a :5 ... o l:l oj 0 ~ Ui .; , o ;; ~ ~ii~i i ~ ~ ~ 00 .n~ .. ;; ;; - N i Sl " a i oti .. f-- .l . ! " . Ii" oli ;j; ~ ai~ -... -- .- U !! U. a.e _ 0. .- 'u .r! ; i E " n . ~ ~- - . ~ M . . . . B '". . i!. i!.;I' ;1'0 .... ::.. 0." 3!'ii 'l'S. ." 'li :!. 0.. . . . . . E . $ Ii '" .. ~ ~ = III. e ... iii ~ ~ .; Ii: _ I'll :I.a IlS Q. Q:I t,l .e 0 ,S;! .; :! ~ :a i -g c ~ e li ~ :s ~ UJ flI.2:s .~ GlE g ..2 ::l .. '-- ~ fti e :! '-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;; 5 tt .. G'l :3 = = f3~g8:5 I- .-..-.__ o - C\I M ..,. z---- ! ! D ~ .. .; 6; ; a a .. .. .. :; ;:: t::. ~ ~ 5 ! & ~ a a ~ ( ~ ~ .; ;; ~ a ~ ; .. fif .. ~i~~~~~~agS~ :;:_'g:.i~-":NN o:~ o _fBiNC\I ~C\I"" oi f..... ...,.: c.; co) 4lt,.: co) .... .. r4~ :.~ 8 ;; ~ ~ ... . 'i! c CD ~ ~i~lii~ iIQl'i~;Qi :, )I~, IS ! 5 1 ::J lilililili J J J .. ::i .,; .. N oti I;;; ~i~~i: ~ ~1igioioi~ o ..,. M ~ ~ ..,. ~ "~~3~ .. .... ; ;; ~ . ~ = u ~ :!. ." . .s c ClI ~ ~ j 1 i ! u ill is .. .. ... II N '" :;:I~ :! :5 .. 0 ., ... 0 0 .. iil .. 'lI ., ., ... 0 .. 0 0 i Ii: .. .. ... Pi .. . ... N N 0 "'-1"'-1'" "' ..- '" 0_, . 'Ii .. .. .. .. a <> .,; " " .; I 01 In _ fI) i N' t E . .. l! ,... .... lID '" N N '" ..., 5 8 .,; .. . C. 1 ~ N .. .. ~, ~I i il, I " .. .; .,; ~ I :l: :; .. ;; ;; I~I~I .c I < .~ <ll w ... . ... ~ 'I . tU 'Ii I~ : U ita I" ~ !! "= '= ::l ::l CI ~ :E g' I: - ::: ::1 ! ! ~ il ill" '5..ci.!! If U 1'- ~ ~1'8 o <12 II; ~ " "61 5 '8 E .... g ~[ '~ . . E E g! g UIU :a ~ .c '" 'i '" . ~ ~ ... 'lI ," 0. . " 28 t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment The Existinl! Svstem 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 tund balance. Demand Uoon Infrastructure Created bv the Development of Underdevelooed 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 29 City of San Bernardino Developmelll Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report ,. .. I: I I I I I I I I I '1 I I I I I I I Chaoter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities. Vehicles and Eouioment businesses will mean more responses to the burglaries, domestic disputes, noise complaints, shoplifting, and miscellaneous incidents that wiII 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 period'. 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) Developed Calls Total Calls Per Land Use Dwellings For Dwelling or or K.S.F. Service K.s.F. Detached Dwellinl!: Units 40,663 67,790 1.667IUnit Attached Dwelling Units 19,415 28,660 1.476IUnit Mobile Homes (in Parks) 4,475 4,220 0.9431Unit Commercial Lodging 2,455 2,280 0.9291Unit Commercial/Office K.S.F. 54,508 41,110 0.754/KSF Industrial Uses K.S.F. 45,843 180 0.004/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 NexlIs Report 30 ~ .. I: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I CllaDler 3 Law Enforcement Facilities. Vehicles and Eauioment development was then divided by the average number of calls requiring a response by an officer. The PurDose 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 detennined. 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 nonnal 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 Relationshio Between the Need for the Fee and the Tvoe of Develooment 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-servicel 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 3\ City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report t E I I I I I I I I m I I I I I I I I Chaoter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities Vehicles and Eauioment 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 current 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 Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Tvoe of Development Paving 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 of responding to calls from the existing community. The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facilitv 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-Ol. 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]. 32 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation alld Nexus Report II" ~ [ t I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I ChaDler 3 Law Enforcement Facilities. Vehicles and Eauioment Table 3-2 Marginal Needs-based Costs Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fees Allocation Total Cost Land Use of Costs Per Unit or SF Detached Dwellinl! Units $8,105,619 $656/Unit Attached Dwellinl! Units $4,995,481 $581/Unit Mobile Home Units $2,227 $371/Unit Commercial Lodl!ing Units $228,528 $366/Unit Commercial/Office Uses $9,432,023 SO.297/S.F. Industrial Uses S76,671 SO.OIO/S.F. Existing Equitv-based Comoarison. 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 (S9,930,OOO), personal-assigned equipment for the 312 officers ($1,479,020), combined communications and specialty equipment of S8,076,570. There is no Law Enforcement DlF fund balance. The existing police facility has a remaining debt of S9,754,385 on revenues borrowed to construct it. When this combined, net, equity figure of S46,30l,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 ,yuare feet of law enforcement space \\ould 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). 33 l U\' oJ San Bel'llarcilllO DerdoplI/emlll/pact Fee Calculation <1/1<1 :\'exus Report ~ I ; I t E I I I I E ; I I I I I I I ChaDler 3 Law Enforcement Facilities. Vehicles and EauiDment Table 3-3 Current Law Enforcement "Equity" Allocation Total Equity Land Use of Eeuitv Per Unit or SF Detached Dwellim! Units $21,761,447 $535/Unit Attached Dwelling Units $9,199,760 $474/Unit Mobile Home Units $1,354,745 $303/Unit Commercial Lodging 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 S50,OOO. The $42,436 is the average of the Department's 234 vehicles ranging in cost Irom the low of 16 motorcycles at about 510.000 each to the single S \\' AT van at 5300.000. [)ata from a ten percent random samphng of calls from a recent contmuOllS twelve month penod. 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 pnvate property. ell\" oISall Bernardillo Developmellllmpact Fee Calculatioll alld Nexus Report 34 "" .. L t [ ; I I I I I I I I I I I I - E co:i .S1 -6 <ll I '5 U) i~ )~ III II ,~ I ; 'g ~ i ~ ~ ~ )1 a Ii ~ ~ .5 ;::- l~ ..... I Q) b Ii ,~ _ Ii J~ ~ i a- ,~ IS !!! ~I " ~ )1 ~~ ~ .5 ~ ,~ ~ iO - ~ ,~ '" 1Z ~ 'l:l ~ ~ U) '" ~ Q)Cb~ ~Cii:c: - .s .@ ,,-- a ~ vi o~~~ ,S c:: '-' " ~~t~ ~ g.'~ 'i: cui)ctCb lll"'....~ <ll C) " i Cl c:: .. U) ~ ,~ .g oJ,~LU ~ <:) C) ~ ..... Q:::::: t'a (.)<\1'(.... N~~g~ 1t)'l;f'(QO Ili":MO ","'''0 CQO(Q1t) a a.. . Ill.. N -.. .. .. mooO . tit W.. III o 1& N N .. a>N .. ' OIl" oS 1& " -'2 N~ ~cll g 000 ...... 000 i U') It) .."'''' ~ gj .; .; OIl OIl .... .... fl ~ cicid ~ 0 CO 8 !!l ~ i 0 i ~ N N ~ '" OIl ... a> on C;; ri g ..; i. ..; :g ~ I!! a> 0 OIl OIl OIl on ~ '" N m N N .. '" '" '" '" '" '" - l- f- - C/) C/) ., , ~ t- al z ., 0 w Z u :i t- ~ &l u w ::l 'a a ., a It <J a: c: < ]! Q. '" -' '0. Sl ~ 'iii < '" U II> '" ~ U :E E Z 'C C ., c: ., Vi, C " , ., > u.. '" E >-, W ::l I~ 'c/), t- ., ., i~ ~ ~ < ., C/) <J ::;: u.. 5 t5 u I~ IC%{I; - ~ '" c. ~ as ~ "' w .5 -' :~En; < '~:(ij 1"7 '5l!l.g.c ~ = '0. ftI-:1':: <J '" 'iii u..~,ffg., , ~u ~ _ _ ~ CJ '" C c ieal~~ ::l C/) ., ., E1coCoQ) E E Q),Q.I'~ C) CJ'J " CD' , .~ Il , ! CJ (/). -- 11'51'(ijI~:i i ,~,gl(j;lgic I .- ,. "'I c: , '~'O .~ > 0 '1'~I~i6!~:~ "C Q) Q) CDI'" ~'S'3'3~ ,Q.O"O"cr:.: 'x 0 0 U 0 LU<<<a. o~8g:g I I I I I wwwww ...J:..J,....J ...J ...J ~,~: 1'1' I 010' C c! I ,wlwl I; i , '3 31 'I I ' ",I", I : ,,~n Iul I ulu .. '" 0:: ,:.:; ; N co N a> < U C E ~ :; u.. ~ i i 10 . ., <J '~ Jl , 5 ., JIl 'iii U . C CD E t: '" ! c CD E CD <J 5 'E w ~ '" -' '5 '" .5 Q. E '" ., ~ - '" c: 0 c. " al l\l <.:i J:J .J c: .2 -' S on ,e "gj 1ii 'iii '6 ~ ili ~ c. C/) b Vi 0 Z - U 'C c '" 35 " " c: ., > ., a: t E t I I I I I I I I I I c: <Il I .~ '" ~ € ~ ~ .. I .. li1 !Il 3l~:g ~ .c:: I tst3~ ~a..; e: e:.!!? --.. c...."tI~ c:: c:: <Il I ~<Il~~ "~.Q.. ~~II ~ E co) c:c!::.!: .!!? ~<o-~ ~ _c~~ '" iil o I '- ;.., g e> ~ I 13 .~ ctI t'J; CI) l)""::!..... "" "" "" ~ .,. II.: II.: I 5 5 0::: 5 ::. lIS lIS i l~ l l l ! l l i 8- I l! i i ~ ! ... C> c I ~ !! III - iI: ~~ C> S ~a ~ ~ .. i - z . 0 8 (Q a> tli 1i .l!! '" .... (Q a> .., ~ 1: ! e N 0 cQ ..; a> . ;:) .. ~ - ,,; ,..: &"j - - i ..~ ~ a ~ E CD "I: A otl 1i: .... . .... .... iD .~ l! a> '" ~ en '" ..... '" '" ~ ~ - " .. .,; N .. on ""I: '" '" '" i~ 1i ~ c - a> co .... '" .., ;;: ! .~ .~ .. ;:; '" '" '" . '" otl 0 (Q on on N a3 N .,; 0 1;l .. ~ 0 8l '" '" .., .... ~ - '" . '" ~~ a3 .. '" ,,; ~ '" '" '" "I: &ii.ll1 ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ . "l 0 l! .~ l! .,; N 0 - ;; 0 8 i .;t: Q) .., ~~1 - a; "a - '" '" (Q .., . 0 (Q ~1 - - (Q (Q - '" . .!!l -a. N .,; 0 ;t; -a. ~ ~ a> '" 8 otl (Q otl a> - 0 N .; a3 '" - '" otl .... (Q M a> . . , .~ ~ .... . '" otl 8 I --: a> a> .... .. ~~ - - 0 0 0 0 l! i~ , I I I (:l , i " , i !- ... 8l (Q ~ 110 , otl '" 0 , ~ M otl (Q .....-1,...,. N a3 -,'" I 5 - M'. I r-- (Q - - ~I~ otl M ;:;; co a> ~ ~ - III .... ; .. - Ni ,,; i I "I: , i ,I i I I I i ~ i ~;~: i ~i Q) ::>::>1 Cl ~ .!!2 ~Cl~.a.~ .., 0: .S 'c ~ :: ~ Qj 'ai ::> .... Q ....It!~~ftjco lii~'~'~1i ;'5ti~EEi 'I ~- l'I:I, J:J E E ~ Q:il~\~1~18i8 ~ '" '" '" a> < <..l c: g j :; u. ~ u. l5 <Il I"- :.:: * ::> cj ~ ~ .,; .~ .. .~ c. <Il ~ <..l " c .. " 36 ~ c: " > CD a: I I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I r <') ..; Sl ~ <b 'fi (J) il u: t; a ~ - a1 15 r~ .~~ ~.5- ~ ;) III III Ci) 6 CI'J <b-~ <b !i: '- u: ~ "" t;~~ III E . ~E~ Eo'''' - '- cc:~:o .5 c:u ca ca ~ E'O L.C III ~ c:- e: .Q l! 15 &l~u:E c: tl5~ ~ c?l~5.e '0 I E dj ~:g g it G~(.).5 ~ .; i _5 "" ." ." ." ..: ..: i 8- .. .!l! ~~ 5 5 5 S oj oj E '5 Ii ~ ll; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J Q, iH' .S i ; '5 ii , Ii iH' ii ,.. lD ~ S ::J ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ili E ii ~ li'- ~ ~ '" i u Q, I ::I .. E ~ ~ ~ ~ .!.! '5 ... ddls 5 .. (if .!.! i .e J 51 51 g i j i ~ .... ~ 8 :3 '" /lj ili J ! ~ i ~ ~ '" III ~ - "i:; e t! Iii oJ <<l Iii .. ! ';: c ~ ...: ;fi ;fi w ::l..., - '" ili ili ::I & ! &~i - E I ~ ! ~ S ! ~ i~u;: ~ ... ... i ::I 1: ~ i i i .. ~ "t 0 .!.! .5 ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ CD ~ CD CD ;;; '" ~ ::I ::I ::I 8 ~~e .... - 'q '" 0 0 0 '" ex> .... "!. .. .. '5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 c .5 N ~ - ...: ~ (if ';: '2~:t .. .. .. ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ Ii ~ ~~~ ~ ! 1i '5 :l :l j os (if iH' (if (if iH' .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .. e .... 0 ~ ~ ill ~ ~ 8i ~ ~. ~ 0 I i Q '" :t CD lli. .~ ~ ~ .... - - ~ ai i. N t <Ii ~ ~ i ~ ~ i ~ - '" '" '" m ~!~ - '" .... - N ai ..: .. ".; ! ~ 5i - ,..: ai .. .. ;,; .. .. l! "ts .. ~f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i; ~ co '" "1 on - ,..: .,; oJ - 16 c;; 8 li' j .. - ... " . ~'a '" .. Sl 0 - .... ll! .!Q '''is'' '" on .... '" '" ~. Jal ~ <<l .,; c;; ~ 1:i ~ III N ~ - ~ ...: <Ii ..t N - , CD '" .. ~ ... ~ .... CD '" ~ ~ 8 I ~ CD .... ~ I "! ": '" ~ :::::76! - - c;; c;; c;; c;; ~ lii" ~ ilt ~ (!J - '" '" Ie '" '" '" I CD . '" 0 ~ I is ~ CD .. .. '" 0 ai ..t N ..t Iii i!l ~ .. - '" .. ~ I f---.,. I- ~ CD '" CD ill '" M .... CD ~ ~ 0 l!l ~ '" .. CD ...: - oJ oJ Iii ., - "t I- 2l 2l u. ~ 'c 'c (J) ~ ~ ~ '" lo: U. ~ 2l c '" '" '0 .. (J) ~ ~ ';: '8 .g lo: ~ a; ~ 5 :g ~ a; .. ... ;t - III .... c E Ii ii ~ i i 0 '0 .~ ii i :z: 10 .c: .. ." u .c: !11 E E 1;; i ~ '" u :c E E ::I ;; ~ 0 0 0 " Cl: C << ::; () () c '- "~~~~~8 S"':"":c:idoci ~ ..~i~~~~ .~ '" CD ~ C\I ?"" c'l to C\I ~ 1:l"'''''''~''' ..~.:t'q",~ eoai..tN..t1ii (,)""'..- 1/). "t 2l .~!! 'c:g c:'- :J t; :J c: 0) < ~ III C ~O:='5~ :.5:5'8.....:g i'ai.....5~ c;tE-~U oo'!'!< """:Z:!!!!ii :g .... .....- '5'5~EEi; ~~tU.cEE:J J~~~88~ 37 N ex> '" '" .. () C .9 .Si :; ... c.i .J .J .; .~ ii .ljl S' 1il () " c: '" Q) :J c: Q) i\ cc " . II' < lit E t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment The Existinl! Svstem. 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 3nl 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 9th 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'h 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. 38 Cit)' of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report ... III t !'" .. E , I I I I I I I E I I I I I I Chaoter 4 Fire SuooressionlMedic Facilities Vehicles. and Eauion/ent . 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 1-215 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 ill 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 HAZMA T 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 SuppressioniMedic Facilities, Vehicle and Equipment Fund thus no fund balance. 39 Citr of San Bernardino De\'elopmellf Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report "" , .. E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ChaDta 4 Fire SUDDression/Medic Facilities. Vehicles. and EauiDment 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 bv the Develooment of Underdevelooed or Vacant Parcels. While it can be said that numerous factors are considered when determining the number and location of fire 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 fire 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 Pumose of the Fee. In order to continue to be able to respond to an ever-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 40 On' of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report .. I ~ [ ,. ... t m I I I I I (; E I i m I I E I ChalJler 4 Fire Suooression/Medic Facilities. Vehicles. and Eauioment 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 roomll,OOO,OOO 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 FirelMedic Operations, FD-OS 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 1-215 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 feel in order to accommodate a paramedic squad. FD-05, 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 41 Cit.1' O/Sull Bemardillo De\'e/opmellllmpact Fee Ca/cu/atioll alld Nexus R<!port ... .. '" .. ,. 1ft I I I I I I E m I I I ; E I I I Chaoter 4 Fire Suooression/Medic Facilities. Vehicles. and Eauioment 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-IO, 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 of Additional Fleet, FD-II, 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-OI5, Firefighter Equipment Additions for an additional twelve full-time firefighters 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 l(lwards existing needs, not future development generated capital needs so would not affect the calculation of the impact fees. \\here the amount of equity of the existing community is larger than th~ \Iarginal 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. 42 ClIy olSan Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report ,.. , .. E I I E I I I I I I E I m m I i i I Chaoter 4 Fire Suooression/Medic Facilities Vehicles and Eauioment The Relationship Between the Need for the Fee and the Tvoe of Develooment 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 orivatelv held orooertv 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 aU public land serves privately held land m 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 C".\ cllings. mobile homes, commercial lodging, commercial and office KSF. and industrial KSF). The number ofrequests for service received by the Fire Depanment during the year was ,hen divided by either the developed acreage, the existing number of d\\clling units to determine the number ofrequests generated per commercial or industrial acre or per dwelling unit. [This space left blank to place the following table on a 'In~1e pagel. 43 ./\ o(Sall Bem<lrcill1o DeI'Ciopmell11mpacc Fee CaleulullOll a/ld Nexus Report ... .. ... '- t I I I I I I I E E E I ~ ,. III i E ; Chamer 4 Fire SuooressionlMedic Facilities Vehicles. and Eauioment Table 4-1 Average Annual Existing Responses Per Unit Or Acre Dwellings, Calls Annual Calls Land Use Units or for per Unit or SQuare Feet Service 1,000 S.F. Detached Dwellings 40,663 8,142 0.2001Unit Attached Dwel1ings 19,415 4,799 0.2471Unit Mobile Home Dwellinlls 4,475 718 0.1601Unit HotellMotel Units 2,455 232 0.0951Unit CommerciallOffice KSF 54,508 3,989 0.073/KSF Industrial KSF 45,843 34 O.OOI/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. Commercialloffice development is shown to generate 0.073 responses per 1,000 square feet of developed land, while industrial development generates the least cal1s-for-service demand of 0.001 cal1s 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). [able 4-2, on the fol1owing page, indicates that on a comparative basis. all "en: of attached dwel1ing development creates the highest demand for fire services, thus the impact fee is the highest on an acreage basis. [This space left \'acant to place the fol1o\\'ing table 011 ,\ Slll;;1c pa"e!. 44 CUI o{Sall Bemardillo DCI'clopmellt Impact Fee Calculalioll al/(l :\('.\/10' H''jHJI'I ... .. t E ; I I I I I I I .. .. I I E ; i t I Chaoter 4 Fire SuooressionlMedic Facilities Vehicles. and Eouioment Table 4-2 Calls-for-service by Land Use Acre Calls per Units or Calls Land Use Unit or KSF KSF/Acre Der Acre Detached Dwelling 0.200 4.39 0.879 Attached Dwellinl! 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 Dwelling Units 0.200./unit 12,354 units 2,473.7 calls Attached Dwelling 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.] calls Commercial/Office Acres 0.073/KSF 31.738 KSF 2,325.9 calls Industrial Acres O.OOl/KSF 48,700 KSF 36.1 calls I Tota] I -- I -- I 7,021.3 calls I 45 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and ;\"exlIs Report - .. .. " !1M " ., m I ; I I I I ,.. It E I I I ; i t ; Chaoter 4 Fire Suooression/Medic Facilities. Vehicles. and Eauioment Mare:inal Needs-based !moact 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 Dwelline: Units $11,208,063 $907fUnit Attached Dwelling Units $9,630,407 $1 ,I 20fUnit Mobile Home Units $4,531 $755fUnit Commercial Lode:ine: Units $267,775 $428fUnit CommerciaVOffice Uses $10,538,398 SO.332/S.F. Industrial Uses $163,565 SO.003/S.F. The Relationshio Between the Use of the Fee and the Tvoe of Develooment Paving 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 Facilitv Attributed to the Develooment Proiect. 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 .. - "'" , iIIl . " I I ; I I t E t E E i I t ; E E Chaoter 4 Fire Suooression/Medic Facilities. Vehicles. and Eauioment 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 S59,305,645 in replacement cost to the existing community, (Schedule 4.3 shows it in greater detail). Table 4-5 Current Fire Suppression/Medic Infrastructure "Equity" or Current Community Investment Allocation Total Equity Land Use ofEauitv Per Unit or SF Detached Dwellinl! Units $26,954,704 S663/Unit Attached Dwellinl! Units $15,887,450 $818/Unit Mobile Home Units $2,376,993 $531/Unit Commercial Lodl!ing Units $768,053 S313/Unit Commercial/Office Uses $13,205,885 SO.242/S.F. Industrial Uses $112,560 SO.002/S.F. Resultinl! ImDact 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 $24.7miJIion 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 47 City of San Bernardino Developmenr Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report ... - ,.. ~ Chaoter 4 Fire SUlJDression/Medic Facilities. Vehicles. and EauiDment ... I. 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. ; , E t i t E I: E E , I t ; E E CHAPTER ENDNOTES There are no endnotes. 48 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report ... - ,.. IIiII 1'It U, Ii I E E , E ~ . t E t E t t i - E '" .S1 -5 III E ~ ...1/ i Jil il~ ~~ iu:! l~ ~ I 8l ~~~ ii 16 I fit -S .1/ !j~ ~ as .~ 6 il: ~ '- .. 'g l\l llll iili 6 Cl: (j iii 0: S ~ - - ~ ai .s e; la .~ t;~ Q S(.)-g a~~ t/).!!, ~ ~ e- I.l:a:~ ~~~ ~~oj .!ii '^ .il! v, ._ ~-"2':::: .... c:: '- .5 Q) (j ~ [8.~ E: 0 Q ~ - 13 ~ .~ &l ,. .... OJ Q) '0 ~ ,~~ 5 ~ "'J Q'_ ~ c,ilit/) ;..,~ <.l III ,- (':) ~ ~ (3",,~u: J~ J~ JI i ~~ liJ -~-~---~O~~~8200- ~o~~~~~~~~oo~o~.~ go~~~m~~8gggt~m ~ "l.iq"1.llt5!.llt~::l"l...:.."!.:g it! ~ N_... _ _ ~ M ...MM M ... ... ~~~~~~~~M~~~~~i~i (J) ___CD..,.O) "lit a U;U;U;"':Na) ..; ;: l.t)1l)l.t)""'CI)(Q en - ::: "l.li;"l. ". lri C\I CO) .... tilt tilt.. ... ~~"~~~~m-~~2820~- ~~~~~~~~~=~~~~~.~ rio~mriririmmooo.~m.N ~LnLn-(Q(Q(QOCDmcnCl)o)""'Lno)CI) ~~~~~~~~~~..~..~..~~ ~ ~0~~~~;~ ;;~ .~ .9- ~ 5 'u .. "- " " c: E .. " i E E 0. "ni '5 ::; ,jl Q; ~... Q) .~ ::::).! u m ruo ~ -a,'~~ - = c: '__, ".;; ~ .!Q:s, ~_~ cn~ m .53 ~ ~:c~ 6 Ecc UU,l:) U:G>_ 0. I"" :<;".. ,,0.0 fI).... (00)0< 01 >0 CDo '0 CD"-Oll) CDN-.:tC\lC\lI(l') rJ ~~>:c c:: ~ eN a:C\IC\lNNN O='O(I)",__OIC\l(\l C')C')~C\l~~_...._UC>CI.l0l0-C') MMC-CCCC\l~~", CCCI.lcC\l ~~g6ggg~~OIE~~W~g~ "' ; "' "' "' c .~ c E ::::) Q) ~ "' "' 0 CC_"'---o~'-o~cn~c~- ~~cn~cncncn;~SU~ ~o ~ ~~m m~m~>~o~m~=~~ CIl- CIl- .= m .: .: .:: ~ ~ I- '!oo ::J ~ a: '0 CD LL.=LLLLLL >O.c 'O-E CDmCDLLCDCDm~UUI-LLI-~<~o ~ .= ~ '0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 2 e e e e e ::J E LL g ~ g g g ~ W 0 '5 '5 3 '5 '5 g CD ~~~~~m~~68cgggffgm~ ZZ~W~~~~u <<<<<~> o~gg~~~~~e~~~~~~~ I , I 1 , , I , I , , , I 'I' , , 000000000000010000 LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL .. Ql <:: ~ ~~~ ~~ !!.!!. pja~~ - ::i CD . ;; - 6" 6" N 0 N " .. 8 0 " CD 0 CD . g g . (;j <D <D ~ ~ ~ ~ <D : . .. - CIl CIl Ul .... .... i CIl z '" 0 w w Z U ::; .... Z .... ~ u 0 CIl W ~ ~ '0 a " a Q: " < ~ ~ c: Cl. !! ..J 'is. ~ .. < .. a:l C; U Z "0 .... c: 0 510; , ,2 w "- " a:l ~ .... " :. ~ < "Cl. CIl 0 ::; "- " Q: >= u c: ~ CIl .. .. W 0.... Ii: ..J .5 'u , < ~ .. .. .... "- ~ 0 'u C> .... '" c: , "- '2' a:l ~ c: ,- o ~ CIl 'Vi .... Ul C> I " c:1 i a.:: 0.'(1)1 I~I~I I' I I' I l:~I~llli ,..J: I II ON . . ,,~ NS - " ~i ~&: "clj S "E .. . ;0 IS a ... cIi .!l 1ii i 1il . " " .~ JJ , 5 ... !!! .. U . E '" oS :. al- o S? Ii: .. " ~ c: o 0. " i Ul .. .0 c: ,2 :; € 1ii is ci)~ w 0 c;u Z-" ;:; <Xl '" m < U c: S j :; "- U ...i ...i .; ~ .. '~ 0. CIl ~ U " c: .. 49 g: c: '" ~ ~ "" .. c g ~ g 5 5 ,.; ,.; ;;; us us '" i ~~ '" l ~ ~ ~ a ~ en ~ it!! ~ cD ... en ... ::l .." - ai ,..: z ~ii - I IS ~ a I;; .. 'l: R E '" '" ;;; '" - en ~ !5 '" .... '" <C '" ... <Xl '" - II> .. .... e N ~ N cD - ~ :; " - ii: ~~ II> ;;; II> II> 1ii I i;stl: ;2 .5 'Q '" l:; ;;; '" g; 18 0 i ., :g .... ;:!: ~ ... '" .... '" '" I oS ~ ~ li ~ ..; N !~ 0 CD - ~ "'. ~ '" ;;; <Xl - ai 0 - ;;; II> ;;; '" .. .. 'l: I &'ii:!g ~~~ 8 i .. CD - E M~~ tl: 'Q .... '" "! en "l E ~l ..; on en on ~ - ~ .... '" '" '" ~ ... - '" ~ N N N ,..: I 8 .... 0 '" '" !5 ~ CD en .... '" - 0 0 ~ -:: Q) <> <> <> <> <> ;- iQ! E ~ - ~ ... en CD ~ .., .~ a,.; ~ en '" I '" CD ..... N oS ::l I~US - ;;; ~ SlC ~ ~ I t ~ ~ CD - CD ;t '" '" CI) ., ., a; N en d5 Q)Q.lJ2 ~ "1. "1. .... ~ ~.S:! ::l ... N ai " 0 _-I:: 'l: E uu~ ...J a~.; ...J ~I l!! ...J .; oS - .~ ... < .~ ...~~ c .- CI) C ::J :5 '" " b 1ii .5; t: Q) '- ~ c ... Cll II) U '" '" l!! '0 .. CI) I- '~ , ~ [~ ~ ~ ~ 'c: '8 g " /$ .. ~ l ::J 0 ill E c I c:: l .. ...J _ ~ 0 .. - In ~ &l ~ al .~ .... 0 0 E 1ii 1ii ::J "" ~ ~ 0 'Q 'Q ~ u al :I: t ... c::~0!:~ .. .. '0 .S1 ~\Q~S: .c ~ E E 10 c UI1B u D E E :J .. ~ .... Q c: ::J ~ 0 0 0 '0 .. C I '/j, CI) Q; 0 " ::; u u Si 50 :J Cll >- In " Cll c l -fj .':: g ~." ~ CI) (JC\j L( a: - .. r- I.. ,.. .. c I E . . E t t E I: c If . t t , t t "" _5 o~ l ~ ..-Ii: If is e - S ~ i 0- .0:. .. E." ddis J!! .~ e ! :::l .. u ~&i ~isl( -.: .~ ~ e '5 'S u ~ iZ-': ~~~ 'Ci e ~'>. o~ tl "" - C! ~ ~~iZ ::::: ~ lit -.:S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l l l l l l &l ... - .., '" !II ~ia~~~ c .. Ii .oil 1&~ .il& CI VI Q. ~ _ .lI..!l!.SCT1iJ!!.. Q.e.IICTW.llig g.lI:jw~SEII !;l~UlCl>l&IIE"''' CD'" "'.5 lB2!18 II III N"': ':=-ICI a.." N u.. c: ~ CD c: -:=.... .Y ::I ~~a:~~~ji ~~i~~~~~~ MOCO....COM :ao.,::I::J::J::J::J ~~~~~~ =OCJoUCJ~ Mo)(f')"':Lri .fi'.s.ess.s"c:.5 .......... 1:1:1:>-1:"ii1: ...-.--=.- E- ow ::J ::::I ::::I ::J ::I CD :I t=il3"il3"il3"&B'&B'a:il3" .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 ::; ~ 8 8 iii N (C) ui '" "It 0 ('f) M U") ~ ~ 8l l!l ~ ~:i:el8:g Q) CD M ..... N uilliNflJM ~ ;.. ; ~ ~I~~~~ii ~ ~t~~~~g <It !it<ltg~; '" & ",.. .. oS; t3 ill.. l~l ~~ .. ~~1 CO) ... .9! '" ~ Ql "fi CI) ~ ~ t ~ :si- III ~ ~ .~ ~'" .~ ~ ::::. ~~~ S lo,. QS CI) Q .. Q:j-.! ~ ~ .\1 -si u ._ :s ;!l e: . I:l. e: II) .s Q .91 ",....u::S .... l::: ..... 'SQ)caCJ "E!;;o~ '" c:i c: c: E S! CU 0 Q) QJ .S 'tiS Cll .. u: II) c: ~ ~ ~ 8j",%& ..... C) I:: :::i o I ... CI) >-.:g e: Ql G1'il8il: '" "'..: "'oj 1~:C ~.~ I~ .~ :::::16.! I'! ~ .. .....ict: t:l o 000 N 8l cD N ~ ..... r:: ~ rD'; o 0 0 oj ~ ~ ~ 0; c? ,..: ~ ~ ~ ~ c:i c:::i ci ~ ~ o 0 c::i 0 co M co eX) CD ..- q- 0) '" CD ... ..: . I ~i U)j ~! cl 10> ill c>::> '" c: :::l ~ g>~s> ~ -.;=::>"8 rQ ~ ~ Q) ...I i ~ ~I ~ ! ~11'51.t:,~ E Cl;. '" U B E 0"": i _I ,!'g, o' tti'~<'~~8 U. ..J f/) < " lI. 6 ~ ~ ... Q ~ 'iU ~ OQ _ I1l o~ E u; E " 0," U..E o 8 ~ ~..: ~ li ~ . _... 0 ~ is ~g ~~~~8 c:i c:i c:i c:i c:i ~~~Nm~ ~ ....,....,...,~O) "'.~cD"; ri .l!.! ~ ~"l is~~ o~ ~ 51 5 ~ ~ Ll)ll)ll)COM .... ,.... U') 0 ''It ''It 'llt ''It l.t) CD a;~c-J~..n ~ '" ... , I, I !u.;!u.;: I _I : en i en : 'jl i8'I81 i;ll '~.~I ~I.. Jil!EloEI c: ~I V,I C>> '-1;:)1 m "2 LO, 0>:';:) j a a gjl.El.,jt> c: c: I 'Ita I 01, (J "' J ~lil~I:~II~ Q) 0 i 0103,'3 $ '" al all:!: ~I ~ .!!! ~ -5 "5:~! EiEl~ I ~j ~I' ~i~,~! ~I~I ~c <,~,U'(.JI_i '" ., '" '" < U c: oS ~ "5 lI. 51 U ...i ...i vi jj .. iil Q. f/) ~ U " c: '" ., " c: i a:: - 11II ,.. .. ~ .. ~ III i E i I C I ~ t t ~ ~ m till . ~ I Chapter 5 Circulation System Improvements (Local Streets, Signals & Bridges and Regional Interchanges & Grade Separations) The following Chapter wiII 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. InitiaJly. The reasons are practical in that combining this infrastructure wiII provide greater flexibility in establishing priorities in what is essentially a singular transportation issue with a common nexus, a combination of trip-end I 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-OI 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 Existin2 Local Circulation System. 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 faJl 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 \arious roadway type definitions as2: [The City's] vehicular circulation network consists of a hierarchy ofroadways 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 ruadway classifications are briefly described in the following paragraphs and the typical cross- '2ctions associated with each classification are shown later in this Section (Item fl. 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: 52 Clly of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation alld Nexus Report ... .. "" , .. "" F llW t ,. .. [ ". , .. t C t t ~ [ t E E .. I ~ m ChaCJIer 5 Local and Rerlional Circulation System ImDrovements . The San Bernardino Freeway (1-10) 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 1-215 and State Route 330. As of 2005, this freeway was under construction and was also known as State Route 30 and wiIl become the future 1-210 when completed. . State Route 18 provides a connection from 1-210 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 adjacent 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 V ernon 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 5th 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 . 6th Street . Meridian Avenue 53 Cuy oJ Sun Bemare/lllo Developmelllllllpact Fee Calculallon and Nexus Ref'orr - .. !'" r.. ,.. I.. C t [ , ~ t E E E t ~ ; I ; E D ChaDter 5 Local and Rer!ional Circulation System ImDrovements 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 ofland use. Demand Upon Infrastructure Created bv the DeveloDment of Un de vel oDed 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 project-by-project, 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 dai(l' 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 mailer 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 additional 2,923,685 daily trip-miles. For perspective, the City currently experiences approximately 5,050,289 daily trip-miles from the existing residences and 54 ('ily a/San Bernardino De\'e/opment Impact Fee Calculallon alld Xe.ms Report '"" .. r .. ,.. '- [ t t t , = " If t II" II t E I I ; I E ChaDter 5 Local and Ref!ional Circulation Svstem ImDrovements 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 ofthe 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 PurDose of the Fee. In the City, most ofthe planned arterials and collectors exist in some form, perhaps not yet fully widened to allow for the full numberoflanes. 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 5th to Baseline Street, to its completed width. This project is required because additional citizens and business-owners wiII 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 of growth projected in this Report, numerous intersection improvements and construction of new traffic signals wiII 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 may be 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 of forty-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 be). Second, north-south collectors wilI, 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. 55 Cit)' o/San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report ,.. ill C t E i: [ ; t E I ; - . I . . I I I ~ r .. CllOm er 5 Local and Ref!ional Circulation Svstem ImDrovements 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 RelZional 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-Ol 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 wiII 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 hnpact Fee wQUld be used to construct the projects (or portions of projects numbered SToOl through ST -84) identified in Schedule 5.1 at the conclusion of this Chapter's text. The collected fees wiII be used to create additional lane miles, bridge lanes and signals with which to accommodate the additional 2,923,685 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. Cit)' of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 56 - ill L t ~ ChaDter 5 Local and Rer!ional Circulation System Im/Jrovemellts TableS..) Comparison of Local Circulation System Attributes r. .. Infrastructure Existing Future Total at Factor Community Community Build-out Number of Trip-miles 5,050,289 2,923,685 7,973,974 Percentage of Total 63.3% 36.7% 100.0% Cost of Total System $812,276,000 $104,469,000 5916,745.000 Percentage of Total 88.6% 11.4% 100.0% t ; I I I I I ~ I I I ; Ii I The Relationshio Between the Need for the Fee and The Tvoe of Develooment 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 a twenty-acre commercial-retail development would generate 8,348 daily trip- miles. Each would pay its proportionate share of the total 2,923,685 newly created the City trip- 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 total 2,923,685 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 Adiustment for Pass-bv or Diverted Trips. Schedule 5.2 contains a sub-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 be considered a pass-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 Developmellt Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 57 "" .. ~ t ~ [ L: t I E D ; .~ L I I I I I I Chanter 5 Local and Ref!ional Circulation Svstem Imnrovements if the stop had not been made'. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (lTE) 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 lIE 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 oftrips".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. 58 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report ~ t E ~ m I I I I I I ~ E I I I I I I ChaDter 5 Local and Rer!ional Circulation System ImDrovements The Relationshio Between the Use of the Fee and the Tvoe of Develooment Pavinl! 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 trio-miles at build-out. Any amount imposed as a circulation system improvements Development hnpact Fee will be placed in a separate 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 oortion of the Facilitv Attributed to the Develooment Proiect. The calculation of the circulation system hnpact 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. hnpact 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 hnpact Fee Schedule for the City, based upon a net cost of S I 04,469,000 in proposed projects. [This space left blank to place the following table one a single page]. 59 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report l.' .. I m I E I I I I I I I E I I I I I I ChaDter 5 Local and Reflional Circulation Svstem ImDrovements 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 $1,236IUnit Attached Dwellinl! Units $7,097,690 S825IUnit Mobile Home Units S3,895 $6491Unit Commercial Lodl!inl! $406,451 $6501Unit Commercial/Office Uses $42,360,026 $ \.333/S.F. Industrial Uses $39,327,383 SO.808/S.F. Alternative Cost Methodolol!V. A more 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. A more 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] 60 Ot\" of San Bernardino Del'elopment Impact Fee Calculation and iVexlIs Report ~ .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ChaTJIer 5 Local and ReS!ional Circulation Svstem ImDrovements Table 5-3 Detail of Local Circulatiou System Margiual Need-based Impact Fees for Specific Commercial Uses AdjuSUJd Avc:tage Trip-otJd AdditioMJ CO$t per CO$t per /,000 Square LAND USE Trip-cnds DisttuJce roTrip Trip-miles Trirmile Feet or Dwc/1ing UIIit RESlDENT/AL LAND USES (per UBit): . Dcucbcd Dwelling 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.60 $35.73 S/ ,236.26 /Unit Apattmoot 6./5 7.9 0.5 24.3 S35.73 $868.24 /U1Iit CondomiJJjUlDJ7owJJbomc 5.36 7.9 0.5 2/.2 $35. 73 $757.48 /UBit Mobile Home DwclJing 4.57 7.9 0.5 /8./ S35.73 S646.7/ /U1Iit RESORTnoURlST (per UBit or Entry Door): Hotel 6.29 7.6 0.5 23.9 S35.73 $853.95 /ROOID All Suiw Hotel 3.77 7.6 0.5 /4.3 S35.73 $5/0.94 /ROOIIJ 1 Motel 4.34 7.6 0.5 /6.5 $35.73 $589.55 /ROOIIJ INDUSTRIAL (per 1,000 SF): GencraJ Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 S35.73 $993.29 /KSF Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 S35. 73 $96/.14 /KSF MlUJuf_g 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 S35.73 $439.48 /KSF Wan:bousing 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.8 S35. 73 $707.45 /KSF COMMERC/AL (per 1,000 SF): i Office Park 7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6 S35. 73 S1.164.80 /KSF , IRcscarcb Pari 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 S35.73 $786.06 /KSF ! Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 4/./ S35. 73 SI.468.5O /KSF iBJdg. Matcrials/LlHDM:r Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63./ S35.73 $2,254.56 /KSF I Gardoo Cooter I 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 S35.73 $1.800.79 /KSF i Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 S35. 73 $189.37 /KSF I Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $35.73 $453. 77 /KSF I Mcdica/-DcoI41 Offlce 22.2/ 8.8 0.5 97.7 S35.73T S3,49O.82 /KSF , General Offlce Building 7./6 8.8 0.5 3/.5 $35.73 ' $/. /25.50 /KSF ; Shopping Coo1m' 30.20 4.3 0.5 64.9 S35.73 S2,3/8.88 /KSF IHospil41 1l.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 $35.73 $878.96 /KSF ! Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 /35.3 S35. 73 $4.834.27 /KSF Higb- Turnover RestJJurant 8.90 4.3 0.5 /9.1 S35.73 S682.44 /KSF Convc::a.icnce Market 43.57 4.31 0.5 93.7 $35. 73 $3,347.90 /KSF I Walk-in 8IIBk /3.97 4.31 0.5 30.0 $35. 73 , $/.07/.90 IKSF . Other: (oot avlli/ab/e "per KSF") . Cemetary (per acre) I 3.07 4,i1 0.5 6.6 I $35.73 i $235 82 I Acre 'Service SIIIliOlJ (only) I /09.56 oT 0.5 235.6 I $35.73 i $8,4/7.99 IFPIDay (4) I Service Station &: Market ; 105.8/ 4.3 : 0.5 227.5 . $35.73 $8. /28.57 IFPIDay (4) i Service Station/MarketlWa.sh 1 99.35 01 0.5 213.61 $35. 73 I $7.63/.93 IFPIDay (4) NOTES: 1. ADT = Avtmgc D~ily Trips 1. KSF = 1bcnJSMJd SqIUI'e Feer of Gm" Floor .41C1 J. Adjusred for Pass-by;wd Diverted TripJ. 4. FPIDIlY = per -Fueling Position- per doJy. CilI vfSall Bernard/llo De\-elopmellt Impact Fee Ca/cu/al/oll al/d Nexus Report 61 "" .. E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ChaDler 5 Local and Revional Circulation System Imorovements 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 54 Existing Community Financial Commitment or Local Circulation System or Equity-based Proportionality Test Allocation Total Equity Land Use of Eauity Per Unit or SF Detached Dwelling Units $226,288,754 55,565tUnit Attached Dwelling Units $72,133,537 S3.715tUnit Mobile Home Units $13,027,518 S2,911tUnit Commercial Lodging 57,186,384 $2,927tUnit CommerciallOffice Uses $327,005.536 S5.999/S.F. lndustria1 Uses $166,634.271 S3.635/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 55,565 (Table 5-4) towards the construction of the circulation (street, signals and bridges) system, \\'hile with adoption of the Marginal Needs-based impact fees a single family detached home would be asked to contribute S 1,326 towards finishing the system, or only about 22% of the existing contribution of the same detached dwelling units. 62 Cm' of San Bernardino De\'elopmellt Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report - .. ... Ii. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ChaDter 5 Local and Ref!ional Circulation Svstem ImDrovements 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 SYStem Cost Per Unit or SF Detached Dwelling Units . $210,894,391 S3.9781Unit Attached Dwellinl! Units $74,397,936 $2,656IUnit Mobile Home Units $9,324,534 $2.081IUnit Commercial Lodl!inl! $6,444,598 $2.092lUnit Commercial/Office Uses $370.037,436 S4.288/S.F. Industrial Uses $245,646,104 S2.598/S.F. Alternative Cost Methodolol!V. A more 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. A more extensive listing of traffic generator by land use is available in Trip Generation as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington D.C. 63 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report '" ~ ; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ChaD/er 5 Local and Ref!ional Circulation Svstem ImDrovements Table 5-6 Detail of Local Circulation System Existing Financial Commitment or Equity-based Impact Fees for Specific Commercial Uses Adjusted AvetlIgc Trip-ond Adtli1iotMJ Coot per Coot per I.(}()(} s.,uue LAND USE Trip-ctJds Distuc:e to Trip Trip-mila Trip-mile Fe<< or DwelliDg UlIit RESIDENTIAL LAND USES (per UBit): DtudJcd DwelliDg B.76 7.9 0.5 34.60 S1I4.97 $3.977.96 /UlIit Apsrtm"", 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 S1I4.97 $1. 793. 77 /UlIit CondoDJinjWDfl'ownbomc 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 S1I4.97 $1.437.36 /UlIit I Mobile HolDt: DwelJbJg 4.57 7.9 0.5 lB. I S1I4.97 $1.080.96 /UBit RESORTITOURIST (per UBit or Eatty Door): Ho<el 6.29 7.6 0.5 23.9 1114.97 $1.747.7B /Room I All Suites Holel 3.77 7.6 0.5 14.3 S1I4.97 11.644.07 /Room Mo<el 4.34 7.6 0.5 16.5 S1I4.97 II.B97.00 /Room INDUSTRIAL (per I.(}()(} SF): Gt:Deral Ught /mJustrilIl 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.B S1I4.97 $3.196.17 /KSF Huvy lDdustrilll 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 S1I4.97 S3.092.69 /KSF M/IJlufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 S1I4.97 SI.414.13 /KSF WarcbousbJg 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.B S1I4.97 $2.276.41 /KSF COMMERCIAL (per I.(}()(} SF): Offlcc Park ! 7.42 B.B 0.5 32.6 S1I4.97 13.748.02 /KSF . Resesrcb Park 5.01 B.B 0.5 22.0 1114.97 12.529.34 /KSF Business Park 9.34 B.B 0.5 41.1 1114.97 ' $4.725.27 /KSF Bldg. MIlleria1s1Lumber Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 S1I4.97 17.254.61 /KSF GudenC""ter 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 S1I4.97 15,794.49 /KSF I Movie TbClllcr 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 S1I4.97 S609.34 /KSF Cburcb 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 S1I4.97 1 SI.46O.12 /KSF Medit2l-DentJJl Office 22.21 g.B 0.5 97.7 S1I4.97 SII.23257 /KSF Gt:Deral Office Building 7.16 B.g 0.5 31.5 S1I4.97 S3, 621.56 /KSF Shopping Center 30.20 4.3 0.5 64.9 S1I4.97 S7.461.55 /KSF IHospjtlJl 11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 S1I4.97 i S2,B2B.26 /KSF DiscoUJJt Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 S1I4.97 SI5.555.44 /KSF Higb- Turnover R....unu1t B.9O 4.3 05 19.1 S1I4.97 S2,195.93 /KSF Convcaic:Dce Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 S1I4.97 SIO, m.69 /KSF Walk-in 8IIllk 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 S114.971 S3,449.1O /KSF 0tbIJr: (JJOt .voH.ble -r- KSF-) : Ccmctary (per acre) I 3.07 4.31 05 6.6 I S1I4.97 1 S758. gO I Acre I Service StIllion (only) I 109.56 ! 01 0.5 235.6 S114.97 : S27.086.93 IFPIDay (4) : Service Station &: Markel 1 105.8/ 4.3 i 05 227.5 S114.97 ! S26, /55.68 IFPIDay (4) [Service StIllionlMarkntlWtub I 99.35T 4.3 0.5 2/3.6 S1I4.97 S24.557.59 IFPIDay (4) NOTES: I. ADr = Avenge D~;Jy Trip. 2. KSF = '171ou&DJd SqlUI'C Feet 0/ G1TJU Floor AlCa J. Adjlutt;d (or P.au-by V1d Djv~rted Trips. 4. FPID.ay = pel' *FueJiJJg Position- per d8y. 64 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report ... .. ; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ChaOler 5 Local and Rer!ional Circulation System ImDrovements 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 projected 57% in daily trip-miles. The project 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 stil1 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" DIFs 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 pro\'isions of the Congestion management Plan (CMP) set by state law. SANBAG Board Adopted the updated CMP November 2,2005. 65 Citr of San Bernardino De\'elopment Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report '" ill I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chaoter 5 Local and Rel!ional Circulation Svstem Imorovements 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-I00. The costs associated with these projects represent only the City's portion ofthe much larger cost ofthe project. 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. J. 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 Detached Dwellinl! Units S10,298,356 S834/Unit Attached Dwelling Units $4,785,685 S557/Unit \lobile Home Units S2,616 S4361Jnit Commercial Lodl!inl! $274,054 S438/Unit Commercial/Office Uses $28,561,665 SO.889/S.F. Industrial Uses $26,516,873 SO.544/S.F. 66 Cuy oISan BemurdlllO D('\'elopmellt Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report .. i. E E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ChaDter 5 Local and Rel!ional Circulation System ImDrovements Alternative Cost MethodololZV. A more 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. A more 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]. 67 City of San BCr/1ardlllo DCI'clopmellf Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report ... ... ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ; ChaDter 5 Local and Rer!ional Circulation System ImDrovements Table 5-3 Detail of Regional Circulation System Marginal Need-based Impact Fees for Specific Commercial Uses Adjusu./ Average Trip-cad AdditiotJa/ Coot por Coot por 1,000 SqUMC LAND USE Trip-cads D_ to Trip Trip-I1JjJCI/ Trip-I1JjJe Feet or DowclliD8 UIIit RESIDENTIAL LAND USES (per UIIit): Douched Dwdling B.76 7.9 0.5 34.60 $24.09 #33.51 IUIIit Ap/IrtaICtI' 6.t5 7.9 0.5 24.3 $24.09 SSBS.39 IUIJi' CondollJinjUllJiTowtUJo1lJC 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $24.09 $510.71 IUIIit Mobile HolllC DwelJbJg 4.57 7.9 0.5 IB.l $24.09 $436.03 IUIIit RESORTiI'OURIST (per UIJi' or EDtry Door): HOlcl 6.29 7.6 0.5 23.9 $24.09 $575.75 IRoom AJt Sui'" HOlcl 3.77 7.6 0.5 14.3 $24.09 $344.49 /ROOlIl MOlcl 4.34 7.6 0.5 16.5 $24.09 $397.49 /ROOlIl INDUSTRIAL (per 1,000 SF): Gcn.crol Ugh' bJdustrilll 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.B $24.09 $669.70 /KSF Heavy bJdustrilll 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 $24.09 $64B.02 /KSF ManufocturiDg 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 $24.09 $296.3t /KSF Warcbousing 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.B $24.09 $476.9B /KSF COMMERCIAL (per 1,000 SF): omce PlUk 7.42 8.B 0.5 32.6 $24.09 $785.33 /KSF R_ Parlt 5.01 B.B 0.5 22.0 $24.09 $529.9B /KSF Business Park 9.34 B.B 0.5 41.1 $24.09 S990.10 /KSF Bldg. MaterilllslLumbcr 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./4 /KSF Movie Tb.tatcr 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $24.09 $127.68 /KSF Cburch 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $24.09 $305.94 /KSF McdicaJ-D..tJJ1 Offlce 22.21 B.B 0.5 97.7 $24.09 $2,353.59 /KSF Gcn.crol Offlce BuitdiDB 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $24.09 S75B.B4 /KSF SboppbJg C..rer 30.20 4.3 0.5 64.9 $24.09 $1,563.44 /KSF HcwpitJIJ JJ.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 $24.09 S592.61 /KSF Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 $24.09 $3,259.38 /KSF Higb- Turnover Restaurant B.9O 4.3 0.5 19.1 $24.09 $460.12 /KSF Convca.icnce Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 $24.09 $2,257.23 /KSF Walk-in BanJr. 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 $24.09 $722.70 /KSF Other: (DOl .vailllble "per KSF") Cc.mctaty (per cere) 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $24.09 i 5158.99 IAcre Service Statioo (ooly) 109.56 4.3 0.5 235.6 524.09 i $5,675.60 IFPlDey (4) . Service Station '" Mukd 105.8t 4.3 0.5 227.5 524.09 i 55.4BO.48 /FPID.y (4) i Service SmtionlMukctlWuh 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $24.091 55,145.62 /FPID.y (4) NOTES: 1. ADT = A.verage Daily Trip. 2. KSF == TbocIaDd Sqwre Feel o(Grou Floor Ate.I 3. Adjusred (or Pan-by md Diverted Trips. 4. FP/Day = per -Fue}isw Position- per tUy. 68 City olSan Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report .. ~ t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ChaDter 5 Local and Ref!ional Circulation Svstem Imorovemems 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 Developmem Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 69 "" .. t ChaDler 5 Local and Revional Circulation System Imorovements [ I CHAPTER ENDNOTES I I. 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". I 2. For a complete set of examples, see City of San Bemardino General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element, Section. I 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 tnp-miles. I 4. The normal route between a daily work-site and the residence of the motorist. I 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. I 6. Trip Generation Handbook, Sixth Edition, Institute of Traffic Engineers, 1099 14" Street, NW., Suite 300, Washington D.C. 20005-3438, Chapter 5, Section 5.1, Pass-by, Primary and Diverted Linked Trips, page 29. I 7. Ibid, page 29 8. Ibid, page 29 I I 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 Transponation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 1995. I I I I I City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 70 I """ w t t ~ ; I I I I ~ . I E I I I I I t .,l!~ ill j Ii" ,~o ;;: II: i li ~ I ~ ~~ ~ II ~ ~ oS ~ d 1;; ~ ~s ~ ~ Ci "I ,J ~ 0 ,~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ 1;; - 1;; <: - .. c : ~ o .... .s ;::- .... j!IJ Q) ~ ~ '~- ;;: i is ~ 0 :::: .!::: Q) (J fI 5 ~2i'g a: .. - 1;; ~~ S - I: l!! ~ ;0., 'ii1' 'l:l Cb a .g> (J) CI) ';:: Cbl!!Ql ~Ql'l:l .. ,I: !:: to) .:: (U [Ul .l!l I: .. ll! - ~ tn Q .. ,'I. '- !::!::,-,CI) '- Cb t . ~ ~,~ ~ 1::: -== ~ ~ Q)Q)Q:- ~t.....~ !:: Cl Q !:: ~ ~ ,~g Ol;~ ~~ ~ ~ -':: <::):::: '- <.><\1'1:<'> lli s: -6 Cb 'ti (J) Ii 11;;;: l~ ~~ ~;g !j ~~ ~~ l~ i'Sl ~i Q; ~ ~~ ,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 iii, i ' g88g8g8gg8g8888888888888gg8 Rgggggggg~g~ggg~gg~~~~~~ggg _. N. ~ foCI. ~ (\I. U'! "{<<! ~CC!.~ U1. "'". ..~~ 5 C\i.. -. ~ C'1~:;; ~ "!. (\1M _vMMM_M_ Mf.QN- M _foCI_ .- ~~ ~~MMMMM. .M." . MM" " 8 8 8 ggggggggggggggggggggggggggg --------------------------- a~~~~~aaaiiii~iiiai~iaiiiai 8gg88g88g888g888888g8888888 Rgg~gggogggogggggggo~~g~ggg ...._(\I_~ _CC!."!.\l1~<<t"!.CC!.!~"'.~<'!.~~C\!.~ ~C\I_~:;;~C\!. ~~ ;~~~~;~; ~~~; ~ ;~; M ',~ l I I ! i I ~I i ' , I I I .~i ! I I I I ~ i -e5 = \ wi ilil C1) .g: ::E CD I> .... ~ C 0 CD .. 1< C,,) c, Q)-~ alE I~' olQ) Q) ~Q)--.:.:: 0- u:Q)I.SI-01 I I~ >- U) ~ ~1~1a; _ it \l) i ~ '~IQ:I'~;~ia!1 'I '~ !.'~i.~ i ~ t~ljl~I~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ B ~I'~.~).~!.~ ~I ~ 1UJI.2 o.~ "'",1 I-I~iU;l.c: O'~ -5 ~ CD.2:: ~CD "0 ~I:!~:~i~, !="'I o U ..... I. .;', r..... 0'- 01 e \A' ;:>> i II . I ....'.- ~:U!a.'Vi';O 0 m ':0. E v a. c _..... ... c: U).cti"Q) rJ'J, :CC 'C:I.... m> CD 0 Q. ~ ..... ..... 0 ;:>> - 0 ro ro C\I U rG a. ,'- O' dliCf.l' 01(\1 C:OQ)-Q)oQ)--.~.~2-...a...!._'-Q)'E!Q)121-'::l:!E . ns ..... ... '0 C. '0 0 ~ a; > a: CD 0 . ."> S! 0' 0 ,en CD 101 c: I"' 1- -g ...J Q) (.) M - C'tI ; ... Q) C 0 (i en 0 CD CD CD Ii) U I..c: 1:2 I..~ '.....: C1l C\i CD 0 CD ~ E ..:; ~ ~ CiS .= 'lij ..... ~:2 =.~ .~ c ::E ~ I-liDla:I..!.:~I...!.ICD a: U Q) li a;:l Q, '10 (/) C - G) 13, = 0 0 c 0 c: ~ 3:, i' il3: 0 .2 .:c < ~I~ e ~ E .a.~: ~::E ~ E::E CD CD'~"'" o'Q).Q)Q) CD CD,"'" = ~ .Qi"': >-Ci5 ~ (i'= ~fQ ~ ti..... t3 -c 6> 5 c Cv E :>!>II> >\>I,g ~ c.. i.CD~I~ '"\'" ~ c E m ~ i ~ '" '" 5 ~~ "I" C ",,,'~ ~i~ ~!~ ~ ~ 5. 1ii ~ aJ 0 .g ~ OJ 1ii a:1~ ~ ::E &!. ..... .~ '~'I~ ~:I'~'lu. ~ :; ,(/) Ul e': - c: a: ..... 't) CG Q) CD CD c: c: c: c C C e -.- :-'=i_....f! C ::I,e_ CJ" ~ C c--- :l ::II "I =' ::1::1, Q):: 0-:-,-,'" "' CD 0 o,e>> CD",.... CD CD""'''''':::'- 0 0 0 0 0'0 ~ c: '" 1:'I~I~I~ll~'I~:~II~II~'li~ ~ ~ ~ ~I;II~ ~ : ~~!I~:~I,'~;~'II~ ~ ~ ~ 000[000000..... _ .... ...... ..... .- C\I(I;'" "';liC\l'C\j C\l C\I C\l .~ ~i~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ",,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I'~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~ len CI);CI) en:en (J) Cf.llcn rJ'J en en rJ) en Cl)ICI) CI) CI) CI) CI) en en en en en U) en en ... , !~ I ~ ;;; co '" en < C,,) c E j '5 ... U ...J ....i ui .~ c;; '~ 0. Ul 10 o U '0 C ~l " CD > '" cr .. .. t I I I I I I I I I I [ I I I I I I .."~ i il~ ~ ! l!? ~ ;I O! ~ ~ ~ 10 - 1>< 5 11 ~ u~s ~ j r~ :;:....~ lS ! l!? '- ~ ::) g l!? ~ ~~~ I~ ~ ~ ;::. '- i~ Q) b ~ "<:; C:l~ I~"\; l!? u ~ :0 e .Qf - ! ~ a: ~ .0 'ii t; (j ~ : s - lli Q ~ <ll ~ I/) ~ ~ I/) ;... Ul" ~ & I/)",~ Q.l.9:a5 ~<11~ e: c:: ~~t'(S a. ~ .!!l ~~[ o _ 0 .::~ c::C::~1/) :e Q) - t ... e ~ l!l ~e-'5-<ll Cll~la:~ <1>.... '"'" c:: Cl <:> c:: <11 c:: <:> CI) l.Q 0 .~ .... C) .~ t'CI <:>J,~"5 eOou .- (:) ::::: .:: ~C\j'<t~ J~ J~ II )~ l~ "'I:! ~j ~c: ~~ 'i~ "'1:8 II i ~~ ~ Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii i i Ii Ii Ii Ii i Ii i i i i i Ii ili i I , 888888888888888888888888888 ~g88~g8g~8~8ggg8~g~8~g~~g88 NW~~~~N~NNNN_~_NNMNN_N--MNN ~ & . . . & & .........................tIt............ &t;~t;~~;~ 8 8 ggggggggggggggggggggggggggg --------------------------- 000000000000000000000000000 ..................................................... 888888888888888888888888888 ~8g8~88g~~8gggg8~g8o~g~~gg8 N CD v"" C5 (0 N """ N (l;j N C\I ... (If) .... C\I N M C\I ~ ... N .... _1M N C\I N_N~=~_~""""""""""""""""""" ................ I I~ is I~ '" c. _ E .. .. .;: ct en", ::> - I_~I " Ii ~i~ 1 I 0 C'C co co n:I n:I :; E CC 1 I I 0. e_ Q)Q).K " U. c: "C "C ... (/) II) 0 C c: <-CDCD nlnsC_-_COc:: "C"C"C 10 CD >>.;::....OC>->>n:I ,CC::C:: 1= .r:. e -C 'C e en l.t) 5' 0 I'\:l i I'\:l I'\:l _ ~: I'\:l i I'\:l I'\:l 0 I ~ in 12 ItijICC.2.::J_e.E~I~~,CO~EEE-CI::- 10 1.0 e~ IE]Q) Q) I'\:l'ON 2: Q)........ ....:001 I'\:lI'\:lI'\:lN."'C-= _ , = _ I'\:l ~ ::J::J::J U = ~ _ ~ I'\:ll~ ~'~I"'lc c c ~ el~ ~ e'~i:NI'EIE Q) 0 gg'O'O'O"'C'Oa.a..a..lcn,~:J:J :J"'CI~"'C 1- I'\:l e a I _ Ie ~ Q) Q) C C e C C ~ ~ w[U 0 e e,clc1c .~ E I'\:l 0 0 =I~I~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a :J ;I~:~I~I~;~I~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ =I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E E E E E E E ~ = ~,~I~ ~I~I~ ~ a ~ .~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~:3:3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c3lc3 c3 ~1~lS S:S'lall~ ~ a 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ @I @I @I @I @I @I @I @I @I @I @I @I!@lI@I!@J @I,@I @I = ~ - _ . . I'\:l u=;.r:. 1ij 1ij 1ij 1ij 1i 1i 1i 1i tij tijltijl-m.tij,tijltijJtij,tij ro 8 ~ I ~ ! i 8 c;. c if 5 5 5 ~ ~ 5, 5, 5, 5 5\ 5! 51 5: 51 51 51 g, 51 10 en ~ 05 05 ; ~ ~ ftS Ci5 Ci5 en CiS Ci5 ciS ciS en U5jcn cnjci51ci51ci51aslciilci5 en ., 0"10' " ~" _'0:: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0'0 0 0 0 .. - "'" "0 - - - - -,- - - -1-1-'-'- - - - - - 1""--- 0.> ------------------ '~Itij'tij ~t~ Q.1C ~Io ~ ~ ~l~ ~I~I~I~I~I~ ~ ~ ~ ro ~ m m ro z ~:~ ~I~'~I~ ~ >I~ ~ ~ ~ ~1~1~1~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~:~ ~ I~ m.o _iN'M:~ 1.0 ~'I~ ~ ~ 0 -:INIM ~ l.t),~,~ ~ m,o:_!N!M ~ NJN;M MIMIM'M!M M M M t") ~ ''It 'It ''It ''It "lt~I;~;I:~I~ ~ "'JI.O 1.0 IS) l.t) I, I, I I I II' II , I I I I I I t I I , t 1 111 I I I I tii,tiiitii tiiltiiitii,tiiltii tii,tii tii tii tii tii tii tii tii tii tii tii tii tiiltii tiiltii tii tii I" i .~ I ~ M <Xl N '" < (.) C 2 .! '3 u. <..i ,.j ,.j <Ii .~ ;;; .~ c. 00 ~ (.) " C ~2 C " ~ a: - .. II"' I. II"' L. E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ..~ ii~ J~ ;e.l! i:! ~ II; ~;g y ,. ~ i ~ 1li 1: ~~~ ~I ~ ll~ jr~ .~c: ;e"'l! i" .~ I; ~~ - " - !! ~ ... ~ g 2 i5 - ii5 g 'qj t! (J i!: s .... - i ~ ,,~ ~ ~ is ~ ~ ~ ~ ;ell! a::! ~ .~" ~ ~ !! .. 5 ~ I ~ - ~~! ~I .s: a; - iii .!!! -6 'l> ~ E .\!l ~ C/) € I :: ~. CI) CI') '- 'l> 'l> QS ~t;j'tl .. .E_ 5 (j - .. ~~ .!!l '" - ~ .s CI) ~ c -,~.~ t: t: '-' C/) .... Q) - .. ~ E; ~ l!J ra ~.~ OJ eJ2e~ .lJ!~ll:~ .....13)........... t: Cl C t: ~ t: C CI3 ~.9 '';:: '0 I ; ~ c~ g ~ '--. <::)::::::.- (.)<\j"l:(.) Ii a;;e i ~~ ;XJ .~ s ~ .. ," i.S ~ 2222222222222222222222222221 I I ' I 888888888888888888888888888 g882~88822g~28288228g2~g828 NNNN_NNNNN__NNN_N~NN_N~~_NNN "~~WMWWWWWWwww.ww...wwwww.w 8 8 8 ggggggggggggggggggggggggggg --------------------------- ~~~iSSSS~S~ii~ii~iiiS~SSS~S 888888888888888888888888888 g822~28882g~2228222ggggg888 NNNN_NNNNN__NNN_NNNN NN_NNN .wwwwww~www.w.w.w.wwwwwwwww I I I II .. .... .~ ~ i CD o...l...J ; :r: :r: 'C.oJ Q) 00 'ii ftI - ~ E ~~ ~ ~ ~ o .:Jt.<D=>o en ~~ Q. o _ ~Q~ftI~Q)Q)~MftI :r: 00= u..~Cii ,g."O~:r:.2~g>~-::t ~ ~,~,~ ~'8 'Cr:::-g..c:t:~::a'~~~~Q)'C'C en 1"OIa::i:!? i..c:IO liNCDCi5oc:~l.I..{)oouli:i= 810 IC"O:taI.E;!!?I~ -"0 ~ ~ z - "01"0"0"0"0"0 ~ :r: ~.- c ;,~ ~ cl~i~.~I>iE ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ c c c c c c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~1~lrol~I~I~I~I~1 c?i : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : :: ~ ~ ~ :; :> -g "C c3 ~ iflM i'1 ~ ~. :iil-gl-g -g -E C C C ~ $ ~ ~ I~..~.. C C ~ ~"C"C"C "C,E,cl~,~I~:~I~ 10 o'~.~ ~ ~ ~I_ ~ ~ .~ ~ u c c C c'~I~'~:~I~!~ ~ I~ E - - -,z ~ ~ M M ~ ~ - -.C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~iUiUIOIO'cicIC g "' 5 5 5 (J) t 0:/:1 ~ ~ 5 5 t) :: ~ ~ ~ I g! 'I en i ~i a: i c: 11 ~ ! ~ 'I ~ "' ~ 0 0 0 ~ z 3 w w ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ro:~,~I~ ~I~ ~ ;,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1~1~1~:i:~i~I~'I~'~ "' ro ~ ~ ro ro ro ro ro ~ ro ro ro ro ro ro ro "' ro.re ~lroirol~l~ ~I~ C c c c c C c c c c c c c c c c c cl~ ~Ic CIC C C C C MMrlrrMMrrrrrrrMrrMlrrM!~irlrl.rirlr .2.2.2.2 .!:! .!:! .2 ~ .2 .2 .2 .2 _2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .21.2 .21.21.!::!:.!:!11.!:!1.!::!,.!::! .!:! '"Ita taitalta1ta ta ta ta ta ii ii ta ta ta ta ta ii ii ii 'tttl'n;i'n; ~Ita tata ; ; ;1;1;1; ;';1; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;';,;\; ;:;';,; Ll'l to,.... IX) 0') 0 .....IC\J (") ~ 1.1) to ,.... CD 0') 0 ..... C\J M "It Ll'l1~1""\CD 0') 0 .... Ll(11f:1fI1f,U(,<f!<fi<f:<f <f <f <f ~ ~ 'f r-;- r-;- r-;- r-; r-; r-; r-;ir-; "? "? <? ar ~:~ ~'~:~:~1~1~1~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1~I~i~ ~,~ ~ M co '" en .. a: ... II t i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. ~ Sl! c: ! I! .~ II :) ~ ~ ~ T;j - T;j & 16 ~ o ~ S )~ l~ ""a jJ ... i~l )~ C!:"'o ~.. ~ I ~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~j~ ~i ....s ~ :l!: a; ;::. .... jY) Q) ~ III '- _ III C!: i- ~ ,~ ~ I! ti 'ii :::. 2 2- - T;j a: ~ 6 - - ,0 ~ ~ .s - ! ~ CI) ~ .,. ~ ~ O,)!~ ~~'tI t;~i !. ~ .!!l S t;) ~ c -,~,~ ,5 t: .... CI) 15 Q) C!ooo .. iU[,~~ >= Q Q <ll Qiustf.::: ClI~...1!l t: Cl C t: JllS ,~ ,g "5.b~~ eO 0 10;; '.... Q::::::..... (,,)"'''''(,,) iii S! ~ <ll ~ ~~ .~ \0. ~~ !i ~:l!: ~ ,~ ~ cri a~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 aa Oil) l\l II) , Nil) Og150:ilgOgOOCD"':;j0"'''' ai ai" .., ..,- ~ ~~,.... ~ ~~~~N~:(Sj .. .. ::I ":o":":U'i'o",.:tI9f"'iC'iC\iNN":C\i 0 -11 ;;; ..t\l......- .. ............." .... ~.c <Xl .. .. .. "ell N en S < (,,) 00 Ii 9 j :; LL 08ooooooo~oa~oaoo~a g ~~ ON & .~M"""""" tit.... 8.,; 888 ai ai" CD CD- .. ::I NNN .. -11 ...... ! C';.c ;; ..ell S gggoddddddddddddddd - -- ~~~~~i~~i~~~aiiai~~ 0 00 0 .. .. .. .. ,~ s ~ - 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ !\t ~ II) .. .. l\l q N 8 8 ~ 0 8 15 ~ :il g 1il g 0 0 :l! ~ N 0 .., '" oS oS .., .... C'; .., .. .. ;:r; ~ 0 N N "l. "l .... .., tl '" N - "': en .. .. .. - 0 .. to: ~ 0 .. to: .; N N ti N - N ..; ~ .. N .. - .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. - f- f- - 1D C en en '" .. ~ i ~ >- 11 z ~ ~ 0 w Q) >-->-- a: z ~>-E~- .. (,,) ::; &l >- >- ... .-:E65.2':- '0 (,,) rJ'J ~ c. tijg()o5~ _.5 ::) '0' 0 E >: w c: CLC) .C,,)oc C .... a ..., '0 .. 0' U) _ 1:) . () "' 9 .. 0 .. a: ~ Q) ::I ::IO:>C'O 'j '0 E a: < ::; '0 0 Q. Cf.l .!! c. '0 (,,)0 ll. .... '0. C (,,) e-.t=..!!ca: ,.... < E ::I >- OJ::. I'll ~ .. 0 ai tV ftI - C7J:i: -0 ,., ai >- (,,) .. "" e.~:I::f Ole 0' 0 e::. 1ii ~ .::Jt.. .- fa ::I en Z >- al c '-~ .:t- 0 - 1D , Q) .. ~ 0 n; ~~ Q) ftl en CD _.t=. (,,) ~ 0:> ::I 'Oo..-cnco.~ .. '2 w .. ::) Q; Eo C .=>c-CIJJ: Q) ai '> ~ ~ !;( u en I~ Q) 0 0 .. - > ~-"'rtI- ~ > 'is C '- "(jj E (I) "' a:i C C if '0; ::; .. (,,)..!. < CD'" 01-- .. 'iij ~ .. '0'0 E Q.~Gia:o~ l!l ~ 0' .. 1D (,,) >= I~ C C ill'c ~IQ; :ii .c c. C > ai en 0:> .. .. u .. c. C. ::I < ~ 'c .. w I~ ~ ~ '= ll. 0..:> O>Lii c. Q) 0 ::) ~ ::I ,i 0 i= ll. ::; .. .. - C .... 15l' .. .. " '0 "0 '0 'C '0'0'0 0' ::I 1ii .. Q) < .- .- n:I C C c: c c: c C '0 '0 '0 C 1D C > >- C >>ll. .. n:I n:I (U l'tl (OJ" to c: C C '" " ~ .. < 0 '~I ..' .s .s: -g II) U')U')oooo '" .. .. en > ~ Cii .... 0 ~ < >- e;; N(\j(\j(\j(\j(\j 0 0 0 .. S '" .c , .!!! ~ "' - - - = E .. 0' " 0:> , 5 5 .~ ..!. ...!...!...!...!...!...!. ..!. ..!. ..!. .. .. 10 C ::l .. ~ ::I .. o 0 ~ @I @I@I@I@I@I@I @I @I @I .. ll. if Cii :I: a: en g\ II~ ::;'::;I~ ~ '" ~ ~I:g, ~ ~ ~ '" '" .. @I @I @I @I @I , CliICli " c. c. c. c. .. 51 I E E E E E E E E E E '" C C C C C @I@I@I .. tV n:I n:I n:I to n:I .. .. .. :g ,2 .2 ,2 .2 ,2 ,,,,I ruruc;; c: a:c:a:a:a:a: a: a: a: 05 n; n; n; n; n; I~ C C C OJ Q5G5G3G511li OJ OJ OJ .. :;; :;; :;; :;; :; '" I "'0101 01 0)00000 '" '" '" 0 C. 0. ill' c. c. 16 1'- .- ,- C C c:: c c c c C C C C .. " Q) " 100 en Cf.l .. C'll res n:I n:I n:I n:I .. .. .. .. en rJ'J en en en Ig gig .c .c .c .c .c l.c .c .c .c .c " " Q) .. " " ifj I " V t.J U 0 U (J " " " Q) 'tara;; ~ Ii; a; CD a; CD CD ~ ~ ~ C. '0 '0 '0 '0 ~ ~,~ ~1~1~1~ c. .. .. '" .. enl ' I ~~.:: ~ ~ ~ ~ i= i5 i5 i5 i5 i5 ~LJ -.... , NIM'" II) to,... co 0')10..... N .., .. II) CD .... <Xl en 0 cc CCIa:l <Xl cc co COIl%) 0) C') '" en en en en en en en , , , , I t I I I t , , , , , , , , , >->->- >- ~~~,~~~ >- >- ~ >- >- >- >- >- t;; lei) CJ)tCl) en Cf.l Cf.l C/J,Cf.liCl)ICl) en rJ'J en rJ'J rJ'J en en .. '" ,S ... ~ - oj !! ::I o '" '" C 'r:; C .. oS .. n; :; m .. '" .. .c ~ o ~ 'c ::I E E o " '" .S 1ii .~ Q) = 'l5 ~ :c '0; C o c. '" .. ~ .. = " :; /; '0 C .. E Q) '0 01 .S 1ii 'x .. '" 0' m a (r.i ! w ~ 130 z- ti ....i ....i ui .~ .. .~ c. en 1ii o (,,) '0 C .. ~ C Q) > Q) a: "" .. t I i [ I I I I I I -I E I I I I I I '" <ri .!!l -5 ~ !il' ~ ~ ,. ~ .s .~ ~ e: l:! Cll '- ; (.)>- QjC/) ~(jVl" ~~I CI) ~ '_ Cll~lil ~I.C"O __t: <.> <.> <11 a. a. Je .s.sl! 0.... 1;),~ .S ~ III C/) ~ t;: <11 . -~.Q!! E ~ ~ ~ ~~'S!iil Cll ~ '"" t:Cl<:t: ~~~~ '0 ~ .&~ >, Q ... <.> G~~<3 ~ ~ '" .", - ~ i L.; L.; ! :5 :5 g CIj CIj i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~~ 'c ~ i ... i a ~ u: I~ i s - ..: ~ I .. .. - z E l!l ... 0 8 CD '" ~ ~ ,.. CD '" '" 'j! e e N 0 <D .. '" ... :::l .. ~ - .,; ,.: e &"j - - CD ..~ ! ~ is L<: 't .~ N N '" g: Ie S iil ~ e CD '" '" :; '" ,.. CD N '" !! ~ " u ri .,; ri ri <Ii .; G ~'t <It <It <It <It N tit <It ii ~~ ~ .5 - CD g :g Iii CD '" ~ Q li '" N gj '" CD CD ... 0 ~~~ ri ,.: g g ~ ,.: lB ,.. ~ N ~ ~ N ... "l. ... on ,.: <It N '" g ... III tit <It ~ ~ - 't .. &"~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ':I; -, rI "1 "! J! .~ === ... CD 0 0 0 ,.. B is ~ ~ - ... '" - ~'t~ '0 - l ~ co ,.. ll! '" a; N i ... '" ,.. N >.,=== ... CD - "l. ... CD '" e ,.: .,; - on g ~ ~ /3' N '" - CD ... - "": - .9- N 't ~ - - CD - - N '" CD .. li ~ ri cO cO ...: N :;: ;C Q) N - - '" N e t! - , .. l2 .9- is ~ C!l '- ... '" CD '" '" 8 , '" '" N CD , l!l '" '" CD ". " N .,; .,; 'il ~ - M ... i - - CD - - CD a; '" '" ~ <D N '" ;! ~ "! - "! " ... - N .,; u 't ~ ~' i 'u.. ..J 'c: c: i 100 < .. :;) :;) '" :.: u.. b ~ c: !S '" '" '6> CD 00 I- :E :i -c: .g :.: ~ a; :;) '8 ~ CIl ~ a; CD ..J CD J CIl ... 0 E '" '" :;) I 'il i 0 -u -u ~ i :I: Cii Cii .c: U u .c: ~I E E 1ii u '" ~ .c E E " Qj o 0 0 " 0 ;( ::< u u c: '- t ~ CD - - ~ ~ "11 M ,:;:t~~~~~~ CD N .~~... I en < '" ~ u CbG)c:7)u)C")Q " 8. ~,...:,...:,...:,..:...; eft " ..~t ~ ~~ :; u.. < ..J :I e o.i!CQU")""'o""C") , 'ce'c"'"':~~lX!~~ -9- ~ 1-1i5I-CDl.l)""""~l.l) ... 11 .2. ii ~ 1ij"~ ,,<I- -ai')( ~ ~~, ~ ~=!~I~~~~l ~ c i__....""l.OCO .ii'l-emmmr--coco e _!l-1ij t!~" 1-'- ~ ~ i Lt)l.l)lt)OCU"l i ,..cOcOcO";~": ~ cco,g C\I..- '-i' ... ~-.::~ i o~o. - (.). .. 000000 >- ...... _&J_MMM"ltlnt\! c: ,- CD~- ~ ! CD~'C 0._1- 0 i U")l.l)Lt'lOOl.l) i c"ouil.riaic::iai vi t=Q.CD _N llJ (D'C ~ > I- CD '" is 0. o 0 0 010 0 -lJ) l.l) l.l)jlJ') l.l) l.l) i., i ci ci c:i '0 0 0 ).. t: ~s 8 ~__ CIl ._ ~:t o -- ~ ~ _ 000000 ::!! i~!~~~~~~ ~ u (D';;:' ~l51- L<: 8? ~ j::: ,.... O:l O:lIM Nlco ~ LnMO)N,....Q:) ~~ ~,m,~ ~I~I~,~ -s. ~ ~~~I \ i ! :N[ 0 0 u ... 1ii ..,j 't ' : I " ..,j 111.' , II> .,; ,.-:: ~ i ILl.. 1ii le'- I CI) " ~ \:;),5 I"':.: u.. '0 ii C) VJ C Q) '" Q II> clC)::: "0 (,) CI) CIl ,- c: c: '8 ,- :.: CIl ===> ::VJ E bl- :;) ~QjQ)...JOQ) " O~E-~VJ ,.. u; c: .. OO'~'~=> .c 0 ...J ii:I:~~a; , (.) CIl 1~lr ~Il\r'~ CIl " '" c: ~ ~:.c'E E ~ 0. '" CD =1010 0 " ~ 75 II> o < ~I(,) (,) C - :> c: CD > CD II: ... .. III Ii. ~ t t I i I I E I I E I I I I I I ~ <ri ~ ~ III 13 U) ~ ~ ~ ~ .s; c: -2 ..!!! i3 .lii (j ~ ;::!. '" ~ tl ~ - 'l> 5l e 2l.\!! I~ .~U) :5 ;..,O'w ~ljjlll. Ci) 6~' Q)-as ~iji'l> ti~ ~ '" e II) ~e1il .s c c: Q..(j:~ r::: c: _ ""~ ~ ~ .~ ~ .. l;l. c: III e.Q~~ III ~ 11" I:: Clllll....:::.!. c: Q ~ c: ~~~.g ~ I e ~ v \I) .. v ~t:l '" <> .~ 0 c.=: (j",(j(j J!l ~ 1_ ~ '" II * ~I ~ ~ ~ e ,...,... N ... : 'lit :, ! . "" _s .~ !~ ....Ii; J!;i'" ..... !i -'s:S ! ~ ~ ~dls J!l 'j; e e ::l.. ... ~.i~ ~ ls " 'l: .~ b e ~n :i ~~ ~~! 'a e a. .~ II ~ iie~ ~! . 'l:S &"'rl J!~::: Ii '- e ~ ill .s ~'O~ '" J .S ~'e ! a.s LU ~ ..... .!! ~ 'e li .!! '&JJ .~ Ii <t ...~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !~~l~~J~ . maaBm~ ~1 j Ii ~ ~ ~B:!2 If ....g88"'1lii!cii~1B '" :g... il i !5 c: ... Lti~<Ql(j~~G~7~i -C-CE ~~~~- ~;~;i '" '" It) .- i 11l Iii II) glilIDCiil!l'" ~C!dlc;c: "....- CO) ::Jccc.2 a;~':";<D"; alf--'-l;l ~47t;;t;~~ ~:!fi'~ ~alfalfalf(j .eSSS.E ~ !:; ~ ~ ,..., II) Il) t;s GSc?"':w co M C\I co N ..... 0 ..... ~~~~ ... ~~~~i ~g~~ . "1 . . ii!i :!l ;:: It) '" ~~ ~r.D '" ID '" - ... ... ~ ~ ~ ~.~ :: If! COCO(oCDNIt)I~ "":ai"':c:icicid C\I .... C\I 0 - o .... ... CD en ... uSeD ~. ~ - ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ N ..... u; ~ - en :g o ~.. CD ... ID _ ~ gj - '" ID , ,...: N ' '" '" I i ! I ! gJl Il) 'It- , - '" cD cD - - I I ,'" ,ID ID o ... Il) l,()1U') :; ~'~ ~ .. N ~II~ ~ ...J ~ ~ :.: lfl '" ::;) ~ ~ u. '2 'c: U) Q) ~::> ~ :::&:: ~ CJl CJl ~ ';:::;" CD ::l i ~ ~ 'c ~ g ~ Q;Q);..J~ t1I~~E1Gnf ..... 0 0 .- .- ii~:c~~~ ~II ~I il ~I if i ~ a.:jlO <I~' c.> c.> C _ .. 11 I .9- ~ ~ ~ ~ i! ~ - ~ ~ \IS ~ '" i ~ <;; is 'Ii ). 8 ...J 15 ~ ~ Ii; ~ i:: ~ ffi f" ...J 'l: 76 M ex> '" en < (.) C .2 j :; ... cj ....i ....i .; ~ '" '&l c. II) jg o '0 c: .. G) :> c: G) > G) a: ... .. E I I I I i I I I I .1.... :" E I I I I I I 't II) .l!1 .s Q) 13 CJ) ~ ~ ~ ~ i r:: ~ .!l! a .\i, (j ~ ~ c - ,.,,~ "CJ) II) ~&lw ~~i Q) a,cll ~e'1:l _ _ r:: "''1:l11l ~~~ e 11I 11I -.o.Q& Q'i:~i:ij .5; Q) => ~E=.gl:i 11I~:::: Q) E.9~Q.) Q)Q).....:; Q3~C;~ r:: Cl Q) r:: ,~ ,,, ... 0 v, - l1I'- _Q.c::'fU c I CI) "5 .c~.::: ~ '.... Q a:l '- (j",l.I:(j ..-- .. ~ g .", .. II.: II.: S S S III III i ~ ~ . ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ a i ~ ~ Q, Q, ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ I ~ 3! lei :; :i l:i l:i l:i Ii ~ III E ~ II. - ell ~ l!! '" CD 8 ... '" ~ ~ '" III ... CD 'i: e !? .. ui .; lit ... - ,.: ~ .. u - - c;j ii ~eii - c -g ~ ls u; z '0; i ~~.. '" N '" '" '" N ! '" '" CD ~ ... ... ... CD ... '" N - l3 ,.: <> oJ ,,; oJ .,; g ~~'O; ;;; '" ;;; N ~ ~ .. .. 1; ~~ ~ :; l! G ii~ - [ll ~ ~ CD ! ~ .~ ~ '" '" '" '" ... - if. ,.: ~ .. ,.: ui t ~ ~ i '" ... '" ~ CD '" '" ... 0 <> it ,,; :g <> ~ ui .. 'Oi, c;j .. ... - '0; CIl .. :i ~ .. .. & _ lB ~ g; ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 - "! i~l '" CD - 0 0 re 8 N ... - ~ - lB CD '" ~ CD CD '" ~ CD N '" '" l8 - ;...:::: '" - - 0 CD ca :::: Ii: 'i, ,.: a; ui ,,; ~ l:! ~~I ~ '" c;j co. - '" .S ...; oJ ,.: ~ - CD - _ N "! CD I .. Iii 'i, ..; cD cD r--. N I ~ '.-, N _\ _:M '" ~ ~ .! .Q. t: 12 , ~ Cll , t:l i f- ..... <t _10 c;; M I ;; ;; CD <Xl <t I ~ <t 0 '" '" to ...; ,,; .. ...; ui if. 5 S '" N <Xl I ~ f-- - t5 N ... ... <t ... CD ~ , <Xl '" ... N '" N ii lB 0 <t ... N '" <t 1~1l3 oJ oJ ...; .,; .. - N I ''0; , I I , - J!l J!l ... ~ 'c 'c CIl ~ :;) :;) Cl " ... Cl J!l c: Q) Cl '0. CIl ~ a .c '8 g " ~ ~ OJ :;) Q In " ~ 5: .... ~ E ii ii :;) i '0 0 'Q u ~ Q) '0 :I: ~ ~ I -51 ~ ~ " , E, E iiU g. I ~I ~ is 11 E I d:lc3~ 0 o 0 :i: u u .!! ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 't - .. ~ ~ "'- cO i l:! '" ~ ~ " ).. 8 g ~ tll Ll.: ~ i:: ~ ~ .... '0( M <Xl '" '" " a: ... ... . , ... "'" 1 ill "" ! III t E i I E I I I I I E: all!! ~~ I ~~Vi' aE:~ CI) ..... '_ Q)~as ~ii~ I _ E: c: \> III <1l ~.. '" E: rea - ~ 0 - E: .~ I .S C:-CI) III c: . ~ ~.o l!l <1l ;:: III E c .!! ~ III 1i) ::I::: I '" CXl .. ~ CI) ltj Cb '_ 'oW c: Cl U c: S1 ~~ca'~ -6 - I 5.!! III o l.I') ..... ;:) I 'fj >,<:)01\.\ .~ Q c:u.!:i: CI) UC\jctU ..- "" "" "" "" g II.: II.: _5 ~ 5 5 5 CIS CIS ~ i l l l l l l l 0 l~ I!! :g i .... ~ ! II ~ '3 !! i III ltl ~ ~ ~ a: ~ ~ ci - <W <II !!l ... 0 8 l:Il l!l ... i .... <D '" E sl!! I!! N 0 <D .. '" ... .. " - a; ,.: ~ !! i - - t~ Q. .5 Ll: .~ 'OlC 1;; ~~ 0 1ii <D '" CD .... :; CD 10 .... c;; CD ~ l!! '" ... U N g N N ,.: a; :> " .. .. .. .. i~ 'OlC ;;; .. l c ~~ 0 '0 .. .!;. ~ <D '" <D ... '" .., 0 .~ it '" :8 - '" ~ .... '" .., <D 0 CD '" ai iii N .; ai a; ~~ ! '" CD .. .... 10 ;;; .., '" .... '" '" ... 0 i. .. ai ai 0 ~ 0 ;;; '" '" .... CI) .. .. .. III ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~- <D .... .., '" <D _.l! .. <D 0 0 0 ,.: g i~ E - ... .., I - ~'a .s. tl;. .:: J CD .... '" '" ~ '" '" ... .., 0 .... '" :8 - ... ... <D - ~ ... <D ~~ 's ,.: ai - iii 0 ri I '" '" - CD 0 '" .s. ... - - - en .:: - - N - <D - - '" .., <D I .!!! !S .. .; ai ai ,.: N I .~ ; .., '" - - .., '" l!! .s. i ~ ~ \!l - ... '" <D '" .., 8 I '" '" '" CD I !!l .., '" <D ": .... . N .; .; :; s - 0; ... 0 I ~ - r5 <D - - ~ ~ '" .., . ;;; en ... - ~ '" - "1. .... CD .l! .; - N .,; ~ " 'OlC J!l J!l .... ..l ';: ';: CIl < " ::l ::l Cl l.: .... b J!l c :!S Cl Cl '0 CIl CIl t- j ~ ';: '8 ~ l.: ~ 0; 0; ::l Q <II !l CIl ..l CIl .. !l <II .... C 0 E 1;; .. ::l 1 al al 0 'u 'u ~ :r Q; Q; '" '" ~ E E iii u u i ~ ' 11 .. :c E E :> , It II CIl = 01 0 0 '0 , o < ::; () () c '-- I ~--C\lto)\Q M ,~t~::j~~::i~ CD N en .s.)( .... < .:: )( () mQ)O)U)MO C & .c"';"':"':"":"':cri 2 i.Q.S j1 t=i :; .... < ..l ~ e a.i,a<D "'.... 0""'" 0 ,...,COLt')CDMO .s. ~i~cxiLri..~ui .:: i:>- ~ .-" B ~~~ l ~I~ ~ g>13!I~~~~g ~ "2 i........."""~CD a1eO)(7)(7)r-., (D i.g gj t- .- ~ ~ '8 Ll)U')l.l)OOLO i ...aiaiai.;llj'" gj caD C\I..- .5i' ... ~~~ IS '" .. 000000 _~_MMM";U;N i Ie u~a al~." ~_t- 0 ~ Ll)1l)Ll)OOl.O i clriuiu'iaidai ,.; 1: c. CD T"" C\I .- u 1il ~ ~ a; '" is ~ I 0010'000 'CL/')U")U")Lt)Ll)l.t) :.. i;l!CIlOOOOOO 8 " a.E ~ ._ In .... .- ~ =' ~ o .- ~ ffi _ 000000 Ci . ....:a:iciai ::; C 1: ~ ......... C") 'Ct' .... lJj ~ ~ 'C ....- ..... 4: lfO ~ j::: ..... en en 1M IN ex) ~ l.l) M ,en C\J ..... <0 .g. ~(U en ail~l~ ,c.O cD lli ffi ~;2 ~ I ! i '" 0 0 U f.O - .... 1;; ...i 'OlC i : ' al ...i ~I~I ~ u; ui ::> ~ =>'::;) C)~ u.. '" .. I~! OlI,~n~ ~ en .. .~ " <II <II -I C I C 1'8- " ~ a. ==::> =(1') ::l ~1Q; "1..lIQ CIl CIl '0 c!l E - - '" ... u; C Ooi'!!!(~ ::l .c 0 .. il 1 u u- , () ..l "'lall:r,Q; Q;.p! '" '" '0 U"'~'EEI- .. C l~i~I~'~i,5 ~ ~ .. i ~ 78 .. - o < ::; 1() () C - ::> C " ~ a: - .. ... ;.. E I I I I I I ; ; E I I I I I I I Chapter 6 Community Library Facilities and Collection The Existinl! Svstem. The City's library operations currently offers a total of80,955 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 oflibrary space which results in an debtfree standard of 0.24 square feet per residenr. 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 Uoon Infrastructure Created bv the Develooment ofUnderdevelooed or Undevelooed 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 oflibrary pad and the volume collection. The Puroose 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 Dwellinl! 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 ,.. .. l1l'i " ChaDler 6 Librarv Facilities and Collection E I I I I I I I I I E I I I I I E The library system also has a collection of 236,980 volumes) 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 additional 67,094 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 Dwellin2 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 \.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 oflibrary 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 Tvne of Development Proiect. 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 Tvne 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 ... .. ~ i I I I I I I I I I I " Ii I I I I I I ChaDter 6 Librarv Facilities and Collection The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facilitv Attributed to the Develooment Proiect. The cost of acquiring land for additional library space and construction is about $320 per square foot4, (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 oflibrary construction results in a charge of $76.80 per additional City resident. Table 6-3 following, demonstrates this. Table 6-3 Establisbment of tbe Library Facilities Standard and Cost per Person to Maintain tbe 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 tbe Standard Library Collection Volumes 236.980 Current City Service Population 199,803 Volumes per Resident 1.19 Cost of Library Collection per Volume 563.66 Cost per Additional Resident 575.76 City of San Bernardino Developmelll Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 81 ... , .. ... Ii. E I I I I I I I I I E I I I I I I ChaCJter 6 Librarv Facilities and Collection Resultine ImDact 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 oflibrary space and an additional 79,482 volumes. Table 6-5 Summary of Library Space and Collection Impact Costs Residents Cost per Impact Cost Land Use ner Dwellimz Resident Per Unit Detached Dwellinll: Detached 3.501 $152.56 $534/Dwelling Attached Dwelling 2.771 $152.56 $423/Dwelling 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 ... . .,. &i. E I I E I I I I', "" ; I; t e E E I I I ChaDter 6 Librarv Facilities and Collection CHAPTER ENDNOTES 1. Based upon the Year 2000 State of Cali fomi a Department of Finance City population of 199,803. 2.This is imponant 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 propeny 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 propeny 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 ofland 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 ofland (per building square foot) and $275 for building construction = $320/square foot of construction. 5. The accession process includes: needs research, ordering, receipt, preparation, entering it into the computer and actual placement on the shelves. 83 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report "" .. .. Schedule 6.1 Ii ; I I E i I I I ~ I ; I ; I I I I City of San Bernardino 2005-06 Development Impact Fee Study Public Library Standards/Impact Fee Calculation Library Owned Library Library Total Building Percent Buildina 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 I 48.8681 Existing Number of of Volumes 236.980 . Existing Standards: I ICurrent Population. 1-1-05 State Dep!. of Finance I IS.F. of Library Space/person I I Books/person Library Construction/Square Foot S.F. Land Acquisition at $15.00/S.F. & 33% FAR Land Acquisition and Construction per Square Foot Cost per Book (shelved) (Note 1) I Building Cost per Person I Book Cost per person l Density per Dwelling Unit (2) Cost per land use Cost/Detached Dwelling 3.501 I Cost/Attached Dwelling 2.n1 I Cost/Mobile Home 2.517 199.803 I 1.191 199.803 I 0.241 $275.00 $45.00 $320.00 $63.66 $76.80 I $75.761 $76.80 $75.76 $534 $76.80 $75.76 $423 $76.80 $75.76 $384 1. Bowkers 2005 Annua/ average of $63.66. 2. Per Land-use database and 2000 U.S. Census average dwelling densities. 84 ... iIII .. II ; ; I E ; I I I S Ii E I I I i Ii i 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 a multi-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 Svstem. 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]. 85 Citl' of San Bemardino Deldopme!ll Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report ... III t t t I I Ii I I;, , I I E E I I I I E E Chaoter 7 Public Use (communitv center) Facilities Table 7-1 Inventory of Existing Public Meeting Facilities Square I Public M-:eting 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 5th Street Senior Center 16,930 Perris Hill Senior Center 5,684 Pioneer Cemetery Center 1,085 Arrowhead Credit Union Park 5,000 Total Community Lse 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 standard indicates that the City has made a substantial commitment to providing a community center or recreation ,pace for public groups and individuals, Table 7-2. on the following page. demonstrates the calculation establishing the square foot standard: 86 ('il\' "fSwI Bernardino De\'e/opment Impact Fee Ca/cu/alion and Nexus Report ... III .. I.. ChaDter 7 Public Use (communirv center! Facilities . I. Table 7-2. Calculation of Public Use Facilities Square Foot Standard I I E I I I I I E E I I ; I I E Public Meeting Square Feet 198,619 Current Population 199,803 Square Foot Standard per Resident 0.994 Demand Uoon Infrastructure Created bv the Development of Underdevelooed or Undevelooed 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.s01 new potential community center users. The addition of a new attached dwelling will create on average 2.771 potential new users. The PurDose ofthe Fee. The purpose ofthe 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 may be 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, ifadopted, 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 US\? space, The Relationshio Between the Need for the Fee and the Tvoe of Den:looment 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. T" 1 P~rsons Per Unit :-'Ioblle Home Dwellings .'"",.'.'"",.,....'.."" 2.5 I - P~rsons Per Lnll The Relationshio Between the Use of the Fee and the Tvoe of Develooment 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 o/San Bemardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Aexll~ licport X7 ... - "" l. ,.. 1.. E I I I I I I E E E , I i I E E ChaDter 7 Public Use (community center) Facilities the foIlowing amounts below, by type of residential dweIling: Detached Dwelling .............. 3.501 Persons Per Unit X 0.994 Square Feet = 3.480 Square Feel AttachedDwelling .............. 2.771 Persons Per Unil X 0.994 Square Feel = 2.754 Square Feel Mobile Home Dwelling. . . . . . . . . .. 2.517 Persons Per Unit X 0.994 Square Feel = 2.502 Square Feel The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facilitv Attributed to the DeveloDment Proiect 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 dweIling 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 dweIling 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 ImDact Fees. Table 7-3, foIlowing, 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 DweIling $957 Attached DweIling $757 Mobile Home DweIling $688 CHAPTER ENDNOTES There are no endnotes. City of San Bernardino Developmellllmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 88 ... i1' II1II t t E [ I I I I E E E t I E t . .. E I 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 Camoos 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 ICurrent Population ISquare Foot per Resident Standard I Average Construction Cost per Square Foot Square Foot per Resident Standard Expansion Cost per New Resident 199,803 I 0.9941 $275.00 I 0.994 $273.35 Residents Proposed Type of Dwelling per Unit(l) Impact Fee I Detached DwellinQ (maximum DIF) 3.501 $957 . Attached Dwelling (maximum DIF) 2.771 $757 Mobile Home Dwelling (maximum DIF) 2.517 $688 Notes: (1) Per Land-use Database and 2000 U. S. Census average dwelling densities. Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC Fullerton, CA 92831 89 ... III t ~ t ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Chapter 8 Aquatic Center Facilities (Limited to Residential) This component of City infrasnucture 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 ExistinlZ Svstem. 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 8-1 Existing City Pools/Utility Buildings Building Pool Square Surface Feet Square Feet Delmann HeilZhtsPool 7,344 3,744 Nunez Park Pool 18,032 5,520 Rudv C. Hernandez Pool 7,956 3.500 '. Mill Center Pool 6,750 3,432 Jerrv Lewis Swim Center 14,952 5.148 Boys & Girls Club Pool 6,656 2,800 Total Souare Feet 61,690 24.144 Demand Uoon Infrastructure Created bv the Develooment of Underdevelooed or Undevelooed 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. Ci~r o/San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 90 ... i. ~ L [ t E [ , E [ I C f I I I I I I ChaDter 8 Aauatics Center Facilities The PurDose 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 dwe\1ing 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 Relationship Between the Need for The Fee and The Tvoe of Develooment 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 Relationshio Between the Use of the Fee and the Tvoe ofDevelooment Paving 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. oflocker space and 0.424 S.F. of pool surface Attached Dwellings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.856 S.F. oflocker space and 0.335 S.F. of pool surface Mobile Home Dwellings.................. 0.778 S.F. oflocker space and 0.305 S.F. of pool surface The Relationshio Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facilitv Attributed to the Develooment Project. Schedule 8.1 indicates the pool and locker building cost calculations. The pool construction costs are also based upon the final 1989 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 5956.946 or $155.55 per surface square foot (Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index') 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 (5414,000 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 Bemardino Del'elopmellt Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 91 '"' L. t I; E I L L I I E I ~ E I I I I I I ChaPler 8 Aauatics Center Facilities surface square foot (Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index!). 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 ImDact 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 Dwellings $2731Unit Attached Dwellings $2161Unit Mobile Home Dwellings $1961Unit RECAP OF RECOMMENDED AQUATICS FACILITIES IMPACT FEES . Adopt Schedule 8.1 for the three basic residential land-uses. CHAPTER ENDNOTES I.Pool cost figures were acquired from a pool construction project in the City of Carp in teri a, CA. 2.Consrruction Cost Index Historv (]908-1998), base 1913 = 100, page 41, Engineering News-Record, March 30, 1998, McGraw-Hill Corporation, New York, New York. 3.lbid. City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 92 ... .. ,.. Ii. Schedule 8.1 po Ii. City 01 San Bernardino 2005-06 Development Impact Fee Study Aquatics Facilities Calculation 01 Existing Standard/Impact Fee Calculation I"" Ii. Building I Pool t t ~ ; [ , ; C ; I m I I I I Existing Square Feet Delmann Heights Nunez Park Rudy C. Hernandez Mill Center Jerry Lewis Swim Center Boys & Girls Club Sub-total Square Feet I Existing Standard: l ICurrent Population 7,344 3,744 18,032 5,520 7,956 3,500 6,750 3,432 14,952 5,148 6,656 2,800 61,690 24,144 199,803 I 0.121 I $247.36 I $29.93 I Is.F. of Pool Surface or Locker Space/Person I Facilities Construction/Square Foot IConstruction Cost per Person I 199.803 I II 0.309 I II $155.55 I II $48.06 I Density per Dwelling Unit (1l Cost per land use Cost/Detached Dwellinas 3.501 Cast/Attached Dwellings 2.771 Cost/Mabile Home 2.517 $168 $105 $273 $133 $83 $216 $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 II" .. t m E' t I I I I I ~ I m I I I I I I 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 (966477 of the Government Codel) for residential developments involving the subdivision of land and AB1600 (966000) 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, wi\l 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 Hi\l Park (64.4 acres) is the largest park and functions as a community-wide park. Perris Hi\l 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. Ciry of San Bernardino De\'elopmellllmpacr Fee CalclIlarion and Nexlls Report 94 fill! , ... m ~ ~ I I I I I I ~ t t I I I I I I ChaDler 9 Park and aDen SDace Land Acauisition and Facilities DeveloDment 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 of3.0 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 City Population 199,803 Citv PODulation -;- 1,000 199.803 Owned Park Acres 537.3 Park Acres oer 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 currelltly 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 va)' reasonable 2.69 acres per 1,000 population. . ,.ok '.1-3, 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. 95 (';,,' 0(5<1/1 Bernarclino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report ~ .. '" .. ChaDter 9 Park and aDen SDace Land Acouisition and Facilities DeveloDment E I I I I I I I I t ~ I E ; I I E Table 9-3 Calculation of Future Developed Park Acres based Upon the Quimby Allowable Standard of 3.0 Acres/I,OOO New Residents Po ulation Stated in Thousands 67,094 67.094 3.0 201.27 Future Added Po ulation Existin Planned Imorovements. In addition to the on-going improvement of the existing 537.3 acres2, 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 staffhas 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 ofland 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" 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 ,ther factor do meet any of the larger purpose parks previously described. The San Bernardino ~xcer Complex and the Pioneer Cemetery Park are good examples of special use parks. Staffhas 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. 96 Cur of Sail BemaI'd/lID DCI'eloplllclIlllllpact Fee Calculation alld Nexus Report ... .. '" tit E E E I I I I I E , ; I I I I I I ChaDler 9 Park and aDen SDace Land Acauisition and Facilities DeveloDment 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 b)~ 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 of park land outside of the Quimby Act application to achieve afinal standard of 3.0 acres per 1.000 residents. CALCULATION OF PARK DEDICATION STANDARD Unlike the other facilities discussed in this Report, the California Govemment 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 of Quimby-style park fees over an AB 1600-style development impact fee for developments requiring the subdivision ofland 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 of3.0 acres per 1,000 population even if the City does not presently possess a ratio 00.0 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 00.0 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 ofland to be dedicated or the fees to be paid shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park by the future inhabitantsofthe subdivision. . The legislative body has adopted a general plan containing a recreational element, and the park and recreational facilities are in accordance with definite pnnciples 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 Del'elopment Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 97 ... .. pi .. c ,.. .. t [ pi iii ; " ill ~ Pl...: .. , ~ m "" .. I I I ; ChaDler 9 Park and DDen SDace Land Acouisition and Facilities DeveloDment 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 Acauisition 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 $IO.OO/square foot) for parcels in the size (five, ten and twenty acres) required by the City. This is consistent with the cost ofIand suitable for residential dwelling development. This figure is used in the calculation of the park impact fee. However, the use ofthis 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 Develooment Costs. Schedule 9.2 identifies the three major types parks. that the City will likely construct over General Plan build-oue and the costs of the types and numbers of improvements generally included in that type ofpark6. 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 20 I 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 ~ ill ,. .. ~ .. I'" till t I " . III it I m I I I I I I I I ! Ii Chaorer 9 Park and Doen Soace Land Acauisition and Facilities Develooment 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 S39,848,728 Total Acres 200 200 Averal!e 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 Acauisition and Develonment Cost ner Canita. 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 ofland 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] 99 City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report ... .. t ChaDler 9 Park and aDen SDace Land Acauisition and Facilities DeveloDment t t t m E m I I I I E I I I I I I Table 9-5 Summary of Quimby Park Development Impact Fees for Residential Dwelling Construction Persons Fee Recommended Residential Land Use per per Net Fee Dwellin2 Person Per Unit Detached Dwellings 3.501 $2,329.64 $8,156 Attached Dwellings 2.771 $2,329.64 $6,455 Mobile Home Dwellings 2.517 $2,329.64 $5,863 The impact fees for Detached Dwelling residential development involving the subdivision ofland, 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 Acauisition and Develooment Imoact Fee Calculation Examole. 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 Developmellllmpact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 100 ... - "" .. ... III ,.. .. !I" .. I ; I t I I t E I I I I I I Chauter 9 Park and aDen SDace Land Acauisition and Facilities DeveloDment Table 9.6 Example of Park Construction In-lieu Fee . Acquisition Develop- Total Park Development Requirement Cost ment Cost Cost Proposed # of Detached Dwellinl1: Homes 750 750 Averal!e # of Persons per Dwellinl! 3.501 3.501 Anticipated Additional Population 2,626 2,626 Basis of Standard (oersons) 1,000 1,000 Added Population divided by 1,000 2.626 2.626 Acres Reouired ner 1,000 Population Standard 3.00 3.00 Reouired Acres of AcauisitionlDevelopment 7.88 7.88 Cost per Acre for Acauisition or Develonment $435,600 $340,946 Total Park Imoact Fee $3,432,528 $2,686,654 $6,119,182 AcauisitionlDevelooment Cost per Acre ($174,230 + $320,099/acre) $776,546 Park Acre Reauirement for the Proposed 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 ofland, 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 probably prefer that a portion of the park requirement be very near, 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 ... .. ,. .. ~ E I E '" .. I I E I E E I I I I I I ChaDter 9 Park and ODen SDace Land Acauisition and Facilities DeveloDmenr 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 Acauisition Cost Adiustment 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 of the private project the park is intended to serve. However, if the developer or contractor ofa home can provide evidence (acceptable to the City), in the form ofa recent purchase agreement or appraisal of the property they will be developing that the current land value is worth less than the S435,600/acre (or S I O.OO/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 Ooen Soace 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+1 000]) = 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 S 1.00 per square foot City of Sail Bemardino Developmellt Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 102 ... ... l'" .. ... .. "" .. .. ill ; '" ill I ~ .. C I C t C C C E i l1li II Chaoter 9 Park and Doen Soace Land Acouisition and Facilities Develooment 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 Dwelling Person Per Unit Detached Dwellings 3.501 $58.3 7 $204 Attached Dwellings 2.771 $58.37 $162 Mobile Home Dwellings 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. aI. Open Space Impact Fee ~. .. Impact Fee Impact Fee Unit Detached Dwellings $8.156 $204 58.360 Attached Dwellings $6,455 $162 $6.617 Mobile Home Dwellings $5,863 5147 56,010 Open Space Fees for Business Uses. Schedule 12.4 identifies the cost for open space for the Ci(\' of San Bcmardino Dn'clopmcnt Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 103 .. .. II" III ChaDler 9 Park and Doen Soace Land Acauisition and Facilities Develooment t t t 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$I.OO per square foot (or $43,560 per acre), the cost to acquire that 0.01773 of open space would be $772.\3. .. III 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 '" III Units Cost! Acre Cost Residential Land Use per of Open per Acre Space Unit Commercial Lodging Units 5.00 $772. \3 $156 Commercial/Office Sauare Feet 19,940 $772. \3 $0.039 Industrial Sauare Feet 17,420 $772.\3 $0.044 t Il' I I C RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES '" lit Schedules 9.1 and 9.4 contain the recommended Park and Open Space Land Acquisition and Facilities De\'elopment Impact Fees. ~ ; C ~ I i [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page]. Cur of Sail Bernardillo Del'elopmelll Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 104 "" .. '" 4.i ,... .. t t t ,. t. t c E I ,. . ,. Ii. I r .. m lJIll .. E E ChaDter 9 Park and DDen SDace Land Acauisition and Facilities DeveloDment CHAPTER ENDNOTES 1. Adoption of a Quimby Act fee requires a Park "plan" or General Plan element. 2. The Quimby Act does aUow use of revenues raised by the adoption ofa 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-oul. 5. Mini parks are not included in the mix as they are very costly to construct on a per acre cost and generaUy are expensive maintenance factors. Mini parks are rarely planned for but generaUy occur as a result of a land donation or as the recognition of a historical site. 6. Public use facilities are 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 separate park impact funds to insure that no AB 1600 park impact fee revenues are used for rehabilitation purposes. City of San Bemardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Re!'ort 11)5 .... .. ... li. .. .. .. , " t ; f" &ia E t E t t " it I m I t I I Schedule 9.1 City 01 San Bernardino Park Site Inventory Residential Development Impact Fees Quimby Fee lor Land Acquisition AB 1600 Fee lor Park Construction e?:lopedI [;] Constructed Space Acres Acres Acres Owned or L T Lease AI Guhin Park Anne Shirrells Park Blair Park Campo Santo Memorial Park Center lor Individual Development Colony Park Del Rosa School Field (1) Del Vallejo Schoo Field Dellmann Heights Park Encanto Park Filth Street Senior Center Park Golden Valley Schoo Field Guadelupe Field Gutierrez Field Harrison Canyon Park Horine Park Hudson park La Plaza Park Littlefield/ShultiS Park Lytle Creek Park Meadowbrook Fields Meadowbrook Park Mill Park Newberry Park Newmark Park Nicholson Park Ninth Street Park North Norton Neighborhood Center I Norton Gym/galaxy Ballroom ,Nunez Park 'Palm Field Perris Hill Park Perris Hill Senior Center Pioneer Park Richardson School Fields San Bernardino Soccer Complex ,Seccombe Lake Park Sierra Park ! Sonora Park S elcer P rk 28.00 28.00 0.00 12.00 12.00 0.00 34.00 34.00 0,00 5.50 5.50 0.00 5,00 5.00 0.00 MO 6.40 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 6.00 ' 6.00 0,00 19.70 19,70 0.00 8.90 8.90 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.25 2.25 0.00 1.98 1,98 0.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 5,67 5.67 0,00 10,10 10.10 0,00 2.04 2.04 0,00 15.00 15.00 0.00 17.90 17.90 0.00 4.96 4.96 0,00 14.12 14,12 0,00 14,39 14.39 0,00 1.53 1.53 0,00 5.02 5,02 0,00 9.52 9.52 0,00 3,62 3.62 0,00 1,00 1.00 0,00 3,72 3.72 0.00 22.04 22,04 0,00 22,30 22,30 0,00 64.40 6UO 0,00 , , 1,00 1,00 0.00 . 5.00 5,00 0,00 1,00 1.00 0.00 50,00 50.00 0,00 44,00 44.00 0,00 1.13 1.13 0,00 0.17 0,17 0,00 28,00 28,00 QOO - p a Tom Gould Park Wildwood Park Pioneer Cemetary II 0.01 , I ~~:~ Ii 051 Ii 24,02 ., 22.00 II 000 000 Q 00 Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC, Fullerton, CA 92831 106 ,.. .. '" ill I" .. t ; c ,. Ia E I i I I ,. .. I I E t I I Schedule 9.1 City of San Bernardino Park Site Inventory Residential DeveIopmentlmpacl Fees Quimby Fee for Land Acquisition AB 1600 Fee for Park Construction University Heights Regency Heights IrvlngtonlCable Creek Shandln Hills Open Space Hampshire Green Belt Duffy Street Green Belt Sterling Beautification Arae Aquinas Triangle Open Space Edison Green Belt Scenic Drive 5th Street Overpass Total Acres (OwnedlDeveloped) Current Population Populationll ,000 Current Standard I Acrestl,OOO Population Standard (allowed) II I Cost per Acre ($1 Wacre) II I Cost X Standard II I Population Served by Standard II I Cost per Resident II Occupantsl Dwelling Detached Dwellings 3.501 Attached Dwellings 2.nl Mobile Home Park 2.517 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.LC. Acres ~[5] Owned or Constructed Space L T Lease Acres Acres 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 3.90 3.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 228.00 0.00 0.00 8.80 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 2.70 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 2.10 0.00 0.00 10.00 537.3 537.3 266.9 199,803 199.803 199.803 199.8 199.8 199.8 2.69 2.69 1.34 3.00 II $435,600 II $1.306,800 II 1,000.0 II $1.306.80 II 3.00 II $340.946 II $1.022.838 II 1.000.0 II $1,022.84 II ,.341 $43,560 I $58.370 I 1.000.0 I $58.37 I Land Park Open Space Total Park Acquistlon Construction Acquistion Impact Fee $4,575 $3,581 $204 $8.360 $3,621 $2.834 $162 $6,617 $3,289 $2.574 $147 $6,010 Fullerton, CA 92831 107 ... .. Ii" fa Schedule 9.2 ,.. it '" lit City of San Bernardino Parkland Acquisition and Recreation Facilites Development Calculation of Average Park Development Cost I r.. II 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 -pc..... ..i........i. 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 Size I Cost/Acre (1) I Total Cost t ; I Planned Park .. .. I I!" l:.i i I ,. It " IIi .. .- . . lit I ; Revenue and Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 108 .... II. Schedule 9.3 . t City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Park Improvement Cost Estimates. by Type of Park ,.. lI. I Unit Cost. Installed II 5 Acre Neighborhood 1120 Acre Community Park ... It I I I i ,I Pub Imps. Road/curb, gutter. etc. $121 Linear Foot Lg Pk GradingllrrigationlTurf $20,000 Acre ISm Pk GradingllrrigationlTurf $25,000 Acre ,I Plant Material: Trees-5. 24 gallon box/acre $90 Each I Trees-15, 15 gallon/acre $175 Each I Shrubs-l0, five gallon $20 Each Shrubs-30, one gallon $8 Each I Play apparatus : Curbing. 450' per large $25.00 Linear Foot Curbing, 225' per small $25.00 Linear Foot I Play equipment - large $75,000 Lot ,I Play equipment - medium $60,000 Lot Play equipment - small $45,000 Lot I Sand/Other Surfacing $3.500 Lot ,I Buildings: Restroom - Small $80,000 Each I Restroom - Large $110,000 Each Equipment storage facility $60,000 Each Combined Restroom/Concession $180,000 Each I Parking Lot j 4" A.C. W/6" Rock base $5.00 Square foot V -gutter $8.00 Linear Foot I Drain Inlet $600 Each 1 Drain Inlet connector $200 Each Storm drain line $12.00 Linear Foot I o rive approach $1,800 Each Perimeter curbing $10.00 Linear Foot Striping $0.30 Linear Foot I Lighting $1,800 Each Lot sign age $200 Lot Entrance $3,000 Lot ICurb and Gutter $9.25 Linear Foot 'Storm Drainage Facilities Inlets $800 Each Connections $1,300 Each I Lateral (to arterial) $50.00 Linear Foot . Sewer Facilities Connection to arterial $2,500 Lot Line in street $65.00 Linear Foot Line in park $15.00 Linear Foot I Fire Hydrant $3.000 Each Street Lights Standards $1,500 Each 1,040 $125,840 0 $0 5 $125,000 60 $5,400 30 $5.250 40 $800 120 $960 0 $0 225 $5,625 0 $0 1 $60,000 0 $0 1 $3,500 1 $80,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 12,000 $60,000 300 $2,400 1 $600 1 $200 300 $3,600 1 $1,800 490 $4,900 400 $120 2 $3.600 1 $200 1 $3,000 3,780 $34,965 1 2 $1,600 I 2 $2,600 : 45 $2,250 I , , 1 $2,500 i 29 51.885 ! 125 $1,875 1 53,000 . 3 $4,500 : 2,704 $327,184 15 $300,000 0 $0 225 $20.250 75 $13,125 150 $3,000 450 $3,600 450 $11,250 225 $5,625 1 $75.000 0 $0 2 $90,000 3 $10.500 1 $80,000 1 $110,000 0 $0 1 $180,000 40,000 $200,000 800 $6,400 2 $1.200 2 $400 200 $2,400 4 $7,200 800 $8.000 1,300 $390 18 $32,400 3 $600 3 $9,000 3,232 $29,896 4 $3,200 4 $5.200 80 $4.000 1 $2,500 80 $5,200 1,500 $22,500 6 $18,000 I 20 $30,000 E E ; ,. .. I t I po .. E I I 109 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton. CA 92831 .. iii " Schedule 9.3 III City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Park Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park r"' .. I Unit Cast, Installed I I 5 Acre Neighborhood 1120 Acre Community Park I . Duct worklwiring $950 Each Ii Water Facilities I 3" Metered service $2,500 Each r- Backflow device $2,500 Each Line in street $12.00 Linear Foot I Water fountains $700.00 Each _ Fountain lines in park $12.00 Linear Foot .'BencheslTables Tables, cement pads $1,500 Each .. Individual Grills $500 Each I Benches, cement pads $550 Each , Bleachers $3,500 Each Large Covered Picnic Area (lot) $75,000 Each I Individual Covered Picnic Pad $1 5,000 Each I User electrical service park $10,000 Each I Electrical service per area $1,250 Each Game Courts I Basketball courts $40,000 Each I! Basketball Court Lighting $35,000 Each Fenced tennis courts $60,000 Each Tennis Court Lighting $35,000 Each I Baseball Field - competitive .$50,000 Each , Ballfield Lighting $250,000 Per two fields , Baseball Field - recreational $15,000 Each I Pedestrian Walkway $13.50 Linear Foot . 5' wide , 6' wide $17.50 Linear Foot , 9' wide $22.50 Linear Foot I Miscellaneous Flatwork $3.75 Linear Foot ,Small Park Signage $2,750 Lot I Large Park Sign age $15.000 Lot I Bike RacklPad $1,750 Each ,Natural Element Improvement (Lake, e $500,000 Each ! Small concrete stage $25,000 Each i Small Ampitheater stage only, graded $50,000 Each Large Ampitheater with bowl $150,000 Each 3 $2,850 1 $2,500 1 $2,500 1,320 $15,840 . 1 $700 200 $2,400 4 $6,000 2 $1,000 4 $2,200 0 $0 0 $0 1 $15,000 0 $0 1 $1,250 $0 1.0 $40,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $15,000 500 $6,750 100 $1,750 100 $2,250 500 $1,875 1 $2,750 0 $0 1 $1,750 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 12 $11 ,400 1 $2.500 1 $2,500 120 $1,440 8 $5,600 1,000 $12,000 60 $90,000 30 $15,000 30 $16,500 0 $0 2 $150,000 10 $150,000 1 $10,000 6 $7,500 $0 1 $40,000 0 $0 2 $120,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 6 $90,000 2,000 $27,000 500 $8,750 500 $11,250 8,500 $31,875 0 $0 1 $15,000 6 $10,500 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $150,000 " It Total Cost Total Acres Average Cost per Acre 672,335 5 $134,467 $2,596,835 15 $173,122 t I I 110 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 .. IIa Schedule 9.3 I City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation Repon Park Improvement Cost Estimates. by Type of Park P'\ II Unit Cost, Installed II 20 Acre Sports Park .J Pub Imps, Road/curb, gutter, etc. $121 Linear Foot 11 Lg Pk GradingllrrigationfTurf $20,000 Acre ISm Pk GradingllrrigationfTurf $25,000 Acre ..I Plant Material: 11.- Trees-5, 24 gallon box/acre $90 Each Trees-15, 15 gallon/acre $175 Each I Shrubs-l0, five gallon $20 Each Shrubs-30, one gallon $8 Each I Play apparatus E Curbing, 450' per large $25.00 Linear Foot Curbing, 225' per small $25.00 Linear Foot Play equipment - large $75,000 Lot Play equipment - medium $60,000 Lot ~ Play equipment - small $45,000 Lot - Sand/Other Surfacing $3,500 Lot I Buildings: , Restroom - Small $80,000 Each , Restroom - Large $110,000 Each -I Equipment storage facility $60,000 Each I' Combined Restroom/Concession $180,000 Each -,Parking Lot I 4" A.C. W/6" Rock base $5.00 Square foot it V -gutter $8.00 Linear Foot , Drain Inlet $600 Each , Drain Inlet connector $200 Each I Storm drain line $12.00 Linear Foot I Drive approach $1,800 Each I Perimeter curbing $10.00 Linear Foot Striping $0.30 Linear Foot Lighting $1,800 Each ! Lot signage $200 Lot E Entrance $3,000 Lot .Curb and Gutter $9.25 Linear Foot : Storm Drainage Facilities t Inlets $800 Each . Connections $1,300 Each Lateral (to anerial) $50.00 Linear Foot F I 2,704 $327,184 20 $400,000 0 $0 150 $13,500 50 $8,750 100 $2,000 300 $2,400 450 $11,250 225 $5,625 0 . $0 1 $60,000 2 $90,000 3 $10,500 1 $80,000 1 $110,000 1 $60,000 2 $360,000 40,000 $200,000 800 $6,400 2 $1,200 2 $400 200 $2,400 4 $7,200 800 $8,000 1,300 $390 18 $32,400 3 $600 3 $9,000 1,664 $15,392 4 $3,200 4 $5.200 80 $4.000 E~ I E i <>8wer aClltles i Connection to arterial $2,500 Lot Line in street $65.00 Linear Foot Line in park $15.00 Linear Foot Fire Hydrant $3,000 Each 'Street Lights Standards $1.500 Each i i , 1 $2,500 80 $5,200 I 1,500 $22,500 1 $3,000 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 ~ .. I Unit Cost, Installed I I 20 Acre Sports Park I E I I I I E E E I I r t I I I Duct work/wiring $950 Each Water Facilities 3" Metered service $2,500 Each Backflow device $2,500 Each Line in street $12.00 Linear Foot Water fountains $700.00 Each Fountain lines in park $12.00 Linear Foot , BencheslTables i Tables, cement pads $1 ,500 Each I Individual Grills $500 Each Benches, cement pads $550 Each I Bleachers $3,500 Each I Large Covered Picnic Area (lot) $75,000 Each Individual Covered Picnic Pad $15.000 Each I User electrical service park $10,000 Each I Electrical service per area $1,250 Each Game Courts I Basketball courts . $40,000 Each I Basketball Court Lighting $35,000 Each Fenced tennis courts $60,000 Each I Tennis Court Lighting $35,000 Each I Baseball Field - competitive $50,000 Each Ballfield Lighting $250.000 Per two fields I Baseball Field - recreational $15,000 Each IPedestrian Walkway 5' wide $13.50 Linear Foot I 6' wide $17.50 Linear Foot 9' wide $22.50 Linear Foot Miscellaneous Flatwork $3.75 Linear Foot ,Small Park Sign age $2,750 Lot i Large Park Signage $15,000 Lot Bike Rack/Pad $1,750 Each Natural Element Improvement (Lake, e $500,000 Each ISmail concrete stage $25,000 Each Small Ampitheater stage only, graded $50,000 Each Large Ampitheater with bowl $150,000 Each 5 $4,750 1 $2,500 1 $2,500 120 $1.440 8 $5,600 1,000 $12.000 30 $45,000 10 $5,000 15 $8,250 8 $28.000 0 $0 4 $60,000 1 $10,000 4 $5,000 $0 3 $120.000 8 $280,000 8 $480,000 8 $280.000 8 $400,000 4 $1,000,000 0 $0 1,000 $1 3,500 250 $4,375 250 $5,625 4,000 $15,000 0 $0 1 $15,000 6 $10.500 0 $0 1 $25.000 0 $0 0 $0 $4,739.231 I 20.001 i $236.962 i Total Cost I Total Acres i Average Cost per Acre l 112 Revenue & Cost Specialists. L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 ... ... ~ .. Schedule 9.4 r E I I I I E City of San Bernardino 2005-06 Development Impact Fee Study Open Space Acquisition Impact Fee for Business Use Acres 266.91 15.057.2 I 0.01773 I $43.560 I $772.13 I ITotal Acres of Open Space (per Schedule 12.1) including parks ITotal Privately-held Developed Acres (per SChedule 2.1) IAcres of Open Space per Privately-held Developed Acre Icost of Land (per acre) ICost of Open Space Acre per Developed Acre Average Impact Fee UnltsfAcre 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. ". . E t I I !' II E I E JJ . Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. 113 Fullerton, CA 92831 ,.. .... '" ill t I I I I E I I I E I I I ; I E t Appendix A Summary of Recommendations 114 "" II IPl .. " .. I ; I I I I I I I I I I I I E , 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 (I). . Adopt Schedule 9.1, pages 106-107, for residential uses requiring the sub-division ofland for Quimby Act application. . Create ABI600 Park Land Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Fund, Note (I) . Adopt Schedule 9.1, pages 106-107, for residential uses not requiring the sub-division ofland for ABI600 application. . Adopt Schedule 9.4, page 113 for Business Lses Open Space Impact Fee. (I). Separate Park Land Acquisition and Development Funds are necessary because the Quimby Act allo\\ ~ use of receIpts for rehabilitation of existing facilities whereas the ABI600 requirements prevent such expenditures. liS - .. ... ltiI "" llIi m I I I I I I I ~ I I I E E Appendix B Expanded Land-use Database pi .. 116 E ... .. Total- City Sphere I ! 15,057.2 __ I 9,843.00 __ I 24,900.21 -- Private Residences Commercial Lodging Rooms Business Square Feet I Developed I Acres I , of Units 7,566.0 40,663 1,613.0 19,415 746.0 4,475 98.2 2,455 2,403.0 54,508 2,631.0 45,843 Undeveloped Acres I , of Units 4,516.0 12,354 811.0 8,599 1.0 6 126.0 625 1,594.0 31,783 2,795.0 48,700 Total Acres i' of Units t ~ I II I I I .1 I I I t I I City 01 San Bernardino ICity Sphere of Influence Detached Dwelling Units Attached Dwelling Units Mobile Home Units Commercial Lodgina Commercial/Office KSF Industrial Uses KSF 12,082.00 53,017 i 2,424.00 28,014, 747.00 4,481l 224.20 3,080. 3,997.01 86,291 5,426.00 94,543 9,925.0 64.553 98.2 2,455 5,034.0 100.350 5.328.0 20,959 126.0 625 4,389.0 80,483 15,253.0 85,512 224.2 3.080 9,423.0 180,833 I Land-use Database Area '1 - Urban "in-fill" Detached Dwelling Units Attached Dwelling Units Mobile Home Units Commercial Lodging Commercial/Office KSF Industrial Uses KSF Sub-totat Urban In-fill Area II 15,047.2 _ I 9.327.00 _ I 24,374.20 __ r Developed I Acres I , of Units 7,566.0 40,663 1,613.0 19,415 746.0 4,475 88.2 2,2p5 2,403.0 54,431 2,631.0 45,843 I Undeveloped Acres I , of Units 4,428.0 11,889 745.0 8,041 1.0 6 1.0 25 1,357.0 30,738 2,795.0 48,700 r Total : Acres I , of Units I 11,994.00 52,552 2,358.00 27.456 747.00 4.481 89.20 2,230 3,760.00 85,169 5,426.00 94,543 Sub-total Arrowhead SPA I I I Developed I Acres I , of Units 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 10.0 250 0.0 77 0.0 0 Undeveloped Acres I' of Units Total Acres , of Units 88.00 465 66.00 558 0.00 0 I 135.00 850 ! 237.01 1,122 I 0.00 0 526.01 I 2.9951 i Land-use Database Area '2 : - Arrowhead Springs S.P.A. Detached Dwelling Units Attached Dwelling Units Mobile Home Units iCommercial Lodging ,Commercial/Office KSF : Industrial Uses KSF 88.0 465 66.0 558 0.0 0 125.0 600 237.0 1,045 0.0 0 2,668 i I 10.0 I 327 II 516.00 I .. fl t ~ C I 117 - .. II'! III c I' I I ; I I I t' 'E; ; I I ; I I E Appendix C Master Facilities Plan (see separate document) 118 ,.. .. m c' I I I I I I I E' E I I I ; E E t End of Report City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 119 r- II, c ,.. Iiw I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,. ~ I'" I. C I , I I L , t E ~ r [ [ t E I E [ [ E m E I t t I E E I ~ I I I t t t Master Facilities Plan for the City of San Bernarqino, California January, 2006 evenue ost pecialists, LLC Serving Local Governments Since 1975 t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Master Facilities Plan for the City of San Bernardino, California January, 2006 Copyrigbt, 2006 by Revenue &: Cost SpecWists, L.L.C. All rigbts reserved. No part of this work covered by the copyrigbt 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 ~ E E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Seroing Local Governments Since 1975 January 6, 2006 Honorable Mayor and City Council Via Mr. Fred Wilson, City Administrator City of San Bernardino 300 North "0" Street . San Bernardino, CA 92418 RE: City of San Bemardino 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 Faci!itics. Vehicles and Equipmem capital needs · A section containing the future Fire Suppression Faci!itics, Vehicles and E'fllipment capital needs Internet: www.revenuecost.com Voice 714.992.9020 2545 E. Chapman Avenue. Suite 103 . Fullerton, CA 92831 Fax 714.992.9021 t E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 Park 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 Engilleer Teresa Martin, Administrative Services Manager - Parks, Recreatioll and Community Services Department Lynn Parker, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer Larry Pitzer, Fire Chief Terri Rahhal, Principal Plallller Lemuel Randolph, Parks, Recreatioll and Community Services Director Dennis Reicl,ardt, Deputy Fire Chief Lori Sassoon, Assistant City Administrator Dan Ustatioll, 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, o=~~ SCOTT THORPE Senior Vice President t m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E . . j City of San BemardiDo Ie; Master Facilities Plan Table of COIlats JfjrMfHMM::::{;:~i ...............'_..-......._...;.-.. .....-,.........-..:...-..... :;::{:::::::/;::;::::::::;::: ..........'_.._,.-,-.,..... .,.. ..,...-,...........--..'...-- ........,"...,.......-..'... -.,_.... :~}~t~t:Rttt:~~ ............. ......... :":::::":';:;::::::~:::::::; ,,::;,:,::-:::::,::::-::;:::::::': ..............----......'" .. ..........------,...,.....'..'.-.. .-.....".......-....." -. :.:.:~-:-,.:.:.:.:.. ... .-.-..........,....,...,......,..._....-..,...... .. ..... .-,'n-,', ._._n........... Guide to the Master Facilities Plan 1 Project Cost Summary 7 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Jl Law Enforr:ement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Cost Summary 12 LE-{}l EKpand Law Enforcement Facilities Space 13 LE-{}2 Acquim AdditiODal Patro1JDetl:ctivelSpecialtv Vehicles 14 LE-{}3 Acquim Officer Assigned Equipment IS LE-<J4 Acquim Advanced Computer/Data Sharing Systems 16 LE-05 Police StatiOl1 Debt Service 17 Fire SuppressiOl1 Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment 18 Fire SuppressiOl1 Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Cost Summary 19 FD-()1 New Fire StatiOl1 #233 20 FD-()2 New Fire StatiOl1 #233 Response Fleet 21 FD-()3 Relocate Fire Station #221 22 FD--04 Expand Fire StatiOl1 #224 23 FD-(JS Relocate Fire Station #226 24 , FD-()6 Relocate Fire StatiOl1 #229 25 FD-()7 Relocate Fire StatiOl1 #230 26 FD-()8 Renovate StatiOl1 #221 as AdministrativelMaintenance Facility 27 FD-09 COI1Struct a Vehicle Storage Building 28 FD-10 Construct Training Facility 29 FD-ll Acquim Two Command Vehicles 30 FIr12 Acquim Four Squad Vehicles 31 FD-13 Acquim Three Sedans and a Utility Truck 32 FD-14 Acquim a Reserve Engine 33 FD-lS Acquim Additional Assigned Fire-fighter Equipment 34 FD-16 Headquarters StatiOl1 #221 Debt Service 3S FIr17 VeniemOl1t StatiOl1 #232 Debt Service 36 Circulation System (Streets, Signals and Bridges) 37 CirculatiOl1 System Cost Summary 38 ST -1Jl 40th Street, Acre Lane to Electric A venue 42 ST -1J2 Sth Street, Sterling to Victoria 43 ST -1J3 Sth Street, Warm Creek to Pedley 44 Iii ./. .. .. <.. ....<<.... / ./.......... . . .m<1 ....... Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 t E I , - E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E .. ~I City of San BemardiDo I; . Master Facilities PJan ... Table of COIlll:Dts . ST -{)4 Alabama Street, 3rd to City Limits 45 ST -{)5 Campus Parkway (Pt;ppeJ Lindell), ~,."""" to I 215 46 ST-{)6 Central (Palm Meadows), TippecaI10c to MounlJUn View 47 ST -D7 CoulstOll, TippecaI10c to MOU1JIJUn View 48 ST -D8 COI1I1eCtor, 3rd Street to 5th Street 49 ST -(}9 Del Rosa, 6th Street to 9th Street 50 ST-lO Electric, MounlJUn View to Nortbpark 51 ST-ll -G- Street, Mill to Rialto Avenue 52 ST-12 "H" Street, KendaH to 40th 53 ST-13 Kendall, Cambridge to Pine 54 ST-14 Lena Road, Mill to Orange Show 55 ST-15 Little League Drive, Palm to [-215 56 ST-16 Little League Drive, [-215 frontJJge tOBelmOllt 57 ST-J7 Little MOU1JIJUn, Devil Creek Chatmel to 48th 58 ST -18 Mill, Pepper to Meridian 59 ST-19 Mount VemOll Bridge " , 60 ST -20 MOU1JIJUn View, ThompsOll to Electric 61 ST-21 MOU1JIJUn View Bridge at Mission Creek 62 ST-22 MOU1JIJUn View, Riverview to Central 63 ST-23 MounlJUn View, [-10 to San BemardinoAve. 64 ST-24 MOU1JIJUn View Avenue Railroad Grade Crossing 65 ST-25 Palm, Cajon to [-215 SB Ramp 66 ST-26 Pine, KendaH to Belmont 67 ST-27 PeTTis Hill Park Road, 21st to Pacific 68 ST -28 R1mcho. Colton City Limits to 5th 69 ST -29 Rialto, Sierra to Waterma1l 70 ST - 30 Rialto, Lena to TippecaI10e 71 F ST-31 State Street, 16th to Foothill 72 ST - 32 State Street. Foothill to [-215 73 ST-33 Tippecanoe, Mill to Harriman 74 I IIST-34 University Parkway, Hallmark to BNSF Grade Separation 75 I IST-35 Waterma1l, 5th to Baseli"e 76 ST-36 Victoria. Richardson to MounlJUn View 77 ST-37 Traffic Signal @ Little League Drive and 1-215 Frontage 78 ST-38 Traffic Signal @ Little League Drive and Belmont 79 .. ........~.................ii..............................................~....... . xii .. Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 .. i- S I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E ~T~' ...-......-..-......,..-..-.....-..-...'-..-..--,-.-.'.',-, .;:<-.;--.,:;.-:;-,.,..-:-:<-:-;....-...,..,-:..-:-.._...-':.:. .... ... .. .,.-,...,...,-.,-...,...,..--.--..............".....'.-,.... ................,...-......-'---'-.-'.'-..-..-...-.-...-.-...-..... . ...-...-.........................'.,.:...,-,.._..:.:.;.:.:-:.,-:.,-,.,.,.....:.:.".;.;.,.,.:.:.:.: . ..... .......".,... City of San Bemardino I Master Facilities Plan Table of COIJteDts . ..... ST-39 Traffic Signal fiJ Palm and CajOlJ 80 ST -40 Traffic Signal fiJ Palm and Industrial . 81 ST-41 Traffic Signal fiJ Palm and ]-215 ramps 82 ST -42 Traffic Signal fiJ Palm and IrvingtOlJ 83 ST-43 Traffic Signal fiJ Palm and BelmOlJt 84 ST -44 Traffic Signal @ Campus Parkway (hPJ'Gl-LiDdeD) and Industrial 85 ST -45 Traffic Signal @ Campus Parkway (PeppeJ-LiDdeD) and 1 215 Ramps 86 ST-46 Traffic Signal @ Campus Parkway and Nortbpark 87 ST -47 Traffic Signal fiJ Sierra (CSUSB) and Nortbpark 88 ST -48 Traffic Signal @ ~crulRl1 and 48th 89 ST-49 Traffic Signal fiJ Little Mountain and 30th 90 ST-50 Traffic Signal @ Little Mountain and 48th 91 ST-51 Traffic Signal @ Little Mountain and Nortbpark 92 ST-52 Traffic Signal fiJ State and ]-210 93 ST-53 Traffic Signal fiJ Merdian and Rialto 94 ST-54 Traffic Signal fiJ Macy and Mill 95 ST-55 Traffic Sip @ Rancho (State) and FootbiH 96 ST-56 Traffic Signal @ Miramonte and 27th 97 ST-57 Traffic Sip @ Mountain and Kendall 98 ST-58 Traffic Signal fiJ Mountain and 48th 99 ST-59 Traffic Signal fiJ Mountain and Nortbpark 100 ST -60 Traffic Sip @ "r Street and Inland Center Drive 101 ST-fi1 Traffic Signal @ "H" Street and Marshall 102 ST --fi2 Traffic Sip fiJ Auto Plaza and Fairway 103 ST-fi3 Traffic Sip fiJ "E" Street and Century 104 I ST -64 Traffic Signal fiJ "E" Street and Orange Show Lane 105 ST --fi5 Traffic Sip fiJ Arrowhead and Orange Show Lane 106 I ST --fi6 Traffic Sip @ Arrowhead and Central 107 ST --fi7 Traffic Signal fiJ Mountain View and 13th 108 'ST-fi8 Traffic Signal fiJ Mountain View and Marshall 109 ! .jST-fi9 Traffic Signal @ Electric and 48th 110 i) i IST-70 Traffic Signal fiJ Dolittle and Mill III , , ,sT-71 Traffic Signal @ Lena and Orange Show Road 112 I ST-72 Traffic Signal @ Lena and Central 113 ST 73 Traffic Signal fiJ Lena and Rialto 114 .. ...... Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 ... .. E E I I I I I I I I E E I I I I I E ~I ...-....-.-...-.,.-.-...-.... ....-.........,.....-......... ...d..........'?:'-.:..:. . ..- .-...............,' .......--......-.-... City of San Bemardino Master Facilities Plan Table of COlJll:Dts ST -74 Traffic Signal @ Lena and 3rd ST -75 Traffic Signal @ East Camegie and Hospital Lane ST-76 Traffic Signal @ Tippecanoe and Rialto ST -77 Traffic Signal @ Del Rosa and Marsball ST-7B Traffic Signal f/I Del Rosa and 6th ST -79 Traffic Signal @ Sterling and Marsball ST -80 Traffic Signal @ Sterling and Lynwood ST-81 Traffic Signal @Sterlingand6th ST -82 Traffic Signal @ S. Mountain View and Central (Palm Meadows) ST-83 Traffic Signal @S. Mountain View and ]-10 Westbound Ramp ST -84 Traffic Signal @ Guthrie and Paciiic ST-85 IntercbangelRamps @]-215 and Palm Avenue (SB, County) ST-86 Intercbange/Ramps @]-215andPepper LiDdeD (Campus Parkway) (SB) ST-87 IntercbangelRamps @]-215and UDiversity Parkway (SB, County) ST -88 IntercbangelRamps @ ]-210 and Waterman (SB, Highland, County) ST -89 IntercbangelRamps @ ]-210 and Del Rosa (SB, Highland, County) ST -90 IntercbangelRamps @ ]-210 and Victoria (SB, Highland, County) 1..IST-91 IntercbangelRamps @]-210and 5th (SB, Higbland, Red1ands) ST-92 IntercbangelRamps @ ]-10 and Tippecanoe ST-93 IntercbangelRamps @]-10andPepper(SB, County, Colton) ST-94 IntercbangelRamps @ ]-10 and Mountain View (SB, Loma Linda, Red1ands, Co ST -95 Tippecanoe Bridge over the Santa ADa River ST-96 Grade Separation @Palm.Avenue (SB) ST-97 Grade Separation @Rialto(SB) ST-98 Grade Separation f/I State Street/UDiversity (SB) ST -99 Grade Separation @ Hunts Lane (SB, Colton) ST -100 Grade Separation @ Rancho A venue Library Facilities and Collection Library Facilities and Collection Cost Summary !LB-{)l General Library Square Foot Expansion 'LB-{)2 Expansion of Library Collection . LB-{)3 M1Iin Library Debt Service Public Use Facilities iPublic Use Facilities Cost Summary ICC-{)1 Public Use Facilities Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 '" , .. E E E I I I I I E I I I I I I I I I ~~ City of San BemardiDo Master Facilities Plan Table of CODteDts .. ,- .--.-.-........ ...-...-.... ..... '," '.....;...-.;.:-'...:...:.:.:..':.:.:.:.,...;.;.:.;.:.:::.:.:::;::,:::::~~:::::::::.;::.:.;_.,,:-:,.., . CC-{)2 DeImaIIn Heights Gymnasium CC-03 NicbolSOl1 CommU11ity Center CC-(}4 Construct Additiooal Public Use Space Aquatic Facilities Aquatic Facilities Cost S AQ-{Jl Construct Water Pool/Attraction AQ-{J2 Construct Locker/Administration Building Park Land AcquisitiOll and Development Park Land AcquisitiOll and Development Cost SU111l1JJUJ' PK-ol Construct Six 5.0 Acre Neighborhood Parks PK -02 Construct Seven 10.0 Acre Passive CommU11ity Parks PK-03 Construct Four 25.0 Acre Active (sports) CJ)l1J11JU11ity Parks PK -(}4 Miscellaneous Park Improvements PK-05 Open Space AcquisitiOll (159.4 acres) Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. ~c ~ 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 Fullerton, CA 92831 r .. E C I I E I I I I I E I I I I I I ; CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GUIDE TO THE MASTER FACILITIES PLAN The Master Facilities Plan is a compilation of projects identified by City staff as being needed by the . City of San Bernardino through theoretical General Plan build-out ofthe City. The Plan is based on input from City staff, recommended projects contained in Cityplanning documents for infrastructure and an occasional recommendation from RCS staff. The Master Facilities Plan provides for three major types of projects. The first group of projects 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-! Replacement Value of Existing City Infrastructure Infrastructure I Replacement Value I Law Enforcement $46,301,202 Fire Suppression 559,305,645 Circulation Svstem $812,276,000 Librarv Facilitv/Collection 530,724,058 Public Use Facilities 554,620,225 Aquatics Facilities $19,015,237 Parklandllmprovements $428,855,011 I Sub-total All Assetsl $1,451,097,378 I I Less Non-depreciating Park Landi ($245,668,817) I I Total Depreciable Assetsl S 1,205.428,561 I The second type of projects 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 r III t Guide to the Master Facilities Plan "" I. 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. I I I I E E E E i I E I I I I E 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 (CIP). 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 oflong-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- Year Capital 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 - , . ... Ii. I I' I I E E I I I I I I I I I I E Guide to tbe Master Facilities Plao 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 Planninl! Process. The Master Facilities Plan represents an interdepartmental effort to identify needed projects through the theoretical point of build-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 Analvsis. 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 of build-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 ofthese 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 of the 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 offurther scheduling projects on a year-to-year basis should continue onward during the Capital Improvement Program process. Page 3 ... III r .. Guide to tbe Master Facilities Plan E I E I I I E E E I i I I I I I t 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, Vebicles and Equipment - These are projects needed for the City's Police Department, including expansion of the Police Station and acquisition of additional equipment and vehicles. Fire Suppression Facilities, Vebicles 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 of circulation 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 ... ill ,. .. ilt Guide to the Master Facilities Plan ,- .. I ~ E I E i I I . I I I I I I S Table MFP-2 Cost of Required Expansions to City Infrastructure Infrastructure Type Proj eet Totals Law Enforcement Facilities $32,594,934 Fire Suppression Facilities $47,244,872 Local Circulation System $104,469,000 Regional Circulation SYStem $70,439,250 Librarv Facilitv/Collection $15,587,124 Public Use Facilities $18,340,025 Aquatics Facilities $5,232,932 ParklamilImprovements $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 ReS. 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 Project No. LE-OI 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 ... ill - &. Guide to tbe Master Facilities Plan E I I I I I I Endnotes 1. Local" infrastructure is dermed as infrastructure within neighborhoods or within the footprint of the development as opposed to spine infrastructure.. As an example. 6" sewer conection lines are generally limited to neighborhoods while 12" lines (spine) collect wastewater from neighborhood to transmit it to the treatment plant. E E I I E I I E E E Page 6 ... l1li m I E I I I I I t E i I I I I I E I I City of SM1 BermrdiIJo Mastl>r FacihtJes Pie Sll1DJ11Ilty - All Projects LE-OI LE-02 LE -()J LE-D4 LE-05 FD-OI FD-02 FD-03 FD-04 FD-05 FD-(J6 FD-07 FD-08 FD-09 FD-IO FD-II FD-12 FD-13 FD-14 FD-15 FD-16 iFD-/7 IST-OI IST-02 IST-03 1ST -04 'ST -05 ST-06 ST -07 ST -08 ST -09 ST-IO ,ST-II , 'ST-12 i ST-I3 i ST 14 . ,ST-15 iST-16 :ST-17 ST-18 ST-19 , Exped Law EDforcemeDt Facilities S~c:e Acquire AdditiOlJlll htrol/Detective/Speci.Jty Vehicles Acquire Officer Assiped EquipmeDt Acquire AtIntJc:ed ComputerlIhtIJ SbMiDg Systems Police StlJtiOD Debt &rvice New Fire StlJtiOD #233 New Fire StlJtiOD #233 RespoDSe Fleet ReJOCIItI> Fire StlJtiOD '-121 ExptlDd Fire StlJtiOD '-124 ReIOClltl> Fire StJltiOD '-126 ReIOClltl> Fire StJltiOD m9 ReIOClltl> Fire StlJtiOD #230 ReIJOvatl> StlJtioo '-121 as Admioistrative/MaiDWl1UJc:e Facility CODStruct a Vebicle Storage BuildiDg CODStruct TraiDiog Facility Acquire Two COllUDMJd Vehicles Acquire Four Squad Vehicles Acquire 'Tbree &daDS aod a Utility Truck Acquire a Reserve EogiDe Acquire AdditiOD.J Assigoed Fire-fighter EquipmeDt Headquarters StlJtioo '-121 Debt Service VerdemODt StJltiOD #232 Debt &rvice 40th Street, Acre Laoe to Electric A veoue 5th Street, SterliDg to Victoria 5th Street, Warm Creek to Pedley Alabama Street, 3rd to City Limits Campus hrkway (Pepper-LiDdeo), Keoda11 to [-215 CeotraJ (Palm Meadows), TippecllDCJe to MouolJliD View CouIstOD, Tippecaooe to MO/JD1JIiD View CODDector, 3rd Street to 5th Street Del Rosa, 6th Street to 9th Street Electric, MO/JD1JIiD View to Nortbpark "G" Street, Mill to Ri.Jto A veoue "H" Street, KeodaIl to 40th Kr:oda11, CuJbridge to PiDe Letu Roell, Mill to Onmge Sbow Little League Drive, hIm to 1-215 Little League Drive, 1-215 frootage to Be/moot Little MO/JDtaiD, Devil Creek CbMJoel to 48th Mill, Pepper to Meridie MO/JDt Vemoo Bridge ". .... ~~<" Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. I ~ !ill! Build-out . . $15,665,521 $4,031,420 $643,608 $2,500,000 $9,754,385 $5,363,371 $650,000 $7,157,347 $1,518,943 $5,363,371 $5,363,371 $5,363,371 $3,309,869 $1,089,101 $4,690,822 $90,000 $480,000 S94,500 $1,275,000 $58,740 $1,794,425 $3,582,641 $2,/70,000 $3,200,000 $480,000 $1,600,000 $4,800,000 $3,200,000 $3,520,000 $3,200,000 $1,600,000 $3,200,000 $1,600,000 S640,OOO $3,500,000 $6,400,000 $2,400,000 ! $1,600,000 ~ .. E C I E I E I I I I I E I E I i E I I..~i .~ . ICity of Su BemMdiIJo Muter Facilities Plu SU111DJMY - All Projects . ST-20 MOUDWlJ View, TbompsoD to Electric ST-21 MOUDWlJ View IJrjdgc at Mission Creek ST-22 MOUDWlJ View, Rivcrview to CAtJtnd ST-23 MmmWlJ View, ]-10toSuBemMdiIJoAve. ST-24 MOUDWlJ View Avenue lUilrrNId Ont/e CrossiDg ST -25 hIm, c.jotJ to ]-215 SB lUmp ST-26 PiDc, KCDtWl to Belmont ST-27 Perris HiD Park Ro.d, 21st to Pacific ST -28 Rmcbo, Coltoo City Limits to 5th ST -29 Ritito, Sierrtl to WatcTJIWI ST-30 Ri.!to, Leu to Tippccmoc ST - 31 Sr.tc Street, 16th to FootbiD ST-32 Sr.tc Street. FootbiD to ]-215 ST -33 Tippccmoc, Mill to Jhrrimu ST -34 University Parlcw1Jy, HIIllI1JJJTk to BNSF Ont/e Sc]JlUlltiOI1 ST - 35 Watc11lWl, 5th to &seliDc . ST -36 Victoria, Ricbudsoo to MOUDWlJ View ST-37 Tnffic SigMl @LittleLagueDrivemd]-215Froor.gc ST - 38 Tnffic SigMl @ Little Lague Drive II11d Belmont ST-39 Tnffic SigMl@Pidmmdc.jOI1 ST-40 Tnffic SigMl@hImmdllldustri.! ST -41 Tnffic SigMl @ hIm II11d ]-215 nmps ST -42 Tnffic Sign.J @ Palm II11d IrviDgtoo ST-43 Tnffic SigMl@hImmdBelmont ST -44 Tnffic Sign.J @ c.mpus Parlcw1Jy (pepper-LiDdeo) II11d llldustri.! ST -45 Tnffic Sign.J @ c.mpus Parkway (Pepper-LiDdCD) II11d ]-215 lUmps ST-46 Tnffic SigMl@ CIuopus Parkway II11d NortbJNUk ST -47 Tnffic Sign.J @ Sierrtl (CSUSB) II11d NortbJNUk ST-48 Tnffic SigMl @ KentWlll11d 48th ST -49 Tnffic Sign.J @ Little MOUDWlJ II11d 30th ST-50 Traffic SigMl @Little MOUDr.iD II11d 48th ST-51 Tnffic Sip/ @ Little MOUDr.iD II11d Nortbpark ST-52 Tnffic SigDJIl @Sr.tcand]-2/O ST-53 Tnffic Sign.! @Merdill11l111d Ri.!to ST -54 Tnffic SigMl @ Macy II11d Mill i ST -55 Tnffic SigMl @ RII11cbo (Sr.tc) and Foothill , ST -56 ! Traffic Sign.J @ Minmontc II11d 27th i ST-57 ITnffic SigMl@MmmWlJlI11dKCDtWl 1ST-58 I Tnffic SigMl@MOUDWlJlI11d48th 1ST-59 ITraffic Signal@MoUDr.iDandNortbpark ST-60 Traffic Sign.! @ "}" Street and 1llIII11d CCDtcr Drive I ..' . ..... ......~.< : i , I S640,ooo $1,152,000 $6,912,000 $1,200,000 $240,000 $760,000 $800,000 $1,210,000 $2,240,000 $1,600,000 $2,400,000 $7,400,000 $8,000,000 $5,600,000 $1,200,000 $5,760,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $120,000 $330,000 $150,000 $200,000 $200,000 $350,000 $200,000 $200,000 $175,000 $200,000 $175,000 $175,000 $350,000 $200,000 $200,000 $250,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $175,000 $200,000 I 8 Revenue & Cost SpeCialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 '"' . I City of SaD &nurdiIw Muter Facilities PllUJ S/llDIIJJUY - All Projects .' ......--.....,---..............--............ C I I E I I I I I I I I' " J I I I E I ST-61 ST -62 ST -63 ST -64 ST -65 ST-66 ST-67 ST-68 ST -69 ST-70 ST-71 ST-72 ST-73 ST-74 ST-75 ST-76 ST-77 ST-78 ST-79 ST-80 ST -81 ST-82 ST-83 ST-84 ST-85 ST -86 ST -87 ST -88 ST-89 ST 90 I~=:~ , ! ST-94 ST -95 ! ST-96 ST 97 ST-98 ,ST-99 1ST 100 ILB-OI , ,.-- ,.. .....,... '-",."-----"'- ','-"---'--- ................."...-,..... Traffic Sip (jJ "H" Sl1eet IUJd MarsbaJJ Traffic Sip (jJ Auto Plaza IUJd Fairway Traffic Sip (jJ "E" Street IUJd CeDtury Traffic Sip (jJ "E" Street IUJd Orange Sbow LaDe Traffic Sip (jJ Arrowhead IUJd Orange Show LaDe Traffic Sip @ArrowheadlUJdCeDtral Traffic Sip (jJ MOUDtaiD View IUJd 13th Traffic Sip (jJ MOUDtaiD View IUJd MarsbaJJ Traffic Signal @ Electric IUJd 48th Traffic Signal @ Dolittle IUJd Mill Traffic Sip @LeIJa IUJd OTlUJge Sbow Road Traffic Sip (jJ LeIJa IUJd CeDtral Traffic Sip (jJ LeIla IUJd RiaIto Traffic Signal (jJ LeIJa IUJd 3rd Traffic Signal @ East eamegie IUJd Hospital LaDe Traffic Sip @ TiJ'P'!'C1IDOC IUJd RiaIto Traffic Sip @ Del Rosa IUJd MarsbaIl Traffic SigDal @ Del Rosa IUJd 6th Traffic Signal @ SterliDg IUJd MarsbaIl Traffic Signal (jJ SterliDg IUJd Lynwood Traffic Sip (jJ Sterling IUJd 6th Traffic Sip @ S. MountaiD View IUJd Central (Palm Meadows) Traffic Sip @ S. MOUDtaiD View IUJd 1-10 WestbOUDd Ramp Traffic Sip (jJ Guthrie IUJd Pacific IntercbangelRamps (jJ [-215IUJd Palm Avenue (SB, County) Interchange/Ramps @ [-2151UJd Pepper Linden (Campus Parkway) (SB) InterchangelRamps @ [-2151UJd University Parkway (SB, County) Interchange/Ramps @ 1-2/0 IUJd Waterman (SB, HigbIlUJd, County) IntercblU1gelRamps @ 1-2/0 IUJd Del Rosa (SB, HigbIlU1d, County) IntercblU1ge/Ramps (jJ 1-210 IUJd Victoria (SB, HigbIlU1d, County) InterchangelRamps @ [-210 IUJd 5th (SB, Higbland, RedllU1ds) InterchangelRamps (jJ I 10 IUJd Tippecanoe IntercbangelRamps @ 1-10 IUJd Pepper (SB, County, Colton) InterchangelRamps (jJ 1-/0 IUJd MountJJin View (SB, Loma Linda, Redlands, County) TippecllDOC Bridge over the SaDtJJ Ana River Grade Separation @ Palm A venue (SB) ,Grade Separation @ Rialto (SB) , Grade Separation (jJ State Street/University (SB) : Grade Separation (jJ Hunts LlUJe (SB, Colton) Grade Separation (jJ RIU1cbo A venue General Library Square Foot Expansion " ... ,.',,'" ,',.,',.::'i" ,.,', "'evenue & Cost Specialists, L,L,C. I~! ~I " ',,' " $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $150,000 $175,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $100,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $150,000 $200,000 $200,000 $150,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,930,000 $20,000,000 $1,560,000 $7,280,000 $5,790,000 $10,000,000 $320,000 $7,000,000 $370,000 $3,040,000 $2,936,250 $2,349,000 $2,232,000 $2,140,000 $1,143,000 $2,349,000 I $5,152,818 ') Fullerton, CA 92831 ". ill I I I I I I I I ; I I Ii I I I I I I I City of SaD BemardiDo Muter FacilIties P/s SlJ1IJImry - All Projects LB-lJ2 LB-D3 CC-D/ CC-02 CC-D3 CC-04 AQ-D/ AQ-02 PK-D/ PK-02 PK-03 PK-04 PK-05 Fv-';OIJ of Libnry CoHectiOlJ MaiD Libnry Debt Service Verdemont CoIDIDlllJity CeDter DelIIWUJ Heights GymDII6iUIll Nicbo/SOlJ COIDIDlllJity CeDter COIJStruct AdditimW Public Use Splice CoDstruct Water Poo//AttnlctiOD CoDstruct Locker/ AdmiDistratiOD Building CoDstruct Six 5.0 AClll Neighborlwod Pules CODStruct SeVCll /0.0 AClll Pll6sive CoIDIDlllJity Pules CODStruCt Four 25.0 AClll Active (sports) COIDIDunity Pules MiscelllUlCOUS Puk /mprovemeDts Open Splice AcquisitiOD (/59.4 acms) Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. TotII/ Through Bui/d-out 15,083,04/ 15,35/,265 $4,125,000 $1,925,000 $1.925,000 $10,365.025 $3,224.863 $2,008,069 $23,296,374 $54,358,213 $77.654.600 $1.000.000 $4.015.0/8 10 Fullerton, CA 92831 E D I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I City of San Bernardino Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment 11 i:i ~ ~ ~ :l 11 ,., - ~ ~ ! ~ ~ - .:, ti ~ ::i ~ - 'a .. ~ f.;;CQ a a a a a Q - , ~ a a a a a a 8: , "" ~ a a a a a ~ r!... ~ a a a a a "- Q , ~ l'" 11Io c m I' I I .. "8 - '~i ~ ~=a~ CQ I I I I I I I I I ) .~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ .~ '" . g " '" i3..!!<l: i ~ - e :J Ii .ll :'a E - =-- u Q i3 ~ ri1<l:"'l ...... ... rS Q " ..... ~ 1il it: ed J I I I I - ;:; ~ ~ ~ :l .~ .. ,., ~ is i ~ ~ ~ .; ~ '" ~ .. ;; .. l:l ." i ~ .0 ~ . " I ~ ~ it f ! ... I " ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ tlf ~ Q IIi!] ~ 'i ~ l ~ ill .2 il ~ " . ~ E; ~! .:l "" c:; "" ~ '8 l~~ " a. " ~ ~ ~ LiI 'II: '< 'Il: It; 9 ~'9'!, c;J ~,~' ~i~' ~ 1 -;... ""'I ...tI ..., I J - '" co N '" <( () c: B ~ ~ :; u. ~ ~ . ~ ell 51 2 ~ . S 51 'S oS! -Il .J!! b .~ 0. '" 0 =i il e 0 . '< t .~ ~ () . -i :s -i 15 ui ~ - .!!1 5 n; ~ '0 Q Q) b c- o en '5 . 7ii .~ 0 .. () . ~ 'C c: 1; ., " ~ Q) ::l ;n: c: Q . 12 Q) i ~- > I Q) a: ... .. "'" ~ City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail II; .. .. . .. . .. Pro.io<t Titl.: ProgrtU1J: Expand Law Enforcc:mOllt Facilities Spac. Law Enforcement Facilitics. Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Dq>artlDonr(s}: Prqio<f No.: ... Police Department LE-ol P~;cct Description: > Acquire land for. and expand facUities 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 spacc, 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. i .. Justification/Requirement for Project: i\ I 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 >\> I 256.4 square feet of building space for each of the existing 312 officers (and dermes 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 but the Department intends .... > on constructing two decentralized stations, one on the north and one in the south areas of the City. 1\ I ... Consequences of Not Completing Project: i.. I 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 the 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: Iii None, the proposed space needs arc limited to impact-based needs and The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay are defmed by the "proportionality" requirement of the impact fee acquisition described herein. was not included in the scope of this i calculation. engagement. thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. , ....i .. , I ~ . 201D-lJ Total i PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2oo8-1J9 2009-10 through aJJ i EXPENDITURES Build-out Years I , ... ; I Dosignllnspoction/ AdJDinistration SO SO SO SO S1.248,489 S1.248,489 Ii) i Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO S1.257.795 S1.257,795 i I Construction SO SO SO SO S11.370.262 SI1.370,262 I Contingency SO SO SO SO S674 ,349 S674,349 , , Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO $\,114,626 SI.I\4,626 I i TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO $\5.665,52\ SI5,665,521 . ....... Potential Funding Sources: 13 ... General Fund revenues, Law Enforcement Impact Fees or potentially a specifically-defined tax measure. I (oj . .. . S-OY. - . 1- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. III ............. .............. ... . ..... .... . ..... . .i I .. i? ........ City of San Bernardino i'. , Master Facilities Plan Project Detail I .. ... ~ie<t Title: Program: ....... Acquire Additional Patrol/Detective/Specialty Vehicles Law Enforcement Facilities. Vehicles and Equipment Suhmming Departm<Jlt(s): Project No.: Police Department LE-02 I. .... .. P~;cct Description: > Acquire 9S miscellaneous additional response vehicles required by law enforcement including a combination ofpatroJ, unmarked and specialty vehicles at an average of $42.436 per equipped vehicle. These 9S additional vehicles arc nceessary to maintain the current 0.75 vehicles per officer ratio with the addition of 126 officers. The current standard of 0.75 ychicJcs per offiCer is based upon the 234 vehicles divided by the existing 312 officers. .. ........... Justification/Requirement for Project: . As the residential and business community continues to grow, the Police Department will receive a statistically determined increase in the number of law enforcement calls for service. The expansion of the paliee station is discussed in LE-ol. As the law enforcement force \i expands, additional vehicles arc needed to equip the additional officers consistent with the pro-rata expansion of the sworn staff and building < size. i i Iii COJJseqUClJCCS 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 i reduced level of services would result. i Reference Document: Project Timing: i ......... None. the proposed vehicle needs arc limited to impact-based needs The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay and arc defmed 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- Jl TotJll ,i\ PROPOSED 2006-G7 2007-G8 2008-09 2009-10 through JIl/ , EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration SO SO $0 $0 SO $0 lAnd Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO 'ii Construction SO SO $0 SO $0 $0 SO $0 ..' Contingency $0 SO SO $0 ..... Equipment/Other SO $0 SO SO 54.031.420 54.031.420 ..... TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO 54.031.420 54.031.420 Potential Funding Sources: 14 ......... General Fund revenues, Law Enforcement Impact Fees or potentially a specifica1ly-defmcd tax measure. I (01 .. . -....y~-D)6 t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I "" .. .... ... > -tt .... . ....... ..........t..>t>.. City of San Bernardino 1 ,.>>.. ... .. ............. i..' i."..'." Master Facilities Plan Project Detail !ri> .. ...... ...> P~i<<t Tide: Progrom: Acquire Off=r Assigned Equipment Law Enror........t Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment . ... Submi"ing DepamDent(s): Proj<<t No.: Police Department LE-03 .. ...... . I>> Project Description: I. Additional equipment assigned to 126 officers necessary maintain the existing level of service. The list includes, but it not limited to: proteCtive vest. handgun, badges/patches/name tags, flashlight, nylon bc1t1attachemcntJ. uniforms, etc. The cost includes an amount for undertaking the back-ground check. psychological exam, physical/medical exam, and polygraph for the successful candidates. ..... I Ii >> JustifigtionlRcquircmMt for Project: liIl 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: (I 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 ..... I are defmed by the "proportionality" requirement of the impact fee acquisition described herein. was not included in the scope of this JI calculation. engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-outOl column. , , I 2010-11 ToUII Ii. , PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2oo8-<J9 2009-10 through .n I. I EXPENDITURES Build-out Years I i Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 .... , i , Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 , $0 $0 $0 $0 i ! Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I COJJtingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 .......... , I i Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $643,608 $643,608 , , TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 . $643,608 $643,608 ... I I , I . \ Potential Funding Sources.. 15 ..... ; , General fund revenues, Law Enforcement Impact Fees or potentially a specifically-defmed tax measure. I I (0) . ...... ..... ~.~. I ~ r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - . i . ..... ..... .. ......... ....... .. ..i , City of San Bernardino <i. .... ; Master Facilities Plan Project Detail I ..... ........... .. cz ... ... .. ProJect Titl.: ProgT8l1l: . Acquire Advanced Computer/Data Sharing Systems Law Enforcement Facilitics, Vehicles and Equipment . Submitting Dopartmon/(.): Project No.: Police Department LE-<l4 Prq;ect Description: ii! .. Acquire Specialty and Communications Equipment/Improvements and Computer Data Sharing Equipment Acquire hardware and software for advanced fmgerprint. DNA, dispatch. jail management. crime analysis. field report writing and record keeping systems. These new systems arc 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/radiol) 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 85 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 i to capital required to maintain the existing level of service, be it the City's desired Level of Service or not. i > 1< 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. i I. .. ... Reierence Document: Project Timing: ..... None, the proposed space needs arc limited to impact-based needs and The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay i arc dermed by the "proportionality" requirement of ihe 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. > ii 201D-II ToW > PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through oJI EXPENDITURES Build-out You. Design/lnspection/ AdnWJistration SO SO SO SO SO SO , Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO , I Construction SO SO SO SO SO SO Contingency SO SO SO SO SO SO Ai Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO S2.5OO.OOO S2,5OO,000 ..... TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S2.5oo.ooo S2,5oo,000 .. ! Potential Funding Sources: 16 1 General Fund revenues, law Enforcement Impact Fees or potentially a specifically-dermed tax measure I ! j (c) ... .. .... <> ........>.. ..... .... ... ---.---:- ~ > ..i>. ....... .. . ....... . ''''-:-:::';':_,-~:~.':;nt#w~:?:::(:; "" :i iIIIl ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ... . ..\. . ...> .~........ I I City of San Bernardino I.. Master Facilities Plan Project Detail 1....\.)\...>......................... I .. . ...> > .... . ... :: I> ProjoctTltJe: Prognm: I Police SlaIion Debt Service Law Enforcemeot Facllilies, Vchicl.. aod Equipmeot Submirring Deparrment(s}: Projoct No.: Police Department LE-05 . . ........... P~;ect Description: )> Make remaining payments on the Police Station debt service schedule. ......... >> . Justification/Requirement for Project: ... The debt service payments must be made. \i > > )> ... Ii) I> Consequences of Nor Completing Pr~jt:Cr: ........ Default on the payment schedule is not an option. ...... .> >i \) . ......... I 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 the seopc of this ... engagement. thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 20JD-U TouJ )i > PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2oo8-G9 2009-JO through .0 EXPENDITURES Build-out Years I Design/Inspectionl Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,754,385 $9,754,385 LaJ)d Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 COlJ.f;tructioll $0 $0 $0 $0 . $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ....... EquJpmentlOthor $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ?I TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $9.754,385 $9,754,385 ... ... Potenrial Funding Sources: ... III E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I General Fund revenues, Law Enforcement Impact Fees or potentially a specifically-defined tax measure. 17 (e) -.y.-.. ~ E t m- E I I I I I t t I I I I I I I City of San Bernardino Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment 18 I"" .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ... ~ ! ~ lii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" -I'.. ;:: l\ <l ;:: ;:: ;:: '" i l:i - ~ ~ ~ ~ .. - II ~ ~ '" 0; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ i 't. ~ 0; 1 Ii ~I ,~~ l :: ~ .. ~ .. '" ::l '" :l '" ;:; :l :l :l ::l ::; ;( ::; ;:; ::l ~""O;; .. ~ &l hi - ~ ... i ;:: ;:: ;:: .. Q lii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - l:i ... l\ Ii .. ~ Ie - .. ~ ~ .. - "'''ll ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ i ~ ~ 0; 1 ~ ~ "'i ~ I ~ :: "! ~ .. ~ '" ::l - -ii '" Q :li! :l '" ;:; :l ::l :l ::l ;:; ;( ::; ;:; l;lx ~ .. ... '3 i'l~Q:l i a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Ii all Q Ii ... I Ix ~ Ii. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a ali 8l I I I ~ I a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a ~ ii ..!. ~ h a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a "- Q I i ~ C. L i I I II I \ 1 I ......."':;1 i ~Li I -I I ~I I ! I I Ii II , t \ I , , I Ei I II ,f:, ::I ~ I I I tZ' 1 , , . i 1 ii ~ !~ I ~ ~ .Ii i ~ ~ ~ i .~ ~ t ~I i , i:l I l> , <l! ... 1 :s ' .il ".; e <l! ~ -II ~ ~.:; ii; ~ ~ . ~ ~ il:,~ '" ~I;o.. ...!:!," I ij i :ll Q ~ ~. i!! "" 11' 8 ~ .. '" 10:1'" - ~ ~ 1 ~ ;1 i ~ ... '~l ~ ~ ' ! '! ~'~ '" '" I . ... ~ ,~ 10: ~ !' ~Ili 'dl. 1 ~ ! i '.C:: ~ ';:j ,~ ,~ a a a a ! ~=, ,! ~I <l! t a il1l:~ a a e e ,~ e :> _ "- I ""'. .' \l It a I :; c:: e a .1r:'i'~i~l~ ~ ~ ii: ii: ii; . e .:J c e ii; " _ _ ~I Ii;; I!: .. i I '8 &l " '- .e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tillll I '- ~ ii; ii; i 1 . . . ~ J ~i :-::: ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ! I ~ u e ~ !l. ~ ~ :ll :ll :ll :ll o 0 '< '< 0( '< '" :l; I \... :;; '- Q .s ~ s ~I""I ~ Q;!: ~.!S ~ E1:: ... I ~ iii) IU ~ ::l :.!; :: ~ "" ~ 10",. , ., 'I, 'I, ~\~i ~i~i 2i~;~! '" ~i~ , , , ~ ~ ~; 1 ~! ~, 2 ~ Ii: "- ~ ~ ~ < o c: oS ~ '5 u. ~ ~ u , li! ~ II ~ ~ . ;s II '5 .l!! {l . 1; .!!, ~ 'iii -5 . ~ . . "< ;j .!!, e Q, . S '0 " . 5 9- . c u . '5 o .~ '" o '~ 1; . _. C' ~I\: ~..; 0 ...i ...i 1Il .~ <ii 'u ell 0- CJ) 1il 0 () all ell :::l c: 19 ell > ell II: t E ; I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Now Firo Station #233 ProgrllllJ: Fire Suppression FaoUitios, Vehicles and EqUiplllOlll Submitting Dopartm<nt(s): Fire Department Project No.: FD-Ol 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 I pumper/engine and a Type III engine. The remaining 3.500 square feet would be used for living quarters. utility/storage and 8 staff conference room for up to four fltcfightcrs. Justification/Rc.quircment 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: F ire Department staff planning. Project TiIDing: The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay 3cquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagem~nt. thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-ii Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Y cars Design/Inspection! AdministrBtion SO SO l SO SO S327,429 S327,429 L8Jld Acquisition!RigJJt of Ws.". SO SO! SO SO ! S1.6OO.830 SI.600.830 :JstructlOn SO SO : $) Sr:' \,008.466 ' S3.oo8,466 COlltmgency $0 : SO : SO SO i S160.823 S16O.823 Equipment/Other SO SO SO I SO \ S265.823 S265.823 TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO i S5,363.371 S5,363,371 Potentia) Fundin/! Sources: :-~rai Fund r":"'Cllues, Fire SuppressIOn De..'elopmcnt Impact Fccs and potcntlally a ,,'uter-approvcd tJ..\ me(lsurc 20 ........,..:zc:lM ,. '- E I I I I I I I I I I Ii I II I I II I I , I I II II I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Pro.i<<:I Title: New Fire Station 1233 Response Fleet Progrom: Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles end Equipment Submittillg DeportrDcnt(s): Fire Department Project No.: FD-()2 ProJect Description: Acquire a Type I engine and Type III engine for assignment to Station #233. Given the (X)ntinuous growth of brush in the contiguous wildland areas and trees on privately owned property. additional wildland interface equipment will be necessary. Justification/Requirement for P~jcct: 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 initiallandsc:aping efforts. M 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 capabUity to deflect such fires. 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: Fire Department staff planning. Project Timing: 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. 20lo-U PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through EXPENDITURES Build-out Dcsian/lnspectionl AdDrinistration SO SO SO $0 $0 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 SO $0 $0 Construction SO $0 $0 $0 ! $0 Contingency SO $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment/Other SO SO $0 $0 $650.000 TOTAL COST SO SO $0 $0 $650.000 Toui all Years SO $650,000 $650,000 Potentia) Funding Sources: General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved ta~ measure. 21 (c) '-'Y.-.. . SO SO SO ... .. '" L. ; II' .. I E I I I ; I 'I 1\ II , I I I I i City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail p~;ea Tide: R.locate Fir. Station #221 Prognm: Fire Supp....ion FacUilies, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Depurment{s): Fire Department Project No,: FIHl3 Project Description: Acquire land for and construct an 8,700 square foot station capable oChausing two response companies near 9th Street and Waterman Avenue. The 3 X 2 floor configuration would consist of throe 20' wide by go' deep bays (4,800 S.F.) in order to adequately bonae 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 #2211oeation. Justification/Requirement for Project: It is proposed that the existing Station #221 complex become (only) tI:1e Fire Administrative headquarters/maintenance/storage facility. The existing fire fleet maintenance shops (14.492 S.F) must be demolished to allow for the proposed [-215 widening. The existing bays at Station #221 are suitable to function as the new rrre fleet maintenance operation. To make room for the relocation of the maintenance operation. the Station #221 fire/medic response capabilty will need to be rel~ted to a suitable nearby location. Consequences of Not Completing Project: The maintenance facility 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 willlikc1y increase response time from Station #7. Refcrence Document: Firc Department staff planning. Project Timing: 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 PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through EXPENDITURES Build-out DcsiglJ/lnspectionl Administration SO SO SO SO $463.181 Land AcquisitionlRighr of Way SO SO SO SO S1.829.520 Construction SO SO $0 $0 $4.246.965 Contingency SO SO $0 ' $0 I $232.833 Equipment/Other SO SO SO $0 $384.848 TOTAL COST $0 SO SO $0 $7.157.347 Total all y..,. $463,181 $1,829,520 $4,246,965 S232,833 $384,848 $1.151,341 Potential Funding Sources: General Fund revenues. Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax. measure. 22 (0) Iaaoio1)o..' .. .. t ; I . I I I I I I I I i I \ I I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Proic<l Title: Expand Fire StaliOll #224 Program: Fire Suppr""iOll FacUiIiei, Vehicl.. and Equipment Su~m;rrjng Deputmenl(I): Fire Depanment Project No.: F041 Project Description: Acquire 0.30 acres for ~d expand the station by about 3,000 square feet for an additional puamedic squad. JUstifiClltiOn/Rcquiret1JMt for Project: Additional development will generate the demand for an additional paramedic squad. Consequences of Not Comp1ctiJJg Project: All medic responses would need to respond from existing facilities. Reference Document: Fire Department staff planning. Project Tlmlng: 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 projcet cost default to the "Build-out" column. 20J()-J 1 PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2OO8-(J9 2009-10 through EXPENDfTURES BuiJd-out Design/Inspection/Administration SO SO SO SO S120,091 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO S135.736 Consrruction SO SO SO SO S1.098.074 Contingency SO SO SO SO S62.212 Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO S102,830 TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO SI.518,943 Potentia! Funding Sources: General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure. (oj Total all y..... S120,091 SI35,736 SI,098,014 S62,212 SI02.830 SI.518,943 ., 'Y.- 23 ... " .. L ; I I I I I I E I I I E I i : I \ I I E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Pr~;cct Tid.: Relocate Fire Station 11226 Program: Fir. Suppression F""Uiti.., Vehicl.. and Equipment Submitting Deputmcnt(s): Fire Department Project No.: FD-05 Project Description: Acquire land for and construct a 6,700 square foot station capable of housing a relocated lingle raponsc company (roughly three four fire-fighters). The 2 X 2 floor configuration would consist of two bay. 20' wide by 80'deep bay. (3,200 S.F.) in order to adequately house a standard pumper/engine and a back-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 Del Rosa Avenue and Date Avenue. Justification/Requiremcnt for P~joct: The addition of approximately 21,000 residential dwelling units and 80.5 million square feet of busin... space will r..u1t in an approximateloy 39 % increasc in calls at General Plan build-out. Typically I such an increase would statistically result in requiring four new stations. However. staff and a City-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 4011 more calls-far-service with a minor increue (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, willlikcly increase due to the additional traffic load. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Additional stations would have to constructed, a counter productive step to maDirni7;rtg staff costs. Reference Document: Fire Department staff planning. Project Timing: The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of thil engagement, thus all projm cost default to the NBuild-out" column. 20iD-II PROPOSED 2()()6-o7 2007-08 2008-09 2009-iO through EXPENDITURES BujJd-out Design/Inspection/Administration $0 SO $0 SO S327,429 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 SO SO SO S1.600.83O Construction $0 $0 SO $0 S3.008,466 Contingency SO $0 $0 SO SI60.823 Equipment/Other $0 $0 SO SO S265,823 TOTAL COST SO $0 SO SO S5.363,371 Potential Funding Sourc~s: General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure. (c) Total all Years. S327,429 S265,823 S5,363,371 24 ... , I. E . I I I I I I I I I I I I Ii I I' I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Program: Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and EquipmClll Project Titl.: RelocaIO Fire Station 1/229 Submming Deptu1ment(s): Fire Department Project No.: FO-o6 Prqi<<t Description: Acquire land for and eonstruct a 6,700 square foot station capable of housing a relocated single raponK company (roughly three four ru....fight.rs). The 2 X 2 fioor configuration would consist of two bays 20' wide by 80'deep bay. (3,200 S.F.) in order to adequately hou... standard pumper/engine and a back-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. JustificationIRt:quirt:mcnt for Project: The addition of approximately 21,000 residential dwelling units and BO.S million square feet of business space will result in an approximatcley 3911 increase in calls at General Plan build-out. Typically. such an increase would statistically result in requiring four new statiODl. However. staff and 8 City-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-far-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, willlikcly increase due to the additional traffic load. Consequences of Not Completing P~;cct: Additional stations would have to constructed, a counter productive step to maiximizing staff costs. Reference Document: Fire Department staff planning. Project Timing: 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 PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-oS 2OOS-09 2009-10 through EXPENDITURES Build-out Design/Inspection/Administration SO SO SO SO S327.429 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO $1,600.830 Construction SO SO SO SO S3.oo8,466 Contingency SO SO SO SO SI60,823 Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO S265,823 TOTAL COST SO SO SO $0 S5.363,371 Total all Y cars S327,429 SI.6OO,830 S3.oo8,466 $160,823 $265,823 $5,363.371 PotentW Funding Sources: General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure. 25 (e) .-_:_:-:.)+,~/nt)\:::{::. "" a. I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail I Project Title: Relocate Fire Station 1230 Prognm: Fire Suppression Focilitieo. VelticlCl and EquipmClll f I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I Submitting Deportment!s): Fire Department Project No.: FrHl7 Project Description: Acquire land for and construet a 6,700 square fool station capable of housing a relocated lingle reaponse company (roughly three four fire-fighters). The 2 X 2 floor configuration would consist of two bays 20' wide by BO'deep bays (3.200 S.F.) in order to adequately house a standard pumper/engine and a back-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 Waterman Avenue and Mill Street. Justilicstion/Rcqwremcnt for Project: Tho addition of approximately 21,000 residential dwelling units and SO.5 million square feet of businCIs space will rClult in an approximateley 3911 increase in calls at General Plan build-out. Typically, such an increase would statistit".JIl1y result in requiring four new stations. However. staff and a City-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-far-service with a minor increase (about 8%) in on-going staff costs. An additional faetor is the c:ontinual inccaJe in traffIC from probable residential intensification. raponsc times from the existing responding stations, willlikcly increase due to the additional traffic load. Consequences of Not Completing Prq,iect: Additional stations would have to constructed, a counter productive step to mai7imi71'lg staff costs. Lastly, the additional traffic expected from the intensification will likely increase response time from Station #7. Reference Document: Fire Department staff planning. Proj<<t Timing: 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 "BuUd-out" column. lOID-II PROPOSED 2006-()7 2007-()8 2008-09 2009-10 through EXPENDITURES Build-out IJesjgn/lnspectjon/ Administration $0 SO SO SO S327,429 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO $0 $0 SO SI,6OO,830 Construction SO $0 SO SO S3,008,466 Contingency SO $0 $0 SO SI60,823 Equipment/Other SO $0 $0 SO S265,823 TOTAL COST SO $0 $0 SO S5,363,371 Potential Funding Sources: General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure. Total all Years S327 ,429 S1.6OO,830 S3,008,466 SI60.823 S265 ,823 S5,363.371 26 - l. Ii <,i..', <, ,', ,< .' i.i """.. ,<i ,,,,,.. .i<. i City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail i I i .,.. . --c ,,'" --c ..'...".... ....... ProJect Title: Pro"..".: Renovate Station 1/221 as Administrative/Maintenance Facility Fire Suppression Fatuities, Vehicles and Equipmcm li/ Submitting Deparrmcnt(s): Proj<<;t No.: Fire Department FD-oB . I Prqiccr Description: i Conven the existing station #221 to function as the department's headquarters. maintenanc:e 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 facility would probably need approximately 3.200 additional square feet (see FO-QS). Iii I .'.,.. . Justification/Requirement for Project: 1\ . The Department would have to fmd other resources for this function becuasc the current maintenance facilities will be acquired by the State for Ii the 1-215 widening. 1< Ii... it Consequences of Not Completing Pr~;cct: i The Department would be limited to current limited public awareness equipment. i ........ t Reference Document: Project Timing: ;;i , Fire Department staff planning. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay Ii acquisition described herein. was not included in the scope of this I engagement. thus all projcct cost default to the "Build-out" column. I.>i I 2010- jJ TersJ . PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through sJl I I I EXPENDITURES Build-out Years I Design/Inspection/Administration SO $0 $0 $0 $286.628 $286.628 iU .'/ ..... Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO I Construction SO $0 SO SO $2,606,848 S2.606.848 . Contingency SO SO SO $0 S156.958 $156,958 ...... Equipment/Other SO SO SO $0 : S259,435 S259 ,435 i TOTAL COST SO SO $0 $0 $3,309,869 $3,309,869 ..... I Potentia) Funding Sources: There wlll also bc2r1cipl' General Fund revenues. Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure Irom the requtred purchase of the ex.isting maintenance facility by CALTRANS. I I . I (c) .. .. .... ...... . -.y. 2llO6 ......5,.. I; i . I I E i I I I I I. I E i I.., '. E '"" III I i I I I I I I I II 1\ , ; II I I' I I I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Pr~;.ct Title: Construct a Vehicle Storage Building Progrom: Fire Suppression F""iliti... Vehicles and Equipment Submirting Dcpartment(s): Fire Department Project No,: FD-09 Project Description: Construct an 3.200 square foot vehicle storage building to store the Department', VariOUI reserve vehicles, minor fleet repair, warehouse operations and medical/station supplies. The facility is planned to be located at the proposed combined Headquarters Facility (ex-Station #221). JusrificationlRequiremMt 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 8 covered facUity 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. Refere/lce Document: F ire Department staff planning. ProJect Timing: 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. 20lD-lJ PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 tJJrough EXPENDITURES Build-out , DesiglJI/llSpectiolJI Administration SO SO SO SO S94.354 i LtJJJd Acquisition/Right of Way SO $0 SO $0 ' $0 ConstructiolJ $0 SO $0 $0 5858.900 , Cmrillj?ency SO i SO SO $0 ! S51.207 . Equipment/Other SO SO I SO $0 : S84.640 TOTAL COST SO $0 SO SO S1.089.101 Potential Funding Sources: G~n~ral Fund revenues. fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potenttally a voter-approved tax. measure (0) Toro! all Years SO S858 ,900 S51. 207 S84.64O S1.089.101 28 ~. 2006 S94,354 ...... ...... .......>>... .. '.' . .. .................. > <>>.>. . ..... .>.... .. ..... i I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail . . .. Project Tid.: ProgrtUD: Construct Training Facility Fire Suppression Facilities. Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Dcportmcnt(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-IO Prqicct 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 firc" training facility for "hands-on" manipulated training. The project would include a multi-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. > 1>( Justification/Requirement for Project: :i I' 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 capabilities of each pumper can continue to be tested without risk to the pumps. i i it Consequences of Not Completing Project: . ." Training would continue in its current ad hoc manner at various locations. it Reference Document: Pr~;cct Timing: t 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 I engagement, thus all project cosl default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0- II Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Y cars Design/Inspection! Admirtisrration SO SO SO $0 ! S290, 149 S290, 149 ,....... 1 Land Acquisition/Right of "' ay SO $0 $0 SO SlJ"1.1..l0 SI ,372. 140 ! Cunsrruction SO $0 $0 SD S2.691.483 S2.691,483 I COJlfuJgency $0 $0 SO SO : $127.050 ' $127,050 , EquipmeJJt/Other $0 SO $0 $0 ! $210.000 S210,OOO TOTAL COST SO SO SO $0 $4.690,822 $4,690,822 I Potential Funding Sources: I - - - loa ,.. it [ t t ; I I I E I I I I I I I General Fund rc\:enucs, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax mcasur~ 29 I (,) I] _1)',2006 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project De . (/ .... .. ... ....... Project Title: Progrll1D: Acquire Two Comman~ Vehicles Fire Suppression Facilitics. Vehicles and Equipment Submining Department!s): Prop No.: Fire Department FD-ll .< P~i<<t Description: ............. Acquire two command vehicles. : : Justification/Requirement for P~;cct: ? 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 to be sufficient. : , : Reference Document: Prqjcet 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 Tots} PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all I EXPENDITURES Build-out Years I.. Design/Inspection! AdllUnistrlJtion SO SO SO SO I SO $0 ........ Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO $0 $0 $0 ! COllStruction SO SO SO $0 SO SO i .... Contingency . SO SO SO $0 SO $0 Equipment/Other SO $0 SO SO S90,OOO S90,OOO ....... TOTAL COST SO $0 $0 SO ) S90,OOO S90,OOO I Potential Fundin~ Sources: , 30 I General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure. i tail (,j .!)ij lIMaq.~.:".. ..... ...<. ... ..... ....... ... .....< ... .. ..... . ...... ........ .... ! City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail I .. ... I...... .... ......... ........ . ... ... .... ..< ........... Prop:t Tide: Program: Acquire Fout Squad Vehicle. Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Deputment(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-12 .... Project Description: ... Acquire four squad vehicles. ... . ... i ... ..... Justification/Requirement for Project: ......... <i .......... , Iii ... I... I , Consequences of Not Completing Prq}cct: I ....... I .......... .. . ;'1 Reference Document: I Project Timing: F. ! i Fire Department staff planning. I The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay I I I acquisition desctibed herein, was not included in the scope: of this i I engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. I ... I 201D-i/ TO/Ill I PROPOSED 2006-()7 2oo7-()8 2008-09 2009-10 tJJrough sJJ ..... I I EXPENDITURES Build-out Y cars ... ! $0 I i Design/lnspection/ AdJDinjstration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 .<< , I i i I 1 I Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 I $0 $0 , I $0 I C .:msrruction $0 i $0 , $0 . $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I / , Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 ! $480.000 $480,000 .... I TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $480,000 $480,000 .... I Porc:JltiaJ Fundin~ Sources: - .. ~ l. c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression DevelIJpme.nt Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax. measure. i I I (e) 31 J.....,-. 2006 I -: ./ .... ...........,...,....... ..... .. ,.. ... .. .............7./7/. ,.. ...... I · .......... ..... ......../....i)..i//. City of San Bernardino /..............................'..... ! .., ......./... .... f)i) I Master Facilities Plan Project Detail I .'. . . .'. .. .. . ~ie<:tTjrJe: Program: . . Acquire Three Sedans and. Utility Truclt Fire Suppression FacUities. Vehicles and EquiplllOlll Suhmitting Deporrmenr(.): Project No.: .... Fire Department FD-13 i Prq,;cct Dcscriptjon: .., Acquire Fire Administrative Vehicles Acquire three sedans for inspections services and a utility truck. for fleet maintenance. ..... ......... ..... // . . ... Justification/Requirement for Projecf: 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 rue-fighting i'" conditions. .i ? ... \, .' Consequences of Not Completing P~ject: , Inspectors and fleet maintenance staff would not be able to work under optimum conditions. ...... . /? ......... .'i I Reference Document: Project Timing: ........ Ii Fire Department: staff planning. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay I, ...... acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this Ii engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. Ii I ..... I 2010-11 TotAl \. \ PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-0S 200S-09 2009-10 through All . EXPENDITURES Build-out Yeus ; Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 .... Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ,. $0 i I. Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 , $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ...... Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $94,500 $94.500 I TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $94,500 $94,500 Potential Funding Sources: . 32 General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development lmp~t Fees and potentially a voter-approvcd tax measure. ..... Ii (e) .... . . > -".2llO& .......... .. '"' .. m II I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I t I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail I .. ...... .i ,. i.......... Project Title: Program: Acquire a Reserve Engine Fire Suppression Facilities. Vehicles and Equipment i Submitting Depsrtmont(s): Project No.: Fire Department FD-14 , P~ject Description: Ii> Acquire 8 reserve engine/pumper at $425,000. ... . . .\ Ii I JustifjCJjuonlRequiremcnt for Project: i 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 arc: required to maintain a SO% reserve capability. iii {> .... >> Consequences of Not Completing Project: .......... ..... The front-line vehicles would become over-used and subject to a greater rate of break-down without routine and scheduled maintenance, requiring back-up vehicles. { .... Iii > Reference Document: Project Timing: Ii> 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 Ii? ... engagement. thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010- JJ Total .. PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all I EXPENDITURES Build-out Years .. ! Design/Inspection/ Adrrtinistration SO SO SO SO SO SO >i i I LIUJd Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO . \ .. Construction SO SO SO SO SO SO .. Contingency SO SO SO SO SO SO I I Equipment/Other I SO SO SO SO SI.275.ooo S1.275.ooo i TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S1.275.ooo S1.275,ooo \ I . Potential FWJding Sources: 33 General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tall. measurc_ Ii (e) ...... < >. _.2lllllI ~ .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ll" ! .. I ..ii .' . ........... . ... .... I City of San Bernardino I.' , ...... Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Ii I ...i......... '.ii .... I .i .. .... I P"!;ecr Tid.: Program: Acquir. Additional Allsignod Fire-fighter Equipment Fire Supprcuion Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment SubllUlling Dcpartmcnr(s): Project No.: Fire Department FIHS ...... Project Description: lit Acquisition of equipment assigned to each fllcfightcr. It costs the City some $4.895 to recruit/outfit each fucfighrer and there will be a need for 12 additional firefighters assigned to the proposed Station #223. I ... Justification/Requirement for ProJect: iii ,ii Firefighters require specialty equipment and cannot perform their unusual or specifiC duties without it. ..... ........... ....... ........ i I t Consequences of Nor Completing Project: Sharing of personal equipment is not an option. ii I I 1 , .. i Reference Document: Project Timing: I I I 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. 1:1 2010-11 Total .' PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years , .' Design/Inspection! AdminJstrlJtion $0 SO SO SO $0 $0 ... Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO $0 SO SO $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 SO SO $0 Contingency SO SO $0 SO SO $0 i Equipment/OtJler SO $0 SO i SO S58.740 S58,74O TOTAL COST SO $0 $0 SO S58.740 S58,74O .... I Potenrial Funding Sources: 34 General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially II voter-approved tax measure. I (e) . . ...... ....::.... ../ ...... . : ...... ......-C; ..... .... .. ..... .. .... ... ~;- :,:;,:,;;-;:;",.,::",,:.;,... :::.:.,::".~:~.,::,., E I' "I I I I I I I I I I r .. I I I I I ... .. I ... .... .<......... .... ... ..... I ii .ii......... ..................<... , City of San Bernardino i , ...ii.....i... I Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ..i I .'. . Project Title: Progt8lD: Headquarters Station #221 Debt Service Fire Suppression Facilities. Vehicles and Equipment Submitting Deputment(s): Project No.: .. .. Fire Department FD-16 p~jccr Description: i Make remaining payments on the Headquarters debt service schedule. < it i' JustifiationlRcquircmcnr for Proiect: .. The debt service payments must be made. i ii ii' i i Consequences of Not Completing Pr~jcct: .... Default on the payment schedule is not an option. " i' i .... i Reference Document: Projoct Timing: it Debt service schedule. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital ouday acquisition described herein. was not included in the scope of this .... engagement. thus all project cost default to the "Build-outM column. ........... I t I 20JD-lJ TotJli , PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-D9 2009-JO through IllJ I , EXPENDITURES BuiJd-out Years , .. , I.i , I Design/Inspection! AdmiIUstration $0 $0 $0 SO SI.794.425 SI.794,425 I LlUJd Acquisition/Right of Way $0 SO $0 SO SO $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 I .... i Contingency SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 , i Equipment/Other SO SO SO $0 SO $0 I I I TOTAL COST SO $0 SO SO ! S1.794,425 S 1.794 ,425 Potential Funding Sources: 35 i General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentiall)' a voter-approved tax measure. I I , (c) . __.lIlO6 ... . . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I "" ill I . , I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Iii.......... i .. ..< ........\.< ....... .<<.. ...... ........ I .. <..... .C7' ..... ... , PtC!ject Tid.: Progrom: \ Vcrdemont Station #232 Debt Service Fire Suppression FacilitiCi, Vehicles and Equipment i Submitting Departm<JIt{s}: PTt!jecI No.: Fire Department FD-17 Project Description: !i ...... Make remaining payments on the Valdcmontc Station debt servic:c schedule. I .. I Justj!jcationlRcquiremcnt for Project: Ii .. The debt service payments must be made. Iri ... .. r <il COJJscqUeI1CCS of Not Completing Prq,ject: r Default on the payment schedule is not an option. .\ I , I .i. ! Reference Document: Project Timing: 'ii I Debt service schedule. The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay i acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this i.' I cogagement. thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. ... Ji 201D-JI Tot.J . , PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through aJ1 ! , EXPENDITURES Build-out Years I Desj~n/lnspcctjon/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $3.582.641 $3.582.641 ...... La.ud AcquisitionlRi/Zht of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 C DIlStruction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 i Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 hi EquipmeJJt/Oth~r $0 $0 $0 $0 I $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $3.582.641 $3.582.641 ! I Potential Funding Sources: 36 G<:ncral Fund revenues, 'Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure. ! i i I I (e) ./5S./i ....... ../...................... .. / ..... .......... .....> ..................// ,". _:.:,',;",'.,.)/~%@n;:tr(,:? , E I E ~ E t t I I I I I I ; I I: "" ... .. .. m m I I I I I i I , 1- ..~ I I I I I I I E City of San Bernardino Circulation System Streets, Signals and Bridges 37 ... iii ; ~ m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I: - 8- '~-i. ~ ~1f'; III ~ ~ g I ii! I ~.. l: ~ ... 'a r;;1ll ~ , "- ~ "- <:> , ~ ~ , g '" ~ , ~ E; s ~ "l i 1l ~ l .. .!!! ~l ,<, i$ c:: ~i i'E a: .'i ,~ ~ ~ .".." .. ~.... ~ :'::'" " " ~ ... .. 6 '" ~.." .... ....ll c S " I '" ~ I: ::=; .:! .....d ..... < .....: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ i 1 ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ",..;~_.....;..;..;...;..;"'; ";0"''''; ....; _.._::;...._"'...;8 '" "" ... "" "'" wt .... ... ""... "'" "'" .... loft ... ""...... ... .... "",Iil ti I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ti~ ~~~~~;;;~z; ~~tl;;"'~ ;;a;; ;;t;;;,:,< $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a\ $ a $ a $ $ $ $ $ $ a $ $ a $ a $ a a a $ $ a $ $ $ $ $ i ..... $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ a $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ a $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ '.' I I I $1 $ a $ $ $ a $ $ a $ $ $ $ $ a $ a $ $ $ a a $ $ $ $ $ $ ail I? ..... I , "' ~I I I I I , I I ~I ' I ,l~ ~f ~ 1 s . oll -:; '\l i ~~i!~iil~ I ~;~ i~=~~ ~~ ~ .~ ~ l ~ ~ i Il Il ~I' ~II' 1& S ! i s I ~ 1 ]!I s s . .. S \j . -<,::li ~ a! .. . i! ~ f .i ::l \j' ! 1; ~ ~ ~ "" - :!! - ;:..... ~;I Q Q ~ ~ If! Q:!".I " c.. \I t .9 !!l lI'Ji ! t'\j ~ ~ 0\ ~ 21 \I ~ ~ :: .9 ~::i s. s 0 .I...~ ~ ~ Ii ~ ~ S! C ~: ~ l' I .:11' i <.J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : is:.' .'" ~: ~i "ig .~ II ~ oll ~ ;,a \.. "- ~ :;: I oil. ~. ~ "c: ! i" ; :t ~ Q5 Q5 :J. ~, ~ .a - ~ Q ~ .~ 0 ~ 11 ~)~. 11 Q i S I "l! '< /j,:! ~ E It l .. 5~... E ~ 0' 0 ~ - 8 0 . 0' 0 0 -1- . "' ~ ~ III ~ 1; ;:: ... .. ~ (l' " " I ~ e ~ :" ~,~ ~ .5 i '" ~ ~ i Eli i ~ I ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ::i ! ! ! ::li of ~E - -I - - :.. 0 I '" i! .l! E . "\ ~ 0 ~ ~ -II a ~ ~ ~ - ~ jii i \ i i ;11 : I ; ~ ; ; ~ a ~ a ~ i ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::li ::li ~ ::li ~ ~i~ f ~ 9 ~ 9 ~ 91~ 9 ~ ~:~!~. ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~I ~ ~ ~:~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~I~i~ ~~~:~i~l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~l~,~ ~:~ ~ ~ 111 ""', 8' S a .~ " ., .c: & ~ . II .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ., ~ I ~ :!! ~ a 1 6 ~ . . s a '3 .l! -ll .l! ~ .!l. ~ 'Ii . " . ~ . . .. 1i .~ 0- . :s (; ;; . 6 ~ ~ . "5 < ~ '" < ~ i .. ~ ... 38 ~ - ~ '" co C\J Ol <( U c: E ~ ~ "3 LL u ..J ..J '" - .!!! OJ 'u Q) c- oo 'iii o U "0 c: os Q) ::l c: Q) > Q) a: ... .. ; I I I I I I I ; I I , I Ii . I I E - 8- .~~ ~ e"" f;;; a.;~ r:. 8li.! ~]~ /':If';<l:l ~ , " ~ " Q I ~ ~ , 8 '" ~ I I. ~ I I I .!Il I .. I R I .~ ~ ~ 1'~2t:i I ~~ ~ co:.:::~ .f! .~ 5 '" ~.'" i ...o....!! I S ~ I I ~ VI ~ I Ie ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~* ::i :; :; ::l :; ::l .. .. :I .. .. .. .. .. :I .. :I .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. :I .. "IiI ~ ~. ~ ~. ~. ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ B ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ! ~ ;:j ~ ~ ~ ;:j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::; ~ ~ ~ t:; t:; = ~ ::; ~ I< I< I< I< I< I< I< I< I< I< I< I< I< I< I< I< I< I< I< a a a a a a a I< a a I< I< I< I< I< I< a a I< I< I< I< I< I< a I< a a a a I< I< I< I< I< I< I< I< a. ..:. ... I 1<1 I I I I 1<1. I< I< I< I< I< I< a I< I< I< I< I< I< a a I< I< I< I< a a I< I< I< I< a I< I< I< I< I< I< I< I< I< I< a I< I< I< I< a a a I< I< a I< a I< I< I< I< I< I< I< e 1/ .!l ~ '" .,. ~ ~ 1 i ! oll & I ~ .~ t 1 1 ! ~l iJl1! 1! G J:dl lli~ J. .. .11 !. l~::~ ~~~ i ~ I I I ~ I ~ t ~ ! 1 111 ~ .SCl"'ll~~.A.~;sli.!.s.! t j ~ I I I ~ 1 ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ! I I I ~ ~ . a ~ ~ ! J J J J i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ a r;; <ll ! :s ::l <l: <l: <l: <l: <l: a (l (l '* I.l ::l :s :s ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ ; ~ 111'11'1111111111 ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a ~. ~ ~ ~ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! o _ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ _ Q g _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~\I- ~ 0 .,- '"'i f"'\ .-, '-J ""I 1"\ ""I f"'\ ""II '"'I T .,. ..,. :r J :r ,. ,. .,. T ~ h ~ ~ hl~ ~! ~ ~ ~i ht~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ hlh ~ ~ ~ ~ Vl ~I ~ ~ ~I ~I~ ~ ~ Vl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ I ~ ~ ti .! a ~ i J ] ~ " 111 " .~ .. J ~ 1 ~ J li ~i~~!li 1 . 1 ~ i . . ~ ~ ~I ~, ~ ! ! ~I~: :i;C;::i .-; c ~i ~I ~\~\~ ~ ~ lllll 1 111 " "[(Ii fI') fI') .. "l ~ ~~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~i ai! ! ! ! ~II JI ~...:! ~h, ~ ~ ~i fi;: (lji :;;1 Wii Wi ~ ~ ~ . ! i s ... ~ ~ . . s s '5 .e ~ . 1; .!!. e ... ~ 1 . . " l e ... . s ... . " . i o . '5 . .~ .. 5 .% 1; ", .~ F39 ~- ~ M co '" '" <( () c B j :i u. () ...i ...i iii .~ OJ .u Q) Q. r/) - U) o () ~ c .. Q) " c '" > Q) a: ... III I I I I I I I I I I I ; I I I I I E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ la i ;; .1.... _.: : :..: -'- _I ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~. ~ ~ ~. ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~. ~. ~ ~ ~. ~i ~li ~ 1 f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;; ~ ~ ;; ~ ~ ~ ! ~ !I.i il" ~ e"'l Ii - I::j ~ ~ "I I. - I..i~jii: ~'ar;:; lQ i i a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a ari ~ . ..:.. I.. Ii ~ 1..,.- .::. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a ai ai ..... <:> I.. .. i ~ Ii i.. Iii i i a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a al ~ , ii. Ii 8 I.. '" ~ ~ ~ .. - aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa "i I....:. Ii Ii i . ,.- ... .. 5 . ~ I i i .~ Ii ~ii I. ! ~ ~ I ! j :t 1 ~.~ aa a l) '" " ~ i" .:l - it "i" 4 ~~ ~f !:3 i~ ~ 1:!d==~e.li! -""" ~ t ~~ J i I I J ~ f f ! 1 1 a ~ - 1 i 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 111 ~ ~ . ~ ~ i I ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ I I I .... .' 1l..:>:>11\:it:lil..rl';111EE1 1 I!! ~ ! ! 1 i 1 t i ~ 1 1 1 1 a I! ! J J i i i i .. II " tiS ....... :t ;. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. :t :; ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ! I ;:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ...... 'll,1i! .i _ _ _ .. _ III III _ _ _ III III III _ _ _ _ III III III _ _ III III III III - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\- ~ .g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ j i ~ I i I i I i j ! ~ l ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ~ ~ i .~ =.~ ~ ~ ~ ! i~ ~ \.; '" '" ~ , ~I~ l:i~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i - ~ ; ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~I~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" <Xl '" '" <( t) c: g j "3 u. " ~ "lI Q ~ l! ~ S - .!. ~ . -s s " . -l! {: :! l ~ " . 1 . . .. ;j .i!- t) e .. ...i . :s ...i "0 .; ~ ~ .!!! i a; 'y Cll Q Co . en c; - ~ If) .~ 0 ... () .5 ." & c: i tll Cll .. 0 " :tl: c: c; . 40 Cll ",- > Cll a: - . Ill' . ,. .. E I I I I I I I I I ; I I I I I ; _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ -8- ~g~~~g~g~~~~~!~~ ~ tl~l;'~S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ al I . . 811 , ~ ~:!:l Q'" '51 "''''CQ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ g ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 Q ~ ~ ~ N N N N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. a '.' .'. a h l!l , "- ~ ....... a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a !i a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a "- Q ~ I I a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a ~ I 8 '" a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a ~ I ~ I I i' \) i i ~ ,~ IIi ...... I! f i f ~ i' f Ii !i - il: \) ~ \) ~ t I ~ 0 ~ e ! l ~ ) I I! ~! a t ~ a i' :l ~!F 1 ! ~ -l0 <Il' j oil iii :Z::i . !it " i il' I ! ~ u ~ ~ ~ oj ~ ~ u 1 '" ~ "'=II'~lIil~sil t~i~i '_ .!l I:! ... \2 . il is !~,- tls il: f ~ ~ ! ~ ~ !! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~I( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 j I ~ l ! ! Ii ~ ~~~~~22Qec::.>>-':':&J.&, _ ....~NNNNN~......'::Ie:::Q~J I ..!, J., J., J.. ..!, J. ..!.. oJ. ..!.. ..!., ... :; .:I!ill <.... ,1lO ~ ~ " " " " " " " " ~ .. '" .. :z: ,g ~ ~ t tit i J l ~ t a * · · " " " 'E~~ ~~~!~ !~~!i!!!"!](i ~:~~\ll}}l 111}1!!l!l '=:"" ~~~~~~~~~~l-llttoll'l~L ~~.~ .!l.s~~~~~~.!~...s~~.s~ ' 'os'; 0 :,~ = ~ 1.:li~I=llliiO: ~; Ii';: I ~ I 8: 2:- G ~ u! l~:~\~l~l~l~1 ~ ~ ~\~!~i~i~ ~ ~ ~ I I a c: e ~ Q ~ :!l ~ 2 - 2 ~ . -s 2 'S J! -Il ~ Q .1< ~ 1i ~ . e . . "" 1i I< E Q. . S "l; 1; . ~ ~ Q . 15 ~ .~ '" ~ ~ 1; . . '0' tl\: 15 . "" - ~ '" <Xl '" '" <( u c: B ~ .!!1 "3 u. U .J .J .,; .~ 1ii "(3 Q) 0- W 41 - '" o U "0 c: 01 CD ::> c: CD > CD a: ... II t t ; I I E I' ". I I I I ; I I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Program: Circulotion (S_. SipWl and Bridges) SylllClll Project Tirl.: 40th Street. AJ;re Lane to Electric Avenue SubmitriDg Dcpartmcnt(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-oI Pro,jc<t Description: Widen 40th Street from two lanes to four lanes for from Acre Lane to Elcct:ric Avenue addingapproximatdy 0.35 lane mila of arterial/collector to the City' s existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the propoHd additional major road segments I"ftlltainod in ST-ol through 5T-36 will rcprClCllt a mcr. 6.4% of the total 735.21 at General Plan buUd-out while the existing community has __ 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the mojor road miles. Engineering plan check. inspection. materia1s1IOUlleIling and project administration COltS have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at lO~ of construction costs. Justi/ieation/RcquircllJent for Pl'C!ject: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will usm in a..ommodating tho nearly 58% in.rcsse in doUy trip-miles at General Plan buUd-out reaulting from new development. This segmcnt of roadway will provide an altccmativc for drivers who have been displaecd from roadway segments. unable to be widened. that they have previoualy been able to use but now flDd at maximum canying capacity. The City can 0llp0Ct an additional 57% incrcsse in the Dumber of doUy trip-mUes from tho .urrent 5,050.289 daUy trip-miles to roughly 7.973.974 doUy trip-mUes. an in.r.... of 2.923.685 daUy trip miles. There are limits as to how many additiona1lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additiona1lane mila), 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 signal. where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of 5erYic:e (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: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 201D-ll TouJ PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2ooB-<}9 2009-10 through oJ] EXPENDITURES Build-out Yean Design/Inspection/Administration SO $0 SO SO $260.400 $260,400 Land A.quisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO Construction $0 SO $0 $0 $1.736.000 $1.736.000 Contingency SO $0 $0 $0 $173,600 $173,600 Equipment/Other SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST SO SO $0 $0 $2.170.000 $2.170.000 I Potential Funding Sources: - A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction it &aIDe projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. i (.j ........,.2IIlIll ... III t I I ; I I I I I I I ; I I I I I E (el City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Projot:t TW.: 5th Sired, Sterling to Victoria Program: Circulation (Streets, Sipols and BrilIg..) SyllCm Submitting Department(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Projot:t No.: ST -02 Projot:t Description: Widen 5th Street from two lane. to four 1.... from Sterling to Victoria odding approxilllatcly 2.0 Ian. mil.. of arterial/collector to the City'. existing inventory of 618.32 lane mil... All of the proposed oddilioaa1 major rood segD1Cllll CODllIined in ST -01 through ST -36 will represcAt a mere 6.4% of the ,otAl 735.21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community Iw generated 92.6% (688.32 mil..) of the major rood miles. Engineering plan check, inspcetion. materials/soils testing and project administration com have been included at lS~ of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. JusdfjationlRequircment for Project: This seelion of "major" roodway (arterial or collector) is required to complClC the General Plan Circulation System and will aasiat in accommodating the nearly 58% incr.... in daily trip-mil.. at General Plan buUd-out resulting from new development. This segmen' of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segmenta. unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use bu' now flDd at maximum carrying apacity. The City can cxpect an oddilional 57% inc..... in the nunabcr of daily trip-mil.. from the cur...' 5,050,289 daily trip-mil.. to rougbiy 7,973,974 daily trip-mil.., an incr.... of 2,923,685 daily trip mil... There arc limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additionallanc miles). thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the exilting 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Pr~jecr: Failure or inability to widen strcct5, 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: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Projot:t Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort, Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 ToW PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through .n EXPENDiTURES Build-our Year, Designlbz.pcctionl AdmiJUItratjon $0 $0 $0 $0 $384,000 $384,000 Land Acquisition/Right of W.lIIY SO SO $0 SO $0 $0 C Ollsrructioll SO ' SO SO $0 $2,560,000 $2,560,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 SO S256,ooo $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: 43 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees. and specific agreements. The construction of some proJccts listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. .. lit , I m i I E I I E I I ; E t ~ I I . it City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project nile: 5th Street, Warm Creek to Pedley Program: CirculatiOJl (StreeU, Signals and Bridges) Syatem Submjrting Deputmenr(s): Developmen. Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST~3 p~jt:ct Description: Widen 5th Srreet from two lane to four lanes from Warm Creek to Pedley odding appro_y 1.0 lane mile of arterial/collector to the City'. existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed odditional major rood aegmonu COJIt.ained in ST ~I through ST -36 will represent a mer. 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan buUd-out while the cltisting community hu generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major rood miles. Engineering plan check. inspection. material./soils testing and project adminiltration costs have been included at lSS DC COIIItrUction costs and contingency has been included at lOW, of construction costs. JustifiClJrionlRcquircllJcnt for P~jcc:t: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in .accommodating the nearly S8~ increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting. from new development. This sepent 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 S7~ increase in the number of daily trip-mUes from the current 5,050,289 dally trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 dally trip-miles, an incr..... of 2,923,685 dally trip miles. There arc limits as to how many additional lane. miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necess&ry to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Proj<<;t: 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 identificd as "long queues ofvchicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "lammed conditions. back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with thc City:s Circulation Element. Proiect Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current cffort. Thcrefore all projects default to the "BuUd-out" column. 20/Q-J/ TouJ PROPOSED 2006-07 2OO7-OS 2OOS-()9 2009-/0 through .0 EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $57.600 $57,600 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 I $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction SO $0 $0 $0 $384,000 $384,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $38.400 $38,400 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $480.000 $480,000 Potentia} Fundinj! Sources: -\ -:ombmation of unobli)!arcd monies from a variery of funds. devc:lopment impact fees. and specific agreements. projects hsted may bc required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would bc reccived. 44 The construction of somc (0) . . , 1).2lOlt .. ..... ... i. E I I E I E m I I I II Iii I t I I t E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Tide: Alabama Str.... 3rd to City Limits Prognm: Circulation (Streets. Signal. and Bridges) Sy...... Submitting Deportmfllft(S): Development Services Departm..t (Enginec:ring) Project No.: ST -()4 Project DescriptiOll: Widen Alabama Street from two lanes to four lanes Crom.)rd Stroet to City Limits adding approximately 1.0 lane mile of arterial/collector to the City's existing inv..tory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the propoaed additioaal major road ..pents contained In ST-OI througb ST-36 will repre..nt a mere 6.4% of the total 735.21 at General Plan build-out wbile the exi5tlng community has g..erated 92.6% (68g.32 mil..) ofthe major road miles. Engineering plan chcc:k, inspection. materials/lOila testing and project administration costs have been included at IS" of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justmcation/RequjremeDt for Prq,jcct: This soction 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 deve1opD1CJlt. This ICgmeat 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 daily trip-miles from the curr..t 5.050.289 dally trip-miles to rougbly 7.973.974 dally trip-miles, an increa.. of 2,923.685 daily trip miles. There arc limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additionallanc mUes), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. ConscquMces 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 InterleCtions of _ with bridges to Level E or F by acting u a bottl....k. 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: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City:s Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 201o-11 TouJ PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection! Administration SO SO SO $0 $192.000 $192.000 LaJld Acquisition/Right of Way SO $0 I $0 SO $0 SO I Construction SOl $0 SO SO $1.280.000 $1.280,000 ConruJgency SO SO SO $0 $128.000 $128.000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO $0 $1.600.000 $1.600.000 Potential Funding Sources: ..... ...:,)mbinallOn 01 unobhgated momcs from a varidy of funds. development impact fees, and specific agreements. pruJl:cts listed may be required as a condition of approval. for whicJ1, a credit would be recclved. 45 The ...:onstruction of some r'::':::.:.':~~ .1006:.\:':: ... . ... .. E r II i I E E ~. , E t E I t I I ., I I t t City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Proi<<t Titl.: C';"pus Parkway (Popper-Linden). Kenda1l1O 1-215 Prognm: Circulalion (S_. Signa1s and Bridl") SylleJll Submitting o.p.rtmont(,): Development Services Department (Engineering) Projoct No.: ST -05 Projoct DoscripUoo: ConstrllCl the four lane Caropu, Parkway Extcosion from Kcnda1l1O 1-215. A110 constrIICla partial diamond interehanle. All of the proposed additional major road selmentl contained in ST-oI through ST-36 will rcproaenla mere 6.4" of the total 735.21 at General Plan build-out while the existinl community has lonerated 92.6" (688.32 mil..) of the major road mil... Eolinccrin& plan check. inspection, materials/lOils testing and project administration costs have been included at lS~ of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10'1 of construction costs. Ju,tiIi_onIRequircmont for Project: This section of "major" roadway (artcrial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and willauist in accommodating the nearly 58'1 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 caD. expect an additional 57'1 increue in the number of daily trip-miles from the currenl 5.050.289 dally trip-mil.. to roughly 7.973.974 dally trip-mil... an increase of 2.923.685 daily trip mil... Th_ arc limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constt:ucted (46.8 additiOJUl! lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Nor Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets. construct bridge widths and install signal. where wanantcd and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridl" to Level E or F by actinl" a bottleneck. Level "E" i, "Unalable Flow" and ia 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: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element. P"!;cct Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-1/ ToW PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2oo8-G9 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/lnspection/ Administntion SO SO SO $0 $576,000 $576.000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO Construction SO SO SO SO S3,840,OOO S3,840,ooo Contingency SO SO SO SO $384,000 S384,ooo Equipmtnt/Other SO SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO $0 $4,800.000 $4,800.000 Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and spcclfic agreements. The construction ~6somc projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. (cl .... ,.-.:.... ;:",,;,.,:: .;.:.;.;....... .. - "" . ,. 'Ij,;,,\ .. fill II i I I t 11II. ., E t I i I I I I t m City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Pro.i"'" Title: CClltrll (Pllm Mcadow.), Tippecanoe to Mountain View Progrom: Circulation (Strceu, Signll. and Bridge.) System Submitting DcpartmCllt(S): Oeve!opmCIII Services OepartmClll (Engineering) Project No.: ST -()6 Pro.i"'" 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' 5 existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments ~t.inM in ST -0 I through 5T-36 will reprOSClll a mero 6.4\\ of tho total 735,21 at GClleral Pion buUd-out while the existing oommllllily has generated 92.6\\ (688.32 mUes) of the major road milos. Engineering pion .heek, inspc<tion. materia1s/anU. testing and projc<t administration COIls have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at tOll of construction costs. JustifiClltionlRcquUcmcnt for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Pial Circulation System and will assilt in accommodating the nearly S8~ increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This ICgment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously bcon able to use but now fuul at maximum carrying eapaoily. The CiIy can expect an additional 57\\ in...... in the numhcr of dally trip-mUe. from the .UlfCllt 5,050.289 dally trip-mile. to roughly 7,973,974 dally trip-milos, an in.r.... of 2.923,685 daUy trip mil... 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 iI 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: Staff cost estimatC$ that are consiJtc:nt with the City's Circulation Element. Pro.i<<' Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 ToW PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration SO $0 $0 $0 $384,000 $384,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO $0 $0 SO SO Construction $0 $0 SO $0 $2,560,000 $2,560,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 SO S256,OOO $256,000 Equipment/Other $0 SO $0 SO $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 SO $0 $0 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 Potenti4l Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees. and specific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. 47 The 00lIIlrUC:li0n of SOIllC (,j . ..-.,.2I111r...: - - !lilt . r .. " .. & I I I ~ I ; I I I I I I I I ',. I E m City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Pr~jecl Titl.: Coulston, Tippecanoe to Mountain View Program: Circulltion (SltOOtI, Sisnol. and Bridg..) Syllom SublDittillg DopartmOD/(S): DevelopmOlll Servic.. Department (Engineering) Projoct No,: ST -07 P~jec/ Description: Widen Coulston from tow lane to four lanes from Tippecanoe to Mountain View adding approximately 2.2 llUle miles of arterial/collector to the City' 5 .xisting inventory of 688.32 lane mile.. All of the proposed additional major road ..gmcnlS contained in ST -01 through ST -36 will represent. mere 6.4~ of thetota! 735,21 .t General Plan buUd-ou/ while the exiJting community bas generatccl 92,6~ (688,32 mil..) ohhe major road miles. Engineering plan check. inspection. materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at lS~ of construction costs and contingency has been included at lO~ 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 UIiJt in accommodating the nearly S8~ 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 rmd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an. additional 57% increase in the number of daily "ip-mUe. from the current 5,050,289 daily "ip-mil..to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-mil.., an incr.... of 2,923,685 daily trip mil.., Ther. are limits as to how many additional lane miles ean be constructed (46.8 additiona1lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely neceuary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing c:ollectoralanerials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signal. where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) ".mc now at the intersections of slr.... with bridg.. to Level E or F by acting as. bottleneck, Level "E" i. "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 DoclUl1ent: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Projoct Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore aU projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-1/ TotlJJ PROPOSED 2006--07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through .0 EXPENDITURES Build-out y.... /)csign/lnspection! Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $422,400 $422,400 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,816,000 $2,816,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 I $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 FWJCfing Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. I projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 48 The constnaction of some (0) '-Y.2lO6 . . - - "" .. r' . t' i i ; I iii .. I ; I p II : ! I', .. I ; E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ProgTUJ: CircuJalioJl (5_, 5ip.W and Bridges) 5yllem Project Title: Connector, 3rd 5treet to 5th 5treet Submitting Department(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No,: ST -os Projocr Description: Construct a four lane coMcctor from 3rd Street to 5th Street adding approximately 2.0 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's eJtilting invenlory of 688,32 lane miles, All of the proposed additional major rood ..g....... c:onWned in 5T-01 through 5T-36 wW represent a mere 6,4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan bulld-out wblle the existing community has gCDOrated 92.6% (688,32 miles) of the major rood miles, Engineering plan <heck. inspaction, materials/aoll. testing and project admilliJtralion COIl> have been included at 15% of COIlIlruClion COIl> and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. JustifiC4tionlRt:quirement for Prqjcct: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will au_ in accommodating the nearly 58 % incr.... in dally trip-miles at General Plan bulld-out resulting from new development. This..gmeat of roadway will provide an alternative fot drivers who have been displaced from roadway segmenta. unable to be widened, that they have previously b_ able to u.. but now fmd at maximum c:anying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% inereesa in the IIIIIIIber of dally lrip-miles from the .urrent5,050,289 dally trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 dally trip-miles, an in.r.... of 2,923,685 dally trip miles, There arc limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additionallanc milu). 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 insta1l signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridgcs to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level NE" is NUnstable Flow" and is identified as Nlong queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced flowN creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations :restrict or prevent movement".' Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-outN column. 201D-1I ToW PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES BuiJd-out YeatS Design/Inspection/Administration SO SO SO SO S384,OOO S384,OOO Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO $0 SO $0 $0 Construction SO $0 $0 SO S2,560,OOO S2,56O,OOO Contingency SO $0 $0 SO S256,OOO S256,000 Equipm<nt/Orhar SO $0 $0 SO SO $0 TOTAL COST SO $0 SO SO S3.2oo,OOO S3,2oo,000 fu<n~~~~u~ ~ A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agrccmcnts. The construction of some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (e) .--. ,._,,, ..... . "',,',.2111I&::';' - .. . .../i -- 7> .. .. > .i< .. .'. , .... Ii. . I City of San Bernardino liiii , . , . Master Facilities Plan Project Detail 1.....:._ .. . ...........i.. ....... I:i.ii .. ..i .. ... Project Title: Prognm: Del Rosa, 6th StrecI to 9th Street Circulation (SlrcctI, Sipal. and BridS") System Submitting Dcpartmcn/(s): Project No.: i Development Se..i... Department (EnSineerins) ST~ i i: PTC?jcct DcKription: Iii Widen Del Rosa from two lanes to four lanes from 6th Street to 9th Street adding approximately 2.0 lane mllcs of artcrial/coUec:tDr to the City'. exillinB inventory of 688.32 lane mil... AU of the proposed additional major rood .._II contained in ST-QI throush ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735.21 at General Plan build-out while the exillinS community has senerated 92.6% (688.32 mil..) of the i major road miles. Engineering plan cheek, inspection, matcrialslsoilstesting and project administration costs have been included at IS4I of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. it i JustjficatjonlRcqu~lIJent for ~ject: / ... .> This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will asaist in ii accommodatins the nearly 58 % increase in dally trip-mil.. at GcneraI Plan build-out rcoultins from new development. This .._t 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 57lJ increase in the number of dally trip-mile. from the current 5,050,289 dally trip-miles to roushlY 7,973,974 dally trip-mil... an incr.... of 2,923,685 dally trip mil... There arc limits as to how many additiona1lanc miles can be constructed (46.8 additiona11anc 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 wananted and needed would reduce the Level of Service !/ (LOS) traffic flow at the intersection. of streeta with bridse. to Level E or F by actins u a bottleneck. Level "E" i. "Unstable Flow. and is t,II!~11 identiflCd .. "long queu.. of vehicl.. wailinS upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed eonditiona, back-upa from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . i Reference Document: Project Timing: i Staff cost estimates that ate consistent with the City',s Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current efeon. Therefore all i Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. '. Iii 2010-// Total PROPOSED 2()()6-<J7 2()()7-oB 2()()8~ 2()()9-10 through oJ] " I EXPENDITURES Build-out Ycan I .... Desjgn/blSpc<:/ionl Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $192.000 $192,000 ...... ! ti i Land Acquisitjon/Rjght of W,y $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 i i $0 ii , Construction $0 $0 $0 $1.280.000 $1,280,000 i Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $128.000 $128,000 .. Equjpment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 i' TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1.600.000 $1.600,000 !.. Potential Funding Sources: The construction or2me Ii A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. I, projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. i (.) ....... . ... ." .~....>............i.. . ..... ... .. t ~ II" .. I E I . " E t E t E ~ .. I I t t - - ". - r* .. t ; I t ,. . I E , .. I: t .. .. II i E I E . .. .. E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Pr~jot;r Tide: Electric. Mountain View to Northpark Program: Circulation (Streell, Signols and Bridges) Sylllem Submitring Depurlllenr(.): Development Services Department (Engineering) Projeet No.: ST-IO Projeet Description: Widen Elcc:tric Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from Mountain View to Northpark adding approximately 2.0 lane miles DC anerial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road ..gments eontained in ST -0 I through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4$ of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing eommunity has generated 92.6$ (688.32 miles) of the major road mil... Engineering plan check, inspection, DWeriaI./soils testing and project ad_lion costs have "- included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10~ of construction costs. Justification/Requirement fOT Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assiJt 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 579G 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 incr.... 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 colleetonlarterials. Cons<<Jucnces of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streell, eonstruet bridge widths and instaIlsigna1s 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 u a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F. "Forced Row" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Projeet Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 201G-IJ Toral PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through aJJ EXPENDITURES Build-out y..... Design/Inspection! Adl1Uniltration $0 $0 $0 SO S384.OOO S384,OOO Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 SO S2.560,000 S2,560,OOO Contingency $0 $0 SO SO S256.OOO S256,ooo Equipment/Other $0 $0 SO SO SO $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 SO S3.200,000 S3,200,000 Potentia} Funding Sources: A combination oi unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 51 The construction of some (c) -.,.:Illl>>"" .. - r- .. .. 1<l.,.. - t "" .. i t E c I r " t E II - I I i I E E E t City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Program: Circulation (SlReU, SignaIJ and Bridges) SylleJll Project Title: "G" Street. Mill to Rialto Avenue Submitting Doputment(s}: Development Services Departmen' (Engineering) Project No.: ST-lI Project Description: Widen "0" Street from two lanes to four lanes from Mill Street to,Rialto Avenue adding approximately 1.0 lane mile of arterial/Q)Uoctor to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road ..glllOlllS contained in ST-ol through ST-36 will repr...n' a mere 6.4\11 of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-au' while the existing community hu generated 92.6\11. (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection. materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at lS~ of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justific.tionlRcquiremcnt 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 fmd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 571 increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5.050,289 dally trip-miles '0 roughly 7,973,974 dally trip-miles, an iner.... of 2,923,685 dally trip miles. There arc limits as to how many additionallanc miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane mUes), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane mUes of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Nor 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 queuCi 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: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Pro,;eet 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 2009-10 through a11 EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/ Adm.inistr41jon SO SO $0 $0 SI92,ooo $192.000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 COIJstrucrion SO I SO SO $0 $1.280.000 SI.28O,OOO Contingency SO SO $0 $0 $128.000 SI28,ooo Equipment/Other SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 SO $0 SI,6OO,ooo SI,6OO,ooo Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements_ The construction~fsome projects listed may be: required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be rc:c:eived. (c) -.,. - - c ........... 'i .. ...... cc= 'c c.......7T7ffii2T---c7 . City of San Bernardino ... I .. iiii Master Facilities Plan Project Detail i'" . . .................. ......c........ ~ 7' 7' ---c ... ..c....:.c...... ." .. Project Title: Program: I "H" Street, Kendall to 40th Circulation (Strccl.I. SiBnals and Bridges) System C ., Submitting Department(s): Project No.: Development Service' Department (Engineering) ST-12 c .... Prqjcct Description: ii' Widen "H" Street from two lane. to four lanes from Kendall to 40th Street adding approximalely 0.4 lane miles of artcria1/c:olloctor to the ii City'. existing inventory of 688,32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road seglllOllls conWncd in ST-QI through ST-36 wUI 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 mila) of the > major road miles. Engineering plan check. inspection, materials/soils tClting and projm administration costs have been included at lSII of ............. ...... construction costs and contingency has been included at lOti of construction costs. i ..... .. ...... Justification/Requirement for Prq,ject: " 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 rrip-miles at Genera1 Plan buUd-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 571 increase in the number of daily L trip-mile. from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-mile. to roughly 7,973,974 daily rrip-miles. an increase of 2,923,685 daily rrip miles. There 1;1 Ii 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 collectorsJa.ncrials. !i Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets. construct bridge widths and in.stal1 signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of _ with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck, Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and iJ > identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream. of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditiOJlJ. back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". I? L Iii Reference Document: Project Timing: i , Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Thcrefore all ? ! Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. ? Ii? 2010-11 Tot.J Ii I PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-oB 2008-09 2009- 10 through .JI ....... I EXPENDITURES Build-out YC4T8 ........ Design/Inspection! Administration SO SO $0 $0 $76,800 $76,800 Ii' I' , Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO .... I , , ! C oJJstruction I $0 SO $0 $0 ' $512,000 $512,000 i I<i I Contingency $0 SO $0 $0 $51,200 $51.2(0) Equipment/Other $0 SO $0 $0 SO H SO TOTAL COST SO SO $0 $0 $640,000 $640,000 j~l j Potential Fundinj! Sources: The construction ~f somc I A .:ombmahan 01 unablif.ated monies trom a variety of funds, development impact fees. and specific ag.reements. I projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be recclved. , (el . ...... ... ..,..- . ,. , .. ~ .. r ; I E t E E r II t t , II E .. ... . m E I!Il ;; l"' ~ .. ,. l.. r Ilia P'" it , I t E E E t t E I t E c E 5 City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Pro,;"" Title: Kendall. Cambridge 10 Pine ProgrtUD: Circulllion (5_. SigJWs and Bridges) System Suhmiffing Dopsrtm<l1I(S): Development Services Department (Engineering) Pro}oct No.: ST-13 P~jcct Description: Widen Kendall Drive from two lanes 10 four lanes from Cambridge 10 Pine adding opproJtimstely 1.5 lane miles of arterial/coUec:tor to the City', existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-oI through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4~ of the total 735.21 al Goncral Plan build-out while the existing community has genoraled 92.6~ (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan .heck, inspection, materials/soil'testing and projec:l administrllion costs have been included at15~ of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. JustilicatjonlRequiremf:IJt for Project: This section of Mmajor" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will un. in a..ommodating the nearly 58 ~ in.rease in dally lrip-miIes at General Plan build-oul reaulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivCl's 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 ~. The City can expecl an additional 57 % increase in the Dumber of dally trip-miles from the .urrent 5.050.289 dally Irip-miIeslo roughly 7,973.974 dally trip-miles, an in.r.... of 2.923,685 daily trip miles. The,. arc limits as to how many additional lane mlles 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. COJJSei/uCJJCCS 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 "EN is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues ofvchicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Aow" creates "Jammed conditions. back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". ReferelJce Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Pro}oct Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-/1 Totm PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through .n EXPENDITURES Build-out Years DesiglJ/lnspectionl AdmiJJjstration $0 SO $0 SO S420.000 S420.000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO $0 SO SO $0 I C()Jlstrucrion SO SO SO SO S2.800.000 S2.800.000 ConritJgJ:lJcy SO $0 SO I SO I $280.000 S280,000 Equipmenr/Other SO $0 SO I SO SO $0 TOTAL COST $0 SO SO $0 S3,5OO,000 $3,500,000 Potential Funding Sources: A cQmbinatlOn of unobli1-'!atcd monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees. and specific a1-'!TCCmcnts. prvyxts listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 54 The construction of some (oj JaoioinJ. - .. ,... IIIl I"" Ii : ; I E t i E t E i c t s ' I ci I II E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: L.... Road, Mill to Orange Show Prognm: Circulotion (Streets, Signal. and Bridges) SyllCDl Submitting Doportment(s): Development Service. Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-14 Project Description: Construct Lena Road u a {our lane roadway from Mill Street to Orange Show Drive. adding approximately 4.0 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City'. eltilting inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major rood segmenll contained in ST-ol throup ST-36 will raprasent a mara 6.4% of tha total 735,21 at Genaral Plan build-out while tha altilting 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 151. of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justi!jc.ationlRequirelDent for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating tha nearly 58" incr.... in dally trip-miles at General Plan bulld-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments. UJl8.blc to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now flAd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional S71.1 increase in the Dumber of daily trip-miles from tha current 5,050,289 daily trip-mil.. to roughly 7,973,974 dally trip-miles, an incr.... of 2,923,685 dally trip mil... Thare 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 Nut Completing I'r<!ject: 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 intcrscc:tions of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. level "E- is "Unstable Flow" and iI identiflCC!.. "long queues ofvchicles waiting Upllre8m of tha intersection". Level F, "Forced Row" crcatas "lammed conditions, back-upa from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore aD projects default to the "Build-out" coluDUl. 2010-11 Toal PROPOSED 2fJ06-()7 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through aJJ EXPENDITURES Build-out Ycan Design/Inspection! Administration $0 $0 $0 SO S768,000 $768,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO $0 $0 SO SO $0 Construction SO SO SO SO , 55,120,000 S5,120,ooo Contingency SO SO SO SO $512.000 S512,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 S6,4OO,000 $6,400,000 Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreemcnh. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 55 The construction of some (0) ....'}._.i:.:,::,.. - till - La t [ l E t E E E t E E E I II _I i I I ! , ! E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Lillie League Drive, Palm to 1-215 Program: Cir.ulation (Sueeu, SigDaU and 8ril1g..) System Submirring Department(.): O.velopm..t Services Deportm..t (Engineering) Project No.: ST-15 Proje'" Description: Wid.. Lillie League Drive from two I.... to four I.... from Palm Av..ue to the 1-215 Frontage Rood adding approximately 1.5 1ane miIco of arterial/coll..tor to the City's existing inv..tory of 688.32 l..e mil... All of the propoaed additioaa1 major rood segments ........;.... in ST-oI through ST-36 will rcpr....t a mere 6.4';1; of the total 735,21 at General PI.. bulld-out while the existing community baa geaerated 92.6';1; (688.32 mlles) of the major road mil... Enamcering plan check, inapeclion, materials/lOlls t..ring..d proj..t administration COltS bav. been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. JU$/i/jcationlRequireJDent for Project: This section of "majorH roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist ill accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan buUd-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 daily trip-mll.. from the curr..t 5,050,289 dally trip-mil.. to roughly 7,973,974 dally trip-mil.., an in.r.... of 2,923,685 dally trip mil... There arc limits 85 to how many additiona11ane miles can be c:on.struc:ted (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 strcctl. construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic now at th. int.rsections of streets with bridg..to Level E or F by acting as a bolli....k. L.vel "E" is "Unatable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F. "Forced Row" creates "Jammed conditioBl, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Staff cost estimatcs that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project TiJning: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Toto} PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-1J9 2009-10 through .n EXPENDITURES Build-out y..,.. Design/Inspection! A.dministration SO $0 SO $0 $288,000 $288,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO $0 $0 $0 SO SO Construction SO SO SO SO $1.920,000 $1.920,000 Contingency SO SO SO $0 $192,000 $192,000 Equipment/Other SO SO SO $0 SO $0 TOTAL COST $0 SO $0 $0 $2,400,000 $2,400,000 PotentiaJ 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. (cl ~. - - ,. ... I'" .. r .. ... I. ~ c t 'III " c c t t ~ t I , \ I I E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail PN!jcct Title: lillleleague Drive, 1-215 frontage to Belmont Prognm: Circulalion (Streets, Signals snd Bridges) System Submitting Depsrtment(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Projet:t No.: ST-16 Project Description: Widen Little League Drive from two lanes to four lanes from the 1-215 Frontage Road to Belmont Avenue adding approximately 1.0 lane miles of artcrialfcollcd.or to the City's existing inventory of 688.321180 milg. All of the propoaed additional major road legmc:nts COJItained in ST-oI through ST-36 will represents mere 6.4~ of the total 735,21 at Cleneral PlIO build-out while the existing community has generated 92,6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plIO chccl<, inspection, materialslsoilstcsting snd project adminislrslion costs bave been included at 15~ of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Prqj<<t: 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 % incrcaac 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 daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, 10 iner.... 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 nccossary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. ConsequCJlces 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 ofvehic:les waiting upstream of the intersection", Level F. "forced Aow" creates "Jammed conditionJ. back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the CitJ's Circulation Element. Projet:t Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort, Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Toto} PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection! Adnzjnjstratjon $0 $0 $0 SO S192,000 S192,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO $0 SO SO SO $0 Construction SO $0 $0 SO S 1,280,000 SI,280,000 Contingency SO $0 SO SO S128,000 S128,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 SO SO $0 TOTAL COST SO $0 SO SO SI,600,ooo SI.600,OOO PotenWl Funding Soun:cs: A combination of unobllgatcd manics from a variery. of funds. development impact fees, and speciflC agreements. The construction ~7 some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. (,) Iaoi..y. 2m"', ", ' ~ .. ".. .. r .. t ; s t t E [ t I t E ,. ilIl .. . I . .. E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ProgrtUD: Circulalion (Streets, SipaIJ and Bridl") Syllem Project Title: Lillie Molllllain, Devll Creek Channel to 48th Submirting DeputmCllt(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-17 Pro.icct 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 containccl in ST-ol through 5T-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the tolaI 735,2111 Ococrlll P1an bulld-out wbile the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check. inspection. materialallOill testing and project administration colts have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at tO~ of construction costs. JustiEcaUonlRequireDJClJI for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assilt in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-mil.. at Ococrlll P1an bulld-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 prcvioullly been able to use but now fmd at DWtimum carrying capaeity. The City can upect an acIditiona1 57% incr.... in the number of claiJy trip-mile, from the curren' 5.050,289 daily trip-mil.. to roughly 7,973,974 claiJy trip-miI.., an iner.... of 2,923,685 claiJy trip mil... There arc 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 P~;t:ct: Failure or inability to widen strcc:ts, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of strcc:ts 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: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Pro}cct Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 TotJJJ PROPOSED 200HJ7 2007-08 2008-1J9 2009-10 through aJJ EXPENDITURES Build-out Y..... Design/Inspection/Administration SO SO SO SO $48.000 $48,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO Construction SO SO SO SO S320,000 S320.000 Contingency SO SO SO SO S32.000 S32,OOO Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO $400,000 $400,000 Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variery of funds, development impact fccs, and specific agreements. projccts listed may be required as a condition of approval, for whi,h a credit would be rcceived. . 5R The construction or some (e) -.y. _. ..:...... . - ... ",. lIII c ~ ; ~ t t t E ~ '1 ; I E E t E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: MUl, Pepper to Meridian Program: Circulation (Streets. Signal. and Bridg..) Syllelll Submitting Department(.): Development Services Depsrtment (Engineering) Projeet No.: ST-18 Projec' Description: Widen MUl Street from two Ian.. to four Ian.. from Pepper to Meridian addingapproximstely 0.5 lane mil.. of arterW/c:oI1ector to the City'. ellilting inventory of 688.32 lane mil... All of the propoaed additicmal major road segments containad in ST-oI through ST-36 wUl....." .-t a mere 6.4'11 of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the ellilting community bas generated 92.6'11 (688.32 mil..) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspec:tion, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 151 of construetion costs and contingency has been included at 1011 of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial Of collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will auist. in ",",ommodating the nearly 58 'I! incr.... in daily trip-mil.. at General Plan build-out r..u1ting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segmentl. unable to be widened. that they have previously been able to use but now fmd at maximum carrying capscity. The City can expect an additional 57'1! inc..... in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-mil.. to roughly 7,973.974 daily trip-mil.., an inc..... of 2,923,685 daily trip mil... There arc limits as to how many additionallanc miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mUe 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 now at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting.. a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unatable Flow" and is identified as -long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the interJeCtion-. Level F, -Forced Flow- creates N Jammed conditions. back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. P~ject Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 ToW PROPOSED 2006-07 2/J(}7-oS 2008-09 2()()9-1O through all EXPENDITURES BuiJd-out Year. Design/Inspection/Administration $0 SO SO SO S96,000 $96.000 Land Acqu;sjtionlRigh' of Way $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 Construction SO $0 $0 $0 S64O,000 S64O.OOO Contingency $0 $0 SO SO S64,ooo Equipmtnt/Other $0 $0 $0 SO $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 SO S8/J(} ,000 Potential Funding Sources: SQ A combination of unobligated monics from a variety of funds, dcvdopment impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction or JOIIlC projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. t (cj r ... ~ r.- .. ~ t I ; i I . I ~ I t . I E I I I I · E (c) City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ProgrtU1J: Circulation (Streets. Signals and Bridges) System ProJect Title: Mount Vernon Bridge Submitting Department(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-19 ProJoct Description: Widen the Mt. Vernon Bridge 10 four lanes. All of the proposed additionalmajar rood seJ!ll1Ol1ll ccmIained in ST~l1 through ST-36 will represent. mere 6.411> of the toto! 735.21 .t General Plan build-out while the existing community Iw generated 92.611> (688.32 DlDes) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check. inspection, materials/lOils testing and project administration costs bave been included at IS" of construction costs and contingency has been included at 1011 of construction costs. Ju8tificationlRoquiremeDt for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will auiIt in a<c:ommodating the nearly 5811> incr.... in dally trip-DlDes 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 bave previously been able to use but now rind 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 roui!h1y 7,973.974 dally trip-DlDes, an incr.... of 2,923,685 daily trip DlDes. There arc limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration i5 absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Pr~;cct: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic now at the intersections of streeta with bridges to Level E or F by acting us a bottleneck. Level "E" i5 "Unstable Row" and ia identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F. "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditiODl, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent wi~ the City's Circulation Element. ProJect Timing: Project timing is not a component of this cuneot effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-11 ToW PROPOSED 2~7 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 through .n EXPENDITURES Build-out y..... Design/lnspection/ Adl1Jinjstralion $0 $0 $0 $0 $384.000 $384.000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ConstructioJJ $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 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $3.200.000 Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees. and specific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. . 1i0 The construction or some ""' I lit t , t ~ t I I I I ~ e t I I I E I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Proj<<t Title: Mountain View, Thompson to Electric Program: CircuWion (S_. SigDIIllI1d Bridles) Sylilem Submming DeputmCDt(S): Development Services Department (Enlincerinll Proj<<t No.: ST-20 Proj<<t Description: Widen Mountain View Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from Thompson. P1ace to Electric Avenue adding approximatcJy O.41ane mila of arterial/eollcctor to the City'. existinl inventory of 688.32 llll1C miles. All of the proposed additioDO! major rood IClmcnll coatalncd in ST -01 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.411 of the toial 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existinl commuoity has I~atcd 92.611 (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. JustificationlRcguiremCDt for Proj<<t: Tbia aec:tion of "major" roodway (arterial or collector) i. required to complete the Gcnerol Plan Circulation Syllcm II1d will auiat in accommodating the nesrly 5811 inc..... in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out reaullin8 from new development. This ICplCIll 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 UIC but now rmd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additioDO! 5711 inc..... in the number of dally trip-miles from the current 5,050.289 dally trip-miles to roushly 7,973.974 dally trip-miles, an inc..... 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 coUectoralarterials. Conscguences of Not Compicdng 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 Ear F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and iI 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: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not 8 component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20io-ll Tor.} PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-D8 2008-(}9 2009-iO through .n EXPENDiTURES Build-out y.... Design/Inspection! Admbtistration $0 $0 SO SO S76,800 S76.800 Lond Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 SO SO $0 $0 Construction SO $0 $0 SO S512.ooo S512.OOO Contingency SO $0 SO SO S51.2oo S51.2oo Equipment/Other $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 TOT Ai.. COST $0 $0 SO $0 S64O,OOO S64O.ooo Potentia) Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monics from a variety of funds. development impact fees, and specific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. 61 The construction of some .'.:~:;:;:;: (e) ,~_:.::::::::.;":";~,__::.::<~rx?':;:. .... .. E I I E ~ I I I I E I I I I I \ I I I E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Mountain View Bridge at Mission Creek ProgtallJ: Circulation (Streets, Signal. and Bridles) System Submitting DeputmODt(.): Development Services Department (Enlin..rinl) Project No.: ST-21 Pro.i<<t Description: Widen the Mountain View Bridge at the Mission Creek Channel. The project conJists of widening the roadway and shoulden. All of the proposed additional major ra&d ..gments contained in ST-01 through ST-36 will represent I mcre 6.4'1 of the total 735.21 at General Plan build-out while the eJtistinl eommunity has geoerated 92.6'1 (618.32 miles) of the major ra&d miles. Engineering plan cheek. inspection, materials/solls tcsting and project administration costs have been included at lS~ of CODJtruction costs and contingency has been included at 1011 of construction costs. JustiliClllionlRequirelllont for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will usia in accommodating the nearly S811 increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This ICgment 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 capac:ity. The City can expect: an additional 51 Wa 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 ine..... of 2,923,685 daily trip mil... There arc 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 signalJ 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 "Urmable 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: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City:s Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the '"Build-out" column. 20JO-ll TouJ PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through aJJ EXPENDITURES Build-out y..,.. Design/Inspection/ AdnUJJjsuaUon SO $0 SO $0 $138,240 $138,240 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO $0 $0 $0 SO SO Construction SO SO $0 SO $921. 600 $921,600 Contingency SO SO' SO $0 $92,160 $92.160 Equipment/Other $0 SO SO $0 $0 SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO $0 $1,152,000 $1.152.000 Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. 62 The construction of some (,j ~. P'" ~ I E I I E I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Prognm: Circulation (Streets, Signal. and Bridges) Systcm Project Title: Mountain View. Rivcrview to Central SubJDirrillg DcpartJDcn/(s): Developm.nt Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-22 proj.c1 Description: Construct Mountain View Avenue from Riverview Drive to Central Avenue adding approximately O.S lane miles of artcrialIcollo:tor to the City'. .xisting inventory of 688.321an. miles. All ofth. proposed additional major road scgmants contAined in ST-oI through ST-36 will r.pr...nt a m.r. 6.4'11 of th.tota! 735,21 at Gen.ral Plan build-out whil. the .xisting .ommunity has generated 92.6'11 (688.32 miles) ofth. major road milcs. Engineering plan check. inspection. materials/lOils testingllJld project administration costs have been induded at 15C1 of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction COlts. Jusrilication/Rcquirement for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assilt in accommodating the nearly S8 % 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 daily trip-mil.s from the curren' 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an incr.... 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 PrCJ.icct: Failure or inability to widen streetS, construct bridge widths and install signals where wananted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic: flow at the interiCCtions of streetS with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck, Level "EIo is "Unstable Flow" and iI identified as Nlong 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 DocUllJMt: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20Jo-ll Total PROPOSED 200~7 2007-()8 200S-09 2009-JO through all EXPEND/TURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/ AdmbJistration $0 SO SO SO $829,440 S829,44O Land Acquisition/Right of ",ay SO SO SO $0 SO $0 COIJstruction $0 $0 SO $0 ' S5.529,6OO S5,529,6OO Contingency SO $0 SO SO S552 ,960 S552,960 Equipment/Other SO $0 SO SO SO $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 SO S6,912,000 S6,912,ooo Potential Fundin~ Sources: r::' A combmatlon of unobligated momes from a vanet}' of funds, development impact fecs, and specific: agreements. The c.onstruc.tion ~( some projects listed may be required as a condilion of approval. for which a credit would be received. (e) .. .-- - ,.,." .-.,.211l1:':--'" ~ Ii. t I I I I I I I I I I E I I I I I I I I ! i I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Program: Cir<:u1ation (Streets, Signal. lUld Bridg..) Sy...m Project Title: Mountain View, 1-10 to San Bernardino Ave. Submitting Departmcnt(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-23 Project Description: Widen Mountain View Avenue from two llUl.. to four Iancs from the 1-10 to SlUl Bernardino Avenue adding approllimslcly 0.141lUle mil.. of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 68g. 32 lane mil... All of the proposed additional major road "gments cont&incd in ST-ol through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4'11 of the lotAl135,21 at General PllUl build-out while the existing community has gcncratcd 92.6'11 (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspcc:tion. materials/soils testing and project administration COlts have been included at 15~ of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10~ of construction costs. Justifit:IJtion/Rcquiremcnt for Project: This section of Hmajor" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assiJt in accommodating the nearly S811 increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segmcot of roadway will provide an alternative Cor drivers who have been displ~ 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 Dumber of daily trip-mile. from the current 5.050.289 daily trip-mil.. to roughly 1,913,914 dally trip-mile., lUl incr.... of 2,923,6g5 dally trip mil... There arc limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additionallanc 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: FaUure 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 interscetions of streets with bridges to Lev~ E or F by acting as a bottleneck. level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstrca.m of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditiol1l. back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "BuUd-out" column. 2010-11 TotIJ! PROPOSED 2006-07 2oo7-og 2oog-09 2009-10 through aJJ 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 Equipm~t/Othcr $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1.200.000 $1,200,000 Potential Fundinp Sources: A combmahon of unobhgated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific li)!rCCmcnts. projects listed may be requtred as a condttlon 01 approval, for which a credit would be received. 64 The construction of some (e) -.y. II"' .. .. Ii. ~ E E I I I I . I I I I I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Mountain View Avenue Railroad Grade Crossing PrognuD: Circulation (StrootI, Signal. snd Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Ptojoct No.: ST-24 Project DoscriptiOll: Widen the Mountain View Railway Grade Crossing (rom 1.500 feet north of the railway grade crouing from one lane North and South to two lsnes North snd South. All of the proposed additions! major rold ICgmcnll contained in ST-01 through ST-36 will rcproscnta more 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General PlIO build-oUI while the existing commUDity baa generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major rold All of the proposed additional major road 'egment' contained in ST-ol through ST-36 will reprOlClJl a mere 6.4'11 of the tota1 735.21 at Gcoera1 PlIO build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road mUcs. Engineering plan check, inspection. materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency hu been included at 10% of construction costs. JustilicationlReqWrcmCllt 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 5811 increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out rclulting 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 dally trip-mUes from the current 5.050,289 dally trip-miles to roughly 7,973.974 dally trip-miles. 10 increase of 2.923.685 dally trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane mil" can be constructed (46.8 additiona11anc mil"), 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". ReferMce Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not 8 component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 201D-ll TottJ/ PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-1)9 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection! Administration SO SO SO SO S28,8OO S28.8OO LlllJd Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO Construction SO SO SO SO I S192,000 S192.ooo Contingency SO SO SO SO S19,2OO S19,2oo Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S24O,000 S24O.OOO I Potential FUJlding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific ag.reements. The construction601- some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. I. (,j . .....,.. ~ - ill ,. t. E t . .. I I I E I I . I I I I I I E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Tide: Palm, Cajon to 1-2l5 SB Ramp Program: Circulalion (Strecla. Signals and Bridges) SySlCm Submmblg DcpartmMt(S): Development Services Department (Engineering) Projt:ct No.: ST-2S Pr~jcc' Description: Widen Palm Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from Cajon Boulevard to the 1-215 Southbound acccsslegrcu ramp. adding approximately 0.5 lane miles of ancrial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.321anc miles. All ofthc proposed additional major road seg_ contained in ST-oI through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4'11; ofthc total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the CJtisting community bas 8enerated 92.6'11; (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. En8ineering plan cbeck, inspection, materials/soils testin8 an4 project adminislralion costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at lO~ of construction costs. JustjliCII.rion/Rcquircment for P~ject: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly S811 increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan buUd-out resulting from new development. This ICgment of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened. that they have previously been .ble to use but now find at DWtimum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57'11; 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 incr.... of 2,923.685 daily trip miles. Tbcrc are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additionallanc miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely nceessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collcetorslarterials. Consequences of Not Completing Proiect: -Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and. needed would reduce the Level of Servic:e (LOS) traffic flow at the interscc:tions of sueets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and it 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: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort:. Thcrefme 111 projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20JQ-lJ Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2OO7-OS 2OOS-09 2009- 10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years f)csign/Inspection! AdmjnjstraUon $0 $0 $0 $0 $91.200 $91.200 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $608,000 $608,000 COlltiJJgency $0 $0 $0 $0 $60 ,800 $60,800 Equipment/Other $0 SO $0 $0 $0 SO TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $760,000 $760.000 Potential FundiJJs Sources: A combination of unobligated moniel from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. The construction ~p some (.) .....".-.:;...> \ I I ... .. ,. L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (el City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Pin.. Kendell to Belmont Program: Circu1alion (S_, Signala and Bridges) SylleJll Submitting DopartmcDt(.): Development Scrvic:c& Dcpsnment (Engineering) Project No.: ST-26 Projoct Description: Widen Pine Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from Kendall Drive to Belmont Avenue adding approximately O.S lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's .xisting inventory of 688.32 I... miles. All of the proposccI additional major road ..gm.... con/ained in ST ~I through ST-36 will r.pr....t a m.r. 6.4l1\ of the total 735,21 at Gcn.rel P1an build-out wbil. the .xisting community has gcncratcd 92.6l1\ (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan chec:k. inspection, materials/soUs testing and project administration eo-. have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of consuudion costs. JustifleadonlRcquireJJJenr for Project: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the Gcncral Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly S8 ~ 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 Dumber of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles. .. incrcuc of 2,923,685 daily trip miles, Tbcrc ar.limits.. to how ....y additionoll... miles can be COllltruc:tcd (46,8 additional1cnc miles), thua optimum 1... mil. configunlion is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequ""c.. 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 Row" and is identified as "long queues ofvchicles waiting upstream. of the intersection". Level F. "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20lD-ll TotsJ PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009- lO through aJJ EXPENDITURES Build-out Years DOli 'lnspccUonI AdllJinjltUtion $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 Contingency $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 PotenticJ Fundillg Soore..: 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. -- lit E I I I I I I I I I I E I I I I I Ii (c) City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Titl.: Perris Hill Park Road, 21 It to Pacific Program: Circulation (Streets, Signa1J and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Developm..t Services Departm..t (Engineering) Project No.: ST-27 Pro,ject DescriptiOlt: Widen Perris Hill Park Road from two lanes to four lanes from 21st Street to Pacific Street adding approximately 0.8 lane mila of arterial/collector to the City', exiating inv..tory of 688.321ane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments eonWned in ST-oI through 5T-36 will repr....t a mere 6.4'11 of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6'11 (688.32 mil..) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inJpection, materiallisoila testing and project administration coata bave been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 1011 of construction costs. JustmationlRequirement for Project: This sec:tion of "major" roadway (arterial or collC(:tor) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will auilt in accommodating the nearly 58% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This acgmcnt of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been diJplaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now fmd at nUllti","m carrying capacitY.. The City can e>pect an additional 57'11 increase in the number of daily lTip-mile, from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-mil.. to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There arc limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constrUcted (46.8 additiona11anc miles). thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Conscqucncos 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 coJ\ditions, bac:k-upI from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that afC consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Tjmjng: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "'Build-out" column. 20/Q-ll Toul PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-1)9 2009-/0 through .n EXPENDITURES Build-out y..,. Design/lnspection/ Admbzistration SO $0 $0 SO S153,600 SI53,600 LIJJJd Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction SO $0 $0 SO SI,024,ooo SI,024,ooo Contingency $0 $0 $0 SO SI02,400 SI02,400 Equipment/Other SO $0 $0 $0 SO $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 S1.280.OOO SI,280,ooo Pot..o.J Funding Sources; A combination of unobligated monies from 8 variety of funds. development impact fees. and specific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 68 The construction of some ... . lilt t City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail I I I I I I I I I I I I II........ , I , I i I I I I (0) P~;ecr Tid.: Rancho. Colton City Limits to 5th Progt8l1l: Circulation (Streets. Signal, and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Development Services Depanment (Engineering) Projoct No.: ST-28 Project De&criptjon: Widen Rancho Avenue (rom two lanes to four lanes from the Colton City Limitl to 5th Street adding approximately 1.4 lane mil.. of arterial/oollector to the City', .xisting inventory of 688.32 Ian. mil... All of the proposod additionol major road segments cnntoi.... in ST-oI through ST-36 will represent a mer. 6.4')1; of the toiaI 735,21 at General Plan build-out whil. th..ltisting community has generated 92.6')1; (688.32 mil..) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inapec:lion, materials/soli, toating and project administration eolla have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 1011 of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Pr~;cct: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will usist in accommodating the nearly 58')1; increase in dally trip-mIl.. at Genera\ Plan builcl-out RAWting from new development. Thia aegmenl 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 fU1d at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 5711 increase in the number of daily trip-mile. from the current 5,050,289 dally trip-mil., to roughly 7,973.974 dally trip-miles, an incr.... of 2.923,685 dally trip mil... There arc limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles). thus optimum lane mile c:onfiguration is absolutely nec:essary to c:omplcmcnt the existing 668 lane miles of existing c:ollec:torslarterws. 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 Servic:c (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by ac:ling as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F. "Forc:ed Flow" creates "Jammed conditiona, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movementH. Rcf~rence Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City.'s Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projocts default to the "8uild-out" column. 2010-11 PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-D9 2009-10 through EXPENDITURES Build-out Design/Inspection! AdJDinjstn.tion $0 $0 $0 $0 $268,800 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1.792,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $179,200 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,240,000 ToUl B1l y..... $268,800 $0 $1.792.000 $2.240.000 h~~~~~: M A combination of unobH'gatcd monies from 8 variety of funds. development impact fccs. and specific agreements. Thc"Iw'"Onstluction 01 some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. .. .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail P"!i<<I Title: Rialto. Sierra to Waterman Program: Circu1ation (S_. Siglllll and Bridges) System Submitting Dcportmcnt(I): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-29 Project Description: Widen Rialto Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from Sierra Way to Waterman Avenue adding approximately 1.0 lane mile of arterial/collector to the City' 5 existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed. additional major road segments contained in 51-01 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% aCthe total 735.21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.611 (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan che<:k. inspection. materials/soils tClting and project administration COIlS have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. JustifiClltion/RcqWrc11Jent 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 buUd-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 daily trip-miles from the current 5.050.289 dlily trip-miles to roughly 7.973.974 dsily trip-miles. an increase of 2.923.685 dsily trip miles. There arc limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuralion 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 iI 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: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project: timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore aU projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20Jo-JI TotoJ PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-JO through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Dcsign/lnspel/;tionl Ad1IJjnjstration $0 $0 $0 $0 SI92.000 $192.000 Land Acquisition/Risht of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 SO SI.280.000 $1.280.000 Contingency SO SO $0 $0 $128.000 $128.000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST SO $0 $0 SO $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. projects listed may be required as II. condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 70 The construction of some (e) .-. ......".... -.,. ZJO&' . "" I. . I I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Pro.;OC' Till.: Rialto, Lena to Tippecanoe Prognm: Circulation (Slreeb, Sipals and Bridges) System Suhmirring DepartmOll'(S): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No,: ST-30 Prop' Description: Widen Rialto Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from Lena Road to Tippecanoe Avenue adding approltimately 1.5 lane miles of artcrial/collcetor to the City', existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments ("ttnt.i.-4 in 51-01 through ST-36 will ropr.....' a m.re 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing commUllity has gcoerated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inapection, materials/soUstosting and project administration c:osU hay. been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Pro.iect: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly S8% increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan buUd-out resulting from new development. This segmad 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 eapacity. The City can expect. an additional 574l 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 incr.... of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There arc limits as to bow many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional1ane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the eWting 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and instal1signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow a' the intersections of str.... with bridges to ....el E or F by acting as a bottl.neck. .....1 "E" is "Unstable Row" 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: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore aU projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-11 Tor./ PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008_ 2009-/0 /hrough aJJ EXPENDITURES Build-out y..... Design/Inspection! AdmirUstration SO SO SO SO S288 ,000 $288,000 Land Acquisition/Righ' of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO C OJlstruction SO SO SO SO S1.920,ooo S1.920,ooo Contingency SO SO SO SO S192,ooo S192,ooo Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S2.4oo,ooo S2,400,OOO Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monics from a variety of funds, development impact fccs, and specific agreements. The construction 7ollOme projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. to) -..,.2!lIl6.... ... I. E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Progrom: Circulalion (StrcclI, Sip.ols and Bridges) System Pr~joct Title: SlAIe Street, 16th to Foothill Submming Depsrtment(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Projeet No.: ST-31 Projeet Description: Construct two lanes of roadway along State Street from 16th Street to Foothill Boulevard. The project will connect State Street to Rancho Avenue (new road). The project would be undertaken in four phases. All of the proposed odditionlll major road seglllClllS containccl in ST-oI 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 cheek, inspec:lion, materials/soUs testing and project administration COIlS bave been included at lS~ of construction costs and contingency has been included at 1011 of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Pro.;ect: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is requirccl to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will usisl in accommodating the nearly 58" incr.... in daily trip-miles at Gcneral Plan buUd-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative (or drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments. unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now fllld 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 incr.... of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. Tbere arc limits as to how many additionallanc miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane mUes), 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, c:onstruct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduc:c the Level of Service (LOS) traffic: flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottlenec:k. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehic:les waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forc:ed Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" coluDUl. 2010-11 TotJJl PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-oS 200S-<J9 2009- 1 0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Yean Dcsign/Insp"tionl Adminjstratjon SO $0 SO SO S888 ,000 S888,OOO i Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO $0 $0 I C,Jllstruction $0 SO SO SO I S5.920.000 S5,920,OOO i Contingency SO $0 SO SO i S592.000 S592,OOO Equipment/Other SO $0 SO SO SO $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 SO $0 S7,4oo,OOO $7,400,000 Potentia) Fundinp Sources: A ":0mbUlation 01 unobligated momes from a vanety of iunds, development impact fees, and specific a~reements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would he received. 72 The construction of some L (c) .'-.y.-.':".. . .. II. I I I I I s I I I I I I I I I I I i City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Projoct Title: State Street. FoothW to 1-215 Program: Circulation (StredI, Sipa1s ond Bridges) Sy_ Projoct No.: ST-32 Submilling Department(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project Description: Widen State Street from two lanes to four lanes from FoothW Boulevard 10 the 1-215. adding opproxiDtale1y 8.0 lonc miles of artcrialIcoUeetor to the City's existing invenlOry of 688.321one miles. All of the proposed adclitioa.a1 major road segmcnta contained in ST~I through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4'11 of the total 735,21 at General PIon build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6'11 (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan cheek,. 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 Prq.icct: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist ill accommodating the nearly 58'11 increase in daily trip-mil.. at General PIon build-out rcaulling 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 con expcclon additional 57'11 inerease in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-mil.. 10 roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, on increase of 2.923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additionallanc miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Nor 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 bottlcncc:k. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified 85 "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates" Jammed conditioDl, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20JD--ll ToW PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2oo8~ 2009-JO through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Desigll/Inspection! Administration SO $0 $0 $0 $960.000 $960,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO COllsrructio/J $0 , $0 $0 $0 $6.400.000 $6.400.000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 i $0 $640.000 $640.000 Equipment/Other $0 SO $0 $0 $0 SO TOTAL COST $0 SO $0 $0 $8.000.000 $8,000,000 Potentia] Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from Ii variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction JJ some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which Ii credit would be received. (0) ....,..21106. .. , .. I , I I I s I I I . I , I I E I ' I ; . I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Projoct Title: Tippecanoe. Milito Harriman Program: Circulation (StredI. Sigaols and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Development Services Dopartment (Engineering) Projoct No.: 5T-33 Projoct Description: Widen Tippoeanoo from four lanes to six lanes from Mill Strccl to Harriman adding approl<imalely 3.5 lane miles of artcria11coUcctor to the City's e.isting inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the propoacd additional major road scgmenta contained in ST-OI through ST-36 will represent. mere 6.4\1\ of the total 735.21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community bas generated 92.6\11 (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection. materials/soUs testing and project administration costs have been included at lS~ of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. JustiJicationlRequirament for Projoct: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the ...rly 58 \1\ incr.... in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. Tbia ICgmcm 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 S7~ incrcuc in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050.289 daily trip-miles to roughly 1,913.914 daily trip-miloa, an incr.... of 2,923.685 daily trip miles. Thera arc limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration iJ absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Not Compieting Project: Failure or inability to widen streets. construct bridge widths and install signals where wananted 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 iI 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: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City.'s Circulation Element. Project Tinting' Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 ToW PROPOSED 2()()6-o7 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDlTURES Build-out Y cars Design/lnspection/ Ad11Jinistntion SO SO $0 $0 S612.OOO $612.000 Land Acquisition/Right of Wax SO SO $0 SO $0 SO Construction $0 SO SO SO $4,480,000 $4.480,000 Contingency SO SO SO SO $448.000 $448.000 Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S5,600.ooo SS .600.000 Potential Funding Sources: A combmation of unobh~atcd monics from a variety of funds, development impact fccs, and spectfic agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. 74 T he construction of some (,) ~.-. .. . '" .. E .. I I I I I I I I ; I I I i I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: University Parkway, Hallmark to BNSF Grade Separation Program: Circulation (Stroets. Sil!Jll!s and Bridges) System Submitting Deparrmenr(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Projcet No.: ST-34 Project Description: Widen University Parkway from two lanes to four lanes from Hallmark Parkway to the BNSF Grade Separation adding approximately 0.7S lane miles of arterial/collector to the City' 5 existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segmentl contained in 51-01 through 51-36 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 ~;ect: This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in aecomm~g the nearly 5811 increase in daily trip-miles at GcneraI 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 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 arc limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additionallanc miles). thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the exiJting 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. Consequences of Nor 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: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore aU projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20JQ-ll ToW PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-Q8 2008-09 2009- JO through all EXPENDITURES BuiJd-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration SO SO SO SO SI44,OOO SI44.000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO Construction SO SO SO $0 ' $960,000 S960.000 Contingency SO SO SO SO S96.000 S96,000 Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S1.2oo,000 SI.2oo.000 Potentja) Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monics from a variety. of funds, development impact fees. and specific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. t (,j 7S The construction of some .. . t E I' I I I I I I I E I I I I I I [ City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail 1'1ogtaIIJ: Circulation (5_, Signals ...d Bridges) System Project Title: Waterman, SIb to Baseline Submitting Depturmt:nt(s): Deveiopment Services Department (Engineering) Project No,: ST-35 Pro,;oet Description: Widen Waterman Avenue from four lanes to six lanes from Sth Street to Baseline Street adding approximately 3.6 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688,321...e miles, All of the proposed additional major road scgll10llls conWned in ST-01 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General PI... buUd-out while the existing community has g...eratod 92,6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check. inspection. materials/soUs telling 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 % inercssc in dally trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development, This sc8ll1Oll' of roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been disp1ac:ed 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 57'1 increase in the number of daily trip-mUes from the current 5,050,289 daUy trip-miles 10 roughly 7,973,974 dally trip-miles, ... increasc 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 Completing Prq;ect: 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" ud is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F. "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditiODl. back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City' s Circulation Element. Projt:<r Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects dcfault to the "Build-out" column. 20]1>-I/ Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2oo7-(}8 2008-09 2009-10 througb .0 EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection! Administration SO SO SO SO S691,2OO S691.200 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO Construction SO SO SO SO 54,608,000 54,608,000 Contingency SO SO SO SO 5460,800 $460,800 Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S5,760,ooo S5,760,OOO Potential FWlding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a varicty of funds. dcvelopment impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction ~p some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. I (oj ~.-....,.,. .. . "'" l. ,. Iii I I I I I I I I I E I I I E I I I E [ (ej City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Pro.i<<t Title: Vidoria. Richardson to Mountain View PrognutJ: Circu1alion (S_. SilJWI and Bridges) System Submitting Dcparrment(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Projoct No.: ST-36 Project Description: Widen Victoria Avenue and make various improvemenll from Richardson to Mountain View. Engineering plan check. inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have bccn included at lS~ of construction costs and contingency has been. included at lOll of construction costs. All of the proposed additional major road segments eoatained in ST-ol through 51-36 will reprcacnt a mere 6.411 of the total 735.21 It General Plan build-out while the existing community has generlted 92.6" (688.32 miles) of the major roed miles. Engineering plan check, inspection. materials/soUs testing and project administration costs have been included at lS~ of construction costs and contingency has been included at 1011 of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in ac;commodating the nearly 58 ~ increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide all 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 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 ore 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 fiow at the intersectionl 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 FlowM creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that arc consistcnt with thc City's Circulation Element. Prqiect Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the MBuild-out" column. 2010-11 ToUJ PROPOSED 2006-<J7 2007-<J8 2008-<J9 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/ Administrwon $0 SO $0 SO S24.ooo S24.ooo Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 SO SO $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 SO S16O.ooo S16O.OOO Con/ingMCY $0 $0 SO SO S 16.000 S16.ooo Equipment/Other SO $0 SO $0 SO $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 SO S200,000 5200,000 Potential Funding SourcGS: A combination of unobligated monlCl from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. projccts listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 77 The construction of some ... .. ... t" .. ... .. I I I I I I I t I E 5 I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Tide: Traffic Signal @ Little League Drive and 1-215 Frontage Prognm: Circulation (StrccU, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting DcporrmMt(S): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-37 Pro}..t Description: Construct 8 traffic signal at the intersection of Little League Drive and 1-215 Frontage Road. This signal, when developed. will be one of 48 new signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at Gcnerol Plan build-out. All of the proposeclsignal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at Gcncrol Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8l1 (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection. matcrialallOils telting and project IlhniniVration COllI have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. JustifiClltionlRequirem~t for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58" incr.... in daily trip-miles at Gencrol Plan build-out resulting from new development. This acgment of roadway will provide an oltcmalivc for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened. that they have previously been able to use but now rand 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 735.21ane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. ConscqUMCCS of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signal. where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic now at the intersections of s1rccla 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: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/D-ll Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration $0 SO SO SO S24.ooo S24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 SO SO $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 SO SO SO $160,000 SI60,OOO Contingency SO SO SO SO S16.OOO S16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S2OO,OOO S2OO,OOO I Potential Funding Sources: - A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction ~~ some projects listed may be r~uircd as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. ; (c) ,,~,-,.. """. ill l'" ;. ; .. I I I I I ~ I r. Ii I I E I I I I I , City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Tide: Traffi. Sip @ Litl1e League Drive and llelmont Progruz: Cireulation (StredI. Signals and Bridges) Syllem Project No.: ST-38 Submitting Department(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project Deseription: Construct a tramc: signal at the intersection of Little League Drive and Belmont Avenue. This lignal, when developed, will be one of 48 new sips and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General PIon buUd-out. All or the proposed sip proje<:ls eontained in ST-37lhrough ST-84 will ..present a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General PIon buUd-out whUe!he existing community has generated 83.8l1 (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan .hcclt. inapection. materials/aoUs teslin8 and project adminiJlralion costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for ~ject: This intersection needs to be signalized to .omplete the General Plan Cir.uIation Syllem and will _is! in accommodating !he nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This "pent 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 !he number of daily trip-miles from the .urrcat 5.0SO.289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7.973,974 daily trip-miles, an in....... of 2.923,685 daily trip miles. The.. ..elimits as to how many additional I... miles can be constructed, thus optimum trafne signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 73S.21ane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequ""... 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 ofvchiclcs waiting upstream aCthe intersection", Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City' 5 Circulation Element. ProJect TiIning: Projeet timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 ToW PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-(}8 2008-D9 2009- 10 through 011 EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration SO SO $0 SO S24.ooo S24,ooo Land A.quisition/Right of Way SO SO SO $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 SO S16O.ooo S16O.ooo Contingency SO $0 $0 SO S16,ooo SI6,ooo Equipment/Other $0 SO $0 SO SO $0 TOTAL COST $0 SO SO SO S2OO,OOO S2OO,OOO . Potential Funding Sources: 1 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction7~ some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (c) .,....,.. pi .. t ;: [ E E , I ; E I t ; E I E I E i E I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Traffic Signal @ Palm and Cajon Program: Circulation (Streets. Sipals and Bridg..) Syllcm Submitting Deparrmcnt(.): Development Servic:.. Deportment (Engineering) Project No.: ST-39 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Cajon Boulevard. This .ignal. when developed. will be one of 48 new lipals and will repr....t 16.2% of the City's total 297 sipals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed aipal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 aignalsat General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan cheek. inlpeetion. materialallOils teating and project admini5tration COltS have_ included at 1511 of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Pro}ect: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly sail 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 widcned. that they have previously been able to use but now flAd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-mil.. from the currcDt 5.050.289 daUy trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an incr.... of 2,923,685 daUy trip mil... There are limits.. to how many additional I... miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to mB'I';_m;7~ 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 iI1sta11 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 Row" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection", Level F, "Forced Row" creates "Jammed conditiolLl, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore.n projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20JD-J/ Total PROpOSED 2006-07 2007-<JB 200B-<J9 2009-JO through oJ) EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Deaignllnspectionl Administration SO SO SO SO S24,000 S24,OOO Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO COlJstrucfion SO SO SO SO S16O,000 S16O,000 COlJtingency SO SO SO SO S16,000 SI6.000 Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S2OO,OOO S2oo.000 Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees. and specific agreements. The construction ~Psome projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (e) ... III t [ t t [ I I t I I I I I I I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Tit/e: Traffic Signal @ Pllm ond Industrial Propm: Circu1ation (Strccls, Signals ond Bridges) Sysrem Submitting DcpMrment(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST -40 Project Description: Co~struct a traffic signal at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Indultrial Parkway_ This signal. when developed, will be one of 48 new signlls ond will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 sips at Gcnerol Plan build-out. All of the propoacd signal prop c:ontaincd in 5T-37 through 5T-84 will r.prClCllt a only 16.2% of the total 297 sips at Gcncrol Pion build-out while the ..iatiDg commllllily bas generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check. inspection, materials/soils tcsting and project .dminiltration cost:I 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 alterDatiVe 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 daily trip-miles from the current 5.050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, on iner.... of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There arc limits as to how monyaddilioDa11ane miles can be constructed. thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely nocessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 73S.2lane miles of existing collector/arterW roads. Consequences of Nor Completing Project: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Serviee (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: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City:s Circulation Element. Project Timing' Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Toul PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Dcsign/lnspccrjon/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,400 $14,400 Lwd Acquisition/Right of ",aX $0 $0 $0 $0 ; $0 $0 COJlStruction $0 $0 $0 I $0 ~ $96,000 $96,000 C untingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,600 $9,600 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $120,000 1_", Potential Funding Sources: A ';0mbi.nal1on ul unobh~ated monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees. and specific a~rccmcnts. The construction ~l some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. ; W ~~ ,. .. , E E , E I I I I I E I I I I I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: TrlfflC Signal @ Palm and 1-215 ramps Progrom: Circulation (Str..... Signals and Bridges) System Submitting DepartmM/(S): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-4l Projoc/ Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Palm Avenue and [-215 Ramps. This signal. when developed. will be one of 48 new signals and will represent 16.2 % of the City's total 297 signalsat General Plan bulld-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST - 37 through ST-84 will rcpr....t. only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at Gcacral Plan bulld-out while the eltisling eOlDlllunily has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soill testing and projcet 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 acc:ommodating the nearly 58 ~ incr.... in daily trip-miles It Gcacral Plan bulld-out resulting from new development. Thia segment of roadw.y will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displlced from roadwlY 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% incr.... in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5.050.289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 dally trip-miles, an increase of 2,923.685 daily trip miles. There arc limits IS to how many additional lane miles can be constructed. thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan muimwn 73S.21anc miles of existing collector/arterial roads. ConscqlJenccs 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 "Uftltable 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: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010 11 TouJ PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2oo8-(}9 2009-10 through .n EXPENDITURES Build-out YOMS Design/Inspection/Administration SO SO SO SO S39,6OO S39,6OO I Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO I SO $0 $0 $0 C Ollstruction $0 SO SO $0 . $264,000 S264,000 Contingency SO $0 SO SO S26,4OO S26,4OO Equipment/Other SO $0 SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S330,000 S330,000 Potentia} Fundinf! Sources: ! A comblflatlon of unobligated monies from a ....anet)' of funds. development impact fees. and specific agreements. projects listed may be requtred as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. 82 The construction of some (0) ~.-' !II: lit I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Progrtun: Circulation (Streets, Sipals and Bridges) System Project Title: Traffic Signa1 @ Palm and Irvington Submitting DepartmOllt(S): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-42 Prqject Description: ConstruCt a traffic signa1 at the intersection of Palm AvOll.. and Irvington AvOll... This sipal. whan developed. will be OlIO of 48 - sipals and will reprcsentI6.2'11 of the City's total 297 signa1s at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed sipal projects contained in ST-37 through ST -84 will repr....t a only 16.2'11 of the total 297 signa1..t General Plan build-out while the existing community has ganerated 83.8'11 (249 signals) of thetotalsigna1s. Engineering plan check. inspection. materials/soil. _g 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 Projoct: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will usist in accommodating the nearly 58 iI 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 S71i increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-mile. to roughly 7.973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2.923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how manyadditioa.allane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 73S.2lane 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 inlcrseclions of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Row" and is identified .s "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: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. 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 2oo6-{)7 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through aJJ EXPENDITURES BuiJd-out Years Design/Inspection/ AdmitJjstration SO SO SO SO S18,000 S18,000 LaJJd Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO Constructjon SO SO SO SO S120.ooo S120.ooo Contingency SO SO SO SO S12.ooo S12.ooo Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S150.ooo $150,000 Potentja] Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated mORles from a variety of funds. development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction 80f some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. I (oj . . .'-'It. _,L,..,., .".,., t I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I \ I I I i I I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Program: Circulation (Streeta, SiBJWs and Bridges) Syllem Project Tjd.: TraffIC Signal @ Palm and Belmont Submltblg DepartmeJIt(.): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-43 l'n!;cct Descrjptk>n: .. 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'stotal 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects conWned 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 bas gcncratcd 83.8'11 (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soUs testing and project administration COllI bave ~ included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 1011 of construction costs. Justmeauon/ReqWrement for Prq,ject: This intersection needs to be signalized 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 fmd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional S7~ increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-mile. to roughly 7.973,974 dally trip-miles, an increa.. of2,923,68S dally trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely ncccssary to ma.w;rni7f'! the General Plan maximum 735.21anc miles of existing collector/arterial roads. ConscqueJIccs of Not Completing l'n!;ect: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Serviu (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 DOCULDt:l2t: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Pr~;ect TiI1Ung: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projcc:ts default to the "Build-out" coluDUl. 201G-ll Totol PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through .n EXPENDITURES Build-out y...,., Design/lnspectionl Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24.000 Land AcqujsjtjonlRight of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 SO $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 Potentia) Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees. and specific a.greements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 84 The construction of some (0) 'ro"''''l'.2liil6'.''''' l'" lr. t I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I, I I. (e) City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Tjde: Traffic Signal @Campus Parkway (Pepper-Linden) and Industrial Prognm: Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) Syllem Suhmirting Departmcnt(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST -44 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Campus Parkway and Industrail Parkway. ThiJ lignal. when developed. will be one of 48 new signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan bulld-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 wlll represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan bulld-out while the exilting community bas generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan cheek, inspection, materials/solls testing and project adminillralion COIlS have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10~ of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Pr~;ccr: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly S8~ increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan buUd-out resulting from new development. Thi5 ICgmCJlt of roadway will provide an altemative for drivers who have been displaecd from roadway segments, unable to be widened. that they have previously been able to use but DOW rmd at msximum carrying c:apacity. 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 increaseof2,923,685 daily trip mlles. There ore limits as to how many adclitional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to m&..T;mh.. the General Plan maximum 73S.2lanc miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing P~jcct: Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic now 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 8S "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: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City' 5 Circulation Element. Project nnting: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "BuUd-out" column. 2010-11 ToW PROPOSED 2006-07 2OO7-OS 2OOS-<J9 2009-/0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection! AdllUnistrsdon SO SO SO SO S24,000 S24.OOO LsmJ AetjuUjUon/Rjght of W.y SO SO SO SO SO SO Construction SO SO SO SO S16O,000 SI6O,ooo Contingency SO SO $0 SO S16,000 S16,000 EquipmmtlOther $0 $0 SO SO $0 SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S200,OOO S200,ooo PotcnUal FUlJdwg 50urees: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. developmem impact fees. and specific agreements-. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for whi~h a credit would be received. 85 The construction of some t E I I' I I I I I I I I . I I I , I I I E (el City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Program: Traffic SigDal @ Campus Parkway (Pepper-Linden) and 1-215 Ramps Circulation (Streets, Sipa1s and Bridges) System Submittillg Deperrmea/(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-45 Pro.iCCl Ikscription: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Campus Parkway and 1-215 Ramps. This signal. wben developed, will be one of 48 new lignals and will reprcsentI6.2" of the City'stoul297 sipa1s at General Plan build-out. All of the propoacd signal projects c:ontained 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 thetoulsignals. Engineering plan check, inapectioo, materials/soils _g and project administration costa bave been included at lSlJ of construction costs and contingency has been included at lOll of construction costs. Justilic.ationIRcquiremeD.t for Project: This intersection needs '0 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 aD. 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 llIlIXimum 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 deily trip-miles, an incr.... of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how manyaddilionallane miles can be constructed. thus optimum traffic signal configuration is ablOlutely neceuary to mBY;.n;7P. the General Plan maximum 73S.21ane miles of ex.isting collcetor/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". RcferMce DocUlIJt:Ilt: Stafr cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 201D-n PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-oS 2008-(}9 2009-10 through EXPENDITURES Build-out DesignllnspectionlAdministntion SO SO SO SO $42,000 L4nd Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO Construction SO SO SO SO S280.000 Contingency SO SO SO SO S28,000 Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S350,000 Total all Years S28,OOO SO S350,OOO Potential Fundillg Sources, A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 86 The construction of some t c I r E E E I I E I I I I E I I I E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Progrom: Circ_ (StreclS, SigIIIIs and Bridges) System Project Tide: TraffIC Signal @Campus Parkway and Northpark Submitting Department(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST -46 p,~jcct Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intcrscc:tion of Campus Parkway and Northpark Boulevard. This signal. when developed. will be one of 48 new signals and wUl represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan buUd-out. All of the proposed signal projects c:ontaIncd in S1-37 through 51-84 wUl rcpresenta only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan buUd-out while the eltialing commllllily bas generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspec:tion, matcria1sllOUS teating and project adminiIlration colli have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 1011 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 5811 increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alterutive 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 oumber of dally trip-mUes from the cuneul 5,050,219 dally trip-Pilles to roughly 7.973,974 dally trip-mUes, an increase of 2,923,685 dally trip mUes. There arc limits as to bow many additiooa! lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to m,w;mi7e the General Plan maximum 73S.2lane mUes of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Prqicct; 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; Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Tor.} PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES BuiJd-out Years Design/Inspection! Ad_mon SO SO SO SO S24.000 S24.000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO Construction SO SO SO SO S16O,OOO SI6O,OOO Contingency SO SO SO SO S16,OOO S16,OOO Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S2oo,OOO $200,000 Potentjal Funding Sources: 87 A combination of unobiigated 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) " ill E I I I I I I I: a I I I I I I I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail P"!jeI:t Tid.: TraffIC Signal @ Sierra (CSUSB) and Northpark Prognm: Circulation (S_. Signals and Bridges) SyllCJll Submitting Department(.): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-47 Project Description: Construct a traffic signa1 at the intencction of Sierra (CSUSB) and Northpark Boulevard. This lignal. when developed. will be one of 48 new signsls and will rcpr....t 16.2 % of the City' slota! 297 lignals at Genersl Plan build-out. All of the proposed lignal projccll contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the tota!297 oignals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the totsl signsls. Engineering plan check, in5pac:tion, -.rials/soils testing and project adminiatration co... have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. 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) traffie !low at the intersections of _ with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "UnstIble Flow" and i" identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F. "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditiona, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". 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 fCSulting (rom new development. ThiJ segment of roadway will provide an a1temative (or 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 additionslS7% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the currcnlS,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 lanc miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.21anc miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element. 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-D8 200S-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection! Administration 50 50 $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 Contingoncy $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 SO $0 $200,000 S2OO.000 Potential Funding Sources: 88 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. II" .. t I I ! i I I I I E I I I I I E I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: TraffIC Signal @ K...daIl and 48th ProgRl1J: Circulation (Srroers, Signals and Bridges) Sy_ Su~mitting Deportment(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Pro,ject No.: ST-48 Project Description: Construct 8 traffic: signal at the intersection of Kendall Drive and 48th Street. This signal. when developed,. will be one of 48 new .ignals and will r.pr.....' 16.2% of the City'statal 297 lignolu' Genersl PIan build-out. All of the proposod signal projects contained in ST -37 through ST -84 will r.pr...nts only 16.2% of the total 297 signalut Gen.rs1 Plan build-out whlle the existing community has g....rated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan cheek. inspection. materials/soil. testing and project: administration costs have been indudod at 15lk of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10~ of construction costs. Jwtifi..uon/Roquirement for Project: This int.rsection need. to b. signalized to complete the Gen.rsl Plan Circulation System and will usis! in aoeommodating 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 735.21ane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequenceo 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 bottl...eck. Level "E" is "Unstabl. Row" 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: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Pro}ect Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 201D-J/ Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-oS 200S-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/ Administr.tion $0 $0 $0 $0 $21.000 $21.000 Land Acquisition/Right of W.y $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: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 89 The construction of some ,::~:::::,'. (e) ,. ~. 3IIl6 .<... . . iIIIl ,. .. ; E E I I I I t E I E I m I I I m City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Progrom: Circu1alion (Streets, SignaIJ and Bridges) System Pro.i<<I Title: TraffIC Signal @ Lillie Mountain and 30th Submitting Dcp4rtmcnt(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-49 Pr~jccr Description: Construct a traffic signa1at the interscc:tion of Little Mountain Drive and 30th Street. This signal. when developed. will be one of 48 new signals and will represent 16.21\; of the City's tOlll! 297 signals at General Plan buUd-out. All of the proposed signal projccls contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent 8 only 16.290 of the total 297 lignall at General Plan build-out while the existing community bas generated 83.81\; (249 signals) ofthetota! signals. Engineering plan chock, inspeCtion, materials/soUs testing and project administralion costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency bas been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Pro,;ect: This intersection neads to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodatiog the nearly 58" increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an altemativc 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 expoet an additional 571\; increase in the number of dally trip-mUes from the currclll 5,050,289 daily trip-mUes to roughly 7,973,974 daUy trip-mUes, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip mUes. There arc limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum tramc signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 73S.21ane mUes of ellisling collcc:tor/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: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 201o-/J Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009- 10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/lnspectionl AdIninistration SO SO SO SO S24,OOO S24,OOO Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO Coustruction SO SO SO $0 1 SI60,OOO SI60,OOO Contingency SO SO SO SO S16,OOO SI6,OOO Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S200,OOO $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: A ..;ombination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees, and specific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 90 The construction of some (0) ~.2lll>>"',"":,, .. iii E ; t E I I I I' I I I E I I I I I E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Titl.: Traffu: Signal @ Little Mountain and 48th ProgrtUD: CircuJatioD (S_. SipaU and Bridg..) SyllcJll Submitting Dcpartm.../(.): Dcvelopm...t Services DcpartmCllt (Engineering) Project No.: ST -50 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the interscc:tion of Little Mountain Drive and 48th Strccl. Thla signal, whCII developed, will be one of 48 new sianaIs and will rcprcocnt 16.2% of the City's tota1297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the propoacd signal projccll contained in ST-37 throush ST-84 will reprCOCllt a only 16.2% of the tota1297 signals at General PIon build-out while the existing commWlity has gClloratcd g3.g% (249sianaIs) of the total sianaIs. Engineering plan cbeck, inspection, matcrials/lOils testing and project adminimalion coIlll have been included at lS~ of construction c:osts and contingency has been included at lO~ of "construction costs. Justification/Requirement for P~ject: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 S increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan buUd-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 expoet an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miIos from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7.973,974 daily trip-mil... an increase. of 2,923,685 daily trip mil... There arc limits as to how many additiona1lono miles can be constructed. thus optimum traffiC signal configuration is absolutely necessary to ma.:wlmi7"" the General Plan maximum 73S.21ane 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 ofvemcles waiting upstream of the intersection-. Level F, "Forced Flow- creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 TouJ PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Year. Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $21.000 $21.000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 C olJsfruction $0 I $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 Fundinp Sources: A .:omblDatlon of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees. and specific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. 91 The construction of some (e) . .,).Zlll6. ........... ... IlII t E 1- I I I I 1- s E I I I I I I I E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Ptojoct Tille: Traffic Sip @ Little Mountain and Northpark Ptognm: Circulation (Strcers, SignalJ and Bridges) System Submimng DoportmOJ//(s): Development Services Department (Enginooring) Ptojoct No.: ST-51 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Uttlc Mountain Drive and Northpatk Boulevard. This signal. when developed. will be one of 48 new sips and will represent 16.2" of the City's toW 297 signals at Gcaoral Plan buUd-out. All of the proposod sipal prop _..;ned in ST - 37 through ST -84 will rcpr....t s only 16.2" of the toW 297 sips at Gcaoral Plan buUd-oUl while the existing COIlllDUDiry has generated S3.SIt (249 signals) of the total sips. EnSineering plan chock, inspection, materials/soUs testing and project sdministration costJ have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justifleation/Require11Jcnt for Prq,;cct: This intersection noods to be sipized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and willassill in ICCOllllDodating the nesrly 5S" increase in daily trip-Dilles at General Plan build-out resulting from ncw development. This legment of roadway will provide an alterMtive for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments. unable to be widened. that they have previously been able to use but now rmd at msximum ..rrying cspscity. The City csn expect an sdditional 57" inCtNK in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,05O,2g9 daily trip-mUes to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-mUes, an incr.... of 2,923,6g5 daily trip miles. There ore limits as to how many sddilionallane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 73S.21ane 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 qucues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations ratrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. TherefOR all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-11 ToW PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-(}9 2009-/0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out y"", Design/lnspectionl Administration SO SO SO SO S21,000 S21,000 LlUJd AcquisiUonlRight of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO , C ollstruction SO SO : SO SO I S140,000 SI40,ooo Contingency SO SO SO SO S14,000 S14,000 Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S175,000 S175,000 Potcnria) Funding Sources: A combination 01 unobligated monies from a variety of funds. dc...e1opment impact fees. IlIld specific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be recei...ed. 92 The construction of some (oj -.:..llIIl6.. ... .. t E [ m E I I I E I I I I I E ; I I' City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Prognm: Circu1alioo (Streets. Signals and Bridges) Syllcm Project Tide: Traffic Signal @ State and (-210 Submitting Deparrmen'(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST -52 Project-Description: Construct a traffIC signal at the intersec:tion of State Strc<t and 1-210 Rampa. This signal. when developed, will be one of 48 new sigDals and will represent 16.2 % of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan bulld-out. All of the proposed signal projects c:ontained in ST -37 through 51-84 will represent a only 16.2% of thetota! 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 cosu have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justjfjcation/Rcquircmenr fOT Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circ:u1ation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 S incr.... in dally trip-miles at General Plan bulld-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 rmd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57'% inc:rca.sc in the number of daily trip-miles from the culTCAt 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 Pro.iect: Failure or inability to construct bridge widths where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersec:tions of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck.. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and i. identified as "long q...... of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F. "Forced Row" creates "Jammed conditions. back-ups from other locations restrict Or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the Citf's Circulation Element. Projt:ct Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2()()6-{J7 2007-{J8 2008-09 2009-10 through aJJ EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration SO SO SO SO $42.000 $42.000 L1Jld Acquisition/Right of ",'ily SO SO SO $0 $0 $0 Construction SO : SO SO $0 , S280.ooo S280.ooo Contingency SO $0 $0 SO S28,000 S28.ooo Equipment/Other SO $0 SO SO $0 $0 TOT Ai. COST SO $0 SO $0 S350,000 S350,000 PotentjaJ Fundinp Sour~es: A ..:ombUlation of unoblif!.ated monics from a variety of funds, development impact fees, andspcclfic a~reements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. 93 The construction of some (c) ... .. . i. E I' I I I I I E I I s I ; I I I E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: TraffIC Signal @ Merdiln and Rialta Program: Circu1ation (Streets, Signals and Bridg..) System Submming DeportmClJt(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No,: ST -53 Projoct Description: 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 will repr...nt 16.2% of the City'stota! 297 signals at General Plan bulld-out. All of the propoted signal projects conWncd in ST-37 through ST-84 wlll 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 thetota! signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, matcrials/solla testing and prajcc:t administration casu haye been included at IS9'C of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. 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 "EM 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". Justi/icaUon/RcquiremClJt for Project: This intersC(:tion needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly S811 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% inc..... in the number of dally trip-mil.. from the current 5,050.289 dally trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 dally trip-mil.., an inc..... of 2,923,685 dally trip mil... There arelimils as to how manyaddilionallanc miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal cOnfiguration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 73S.21ane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore: all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20JO-/J Totm PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-JO through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/ AdaUnistration SO SO SO SO S24.OOO $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO Construction SO SO SO SO SI60.ooo SI60,ooo Contingency SO SO SO SO S16.OOO S16,ooo Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S200,ooo S200,OOO Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees, and specific agreements. projC(:ts listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. . 94 The construchon at some (oj -.".2lO6'" .. . till It "" lit I I I t I ~.. ,- . I ; ; I I I I \ I s I E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Program: Circulotion (Str..... Signals and Bridges) System Project Tid.: Ttamc Signal @ Macy and Mill Submitting DepartmMt(S): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST -54 Project Description: Construct B. traffic signal at the intersection of Macy Street and Mill Street. The project conaists of constructing intcnection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects c:ontaincd in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a oaly 16.2" of the total 297 signals at Gen.ral Plan build-out whil. the.xisting commWlity bas g....rated 83.8" (249 aignala) ofth.total signals. Enginccrin& plan check, inspection. materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at lS~ of construction c05tS and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for ~;ect: This int.rsection needs to b. signalized to complete the Gen.ral Plan Circulotion System and will assist in llCCommodoting the nearly 58" incrcuc in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. Thilacgmcnt 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 571 increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050.289 daily trip-mil.s to roughly 7,973.974 daily trip-miles, an incr.... of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. Ther. ar.limits as to how many additionall... miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely neecuary to maximiZe the General Plan maximum 73S.2lanc 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 vehiclCl waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions. baek-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 201G-lJ PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through EXPENDITURES Build-out Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 l.Mld Acqws.itiOll!Rigbt of W.y $0 $0 $0 SO $0 Construction $0 $0 SO $0 S16O,OOO Contingency $0 $0 SO SO SI6,OOO Equipment/Other $0 $0 SO $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 SO S200,OOO Total .n y..,. SI6O.000 S16,OOO POIMtjlll Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees, and spec:ific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 95 The construction of some (0) ... .. .. I. ,. . I I E I I I E I I E I I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: TraffIC Signal @ Rancho (State) and Foothill Prognm: Circulation (Streets. Signals and Bridges) System Submilling DeportmCllt(S): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-55 Pr~jt:ct Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Rancho Avenue (State) and Foothill Blvd. The project consists of COJlstru~ iDtcnCCtion improvements and instaI1ing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projocta contained in ST -37 through ST -84 will represent I only 16.2" of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generlted 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 S8~ 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 widcnod, 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 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 arc 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 73S.2lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Prqject: 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 ME" 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: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. 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-()9 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out y...,.. Design/Inspection! Administration SO $0 $0 SO S30,OOO S30,OOO Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 SO S200,OOO S200,OOO Contingency $0 $0 SO SO S20,OOO $20,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 SO SO S250,OOO S2SO.000 ~ ~~- % Ii A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fccs, and specific agreements. The construction or some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. E (0) .,.:~..2OlIIl". .. .. till II '" .. I I I t . E E I E . I , E I t p it City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ProfJ1B11J: Circu1alion (Strec:II. Sipalllllll Bridges) Syllem Project Title: Traffic Signal @ MiramolllC IIllI 27th Submitting DcpartmcIlt(,): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-56 Project Description: MConstruct a traffic signal at the intersection of Miramontc Drive and 7th Street. The project consists of constructing interIcdioD improvemenll and installing traffic signals. All of the propo~.ipal projects CODlaincd in ST-37 through ST-84 will rcp..- a oaly 16.2" of the total 297 .ignal. at General Plan build-out while the eJ<iIling community bas generated 83.8" (249 signala) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materialslsoil.tcsting and project administration COIlS have been included at IS" of conatruclion COIlS and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for P~;cct: 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 fuul at maximum csrrying cspscity. The City can expect an additional 57% incr.... 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"f 2,923.685 daily trip miles. There arc limits as to how many ..""",.,1 lane miles can be constructed. thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to ma'l'imi7c the General Plan maximum 73S.2lanc miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not CompJeting 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 M. Level F. "Forced FlowM creates" Jammed conditions. back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effon. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 TotJJJ PROPOSED 2~7 2OO7-OS 2OOS-D9 2009-10 through aJJ EXPENDITURES Build-out Ye&rI Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 SO $0 S24.000 S24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO $0 SO $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 SI6O.000 S16O,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 SO S16,000 S16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 TOTAL COST SO $0 SO SO S2oo,000 Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees, and specific agreements. pr6jcc:ts listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. 97 The construction of some (e) 1iIiiMry. .... .. flI< .. '" Ii I' Ii I I I I: ; I E E I ; E I E E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Prognm: Circulotion (Streets. Signah and Brid8") Sy_ Projoct Title: Traffie Sip @ Mountain and Kendall Submitting Dcpartmen/(.): Development Service. Depenment (En8ineerin8) Project No.: ST-51 Project Description: Construct a traffic: signal at the intersection of Mountain Drive and Kendall Drive. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installin8 traffie .i8JlO!.. All of the proposed .i8JlO! projects contained in ST-31 throu8h ST-84 will represent e only 16.2~ of the total 297 .i8JlO!. at General Plan build-out whilo tho oxistin8 coll1llllUlily bes 8cnorated 83.8~ (249 .i8JlO!.) of the toosl sipals. Engineering plan check. inspection. materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at IS% of CODItrUCtion COItI and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justjfjeation/Requircmcnt for Project: Thi. intersection need. to bo .i8JlO!izod to complete the General Plan Cireu1alion Sy_ and will as.ist in accommodarin8 the nearly 58 ~ increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from Dew development. This segment of roadway will provide aD. IIltemativc for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widelled, that they have previously been able to use but now fmd at lIWtimum carryin8 capacity. Tho City can oxpect an additional 51~ increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5.050,289 dally trip-miles '0 roughly 7,913.974 daily trip-miles. an inerease of 2,923.685 daily trip mil... Thoro arolimits as to how manyadditional1ano miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 73S.2lane 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: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 201G-ll ToW PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build..."u/ Years Design/Inspection! Administr.tion SO SO SO SO S24,000 S24,OOO Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO Construction SO SO SO SO S16O,000 S16O,OOO Contingency SO SO SO SO S16,000 SI6,OOO Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S2OO.000 S2OO,OOO Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees, and specific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 98 The construction of some (0) -.,.. - - - - - .. lit m I I ,. .. t t ,. .. I E EI I I II I Ii . I I t' m City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Traffic Signal @ Mountain and 48th ProgrtUll: Circulation (SlrcctI, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST -58 Pr'?,;cct Description: Construct 8 traffic signal at the intersection of Mountain Drive and 48th Street. The project consilll of constructiJlg intersectioD improvements and insllllling traffIC signals. All of the proposccl aignal projecla contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2" of the lC!Ol297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has gcoerated 83.8" (249 signals) of the total signals. EnginNrin& p.... cbock, inspection. materials/soUs testing and project administration costs have been included at IS11 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 S increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This legment of roadway will provide an altemative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now fmd 8t maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional S7~ increase in the number of daily trip-milcs from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973.974 daily trip-miles, an increase of2,923.68S daily trip miles. There arc limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maxim.izc the General Plan maximum 73S.21ane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to in5talJ. 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 prevCDt movement" . Reference Documtmt: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City,) Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20J(J-lJ TolII/ PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009- JO through .0 EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration SO $0 $0 SO S24.OOO S24,ooo LaJld Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 COIJstruction $0 $0 SO SO $160.000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 SO SO S16.OOO $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 SO SO $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 SO $0 S200.ooo S200.ooo Potential Funding Sources: r\ combination of unobhgated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fecs, and specific agreements. proJccts listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. The construction o?~me (0) ,...,." ,.... ....".,'..,...... ........,.... -.,.-.......:.,. - .. - .. '" .. I ; E ,. .. t , ,. . I E E i Ie I ~ I I I ; E I', , E t City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Program: Circulation (S_, Signals and Bridges) System Project TjtJe: Traffic Signal @ Mountain and Northpark SubnUtUng Dopartment(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST -59 Project DescrjptjOll: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Mountain Drive and Northpuk Boulevard. The project consistl of COIlItI'UCting intersection improvements and instAlling traffic signals. All ofthc proposed signal projects conWncd in ST-37 through ST-1l4 will represent a only 16.2$ of the total 297 signals at General Plan buUd-out wbile the ellisting community bas generated 83.8$ (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection. materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been inc:ludcd at lS~ of construction eosts and contingency has been included at IO~ of construction costs. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would redU" the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intenecti.ODJ of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottlcncc:k. 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" . Justilica1ionlRoqWrement 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 altcmative 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 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. Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Prq;ect TUnblg: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 201D-II ToW PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through sil EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspectionl AdministrlJtion SO SO $0 SO S21.OOO S21.OOO Land Acquisition/Right of ",ay $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 c..J/JstructiolJ $0 SO SO $0 ' $140,000 $140,000 ComiJJgency SO SO $0 $0 $14.000 SI4,ooo Equipment/Other $0 $0 SO $0 SO SO TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 SO $175.000 S175.ooo Potential Funding Sources. A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 100 The construction of liOmc (0) I-.y. ... - ... .. .. It I ; I , E c " . I E I E ( E I t E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail P~jec/ Tide: Traffic Signal @ "I" Street and ln1and Center Drive Program: Circulltion (Streets, Signals and Bridges) Sy...... Submilling Deporrmen/(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) ProjeCt No.: ST-60 Pr~;ect Description: Construct a traffic: signal at the intersection of ''}"' Street and Inland Center Drive. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projetU contained in ST-37 through ST-84 wiD 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 c:hcck. inspcetion. materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at lS~ of construction costa and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement fOT Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly S811 increase in daily trip-mUes at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide AD 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 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 .dditiftnllllane 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 Prqicct: 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 vchiclct waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F. "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Prq}cct Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010- JJ Toto! PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-()8 2008-Q9 2009-10 through oJ] EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/lnspection/ Administrtltion SO SO SO SO S24.ooo S24,ooo La.ud Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO, SO $0 COIJstruction $0 i $0 SO $0 ' $160,000 SI60,ooo ContuJgency SO $0 SO SO S16.OOO SI6,ooo Equipment/Other SO $0 SO $0 SO $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 SO $0 S2OO,OOO S2OO,OOO Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees, and specific a~reements projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 101 The construction of some (0) ~.-,....., - .. ,... .. I'" l. m t ; t ; t E I E I I I I I I I t E , I I , I i i I E E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Titl.: Traffic Signal @ "H" Street and Marshall Program: Circulation (Streets. Signals and Bridgos) System Submitting Dopartment(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-61 Project Description: Construct a traffic: signal at the intersection of "H" Street and Marshall Boulevard. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projeols contained in ST-37 through 5T-84 will represent a ooIy 16.2" of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8~ (249 signals) aCthe total signals. Engineering plan check. inspection. materials/soils testing and projcet administration costs have been included at 1511 of construction costJ and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. JU$tification/RequiremeDt for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 S increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan buUd-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for driven who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened. that they have previously been able to use but now fiDd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 5711 increase in the number of daily trip-mUes from the current 5,050.289 daily trip-mil.. to roughly 7,973.974 daily trip-milos, an incr.... of 2.923,685 daily trip milos. There are limits as to how manyadditionall... miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely DCCClsal)' to maximize the General Plan maximum 73S.21ane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing ~;cct: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduc:c 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: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/D-ll ToW PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration SO SO $0 SO $24.000 S24,OOO Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO $0 Construction SO SO $0 $0 i $160,000 SI60.ooo Contingency $0 SO SO $0 $16,000 S16.ooo Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO $0 TOTAL COST SO $0 SO SO S200,000 S200,OOO Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees, and specific n~recmcnts. projC\:ts listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. The construction1 ~~me (,) ",' .., -',-'--" ~~ZIJ6..;-,.,.. - - jIIIII lIa '" . I ; E ; t c I i I II ! II I r,1 . I , . .1 t E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Pr~i<<t Title: Traffic Signal @ Auto Plaza and Fairw.y ProgrtUD: Circulalion (S_, Signals and Bridges) System Suhmitting Deplutment(.): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST -62 Prq;cct Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Auto Plaza Drive and Fairway Drive. The project consists of constructing interJection improvements and installing tr.ffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will ropr.....t. oaly 16.2~ of the total 297 signals.t General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8~ (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check. inspection. materials/soUs testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction colts. Justiliation/Rcquire11lenr for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation SyJtem and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 S increase in daily trip-mUes at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide IJI 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 571 increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 dally trip-miles, an incr.... of 2,923,685 dally trip miles. There are limits as to how many addition.] lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to ma'l'irn;7C the General Plan maximum 73S.2lane 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 intcncdions 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: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all 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/lnspection/ Ad11Jinjstration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24.000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 SO $160.000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 SO $16.000 $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 SO SO $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobli~ated monics from a vanety of lunds, development impact fees, and specific a~rccmcnts. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 103 The construction of some (0) -.,.- ... iIw ... L "" &. i ~ ; ; t t [ ~ E I E , E I ; L City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Tide: Traffic Signal @ .E. Street and Cen.ury Program: Circulation (StreelJ, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Deputmen.(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST -63 P~;ect Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of "E" Street and Century Avenue. The projec;t conailb of constructing intersection improvcmems and installing traffIC signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% ofthe.otaI 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8~ (249 .ignals) of the total signals. Engineering plan ehcck. inspection. materials/soUs testing and project administration costs have been included at 15~ of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justilication/RoquircJJJt:lJt for Project: This tntcrscction needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan. Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly S8~ increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan buiId-out resulting from new dcvdopment. 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 rmd at maximum carrying capaciry. The City can expeel an additional 5711 incr_ in the numbe. 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 additiona1 lane miles can be constructed. thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 73S.21ane 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: Staff cost cstimatc5 that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Projcc:t timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore aU projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 TolIll PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDiTURES Build-out Year> Design/Inspection/Administration SO SO SO SO S24,OOO S24,ooo Land A<9uisilioofRjgbt of W.y SO SO SO $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 SO $0 SO S160,OOO SI60,OOO Contingency $0 $0 SO SO SI6,OOO S16,000 Equipment/Other SO $0 SO SO SO $0 TOT AI.. COST $0 $0 SO $0 S2oo,OOO S2oo,OOO Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 104 The construction of some (0) "'"""'.-..... ".. l. [ r .. ... \. t E E E [ [ E E I I [ E E ; E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail PTC!;ect Tide: Traffic Signal @ "E" Street and Orange Show Lane Program: Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST -64 P~;oct Description: Construct a traffic: signal at the intersection of "E" Street and Orange Show Lane. The project consists of constructing intcrlCCtioA improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projec:lS contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will rcpreseata 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 l'r<l;ecr: This intersec:tion needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will usist in accommodating the nearly SBlI 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 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 735.21ane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing PTC?,;ect: Fallure 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: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore aU projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-GS 200S-G9 2009-10 through .0 EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection! Administration SO SO SO SO S24,000 S24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO Construction SO SO $0 SO S16O,000 $160,000 Contingency $0 SO $0 SO $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other SO SO $0 SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO $0 S2oo,ooo S2OO,OOO Potential Funding Sources: 0" A combination of unobiigated monies from a variety of funds. development impa.ct fees, and specific agreements. The construc:tioJ or SODlC projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. :',:: I "'1 ... (e) -.y.211tlll>:' . ~ , ." ~ <iiii.> " ..... .< ... .........>i(ii....... < < ...< ...........i ....... ... ii ....< .......... I City of San Bernardino , i ......... > ..... ....i Master Facilities Plan Project Detail .......... ... ! fiii ........... I. ( <... ...ii>i <<< i.... < ...i.' .i...< ..... ..... . Project Title: PrognI1l: i> Trall"'e: Sip @ Arrowhead and Orange Show Lane Cire:ulllion (S_. Signals and Bridg..) SylleJD Submilling Department(s): Project No.: Development Services Department (Engineering) ST -65 .. ~.i.. Projec:t Description: lt~ i COI\Il1'IICl a traffie: sip at the: inlersec:tion of Arrowhead Avenue and Orange Show Lane. The projcc:t consists of c:onstruc:liDg iDterIKlion improvemonts and installingtrame: signals. All of the proposed sip projec:ts e:ontained in ST-37 through ST-1I4 wID rep_ a only 16.2~ . of the total 297 sips at Gene:ral Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8~ (249 sips) ofthc: total sips. ... Engineering plan check. inspection. materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at lS~ of construction costs and contingency has been included at 1011 of construction costs. .. Ii (i Justification/Requirement for Propt: This intcrscetion needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 'I increase in daily trip-mil.. at Gene:ral Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway wID provide an aI_ve for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments. unable to be widened, thai: they have previously been able to use but now fUld at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional S7l1 increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current S.OSO.289 daily If trip-miles to roughly 7,973.974 daily trip-miles, an incr.... of 2.923,685 daily trip mil... There are limits as to how many additioJlal lane ..... miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to mayimi7f'; the General Plan maximum 73S.21ane ,i miles of existing collcetor/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 ii 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: projec:t Timing: .. .... Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not 8 component of this current effort. Therefore all 'i Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. ....... ... Ii I.. 20lo-lJ TouJ Fi PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-}o througb all .i EXPENDITURES Build-out .. y..... Design/inspection! Administration SO SO SO ...... SO S18.OOO S18,000 ii) ) Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO $0 SO SO SO ... Construction SO SO SO ..... SO S120.OOO SI20.000 ii Contingency SO SO SO $0 $12.000 S12,OOO i Equipment/Other SO SO SO $0 SO SO ..... TOTAL COST $0 SO SO $0 $150,000 $150.000 I. . Potential Funding Sources: The constructi~ <t9 aome I A combmation of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific a~reements. projects listed may be required 8S 8 condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (oj .. . . .. . . ..ii i..i. ... . ~.~t :,:,,:>:::,:,::,,::.:.,.-; l'" .. ; t t , E I E E I E I I 5 I I E ,.. .. ~ t I E E I I I ~ I E I E E I E .. .. ; City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Prop Title: Traffic Signal @ Arrowhead and Central ProgrtUl1: Circulation (StreelJ, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Department(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: 5T -66 Pro.ied Ducription: Construct a traffic: signal at the intersection of Arrowhead Avenue and Central Avenue. The project consists of constrUcting intcrlOCtion improvements and installing traffle signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through 51-84 will represent 8. only 16.2'1 of the total 297 signals at General Plan bulld-out whlle the existing community has generated 83.8'A; (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection. materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15'1 of const:rudion costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justi/ication/RequUement 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 fmd 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-mlles to roughly 7.973,974 dally trip-mlles, an increase of 2,923,685 dally trip mll... There are limits as to how manyadditiona11ane 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 Prop: 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 ofvehiclcs waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, .. Forced Flow" creates II Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Prop 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-Q7 2007-QS 200S-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 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $140,000 $140,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000 $14,000 EquipmentlOrJJcr $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $175,000 $175,000 Potentia] Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees, and specifiC agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which. credit would be received. 107 The construction of some (oj _.lllllIi. "'. .. t ; I I I I I I E I I I I I I E , I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ProgrvIJ: Circulation (streets, Sign.ols and Bridg..) SyllClll Project Tide: TraffIC Sign.ol @ Mountain View and 13th Submitting DepartmODt(S): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-li7 Project Descripaon: ConsIrUct. traffic sign.ol at the inleraeclion of Mountain VieW and 13th Street. The project c:onsim of constructing __ improvements and inatalling tr.ffie sign.ols. All of the proposed signal projOClS contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will rcpr.....t. only 16.2" of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.81 (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check. inspection, materials/soUs testing and project administration costs have been included at IS" of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. - Justifleation/RequircllJCDt for Project: This intcraeclion needs to be sign.olized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly sa" increase in daily trip-milcs at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide III alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened. that they have previously been able to use but now rmd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can eXpe<:t an additional S7~ increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the cunent 5,050.289 daily trip-mUes to roughly 7,973,974 d.Uy trip-miles, an iner.... of 2,923,685 daily trip mil... There are limits .s to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 73S.21anc miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Complding Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and nc:cded 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: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "BuUd-out" column. 201D-J/ Tot.sI PROPOSED 2006-{}7 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through aJJ EXPENDITURES Build-out Year. Design/Inspection/ Adl1Jinjstntion $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 Potentia) Funding Sources: A ":vmbmtltlon of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 108 The construction of $Ome . ...... ~...r\%fr!;' (ol "'" 1111 " ill II; I I I I I I I I I I I I I m t ; City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Proj<<:t Tjde: Traffic Signal @ Mountain View and Marshall Program: Circulation (Streets. Sipa1s and Bridges) System Sub",;lting Depsrtrnent(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Proj<<:t No.: ST-68 Project Description: Construct a traffic signals. the intcrscetion of Mountain View and Mulhall Boulevard. The project consists of CODItI'ucting iDtenec:tion improvements and installing traffic siglUlls. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will rcp~ 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 lSlI of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. JustifjelftionlRequirement for Project; This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 Ii increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of rocdway 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 rmd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 51% 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 arc 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 13S.21anc 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 movementN. Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City:s Circulation Element. Pro,iect Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 201Q-ll ToW PROPOSED 2006-07 2OO7-OS 2OOS-()9 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration SO SO SO SO S24.000 S24.000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO $0 $0 COJJstruction SO SO $0 SO SI6O.000 SI6O.000 Contingency SO $0 $0 SO SI6.000 SI6.000 Equipment/Other SO $0 $0 SO SO $0 TOTAL COST SO $0 SO SO S2oo.000 S2OO.000 Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees, and specific agreements. The constructionloQ~me projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. (e) . r .~,~.. ....... . ,. 1. E E I I t I I I ; I I I I I ; I m i City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Progt81lJ: Circu1alion (Streets. Si8JIIIs and Bridges) System Project Title: TraffIC Signal @ Electric ond 48th Submitting Deputmcnt(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST -69 Projoct Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Electric Avenue and 48th Street. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements ond installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2lli of the total 297 signals at General Pion build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8lli (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering pion <beck. inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at IS" of construction costs and contingency b.u 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 ......Iy 58lli incr.... in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new deve1op""", This segment of roadway will provide on alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments. unable to be widened. that they have previously been able to use but now fUld at maximum carrying capacity. The City con e.pecton addilional57lli 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, on increase: of 2.923,685 daily trip mil... There are limits as to how mony addilionallone miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffIC signal configuration is absolutely necessary to ma'l:inli7(' the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Nor Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intcncctions of streets to a Level E or F by acting as a -bottleneck. Level "E" is "Ullltable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehiclCl waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Documenr: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Pro.;ecr Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effon. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010- JJ Tot,,} PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-1J9 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 I $0 $0 $0 $0 COllstructioll $0 . $0 $0 $0 i $160.000 $160,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16.000 $16,000 EquipmeJJt/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 r Potential Funding Sources: 1 0 . A wmbUlallOn 01 unobligated monies from a ....anety of funds, development impact fees, and specific a~rcemcnts. The construction l( some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. , (cj II!IIII ~ E i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Tide, Traffic Signal @ Dolinlc and Mill Program: Circulation (StrCClS, Signals and Bridges) System Submirring DcpartJ1Jt:llt(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No,: ST-70 P~jcct Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Doolittle Street and Mill Street. The projec:t consists of constructing intersection improvements and insWIing traffIC signals. All orlbc proposed signal projects conWncd in ST-37 through 5T-84 will rcprcscnla 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 lS~ of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justification/Requirement for Prqjecr: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly S8lJ increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an altcmative 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 S7~ 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 arc limits as to how manyadclitionallane miles can be constructed. thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely ne=ssary to maYim17C the General Plan maximum 73S.21uae miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing P~iect: 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 Row" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream. of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Row" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 201Q-ll TomJ PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out y cars Design/Inspection/Administration SO SO SO SO S12,000 S12,000 i Lfwd Acquisition/Right of Wax SO SO . SO $0 SO SO COl/struction SO SO SO SO : S80,000 S80,000 Contingency SO SO SO SO S8,000 S8,OOO Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO Sloo,OOO SI00,OOO Potential Funding Sources: A l:umbinahon of unobligated monies from a variety of iunds, development impact fees. and specific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. 111 The construction of some (e) -.,.:mi ..' ... .. .... .. I E I I I I I t I I E I I I E I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Tide: TraffIC Signal @ Lena and Orange Show Road Program: Circulolion (Streets, Signal> and Bridges) System Submirting Deportment!.): Development Servic.es Department (Engineering) Project No.: 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 propoacd signal projects conrainccl in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% oftbe lotal297 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 colts and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justjfj~tion/Requircment for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly S81 inc..... in daily trip-miles at General Plan buUd-out resulting from new development. This segment of rocclway will provide an altcmativc for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now fuui at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional S7~ increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-mil.s, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There arc limits as to how manyadditiona11anc miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely nec:essary to mll'll'in117e the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane miles of exi,,-ing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing PrC?,ject: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce thc Level of Scrvice (LOS) traffic flow at thc 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: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Ti11Jjng: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 TouJ PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDlTURES BuiJd-out Years Design/lnspection/ Adznjnjs/ration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0. $0 i $0 $0 $0 $0 I I C onsrruction SO SO : $0 SO , $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 Fundinp Sources: A combina.tion of unobligated monics from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific <1J!.rcements. The constructio~ ktsome projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (,) r I)',:illlll(:::>:> !'" II. t I E I I I I I I I I I I I I E I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Projo<:t Tide: Traff", Signal @ Lena and Centrol ProgTIUIJ: _ Circulation (StreelJ, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Departmenr(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-72 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Lena Road and Central Avenue. The project coAJiltl of constructing intenectioG im.proYe.meDtI ond inslaIIing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects _cd in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2. of the total 297 sig.oIs at Ge.erol Pion 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 hav.c been included at 1511 of c;onstruction costs and ~gency has been lnc1udcd at 10% of construction costs. JustificationlRoquiremMt for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 S increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an a1temative 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 eltpect an additional 5711 incrcuc 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 ..elimits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely ncccasary 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 ~itions. back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference DOCUlDcnt: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20iQ-ll ToW PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDiTURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/ AdlIJinjstration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24.000 LtllJd 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 a~recments. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 113 The: construction of some (c) . J..... ..' .1006 "" III ............ ........ . .< ....... ... ........... 277........... ... . . i I City of San Bernardino I I < I ...... Master Facilities Plan Project Detail I 1</ . ..... .. '/. ........ ..........i... .... i' Projod Tide: ProgrtUll: Traffic Signal @ Lena and RiallO Circulation (Strcc:ts, Signal. and Bridges) System I Submitting Department!s): Projod No.: i. Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-73 / P~jcct Description: ii Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Lena Road and Rialto Avenue. The project COJIIistJ of constructing intersection improvements .> and installing traffic .ignal.. All of the proposed .ignal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2" of the lOlal297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8" (249 .ignal.) of the total.ignals. Enginccriing plan check, i...... inspection. materials/soUs testing and projcd. administration costs have been included at lS~ of construction costs and contingency has bcleD. ..... included at 10% of construction costs. i> }> Justification/Rcquircmcnt for Project: >i >> This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and wID 8S5ist in accommodating the nearly S8l1 increase: in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-ouI resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an a1lmnativc for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to UIe but now fmd at . maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57" increase in the number of daily trip""milcs 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 arc limits as 10 how many additionallanc . 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: i 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 Row" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting (( upstream of the intersection" . Level F. "Forald Flow" creates "Jammed conditions. back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . }i i Refcrtllcc Document: Project Timing: ( Staff cost estimates that arc 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 ToltJJ PROPOSED 2()()6-()7 2007-08 2oo8-1J9 2009-10 through .0 i EXPENDITURES Build-out Years } i Design/Inspectionl AdministrlJ.tion SO SO SO SO S24,000 $24,000 /> I }< Land Acquisition/Right of Ws_v SO SO SO SO SO SO .. Construction SO SO SO SO SI6O,ooo SI6O,ooo . COJltiJJgcncy SO SO SO SO S16.OOO S16,000 >> > >i Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO . SO SO ... , TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S2OO,OOO $200,000 Potential Funding Sources; .i A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees. and specific agreements. The constructioJ Afsome: / projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (0) . '. ................ ............ ..... .'>.> ..... .. .... .....,.2lI!lt) ..... .. ... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I !I'" .. r- .. m I I I I I I I I I I I E I E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Program: Circulation (Streets, Sipal. and Bridges) System P~ioct Titl.: TraffIC Signal @ Lena and 3rd Submitting Doparrmont(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-74 P~joct Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Lena Road and 3rd Street. The project COIIIiJIts of COIIIlrUCling inlenection improvcmeata and installing traffic .ignal.. All of the proposed .ignal projects containodin ST -37 through ST -84 will represent a only 16.2" of the IOl.Il 297 .ignols al Generol Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8" (249 signals) of the total.ignals. Engineerin& plan check, inspection, materials/solls testing and project administration costs have been included at lSII of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justilication/Rcquircmt:nt for Pro.ft:ct: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly S811 increase in daily trip-miles at Generol Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an olternalIve 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 addilionol 57" increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-mile. to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-mile., an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip mil... There are limits as to how many additiona1lane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely ncecuary to maximize the General Plan maximum 73S.21ane miles of existing collcetor/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: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Projcet timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projcets default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-1/ TotIIl PROpOSED 2006-07 2007-oS 200S-09 2009-10 through .n EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection! Admi.aistntion $0 $0 $0 $0 $24.000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/Rigbt of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ConstrUction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160.000 $160,000 Contingt:lJcy $0 $0 $0 $0 $16.000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200.000 . Potential Funcling Sources: 1\ A combination of unobhgi1cd monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees, and specific agreements. The constru~JrS.ome. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. m (c) "" ... " .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II ! I I (e) City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Program: Circulation (StrcelJ, Sipals and Bridges) Syllem Project Title: TraffIC Signal @ East Carnegie and HospiUl Lane SublDilling Deportm~I(S): Development Services Deportment (Engineering) Project No.: ST-75 Project Descriptio,,: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of East Carnegie Drive and Hospitality Lane. The project consists of constructing intenectiOll improvements and inIIaIIing traffic signals. All of the proposecllignal projec:la contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will rcprcscnt a OIIiy 16.2" of the totAl 297 aignals at General Plan build-out wbile the exilling community bas g__ 83.8" (249 signals) of the totAl signals. Engineering plan check. inspection. materials/soils testing and project adminiltration costs have been included at 1S% 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 S8 Ii increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an altcrDative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway acgmcnts, lUIllble to be widcoed. tIW they have previously been able to uac but now fmd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additiOllll! 57" incrcaac in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5.0SO,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7.973.974 daily trip-miles. an incrccsc of 2.923.685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how manyadditional1anc mUes can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 73S.21anc miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not CompJt:ti.ng Prq;ect: 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 HE" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vchiclCl waiting upstream aCthe intersection", Level F. "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions. back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-1/ Tot.ai PROPOSED 2006-07 2()()7-oS 2()()S-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDiTURES Build-our Years Design/lnspectionl Administration $0 $0 $0 SO S18.OOO $18.000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 SO S120.OOO $120,000 Contingency $0 $0 SO $0 $12.000 $12.000 Equipment/Other SO $0 SO SO SO $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 SO S150,000 S150.ooo Potentia} Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees. and specific agreemertts. projects listed may be required liS a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 116 The construction of some - ... ... . . .. . ......... ... . ..' . I.' I City of San Bernardino I , , I , Master Facilities Plan Project Detail .i... ." I .. ........>. >... . Project Title: Program: >/ Traffic Signal @ Tippocanoo and Ria1to Circulation (Stroeta. Signa1s and Bridgos) Systom Submitting DopartmOlJ/(s): Projoct No.: Developmoot Services Department (Engineering) ST-76 '/ Projec/ Description: // Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Tippecanoe and Rialto AvCJlue. The project consiIts of construding intersection izaprovemcats I/i and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in 5T-37 through 5T-84 will represenl a only 16.21' of the total 297 1/ signal' at Gooeral Plan buUd-out while the existing community has geaerated 83.81' (249 signals) of the total signals. En8ineering plan chec:k. 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. r Ii . // 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 S /> 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 DOW find at maximum carryin8 capacity. The City can expect an additional 571' incr.... in the number of daily trip-milos 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 I miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.21ane miles of ex.isting 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 interscetions of streets to a Level E or F by acting as 8 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 ~onditions. back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent i movement" . >> Reference Document: Project Timing: i> I 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. / .... 20JQ-JI ToIIIl I; Ii PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-D9 2009-JO through all i EXPENDITURES Build-out Years I i , Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 SO SO S24,000 $24.000 i Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 SO SO $0 $0 ......... ". I Construction $0 SO $0 SO SI6O,ooo S16O.ooo i ... i ., Contingency SO $0 SO SO S16,000 S16.ooo ii Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 SO $0 S2OO,~ {II TOTAL COST SO $0 $0 SO S2oo,ooo I Potential Funding Sources: 117 A combination of unobligated monics from a variety of funds. development impact fees. and spcc:ific agreements. Thc construction of some I projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. I (c) . .......0...--: ....... ........ 'i. '. ...~;lIlIllIi..... '" IiIl ~ ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ .... ~ ... c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project TftJ.: TraffIC Signal @ Del Rosa and Marshall Program: Circulolion (SlreelI, Signal. and Bridg..) Sy...... Subwtting Deparrment(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) P"!ject No.: ST-77 Pro,;ect 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 .ignals. All of the proposed ligna! projects eontained in ST-37 through ST-84 will repreoent a only 16.2\11 of thelotal 297 .ignal. al General Plan build-out while the existing commWlily hu generated 83.8\11 (249 .ignal.) of the totaIllignalo. Engineering plan check. inspection. materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of eonstruetion costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. JustifiClltion/Rcqui.rement for Project: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 S incr.... in daily trip-mil.. at General Plan build-out reoulting from new development. This ..gmoot of roadway will provide an alternative for drivets 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 5711 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 cxisting collector/artcrial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Servicc (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: Staff cost estimatcs that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Pro.i<<t Timing: Project timing is not a component of this currcnt effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-outH column. 20/D-ll Tor.a/ PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-og 200g-Q9 2009-/0 through aJJ EXPENDITURES Build-out y..... Design/Inspection/Administration SO SO SO SO S24.OOO $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO COIJstructioJI SO SO SO SO S16O,000 SI6O,ooo Contingency SO SO SO SO S16,000 S16,000 Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S200.ooo S200,000 Potentia] Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. Thc constructiJn1 ~ some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (0) s-.,.~"'. - ... .. " II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Tram. Signa1 @ Del Rosa and 6th Program: Circulation (Str..... Signa1s and Bridges) System Submitting Dcportmcnt(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-78 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Del Rosa Avenue and 6th Street:. The project consists of constructing interleCtion improvements and installingtraffi. signa1s. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will rcprcscnta only 16.2l11 ofthc totsI297 signa1s at General Plan build-out while the existing community bas generated 83.8l11 (249 agnals) of the total signa1s. Engineering plan cbec:k. inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration com have been included at I5l1 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 585 increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out rcsulting 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 III maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect: an additi~ S7~ increase in the number of dally trip-miles from the current S,OSO.289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973.974 dally trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 dally trip miles. Tbere are limits as to how many additional I... miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 73S.21ane 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 intcraec:tions 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: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 201D-II TotoJ PROPOSED 2006-C7 2007-oB 2008-<J9 2009-10 through oJJ EXPENDITURES Build-out Years 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 $150,000 ~ Potential Fundinp Sources: II A combination of unobligated momes from a variety of funds. development impact fees. and specific agreements. The constructioll? some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. I (c) ~).-} - ... lit "" lIIr I t I I I I I I I I I I ; I I ; I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Traffic Signal @ Sterling and MarshaIJ Program: Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Deparrment(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-79 P~ject Description.. Construet a traffic signal at the intersection of Stcring Avenue and Maraball Boulevard. The project COIlSists of constructing intenection improvements and in5talling trafflc signals. All oflbe proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represcnta only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community bas generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soUs testing and project administration c:.osts have been. included at 1511 of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10$ of c:onstruetion costs. Justification/Requirement for Project: Tbis interacclion nceds to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will a..ist 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 driven 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~ mcrease 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 73S.21ane miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Projoc:t: 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 Row" creates" Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20iQ-U Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-iO through all EXPENDiTURES Build-out Ycsrs Design/Inspection! AdminisrrlJtion $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO COllstructioJJ $0 $0 $0 $0 ' $!()(),ooo $160,000 Contingency SO SO SO $0 $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 SO $0 $0 $0 SO TOTAL COST SO SO $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. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 120 The construction of some (,) ~.- "" , ill c m I I I r .. I I I I I I I I I . i I I , ! i City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Titl.: TraffIC Signli @ Sterling ond Lynwood Prognm: Circu1alion (S_, Signals ond Bridges) System Submitting Dopsrtmont(s): Development Services D.parllllent (Engineering) Project No.: ST -SO Pr~;cct Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Sterling Avenue and Lynwood Drive. The project consiJts of cOllltrUCting iDtcncctioIl improvements ond installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal project> contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2" of the total 297 signals at General Pion build-out while the existing community bas generated 83.8" (249 signals) of tho total sigaals. Engineering plan check. inspection. materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been inc:ludcd at 15% of construction coIlS and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. JustificaUon/RequiremMt for Project: This intersection noods to be signalized to complete tho General Plon Circulation System ond will assist in accommodating the nearly 58" increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting. from new dcvelopmeat. 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 fUld 8t awtimum carrying capacity. The City can expott on additional 57" inc:rosae in tho number of dally trip-miles from the current 5.050.289 dally trip-mil.sto roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, on iner.... of 2,923.685 dally trip miles. Ther_ ar_limits as to how monyaddilionallono miles can be constructed. thus C?ptimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 73S.21anc miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Failure or inability to install signals where warranted aild 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 vehieIC$ waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement" . Reference Document.- Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City.'s Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-1i TouJ PROPOSED 2oofHJ7 2007-08 2OOB-D9 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years JJesjgn/lnspottionl Adminisrration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 C01Jstruction $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 Potentja} FunduJg Sources: A combination of unobliJstcd monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees, and specit1c 8j:'.rcemcnts. The constructioJ ~~ some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (cl . .... ;; 1II101i":+>::':: .... .. ... ill '" .. . It t I I I I I I I I I .1 I I E I E i City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: TraffIC: Signal @ Sterling II1d 6th Progrom: Circulation (5_. Signa1IW Bridges) System Submining Depurtn<JlI(S): Development Services Department (Engineering) Proj<<:1 No.: ST-81 P~ject Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Sterling Avenue and 6th Street. The project consiltl of constructing intencction improvements II1d installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will reprcsart a oaIy 16.2!' of the total 297 signals It Gooeral PI.. buUd-out while the existing community has g_rlled 83.8!' (249 signall) of the total signals. Engineering plan cbock.. inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costa have been included at lS~ of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. Justil1cationlRcquin:mcnt for ProFt: This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly SIIi incrccse in daUy trip-miles at General PI.. buUd-out resulting from new developm..... This segment of roadway will provide 111 altcrnllive 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 111 addiliooal 57!' increaac in the number of daily trip-miles from the curr.... 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, 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: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. 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-()8 2008-()9 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Yean Dcsign/lnspcctionl Administration SO SO SO $0 $24.000 S24.ooo LaJJd Acquisition/Right of Wax $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO Construction SO I $0 SO $0 $160.000 $160.000 COJJtuJgency SO $0 $0 $0 I $16,000 $16,000 Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO : SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S2OO.000 S200.OOO Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobli~ated monics from a varicty of funds, development impact fees. and specific itJ!recmcnts. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 122 The construction of some (oj ~, 2006 I"" Ii. s ........ .... .<. .... .....<. j .. < .. City of San Bernardino I .. .>..... .. Master Facilities Plan Project Detail I ... < Projcet Tide: Program: >> Tram< Sipal @ S, MolUllain View ond Ceotral (Palm Meadows) Circulatioll (Streets. Sipals ond Bridg..) Syllcm ........ SubJDjIling DepMtment(s): ProF No.: . Development Services Department (Engineering) ST -82 > ...... Project Description: Construct a traffle 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 16.2l1 of the total 297 signals at General Pion build-out while the existing <ommunity has generated 83.8l1 (249 signals) of the total i> ..... signals. Engineering plan check. inspection. materials/soils testing and projcet administration costs have been included at lSlI 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 585 . 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 it maximum osrrying ospa<ity. The City can eXpe<t an additional 5711 inor_ in the number of dally trip-miles from the cUlTClll 5.050.289 dally trip-mil.. to roughly 7.973,974 daily trip-mil... on in<r_ of 2.923,685 dally trip mil... There are limits as to how mony additiona1lone miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 73S.21anc I I miles of existing collector/arterial roads. 1\ Consequences of Not Completing Project: 1 Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the interscc.tions 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 tT movement" . ......... II Referenu Document: Project Timing: }i Staff cost estimates that arc 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. t i I ... I 20/0- II TolIJ1 ............ i PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 through aJJ i itt I..... EXPENDITURES Build-out Years De5ign/lnspcctionl Administration SO SO SO $0 S24.OOO S24,ooo , I Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO Construction SO SO SO SO S160,000 SI60,ooo .. . Contingency SO SO SO SO S16.OOO S16.ooo I Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO I SO SO Ii i ? TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S200,000 S200.ooo I I Potential Funcilng Sources: ..... I 123 A combination of unob1i~ated monies from a variety-of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some i projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for whieh a credit would be received. (c) ..... ... .> > .. -.,.2lll6 ; ; .. I I I I 1- I I I I I I I I i ,.. .. t : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ~joct Tide: Traffic Signal @S. Mountain View and 1-10 Westbound Ramp Progrom: Circulation (Streets, Signal. and Bridges) Syllem Submitting Deparrment(.): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST -g3 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of South Mountain View and Watbound 1-10 Ramp. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the propolCd signal projects contained in 51-37 through ST -84 will represent · only 16.2% of the total 297 .ignal. at General Plan build-out while the exiJtlllg community has generated 83.8% (249 .ignal.) of the total signals. Engineering plan check.. inspection. materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at lS~ 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 S 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 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 "EM is "Unstable Row" 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: Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20JQ-ll Toul PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-JO through .n EXPENDITURES Build-out You. Design/Inspection/ AdmirJjstration SO SO SO SO S24,ooo S24,ooo Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 SO $0 $0 SO $0 Construction SO $0 $0 SO S16O,ooo S16O,000 Contingency $0 $0 SO SO S16,000 S16,000 Equipment/Other SO $0 SO $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST SO $0 SO $0 S200,ooo S200,ooo Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees. and specific agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. 124 The construction of some (c) -.,.-. "" .. t I I' I I E I I I I II I t I I t E E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Program: Circulation (Streols, Signals and Bridges) System Project Titl.: Trsffic Signal @ Guthrio and Pscific Submirting Dopartment(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-84 Project Description: Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Guthrie Street and Pacific Street. The project consiJtJ of constructing intersection improvements and installing tramc signals. All of tho proposed signal projects c:ontained in ST-37 through ST-84 will repr.....t a only 16.2" ofth. toW 297 signals at Genoral Plan buUd-out whilo tho oxisting community has gonoralOd 83.8" (249 signa1s) of tho total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at lSII of construction costs and contingency has been lncluded 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 S8l1 increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new developmcm.t. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative Cor drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments. unable to be widened. that they have previously been able to use but now rand at maximum c:arrying ..pscily. Tho City can oxpoc:t an additional 57" inc..... in tho number of dally trip-miles from tho current 5,050,289 dally trip-milo, to roughly 7,973,974 dally trip-milos, an iner.... of 2,923,685 dally trip miles. There aro limits as to how many sdditionallane miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely ncccuary to ma:!!irni71l'! the General Plan maximum 73S.2Iane 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: Staff cost estimates that arc consistent with the City's Circulation Element. Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 201Q-ll PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009--10 through EXPENDITURES BuiJd-out Design/Inspection! Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 SO $0 SO $0 Constructjon $0 $0 $0 $0 SI6O.000 Contingency $0 $0 SO SO $16,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 SO $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 SO $0 $200 ,000 TOIII1 a1J Years $24,000 $0 S16O,000 S200,OOO .Potential Funding Sources: 125 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction otsolDO projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (.) '"" ill E I. ( I I I I I I I E I I I I I I E t City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ProgrtUl1: Circulation (streets, Sigaa1s and Bridges) System Project Title: Interchange/Ramps @ 1-215 and Palm Avenue (SB, County) Submitting DepartmCllt(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Projoct No.: ST-85 Projcct Description: Construct interchange improvements at 1-215 and Palm Avenue. This project is eonsidcrod of regional importance and is to be fmanced by. number of soureca. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. JustifiC/ltion/Rcquirement 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. 201Q-ll TotJJl PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008_ 2009-10 through .n EXPENDITURES Build-out Y..... Design/Inspection! Administration SO SO SO SO S231.600 S231.600 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO Construction SO SO SO SO $1.544,000 SI.544,OOO Contingency SO $0 SO SO SI54,400 SI54,400 Equipment/Other SO $0 SO $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST SO $0 SO SO SI.930.000 SI.93O,OOO PotentjaJ Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monics from a variety of funds. development impact fees. and specifu~ agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 126 The construaion of some (c) ... IIIIf .. ... I I I E I I I I I I I . II I I f r It r II City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Proj<<:t Title: JntcrehanplRamp. @ 1-215 and Pepper Linden (Campu, Parkway) (SB) Submitting Depurmen/(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Progrll/lJ: Cireulation (5_, Signals and Bridges) System Projoct No.: ST-86 Proj<<:t Description: Construct interchange improvements at 1-215 and pepper Linden (Campu. Parkway). This project is conaidered of regional importance and is to be fmanced by a number of sourees. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. Justification/Requirement for Proj<<:t: Improve safety and mobUity and to enhance the operational efficiency of this regional facUity. SecondarUy, improving this regional facility increases mobility on the local circulation system. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Reduced mobUity along with increaaed congestion and greater frequency of routine delay.. Reference Document: Projoct Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/D-II PROPOSED 2006-07 2oo7-(}8 2008_ 2009-/0 through EXPENDITURES Build-our Design/lnspection/ AdI1Jinjstr4lion SO SO SO SO S2,4OO.OOO Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO Construction SO SO $0 SO Sl6.ooo,ooo Contingency SO $0 SO SO S1.6OO,ooo Equipment/Other SO $0 SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO $0 SO SO S20.ooo,ooo TotJJl al/ Years S1.6OO,OOO $0 S20,ooo,ooo Potential Funding Sources: 127 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees. and specific agreements. The construction of some projccts listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (e) ... .. .. . , I I t E I E I E I E I I I ! t t City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: IntetchangclRampa @ 1-215 and Univenity Parkway (SB, County) ProgrtUll: Circulation (Streets, Signal. and Bridges) Syllem Submitting Department(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: S1-g7 P~jcct Description: Construct interchange improvements at 1-215 at University Parkway. This project: is CODIidered of regional importance and is to be fmanced by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. JusrificationlReqWn:ment for Project: Improve ..fety and mobility and to enhance the operational efficiency of this regional facility. Secondarily, improving this regional facUity increases mobility on the local circulation system. Consequen... 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-// Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2oo7-D8 2oo8-<J9 2009-/0 through sJJ EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection! Administration SO SO SO $0 $187.200 $187,200 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1.248.000 $1,248,000 ContuJgency $0 SO $0 $0 $124.800 $124.800 Equipment/Other SO SO SO $0 $0 SO TOTAL COST SO SO $0 $0 $1.560,000 $1,560,000 Potentjal FundinS Sources: A combi.nation of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees. and specific agreements. projects listed may be required 85 a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 128 The construction of some (0) JdltIh)',:200i6 ... /If ,. .. r . 1- ; t E I p .. I E E E t I I I t t City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ~jcct Title: Interchange/Ramps @ (-210 and Waterman (SB. Highland, County) Program: Circulation (StreclJ. Signals and Bridges) System Submitting Dcpartm<ll/{'): Development Services Dcpsrtment (Engineering) Project No.: ST -88 P~jcct Description: Construct interchange improvements at 1-210 at Waterman Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be fmanccd by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. Justification/Requirement for Pr~jt:cr: 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. Refcrt:Dce DocUlllcnt: Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20JD-JJ ToW PROPOSED 2006-D7 2007-08 2008-D9 2009-JO through all EXPENDITURES Build-out y..... Design/Inspection/ AdllJinjstration SO SO $0 $0 S873,6OO S873.6OO Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 SO SO $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 SO SO I S5.824,000 S5,824,OOO Contingency SO $0 $0 SO S582,4OO S582.4OO Equipment/Other SO $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST SO $0 $0 SO $7,280,000 S7,28O,ooo Potentja} Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees. and speciftc a~reements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. 129 The construction of some (0) -.,..1101>>.... - . ~ II ., III .. c ; I: I I I I E E E t E I I I I t t I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Pro;oct Tide: In~chan&eIRamps @ 1-210 and Dol Rosa (S8, HighIond, County) Program: Circulation (StrcelI, Signols and 8ridges) System Submitting Department(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST -89 Prq,jcct Description: Construct interchange improvements at 1-210 at Del Rosa Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be f1Dl.nCCd by · number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. Justification/Requirement for Project: Imptove safety and mobility and to enhance the operational efficiency of this regional facUity. SecondarUy, improving this regional facUity increases mobUity on the local circulation system. Consequences of Not ComplctiJJg Prqjt:ct: 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 ToIlI/ PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-()S 200S-()9 2009-10 through .0 EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection/Administration SO SO SO SO S694 ,800 $694,800 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO Construction SO SO SO $0 ' $4,632,000 $4,632,000 ' Contingency SO SO SO SO $463,200 $463,200 Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO $0 S5,790,OOO S5,790,OOO Potential Fundinp Sources' A combination of unobligated momes from a varil.":ly of funds. development impact fees. and specific a,grccmcnts. The constructio~309 some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (,) ~.-"::" - .. ,. III ; i ; E I I r II , E E E E I , I E t City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Program: Circulation (Streets, Sigaals and Bridges) System Project Tide: interchange/RamI" @ 1-210 and Victoria (SB, Highland, County) Submitting Dcpartment(s): Development Services Dopartment (Engineering) Project No.: ST -90 Prq,;ecr Description: Construct interchange improvements at at 1-210 at Victoria Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and i. to be fUlAllCOCl by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. JustiJiCII.tion/RfKJWrement for Prq,jcct: Improve safety and mobility and to enhance the operational efficiency of this tcgional facility. Secondarily, improving this tcgional 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. 20JQ-lJ ToW PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-1)8 2oo8-<J9 2009-10 throusb .0 EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Desi/ln/lnspcctjonl 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 58,000,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $800 ,000 $800,000 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 PotentiaJ FUlJdillg Sources: A combmation of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees. and specific agreements. projc'tll lillted may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. 131 The construction of some (c) . . ".- ... - l1li ,.. .. = tII I( t m E ; " . I t t i ~ i t \ I I t t I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: InterchangclRamps @ 1-210 and 5th (SB, Highland, Redlands) Program: Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Su~mitring Doparrment(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-91 Project Description: Construct interchange improvements at 1-210 at 5th Street. This projcct is considered of regional importance and is to be f1JWlCCd by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. JustilicMionIRequireJnent for Project: Improve safety and mobUity and to enhance the operational efficiency ofthiJ regional facUity. SecondarUy, improving thiJ 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. Project Timing: I" Projcet timing is not a component of this current effort. ; projects default to the "Build-out" column. Reference Document: Therefore all 20/D-II Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection! AdlIJinjstraUon SO SO SO SO S38,4OO S3g,4OO Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO SO Construction SO SO SO SO $256,000 $256,000 Contingency SO ; SO SO SO S25,6OO $25,600 Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S320,ooo S320,ooo I PotentiaJ Funding Sources: : A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific a~recments. I projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. The constructiJn3oi some 0-_-. _ ..'1 .:: -.y. :IIllllf':"'.'.. . (oj ... .. r' .. I ; ; m I I c I t t I , , t . E \ t t City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Titl.: Interchange/Ramp. @ 1-10 and Tippecanoe ProgrtUD: Circulotion (Strcct.s, Signal. and Bridges) System Submirtmg Dcpartmcnt(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-92 Project Description: Construct interchange improvements at }-10 at Tippecanoe Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be fUWlccd by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. Justificstion/Roquiremenr for Project: Improve safety and mobility and to enhance the operational efficiency of this regional facility. Secondarily. improving this regional facUity 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 DocUl1Jent: Project Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 201Q-lJ Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through .0 EXPENDiTURES Build-out Ycan Designflnspcction/ AdrrJinjstrarjon $0 $0 $0 $0 $840.000 $840.000 Land A<qujsjtionlRigbt of W.y $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 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,000.000 $7,000,000 Potential Funding Sour~cs: 131 A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. devdopment impact fees. and specific agreements. The construction. 01 some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. (0) '" ... !'" .. I ( E E I I E I t E I t I ! .. . t t t , City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Pro".",: Circu18lion (Streets, SisnaIs and 8ridg..) System ProF Title: InterchangelRamps @ 1-10 and Pepper (58. County. Colton) Submitting Departmcnt(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-93 ~jcct Description: Construct interchange iprovcments at 1-10 at Pepper. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be fmanced by . number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. JustinCll.tjon/Rcqukement for Project: Improve safety and mobility and to enhance the operational efficiency of this regional facUity. Secondarily. improving this regional facility increases mobility on the local circulation system. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Reduced mobility along with increased congC&tion and greater frequency of routine delays. Reference Document: Projccl Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 201Q-IJ TOl.Ii PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through aJJ EXPENDITURES Build-out y...,. DesignlbupcctiOJll Admin/strotlon $0 $0 SO SO $44.400 $44.400 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 Construction $0 SO $0 SO S296,OOO $296.000 Contingency SO SO SO SO S29.600 S29,600 Equipment/Other SO $0 SO SO $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 SO $0 S370,000 S370,ooo Potential Funding Soure..: 134 A combination of unobligated monics from a variety of funds. development impact f~1 and spcc:ific agreements. The construction of some proj<<:ts listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. (0) ... .. r lit I m . E I I t I t .c E E t . . t City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Projt:el Tid.: Interchange/Ramps @ 1-10 and Mountain View (58, Loma Linda, Redlands, County) Submitting Dep.lnmenl(s): Development Services Department (Engineering) Prognm: Circulalion (StreclJ, Signals and 8ridges) System Projt:el No.: ST -94 Project Description.- Construct interchange improvements at 1-10 at Mountain View Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be fmanccd by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. JustjfiC4lionlRcquiremenl for Projeet: Improve saCety and mobility and to enhance the operational efficiency oC this regional CacUity. Secondarily, improving this regional Cacility increases mobility on the local circulation system. Consequences of Not Completing Projee/: Reduced mobility along with increased congestion and greater frequency of routine delays. Rd'ercncc Document: Projeet Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-1/ ToW PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-DS 200S-09 2009-/0 through .n EXPENDITURES Build-out y..... Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $364,800 $364,800 Land Acquisition/RighI of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construcrion $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,432,000 $2.432,000 ConriJlgency $0 $0 $0 $0 $243,200 $243,200 Equipment/Other $0 50 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,040,000 $3,040,000 t' . Potenrial Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development: impact fces. and specific agreements. The ~ 30i IOme projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. r- III (.) io-7. -> - .. ",.. IIIJ I ~. ~ E I I t I c E ~ t , E t -"-;-, City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Tippcc:anoc Bridge ovor tho Santa Ana River Program: Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) Systom Submitting Departmen'(s): Development Sorvices Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST -95 Project Description: Widen the existing 756 long bridge by twenty-four feet. JustiJication/RequireJDen' for Prqject: Increases the flow of traffic. and thus the circulation system LOS, over the current bottleneck bridge. Consequences of Nor 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. 201D-II TotIll PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008_ 2009-10 through aJ1 EXPENDITURES Build-out Yean Design/lnspectionl Administrotion $0 $0 $0 $0 $352,350 $352,350 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 SO $0 SO $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,349,000 $2,349,000 Contingency SO $0 $0 $0 S234.9oo $234,900 Equipment/Other $0 $0 SO SO $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 SO $2.936.250 $2,936,250 r Potential Funding Sources: II A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees. and specific agreements. The constructiO~30~ some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. t (el ......,..2llO6')"'. c t I ; i E I I I ; E c f t t E t t t (e' City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ProB'""': Circulation (Strecli, Sipo1s and 8ridges) Syllcm Project Tide: Grade Separation @ Palm Avenue (S8) Submitting DeportmaJt(s): Development Serviees Department (Engineering) Project No.: ST-96 Project Description: Construct a grade aeparation at Palm Avenue. This project is eonsiderccl of regional importlnce and is to be fmanc:cd by a number of aourc:a. This portion represents the City's share aCthe total project. JustiligtionlRequire11Jent for Project: Enhance safety by providing a verliae aeparation between rail road traffic: and vcbicular trame. This project a1ao improves opcraIioD of the intersection as stoppage of vehicular trafflC will no longer be neeeuary. ConsequMces of Not Completing Project: Reduced mobility along with increased congestion and greater frequency of routine delays. Reference Document: Project Timing: Projcd: timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "BuUd-out" column-. 2010-/1 Total PROPOSED 2006-07 2oo7-og 2oog-G9 2009- 10 througb aJJ EXPENDITURES BuiJd-out Years Design/Inspection! Administration $0 $0 $0 SO S281.880 S281 ,880 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO $0 $0 SO $0 $0 Constructi01J SO SO $0 SO SI.879,2oo SI,879,2oo Contingency SO $0 SO SO S187,920 S187,920 Equipment/Other $0 $0 SO SO $0 $0 TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S2,349.OOO S2,349,ooo Potential Funding Sources: A ,ombinaHon of unobHgated monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees. and specific agreements. The construction1oi1,me projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. t . ... . . ............ ... . ...................... ... City of San Bernardino < .......... . Master Facilities Plan Project Detail .............. <... .... . ... . . .........iii...........< i".<i.i..... ,< ./ ..... < Pro.iect Titl.: 1'rognm: Grade Soparation @ Ria1to (58) Circulation (SlrOOll. Signals and 8ridg..) Systom I SubmittiDg Dopsrrment(sJ: Projoct No.: . Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-97 i ..'...... P~joot Dosoription: III i COnstTct a grade separation at Rialto Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be fmanccd by . number of iOUtceI. This portion roprosonts tho City's share of the total project, .,. ....... \ ,..... i i Ju,tiI1C1Jtion/Requircment for Project; ..... .. Enhance safety by providing a vcrticlc separation between rail road traffic and vehicular traffic. This project also improvcs operation of the I mtersection as stoppage of vehicular traffic will no longer be necessary. i '..' II < Consequonc.. of Not Comp/oting Projoot: .,' Reduced mobility along with increased congestion and greater frequency of routine dclays. ) Iii i.) ......., Reference Document: Prq}cct Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all i projects default to the "Build-out" column. ....... i 'i' ii 2010-11 TouI PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through aJJ EXPENDITURES Build-out Yoars i. ! Design/Inspection! Administration SO SO SO $0 S267,840 S267,840 ,/ I Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 SO SO SO SO SO i .... ...... i Construction SO SO SO SO SI.785.600 $1,785,600 ii Contingency $0 $0 $0 SO S178,560 $178.560 Equipment/Othcr $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 ? . i TOTAL COST SO $0 $0 $0 S2,232,ooo $2,232,000 . I Potcntial Funding Sources: The constructiol ~~ some I A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific allrccmcnts I projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. [ , I t t [ I t c I t I I If .I I t E I: (e) -.y.-.,.:'.....'. L [ , t- [ t .. t J .. ( ~ I I I I E " II t r.. III c City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ProgruJ: Cireulotion (S_, Sipls and Bridges) SylleJll Ptoj<<:t Titl.: Gracie Separation @ Stole Strcet!Univ.rsity (SB) Submming Deportmtltl/(s}: Development Services Department (Engineering) Ptoj<<:t No.: ST-98 Proj<<:t Description: Constuct. grade separation at State Street/University. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be fmanced by . number of sources. This portion represents the City'slhare of the total project. Justjliauon/Roquiremcnt for Project: Enhance safety by providing a vcrticle 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 Comploring Prq,jed: 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 Toul PROPOSED 2()()6-(}7 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through IIll EXPENDITURES Build-out y..... IJesjgn/lnspcctionl Administration $0 50 $0 50 5256.800 5256.800 Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 50 50 $0 $0 50 Construction $0 $0 $0 50 51.712,000 51.712,000 Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 5171.200 Equipm<ntlOtbeJ' $0 $0 $0 50 50 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 50 52.140,000 (0) Potential Funding Sour~: . A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees. and specific agreements. The constructio~i? some projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. ~ P" ill t [ [ t ; I [ I ~ I I I Ii m E m E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail P1ojet:t Title: Grade Separllion @ HunlI Lane (58, Colton) P1oIJTU': Circulation (Streets, Sipal. and 8ridg..) Syllom SubmjlliD& Doptutment(s): Development Servicoo Department (Engineering) P1ojet:t No.: ST -99 ~jeer Description: Construct a grade separation at Hunts Lane. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be fmanced by . number of lOurces. 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 projoc:t also improv.. operation of the intersection as stoppage of vchic:ulu 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 2007-08 200N)!) 2009-10 through oJl EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Design/Inspection! Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $137,160 $137,160 Land Acquisition/Righr of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $914,400 $914,400 ContuJgency $0 $0 $0 $0 $91.440 $91.440 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1.143,000 $1.143.000 Potential Funding Sources: A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. dcvdopment impact fees. and specifiC agreements. projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. 140 The construction of some (,j . -.".- r- III [ t E [ E E I I I t .~ ; I I E E I I E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Titl.: Grade Separation @ Rancho Avenue Program: Cireulo1ion (SlrcelJ, Signal. and Bridge.) System Submitting Department(s): Development Service. Department (Engineering) Project No,: ST-HJO Project Description: Construct a grade separation over the existing rail road tracks. This project is cotlIidered of regional importance and is to be fman~ by . number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. JustificationlRequirCllJent for Pr~;ect: 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: P1'C!ject Timing: Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all projects default to the "Build-out" column. 20/0-11 TotII/ PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 200N)9 2009-/0 throuah IIll EXPENDITURES Build-out y""" Desij!11/1nspectionl Administration SO $0 $0 $0 $281,880 $281,880 LaJJd Acquisition/Right of ",ay SO $0 $0 $0 SO SO Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,879,200 $1,879,200 COlJringency $0 SO SO $0 $187,920 $187,920 Equipment/Other SO $0 $0 SO SO $0 TOTAL COST $0 SO $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 a~reemcnts. The construction of some rr'"'.le'cts hsted may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received. (0) . . .,.1Illl>>: "" l.. c c [ c [ [ E t tr' .. .m I E E" [ t [ t t City of San Bernardino Library Facilities and Collection 142 ".. ! .. [ [ [ [ t [ E E . ~ I I I , ; [ t E l!~ ~'a~ III Q - I ~ ~ I ~ "l ~ ~ ..... Q ~ .~ ~ a .8 :; .,. ~ a: :; J:~ :~ ~:-:: !l ;; U ~ ,,~ ...'l; Q II t> .~ i .s G~~ I I ~ ;g ~ ~ .~ 1 !> .ll !>,5 -ll ~ ;J IS ;J ~ !> 'ij .1 ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ 0: ~ ] . t '5 .. 2 ~ ~ . . S 2 '5 .!! {l tl .!l. e ... 'oi ~ i ~ . - ... 1 ~ ,- S '0 1: I " . '6 ~ '! ~ E " 143 1; . '5' tt I~ 4( u c 9 ~ ~ "3 IL c5 ...J ...J iii - .!!l OJ '13 2i CIl 1;; o U od Q) '" c Q) > Gl a: ,.. ... t: t [ [ I . I E . t E I . m i I p.. , Ii [ [ t City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ProgrtUlJ: Library Facilities and Collection Proj<ct Title: General Library Square FOOl Expansion Submirring Department(s): Public Library Ptc!;ect No.: LB-oI PfC!;ect 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 f1lWlee approximately 16, 103 square feet of the: total 27,509 square feet. JustmcationlRequirement 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 cUrrcnl1evel of service standard is 0.41 square feet of library space por resident, while the Cily-ownoclllllDdard ia 0.23 square feet per rcaident. Should the library not be expandocl, 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 Prq,;<<t: This proposed project docs 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 docs not reprcsent that the current 0.41 squarc feet pet resident as currently adequate or insufficient. mcrely a statement of thc actuaIstandard. Reference Document: None. Project Timing: 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. PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 EXPENDITURES Design/Inspection/Administration SO SO Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO Construction SO SO Contingency SO SO Equipment/Other SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO 2010-11 2008-09 2009- JO through Build-out SO SO S531.3i4 SO SO S724,615 SO SO S3,542,563 SO SO S354,256 SO SO SO SO SO S5,152,818 ToUl all Years S3,542,563 Potentjal Funding Sources: General Fund, or if adopted. the proposed development impact fees.. 144 (e) ..., , ... [ t E t E t I I I I I I I I ; E t t City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Projoct Title: Expoasion of Library Collcc:tion Prognm: Library Fscililiel and Collcc:tion Projoct No.: LB-m Submitting Dcpsrtmcnt(s): Public Library 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 occ:upancy. JustificationlRcquircment 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 236,910 items and 199.803 potential patrons. Should the current collection of items not be expanded. the number of items per patron standerd would drop by shout 2Sl' to shout 0.89 books per person. The 79,842 .dditi~.1 books that could be acquired if the impact fees wu odoptcd, represents the additional collection items necessary to maintlin the current levels of service provided by the existing collection. Consequences of Not Completing Proicc;t: The proposed purchase of books/volumes does not represent that the current 1.19 books/resident as currently adequate or insufficient. merely a statement of the actual standard. RcfeTMCC DocumcJJt: None. Project Timing: 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. PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 EXPENDITURES Design/Inspection! Administration $0 $0 Land Acquisition/RighI of Way $0 $0 Construction $0 $0 Contingency $0 $0 Equipment/Other $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 20iD-1I TotJJl 2008-09 2009-iO through olJ Build-out Ycon $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5.083.041 $5,083.041 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5.083.041 $5.083,041 145 Potentia] FlJJlding Sources: General Fund, or if adopted. the proposed development impact fees. (e) .:.1'.1)....: r' III r .. E t t E ~ I I I I I I I I I ! I I E I'. , City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Pro}cct Tid.: Main Library Debt Sorvico Progrom: Libruy FacUilia and Colloclion Submitting DopartmM/(S): Publio Library Project No.: LB-03 Pro}cct Dc&cription: Make remaining payments on the Main library debt serviee schedule. JustifiauonlRoquirement 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: Debt Service Schedule. Pro.ioct Timing: None. 201o-11 ToW PROPOSED 2()(}6-(}7 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Designllnspectionl Administration SO SO SO SO S5,351.265 $5,351.265 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SO Construction SO SO SO SO SO Contingency SO SO SO SO SO Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S5,351.265 Potentja) FUlJdiJJ~ Sources: 146 General Fund, or if adopted, the proposed development impact fees. (c) ". ... r ... L t I E I I E I I I I I I I E I I City of San Bernardino Public Use Facilities 147 ,.. III II" , II E t t I E - -~-:- . . . .... . City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail I I '. . .,.' . ..... .... ....'. .,..., "0 - 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 communily 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 UIe by the fmal projected 266.897 plus population. I I I i I" J I I I I ; E I I . Project Tid., Verdemont Community Center Program: Public Use Facilities Suhmitting Department(s): Community Services Project No.: CC-oI I P~;ec' Description: Acquire land for and construct a 15.000 Community Center in the Vcrdcmont 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 residcm.s (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 COI1.It1'Uet an additiona166.691 square feet of public use space. The 66.691 additional square feet would maintain the 0.994 S.F. per resident standard. .... . . ..... 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 anyone group. Reference Document: None. Ii I I PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 I EXPENDITURES I Design/Inspection! AdmilUstration SO SO I Land Acquisition/Right of W.y SO SO COIJstruction SO SO I Contingency SO SO I Equipment/Other SO SO I TOTAL COST SO SO Project Timing: 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. I Toul , I Illl Years $495,000 I SO I I. r' S3,3OO,000 I S330,ooo I SO I $4,125,000 I I 149 I I..... ~_.... 201Q-ll 2008-09 2009-10 through Build-out SO SO $495,000 SO SO SO SO SO S3,3oo,000 SO SO S330,000 SO SO SO SO SO $4,125,000 Potential FunduJg Sources: General Fund revenues, Public Use Development Impact Fecs. miK.I'JI"'ncous state and federal grants. (e) . I ,.. I " ,.. .., ,. .. t t t I t I E I I .. I I E I ; I I I I I ! City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail p~i"t Tide: Dclmann Heights GyllllllSium ProgrtUD: Public Use Facilitics Submitting Dcpartment(s): Community Services Project No.: cc-02 Project Doscription: Construct a 7.000 square foot gymnasium a contiguous to the De1mann Heights Community Center. The City's eXisting standard of public: use space is 0.994 square foot par resident. This is baaed 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). Baaed 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.pcr resident standard. Justification/Requirement for Project: The City has a public use facUities standard of 0.994 square feet par resident baaed upon the total 199,619 square fOOl dcdi<atcd to cOlDDlunity 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 fmal projected 266.897 plus population. ,Consequences of Not Completing Project: Without adding (something) to the City's inventory of spa.. available for <OlDDlunity 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 need. to meet the full demands of anyone group. Reference Document: None. p~;..t Timing: 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. PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-QS EXPENDITURES Design/Inspection! Administration SO SO Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO Construction SO SO Contingency $0 SO Equipment/Other SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO 2010-1/ Total 200S-09 2009- 10 through all Build-out Years SO SO S231 ,000 S231.ooo SO SO SO SO SO SO S 1,540.000 S1.54O,OOO SO SO SI54,ooo SI54,ooo SO SO SO SO SO SO S1.925,ooo SI,925,ooo Potential Funding Sources: General Fund revenues. Public Use Development Impact Fees, miscellaneous state and federal Jlrants. 150 (cj ". '~.2oalF',"''''.'''' ...1 , I I r .. fill III i E I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail PI"!ie<t Tide: Nicholson Community Center Submitting Deputment(.): Community Services Prognm: Public: Uoe FacUiti.. Project No.: CC-Q3 pl"!;ecr Description: COIlIlruct a 7,000 "Iuart: fool gylDlUllium a contiguous to the Nic:bo1son Community Center. The City', exiltin& otandard of public: uoe spoce is 0.994 square foot par resident. This is baoed UpaD the inventory of 198,619 "Iuart: f... of public: uoe space for the City., 199,803 residents (199.619/199.803 = 0.993). Baoed UpaD this existing sundard and the potential for 67,094 additional r..id.... at General Plan buUd-out, the City could adopt and impose impact fees that would construct an additiona166,691 square fGet of public: use space. The 66,691 additional square feet would maintain the 0.994 S.F. per resident standard. JustifiationlRcquirelllcnt for Project: The City has a public use facilities sundard of 0.994 "Iuart: f... par resident baoed upon the total 199,619 "Iuare foot dedicated to community and recreation servic:es for the existing 199,803 resid..... To maintain that otandard through General Plan build-out the City would need to construct an additional 66.691 square feet of community service or recreation c:enter space for use by the fmal projected 266,897 pIUI population. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Without adding (something) to the City' 5 inventory of space available for community groups of all sizcs and needs. the standard of 0.994 squuc foot per person would drop to about 0.744 square foot per person and the existing facUities would have too many competing needs to moet the full demands of anyone group. Reference Document: None. PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 EXPENDITURES Design/Inspection/ AdmJnjstntion SO SO Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO COlJstruction SO SO Contingency SO SO Equipment/Other SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO Project Timing: The timing or schoduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition describod herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement. thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 201Q-ll ToW 2008-09 2009-10 rhrough all Build-out Years SO SO S231,000 S231,000 SO SO SO SO SO SO : SI.540,ooo S 1,540,000 SO SO SI54,OOO SI54,OOO SO $0 SO SO SO SO S 1,925 ,000 SI,925,OOO Potential Funcfing Sourc..: General Fund revenues, Public Use Development Impact Fees. miscellaneous state and federal ~rants. 151 (01 '" ."".2IIOI\/'l(:,. , j . ".. III '" .. t E t I E I I I I I I I I I I I I ., City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Titl.: Construct Additional Public Uso Space: ProgrtlJ1J: Public Uso Faclliliol Sub",;lting DopartmMt(s): Community Services Project No.: CC-04 Pr~jt:ct Description: The City's existing standard of public uso space: i.s 0.994 square foot per rcaidoat. Tbia i.s basocI upon the inventory of 198,619 square feet of public uso space: for the City's 199,803 rcaiclcnta (199,619/199,803 = 0.993). Buod upon thia cxialinI standard and the poteatial for 67,094 additional rcsidCllls at General Plan bulld-out, the City could adopt and imposo impact f... that would construct an additional 66,691 square feel of public uso space. The 66,691 additional square feel would IIl8inmin tho 0.994 S.F. per rcsident standard. Justification/Requirement for Project: The City has a public uso facUities standard of 0.994 square feet per rcaidOlll basod upon the total 199,619 square foot dedicated to co_unity and recreation servicca for the eJtisting 199,803 rcaidCllta. To maintain that standard through General Plan bulld-out the City would nood to construct an additional 66,691 square feet of co_unity service or recreation _ space for use by the fUllll projcctod 266,897 plua population. ConSoqUMC'" of Not CompJoting 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 IDClCt the full demands of anyone group. Reference Document: None. Projoct Timing: The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital ouday acquisition described herein. was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the oOBuild-outM column. 2010-1/ TouJ PROPOSED 2006-C7 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through .n EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Dosign/lnspcctionl 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 SO $0 S8,292,020 S8,292,020 Contingency $0 $0 SO SO S829,202 S829,202 Equipment/Other $0 $0 SO SO SO $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 SIO,365.025 $10,365,025 Potential Funding Sources: 152 General Fund revenues, Public Use Development Impact Fees, miscellaneous state and federal grants. (c) -",.-' ...... "" . ,. ... E t I I I I I I I I I I E ; I I I City of San Bernardino Aquatics Facilities 153 fI1'4. .. t - il 0- il M 8 co - '" l~~ .. ~ .. '" ;: al ::j ::i <( E ~l('; () ,., III <: .2 - .!!! t :; U- S I c:::. - I ~ I ~ I I ~ '" ~ I ~ . ~ ~ ~ " '" I <5 .2 ~ "- I c:::. ~ ~ ~ S .2 '5 I .'!! ,!l . u .~ a I '" . ~ ~ . I . '" ~ 1 [ . () E s c; ...i ~ ...i i .; - E Q .!!1 ~J ai . '0 .. ll.; II c; Q) c. !:~ ~ ~ en .~ I ~ - ,.... " U) ~ u ~ ~ 0 ~ u l'J ! all "'"' ... .~ I Q .ll g .. 0 Q) Q .. :ct '" .~ ~ l>' C . 154 <: U 1l: ",- Q) > .. a: I ".. .. '" .. t E I I I I t I I I II .\ I I E I I i I I E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Coutruct Water PooII A1tra<tion PrognuD: Aquatics FacUitico Submitting Departmont(s}: Parks. Recreation and Community Services Project No.: AQ-{ll P~;ect Description: The City's existing standard of pool surface space is 0.309 square fool per reaideDt, This is bued upon the provision of 61 ,690 square feet of pool surface space for the City's 199,803 rcoid..... (61,690/199,803 = 0,3(9). Based upon this existing standard and the potentW for 67.094 additional residents at General Plan build-out, the City could adopt and impose impact fees that would COUlI'uc/ an additional 20,732 square feel of pool surface space. The addition of 20,732 square feel would be adequate for a SO meter (by 2S yard) competition pool (12,188 square feel 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 Prq,ject: The 20.732 additional pool surface square feet would maintain the 0.309 square fcct of pool surface per resident standard. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Without adding to the City's inventory of pool space available for its rosideau, the standard of 0.309 square foot per person would drop 2S1I to about 0.231 square foot per person and the existing facilities would become morc crowded and the experience would be decreased in value. Reference DocUlllcnt: Staff planning. Prop:t Timing: 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 projcct cost default to the "Build-outM column. 20/0-11 PROPOSED 2006-{)7 2()()7-{)S 200S-<J9 2009- iO through EXPENDiTURES Build-out IJoojgnlInspeetion/ .AdmblUt1otion SO SO SO $0 $386.984 Land Acquisition/R' r of Way $0 SO SO $0 SO Construction $0 $0 SO SO $2,579,890 Contingency $0 SO $0 $0 $257,989 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST SO SO SO $0 $3,224,863 Potential Funding Sources: General Fund revenues, Aquatics Program Development Impact Fees. miscellaneous state and federal grants. (e) TotAl all Y041lI $386,984 SO $2,579,890 $257,989 SO $3,224,863 155 -.,.-.... ... .. t I t- I I I I I I I I I I II ;! I I II ;1 E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Progn11J: Aquatics Faci1ilioo P"!joct Title: ConslrUCl Locker/ Ad_alion Building Submitting Deportment(s): Parks. Recreation and Community Services Project No.: AQ-02 Pl'C!jcct Description: The City's existing standard of poollocker/maintenanc. building space is 0.484 square foot per resident. This is baaed upon the provision of 2.563 square fcct of pool building space for the City's 5,300 residents (2,563/5,300 = 0.484). Baaed upon this .xisting standard ODd the potential for 67,094 additional residents at Gen.ral Plan build-out, the City could adopt ODd impose impact fees that would construct an additional 8.118 square feet of pool building space. Justincation/Rcquin:mcnt for Prq;ect: Th. 8.118 additional pool building square fcct 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 rClidcnts, the standard of 0.121 square foot per person would drop 25% to about 0.090 square foot per penon and the existing facilities would become more crowded and the ex.perience would be decrcucd in value. R~ft:rcnce Document: Staff planning. Project Timing: The timing of the capital construction or acquisition described herein, was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project costl default to the "Build-out" column. All costs arc lit nominal. or current dollar value. 20Jo-/J PROPOSED 2(}()6-o7 2(J()7-(J8 2008-09 2009-10 through EXPENDITURES Build-out Design/inspectionl Administration SO $0 $0 $0 $240,968 Land AcquisjtionlRighr of Way $0 SO SO $0 $0 COllsttuction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1.606,455 Contingt:ncy $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,646 Equipmt:nt/Othet SO SO SO $0 SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO $0 $2,008,069 Potentia} Funding Sources: General Fund revenues, Aquatics Program Development Impact Fees, miJc:ellancous state and federal grants. (,) Totlli .n Yean $240,968 SO $1.606,455 $160,646 SO $2,008,069 156 ...'.-'. . ".".,..... ~.2lll6'. ,.. .. ,. Ia C t I I Ii I I I ; I I I I ; I!.. II I t City of San Bernardino Parkland Acquisition and Facilities Improvements 157 ... III I"l ... ; ~.., Ii i I [ I I E r a I I I I i E I I I E City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Pro.iect Title: Construct Six 5.0 As:fC Neighborhood Parks Program: ParI< II1d Open Space Land Acquisition and DeveloplllClll Submitting Deportment(s): Community Services Department Project No.: PK-Ql Project Description: Acquire land for/develop six 5.0 acre neighborhood parks dcsigned to meet neighborhood acceu to youth and adults for nearby non-programmed sports and activity use. Examples of improvements would include a turfed sports field. a small seale baseball backstop for "pick-up" play. a concrete basketball court, 8 small playground climbing apparatus, a drinking fountain. small restroom, and pienic tables and benches. Project design. project administration and inspection costs arc included in the $340,945 per acre construction cost. Land COlts are included at $10.00 per square foot. JustiJ1C8tionlRcquUcI1Jt:lJt for Project: A neighborhood park. according to the National Parks and Rccieation Association. is "Easily ac:ccssablc to neighborhood populatioJi- geographically centered with safe walking and bike accesll. May be developed as a school-patk facUity. .. There are no speciflC plans Cor 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 Pr~jcl;t: Demands for local and acessable park facilities would go unmct for this area. Reference Document: None, the future needs arc merely based upon the standards representing Quimby Act provisions and uscrs statrsbes. Project Timing: Thc timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not included in thc scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 201Q-ll TouJ PROPOSED 2006-07 2OO7-OS 2OOS-1J9 2009-10 througb all EXPENDITURES Build-out y...... Design/Inspection! Administration SO SO SO SO S2.508.846 S2,508,846 Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO SI3.068.ooo S13.068,OOO Construction SO SO SO SO S6.432,942 S6,432,942 Contingency SO SO SO SO S1.286,586 S 1.286,586 Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO S23.296.374 S23,296.374 Potential Funding Sources: 159 Park Impact Fees, Quimby Fees. General Fund contributions, State Park grants and occasional federal grants (c) . '.'_::r'::':':;:::;;~::_::r:?f:::::::-:;:::::::;' ..,w.... - .. ,. a. t ; i I i E I I I E I I I ; E E E I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: conitruct Seven 10.0 Acre Passive Community Parks Program: Part and Open SI'"" Land Acquioition and Development Submitting Departmmt(s): Community Services Department Projoct No.: PK -02 P~;cct Description: Acquire land for/develop JeVCD 10.0 acre community parks designed to mocl area-wide passive needs for nearby non-programrned sports, activity and picnicing U5C. Community parks are intended to meet passive uses for families and groups. Improvements would inc:lude informal sportsficlds. play areas with playground apparatus. restrooms, numerous picnic: tables a number of them under shade structures, barbcques. benches and non-lighted tennis. basketbalJ and volleyball courts. Passive parks may ilia have a concrete stage, bandshcll or a large gazebo. There would also be sidewalks, security lighting and park signage. Project design. project administration and inspection costs arc included in the 5340,945 per acre construction cost. Land costs are included at $10.00 per square foot. JusrIDestion/Rcquiremcnt for Project: A community park. according to the National Parks and Recreation Association as an .. Area of diverse environmental quality. May includc areas suited for intense recreational facilities. such as atheletiec complcxCl, largc swimming pools. May be an area of natural quality fot outdoor recreation, such as walking. viewing, sitting, picknicing. May be any combination of the above. depending upon sitc suitability and community need. There are no specific plans for the possible combinations of parb: (e.g. neighborhood, community or sportS parks) to be configured from the 200 acres of parks that could be fmanced by park development impact fees. Such plans would be All park improvements must meet the American with Disabilities Act requirements of access for all. CONsequences of Not Completing Project: The City currently maintains a 2.69 acres per 1,000 person standard. 1m light of the addition of 12,354 detached homes and 8,599 attached homes, additional parks will need to be constructed. There are no specific plans for the possible 200 acres of parks that couldbe fmanccd by park impact fees. Failure to maintain existing park acres will ultimately decrease the usage and viability of the parks reducing the &eeC$sability of recreational activities. Reference Document; None, the future needs are merely based upon the standards representing Quimby Act provisions and users statistics. Project Timing: 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 "BuUd-out" column. 20J()-1l PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-JO through EXPENDITURES Build-out Design/lnspection/ AdllJinjstn.tion SO SO $0 SO S5.853.974 . Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO . soi S30,492.ooo CO/1struction SO SO SO $0 . $15.010.198 Contingency $0 $0 SO $0 $3,002.041 Equipment/Other SO $0 SO $0 SO TOTAL COST SO $0 SO SO $54,358.213 ToW all y...,.. S5,853.974 S30,492.OOO SI5.010,198 $3,002,041 $0 $54,358,213 PotMtial Funding Sources: Park. Impact Fees. Quimby Fees. General Fund contributions, State Park grants and occasional federal ~rants 160 I I ... (e) -.,.:lIlO6.' "" lIII t , I ; I I I I I I I I I I E I I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: Construct Four 25.0 Al:re Al:tive (sports) Communiry Parks Progrom: Park and Opcrl Space Land Al:quisition and DevdoplllOlll Submitting Department(s): Community Services Department Project No.: PK-03 ~jccr Description: Acquire land for/develop four 25.0 acre sports parks designed. to meet area-wide active needs for nearby programmed sports. activity and minor picnicing U5C. Sports parks arc intended to meet active uses for associations and large groups. Improvements would include lighted baseboll and softboll fields. lighted soec:c:r/footboll fidds. Other improve_ rypicaIly irldude groups fo five or six full-sized b_oll courts and a number of lighted tennis courts. Project design, project admin.i.Jtration and inspection costs are -included in the $340.945 per acre construction cost. Land costs arc included at $10.00 per square foot. JustiBCll.tjon/Requircl1JClIt for Prqject: 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 athe1etice 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 ara no spe<ifl< plans for the possible combinations of parks (a.l. neighborhood, community or sports parks) to be configured from the 200 acres of parks that could be fmanced by park development impact fees. Such plans would be All park improvemca.tI must meet the American with Disabilities Act requirements of access for all. Consequences of Not Completing Project: Tha City currantly maintains a 2.69 ac:res per 1.000 person standard. 1m light oftha addition of 12.354 datachad hom.. and 8.599 attac:hed homes. additional parks will need to be constructed. There arc no specific plans for the possible 200 acres of parks that couldbe fmanccd by park impact fees. Failure to maintain existing park acres will ultimately decrease the usage and viability of the parks reducing the acccssability of recreational activities. ToW III Yean Reference Document: None, the future needs are merely based upon the standards representing Quimby Act provisions and users statistics. Project Timing: 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. PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-JO EXPENDITURES Design/lnspection/ Admuustrstjon SO SO SO SO Land Acquisition/Right of Way SO SO SO SO Construction SO SO SO SO Contingency SO SO SO SO Equipment/Other SO SO SO SO TOTAL COST SO SO SO SO 20JD-ll througb Build-out S8.362.828 $43.560,000 S21.443.144 $4.288.628 SO S77.654.600 PotentisJ Funding Sources: I i (,~arl< Impact Faas. QUImby Faas, Ganeral Fund conlnbul1ons, State Park grants and occaSIOnal fadaral grants S8,362.828 543.560.000 S21.443.144 54.288.628 SO S77.654.600 161 r }.lIlIl6 .... I i C) I ... .. ,.. k t I i I I E I I I i I I, ;1 ! i , I I City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Pro,ject Title: Miscellanea... Park Improvemcnu Progrom: Park and Open Spocc Land Acquisition and Dcvelopmcnl Submitting Dcpurmcnt(.): Community Services Department Project No.: PK -()4 Project Description: Improvements could include. but would not be limited to: basketball courts. playground climbing apparatus, drinking fountains. restroom. picnic tables, barbcques and bonches, basketball courts, playground climbing apparatuJ, drinking Colllltains, restrooms, picnic: tables, barbcques and benches. Park construction coats are estimated at $3S7.437/acre for the 39.5 acres of mixed active/passive parkland development. Project design. project administration and inspection com are included in the 5340,945 per acre construction cost. Land costs IlrC 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 (acilia 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 the 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 aceesa for all. Consequences of Not Completing Project: The City currently maintains a 2.69 acres per 1,000 person standard, 1m light of the addition of 12,354 detached homes and 8,599 allachad homes, additional parks will need to be constructed. There are no speciflC plans for the possible 200 acres of parks that couldbe rmanc:cd by park impact fees. Failure to maintain existing park acres will ultimately decrease the usage and viability of the parks reducing the acc:essabUity of recreational activities. Reference Document: None, the future needs are merely based upon the standards representing Quimby Act provisions and users statistics. Project Timing: The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay acquisition described herein, was not inc:1uded in the scope of this engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. 2010-11 Tot.J PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009- 10 through all EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Dcslgnlhupcction/ Admmistntion $0 $0 SO SO Sloo,ooo Sloo,ooo Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 SO SO SO SO $0 Construction SO SO $0 $0 $800,000 S8OO,OOO Contingency SO $0 $0 SO $100,000 Sloo,ooo Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Potential Funding Sources: 162 Park Impact Fees, Quimby Fees, General Fund contributions, State Park grants and occasional federal grants (oj -.,..2lICl6.. "" ~ t E E t I i I I I I I . I . I I I I (0) City of San Bernardino Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Project Title: OJlCll Space: Acquisition (159.4 acres) Program: Park and Open Space: Land Acquisition and Devclopmem Project No.: PK -os Submitting Department(s): Community Servic:c5 Department P~i<<t Description: Acquire approximately 169.5 &Cres of open space in order to maintain the 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 that could be used to conncc:t the City's many tTaUs. JustificotjonJRoquiremcnt for Project: The construction of new homes, condominiums, apartments and businC5SC5 will eliminate what arc now open spaces. The impact fee. if adopted and impoacd uniformly, would ennble the City to acquire 169.5 acres of open space at approximately $1.00 per square fOOl. There arc no costs for development of the open space but natural trails and minimal improvementl1ike trailheads could be expected. Consequences of Not Completing Prqicct: Open spaec would not be acquired and perhaps many of the existing trails could not be connected. Reference Document: None, the future necxls are merely based upon the standards representing current space and users statistics. Project Timing: 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 HBuild-out" column. 2010-// PROPOSED 2~7 2007-08 2008-()9 2009-10 through EXPENDfTURES BuUd-out DcsignlImpcctionJ AtimbJbtration $0 $0 $0 SO $0 Land Acqui.;tjon/Right of W.y $0 SO SO SO $4,015,018 Construction $0 SO $0 SO $0 Contingency SO $0 $0 SO $0 Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 SO $0 TOTAL COST $0 $0 SO SO $4,015,018 Total all Years $0 $4,015,018 $0 $0 $0 $4,015,018 Potential Funding Sources: Park Impact Fees, Quimby Fees, GeDeral Fund contributions, S_ Park grants and occasional federal grants 163 - ,.. C L [ [ ~ E [ [ E E E I I E I I I I END OF PLAN 164 ** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - NOT A PUBLIC DOCUMENT ** RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM TRACKING FORM Meeting Date (Date Adopted): ll"~, D ~} Item y ~ 1:; Resolution # J () L0h ' OJ 1 Vote: AyeslJ~1 ~ Il.o Nays t{ I ~ 71 Abstain Absent Change to motion to amend original documents 0 Companion Resolutions N ulJ/V oid After: days I Resolution # On Attachments: 0 PUBLISH 0 RECORD W/COUNTY 0 Note on Resolution of attachment stored separately: 0 POST 0 Date Sent to Mayor: ~ / L{ , 0 y Date of Mayor's Signature: ~ " ~ lJ (" Date ofClerklCDC Signature: \,\/. D~- Date Memo/Letter Sent for Signature: I" Reminder Letter Sent: Date Returned: 2nd Reminder Letter Sent: By: /' Reso, Log Updated: ~/ Seal Impressed: 0/ Reso, # on Staff Report 0 Not Returned: 0 Request for Council Action & Staff Report Attached: Updated Prior Resolutions (Other Than Below): Updated CITY Personnel Folders (6413, 6429, 6433,10584,10585,12634): Updated CDC Personnel Folders (5557): Updated Traffic Folders (3985, 8234, 655, 92-389): Copies Distributed to: Animal Control City Administrator City Attorney Code Compliance Development Services Others: v EDA o o o o o Facilities Finance o o Fire Department Human Resources /' Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No ----T By_ NO!fjY , No B No By = No By_ Information Services o o o o o Parks & Recreation Police Department Public Services Water Department Notes: / / Ready to File: V Date: ~/-1 ,,()b Revised 12/18/03