HomeMy WebLinkAbout27-City Administrator
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Fred Wilson, City Administrator
Subject: Workshop of the Mayor and
Common Council to discuss development
impact fees
Dept: City Admininstrator's Office
Date: November 14, 2005
MICC Meeting Date: November 21, 2005
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
Recommended Motion:
No action is needed at this time.
Contact person: Lori Sassoon
Phone:
5122
Supporting data attached: staff report draft study Ward: all
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: none
Source: (Accl. No.)
(Accl. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No.
NO.2,
, I. 2..1.. os-
STAFF REPORT
Subiect:
Workshop of the Mayor and Common Council to discuss development impact fees
Backl!round:
Development continues to move ahead at a record pace throughout the City. At this time,
approximately 2,000 new homes are in various stages of development, along with a large amount
of commercial development. This rate of growth 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
impact fees. 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, park and recreation, and storm drains for
many years. These fees have not been adjusted for a considerable amount of time. It is staffs
belief that a new nexus study will demonstrate a need to increase these fees in order to provide
funds for capital projects necessitated by development throughout the community. In addition,
new impact fees for police and fire facilities and equipment may be proposed to help fund capital
equipment related to the provision of public safety services, which are also strained by new
development.
To that end, a consultant was retained to develop the study, and the study began in July. At the
workshop, the City's consultant will make a presentation and answer questions during this
workshop.
A draft copy of key parts of the study is attached.
Financial impact:
None by this action
Recommendation:
No action is needed at this time.
)I b"A rr,
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 financed by impact fees, by
infrastructure.2 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 is fair.
Lastly, this Report provides the documentation of the City's costs which serve as the basis for
calculating Development Impact Fees (DIFs). The updated Development Impact Fees and
related information can be found in Chapters 3 through 9 and Appendices A and B of this
Report. Appendix C is the Master Facilities Plan which contains the specifics about the
projects that support of the fee calculation.
RCS has met with City staff from the Police, Fire, Planning, Community Services and Public
Works Departments staff to review the supporting data which forms the calculation of DIFs.
The results of this review can be found on the schedules located at the end of each Chapter.
Inclusion of the "Proportional Analvsis." 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 de1acto or actual level of service provided to
the existing community. This addition will assist the Council in making the difficult policy
decisions regarding the required additions of new development.
City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
I
Impact Fee Structure. The General Plan provides a range of potential densities for residential
development, as such, the DIFs for residential uses need to be calculated on a per dwelling
unit basis to reflect more accurately the impacts from a specific development. For example, a
property zoned as detached dwelling residential development may contain from three to six
units per acre. If fees are calculated on an acreage basis, the developer proposing three units
per acre will pay the same amount as a developer constructing six units per acre. Similarly,
fees are calculated on a square footage basis for commercial and industrial properties to reflect
the impacts of different building intensities for this type of development.
A second reason for the proposed DIF fee structure recommended in this Report involves the
issue of building expansion or intensification of commercial and industrial areas. For
example, if a property owner of commercial or industrial property proposes an expansion to
his building, the question exists about how to charge this proposed expansion for its impact on
the City's streets, storm drainage system, and other infrastructures. A fee calculated on a
building square footage basis will simplify this calculation.
CALCULATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
In California, State legislation sets certain legal and procedural parameters for the charging of
these fees. This legislation was passed as AB1600 by the California Legislature and is now
codified as California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66009. This State law went
into effect on January 1, 1989.
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, AB1600 requires the following:
1. Delineation of the PURPOSE of the fee.
2. Determination of the USE of the fee.
3. Determination of the RELATIONSHIP between the use of the fee and the type of
development paying the fee.
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.
City afSan Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
2
This Report, with some additions, utilizes the basic methodology consistent with the above
requirements of AB1600. Briefly, the following steps were undertaken in the calculation of
impact fees for the City and are listed below:
1. Define the level of service needed within the General Plan area for each
project or acquisition identified as necessary. In some areas, certain
statistical measures are commonly used to measure or define an
acceptable level of service for a category of infrastructure. Street
intersections, for instance, are commonly rated based on a Level of
Service scale of "A" to "F" developed by transportation engineers.
2. Review the Land use map and determine the existing mix of land uses
and amount of undeveloped and developed land. The magnitude of
growth and its impacts can thus be determined by considering this land
use data when planning needed infrastructure. The inventory can be
found in Table 2-1.
3. Identify all additions to the capital facilities or equipment inventory
necessary to maintain the identified levels of service in the area. Then,
determine the cost of those additions.
4. Identify a level of responsibility, identifying, as termed in this Report,
the relative need (or as referred to in the accompanying schedules as
"PERCENT NEED") for the facility or equipment necessary to
accommodate "growth" as defined, and as opposed to current needs.
5. Distribute the costs identified as a result of development growth on a
basis of land use. Costs are distributed between each land use based on
their relative use of the capital system. For example, future street costs
were distributed to each land use based on their trip generation
characteristics.
OTHER ASSUMPTIONS OF THE REPORT
In addition to the land use assumptions contained in the next Chapter of this Report, other
important assumptions of this study include the following:
"Normal" Subdivision Improvements Omitted. Not included in either of the project lists or
consequent calculations are the "local" public improvements generally associated with and
identified as being the sole responsibility of the developer through the subdivision or
development review process. This type of "on site" improvement would include all capital
construction within the boundaries of any development, such as street lights, curb, gutter,
City a/San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
3
sidewalks and neighborhood "local" streets. These improvements would continue to be the
direct responsibility of the developer, with or without the addition of Development Impact
Fees.
Land Costs. Land acquisition cost estimates were developed after discussions with City
officials. Arguments for higher or lower costs can be made; however, the herein contained
per acre amounts appear to be the most appropriate current figures for the purposes of this
study.
"Zone-based" Fees for DIFs. In some categories of infrastructure, primarily storm drainage,
the DIFs may need to recognize subregion or smaller portions of the City with extraordinary
service costs or infrastructure needs. Subregions are generally the result of some geographical
feature such as a river or hilly terrain that creates a differing need for infrastructure in the
subregion. A reservoir that must be built at substantial costs to allow a small area of the City,
above the current level of other reservoirs, to be developed, while there is no benefit to any
other area of the City would be a prime example. A specific overlay or surcharge fee may be
necessary in order to eliminate the possibility of others who will not receive any benefit from
the reservoir from being required to assume responsibility for payment of that reservoir.
As will be explained in later chapters in this Report, RCS is recommending only the limited
use the a zone-based fee for fire suppression services for the Arrowhead Springs area.
Exclusion of Tax "Credits" for Undeveloped Land. It has been argued by some that a credit
for capital-related revenues, such as gas taxes, should be made against the development impact
fees calculated or imposed by a city. Using the state gas tax as an example, proponents of a
DIF credit argue that a city will receive increased annual gas taxes because of the additional
population generated by future residential development. It is therefore argued that a developer
should receive a credit for any associated gas tax revenues collected as a result of the residents
or businesses that occupy the new dwellings against any Circulation System impact fee
imposed by the City based on either of two separate arguments.
The first argument for a gas tal' creriit supposes that the additional gas taxes created by
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.
City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
4
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 I experience that gas taxes are barely adequate to meet streets-related operational costs,
and if they are sufficient to meet these costs, the remainder is used for capital-related
maintenance projects. The amount of gas tax revenues used for expansion of the existing
street system is usually, and specifically in San Bernardino's case, a nominal amount of the
total.
For these reasons, a credit is not considered for Circulation DIF in this Report. A similar
discussion can be made for the other fees considered herein, and therefore no credits against
such fees are included in this calculation of impact costs.
Financing Costs. Since financing costs reflect an actual, and generally significant, outlay of
funds for an agency, they are included in the project costs where debt financing will likely be
necessary due to the immediacy of the need for the facility or infrastructure to show the full
costs of such facility or infrastructure and insure that new development also pays its "fair
share" of these costs. These costs are indicated on the project "detail" spreadsheets (3.1, 4.1,
5.1, etc.).
Appropriate Expansion. Debt service is a reasonable cost of construction of many, but not
necessarily all, public facilities and infrastructure. The following example illustrates. DIFs
are collected in incremental amounts, but facilities are not expanded in those same incremental
amounts. As an example, a community center fee, based upon a standard of 1.2 square feet
per Detached Dwelling, may be collected for each residential dwelling in the City, but after
collecting the fee for a 100-unit subdivision, it would be impractical to expand the community
center 120 square feet. Fees are collected, placed in a separate fund, generating interest until
such a time that a 2,000 to 3,000 square foot expansion is possible. During that build-up time,
the community center will experience some temporary overcrowding as the standard drops
from 1.2 S.F.ldwelling to about 0.9 S.F.ldwelling. This "temporary oven;apacity" clearly
may be an inconvenience, bringing ilbout some crowding and an increased unavailability for
rental or event reservation until enough DIFs have been collected for a practical expansion to
bring the community center facility back up to the original standard. In short, a development
of 120 homes may be brought "on-line" (occupancy approved) and bring about a temporary
reduction in community center facility standards without endangering the citizens' health and
safety.
However, such a "temporary overcapacity" in storm water collection is not at all possible.
Capacity for the collection/removal of storm water must be available prior to the construction
that increases the impervious surface (and thus storm water runoff) of the parcel. If the local
storm collection line is currently at capacity (peak or otherwise), no additional units may be
brought on line until additional collection capacity can be created. Again, there is a practical
size of addition to construct and it is not likely practical for developers to wait until there is
enough added demand (and fees) to pay for the facility addition. As a result, financing
City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
5
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 staff's estimate, the
immediacy of need for the facility requires debt financing. In such cases, the debt service
payments would be discounted to today' s cost to account for the diminishing value of the
dollar and would be in keeping with the cost methodology used in this study to show projects
in current costs. To consider the face value of bond payments when determining costs, on the
other hand, would be inaccurate as it would treat the value of a dollar today the same as the
value of a dollar twenty years from now. Such an approach would tend to overvalue the costs
of debt service requirements and therefore cause an agency to overcharge on its development
impact fees. No project requiring debt service has been included in the Master Facilities Plan.
REQUIRED PROPORTIONALITY TEST
A test for proportionality is important, if for no other reason, than because it attempts to
achieve community inter-generational equity, i.e., fairness in balancing the
infrastructure investment made by existing residents and businesses with the
investment asked of new residents and businesses that will benefit from the existing
infrastructure. In short, previous generations of businesses and residents have
contributed to the development of the City's existing infrastructure and this fact should
be recognized by future residents and businesses by contributing a like (but no more
than) amount towards completing the various infrastructure systems.
It is one thing to identify the many public improvement projects needed through build-
out. It is an entirely different thing to assume that all of the identified improvements are
required to meet the demands of the new development. Clearly, some projects are
replacements of the existing infrastructure as opposed to capacity increasing projects.
Within the category of the latter, they may also be further classified into two categories;
1. Projects dealing with existing deficiencies, i.e., projects required regardless of
whether there is additional de'Jelopment or not. An example3 would be a traffic
intersection currently controlled by stop signs that meets traffic warrants for a
traffic signal, but is unfunded. An additional example would be the replacement
of an existing, but aged facility.
2. Projects that are required as a result of development. An example of this would
be a signal that is currently controlled quite adequately by stop signs, but
because of development in the near and "downstream" areas, will ultimately
need to be signalized.
All impact fee calculations claim to be fair. Most DIF calculations will identify the
desired or needed capital projects, explained as required as a result of the new
development. But, what is fair and equitable? Is it fair to require future residents and
businesses in a city to construct, via payment of impact fees, a new Police Station when
the current station is merely rented or leased space? On the other hand, if a
City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report 6
community already has all of the parks they will need at build-out, are they precluded
from imposing an impact fee to recoup some of that expenses incurred in constructing
the maximum needed park improvements prior to the maximum demand? These are
difficult questions that may be made clearer and easier by reviewing the following
examples.
Comparison of Needed Infrastructure with ExistinQ 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
Vallel for a few scenarios to explain the three possible conditions that can occur
regarding the agency's current infrastructures and the demand upon them. We will use
the provision of fire protection, a service that most of us as nonprofessional firefighters
can somewhat understand. These three "conditions" include, the fire suppression
system infrastructure construction:
1. is On-target,
2. has been Deficient, or;
3. has created Excess Service Capacity.
Adoption of a Standard - According to the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA), a standard two-bay fire station (estimated for purposes of this example to cost
about $3,000,000) can meet the needs of 5,000 homes or 10,000,000 square feet of
business pad. If these standards were adopted as Happy Valley's- public safety
element of the City's General Plan, they would be known as the de jure or stated (or
desired) standard (i.e., the standard the community would like to meet). The inductive
impact fees (or cost per proportional unit served) for this de jure standard would then
be:
Table 1-1
Calculation of N.F.P.A. Impact Cost
Land Use Station Units Impact Fee
Cost Served
Residential $3,000,000 5,000 $600.00 per
Units home
Business S.F. $3,000,000 10,000,000 $0.30 per S.F.
City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
7
Service Base - Happy Valley's General Plan indicates that there will be 10,000
residential units and about 20,000,000 square feet of commercial/industrial space at
build-out, creating a need for four stations. The station impact cost calculation is
following:
Table 1-2
Determination of Required Number of Stations
Number Units seNed Stations
of Units by One Required
Station
Residential 10,000 5,000 2 Stations
Units
Business S.F. 20,000,000 10,000,000 2 Stations
Required 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-
seNice). The existing development in Happy Valley is generating half of its ultimate
(General Plan build-out) fire calls-for-seNice. This is demonstrated in Table 1-3 on the
following page:
[This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page].
City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
8
Table 1-3
Development of Current Infrastructure is "On-Target"
Number Units served Stations
of Units by One Required
Station
Residential 6,250 5,000 1.25 Stations
Units
Business S.F. 7,500,000 10,000,000 0.75 Stations
Total Number of Stations Required Currently 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 Stations
of Units by One Required
Station
Residential 3,750 5,000 0.75 Stations
Units
Business S. F. 12,500,000 10,000,000 1.25 Stations
# of New Stations Required from Land to be Devel- 2.00 Stations
oped
If the development impact costs calculated in Table 1-1, ($600 per residence and $0.30
per square foot of business pad) were adopted and imposed as fees, The city of Happy
Valley would collect, by General Plan build-out, enough capital revenues to construct
the remaining two stations and proportionality, between existing and future residents
and businesses, would be evident. Table 1-5, on the following page, demonstrates this:
City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
9
Table 1-5
Remaining DIF Collection
Number Impact Amount
of Units Fee Collected
Residential 3,750 $600.00 $2,250,000
Units
Business S.F. 12,500,000 $0.30 $3,750,000
Amount Collected in Imoact Fees $6,000,000
Cost of a One New Station $3,000,000
Stations to be Built with Impact 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.PA standards?
The simple and direct answe~ is ~O. The Happy Valley community has not (with only
one station constructed at half build-out) demonstrated their full and complete
commitment to meeting the N.F.P.A. standards, and as a result would not have a strong
case to assert that others who build after them need to contribute towards the
construction of multiple (two) fire stations at a higher service rate by including the
"missing" second station, especially when the community has been served by the lower
level of service with one station.
The service provided by the single existing station is the community's de facto (or "in
fact") standard service level. With one station, the contributed equity to build the single
station would be half of the impact fee proposed in Table 1-1, or $300/residential unit
and $0.15/square foot of business space, respectively (see Table 1-6, on the following
page).
City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
10
Table 1-6
Impact Fee at Deficient Condition
Number Existing Amount
of Units Contribu- Collected
tion
Residential 3,750 $300.00 $1,125,000
Units
Business S.F. 12,500,000 $0.15 $1,875,000
Amount Contributed bv ExistinQ Community $3,000,000
Cost of One New Station $3,000,000
Station(s) built with Community's Contribution 1.00
If Happy Valley has only built one station at half General Plan build-out, we would be
forced to conclude that the City is currently deficient by one station. If the future
residents were asked to pay at a rate that would build two stations (the $600/$0.30
rates) the City would have three stations at General Plan build-out, one financed and
built by the first half of the community, and two financed and built by the second half of
the community. The first half of the community would, in effect "inherit" one half of a
station at no cost to themselves. In short, Happy Valley's impact fees would fail the
proportionality test. The inequity would then be exacerbated when the community
decides to build the final "missing" last station (of four) from 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
$300/residence and $O.15/sQuare foot rates. Adoption of this fee would be referred to
as the Community Financial Commitment or Equity-based Impact Fees.
Admittedly, the City will go further into a deficit position in terms of the number of
required stations, from being deficient by one station at half General Plan build-out to a
deficiency of two stations at General Plan build-out, but the ratio of deficiency (or
overall proportionality) would remain a constant 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
City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
11
excess capacity in each of the three existing stations. In this case, the Happy Valley's
current de facto standard would be well above the de jure or target standard.
Statistically, each of the three stations would have 1/3 excess capacity (for providing
services) and should be busy only about two-thirds of the time. Should the impact fee
be limited only to the marginal $300 per residence and $0.15 per business square foot
required to construct the one remaining required station? If so, the future residents
receive a gift of the extra (third) station. There will be tough decisions ahead to be
made by the Happy Valley City Council.
Marqinal or Recoupment Fee? The Happy Valley City Council should adopt, at a
minimum, the $300/residence and $0.15/square foot business space rates to insure that
the fourth station would be built. This would be referred to as the marginal needs-
based fee. This would be a benevolent gesture, giving the new residents a free ride on
the cost of the (already built and paid for) third station.
Or in the alternative, the Council can recognize that the $3,000,000 used to build the
third station was a loan from the existing community's General Fund receipts, and
needs to be repaid by the future community receiving an instantaneous level of fire
protection the day they receive their occupancy permit5, through the imposition and
collection of impact fees.6 In this case, the $600lresidence and $0.30/square foot of
business space impact fees should be adopted, imposed and collected. The impact fee
would accumulate $6,000,000 through build-out, with $3,000,000 required to repay the
General Fund in delayed revenue (for Station #3) and $3,000,000 necessary to
construct the fourth station. This would be referred to as the fair share or
recoupment-based at General Plan build-out fee. And more importantly, at General
Plan built-out, long term equity would be achieved as each home and business would
have contributed the same $600 per residence and $0.30 per square foot.
Exceptions to Proportionality Test. The previous discussion applies particularly well
to above ground or facility-based services such as public-use centers, pools, police and
fire stations, civic centers maintenance yards or other fixed location and fixed capacity
facilities that serve the entire population.. However, it does not necessarily work well on
ground level or below system infrastructure such as streets, utilities, and storm
drainage, where the continuation of a deficient system into the future is not at all
possible and the lack of additions would ensure the complete inability to approve any
further private construction without creating unsafe conditions to a specific area. As an
example, if the agency's storm drainage system is currently deficient and creates some
period flooding but not necessarily in dangerous amounts, the agency may not be able
to approve and allow any more future development unless the 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 Specific Area. An additional exception occurs when the
need or benefit from a specific facility is generated by a finite or easily defined area
City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
12
such as a specific plan or a new area of the agency that is significantly outside of the
existing agency's urban in-fill service area or the specific plan is primarily the sole
beneficiary of the infrastructure to be constructed. An example may be a small area of
the City, proposed for say 2,000 homes, but separate from the rest of the City in such a
way that, to meet the General Plan's stated fire suppression standard level of service of
a five minute response time, it requires a separate fire station but serving less than any
of the other stations, which on average serve 5,000 homes. There is little argument as
to why the remaining residents and businesses should not need to finance that higher
station cost per home served. This is not uncommon in an area geographically
separated from the major, or urban, part of the community. An example would be a
small area separated by a river or up on a hillside or in a canyon. The Arrowhead
Springs area may well fit this definition and in fact, the proposed Station #223 would
not be needed were it not for the more isolated, very low density/high open space
acreage Arrowhead Springs development.
Density may also be a factor. Fire infrastructure 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
infrastructure costs per home for the lesser density will be far higher than the
infrastructure costs required to serve the more compact but higher density. Again, the
Arrowhead Springs area meets this exception in that the existing twelve fire stations
serve a compact density of about 5.4 detached dwellings per acre, while the future
residential development will result in about 2.7 detached dwellings per acre.
Public Utilities. The impact fee treatment for municipal utilities is particularly clear in that
the utility's operating and capital funds do not receive any Generaf Fund financial
support and they do not typically charge stand-by fees to vacant property. This means
that the entire utility system has been supported only by user fees (payments by the
utility's customers). Or stated in another way, it is user-financed. In many cases the
utility may have significant extra capacity because most infrastructure cannot be
expanded in small defined portions that exactly match the pace of new development,
(e. g. water reservoirs are generally expanded on 1.0 million gallon portions, not 1,000
gallons at a time). Should not this excess capacity be paid for by new users that
connect to the system who will benefit from the excess capacity has been constructed
and identified?
A water distribution system may also have significant distribution system capacity to
reach homes and businesses in more outlying areas. RCS recently assisted with a city
where the existing water users, currently representing only 55% of the water use
demand at General Plan build-out, had already constructed nearly 70% of the entire
water system. The 15% difference amounted to just over $7.0 million. Does this mean
the excess capacity paid for by the existing users should be a gift to the future users?
Does the Government Code ~66000 et. seq. prevent this city from recouping the
advanced costs invested by the current users that will be the direct benefit of future
users? Simply stated, excess capacity can and should be identified wherever possible,
and recovered7. 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
City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
13
Water Fund.
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 deficientB in others, as you will see in the remainder
of the Report
OTHER ISSUES
Some members of the building industry have claimed that the addition of impact fees unfairly
creates an inflated resale price for existing homes. The argument is that if the public agency
adopts a $15,000 to $20,000 impact fee per detached dwelling home, then the price for an
existing home is "artificially" increased by the same amount. We will use the example of a
detached dwelling that cost the developer $200,000 to construct and complete to a point that
the occupancy permit is approved.
Full Cost of a Residential Detached Dwelling. The $200,000 represents only the above
ground costs. The true and actual cost of a new home is the cost of acquiring the parcel,
necessary government approvals and permits, construction supplies, labor, debt service on the
above, on-site9 public improvements, and
the hidden cost of extendinR public services10 to that home!
These public service extension costs include (but are not limited to):
. The addition of law enforcement personnel requiring the expansion of the police station
space and miscellaneous emergency response vehicles
. Additional fire stations and emergency fire, rescue and paramedic response vehicles.
. Arterials and collector road widenings, additional signalization and bridges.
. Additional capacity in downstream storm drainage pipes and outfalls.
. Additions to water delivery capability, including source, treatment, storage and
delivery.
City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
14
· 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.
Thus while the cost of constructing the above ground portion of a detached dwelling home
may be $200,000, the "downstream" costs identified above may be in the area of $15,000 to
$20,000 per detached dwelling home or in the area of? 5 % to 10.0 % of the above ground
cost.
If this argument is not clear, picture a 2,800 square foot home, costing approximately
$200,000 to construct the above ground structure, located in the middle of an empty square
mile, no roads, no utility service, no public safety response, no flood control and no
recreational facilities. What is the market value of this home? Probably not even the
$200,000 that it cost to construct the structure. All of a sudden, the $20,000 impact fee for all
the infrastructure needed to support that one home, seems like a reasonable choice, assuming
one can find an public agency capable of providing infrastructure support to the newly
developed residential dwelling.
The true and complete cost of a new detached dwelling is the cost of building the structure and
the cost of extending the municipal services to the dwelling regardless of who pays for the
actual costs of extending those services. To some degree these service-related infrastructure
costs have been recognized, the only question remaining is who should for pay them?
Effect on Market Price. Again, let us assume that a cumulative (i.e. all infrastructure
provided by a city) $20,000 impact fee imposed upon new detached dwelling home
construction increases the market price of an existing detached dwelling. Wouldn't this just be
the recognition that the existing detached dwelling already has those physical links to the
municipal services? A slightly different way of looking at this argument is that the existing
family homes each have a "share" ill a municipal corporation!! and the share is valued at the
cost of the connection to the various municipal utilities, transportation system, flood protection
and public safety. It is a logical step then to require any newly constructed home to purchase
a "share" at an equal cost.
CHAPTER ORGANIZATION
Within each infrastructure Chapter there will be a minimum of three and a maximum of four
cost/fee tables. They will be:
The first schedule, the Allocation of Project Cost Estimates identifies the project, its costs and
the relationship, in a percentage, to development.
"Marginal Needs "-based Impact Fee - This schedule will identify the impact fees that would
City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
15
need to be adopted to meet the basic capital needs identified in the Report (on the first
schedule at the end of the Chapter, i.e., 3.2,4.2,5.2 etc.) for that infrastructure.
With adoption of this level of impact fees, one could claim that new development is occurring
without any additional cost to the existing residents and businesses. You could not, however,
claim that new development is paying its "fair share."
Existing Commitment or /I Equity "-based Impact Fee - This schedule will identify the cost (in
current nominal dollar value) of the existing infrastructure, including land, physical
improvements and capital equipment. This is the average amount that has been"invested"by
the current community of residents and businesses. This equity will be expressed in terms of
the cost to construct or acquire the assets at current costs.
If the average "equity" (for detached dwellings for example) on this table is greater then the
average cost on the previous "Marginal Needs" table, then the infrastructure system is "front-
ended" or has excess capacity. Earlier residents and businesses of the community have put
more of the system into place than will the remaining unbuilt portions of the community, (as
they build). The existing community has advanced money to build capacity into the
infrastructure system to meet the needs of residents and businesses not yet there! The scenario
where Happy Valley had already built three fire stations while it only had the current demands
for two stations is an example of a front-ended system.
Adoption of this level of impact fee would allow the City to claim that new development is not
being required to pay to eliminate existing deficiencies.
Fair Share at General Plan Build-out Average-based Impact Fee or (existing capacity fee) -
When a system is front-ended, or where there is evidence of greater equity than of the
marginal needs-based costs, there will be a third table (4.4 or 5.4) that will identify the
average cost of the system required at "build-out" (the cost of the existing infrastructure
system plus the cost of the future system needs). It will be the average of the "marginal" and
the "equity" tables combined and then divided by the General Plan built-out community that
would represent an amount. tha~ if ~dopted, would equalize the cost of the system between the
future community with that of the existing community. The difference between the "marginal"
amount and the larger "equity" amount would be "recoupment" of front-ended or advanced
costs (or of delayed revenues).
However, if the average equity (again using a detached residential dwelling as an example) is
less than the average cost on the previous marginal-needs table (for the same detached
dwelling), it is an indication that system construction has been lagging or is currently deficient.
When the marginal needs are greater than the equity, the fees are limited to the equity figures,
based upon the argument that it would be inequitable to require future residents and businesses
to contribute greater amounts than have the existing residents and businesses. Where marginal
needs are greater than current equity, there is no need for the third table (Fair Share at General
Plan Build-out) in these cases. In short, if the existing community has not been inclined to
construct an infrastructure system proportionally as the community developed, what basis does
City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
16
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.
Adoption of this level of fee would allow the City to claim that development is paying its fair
share.
CHAPTER ENDNOTES
I. The lirm had been previously known as .\[allagemelll Services Illstilute. but the same partners reorganized as Revellue & Cost
Specialists, L. L. c..
2. For greater detail of each project, refer to the City's Master Facilities Plan..
3. Examples using other infrastructure will be used iTom time to time in this report.
4. "Happy Valley" 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 Valley. It is also a Happy Valley because there is no
inflation and the value of a dollar remains nominal.
5. Actually. the permitted structure receives fire protection services as it is being constructed.
6. This example assumes that each of the existing three stations is debt-free and owned out-right.
7. This action would be more supportable with a recent appraisal of the existing utility assets.
8. Not necessarily in a manner that indicates a danger. just below the standard being asked of the future residents.
9. On-site improvements include local streets and medians, curbs and sidewalks, sewer lines. water lines, street lights, storm
gutter or drainage pipes, electrical power lines and all of the other requirements of the City's building requirements on the
privately held property, hence the "on-site" reference. "Off-site" improvements are increased capacity needs that occur "down-
stream" from the private property. The on-site public improvements generally become a city asset upon acceptance of the on-
site public improvements made by the developer while the property upon which the on-site improvements, are still privately
owned. '
10. The City of San Bernardino does not necessarily provide all of these services. They are only highlighted to make a point
about the types of municipal services typically required to support a residential dwelling.
II. Not unlike a share in a corporation such as 1.8.1\1. or AT & T.
City of San Bernardino Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
17
City of San Bernardino
City Sphere of Influence
.ched Dwelling Units
h"dched Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Units
Commercial Lodging
Commercial/Office KSF
Industrial Uses KSF
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 # of Units
Total
Acres # 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
12,082.00 53,017
2,424.00 28,014
747.00 4,481
224.20 3,080
3,997.01 86,291
5,426.00 94,543
Total-CitySphere 1115.057.2 _ I 9.843.00 _124,900.21 _
Private Residences
Commercial Lodging Rooms
Business Square Feet
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
9,925.0 64,553
98.2 2,455
5.034.0 100,350
7,566.0 40,663
1,613.0 19,415
746.0 4,475
88.2 2,205
2,403.0 54,431
2,631.0 45,843
5.328.0 20.959
126.0 625
4.389.0 80,483
Undeveloped
Acres # of Units
15,253.0 85,512
224.2 3,080
9,423.0 180,833
Total
Acres # 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
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-totat Urban In-fill Area II 15,047.2 __ I 9,327.00 __ I 24,374.20 __
0, i-use Database Area #2
r;owhead Springs S.P.A.
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Units
Commercial Lodging
Commercial/Office KSF
Industrial Uses KSF
Sub-total Arrowhead SPA 1 I
0.0 0
0.0 0
0.0 0
10.0 250
0.0 77
0.0 0
10.0 I
32711
Undeveloped
Acres # of Units
88.0 465
66.0 558
0.0 0
125.0 600
237.0 1,045
0.0 0
516.00 1
2.66811
Total
Acres # of Units
88.00 465
66.00 558
0.00 0
135.00 850
237.01 1,122
0.00 0
526.01 I
2.995 I
~ 'c 'c ,- 'c 'c 'c
c:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ;;; " ~ t;; t;; t;; t;; ~
c: cs :a Q, Q, Q, Q,
Ql l-
e Sl " 0 CD .... ::/ :::' CD
Ii li! .. ;'i ~
~u.. .. ..... ....
~ ~ ~ Pi 0 i .. N ..
~ :i ,~ .. .. ..
Q, c:
.5 ~
t;;
ll.
.. 'J f
, .
,
~
*
....
~(.)
....tIl
00.
~E
Q)-
0,)"-1:
Q)tIlQ)
U.5-E
- CI) 0.
o 0
Q)<Il-
o.<IlQ)
1->- ~ ~
'Cij Cl
>-~'O
CDCDQ)
<Il...<Il
Q)Octl
Q) ..0
U.:~ I
....c::~
~ ::J ':;
o.Oler
E,EW
-= "-
....Q)O
C::~'O
oEClQ)
,E 0. Cij ~
'0 0',;;.0
"'-c::l
tIlQ)Q)'O
C::>'OQ)
... Q),- Q)
Q)Cl <Ilz
CD_Q)
c::oCI:Cij
Q) tIl >-... c::
":i CI) ~ ~'61
'0 oE<Il~
~ ~E:il E
U ,- ::l u.....
CI) UCl)~ctl
'g 8 l5 ;
ca a. 3 l>>
~ (I) en "5
to c: '5 al
:sc CD 0" .c
~8":tell
.. ..
u "
;...0
ca ::
g. 'u
< ~
-
01 0 ,...:
~ 'j ~ ~
,r ,,~ al
::E u.. .c:
ell
.. 5 <D
5'~i~
~ '~ ~ ~
u.. olI ell
<Il
Q)
Q)
U.
;.:! C\I
~ :g =- u;
CI) .2' 0) CD
c: II) :!! :;
o ri m "0
~ ~ "" Ql
"5 lb C .c.
l! ~ to ell
(3
;;; '"
5 ..; .;
'Vi Ql
.. . "
! ! : "5
i!~~~
cil 'g ell
u..
c: ca (f)
Q) _ co)
E .; "
tO~ CD tt.li "5
...Ju:.._~al
A .c:
Ifi '~ ell
u..
o .... 0
~ co (;
co~ cD cci
.. .. ..
-
cO
"
:;
al
.c:
ell
'" CD 1Il
~N.._
.. ..
.... .... ..
'" '" ..
CD .... CD
.. .. ..
'" .... Ol
~ U; ~
.. .. ..
" " "
" " "
u.. u.. u..
000
z z z
" " "
" " "
u.. u.. u..
o 0 0
z z z
" " "
" " "
u.. u.. u..
000
z z z
" " "
" " "
u.. u.. u..
o 0 0
z z z
ii
~ - N ~ '" '" . ~ a 0 c;; ~
;n .. III N g
i CD 0 .. ..
.. ~ ~ ! iii cO cO ~ ~ l
0 N g 0
N 0: CD
l8 i .. rD i Pi Pi - N cO
i i i Ol t; ;
.. ~
0 '" 0 0 0 0 '" '" 0 0 '" li
'" .. CD .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ....
'" '" 0 0 0 0
ai ai ui if! on Pi cO
.... Ol '" - Ol ....
N .. .. N N CD '"
Pi rD g 0 Pi ~
0 '" CD CD
.. .. .. .. ;;
N '" CD 0 0 0 N N 0 0 N ~
'" .. .... .. .. .. 0 0 .. .. '"
CD '" "! N. Ol .....
N ,.: ;; ;;; ;;; N ;
.... .", '"
'" "! N N N
Pi ;; lJt on on
.. .. ..
.. '" .. a 0 0 Ol CD 0 0 '" lii'
.... '" N .. .. ;$j '" .. .. N ....
..... '" '" 0 III
N ai .. ui ui 0 ~
N 0 .. ::l '" '"
"! '" '" '"
ui cO cO ai
.. .. .. ;; ;;
N '" '" 0 0 0 Ol Ol 0 0 .... N
CD .. - .. .. .. '" '" .. .. '" ;;;
CD .. III CD '"
,.: on N on on 0 lJt
CD '" .. ;n ;n ;;;
0 '"
ai .. N N N
.. .. .. ;; ;;
0 CD .. '" :5 '" Ol CD 0 0 0 Ol
.... ;;; .... 0 ~ .... .. 0 0 ~
.... 0 '" - .... 0 0
ai .. ui ai .. ,.: ~ 0 ui ai ,.:
CD ;n. .. '" ;:: Ol CD '" CD ~
.... CD .... '" '" Ol
.. .. ai Pi m ai 0 ai
N ;; CD CD CD Ol '"
.. .. .. .. ;; N '"
.. ..
CD ;;; '" 0 .. 0 Ol '" 0 0 '" ..
.. 0 '" 0 .... .... .. 0 CD Sl
N '" '" '" .. .. 0 ..
,.: N Pi ,.: cO ui i .. 0 ai l:i
Ol .... .. 0 CD '" Ol li! ;$j
CD '" N - ;; CD 0
ai ,.: .. ai .. .. .. 0 iii
.. .. .. N N '" -
.. .. .. ~
N CD N '" '" 0 8 :;: 0 0 CD 6i'
Ol N 0 N N N .. .. '" '"
'" .. N CD '" .... 0 0 '" '"
on on N on N N ~ .; 0 ui
0 '" .. N ;;; .... '" '" ;
0 Ol N N .... .... ..
cO .; .. ai .. N N N
.. .. .. N N '"
.. .. ..
c: ;;;
,2 !!! ]!
'il 'c !!! u.. ~ " a
" 'c II) " u
'8 ::l ::l 01 " u.. " c: .c:
c:
() 01 01 !!! ';;, " <Il u.. .. <Il
:i ~ 'c u " g ;;; '"'"
u.. ~ E III "
0 a; ::l In 01
a; Q " Q, "" In
~ ~ " .. .5 c: " ;;; to
1 E ;;; ;;; ::l " j ~ ~
'0 0 'u 'u :! " u..
" '0 J: t;; t;; '0 01
Q, .c: Ql i '1 ~
'u .c: .!!! E E c:
'''' g g :s 8 E " 'j t;; 'is.
~ ~ ~ 0 "" ;B .c: to
C ::E () () c: (3 0 ()
III en CO) Il) C\I 0
g~.~.~.<D~
~ ;; ;; ;; ~ ;;
~ 0) oo:t N r--. CO)
o CD CD M U'J 0
r--. co l.C) CO) N 0
t.It ..,. 4Ilt ..,. 0 0
.. ..
~ ~ ro CD ~ ~
co IJ) CO) M C\I 0
..,. "" fit ..,. 0 6
.. ..
en :! !!
u.. '2 '2
15- ~ ::l
o C) .!!
U :a ~ '2
o Q) - ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ -g "i ~
"3 .c .c .!!
o ~ ~ 15
j ~ ~ ~
u..
01 ~
.~ B ~
'8 E ~
...J Q 5l
'ii "i :J
'e 'ij -,"_
" t;;
E E i
88;5
() () .5
iti
w
I-
o
Z
.. =-
" "
u.. "
" u..
:a ~
" ..
Ii"
oli
'" 0
Ol '"
'N
Ol .
=..~
..-
'il ..
,9!. 'il
"
o ,_
- 0
Q, -
- Q,
to ]
'u
t;; i
E "
e ""
0 ,E
u S
S "
" t;
t; to
.. "
" "
" 0
0 c,
c, t;;
t;; Q,
Q,;j1
;j1 0
CD '"
'" '0
'0 ""
""-
- "
.~~
"" ..
'" Q,
Q, ..
'" "
" "
" e
.,; e "
" ..
01 " ..
:E .; " ..
.. ""
a; " .;
:a ,E
~ "" 5l :;
;;; .. " g
Q, "
" 0 u 'S
"" E
::E 8 0 c:
..
"" '" e
.5 '"' c:
" " '0 '"
c: " c:
" .. 'U '0
,- " "
c: e ,E 'U
~
:! ~ ;;; ,E
'u ]
E t;;
" " e i
"" :a
';; " E "
" li8 ""
CI: .5
SE~~
Appendix C
Master Facilities Plan
,.'" "',,
",' "
,ii
,.".., ...,.,
.,...,../,
ii",
/ Guide to the Master Facilities Plan
Project Cost Summary
/ Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Cost Summary
"".. LE-{)l Expand Law Enforcement Facilities Space
/ LE-{)2 Acquire Additional Patr01lDetectivelSpecialty Vehicles
'..'." LE-{)3 Acquire Officer Assigned Equipment
LE-D4 Acquire Advanced Computer/Data Sharing Systems
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
,Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Cost Summary
,i FD-Ol New Fire Station #233
FD-02 New Fire Station #233 Response Fleet
....... FD-03 Relocate Fire Station #221
FD-<J4 Relocate Fire Station #226
FD-05 Relocate Fire Station #229
'FD-06 Relocate Fire Station #230
FD-07 Renovate Station #221 as AdministrativeIMaintenance Facility
:/i FD-08 Construct a Vehicle Storage Building
,FD-09 Construct Training Facility
)FD-1O Acquire Two Command Vehicles
.....',.. FD-ll Acquire Four Squad Vehicles
( Circulation System (Streets, Signals and Bridges)
Circulation System Cost Summary
ST -{)l 40th Street, Acre Lane to Electric A venue
I' ST -{}2 5th Street, Sterling to Victoria
"'." ST -{}3 5th Street, Wann Creek to Pedley
ST -D4 Alabama Strteet, 3rd to City Limits
."". ST -{}5 Campus Parkway (pepper-Linden), Kendall to ]-215
i ST-{)6 Central (palm Meadows), Tippecanoe to Mpuntain View
".... ST -{}7 Coulston, Tippecanoe to Mountain View
ST -{}8 Connector, 3rd Street to 5th Street
ST -{}9 Del Rosa, 6th Street to 9th Street
ST-lO Electric, Mountain View to Northpark
ST-l1 "G" Street, Mill to Rialto Avenue
ST-12 "H" Street, Kendall to 40th
'i
.",
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan
Table of Contents
. .... .
.
.
:.
.. . '
1 i.
7
10
11
12
131
14
15
16
17,
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
. ..... ... , ' ...... .,. .. ,.:. . ,"...'. ..... ..,.
Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.
Fullerton, CA 92831
I/ii ','.., ,.,< "'>d > .>...>/,,". /., .,
City of San Bernardino "..' ,<
Ii > ,..,., >
Master Facilities Plan > "..'
><
iii >i Table of Contents ........................ '.<
<
'" .",078</.",., ,.,.."". ..,.....,....',
ST-13 Kendall, Cambridge to Pine 46
i ST -14 Lena Road, Mill to Orange Show 47
..".' ST-15 Little League Drive, Palm to 1-215 48
ST-16 Little League Drive, 1-215 frontage to Belmont 49
< ST-17 Little Mountain, Devil Creek Channel to 48th 50........
ST -18 Mill, Pepper to Meridian 51 ,)
~., ...
',.", ST-19 Mount Vernon Bridge 52 Ii
ST -20 Mountain View, Thompson to Electric 53/
"...
> ST-21 Mountain View Bridge at Mission Creek 54
..,
> ST -22 Mountain View, Riverview to Central 55
< ST-23 Mountain View, 1-10 to San Bernardino Ave. 56,....,
ST -24 Mountain View A venue Railroad Grade Crossing 57
ST -25 Palm, Cajon to 1-215 SB Ramp 58
ST -26 Pine, Kendall to Belmont 59<
ST-27 Perris Hill Park Road, 21st to Pacific 60
ST -28 Rancho, Colton City Limits to 5th 61
ST-29 Rialto, Sierra to Waterman 62
. < ST - 30 Rialto, Lena to Tippecanoe 63 ......
ST-31 State Street, 16th to Foothill 64
ST-32 State Street. Foothill to 1-215 65,.,.."
ST - 33 Tippecanoe, Mill to Harriman 66........
< ST - 34 University Parkway, Hallmark to BNSF Grade Separation 67 Ii
iST-35 Waterman, 5th to Baseline 68 I
....... ST - 36 Victoria, Richardson to Mountain View 69
> ST - 37 Traffic Signal @ Little League Drive and 1-215 Frontage 70
ST - 38 Traffic Signal @ Little League Drive and Belmont 71 .,.,.,
ST - 39 Traffic Signal @ Palm and Cajon n >
ST -40 Traffic Signal @ Palm and Industrial 73
< ST-41 Traffic Signal @Palmand1-215ramps 74
> ST-42 Traffic Signal @ Palm and Irvington 75
< ST-43 Traffic Signal @ Palm and Belmont 76
> ST-44 Traffic Signal @ Campus Parkway (pepper-Linden) and Industrial 77
>ST-45 Traffic Signal @ Campus Parkway (pepper-Linden) and 1-215 Ramps 78>
......,. ST-46 Traffic Signal @ Campus Parkway and Northpark 79i
> ST -47 Traffic Signal @ Sierra (CSUSB) and Northpark 80
........ ST-48 Traffic Signal @ Kendall and 48th 81
I> """,'.. i> "<"."'.<
".<'<'< """".".".",.,. ,."
Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.
Fullerton, CA 92831
':':. ,,", >: .:,,:"':.........."<.<:::
< <,:,.:,.,.: City of San Bernardino <:."..</<
........<........ Master Facilities Plan )<<<<
>< << .".:,:)<
<< < Table of Contents <
Jiliilif:,:,::>:,>:" IT__':':
ST -49 Traffic Signal @ Little MountUn and 30th 82 .,.,::.
) ST-50 Traffic Signal @ Little MountUn and 48th 83
i< ST-51 Traffic Signal @ Little MountUn and Northpark 84
I 851,
:.,.,., ST -52 Traffic Signal @ State and [-210
1< ST-53 Traffic Signal @ Merdian and Rialto 86 <
1< ST-54 Traffic Signal @ Macy and Mill 87<
> ST -55 Traffic Signal @ Rancho (State) and Foothill 88 )
..:'.. ST -56 Traffic Signal @ Miramonte and 27th 89 ::.:
...... ST -57 Traffic Signal @ MountUn and Kendall 90<
; ST -58 Traffic Signal @ MountUn and 48th 91
ST-59 Traffic Signal @ MountUn and Northpark 92
ST -60 Traffic Signal @ "/" Street and Center 93
< ST-61 Traffic Signal @ "H" Street and Marshall 94
< ST-62 Traffic Signal @ Auto Plaza and Fairway 95
ST -63 Traffic Signal @ "E" Street and Century 96 <
ST -64 Traffic Signal @ "E" Street and Orange Show Lane 97..:::
...':. ST-65 Traffic Signal @ Arrowhead and Orange Show Lane 98
':': ST-66 Traffic Signal @ Arrowhead and Central 99
ST -67 Traffic Signal @ MountUn View and 13th 100
< ST-68 Traffic Signal @ MountUn View and Marshall 101
ST -69 Traffic Signal @ Electric and 48th 1021/
I) ST-70 Traffic Signal @ Dolittle and Mill 103
1< ST-71 Traffic Signal @ Lena and Orange Show Road 104
I) ST-72 Traffic Signal @ Lena and Central 105
I ST-73 Traffic Signal @ Lena and Rialto 106
ST-74 Traffic Signal @ Lena and 3rd 107
':': ST -75 Traffic Signal @ East Carnegie and Hospital Lane 108
ST -76 Traffic Signal @ Tippecanoe and Rialto 109<.
ST -77 Traffic Signal @ Del Rosa and Marshall 110 ..,..:
".,.. ST -78 Traffic Signal @ Del Rosa and 6th III ::'.:.
...... ST -79 Traffic Signal @ Sterling and Marshall 112<
> ST -80 Traffic Signal @ Sterling and Lynwood 113 ,:"..
, Traffic Signal @ Sterling and 6th
..:,,:. ST -81 114
< ST -82 Traffic Signal @ S. MountUn View and Central (Palm Meadows) 115
>.:
.< ST -83 Traffic Signal @S. MountUn View and [-10 Westbound Ramp 116
1< ST -84 Traffic Signal @ Guthrie and Pacific 117
:>>.>>...".. ... >>,> -"" M >
.,:,:.,:,::".>>,::,:",::,,"
Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.
Fullerton, CA 92831
...... ..
1 ... ...
I. ... .'
1 ...
. .....
i . ..
, .... ....:.
ST -85
ST -86
ST -87
. ST -88
ST -89
. ST-90
ST -91
. ST -92
. ST -93
ST -94
ST -95
I ST -96
I
i ST -97
I
1
I
I
I
I..:. .
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128 .
129 I
130
131 I
1321.
133
134 .
135
136
137
138 .
139
140 .
141
142
143 .
144
1451
1461
146
. .. . .. .:.. . . .. i.. ... ....... ..
. ... . . ....... . .. .....
.......
... ..
:::
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan
Table of Contents
... ..
. ..
..... ........ .... . .
Interchange/Ramps @]-215andPalmAvenue (SB, County)
Interchange/Ramps @]-215andPepper Linden (Campus Parkway) (SB)
Interchange/Ramps @ ]-215 and University Parkway (SB, County)
Interchange/Ramps @ ]-210 and Wate1111an (SB, Highland, County)
Interchange/Ramps @]-21Oand Del Rosa (SB, Highland, County)
Interchange/Ramps @ ]-210 and Victoria (SB, Highland, County)
Interchange/Ramps @]-210and5th (SB, Highland, Red1ands)
Interchange/Ramps @ ]-10 and Tippecanoe
Interchange/Ramps @ ]-10 and Pepper (SB, County, Colton)
Interchange/Ramps @]-1OandMounmin View (SB, Loma Linda, Redlands, Co
Grade Separation @PalmAvenue (SB)
Grade Separation @Rialto (SB)
Grade Separation @ State Street/University (SB)
Public Use Facilities
:: Public Use Facilities Cos Summary
I: CC-Ol Verdemont Community Center
CC-G2 De1mann Heights Gymnasium
CC-03 Nicholson Community Center
CC-{)4 Construct Additional Public Use Space
Aquatic Facilities
i
....:: Aquatic Facilities Cost Summary
...... AQ-{J1 Construct Water Pool/Attraction
AQ-{J2 Construct Locker/Administration Building
: Park Land Acquisition and Development
.:::.:. Park Land Acquisition and Development Cost Summary
: PK -01 Construct Six 5.0 Acre Neighborhood Parks
i PK-02 Construct Seven 10.0 Acre Passive Community Parks
PK -03 Construct Four 25. 0 Acre Active (sports) Community Parks
PK -{)4 Miscellaneous Park Improvements
PK-05 Open Space Acquisition (159.4 acres)
..... ..ii ..i....i..........i.i.........
ii.i ....... ::.:......:..i.i........
!:le\len..e R. r.nc:t ~nef'i~lic::tc:: I I r.
FlIlIArtnn C'-A q?R~1
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 of the City. The Plan is
based on input from City staff, recommended projects contained in City planning 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 I S General Facilities fixed assets identified below, as more
than $1.284 billion in depreciable fixed assets, which are being consumed, conservatively over
fifty years, at a rate of nearly $20.8 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-l
Replacement Value of Existing City Infrastructure
Infrastructure Replacement Value
Law Enforcement $56,055,587
Fire Suppression $62,947,026
Circulation System $625,570,000
Library Facility/Collection $36,943,997
Public Use Facilities $54,620,225
Aquatics Facilities $19,015,237
Parkland/Improvements $428,855,011
Sub-total All Assets $1,284,007,083
Less Non-depreciating Park ($245,668,817)
Land
Total Depreciable Assets $1,038,338,266
C-l
"
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
companion to this document called Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the
City of San Bernardino. The last type of projects is proposed to enhance the quality of life for
all City residents and spur economic growth in the community. These projects would include the
construction of a community center or library expansion.
Goal of the Master Facilities Plan. The Master Facilities Plan is not intended to be the final word
on capital improvement projects needed for the City, but rather a starting point for discussions
between City management staff, decision-makers (i.e., the City Council) and the public prior to
the formulation of a two or three Year Capital Improvement Plan (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 proiects.
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 fmancing sources in order to achieve an orderly and comprehensive process.
Individual project descriptions in this document detail the project's relationship to other
recommended improvements and other scheduling constraints. This effort should always
be a high priority of the City in order to insure that efforts between departments are
coordinated and to avoid construction made more costly by duplication of construction
efforts (i.e. a water pipe installed one year after a road is constructed).
A sound capital planning process can also help to rationally plan projects for the purposes
of long-term financing. Taxpayers can accrue savings when capital financing is
coordinated such that long-term financing can be sized and timed to achieve the lowest
possible financing costs.
C-2
Guide to the Master Facilities Plan
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 of what year the projects will be needed, therefore the project costs default
to the last column. However, the project costs are defined in terms of 2006-07 dollar
values.
Master Facilities Planning Process. The Master Facilities Plan represents an interdepartmental
effort to identify needed projects through the theoretical point 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 Analysis. The following summary section of this Plan includes a projection of historical,
as well as potential, revenue sources for the financing of the listed capital improvement projects.
Development impact fee revenues were estimated based on the proposed rates recommended in
the Development Impact Fee Report. Also, it was assumed for the purposes of this Report and
the Development Impact fee Report that development will occur evenly over the period 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 of these improvements (i.e., a Capital
Financing Plan) be conducted by the City within the immediate future. Such a document would
seek to further identify and quantify potential financing sources for the City of San Bernardino.
C-3
Guide to the Master Facilities Plan
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 of further scheduling projects on a year-to-year basis should continue onward during the
Capital Improvement Program process.
Organization of the Master Facilities Plan. The Master Facilities Plan is divided into six major
sections, according to the category of capital improvement and each will ultimately be quantified
as a separate development impact fee in the companion document. The ten types of improvements
are:
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment - These are projects needed for
the City's Police Department, including expansion of the Police Station and acquisition of
additional equipment and vehicles.
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment - This program includes facilities
necessary to support the level of service recommended by the City's Fire Department.
This section contains an explanation of the need for one additional station and the
relocation of four existing fire station, vehicles and assigned equipment for needed fire-
fighters.
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System - These projects include future street
widening's and additional intersection/signal improvements and regional circulation
improvements.
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
C-4
Guide to the Master Facilities Plan
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 ($722,923,891) identified
as necessary through build-out.
Table MFP-2
Cost of Required Expansions to City Infrastructure
Infrastructure Type Project Totals
Law Enforcement Facilities $22,840,549
Fire Suppression Facilities $40,348,863
Circulation System $459,969,000
Library Facility/Collection $12,510,347
Public Use Facilities $18,340,025
Aquatics Facilities $5,232,932
Parkland/Improvements $163,693,175
Total $722,934,891
Fairness and reason (as well as the more important State statutes and Federal court decisions)
dictate that not all of the projects will qualify for impact fee funding (i.e. some projects are
replacements or service level increasing, etc.). There are no existing impact fee fund balances
and thus they will not finance any of the total project needs. Any remaining amount of the total
project costs would have to be financed by other sources such as fees, existing taxes or voter
approved additional taxes, inter-governmental transfers and the occasional grant.
Relationship to Development Impact Fee Report. The Master Facilities Plan was prepared in
conjunction with the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) Report, also prepared by RCS.
Projects listed in the DIF Report correspond to projects found in this document and contain the
same numbering sequence as the Master Facilities Plan. The DIF Report is also divided into
fourteen major chapters according to the same order of projects described on the previous page.
Thus, a reader who wants more information on Law Enforcement project #1 (police station
expansion) found on Schedule 3.1 of the DIF Report should turn to Project No. LE-O 1 of the
C-5
Guide to the Master Facilities Plan
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.
End of Guide
Endnotes
1. Local" infrastructure is defined as infrastructure within neighborhoods or within the footprint of the
development as opposed to spine infrastructure.. As an example, 6" sewer collection lines are generally
limited to neighborhoods while 12" lines (spine) collect wastewater from neighborhood to transmit it to the
treatment plant.
C-6
i....>
1\ City of San BemJITdino Total
Master Facilities Plan Through
.' Summary - All Projects Build-out
, :Ji['i
,....i """"" ................
LE-01 Expand Law Enforcement Facilities Space $15,665,521 i
LE-02 Acquire Additional Patrol/Detective/Specialty Vehicles $4,031,420
LE-03 Acquire Officer Assigned Equipment $643,608
LE-04 Acquire Advanced Computer/Data Sharing Systems $2,500,000
FD-01 New Fire Station #233 $5,363,371
FD-02 New Fire Station #233 Response Fleet $650,000
FD-03 Relocate Fire Station #221 $7,157,347
FD-04 Relocate Fire Station #226 $5,363,371
FD-05 Relocate Fire SfJltion #229 $5,363,371
FD-06 Relocate Fire SfJltion #230 $5,363,371i
FD-07 Renovate SfJltion #221 as AdmiDistrative/MaiDtenance Facility $3,309,869
FD-08 Construct a Vehicle Storage Building $1,089,101
FD-09 Construct Training Facility $4,690,822
FD-1O Acquire Two Command Vehicles $90,000
FD-11 Acquire Four Squad Vehicles $480,000
'..... FD-12 Acquire Three Sedans and a Utility Truck $94,500
\ FD-13 Acquire a Reserve Engine $1,275,000
FD-14 Acquire Additional Assigned Fire-fighter Equipment $58,740
i ST-01 40th Street, Acre Lane to Electric A venue $2,170,000
...... ST -02 5th Street, Sterling to Victoria $3,200,000
1\ ST -03 5th Street, Warm Creek to Pedley $480,000
Ii ST-04 Alabama Street, 3rd to City Limits $1,600,000
ST -05 Campus Parkway (Pepper-Linden), Kendall to [-215 $4,800,000
ST -06 Central (Palm Meadows), Tippecanoe to MOUlltain View $3,200,000
ST -07 Coulston, Tippecanoe to MOUlltain View $3,520,000
ST -08 CODDector, 3rd Street to 5th Street $3,200,000
ST -09 Del Rosa, 6th Street to 9th Street $1,600,000
ST -10 Electric, MOUllfJlin View to Northpark $3,200,000
ST -11 "G" Street, Mill to Rialto Avenue $1,600,000
ST-12 "H" Street, Kendall to 40th $640,000
ST - 13 Kendall, Cambridge to Pine $3,500,000
ST-14 Lena Road, Mill to Orange Show $6,400,000
ST-15 Little League Drive, Palm to [-215 $2,400,000
ST-16 Little League Drive, [-215 fronfJlge to Belmont $1,600,000
ST -17 Little MounfJlin, Devil Creek Channel to 48th $400,000
I ST-18 Mill, Pepper to Meridian $800,000
I ST-19 Mount Vernon Bridge $3,200,000
ST-20 Mountain View, Thompson to Electric $640,000
ST-21 MOUlltain View Bridge at Mission Creek $1,152,000
ST-22 MOUllfJlin View, Riverview to Central $6,912,000
ST-23 Mountain View, [-10 to San Bernardino Ave. $1,200,000
ST-24 MOUllfJlin View A venue Railroad Grade Crossing $240,000
ST-25 Palm, Cajon to [-215 SB Ramp $760,000
ST-26 Pine, Kendall to Belmont ....
'"..,
Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.
Fullerton, CA 92831
>i iiii...........
...... City of San Bernardino Total
. !Master Facilities Plan Through I
Summary - All Projects Build-out ~i
...... m
ST-27 Perris Hill Park Road, 21st to Pacific $1,280,000
ST-28 Rancho, Colton City Limits to 5th $1,240,000
ST-29 Rialto, Sierra to Watennan $1,600,000
ST-30 Rialto, Lena to Tippecanoe $1,400,000
ST-31 State Street, 16th to Foothill $7,400,000
ST-32 State Street. Foothill to ]-215 $8,000,000
ST-33 Tippecanoe, Mill to Harriman $5,600,000
ST-34 University Parkway, Hallmark to BNSF Grade Separation $1,200,000
ST-35 Waterman, 5th to Baseline $5,760,000
ST -36 Victoria, Richardson to Mountain View $100,000
ST-37 Traffic Signal @ Little League Drive and ]-215 Frontage $100,000
ST-38 Traffic Signal @ Little League Drive and Belmont $100,000
ST-39 Traffic Signal @ Palm and Cajon $100,000
ST -40 Traffic Signal @ Palm and Industrial $120,000
ST-41 Traffic Signal @ Palm and ]-215 ramps $330,000
ST-42 Traffic Signal @Palm and ]rvington $150,000
ST -43 Traffic Signal @ Palm and Belmont $100,000
ST -44 Traffic Signai @ Campus Parkway (pepper-Linden) and Industrial $100,000
ST -45 Traffic Signal @ Campus Parkway (pepper-Linden) and ]-215 Ramps $350,000
ST -46 Traffic Signal @ Campus Parkway and Northpark $100,000
ST -47 Traffic Signal @ Sierra (CSUSB) and Northpark $100,000
ST -48 Traffic Signal @ Kendall and 48th $175,000
ST-49 Traffic Signal @ Little Mountain and 30th $100,000
1ST-50 Traffic Signal @ Little Mountain and 48th $175,000
ST-51 Traffic Signal @ Little Mountain and Northpark $175,000
ST-52 Traffic Signal @ State and ]-2/0 $350,000
ST-53 Traffic Signal @ Merdian and Rialto $100,000
ST-54 Traffic Signal @ Macy and Mill $100,000
ST-55 Traffic Signal @ Rancho (State) and Foothill $250,000
ST-56 Traffic Signal @ Miramonte and 27th $100,000
ST-57 Traffic Signal @Mountain and Kendall $200,000
,i ST-58 Traffic Signal @ Mountain and 48th $100,000
...... ST-59 Traffic Signal @ Mountain and Northpark $175,000
ST -60 Traffic Signal @ "]" Street and Center $100,000
ST-61 Traffic Signal @ "H" Street and Marshall $100,000
ST -62 Traffic Signal @ Auto Plaza and Fairway $100,000
ST -63 Traffic Signal @ "E" Street and Century $100,000
ST -64 Traffic Signal @ "E" Street and Orange Show Lane $100,000
ST -65 Traffic Signal @ Arrowhead and Orange Show Lane $150,000
ST -66 Traffic Signal @ Arrowhead and Central $175,000
ST -67 Traffic Signal @ Mountain View and 13th $100,000
ST -68 Traffic Signal @ Mountain View and Marshall $100,000
ST -69 Traffic Signal @ Electric and 48th $100,000
ST-70 Traffic Signal @ Dolittle and Mill $100,000
........... II ....i........ ......~.'...............................Jlli
Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.
Fullerton, CA 92831
} City of San Bernardino
... Master Facilities Plan
: ... SUJDJ11JJT)' - All Projects
.}}..... mili]}..........~
ST-71 Traffic Signal @Lena and Orange Show Road
ST -72 Traffic Signal @ Lena and Central
ST -73 Traffic Signal @ Lena and Rialto
...... ST -74 Traffic Signal @ Lena and 3rd
ST-75 Traffic Signal @East Carnegie and Hospital Lane
ST-76 Traffic Signal @ Tippecanoe and Rialto
1< ST-77 Traffic Signal @De/ Rosa and Marshall
< ST -78 Traffic Signal @ Del Rosa and 6th
ST -79 Traffic Signal @ Sterling and Marshall
......... ST -80 Traffic Signal @ Sterling and Lynwood
ST -81 Traffic Signal @ Sterling and 6th
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 Pacific
ST-85 Interchange/Ramps @ [-215 and Palm Avenue (SB, County)
ST-86 Interchange/Ramps @[-215 and Pepper Linden (Campus Parkway) (SB)
ST-87 Interchange/Ramps @[-215 and University Parkway (SB, County)
ST -88 Interchange/Ramps @ [-210 and Waterman (SB, Highland, County)
...... ST-89 Interchange/Ramps @[-210and Del Rosa (SB, Highland, County)
ST -90 Interchange/Ramps @ 1-210 and Victoria (SB, Highland, County)
ST-91 Interchange/Ramps @[-21Oand5th (SB, Highland, Red1ands)
ST -92 Interchange/Ramps @ [-10 and Tippecanoe
ST-93 Interchange/Ramps @[-10and Pepper (SB, County, Colton)
ST-94 Interchange/Ramps @[-1Oand Mountain View (SB, Lorna Linda, Red1ands, County)
ST-95 Grade Separation @Palm Avenue (SB)
ST -96 Grade Separation @ Rialto (SB)
ST -97 Grade Separation @ State Street/University (SB)
'.'.'. ST -98 Grade Separation @ Hunts Lane (SB, Colton)
...... LB-Ol General Library Square Foot Expansion
. LB-02 Expansion of Library Collection
...... CC-OI Verdemont Community Center
} CC-02 Delmann Heights Gymnasium
CC-03 Nicholson Community Center
CC-04 Construct Additional Public Use Space
AQ-OI Construct Water Pool/Attraction
AQ-02 Construct Locker/Administration Building
PK-Ol Construct Six 5.0 Acre Neighborhood Parks
PK -02 Construct Seven 10.0 Acre Passive Community Parks
PK -03 Construct Four 25.0 Acre Active (sports) Community Parks
PK -04 Miscellaneous Park Improvements
PK-05 in Space ,&&4 acres) 11
I
...
..
Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.
~
!F:/t
............
Total
Through
Build-out
~
$200,000
$200,000 ,<
$200,000 ii
$200,000 '
$150,000
$200,000
$200,000
$150,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$8,000,000
$40,000,000
$23,000,000
$40,000,000
$28,000,000
$30,000,000
$14,000,000
$40,000,000
$27,000,000
$40,000,000
$18,000,000
$17,100,000
$16,400,000
$14,000,000
$7,427,306
$5,083,041
$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
$7,383,988
~7??~;~
'--~
Fullerton, CA 92831
City of San Bernardino
Law Enforcement Facilities,
Vehicles and Equipment
C-lO
[
.:..,
~
~
51 ~ ~. ~. i ~181
~ g i ~ ..,..." ~ I~!
a:J; i:;: U
...
... ::l
II 0
'::' -&
~ ,...,
.... '3
U ~
>>
.,.,.,.,
.:
~
l~ ~
] ~ ~
~ ~u,
> ~
i
~ ~ ~
g i ~
:J; ;::(
.....
.....
6
.....
c
I ~
.
.
c
.....
I
~
i
>
~~~u~
i
~~~~ ~
8l
I
~
! .
~~~~ ~
~
~
8
~
I
.
.
~ ~ ~ ~
~
C
I
8
~
.
.
::.
,.
.
~
El ~ ~ iii
.go ..!!
.. :ii
t2" ~ ~
ii ~ i ~ ~Iul
i ] 1111 ... '~II
> .g ~ ~ 5 ~
i ...... ... ! l3
> ~ ~ J! 'a !!!
i II: ~ .!l' I
i/ :~...' li] 1 ~
) ~ a': '~ 0/
:,:.'.:. ~ 1i j ~ '< ~>
)) .~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~i I}I
i) ~ .~ ~ ,.,.,:., ~ '< c '<
I/~~~ lll'~
I>~~~ ~~~~
d......... "0 .\l til
o"'~ 999~
D~~ ;~~~
/ '........ :""':"""':'i:
77
i ~>
~
Hil
..
'"
J\
~
tt
~
.....
M
ex>
C\I
(1)
<(
()
c:
B
~
:5
u.
:.
H
c:
EO
"
"5
u
.
:;
'i'
3:!
'5
III
2
...
'I
~
~
.
..
'S
2
"5
<l1
~
:e
u
,~
e
Cl.
';ij
~
~
..
'"
oq:
c3
..
'E'
Cl.
'"
:s
-
o
c:
..
<::
o
~
u
..
"5
<::
.!!!
'"
<::
~
t;
'. .~
~Q:
~~
()
..J
..J
ui
.-
.!!l
Cij
'(3
Q)
0-
en
.-
en
o
()
-0
c:
as
Q)
::J
c:
Q)
>
Q)
a::
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
ProgrlU11 :
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Project Tide:
Expand Law Enforcement Facilities Space
Submitting Dep8l1ment(s):
Police Department
Project No. :
LE-OI
Project Description:
Acquire land for and expand facilities to house the City's additional law enforcement services. The added space would need to be
approximately 32,308 square feet to be able to maintain the current levels of service afforded to the existing community by the current 80,000
square foot facility. The additional space would house the additional administration, patrol, investigation, records, traffic control, analytical
and support staff, short-term evidence storage, report writing space, training, meeting and locker/shower facilities and other space needs
required to maintain current building standards. Included in the cost estimate is the acquisition of about five and half acres for the building and
additional visitor/employee parking.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
The ultimate-use law enforcement building will be required to house the build-out staff as the full impact of development of all currently
undeveloped acreage in the City occurs. The current 80,000 square feet of the facilities dedicated to law enforcement affords approximately
256.4 square feet of building space for each of the existing 312 officers (and defmes 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.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
The capital items contained in these Master Facility Plans is not meant to imply that either the additional'space or officers to be added as a
result of development is neither adequate or sufficient. It is only implied that these MFP projects contained within the Law Enforcement
Chapter would allow the City to maintain 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:
None, the proposed space needs are limited to impact-based needs and
are defmed by the "proportionality" requirement of the impact fee
calculation.
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-}}
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009- I 0 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,248,489
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,257,795
$0 $0 $0 $0 $11,370,262
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $674,349
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,114,626
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,665,521
Potential Funding Sources:
General Fund revenues, Law Enforcement Impact Fees or potentially a specifically-defmed tax measure.
Total
all
Years
$1,257,795
$11,370,262
$674,349
$15,665,521
Reference Document:
None, the proposed vehicle needs are limited to impact-based needs
and are defmed by the "proportionality" requirement of the impact fee
calculation.
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.
Project Title:
Acquire Additional Patrol/Detective/Specialty Vehicles
Program:
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Submitting Department(s):
Police Department
Project No.:
LE-02
Project Description:
Acquire 95 miscellaneous additional response vehicles required by law enforcement including a combination of patrol, unmarked and specialty
vehicles at an average of $42,436 per equipped vehicle. These 95 additional vehicles are necessary to maintain the current 0.75 vehicles per
officer ratio with the addition of 126 officers. The current standard of 0.75 vehicles per officer is based upon the 234 vehicles divided by the
existing 312 officers.
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 police station is discussed in LE-OI. As the law enforcement force
expands, additional vehicles are needed to equip the additional officers consistent with the pro-rata expansion of the sworn staff and building
size.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Inability to maintain the current ratios of vehicles per officer will severely reduce the City's ability to maintain current beat strength and a
reduced level of services would result.
2010-11 Total
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,031,420
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,031,420
Potential Funding Sources:
General Fund revenues, Law Enforcement Impact Fees or potentially a specifically-defmed tax measure.
Reference Document:
None, the proposed space needs are limited to impact-based needs and
are defmed by the "proportionality" requirement of the impact fee
calculation.
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.
Total
all
Years
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Acquire Officer Assigned Equipment
ProgrlUIl:
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Submitting Dep81'tment(s):
Police Department
Project No. :
LE-03
Project Description:
Additional equipment assigned to 126 officers necessary maintain the existing level of service. The list includes, but is not limited to: protective
vest, handgun, badges/patches/name tags, flashlight, nylon beltlattachements, uniforms, etc. The cost includes an amount for undertaking the
back-ground check, psychological exam, physical/medical exam, and polygraph for the successful candidates.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
The equipment is necessary for an officer to function in the field. The list is mostly safety and communications equipment but also includes the
significant recruiting costs.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Officer safety would be compromised and the ability to function would be impaired.
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDiTURES Build-out
Design/lnspection! Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Equipment/Otller $0 $0 $0 $0 $643,608
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $643,608
$0
$643,608
$643,608
Potential Funding Sources:
General Fund revenues, Law Enforcement Impact Fees or potentially a specifically-defined tax measure.
I>...... .>.. > , ....".><
> > i.'....
1-><".' City of San Bernardino ii ".,.,
............................ >
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail . in;'!l::li'it
....>i
".,><> < ...'....
>>
'.... Project Title: Program: .'........',..
> <
i Acquire Advanced ComputerlData Sharing Systems Law Enforcement Facilities. Vehicles and Equipment ii
Submitting Department(s): Project No.: ii
< Police Department LE-04 <>
i< ii
>> >>
i ....
Project 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 ii
,i\ are necessary to allow the Department to maintain services to an ever increasing population and business community. Also included is the .,......'....
acquisition of additional hand-held communications equipment (pagers/radios) for the 126 additional officers and communications equipment >
,... >
..'.......... (radios/MDCs/modems) for the 95 additional vehicles. <<
,...'
ii ,,'.
<>
. <>
, Justification/Requirement for Project: ,i
'.. The amount and sophistication of crime is ever increasing. The City will need to acquire new computer software designed to provide new <
I information sharing tools and greater investigatory capability. The transfer of information gathered from computer systems to officers in the
>< field as well as proper and necessary communications with those same officers is an absolute requirement for the safety of the City's citizens ..............
\i
.. and the officers themselves. Again. nothing is implied regarding the sufficiency of the proposed additions. The proposed additions are limited
< to capital required to maintain the existing level of service. be it the City's desired Level of Service or not. >
.....>
...... \
. i
<< Consequences of Not Completing Project: >
i 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\
><
>
> >
>
Reference Document: >.
.. Project Timing:
None, the proposed space needs are limited to impact-based needs and The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay \<
> are defined by the "proportionality" requirement of the impact fee acquisition described herein. was not included in the scope of this ii
..< calculation. engagement. thus all project cost default to the .'Build-out" column.
><
.i <<
2010-11 Total ............
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
I EXPENDITURES Build-out Years i
I.....'...... Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 i
I $0 $0 .',....'
<> L8Jld Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 \
.....,.,..
,.".,. Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
<i Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
i
,',.,.,',. ,.,.,.........
>> Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $2.500,000 $2.500.000
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $2.500.000 $2.500,000 I.
Potential Funding Sources: 1<>
< General Fund revenues. Law Enforcement Impact Fees or potentially a specifically-defmed tax measure. i
ii >
ii
..... >
'(~l>i">> << "".. "..,..."...."",'..."..'.
City of San Bernardino
Fire Suppression Facilities,
Vehicles and Equipment
I) .. ~
0
/ ;:: ~ " ;:: ;:: ;:: '" ~ '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 0
;:Ii ~ ::: '" C\l
... '"' ..., ..., ..., ..
.'. ... ::l 1<1 ~ ,,' ~ ~f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ Cii
...... ~ 0 - ~
,/! ..., ..., ..., 'C> ~ '"
i ':::, -& ~ ,,' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ .c
/ ~ 'S ~ ... ... ... E
Ql
i CXl >
0
........ Z
......... 2.E
i ;:: ~ " ;:: i::: ;:: '" Sl '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
... ..., ;:Ii ..., ..., ..., ~ i:l
......- ~ ::l ~ ~ " ~ ~ ..; ~ 0;; ~. ~ g ~ ~ 00 00
- 0 ~ 'C> q ~ ;:Ii
ii I ::l I ..., ..., ..., ..., 'C> ~ '"
c c ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ;;; ~ :; ~
/c~'S ...
I ~ f...; CXl
1\
I
Ii i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a ~
..... c .........
I -
I
~
i
1.\ ~ \
........ <\ a a a a a a ~ a a a a a a a ~
/ ~
ii I
~
i
I "
E
i a '"
......... a a a a a a a a a a a a a ~ "0
"
< ~ t.< .
<\ :;
~ 'i'
I ~ ;g
. cil
1\ .9
1\ i a a a a a a a a a a a a a a ~ ..
<::>
Ii t'-.. <;
c i ~
1/ I
.... ~ ....... '"
I :;
. .9
'"
\ '"
..!l!
< ~
. ~Iil ~
~ "
'"
...... .~
/ e
Cl.
i ... ~ ::::
..
/ \'l u ~ <C
< a. <l: :;
" .. ()
<.. '~< ~ ii ~
.......... .. c
tZ\ ,~ .. 0
:s "( .-
\I ...
~ ~ 1a' " .!!1
~ "
>i ... a .~ "S
~ . > ~ e u.
i. ~ '" ~ ~ 11 Cl.
s ..
,~ ...... :~ .~ 1 ~ ()
~ .. .~
1 ~ .!! ~ -l
\\ .ij ~ ll:; 0 -l
:::; ..
/ '< \\, .~ .!! .. 1 c: en
.,-\ ~ ij ~ ~ ~ l :> ~ 1 ,~ '"
.. "" c: .-
....... ,\) \11 .. u 1 ~ = 0 .!!1
< 0 ;g> ~ ~ ,~ .~ ~ 8 ij ~ ~ " J ~ '< ~ (ij
/ ~ ~ '<J ." .!! :~ ! t ] 0 '13
8 8 Ql OJ OJ OJ 8 ~ "
~ .. Q)
i :; 0:; ~ ." '" ." ~ ~ ~ " c-
OJ Ql .e ,~ .e e OJ ~ ~ 5 " :ij c
~ ~ ~ rl: ll:; rl: Ii; .. ~ '< c: CJ)
,e e .\l ) ) .. '< '!!! .-
...... \) '.::i '~ .\l .\l .\l .\l ,~ ,e ,~ ,e Ul
/ CXl .~ ., rl: Ii; .. ] ] .. 1: .~ '" 0
:::::: :-::= tfj ~ ~ ~ ~ ! 5. g. g. .S: ()
.>~~e '" .%
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u u u u " ~
I:Ij ~ g, '< '< '< '< '< cd
i..... .... !it <:;
.~ Q)
o ..!:l tI) ~ 9 9 9 ~ " 9 ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ... c,; ~ :J
1< .0 ., Il <;> 'i' ~ ~ ~ ~ C
1 1 1 Q)
ii .~ ~ .::/ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o .
U t.t.; ....... <<; <<; :c:- >
Ql
I II:
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
ProgrtuIl :
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Submitting Department(s):
F ire Department
Project No. :
FD-OI
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 a staff conference room for up to four firefighters.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
The specific plan area is projected to consist of the construction of 465 detached dwellings, 558 attached dwellings, a 600 room hotel and
approximately 1.045.000 square feet of conference/commercial space. Typically, this limited amount of development would not warrant the
need for a separate station. However, given the somewhat geographic separation from the rest of the City and its close interface with the
contiguous wildland, a station is required. Most likely . the construction of this station and acquisition of the response vehicles would be
required as condition of approval in the Development Agreement.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
The proposed development could not be approved due to the poor response time from the City's existing stations.
Reference Document:
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.
2010-1/
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009- 10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $327,429
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,830
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,008,466
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $160.823
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $265,823
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $5.363.371
Potential FWlding Sources:
General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure.
Totlll
all
Years
$1.600.830
$3.008,466
$160,823
$265.823
$5,363,371
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.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
New Fire Station #233 Response Fleet
Program:
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Submitting Department(s):
F ire Department
Project No.:
FD-02
Project Description:
Acquire a Type I engine and Type III engine for assignment to Station #233. Given the continuous growth of brush in the contiguous wildland
areas and trees on privately owned property, additional wildland interface equipment will be necessary.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
The station requires response fleet consistent with the needs and risks posed by the area it will serve. Property owners typically plant small
trees on their new property as part of the initial landscaping efforts. As these trees mature and grow, they become potential conduits for
spreading fire from adjacent wildland areas into developed areas. The Department needs additional resources to have a fast strike capability to
deflect such fires.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
The proposed development could not be approved due to the poor response time from the City's existing stations.
PROPOSED
EXPENDITURES
2006-07
2010-]] Total
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
Build-out Years
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $650,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $650,000
Design/lnspection/ Administration
Land Acquisition/Right of Way
Contingency
Equipment/Other
TOTAL COST
Potential Funding Sources:
General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure.
$463,181
$1,829,520
$4,246,965
.
$232,833 .
$384,848
$7,157,347
^ ^
... . '. .'.'.:
i. '.. .'
I . ,'. ....
.. ....
, ....
I
. Project Title:
. . Relocate Fire Station #221
.:
I
I
I
di
. .' ~..:.._,..
. . .. , .
'. .
. .......
. .'. :''':.'
':."" .':. '. . '..
'. ".
.
....
'.'
..
rUlIlU
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
.....
Program:
Fire Suppression Facilities, VehiCles and Equipment
Submitting Department(s):
Fire Department
Project No.:
FD-03
I
I
.'.
I
i
I
Project Description:
Acquire land for and construct an 8,700 square foot station capable of housing two response companies near 9th Street and Waterman Avenue.
The 3 X 2 floor configuration would consist of three 20' wide by 80' deep bays (4,800 S.F.) in order to adequately house a standard
pumper/engine and a second front-line vehicle. The remaining 4,900 square feet would be used for living quarters, utility/storage and a staff
conference room. The station is required to relocate the engine companies from the existing Station #221 location.
.
I
!
Justification/Requirement for Project:
It is proposed that the existing Station #221 complex become (only) the Fire Administrative headquarters/maintenance/storage facility. The
existing fire fleet maintenance shops (14,492 S.F) must be demolished to allow for the proposed 1-215 widening. The existing bays at Station
#221 are suitable to function as the new fire fleet maintenance operation. To make room for the relocation of the maintenance operation, the
Station #221 fire/medic re~ponse capabilty will need to be relocated 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 will likely increase response time from Station #7.
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 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $463,181
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,829,520
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,246,965
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $232,833
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $384,848
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,157,347
Total
all
Years
i
I
I
I
I
PotelJtial Funding Sources:
I General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure.
I....
I (e)
.. : .
.
"""",
.
'.
.
. .
. .
^
.
.
^
,'. .
i .
I
.
I
ii ...... ... i .. ,'.'",.,...::.i", ..... (iii
'.',
i.....' :,..:::..
"i.,'".., City of San Bernardino
".".",. ..i ','..'.
.."'" .............................................
..ii Master Facilities Plan Project Detail iiii i
.i ii .>. > i
/ Project Title: Program: i
'.'. Relocate Fire Station #226 Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Ii
.. Ii
.....,.:
i Submitting Depl1Ttment(s): Project No.: I
Fire Department FD-04
i
... "...,.
ii Project Description: ii
ii Acquire land for and construct a 6,700 square foot station capable of housing a relocated single response company (rougWy three four )i
".,.,' fire-fighters). The 2 X 2 floor configuration would consist of two bays 20' wide by 80'deep bays (3,200 S.F.) in order to adequately house a
Ii
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.
.. d
ii i
ii
i ..
Ii
Iii Justification/Requirement for Project: i
I
'.' The addition of approximately 21,000 residential dwelling units and 80.5 million square feet of business space will result in an approximateley //
."..
Ii 39% increase in calls at General Plan build-out. Typically, such an increase would statistically result in requiring four new stations. However,
I.'......,.. staff and a Committee have determined that the anticipated new development could be accommodated with one new ii
I....:' station and the relocation of four others. This is significant in that it allows for the accommodation of nearly 40% more calls-for-service with a ':....',.....
Iii
I"i minor increase (about 8 %) in on-going staff costs. An additional factor is the continual incease in traffic from probable residential >
i
I'..,... intensification, response times from the existing responding stations, will likely increase due to the additional traffic load.
>
i
. ':::..'::.:.
Consequences of Not Completing Project: i
iFi!i Additional stations would have to constructed, a counter productive step to maiximizing staff costs.
i.
ii
..
.i ii
.." i
>
( Reference Document: Project Timing: ii
ii F ire 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
:ii engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column. ..
...
.. 2010-11 Total ..
'..,..... PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009- 1 0 through all ii
",."."
i EXPENDITURES Build-out Years Ii.."
Ii.
I Desigl1/lnspection/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $327 ,429 $327,429 I..i
,..ii Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,830 $1,600,830 Ii
i(
i Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,008,466 $3,008,466
ii ..
i" Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,823 $160,823
ii Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $265,823 $265,823
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,363,371 $5,363,371 i
i,
.:...:..
Ii Potent1al Funding Sources: ii
General Fund revenues, Fire SuppressIOn Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure i
()
Li i
t.,' ,...,) .. .... ill ".".
>i'..,'."..,.., "'"
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.
TotoJ
oJl
Years
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
ProgrlUI1:
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Submitting Department(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 single response company (rougbly three four
fire-fighters). The 2 X 2 floor configuration would consist of two bays 20' wide by 80'deep bays (3,200 S.F.) in order to adequately house a
standard pumper/engine and 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.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
The addition of approximately 21,000 residential dwelling units and 80.5 million square feet of business space will result in an approximateley
39% increase in calls at General Plan build-out. Typically, such an increase would statistically result in requiring four new stations. However,
staff and a Committee have determined that the anticipated new development could be accommodated with one new
station and the relocation of four others. This is significant in that it allows for the accommodation of nearly 40% more calls-for-service with a
minor increase (about 8 %) in on-going staff costs. An additional factor is the continual incease in traffic from probable residential
intensification, response times from the existing responding stations, will likely increase due to the additional traffic load.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Additional stations would have to constructed, a counter productive step to maiximizing staff costs.
2010-]]
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 tilrough
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $327,429
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,830
$0 $0 $0 $0 $3,008,466
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,823
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $265,823
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,363,371
$1,600,830
$3,008,466
$5,363,371
PotentioJ Funding Sources:
General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure.
I . .......... ... ... .
I. .... ...
.
t .
I.. ProJect Title:
Relocate Fire Station #230
Submitting Department(s):
F ire Department
.
~
. ... .
...... :. .
. .. .. ....... .
..
.
: ... :
.
,
'..
.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Program:
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
ProJect No. :
FD-06
.
..
.
:
I
....
.:
.
..
....
.
ProJect Description:
Acquire land for and construct a 6,700 square foot station capable of housing a relocated single response company (roughly three four
fire-fighters). The 2 X 2 floor configuration would consist of two bays 20' wide by 80'deep bays (3,200 S.F.) in order to adequately house a
standard pumper/engine and 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.
..
..
..
I .
I
I
I
Justifjca.tion/Requirement for ProJect:
The addition of approximately 21,000 residential dwelling units and 80.5 million square feet of business space will result in an approximateley
39% increase in calls at General Plan build-out. Typically, such an increase would statistically result in requiring four new stations. However,
staff and a Committee have determined that the anticipated new development could be accommodated with one new
station and the relocation of four others. This is significant in that it allows for the accommodation of nearly 40% more calls-for-service with a
minor increase (about 8 %) in on-going staff costs. An additional factor is the continual incease in traffic from probable residential
intensification, response times from the existing responding stations, will likely increase due to the additional traffic load.
1
!
I
I
I
I
Consequellces of Not Completing ProJect:
Additional stations would have to constructed, a counter productive step to maiximizing staff costs. Lastly, the additional traffic expected from
the intensification will likely increase response time from Station #7.
Reference Document:
.... Fire Department staff planning.
......
>>
i> PROPOSED
>i EXPENDiTURES
Design/Inspection/Administration
.. Land Acquisition/Right of Way
: Construction
I) Contingency
:i Equipment/Other
TOTAL COST
.
ii
ProJect Timing: >>
:j
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. >j
)
2010-11 Total ........
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
Build-out Years ))
$0 $0 $0 $0 $327,429 $327,429 .......
$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,830 $1,600,830 .......
$0 $0 $0 $0 $3,008,466 $3,008,466 >i
i
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,823 $160,823 ::
$0 $0 $0 $0 $265,823 $265,823 i
$0 $0 $0 $0 $5,363,371 $5,363,371 i
:\
Potential Funding Sources:
General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure.
j.
:
~.....
.
I
I.. (0)
... :..:........
l8IB
...
.
.
Reference Document:
Fire Department staff planning.
Project Timing:
The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay
acquisition descrioed herein, was not included in the scope of this
engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column.
Total
all
Years
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Renovate Station #221 as Administrative/Maintenance Facility
Program:
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Submitting Department(s):
Fire Department
Project No.:
FD-07
Project Description:
Convert the existing station #221 to function as the department's headquarters, maintenance and supply facility. The station current supports
the administration function and would continue to do so. The project consists of converting the vacated fire operations space into the fire fleet
maintenance, storage and supply center. The facility owuld probably need approximately 3,200 additional square feet (see FD-08).
Justiflcation/Requirement for Project:
The Department would have to fmd other resources for this function becuase the current maintenance facilities will be acquired by the State for
the 1-215 widening.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
The Department would be limited to current limited public awareness equipment.
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $286,628
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,606,848
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $156,958
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $259,435
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,309,869
$2,606,848
$156,958
$259,435
$3,309,869
Potential Funding Sources:
General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure.
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.
Total
all
Years
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Construct a Vehicle Storage Building
ProgrlUll :
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Submitting Department(s):
F ire Department
Project No.:
FD-08
Project Description:
Construct an 3,200 square foot vehicle storage building to store the Department's various 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).
Justification/Requirement for Pr();ect:
The relocation of the maintenance operations from the current "H" Street location will require some additonal space for parts storage and
vehicle maintenance. The existing bays would function as the major repair areas and would probably house the lifts/hoists. Additionally, the
City has a number of reserve vehicles or vehicles not assigned to any specific station and they need to be stored in a covered facility to increase
the vehicle longevity.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
The maintenance function would not have enough space. Reserve vehicles would need to be stored or at existing stations.
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $94,354
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $858,900
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,207
Equipment/Otller $0 $0 $0 $0 $84,640
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,089,101
$0
$858,900
$51,207
$84,640
Potential Funding Sources:
General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure.
$1,089,101
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Titie:
Construct Training Facility
Program:
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Submitting Department(s):
F ire Department
Project No. :
FD-09
Project Description:
Acquire about three acres for and construct a training facility. No specific location has been determined but industrial use areas work well. The
facility would include a "live fire" training facility for "hands-on" manipulated training. The project would include a multi-story "burn"
training tower/hose rack. Probable improvements would include a drafting pit, pipeltrench, classrooms, observation tower and other numerous
situation devices or props including potential aircraft response.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
The proposed facility would enable the Fire Department to continue to meet mandated and recommended training requirements. Training while
on-site and on-duty is cost-effective. Additionally, squads undergoing training would be available as 2nd alarm response crews. Lastly, the
pumping capabilities of each pumper can continue to be tested without risk to the pumps.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Training would continue in its current ad hoc manner at various locations.
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 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDiTURES Build-out
D~~nnn~ectiMMdminmmtiM $0 $0 $0 $0 $290,149
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,372,140
$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,691,483
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $127,050
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $210,000
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,690,822
Potential FUJlding Sourc~:
General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure.
T olai
all
Years
$2,691,483
$210,000
$4,690,822
Reference 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.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Acquire Two Command Vehicles
Program:
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Submitting Depsrtment(s):
F ire Department
Project No. :
FD-1O
Project Description:
Acquire two command vehicles.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
The need for additional command vehicles is the result of a growing department potentially culminating up to thirteen stations and almots 170
fire-fighters. The additional growth from residential and business development in the community will increase the likelihood of simultaneous
responses necessitating additional command vehicles.
COllSequellces of Not Completing Project:
The existing number of command vehicles would have to be sufficient.
PROPOSED
EXPENDITURES
2006-07
2010-11 Total
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 tlJrough all
Build-out Years
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $90,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $90,000
Design/lnspection/ Administration
Land Acquisition/Right of Way
Equipment/Otller
TOTAL COST
Potential FlIlIding Sources:
General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Acquire Four Squad Vehicles
Progr81D:
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Submitting Department(s):
F ire Department
Project No.:
FD-II
Proiect Description:
Acquire four squad vehicles.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
'7
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
7
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 2007-08 2008-09 2009-]0 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $480,000
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $480,000
Potential Funding Sources:
General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure.
Totlll
all
Years
$0
$480,000
$480,000
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.
Totlll
all
Years
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Titie:
Acquire Three Sedans and a Utility Truck
Progr8f11 :
Fire Suppression Facilities. Vehicles and Equipment
Submitting Department(s):
F ire Department
Project No. :
FD-12
Project Description:
Acquire Fire Administrative Vehicles Acquire three sedans for inspections servces and a utility truck for fleet maintenance.
Justiflcatioll/Requirement for Project:
There will be an increase in the number of annual inspections. Additionally, there is need for an additional utility vehicle for routine pick-up
and delivery of needed supplies and fleet maintenance parts. Increased rITe suppression response capabilities by improving the fire-fighting
conditions.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Inspectors and fleet maintenance staff would not be able to work under optimum conditions.
20io-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $94,500
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $94,500
$0
$0
$94.500
$94,500
Potential Funding Sources:
General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Progr8In:
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Project No. :
FD-13
Submitting Department(s):
Fire Department
Project Description:
Acquire a reserve engine/pumper at $425,000.
Justification/Requiremellt for Project:
The addition of the proposed stations requires the addition of six front-line engine/pumpers to be assigned to the new stations. Three additional
engine/pumpers are required to maintain a 50% reserve capability.
COllsequences of Not CompletiJJg 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.
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 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
COlltingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
EquipmelltJOtller $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,275,000
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,275,000
PotentiaJ Funding Sources:
General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure.
Total
aJl
Years
$0
$1,275,000
$1,275,000
$0
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.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Acquire Additional Assigned Fire-fighter Equipment
ProgrlUT1 :
Fire Suppression Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Submitting DepBrtment(s):
F ire Department
Project No.:
FD-14
Project Description:
Acquisition of equipment assigned to each firefighter. It costs the City some $4,895 to recruit/outfit each firefighter and there will be a need
for 12 additional firefighters assigned to the proposed Station #223.
plus four additional firefighters for required leave coverage requires the addition and outfitting of 100 fire-fighters (96 + 4 = 100).
Justification/Requirement for Project:
Firefighters require specialty equipment and cannot perform their unusual or specific duties without it.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Sharing of personal equipment is not an option.
PROPOSED
EXPENDITURES
2006-07
2010-11 Tot1l!
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
Build-out Years
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $58,740
$0 $0 $0 $0 $58,740
Design/11lspection/ AdmuJistration
Land Acquisition/Right of Way
Equipment/Other
Potential Funding Sources:
General Fund revenues, Fire Suppression Development Impact Fees and potentially a voter-approved tax measure.
City of San Bernardino
Circulation System
Streets, Signals and Bridges
I.
f ..
.. ::s
~ c
':::-' ..L
c .:::
r:l:: 'S
Q:l
I .
...
8ll ~
a6 ~ -
8~~
('\If-<Q:l
.
,
,
I
>l~~_.~<1
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ i ~ ~ ~ g ~ i ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~
'3
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
t-!.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
...
.
t-..
C
I
8
('\l
. ~
..
.
.
. ~
!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
I
8
('\l
......
/ ......
I <
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.......
~
I
~
:.
.
.
<
i
i< El ~
>{> ~ i "" :;:
~ ;:: .S
cIi' ..!., .!!
oS ~
<""< - :t
Ii t ......... i ! oS
Ii Q:l < "( ",.'l '" ~
Iii lIj'2~~~!
II ~ oS~i~~l
IIi c .~ ~ oS U ~ ~ ~
I<.s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1"E2i:~ ~- ~~
,......" ~ ~ ~....,...' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>....lI:l..s..~.._~o.;e:.
/~:~~i/~ ~ ~ ~ 2.]
< ~ ~ .ll ~ =
<~~.g{{~ ~ ~ ~ c e
'0 ;\j -3 .........
I .c. III (,) ....
d ~ di
><<
~
~ ~
.S - ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ oS
.s 0 it
8 :: .s ~
ij ~ ~ .S
l ~ ~ ~
.. .'6~
IS . <
~ ~ ! .g
~ ~ ~ ~
~
5
>
~ ~ .s
~ s ~
.s i ~
::::: C5 'I::
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ::i
~ ~ -l!
~ ~ ~
I
ij
~ ..
~ ..
oS ..
e ..
tll .,..
~ >::::
~ .'..
~ ~ ~ ~ H<::
~ ~ ~ ~::
~ V) ~ V} 1>:\_
. .
~ ~ .r
~ ~ ~ C
<ll oS ... 0
~ ~ ~ 1 j ~ l 1 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ d ~ 1 w <ll ~ t -_0
<ll~~oS~l i~;~~~ ~~
~ ~ U ij . ~ . _0 ~ ~ ~ ]
- ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ -, ~ ~ ~
c ~ .~.. 'l!' ~ s:: = "" ~ ~
oS I I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <ll I 8
~ ~ ~ ~ oS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oS oS t ~
: I I ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lIe a
I S 5 ~ ! ~ J J J J ] ~ ~ ~
~ ! ! ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ j
~ t; ~ ~ ~ ;::z ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
V} U:l l'J) l'J) tI:l l:t) fJ)
1:l ~ ~
~ (!. ~
OJ OJ OJ
.:'".'.
~ 9 9 ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ s:: - ~ ~ ~ ~
~ h h ~ h h h ~ ~ h ~ h h h h
rJ) ~ rJ) rJ) rJ) rJ) rJ) rJ) rJ) rJ) rJ) l'J) rJ) rJ) rJ)
..',
...
.
.
"
E
.;:
c
"
.
'5
?
:!1
S
III
2
-
I
~
C
~
.,
oS
2
:;
<l!
.,
'"
'"
<;
.,
.~
Cl.
1ij
~
1!
'"
'"
"(
ii
.!!!,
e
Cl.
'"
S
c
c:
.,
5
~
c
"
'"
15
c:
!!!
'"
c:
:~
<;
.,
'. '0'
~ct:
~~
,....
C')
IX)
C\I
m
<(
()
c:
B
~
"5
u.
()
-i
-i
en
..-
.!!?
(ij
'(3
Q)
a.
en
Ui
o
()
'0
c:
to
Q)
:::J
c:
Q)
>
Q)
ex:
. .
~
I
8
~
l8
]~
f.,; Cll '.
~
~
t-!.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ K ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,....
(')
(Xl
C\l
m
<I::
Cl
c
S
'-
..91
"5
l.L
I..
.. ::I
t.> 0
.<1) I
I 6""1:1
I d:: 'S
t Cll
'3
~
~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.
::.::. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
// l'-.
c
I
'..':" ~ .......
> '.........
.. ..
.. > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c::
~ E:
~ ~
<6 i> "
,....... .
:;
~ I 0
I
i/ ;g
ell
:... > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .9
~ I I
,...,,' I ~
:'" 8
,.:..... ~
~
/ > "
,., -s
,.",,:,'.,:, ..:... > .9
>> .... .. '"
"
.. .ll!
/ ~
i> ! 2l
"
] .!!!,
..,'..".: ~
j '" :::
tt ;::; '"
'.:':.. El> .~ u ..!, :i
'." ~ 1 1 iil
!......... ~ ~ ~
~ '8 c;- i '"
oll ~ 'l! ..
... oll ~ ,SI ~ . .J 'l! i "l;
"'\ '"
.... ~..,::.: G ..!, <ll I. I. 0 .J ~ Ii
,..,., 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !!!,
I :l::i ~ ~ t " ~ i 2 Cl
/t t:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 <<:; ~ Q. ..J
/ Cll .~ .~ g '8 >-. >-. ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ .!1 ..J
"l::l II .a ~ ~ ~ ~ '" .i ,SI ~~~~" .a .a .a <> ~ :::: ." ~ " -s
........ ~ 'l! Jl ~ ~ ~ ~ ;::; Jl Jl Jl ;::; ~ a ~ 1 1 "0 CJi
'" ~ ~ .s <ll 1
~ :::: ;::; ~ ..!, <l: 0': 0': ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ..!, i ~ " .~
/ '" .. ..!, .~ ~ ] ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 g .a .a "
.. ";;j ':'..' 1 ~ ! ! ! i J ] j Jl c: (ij
II :i1 :i1 II ~ <:>
......... 0 .~ .,..., ~ -e -e ,SI ,SI ,SI ,SI ,SI -e -e -e ~ t- ~ ~ '13
~ II ~ O! ~ ::J ::J 0': 0': 0': 0': 0': ::J ::J ::J o'! ~ ~ ~ ~ Q)
// ~ ~ \I). 0; -s ~ :::: ~ II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " c.
S ~ ~ ~ '" en
.. tl..; ~ 0': ~ llllllllllllll & lllllll c
it ~ ~ ~ ] ~ ~ ~ c. ~ Ii! c: u;
.21 0
......... <I) .~ - ~ e ,~. '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ()
Cll:':::~ 1 is is is is u is is is is u is IS IS is IS IS is IS IS is is is '"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II Ii: Ii: .!; '0
/ ~ .~ !;l ~ o'! o'! ~ :; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c
tIj t.t; .,g 0; (\l
~
..... ... ~ " Q)
"
o ..!l " '. '0' ~
I 0 '" "I> ~ ;;; ~ :::: ;l; ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ '" .., ! 1 ! " .. '" s;: :;; ~ r;: ;,; ~ ~ f;; .. $ct c
.., .., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ";> Q)
I> CJ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. o . >
'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" <:~ Q)
I> a:
I ..
.. ::)
.~ ? '3
e ~ ~
I:l.; "^
......
.. '
, ~ ib ~
I ::) I
. 0Cl C "l:I
8~'S,
~ r.l:l ,.
..
~ .
. K
~
"
I
I
I
I
I
.
r--.
C
I
~
~
I
8
~
~
I
~
.
.'
.. .
.
.
li'l
I
Ell)
.s
~
Vl
.,.
'll
........ ~
I ~ i
Id "1:li
[\ ~ i
I) ~
, os
ii C .~
i.S ~ Vl
) 'E a: ~.
) ~ .~ ~
in r.l:l :-s ~
, ~ ~ .2
"5 11 "3
, .~ ~.~ ~
,U<UI'tI)
'.',..'...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ g g g
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i g
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~
.... '"
....
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 a a a
,
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 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 a a a a a a
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 a a a
!
""
~
~ '"
l~" ~j
~ ~ il: a
~,. ~ i ~
! ! ,.! ~! ~ a t
.. ~~ ~~ 13~ ~ i ~~ ~~~
... l"a ~.....~~ Ct fi6"o~ ~~ ,<lo.,~
f ~ ~ ~ ~ k I ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ - i ~ i ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 9 ~ or i I ] I 1 ~ ,. ~ ~ ~ S S il: 1 1 1
. ~ I J I I ) ) . . 1 1 0 ~ -, e I ~ ~ 1 1 1 I I ! ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ 1 1 1 1 c !! l l l ~ ~ ] ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : : ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ! f !
lllllllllllllllllllllllll~~l lfl
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ !
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ !:: ~ ~ i ~ l:;J
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (o!.
l;I'J ~ CfJ l'I;l l'I) fI) fI)
::a It ~ ~ I;Q
i-!.. (.!.. ~ ~ ~
CfJ CfJ l'I;l l'I;l Ct:l
!:! i:1
~ ~
tI) tI)
~ ~
~ ~
tI) tI)
..-
C')
00
(\J
OJ
<(
()
c
B
~
s
u.
c:
e
~
"
.
:;
'i'
;g
c5
2
~
~
"
-s
2
.,
"
-ll!
~
l!l
"
.~
e
<l.
'"
'"
'"
ill
~
..
'"
oq;
<i
.~ ()
e
<l. .J
'"
:s .J
0 vi
1: .~
"
~ (ii
~ '(3
Q)
" a.
.. en
Ci Ui
<::
.!!,! 0
'" 0
.~ '0
.~ c
a3
'U Q)
'. .~ :J
"'ct C
~ . Q)
:<:- >
Q)
a:
1< ,<
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'3 g g g g g ~- g g g ~. g ~
'0' -bJ ~ .. a ,. i ..- ~ ~ ,,' 'C- ,. Q;
) ~ '" ::; l::! ::; ::; ::; ~
'" 1i ..., ..,
Q.;cq
>
)
> .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~- g g g ~- g g g g 8' g Q;
> ~ 1 ? ... ~
QO ] "=l ~ ",- a ,. ~ ..- ~ ",- ..- <i ,. ~
'" ::; '" ::; ::; ::; ;;;
)~ ~ ~ ..., .., ~
>i
.) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~> a
)t ~
to!.
.> ~
<
>
........ ~ ~ ~ a a ~ ~ a a ~ ~ a
t'--
<::;)
) I
~
'.'..'..
I) ~
I) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a
I ~
.,...,..
I.., .)...
I ~
Ii
I ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> ~
I
......... ~ '..'..
<
<
< <.<
'.'.',' (.) ~
......... j
) B B ~
........ B !
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> ~ l -,; -,; i a !
......... :;; ~ ~ l>:
.lj> lj> -,; l ~
~ :.: . .lj>
:.: :.: t ;it
tI:i <ri ~
t ~ (1 ~ <ri u (1 ~
I '" (1 :.: 8 <ri ~ .Q
.......... ~ ! '2 lZl- ~ (1 .S e a
.2 (1 l ~ II ;it ~
'r:: ! ~ >
cq ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ (1 ~ ~
) ~ '"
"=l 1 1 1 1 "' ;it ~ ~ ......
~ c c s: c 1 1 1 -.: (1 ~ ~
/ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ 0
'" '" ~ ~ .. .!l ~<
'" .J.. ..!.. ..!. ..!.. ..!., ..!. ..!. ~
Q .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II: .i! :.:
P I II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I' :iJ ~ tI:i .8 .8 .8 .8
... is:; ~. " " " "
~ ~ ~ ~
'" ., II } i i i i
~ ,13 E I i
I> cq;.::::~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -ll -ll -ll -ll
~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .!: ~ -s ~ ~ ~ ~
Vl ~ '.::J .!iI .!iI .!iI .!iI S
.... .... "3
I> Q ~ gg i; & ~ Si :;: ;;; ~ ~ I:;; ~ > .......
~ ., 1>) '"
.~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
U u>. ., ., '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" >>>
.,....
C')
co
C\J
en
<I:
()
c
B
~
::l
u..
c:
E
"
'0
u
.
~
:g
"
III
.9
-
-
6
~
"
-s
.9
'"
"
-l!!
~
.'e
u
.~
e
Cl.
:::
...
",-
~
~
...
'"
<(
..;
u
"
'0' ()
Q. -i
.!!! -i
-s
C en
" .~
"
c:: t;l
Q
~ '0
Q)
u a.
... en
<; ....
t: en
.!2 0
'" ()
.S '0
.% c
III
t Q)
;; .~ ::l
r:t c
.!!! Q)
~ ,..; >
Q)
a:
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
40th Street, Acre Lane to Electric Avenue
ProgrBID :
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No,:
ST-OI
Project Description:
Widen 40th Street from two lanes to four lanes for from Acre Lane to Electric Avenue adding approximately 0,35 lane miles of
arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688,32 lane miles, All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST -01
through ST -36 will represent a mere 6,4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6%
(688.32 miles) of the major road miles, Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been
included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs,
Justificatioll/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now 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 (46,8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials,
COllsequences 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 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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDlTURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $260,400 $260,400
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,736,000 $1,736,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $173,600
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,170,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements, The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received,
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.
Total
all
Years
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
5th Street, Sterling to Victoria
Progr8D1:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-G2
Project Description:
Widen 5th Street from two lanes to four lanes from Sterling to Victoria adding approximately 2.0 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's
existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-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 check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction
costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now 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 (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary'to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
2010-1/
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/ AdmiJlistration $0 $0 $0 $0 $384,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,560,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $256,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,200,000
$2,560,000
$256,000
$0
$3,200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
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.
Totlli
all
Years
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
5th Street, Warm Creek to Pedley
Progr/J1D :
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST -03
Project Description:
Widen 5th Street from two lane to four lanes from Warm Creek to Pedley adding approximately 1.0 lane mile of arterial/collector to the City's
existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-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 check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction
costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now 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 (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
2010-]]
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,600
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $384,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $38,400
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $480,000
$384,000
$38,400
$0
Potelltial Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Program:
Circulation (Streets. Signals and Bridges) System
Project Title:
Alabama Street. 3rd to City Limits
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No. :
ST-04
Project Description:
Widen Alabama Street from two lanes to four lanes from 3rd Street to City Limits adding approximately 1.0 lane mile of arterial/collector to
the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-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 check. inspection. materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of
construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments. unable to be widened. that they have
previously been able to use but now fInd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily
trip-miles from the current 5.050.289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7.973.974 daily trip-miles. an increase of 2.923.685 daily trip miles. There
are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles). thus optimum lane mile confIguration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets. construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identifIed as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F. "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions. back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
Reference Document:
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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $192.000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $1.280.000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $128.000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $1.600.000
Total
all
Years
$128.000
$0
$1.600.000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees. and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Tide:
Campus Parkway (Pepper-Linden), Kendall to 1-215
Progr801:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No. :
ST-05
Project Description:
Construct the four lane Campus Parkway Extension from Kendall to 1-215. Also construct a partial diamond interchange. All of the proposed
additional major road segments contained in ST-DI through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out
while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils
testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of
construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily
trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There
are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
Reference Document:
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 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $576,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $3,840,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $384,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $4,800,000
The construction of some
:.::": : :: << ", "
:: :.......
'i Ii < I
City of San Bernardino i
. ,.",<< <
<.< : Master Facilities Plan Project Detail < .,....<
, :::::: <
"""'.".
'"
, Project Title: Progrsm:
...... !
Central (Palm Meadows), Tippecanoe to Mountain View Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
.....:
< Submitting Department(s): Project No.:
Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-06 :'..'
i i
......:..,: ','::':7""""::":
[I'jil Project Description: Ii
Widen Central Avenue from tow lane to four lanes from Tippecanoe to Mountain View adding approximately 2.0 lane miles of ii
arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-Ol
through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6%
< (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been ii
included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
.............. ..:".,:
i iii!i,
/ Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of <
........... roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have i
............. 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 Ii
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
'ii are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is iI
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. i
II
Iii Consequences of Not Completing Project: ........'..
II Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
I (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 ii
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups <I
ii from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
i .......
ii
':'........ <
',:,.' 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. Therefore all
'., I
....,.:,. Element. projects default to' the "Build-out" column.
,'......: i
ii 2010-]] Tot111 <
i<
< PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all i
< EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
i< I<i
i< Design/Inspection/ Admlllistration $0 $0 $0 $0 $384,000 $384,000 1<.
,:
:"':"", Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I
I Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,560,000 $2,560,000 ii,
< ............
Iii COlltingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $256,000 $256,000
I Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,200,000 $3,200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
:i: A combination of unobligated 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 which a credit would be received. SKi
I,I
iM: ::'i::: '::':':.::' "" ":".: ::. ,',,',. ,',',',',',','."','.' ,:::"
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Tide:
Coulston, Tippecanoe to Mountain View
Progrl1D1 :
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-07
Project Description:
Widen Coulston from tow lane to four lanes from Tippecanoe to Mountain View adding approximately 2.2 lane miles of arterial/collector to the
City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-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 check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of
construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now fInd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily
trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There
are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile confIguration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identifIed as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
Reference Document:
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 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/1Jlspection/ AdministratioJl $0 $0 $0 $0 $422,400
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,816,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $281,600
EquipmeJltlOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $3,520,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specifIc agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
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.
Total
all
Years
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Titie:
Connector, 3rd Street to 5th Street
Progrsm:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engioeeriog)
Project No.:
ST -08
Project Description:
Construct a four lane connector from 3rd Street to 5th Street addiog approximately 2.0 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existiog
ioventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contaioed 10 ST-OI through ST-36 will represent a mere
6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existiog community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles.
Engioeeriog plan check, iospection, materials/soils testiog and project administration costs have been iocluded at 15% of construction costs and
contiogency has been iocluded 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 10
accommodatiog the nearly 58 % iocrease 10 daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resultiog 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 carry log capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% iocrease 10 the number of daily
trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an iocrease 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 existiog 668 lane miles of existiog collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or ioability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and iostall signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the iotersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by actiog as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waitiog upstream of the iotersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDiTURES Build-out
Design/inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $384,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,560,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $256,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $3,200,000
$2,560,000
$256,000
$3,200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combioation 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 ......... < ii i ............ << ...........................................................................................................................
.. < <.. ....
, Ii //< << "i.' .....
...//<i City of San Bernardino
i
</ Master Facilities Plan Project Detail < .....
i /i
I.......i. ii/ii
I<<i/
Iii <
Project Title: Program: i/
I Del Rosa, 6th Street to 9th Street Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System ii
:ii Submitting Department(s): Project No.: i
Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-G9 .......
<i
Ii ./ ...
Project Description: ii
Ii Widen Del Rosa from two lanes to four lanes from 6th Street to 9th Street adding approximately 2.0 lane miles of arterial/collector to the
City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-Ol through ST-36 will
< represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the .............
....... major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of
I. construction costs and contingency has been included at 10 % of construction costs. ii
<
......
.. i/
I Iii
ii Justification/Requirement for Project: I
J 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
i roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
<i 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 i
.... trip-miles from the current 5.050,289 daily trip-miles to rougWy 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923.685 daily trip miles. There
/i
/ 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. /i
.......<
ii Consequences of Not Completing Project: ii
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service >
ii (LOS) trafflc 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 i
.........
/i 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". ..............
. ii
< /
>>
.>
ii 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. Therefore all ............
.............. Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column.
ii i/
/
<
I 2010-11 Total i
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 t1Jrough 811
> EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
1./ $0 $0 $0 $0 $192,000 1/
/i Design/Inspection/Administration $192.000
..i Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ii
...... .......
i> ii
...... Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,280,000 $1,280,000 ........
ii <
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $128,000 $128,000 /
ii Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
i TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,000 $1,600,000
,,'i<'"
ii Potenti81 Funding Sources: ll,i
A combination of unobligated 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 which a credit would be received.
......... ..... .i"'>,..' 80 ..:.:.:80:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:,~..:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:,:.: .,.... .<
< .......
Project Title:
Electric, Mountain View to Northpark
Program :
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-IO
Project Description:
Widen Electric Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from Mountain View to Northpark adding approximately 2.0 lane miles of
arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST -01
through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6%
(688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been
included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now fInd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily
trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to rougWy 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There
are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile confIguration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identifIed as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
Reference Document:
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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/lnspection/ Administratioll $0 $0 $0 $0 $384,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,560,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $256,000
Equipmellt/Otller $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,200,000
Total
all
Years
$2,560,000
$256,000
$0
$3,200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specifIc agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
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.
Total
all
Years
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
"G" Street, Mill to Rialto Avenue
Progr8JI1 :
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-ll
Project Description:
Widen "G" Street from two lanes to four lanes from Mill Street to Rialto Avenue adding approximately 1.0 lane mile of arterial/collector to the
City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-Ol through ST-36 will
represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the
major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of
construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles 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 (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009- 1 0 through
EXPENDlTURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $192,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,280,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $128,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,000
$192,000
$0
$1,280,000
$1,600,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Program :
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-12
Project Description:
Widen "H" Street from two lanes to four lanes from Kendall to 40th Street adding approximately 0.4 lane miles of arterial/collector to the
City's existing inventory of 688,32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-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 check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of
construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now fInd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily
trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There
are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile confIguration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) tramc 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 Tota]
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $76,800
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $512,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,200
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $640,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specifIc agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Progr8111:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-13
Project Description:
Widen Kendall Drive from two lanes to four lanes from Cambridge to Pine adding approximately 1.5 lane miles of arterial/collector to the
City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST -01 through ST -36 will
represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the
major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of
construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now 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 (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement" .
Reference Document:
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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDlTURES Build-out
Design/lnspection/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $420,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,800,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $280,000
Equipment/Otller $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,500,000
Tot8l
all
Years
$2,800,000
$280,000
$3,500,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
$0
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Lena Road, Milito Orange Show
Progrtml :
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submittillg Departmellt(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-14
Project Descriptioll:
Construct Lena Road as a four lane roadway from Mill Street to Orange Show Drive. adding approximately 4.0 lane miles of arterial/collector
to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-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 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.
Justificatioll/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now 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 (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
COllsequellces of Not Completillg 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 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".
Referellce Documellt:
Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation
Element.
Project Timillg:
Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all
projects default to the "Build-out" column.
2010 11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Desigll/Illspectioll/ Admillistratioll $0 $0 $0 $0 $768,000
L81ld Acquisitioll/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $5,120,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $512,000
Equipmellt/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $6.400,000
Total
all
Years
$6,400,000
Potelltial FUlldiIlg Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
.
. '
.
..
.
; .'
.
.
,
:. '.
.'
. .' ..
:'
.... .:' .
.'.
.'.
, '.
y'
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Little League Drive, Palm to 1-215
Progrl1TI1:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No. :
ST-15
I .
I
I
I
I
.
Project Description:
Widen Little League Drive from two lanes to four lanes from Palm Avenue to the 1-215 Frontage Road adding approximately 1.5 lane miles of
arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-QI
through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6%
(688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been
included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now fInd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily
trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There
are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile confIguration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
...
.
.
.
I .
I .
I
.
I
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 are consistent with the City's Circulation
Element.
Project Timing:
Project timing is not a component of this current effort.
projects default to the "Build-out" column.
Therefore all
iii.'
I 2010 11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDiTURES Build-out
\i Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $288,000
:.......'
\\ Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,920,000
.\
,:,.. COJltingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $192,000
\
i Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
:'."
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,400,000
'.
Totm
all
Years
$288,000
$1,920,000
$192,000
$0 ...
$2,400,000
Potential Funding Sources:
:.' A combmatlOn of unobligated momes from a vanety of funds, development Impact fees, and specific agreements
,i projects hsted may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
~<:\
The construction of some
.
. ,.' :
.
$0
.' .
.
.
........
'.
.
,....
..
.
.
.
^
. <
.
.
. .
'.
. .'
:
.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Little League Drive, )-215 frontage to Belmont
Progrl1II1:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-16
Pro;ect Description:
Widen Little League Drive from two lanes to four lanes from the )-215 Frontage Road to Belmont Avenue adding approximately 1.0 lane miles
of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in
ST-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 check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have
been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now 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 (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement" .
Reference Document:
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" c?lumn.
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 tJITOUgh
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $192,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,280,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $128,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,000
Total
all
Years
$0
$1,280,000
$128,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Little Mountain. Devil Creek Channel to 48th
Progr8J11 :
Circulation (Streets. Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-17
Pro;ect Description:
Widen Little Mountain Drive from two lanes to four lanes from Devil Creek Channel to 48th Street adding approximately 0.25 lane miles of
arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST -0 I
through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735.21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6%
(688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check. inspection. materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been
included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments. unable to be widened. that they have
previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily
trip-miles from the current 5.050.289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7.973,974 daily trip-miles. an increase of 2.923.685 daily trip miles. There
are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles). thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets. construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions. back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
Reference Document:
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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDiTURES Build-out
Design/lnspection! Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $48.000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $320.000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $32,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $400.000
Total
all
Years
$400.000
Potential FUJlding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds. development impact fees. and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Progr8I11 :
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-18
Project Description:
Widen Mill Street from two lanes to four lanes from Pepper to Meridian adding approximately 0.5 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's
existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-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 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.
Justiflcation/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily
trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There
are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) tramc 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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $96,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $640,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $800,000
Total
all
Years
$0
$800,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-19
Project Description:
Widen the Mt. Vernon Bridge to four lanes. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-Ol through ST-36 will
represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the
major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of
construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily
trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There
are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
Reference Document:
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-]] Total
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 tJlrough all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/lnspection/ AdmiJIistration $0 $0 $0 $0 $384,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,560,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $256,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $3,200,000 $3,200,000
The construction of some
'., ,
,'. ..... . .
. ....
.. . .' .. .
. .
'. .
.
Project No.:
ST-20
.. ". . .
.'" ,,' . .
.... ........ .'. .
'. .' .... .
.. .
. .
.
'..'
.
.
"
I
. .
. .
.
.
...
..
'.
.
..
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Mountain View, Thompson to Electric
Progr8lI1:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
.
Project Description:
Widen Mountain View Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from Thompson Place to Electric Avenue adding appro"imately 0.4 lane miles of
arterial/collector to the City's e"isting 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 at General Plan build-out while the e"isting community has generated 92.6%
(688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been
included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
'.
.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now fInd at mal<imum carrying capacity. The City can e"pect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily
trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There
are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile confIguration is
absolutely necessary to complement the e"isting 668 lane miles of e"isting 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) trafflc 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" .
,
I
I
I
'.
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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $76,800
L811d Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $512,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,200
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $640,000
Tot1il
all
Years
$76,800
$0
$512,000 ?
$51,200 ......
ii
$0 ,i
>
$640,000
.
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.
The construction of some
I
.".'
.
(0) . . .' . . . .
.
'" ". . "
,'. ..' .,'"
....
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
ProJect Title:
Mountain View Bridge at Mission Creek
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
ProJect No.:
ST-21
ProJect Description:
Widen the Mountain View Bridge at the Mission Creek Channel. The project consists of widening the roadway and shoulders. All of the
proposed additional major road segments contained in ST -01 through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan
build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection,
materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at
10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for ProJect:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now Hnd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57 % increase in the number of daily
trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There
are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing ProJect:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identiHed 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 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $138,240
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $921,600
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $92,160
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,152,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Mountain View, Riverview to Central
Progr8111 :
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-22
Project Description:
Construct Mountain View Avenue from Riverview Drive to Central Avenue adding approximately 0.5 lane miles of arterial/collector to the
City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-Ol through ST-36 will
represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the
major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of
construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles 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 (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
Reference Document:
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.
20/0 // Total
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through aI/
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/1nspection/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $829,440 $829,440
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $5,529,600 $5,529,600
COl1tingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $552,960 $552,960
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $6,912,000
The construction of some
. , .
22';";
i iiii
;"."" ),i.
iii'
";""'iii
"...,.;iiiIi
ii/ii i
'i ..,.;.
i
)
ii
i
)i
.)i
ii'>
" '.'
. ";'
.
: .
Pro;e<;t Title:
.
Mountain View, 1-10 to San Bernardino Ave.
. .'
. ."
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
...;' '., .
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Pro}e<;t No.:
ST-23
Submitting Department(s);
Development Services Department (Engineering)
)';".,..,.
< Pro}e<;t Description.
...'.;.... Widen Mountain View Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from the 1-10 to San Bernardino Avenue adding approximately 0.74 lane miles of
arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST -01
through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6%
))
)) (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been
i) included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
i
i
i
.......,;;
)<
...............
;:....,..',
ii
ii
i
i
i
I
Justification/Requirement for Pro}e<;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 % 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 us!' but now fInd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57 % increase in the number of daily
trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There
are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile confIguration is
absolutely necessary .to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
I
. ..,
. .
'. .
.
.
....
. .'
'.'
I
I
. .
.
Consequences of Not Completing Pro}e<;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
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" .
Pro}e<;t Timing:
Project timing is not a component of this current effort.
proje<;ts default to the "Build-out" column.
Reference Document;
Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation
Element.
Therefore all
Totm
all
Years
. .
.
..'
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009- 1 0 through
EXPENDlTURES Build-out
Design/lnsFtion/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $144,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $960,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $96,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000
$144,000
I
f
I
.
.
.
$0
$960,000
$96,000 .
.'
$0
$1,200,000
, "; 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.
i
<
The construction of some
.
:.'
~
...;....,.
ill
.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
ProJect Title:
Mountain View Avenue Railroad Grade Crossing
Progro.m:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Def1JlTtment(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
ProJect No.:
ST-24
ProJect Description:
Widen the Mountain View Railway Grade Crossing from 1,500 feet north of the railway grade crossing from one lane North and South to two
lanes North and South. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-Ol through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of
the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road All of the
proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-Ol through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan
build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection,
materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at
10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for ProJect:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles 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 (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 Completi11g 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 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 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,800
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $192,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,200
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $240,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Project Title:
Palm, Cajon to 1-215 SB Ramp
Submitting DepBTtment(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-25
Project Description:
Widen Palm Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from Cajon Boulevard to the 1-215 Southbound access/egress ramp. adding approximately
0.5 lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments
contained in ST-Ol through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has
generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration
costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles 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 (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
Reference Document:
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 2008-09 2009- 10 through all
EXPENDiTURES Build-out Years
Design/lnspection/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $91,200
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $608,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,800
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $760,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
City of San
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Progrl1JI1:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-26
Project Description:
Widen Pine Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from Kendall Drive to Belmont Avenue adding approximately 0.5 lane miles of
arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-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 check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been
included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now 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 (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
Reference Document:
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.
Totlll
all
Years
201D-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $96,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $640,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $800,000
$800,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
$0
.............. .....>i ....... ................iii.>>>....>i....>> ........ >>>>>.......... .....>...iiii> ..............
........>>. 'ii >>
./i>...>i i/ ............>. ....
...... City San ~ .. >i>>'\i
.......i
>>> ....................................................................................
ii Master Facilities Plan Project Detail >i>i
>>> .....
i...... .> i. ...........>>.
.... Project Title: Program: I>>
/ Perris Hill Park Road, 21 st to Pacific Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System 1/
F
F
i/ Submitting Department(s): Project No.:
Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-27 :>
>
< .>
ii Project Description: Ii>
i\ Widen Perris Hill Park Road from two lanes to four lanes from 21st Street to Pacific Street adding approximately 0.8 lane miles of li{
arterial/collector to the City's 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 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6%
.............. (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been .............
included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
>i .....
......
ii .....
......... <
ii >
Justification/Requirement for Project: .........
f This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in il
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
\i roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
ii 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 (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is i>
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials. i
//
\\ Consequences of Not Completing Project: i
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service ..............
............. (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
....... identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection" . Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups ..............
\. from other locations restrict or prevent movement" .
/
Reference Document: Project Timing: .............
I Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all
1< Element. projects default to ~e "Build-out" column.
Ii... >
/ .............
............. ,ltt~
>i 2010-11 Tot1ll
/i PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
............ Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $153,600 $153,600
>
....... F
........... Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I
..... 1/
.. Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,024,000 $1,024,000
....
ii Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $102,400 $102,400 i>
>
i Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 >
i TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,280,000 $1,280,000
I Potential Funding Sources:
I I 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. r/
/
I>> ................... ......>..... >...............> ~
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.
City San
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Tide:
Rancho, Colton City Limits to 5th
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No. :
ST-28
Project Description:
Widen Rancho Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from the Colton City Limits to 5th Street adding approximately 1.4 lane miles of
arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST -01
through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6%
(688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been
included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now 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 (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
2010-]] Totlll
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $268,800
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$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
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
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.
Tow
all
Years
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
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's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST -01
through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6%
(688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been
included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use. but now fInd at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily
trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There
are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary t? 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".
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/lllspection/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $192,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,280,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $128,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,600,000
$1.280,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specifIc agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
ProJect No. :
ST-30
ProJect Description:
Widen Rialto Avenue from two lanes to four lanes from Lena Road to Tippecanoe Avenue adding approximately 1.5 lane miles of
arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-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 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.
Iustiflcation/Requirement for ProJect:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily
trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There
are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing ProJect:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
Reference DocumeJlt:
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.
T oral
all
Years
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $288,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,920,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $192,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0
$1,920,000
$192,000
$0
$2.400,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Program :
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-31
Project 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 additional major road segments contained in ST -01
through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6%
(688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been
included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now 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 rougWy 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There
are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
Reference Document:
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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection! Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $888,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $5,920,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $592,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,400,000
Total
all
Years
$5,920,000
$592,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
$0
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.
Total
all
Years
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-32
Project Description:
Widen State Street from two lanes to four lanes from Foothill Boulevard to the 1-215. adding approximately 8.0 lane miles of arterial/collector
to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-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 check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of
construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now find at maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily
trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There
are limits as to how many additional lane miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009- 1 0 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $960,000
L81ld Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $6,400,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $640,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000,000
$6,400,000
$640,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Tippecanoe. Mill to Harriman
Program:
Circulation (Streets. Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-33
Project Description:
Widen Tippecanoe from four lanes to six lanes from Mill Street to Harriman adding approximately 3.5 lane miles of arterial/collector to the
City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-Ol through ST -36 will
represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the
major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection. materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of
construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles 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 (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F. "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
Reference Document:
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 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection! Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $672.000 $672,000
Land Acquisition!Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $4,480.000 $4,480,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $448,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $5.600,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Project Title:
University Parkway, Hallmark to BNSF Grade Separation
Program:
Circulation (Streets. Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No. :
ST-34
Project Description:
Widen University Parkway from two lanes to four lanes from Hallmark Parkway to the BNSF Grade Separation adding approximately 0.75
lane miles of arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments
contained in ST-OI through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the totai735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has
generated 92.6% (688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check. inspection. materials/soils testing and project administration
costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to use but now 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 (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
Reference Document:
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 Totill
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through illl
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
$0 $0 $0 $0 $960,000 $960.000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $96,000 $96,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Program :
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
ProJect No. :
ST-35
ProJect Description:
Widen Waterman Avenue from four lanes to six lanes from 5th Street to Baseline Street adding approximately 3.6 lane miles of
arterial/collector to the City's existing inventory of 688.32 lane miles. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST -01
through ST-36 will represent a mere 6.4% of the total 735,21 at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 92.6%
(688.32 miles) of the major road miles. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been
included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for ProJect:
This section of "major" roadway (arterial or collector) is required to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in
accommodating the nearly 58 % increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of
roadway will provide an alternative for drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have
previously been able to u~e 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 (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is
absolutely necessary. to complement the existing 668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequellces 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 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 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPEND1TURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $691,200
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $4,608,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $460.800
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,760,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
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.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Victoria. Richardson to Mountain View
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-36
Project Description:
Widen Victoria Avenue and make various improvements from Richardson to Mountain View. Engineering plan check. inspection.
materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at
10% of construction costs. All of the proposed additional major road segments contained in ST-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 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 Pro;ect:
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-miles to rougWy 7,973,974 daily trip-miles. an increase of 2,923.685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed (46.8 additional lane miles), thus optimum lane mile configuration is absolutely necessary to complement the existing
668 lane miles of existing collectors/arterials.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets. construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F. "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
20JO-ll Total
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 tllroUgh all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/lnspection/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24.000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200.000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees. and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
..
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Little League Drive and 1-215 Frontage
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-37
Project Description:
Construct a 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 General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in
ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has
generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs
have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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 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 Total
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009- I 0 tllrough all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspectionl Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Otller $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
The construction of some
.
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Little League Drive and Belmont
Progrlll11:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-38
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Little League Drive and Belmont Avenue. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new
signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in
ST - 37 through ST -84 will represent a only 16.2 % of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has
generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs
have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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 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 Total
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
L811d Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
COJ1tingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
<
,
.'<, ...: ..... ..'
.. . "'. .
. .'. .
." . .
.... . "".
. .,.
. .
....
.
I.
l ... ....... .... .'.
'.
.
. '.
. ..
. Project Title:
'.. Traffic Signal @ Palm and Cajon
. SubmittiJlg Department(s):
'. Development Services Department (Engineering)
".'.
,....
.
.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
. ..'
>
.
. .
'.
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Project No. :
ST-39
i.
I
I .
I
I
, '.,
.
. --
., Project Description:
",'.. Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Cajon Boulevard. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals
and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37
through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated
83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been
included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
.
.
.
.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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.
:
.
i .
I
I
I
.
....
.
.'.
I
.
I .
:
I
,
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" .
Project Timing:
Project timing is not a component of this current effort.
projects default t~ the "Build-out" column.
Reference Document:
Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation
Element.
Therefore all
. .
.':.'.
.':
,......
..
.
'. .
.
20/0-11 Total
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/lnspection/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000
. ..'
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements.
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
The construction of some
~
te) ..... ,.. ...... ,.. . '.<.
.,.,..,.," .".'.. .' ..... '.'
'. . .'
.,
..
'.':"
, '."".,
III
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %,.
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for<<
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at:i:
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 Ii
trip-miles to rougWy 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane Ii
miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane Ii
miles of existing collector/arterial roads.'
Hi
'Ill
,
,
i
i
Therefore alIi
,i
i
. . ....,.. . i .
.'. ....
" .,..., .... .' .
.. ..
'. .... " .'......
. . . .....,. ,'. :"" ....
. ." ..
. Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Palm and Industrial
. Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
, '. ". . '. . ..... '. ',. . .... '. .
. .
.' '.
........ ...... ....., ......
. ..,..... .
. ., "":. ,'.i.. ..' . .'., . .
'. . , .
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
ProgrllIfl:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Project No.:
ST -40
.,...,.............,..........:..::..:..:.............
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Industrial Parkway. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new
signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in
ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has
generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs
have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
JustificationlRequiremeJlt for Project:
.
.
.
.
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 are consistent with the City's Circulation
Element.
Project Timing:
Project timing is not a component of this current effort.
projects default to the "Build-out" column.
,.",. 2010-11 Totlll
........ PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
i EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
i' $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,400 $14,400
, DesigJlllnspectionl Administration
....... $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
..,.,. L81Id Acquisition/Right of Way $0
I.... Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $96,000 $96,000
I":
Ii Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,600 $9,600
r" EquipmeJltlOther $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
,........
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $120,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specillc agreements.
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received,
.
.
(0) .
The construction of some
. .... .
'..
.
'.
.
..
: .
I
I
I
.
m~
'.'
....
'.
.
.'.,.
.
..i. 'i, i '" uii, i
...iii i> iii ,."..,
.,., City of San Bernardino
>.> 'i.
i >> ................. .'................................i.......... . ".,.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail .,.
.., ><.>
.".'i> i<>., ..
ii I
Project Title: ProgrfH11 : 1
ii Traffic Signal @ Palm and [-215 ramps Circulation (Streets, Signals and. Bridges) System ,.
i
...,.... Submitting Department(s): Project No.: i
ii i
Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-41 <i
i ii
i "".,..< ,."...'
Project Description: Ii
i>
'..ii 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 i
it will represent 16.2 % of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST -37 through I
ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249
signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 1<,
... I
i 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
.........,.. Iii
i
i> Iii
> ......,
ii Justification/Requirement for Prqject: Ii
i 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 Ii
....,.."." drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now fInd at "..,....,
i 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 i
...,......,.. 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 ii
ii miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal confIguration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane ..........
'.i miles of existing collector/arterial roads.
.............. Consequences of Not Completing Prqject: >
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 i
ii from other locations restrict or prevent movement". '."..
,
ii ii
i ,""..
...,',. <>
\ Reference Document: Project Timing:
\ Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all \
ii Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. Y
<i
ii
,\ 2010-11 Total ii
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009- 1 0 through all
i ",.,
f EXPENDiTURES Build-out Years Y<
i
i Design/1nspection/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,600 $39,600 <
I"'." L8Jld Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 <
",.. >
ii i
iY Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $264,000 $264,000 <
Y Hi
< Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,400 $26,400
i Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 li<
i
., li<
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $330,000 $330,000
',. <
Potential Funding Sources:
..'.', A combination of unobligated 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 which a credit would be received.
ii
~.ii<,......
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.
Total
all
Years
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Palm and Irvington
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-42
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Irvington Avenue. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals
and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37
through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated
83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been
included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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 conector/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".
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,000
L8Jld Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $12,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000
$0
$150,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Vi... .... <...............ii...... '.< ........ ..
........i.
1..< ...<............. .....
!.....................<> ..> City of San Bernardino <i <....>>
<> i >
>........ Master Facilities Plan Project Detail .. ....... >
: ........ i
..........> ....
Ii .. ....
Project Title: Program : ...
ii Traffic Signal @ Palm and Belmont Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
.........
Project No.: ..
Submitting Department(s): .......
.. Development Services Department (Engineering) ST -43 i
/ >
..........
>i )ii
.. Project Description: i>
>..
.... Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Belmont Avenue. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals ....
.. and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37
'.i 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 d
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. ii
..
>i i..'
........ i<
........ Ii
) Justification/Requirement for Project: Vi
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 % Iii
i 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
i< miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2Iane"i
miles of existing collector/arterial roads.i
.......
....
ii Consequences of Not Completing Project: ..........
I) 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 i<
h< 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".
Ii ;~i
I......
Ii Reference Document: Project Timing:
Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all <>
i<i
ii Element. projects default to the "Build-out" column. ........
..
i< >>
<
i\ 2010-11 Total
..... PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
........ EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
.... I
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 Ii}
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ii
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 1\
........ <<
Ii Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 i
..'
'i Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
..
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000
.
Potential FWldillg Sources: ii
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
Ii projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. i
L
lilt\.............<.. ..........
t..
....... .....:
I ..' ..' . ".: ..':
.
.' . .'
. .... . :.' .
i . ..... '..
'.'
. ..... ..... m"
. ...... ....
.
. : '..
....::.:. ...... .' .
:.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
.
. .
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Campus Parkway (Pepper-Linden) and Industrial
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
I
I
I
I
I
I
.' .
:.....
.' :.
.
....
.
I
.
.
:.
'.
I
. .
.. .
Project No.:
ST -44
Submitting Depl1Ttment(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
I
i
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Campus Parkway and Industrail Parkway. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new
signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in
ST - 37 through ST -84 will represent a only 16.2 % of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has
generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs
have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
I
I
I
I
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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 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" .
.
.
.
I .
'.
.
Project Timing:
Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all
projects default to the "Build-out" column.
Reference Document:
Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation
Element.
...:......
.
.
2010-11 Total
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out y CI1TS
Design/lnspection/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000
L81Id 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
I
I
1'..:.
.
':.
..
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.
I
. .
.
<;;;': '. :'::: . .....
The construction of some
.: .: .
??
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Tide: Program:
Traffic Signal @ Campus Parkway (Pepper-Linden) and 1-215 Ramps Circulation (Streets. Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST -45
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Campus Parkway and 1-215 Ramps. This signal. when developed, will be one of 48 new signals
and will represent 16.2 % of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37
through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated
83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check. inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been
included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating 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 fUld at
maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily
trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2.923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane
miles of existing collector/arterial roads.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement" .
Reference Document:
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 ~e "Build-out" column.
2010-]]
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $42.000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $280,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $350.000
Total
all
Years
$350.000
I Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
$0
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Campus Parkway and Northpark
Progr8I11 :
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-46
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Campus Parkway and Northpark Boulevard. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new
signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in
ST - 37 through ST -84 will represent a only 16.2 % of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has
generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs
have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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 roughiy 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane
miles of existing collector/arterial roads.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
Reference Document:
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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
L811d Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Totlli
all
Years
$16,000
$0
$200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
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.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Sierra (CSUSB) and Northpark
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-47
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Sierra (CSUSB) and Northpark Boulevard. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new
signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in
ST - 37 through ST -84 will represent a only 16.2 % of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has
generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs
have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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 col!ector/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" .
2010-11 T otill
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
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.
Total
all
Years
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Kendall and 48th
Progr/JI11:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-48
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Kendall Drive and 48th Street. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals and
will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through
ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249
signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at
15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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 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" .
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $140,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000
Equipment/Other $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. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Tide:
Traffic Signal @ Little Mountain and 30th
ProgrtIID :
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-49
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Little Mountain Drive and 30th Street. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new
signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in
ST - 37 through ST -84 will represent a only 16.2 % of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has
generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs
have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at
maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily
trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane
miles of existing collector/arterial roads.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to widen streets, construct bridge widths and install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service
(LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is
identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups
from other locations restrict or prevent movement".
Reference Document:
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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009- J 0 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
ToW
all
Years
$160,000
$16,000
$0
$200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Little Mountain and 48th
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submittillg Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No. :
ST-50
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Little Mountain Drive and 48th Street. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new
signals and will represent 16.2 % of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in
ST - 37 through ST -84 will represent a only 16.2 % of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has
generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs
have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now fInd at
maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily
trip-miles to rougWy 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 construct bridge widths where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) trafflc 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".
Referellce 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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,000
L811d Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $140,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $175,000
Total
aJl
Years
$175,000
PotentiaJ Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specifIc agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
$0
i ............./...... ...../. ............... /))
>>........ .... .. ........
.//... ......
........... .. City of San Bernardino ..............................................................
// << ....... ..
<> >> ......... ..... >/ > Master Facilities Plan Project Detail .......iii
/>
.......i< ../ ....<iii.>< ........ ....
i Project Title: Progr8ID: > ..
i/ Traffic Signal @ Little Mountain and Northpark Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System i.
</ ........
Submitting Department(s): Project No. : <
/ Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-51 i
... /
...... ,....
i Project Description: .>
I" Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Little Mountain Drive and N orthpark Boulevard. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 .......
I> new signals and will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ...........
1/ 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 ............
t generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs //
have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs. .i
/<
t }
[..
t >/
I> Justification/Requirement for Project: <<
i/ 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 ...........
it 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 >i
1>/ 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 735.2 lane
. miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Iii!!
.... Consequences of Not Completing Project:
I Failure or inability to construct bridge widths where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the /i
Iii 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 >
Iii of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict ............
or prevent movement". ,/i
1< Ii
...........
I 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. Therefore all 1\
r/ Element. projects default to .the "Build-out" colunm.
I li/
........ 1/
k
2010 11 T otBJ ..
I/i PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all I>
E....... EXPENDiTURES Build-out Years /
I
... Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,000 $21,000 /
//
[/ Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 >
.......
IIi Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $140,000 $140,000 >
... i
/> Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000 $14,000
/ .............
............ Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
1>/
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. The construction of some
............ projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
i
............. \~y.. ....... ......
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.
Totm
all
Years
City
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ State and 1-210
Progrtu11 :
Circulation (Streets. Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST -52
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of State Street and 1-210 Ramps. This signal, when developed, will be one of 48 new signals and
will represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through
ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249
signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at
15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments. unable to be widened. that they have previously been able to use but now fInd at
maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050.289 daily
trip-miles to roughly 7,973.974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2.923.685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed. thus optimum traffic signal confIguration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane
miles of existing collector/arterial roads.
Consequellces of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to construct bridge widths where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the
intersections of streets with bridges to Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identifIed as "long queues
of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level F. "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions. back-ups from other locations restrict
or prevent movement".
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection! Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $42,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $280.000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $28.000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $350.000
$42,000
$0
$350.000
Potential FWlding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Tot111
1111
Years
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Merdian and Rialto
Progrtun:
Circulation (Streets. Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST -53
Project 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 represent 16.2% of the City's total 297 signals at General Plan build-out. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37
through ST -84 will represent a only 16.2 % of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated
83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check. inspection. materialslsoils testing and project administration costs have been
included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now fInd at
maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5.050,289 daily
trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles. an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal confIguration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane
miles of existing col1!",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 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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160.000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $16.000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200.000
Potentilll Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specifIc agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received.
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.
City San
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Macy and Mill
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-54
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Macy Street and Mill Street. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and
installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297
signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check,
inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been
included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, 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 "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" .
2010-11 Total
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Rancho (State) and Foothill
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Dep811ment(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST -55
Project Description:
COIlstruct a traffic signal at the intersection of Rancho Avenue (State) and Foothill Blvd. The project consists of constructing intersection
improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2%
of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8 % (249 signals) of the total signals.
Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and
contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now fInd at
maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily
trip-miles to rougWy 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal confIguration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane
miles of existing collector/arterial roads.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of
streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting
upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent
movement" .
Reference Document:
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-II Total
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/lnspection/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000
L81Jd Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000
City of San
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Miramonte and 27th
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No. :
ST -56
Project Description:
MConstruct a traffic signal at the intersection of Miramonte Drive and 7th Street. The project consists of constructing intersection
improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST - 37 through ST -84 will represent a only 16.2%
of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8 % (249 signals) of the total signals.
Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and
contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at
maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from 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.
COJlsequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of
streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting
upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "lammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent
movement" .
Reference Document:
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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/lnspection/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
ToW
all
Years
$16,000
$0
$200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
ProgrlUll:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
ProJect Title:
Traffic Signal @ Mountain and Kendall
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
ProJect No.:
ST -57
ProJect Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Mountain Drive and Kendall Drive. The project consists of constructing intersection
improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2%
of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals.
Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and
contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for ProJect:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at
maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily
trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane
miles of existing collector/arterial roads.
Consequences of Not Completing ProJect:
Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of
streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting
upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent
movement" .
Reference Document:
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-]]
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-]0 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Tot81
all
Years
$16,000
$0
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
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.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Mountain and 48th
Progrli11l:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No. :
ST -58
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Mountain Drive and 48th Street. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements
and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST- 37 through ST -84 will represent a only 16.2 % of the total 297
signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check,
inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been
included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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 rougWy 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane
miles of existing collector/arterial roads.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of
streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting
upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent
movement" .
2010-11 Tot1il
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Tide:
Traffic Signal @ Mountain and Northpark
ProgrlllD :
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST -59
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Mountain Drive and Northpark Boulevard. The project consists of constructing intersection
improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST - 37 through ST -84 will represent a only 16.2%
of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals.
Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and
contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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 colle::tor/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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $140,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $175,000
Totm
all
Years
$21,000
$0
$175,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
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.
Total
all
Years
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Tide:
Traffic Signal @ ")" Street and Center
ProgrB111:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST -60
Project 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 projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2%
of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals.
Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and
contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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 rougWy 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane
miles of existing collector/arterial roads.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of
streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting
upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent
movement" .
20lo-Il
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009- 1 0 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
$16,000
$0
$200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ "H" Street and Marshall
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No. :
ST-61
Pro;ect 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 projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2%
of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals.
Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and
contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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 "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 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/I1Jspection/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
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.
Total
all
Years
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Auto Plaza and Fairway
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Dep811ment(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No. :
ST-62
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Auto Plaza Drive and Fairway Drive. The project consists of constructing intersection
improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST -37 through ST -84 will represent a only 16.2 %
of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals.
Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and
contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now fInd at
maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily
trip-miles to rougWy 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal confIguration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane
miles of existing collector/arterial roads.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of
streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identifIed as "long queues of vehicles waiting
upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent
movement" .
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 tllrough
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
L8Jld Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Otller $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
$0
$160,000
$16,000
$0
$200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specifIc agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
,
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Program :
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Project Tide:
Traffic Signal @ "E" Street and Century
Submitting Depa.rtment(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST -63
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of "E" Street and Century Avenue. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements
and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297
signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check,
inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been
included at 10% of construction costs.
Justiflcation/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now flnd 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 conflguration 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 t~ the "Build-out" column.
2010-]] Tot1l1
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Otller $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
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.
Total
all
Years
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
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
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of "E" Street and Orange Show Lane. The project consists of constructing intersection
improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2%
of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals.
Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and
contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now Hnd at
maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily
trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane
miles of existing collector/arterial roads.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of
streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting
upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates" Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent
movement" .
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
$160,000
$16,000
$0
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Arrowhead and Orange Show Lane
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No. :
ST -65
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Arrowhead Avenue and Orange Show Lane. The project consists of constructing intersection
improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2%
of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing communlty has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals.
Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and
contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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 c,:llector/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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPEND1TURES Build-out
Design/lnspectioll/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000
Total
all
Years
$120,000
$12,000
$0
$150,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Arrowhead and Central
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Departmellt(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-66
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Arrowhead Avenue and Central Avenue. The project consists of constructing intersection
improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST - 37 through ST -84 will represent a only 16.2 %
of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals.
Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and
contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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 "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.
Total
all
Years
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/lnspection/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $140,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $175,000
$140,000
$14,000
$0
$175,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Tide:
Traffic Signal @ Mountain View and 13th
Progrlll11:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Project No.:
ST -67
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Mountain View and 13th Street. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements
and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST -37 through ST -84 will represent a only 16.2 % of the total 297
signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check,
inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been
included at 10% of construction costs.
Justiilcation/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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 "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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
COlltil1geJ1cy $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
T olal
all
Years
$0
$200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impaet 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.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Tide:
Traffic Signal @ Mountain View and Marshall
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No. :
ST-68
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Mountain View and Marshall Boulevard. The project consists of constructing intersection
improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2%
of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals.
Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and
contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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 "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 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.
T 0181
all
Years
2010-]]
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
$16.000
$0
$200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligatt;d Inonies 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........................................ ','i ....>>i....... .... .....\i>>................... > .......i. ........... '>i 2 .'.i .... .....
vi> i i >>................................. ...........
I-i.i...... City of San Bernardino i ......i.i/\ ..i
.....i Master Facilities Plan Project Detail :\\{;\\'ii~l,,;i;',{;:j;r, ii.
>.>
.....i.ii . i>.....i> ......
.i.>....... ......i. i>ii
ii Project Title: Progr8In:
\ Traffic Signal @ Electric and 48th Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
..
>i Submitting Department(s): Project No. : Ii
>i Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-69 ......
i. I>i
>> ............... ....... .i
ii Project Description: ............
/ Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Electric Avenue and 48th Street. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements >
I> and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST - 37 through ST -84 will represent a only 16.2 % of the total 297 >/
.>
signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check, >
> inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been
I...... included at 10% of construction costs. ...
I> > ii
li i/
I Justification/Requirement for Project: ii
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %ii
ii increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for >i\
ii drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now fmd at Ii
i 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 I>
ii 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. .......
ii
............. 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
i...... 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
IIi movement" . ii
!..i
I>
i Reference Document: Project Timing:
Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation Projecttirning is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all I
ii Element. projects default to ~e "Build-out" column.
ii
ii
i
........... 2010-11 Total i
i PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
Iii EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Ii Design/lnspection/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 >/
I> ii
Ii L811d Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 i
i
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 >
I
........... Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000
Ii Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 >
I
, .........
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Ii'
c....
Potential Funding Sources: >.
.'.
i A combination of unobligated 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 which a credit would be received.
;.( ...... ..... .... ........
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Dolittle and Mill
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-70
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Doolittle Street and Mill Street. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements
and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects con18ined in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297
signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check,
inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been
included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now frod 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 rougWy 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 ins18ll 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 "Uns18ble 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:
S18ff 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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,000
LBJld Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000
Total
all
Years
$0
$80,000
$8,000
$0
Potential FUJldiJlg Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Referellce Documellt:
Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation
Element.
Project Timillg:
Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all
projects default to the "Build-out" column.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Lena and Orange Show Road
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
SubmittiJlg Departmellt(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-71
Project Descriptioll:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Lena Road and Orange Show Road. The project consists of constructing intersection
improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2%
of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8 % (249 signals) of the total signals.
Engineering plan check, inspection, materialslsoils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and
contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justificatioll/Requiremellt 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-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 col}ector/arterial roads.
COllsequellces 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" .
2010-11 Total
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-]0 through all
EXPENDiTURES Build-out Years
Design/Illspectioll/ Administratioll $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
LBlld Acquisitioll/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipmellt/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Potelltial FUlldin.g Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
i ""i ,.'i".".'.,".i"....,.., ','.."
ii
>i iii
""'."i ., City of San Bernardino {iiiii""i ,..{
i Master Facilities Plan Project Detail i ii ii{
,)ii i """""">iii ".,'
'i ,.,.,.,..".,'i.....".....i
122i '""."""", i,i 'ii .i..'. ,','.','.'.',', ".,,'
Project Title: Progr8Ill : ii
lit Traffic Signal @ Lena and Central Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System d,
<
(i
Ii Submitting Department(s): Project No.: i
I,,> Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-72 i
,','.., i
{i
{i Project Description: i>
'i Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Lena Road and Central Avenue. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements lii;ii
and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297
i{ signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check,
inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been
included at 10% of construction costs.
'.)i
i{
"..,." i
'.'....,.", Justification/Requirement for Project: ilii::
d 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
l{ 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
Li trip-miles to rougWy 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{
I) miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane Ii
.', miles of existing collector/arterial roads. Ii
1<
Ii
i Consequences of Not Completing Project: Iii
Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of 1<
(i 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 i
..,.'....... movement" .
I){ i
I) ii
{ Reference Document: Project Timing: i
iiiii; 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. ""'"
.............
\....,.,.
i 2010-11 ToW {i
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
".,.". EXPENDITURES Build-out Years ii
ii $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000
Design/Inspection/Administration ii
)i Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I{i
i> {i
i $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000 .............
"., Construction
{ Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000
,..'.'.'.'
i $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
iii Equipment/Other
i
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000
ii Potential Funding Sources: ,i
l A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
i .i
ii projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
<i
> Mi< i. "iii<i"""""""'< "<<ii,. <i ,i<i<< _ii
.<,<",.",
'.
..... . . . .... ....... "".. ..... '., ,:. ....
.. .
I .... '..
. ...... .
.' .. ..... . .'.
. .'
. '.' .'
. ........'
. .... '.
. , .'.
: Project Title:
.. Traffic Signal @ Lena and Rialto
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
.
i
I
,
'.
.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Project No.:
ST -73
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Lena Road and Rialto Avenue. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements
and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST - 37 through ST -84 will represent a only 16.2 % of the total 297
signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check,
inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been
included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at
maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5.050,289 daily
trip-miles to roughly 7,973.974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2.923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane
miles of existing collector/arterial roads.
I
.
,
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".
:
Project Timing:
Project timing is not a component of this current effort.
projects default to the "Build-out" column.
Reference Document:
Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation
Element.
Therefore all
<
,<
<
<"I PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08
.i< EXPENDITURES
<< Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0
.....'... L811d Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0
,."
'.....
.. ConstructioJI $0 $0
/
< Contingency $0 $0
i< Equipment/Other $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0
'..,
........
'..".
.....
.
. '.
.... ....
.....
.
. .
:'
.'
2010-11 Total
2008-09 2009-10 through all
Build-out Years <<
$0 $0 $24,000 $24,000 ii
$0 $0 $0 $0 \i
$0 $0 $160,000 $160.000 /
.......
$0 $0 $16,000 $16,000 <
..:'::.
$0 $0 $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 agreements.
!\> projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
....
,ix, ......., .."""",.:..>
The construction of some
ill
.
.'
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Lena and 3rd
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No. :
ST-74
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Lena Road and 3rd Street. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements and
installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297
signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check,
inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been
included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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 roughiy 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane
miles of existing collector/arterial roads.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of
streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting
upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent
movement" .
Reference Document:
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.
Total
all
Years
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/lnspection/ Administratioll $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
$200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
$16,000
$0
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ East Carnegie and Hospital Lane
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-75
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of East Carnegie Drive and Hospitality Lane. The project consists of constructing intersection
improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2%
of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals.
Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and
contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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 rougWy 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane
miles of existing collector/arterial roads.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of
streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting
upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent
movement" .
Reference Document:
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 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDlTURES Build-out Years
Design/lnspection/ AdmiJlistration $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000
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.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Tippecanoe and Rialto
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-76
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Tippecanoe and Rialto Avenue. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements
and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297
signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8 % (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check,
inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been
included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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 rougWy 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane
miles of existing collector/arterial roads.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of
streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting
upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent
movement" .
2010-11 TotRI
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009- 1 0 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Illspection/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
ContiJJgellcy $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Otller $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
RefereJlce 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.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Del Rosa and Marshall
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-77
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Del Rosa Avenue and Marshall Boulevard. The project consists of constructing intersection
improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2%
of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8 % (249 signals) of the total signals.
Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and
contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been 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 roughiy 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 colle:tor/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" .
2010-11 Tow
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/1nspection/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
EquipmeJlt/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, developmcnt impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of somc
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
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.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Del Rosa and 6th
Program:
Circulation (Streets. Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(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 intersection improvements
and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297
signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check,
inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been
included at 10% of construction costs.
Justiflcation/RequiremelJt 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-miles to roughly 7,973.974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923.685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane
miles of existing collector/arterial roads.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of
streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting
upstream of the intersection". Level F. "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent
movement" .
2010-11 Total
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 througb all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $18.000
ullId Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $12.000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees. and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval. for which a credit would be received.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Sterling and Marshall
Progrll/Il:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-79
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Stering Avenue and Marshall Boulevard. The project consists of constructing intersection
improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2%
of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals.
Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and
contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at
maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily
trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane
miles of existing collector/arterial roads.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of
streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting
upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent
movement" .
Reference Document:
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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/lnspection/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
L8J1d Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Total
all
Years
$200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
$24,000
$0
Referellce Documellt:
Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation
Element.
Project Timi1lg:
Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all
projects default to the "Build-out" column.
Tolill
all
Years
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ Sterling and Lynwood
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submittmg Departmellt(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-80
Project Descriptioll:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Sterling Avenue and Lynwood Drive. The project consists of constructing intersection
improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2%
of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8 % (249 signals) of the total signals.
Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and
contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justificatioll/Requireme1lt for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now fInd at
maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily
trip-miles to rougWy 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.
COllsequellces of Not Completmg 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" .
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 tllrough
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Desigll/ll1spectioll/ Admi1listratioll $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
L8Jld Acquisitioll/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
COllstructioll $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
COlltmgellcy $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipmellt/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
$0
$200,000
Potelltial FUlldi1lg Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
~~ ~
. :. : ..:. .
. ..
I. Project Title:
\.....:.: Traffic Signal @ Sterling and 6th
I
I
.
..
. .
... .
I
.. .. ..... .... .. ... .... .
II.... .
I. . ..
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail I .... ...... .... ... . .
. . ..... . .. . ... ....::...... ..
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
... ....
:. . .
. ..
City of San Bernardino
~P:...... .
Project No.:
ST-81
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
.
.
.. .
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Sterling Avenue and 6th Street. The project consists of constructing intersection improvements
and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST - 37 through ST -84 will represent a only 16.2 % of the total 297
signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check,
inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been
included at 10% of construction costs.
I
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at
maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily
trip-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.
.
. .
. .
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
i
i
I
I
..
.
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" .
Project Timing:
Project timing is not a component of this current effort.
projects default to !he "Build-out" column.
Reference Document:
Staff cost estimates that are consistent with the City's Circulation
Element.
Therefore all
i
2010-11 TotHl
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $160,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000
I
I
.
.
... .
....
.
..
....
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.
The construction of some
I
I
I: .-,~...
:::::
.
;;
.. . . ..:.. ..:
.. .
Project Title:
Traffic Signal @ S. Mountain View and Central (Palm Meadows)
ProgrtU11 :
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submiltnlg Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST -82
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of South Mountain View and Central (Palm Meadows). The project consists of constructing
intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST - 37 through ST -84 will represent a
only 16.2 % of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8 % (249 signals) of the total
signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction
costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now 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 "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 TiJning:
Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all
projects default to the "Build-out" column.
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Total
all
Years
$160,000
$16,000
$0
$200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
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.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Mountain View and 1-10 Westbound Ramp
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No. :
ST-83
Project Description:
Construct a traffic signal at the intersection of South Mountain View and Westbound 1-10 Ramp. The project consists of constructing
intersection improvements and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST -37 through ST -84 will represent a
only 16.2% of the total 297 signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total
signals. Engineering plan check, inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction
costs and contingency has been included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at
maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily
trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane
miles of existing coll!'Ctor/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" .
2010-11 ToW
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through 1111
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Potentilll Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
RefereJlce 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.
Totlu
all
Years
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Tide:
Traffic Signal @ Guthrie and Pacific
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(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 consists of constructing intersection improvements
and installing traffic signals. All of the proposed signal projects contained in ST-37 through ST-84 will represent a only 16.2% of the total 297
signals at General Plan build-out while the existing community has generated 83.8% (249 signals) of the total signals. Engineering plan check,
inspection, materials/soils testing and project administration costs have been included at 15% of construction costs and contingency has been
included at 10% of construction costs.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
This intersection needs to be signalized to complete the General Plan Circulation System and will assist in accommodating the nearly 58 %
increase in daily trip-miles at General Plan build-out resulting from new development. This segment of roadway will provide an alternative for
drivers who have been displaced from roadway segments, unable to be widened, that they have previously been able to use but now find at
maximum carrying capacity. The City can expect an additional 57% increase in the number of daily trip-miles from the current 5,050,289 daily
trip-miles to roughly 7,973,974 daily trip-miles, an increase of 2,923,685 daily trip miles. There are limits as to how many additional lane
miles can be constructed, thus optimum traffic signal configuration is absolutely necessary to maximize the General Plan maximum 735.2 lane
miles of existing collector/arterial roads.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Failure or inability to install signals where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) traffic flow at the intersections of
streets to a Level E or F by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting
upstream of the intersection". Level F, "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent
movement" .
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
$16,000
$0
$200,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a varicty 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.
Project Title:
Interchange/Ramps @ 1-215 and Palm Avenue (SB, County)
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-85
Project Description:
Construct interchange improvements at 1-215 and Palm Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by a
number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project.
t.vlw.)- t....,) 1- 1 ...,.,-...e- i-v(.:, ?
Justification/Requirement for Project: -rz.. _I tv. ~ (.I It-JN/C' -'Vz.. :Jr-as-,(I) fl'"'-7'f
'< 6114: _e A dGfi",,-I.V1t I'"'
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
7 '").<1 __ - '-v .....1<. "-' ~.-'?-:::;
~:f-B,}- 6r-<jt{.
1I1t>.f t.<..o1,,,,"S
fr.,.
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all
projects default to the "Build-out" column.
2010-1/ Total
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $960,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,400,000 $6,400,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $640,000 $640,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $8,000,000 $8,000,000
The construction of some
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Project Title:
Interchange/Ramps @ 1-215 and Pepper Linden (Campus Parkway)
(SB)
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST -86
Project Description:
Construct interchange improvements at 1-215 and Pepper Linden (Campus Parkway). This project is considered of regional importance and is
to be fmanced by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,800,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $32,000,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,200,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000,000
Total
all
Years
$32,000,000
$3,200,000
$0
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Project Title:
Interchange/Ramps @ 1-215 and University Parkway (SB, County)
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST -87
Project Description:
Construct interchange improvements at 1-215 at University Parkway. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by
a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009- 10 through
EXPENDlTURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/ AdministratioJI $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,760,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $18,400,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,840,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,000,000
Total
all
Years
$0
$18,400,000
$1,840,000
$23,000,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Interchange/Ramps @ 1-210 and Waterman (SB, Highland, County)
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No. :
ST -88
Project Description:
Construct interchange improvements at 1-210 at Waterman Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by a
number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
Consequellces of Not Completing Project:
Reference Document:
Project Tinting:
Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all
projects default to the "Build-out" column.
20/0-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,800,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $32,000,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,200,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000,000
Totlli
all
Years
$4,800,000
$32,000,000
$3,200,000
$0
$40,000,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Interchange/Ramps @ 1-210 and Del Rosa (SB, HigWand, County)
Program :
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Depllrtment(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST -89
Project Description:
Construct interchange improvements at 1-210 at Del Rosa Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by a
number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all
projects default to the "Build-out" column.
20/0-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-/0 through
EXPENDiTURES Build-out
Design/lnspection / Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,360,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $22,400,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,240,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,000,000
Total
all
Ye8rS
$3,360,000
$22,400,000
$2,240,000
$0
$28,000,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
i ......... i ... ~............i .......................................................................................
................................................................. ................ iii
/i ... ......
.... City of San Bernardino .... .......
/i i/ ..................................................................................................
......... Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ....
.i..............ii/ ....i "i ii
........d..i.. .... i..i ......
.............. Project Title: Progrsm:
Interchange/Ramps @ 1-210 and Victoria (SB, Highland, County) Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System I.....
k
. Submitting Department(s): Project No.: i/
i"
.. Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-90 ii
.... ....... .............. <
< Project Description: i<
Construct interchange improvements at at 1-210 at Victoria Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be fmanced by ............
i/ .......
<)1 a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project. /..
............... )i
......
ii .............
....
i ..
?
i/ Justification/Requirement for Project: 1<
< Ii
....
i/ 1/
i Il:n
/i
....
....
..
1/ Consequences of Not Completing Project: ..........
ii l,ii:
..
< i
Ii :.
I..........
L"
.....
Iii Reference Document: Project Timing: Iii
.... Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all
i projects default to the "Build-out" column. i<
<
i
...... i..
.... 20l0-]] TotBI ..
.. PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2oo9-l0 through all
.... EXPENDITURES Build-out Years ..
1/ ....
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,600,000 $3,600,000 ....
i/
I)i ......
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ?
I........
It Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000,000 $24,000,000
.'
I.. Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,400,000 $2,400,000
"i Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
i. .......
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000,000 $30,000,000 ../
..
'i Potential Funding Sources: ii
,../ A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some ..
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received. i
H/ .
............... ....... ..
('.' ................ .........
Reference Document:
Project TimiIlg:
Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all
projects default to the "Build-out" column.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Interchange/Ramps @ 1-210 and 5th (SB, Highland, Redlands)
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
SubmittiIlg DepllTlment(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-91
Project Description:
Construct interchange improvements at 1-210 at 5th Street. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by a number
of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project.
Justification/Requirement for Proiect:
Consequences of Not CompletiIlg Project:
2010-11 Total
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection/ AdmiIlistration $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,680,000 $1,680,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $11 ,200,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,120,000
Equipment/Otller $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000,000
Potential FundiIlg Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Interchange/Ramps @ 1-10 and Tippecanoe
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No. :
ST -92
Project Description:
Construct interchange improvements at 1-10 at Tippecanoe Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be fmanced by a
number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/1nspection/ Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,800,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $32,000,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,200,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000,000
Total
all
Years
$3,200,000
$0
$40,000,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
ProJect Title:
Interchange/Ramps @ 1-10 and Pepper (SB, County, Colton)
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
ProJect No.:
ST-93
ProJect Description:
Construct interchange iprovements at 1-10 at Pepper. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be fmanced by a number of
sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project.
Justification/Requirement for ProJect:
Consequences of Not Completing ProJect:
Reference Document:
ProJect Timing:
Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all
projects default to 1he "Build-out" column.
Tot1l1
all
Years
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,240,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,600,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,160,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,000,000
$21,600.000
$27,000,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Interchange/Ramps @ 1-10 and Mountain View (SB, Lorna Linda,
Redlands, County)
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Program :
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Project No.:
ST-94
Project Description:
Construct interchange improvements at (-10 at Mountain View Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be fmanced
by a number of sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project.
Justification/Requirement [or Project:
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 tllroUgh
EXPENDiTURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,800,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $32,000,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,200,000
Equipment/Otller $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000,000
Total
all
Years
$4,800,000
$32,000,000
$3,200,000
$40,000,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
ProJect Title:
Grade Separation @ Palm Avenue (SB)
Progr8lD:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Depsrtmcnt(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
ProJect No. :
ST-95
ProJect Description:
Construct a grade separation at Palm Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be fmanced by a number of sources.
This portion represents the City's share of the total project. u/'-~ /C--Md-'1' '1 /if ~ '5'7""'" h va.. ~ t.-4r ?
Justification/Requirement for ProJect:
1 11-1 t..AfU;~ m .,..,-- 'fS- h Sr-~ g
~aSi: 7"'.- __,i c1e:sc.ji!N'~IVI<
Consequences of Not Completing ProJect:
?t.-...J. ~~~ IVL ~r:- 'f~- -1-0 S~-1'.r.
?A......... - (;1">>>..L. "~1~rP-~
Reference Document:
ProJect Timing:
Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all
projects default to the "Build-out" column.
20IG--ll
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDlTURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,160,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $14,400,000
Contingellcy $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,440,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,000,000
Total
all
Years
$14.400,000
$18,000,000
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of SOffie
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
$0
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Grade Separation @ Rialto (SB)
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-96
Project Description:
Constrct a grade separation at Rialto Avenue. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be fmanced by a number of sources.
This portion represents the City's share of the total project.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
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
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPEND1TURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,052,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $13,680,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,368,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,100,000
Total
all
Years
$13,680,000
$1,368,000
$0
Potential Funding Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
Project Tide:
Grade Separation @ State Street/University (SB)
Program:
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Submitting Department(s):
Development Services Department (Engineering)
Project No.:
ST-97
Project Description:
Constuct a grade separation at State Street/University. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be fmanced by a number of
sources. This portion represents the City's share of the total project.
iustiflcation/Requirement for Project:
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all
projects default to the "Build-out" column.
2010-11 Total
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009- 1 0 through all
EXPENDITURES Build-out Years
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,968,000 $1,968,000
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $13,120,000 $13,120,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,312,000 $1,312,000
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $16.400,000 $16,400,000
Potential FundiJlg Sources:
A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some
projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
I...>> >> ., , .......i ................. >
,,\i.. .......' ................
I, ........> >...>
I City of San Bernardino i........
, ..............> >ii>
>\,> > Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ii
,i) > .>
...................... i'.'
Ii ... .... ........ ......
I> Project Tide: Program: >
I Grade Separation @ Hunts Lane (SB, Colton) Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System i.
)i
I, Submitting Department(s): Project No. : i>
Development Services Department (Engineering) ST-98 .....
I
.,..... , ................ ..'
'> Pro;ect Description: ,
....... >
i Construct a grade separation at Hunts Lane. This project is considered of regional importance and is to be financed by a number of sources. ..............
,> This portion represents the City's share of the total project.
>>
Iii
..i ii
I' >>
f) \>
Iii ............
"
Ii Justification/Requirement for Project: i
.
Iii .......
i(
Ii
i i
)>
.............
..... >
....... Consequences of Not Completing Project:
........ >>
< ii
Hi i
ii ii
i'
ii Reference Document: Project Timing:
I> Project timing is not a component of this current effort. Therefore all
I>.' projects default to the "Build-out" column. >i
li\
Ii ii
I' 2010-11 \,
<i Tot11l
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through all
Ii EXPENDITURES Build-out Years i
,
ii Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,680,000 $1,680,000 i
i Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
........... )...
...... $0 $0
..... Construction $0 $0 $11,200,000 $11,200,000 .............
..>, Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,120,000 $1,120,000 i
.
i Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
............
" TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,000,000 $14,000,000
Potential Funding Sources: .......
..... A combination of unobligated monies from a variety of funds, development impact fees, and specific agreements. The construction of some ,i1111
I> projects listed may be required as a condition of approval, for which a credit would be received.
.........
I.(~l'>.. ...... 'i>......ii , ............... .. ..... .i..
.., ....
City of San Bernardino
Library Facilities and
Collection
c:
E
.i2
0
"
.
:;
0
I
:g
"
CO
.9
-
I
C
C
~
<1>
'5
.9
~
"
<!!
<1>
""
le
"
.<1>
2'
Q.
'"
'"
~.
" <(
"
~ 0
'"
" c:
"t E
<i ~
.<1>
2' S
Q. u...
.!!1
'5 0
(; ...J
1: ...J
<1>
~ <Ii
~ ....
.~
" (ij
"
'" 'u
c Q)
c:: Q.
.!!1 en
Ol ....
S If)
.g 0
0
t cd
'. .~ Q)
~Q: :J
~ ,...; c:
Q)
>
Q)
ex:
$742,731
$1,237,884
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
General Library Square Foot Expansion
Program:
Library Facilities and Collection.
Submitting Department(s):
Public Library
Project No.:
LB-OI
Project Description:
Acquisition of land and construction of a total of 27 ,509 square feet of library expansion in one or more locations in order to maintain pace
with new development-generated residential poulation growth. existing community by the current 80,000 square foot facility. The additional
space would house the additional administration, patrol, investigation, records, traffic control, analytical and support staff, short-term evidence
storage, report writing space, training, meeting and locker/shower facilities and other space needs required to maintain current building
standards. Included in the cost estimate is the acquisition of about five and half acres for the building and additional visitor/employee parking.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
The proposed expansion will provide the square footage necessary to maintain the current ratio of floor space to residential patrons as is offered
at this point in time. The current level of service standard is 0.0.41 square feet of library space per resident. Should the library not be
expanded, the space per resident would drop by about 25% to about 0.30 square feet at build-out. The additional 27,509 square feet represents
the amount of square feet.necessary to maintain the current levels of service provided by the existing building space.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
This proposed project does not assume expansion of the current library or construction of a branch library, it merely represents the cost of the
additional square footage necessary to maintain current levels. Additionally, it does not represent that the current 0.41 square feet per resident
as currently adequate or insufficient, merely a statement of the actual standard.
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.
2010-11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $742,731
Land Acquisitioll/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,237,884
$0 $0 $0 $0 $4,951,537
$0 $0 $0 $0 $495,154
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,427,306
$4,951,537
$0
$7,427,306
Potential Funding Sources:
General Fund, or if adopted, the proposed development impact fees.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Expansion of Library Collection
Program:
Library Facilities and Collection
Submitting Department(s):
Public Library
Project No.:
LB-02
Project Description:
Acquisition and processing of approximately 79,482 additional books or other items to increase the Public Library's collection in order to
maintain pace with new residential home construction and occupancy. These 95 additional vehicles are necessary to maintain the current 0.75
vehicles per officer ratio with the addition of 126 officers. The current standard of 0.75 vehicles per officer is based upon the 234 vehicles
divided by the existing 312 officers.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
The proposed expansion will provide the additions to the collection of library "items" necessary to maintain the current ratio of books to
residential patrons as is offered at this point in time. The current level of service standard is 1.19 "items" per resident based upon 236,980
items and 199,803 potential patrons. Should the current collection of items not be expanded, the number of items per patron standard would
drop by about 25% to about 0.89 books per person. The 79,842 additional books that could be acquired if the impact fees was adopted,
represents the additional collection items necessary to maintain the current levels of service provided by the existing collection.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
The proposed purchase of books/volumes does not represent that the current 1.19 books/resident as currently adequate or insufficient, merely a
statement of the actual standard.
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.
2010-]]
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009- 10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,083,041
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,083,041
Tot1l1
all
Years
$5,083,041
$5,083,041
Potential Funding Sources:
General Fund, or if adopted, the proposed development impact fees.
$0
City of San Bernardino
Public Use
Facilities
I( ~
;q)) ~ C')
~ ~ ~ co
.. c c C\l
.. ::l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 01
, ~ 0 a ~ 0, .., <
':::-'~ ~ ..; ...; ci ..-
Ii ~ ] ~ ... ... ~ :; ()
...
I( Cll c:
0
I> ...
....
~
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :i
l~ u.
>::: ~ ~ ~ ",- ~
'"
i~ ~ 0, 0, ..,
~~ ~ ....~ ....~ c' .;
... ... :; :;
'S >> I(
..... ~ ~ Cll
Ii. >
I ~ ~ ~ ~i ~
I( C i
I> ....
I> ,
I ~
I>
I( ~
I>
I>
Ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
, i
8
,(( ~ >
Ii .:
e:
i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -'!
....... 0
<>
....... ~ ( ...... .
(( '5
K ~
i ~ II
'"
Cll
/ .9
-
( ......... ~ ~ ~ ~> ~ -
I
~
........ r-... ( ~
......... c
( ~ / ..... '"
> s
( ~ ( .9
""
i( '"
..!l!
~
i .!!l Co
.!I 13
~ '"
.'"
......... e
Cl.
=:
"
'"
i i ~
< ~
"
> Co
<(
( ~i <i
......... ~ .~
~ 8 e ()
0) a. Cl. ..J
.!!1
e.i> '" s ..J
.~ ~ g ~ ~ -
... 0 ui
~I/~.~~~ c: ...
'" .!!!
( <::
o>.tl.t;~ 0 (ij
....... 0 ~ \:l ~ - ~ '(3
........ ~ li ~>~~~:I ........ 0 OJ
<> C.
" a:: "
'.Q .!ji ~ "5 en
...... S~:.::: ...~u<( <:: ...
~ '.Q'u 8 ~ i ... .!!1 <Il
0
~ .., ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ()
:-::: !- .S
>li~&l ~l!l~~ ~ -0
c:
d fil tt; :::i ... al
I "c.... 0 <>
'. '~ OJ
.s .... i/ 9 ~ 8 :l
.... e. ''':is 5> ;&:
........ D ~ ~i 8 )) c:
8 8 o . OJ
..... ~- >
< . ....ii OJ
a:
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Tide:
Construct Additional Public Use Space
Program:
Public Use Facilities (community centers)
Submitting Department(s):
Community Services
Project No.:
CC-OI
Project Description:
The City's existing standard of public use space is 0.994 square foot per resident. This is based upon the inventory of 198,619 square feet of
public use space for the City's 199,803 residents (199,619/199,803 = 0.993). Based upon this existing standard and the potential for 67,094
additional residents at General Plan build-out, the City could adopt and impose impact fees that would construct an additional 66,691 square
feet of public use space. The 66,691 additional square feet would maintain the 0.994 S.F. per resident standard.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
The City has a public use facilities standard of 0.994 square feet per resident based upon the total 199,619 square foot dedicated to community
and recreation services for the existing 199,803 residents. To maintain that standard through General Plan build-out the City would need to
construct an additional 66,691 square feet of community service or recreation center space for use by the fmal projected 266,897 plus
population.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Without adding (something) to the City's inventory of space available for community groups of all sizes lYld 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.
Project Timing:
The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay
acquisition describ~ herein, was not included in the scope of this
engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column.
2010-]]
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,200,803
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $14,672,020
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,467,202
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,340,025
Potential Funding Sources:
General Fund revenues, Public Use Development Impact Fees, miscellaneous state and federal grants.
Total
all
Years
$2,200,803
$14,672,020
$1,467,202
$0
$18,340,025
City of San Bernardino
Aquatics
Facilities
r ..
.. ::I
, ,ll? 'Ii
'. is':!:! ,0
cl:: '3 '""
. 'Xl
.
~ l ~
e ~
. ~ :<:l '3
C'\l f.,; 'Xl
.
.
.
".
.
I
I
I
,
!
I
I
i
I
I
I
o
~~
~ ~
} ~ ,,g
} 'Xl ~
........ ~ ~
, .....
.It ~!
c
.....
I
~
~
I
8
C'\l
i g
~ ~
~ ~
.
~ ~
~ oo~
'" ::5
~ ~
a a
.
. .
a a
~
to!.
~
'.
I
I a a
I .
I ...
a a a
~
C
I
~
C'\l
i
. ~
.'.
.
i ,~
i ~
) i '! I
......... s :ili
)> ~ s
} '8 -e
~ ~
~ ~ ~
,,g ~
~> ~ !
t.i'; ....... ~ ~
~) --=---=-
,15 ...
l~~
~F)I
~I~l
!:l
~
~
('I)
ex)
C\J
m
<(
o
.....'.'
'"
~
",'
!:l
~
c:
B
....
2
"S
u.
a
a
"
EO
"
"0
u
.
'5
'i'
:!1
'S
<Xl
.9
a
.
,.
C)
~
"
>;
.9
'S
.lJ!
~
'"
13
.~
...
Q..
~
,,;
iil
1:!
'"
'"
"'C
~
..;
u
.~
...
Q..
'"
:s
'0
c:
"
~
Q..
~
u
'"
o
<:
,!2
""
<:
:e
'"
13
'. .~
~ct
~~
....
l/)
o
o
0/$
OJ
::l
c:
OJ
>
OJ
ex:
o
.J
.J
vi
.~
(ij
"l5
OJ
a.
en
'. "
..
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Construct Water Pooll Attraction
ProgrllJ11 :
Aquatics Facilities
Submitting Department(s):
Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Project No. :
AQ-OI
Project Description:
The City's existing standard of pool surface space is 0.309 square foot per resident. This is based upon the provision of 61,690 square feet of
pool surface space for the City's 199,803 residents (61,690/199,803 = 0.309). Based upon this existing standard and the potential for 67,094
additional residents at General Plan build-out, the City could adopt and impose impact fees that would construct an additional 20,732 square
feet of pool surface space. The addition of 20,732 square feet would be adequate for a 50 meter (by 25 yard) competition pool (12,188 square
feet of surface) and a 30 yard by 30 yard general purpose pool (8,100 square feet) or for perspective, it could be used to construct three pools
the size of the one at the Mills aquatic center.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
The 20,732 additional pool surface square feet would maintain thc 0.309 square feet of pool surface per resident standard.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Without adding to the City's inventory of pool space available for its residents, the standard of 0.309 square foot per person would drop 25% to
about 0.231 square foot per person and the existing facilities would become more crowded and the experience would be decreased in value.
Reference Document:
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
Design/lnspection/ Administratioll $0 $0 $0 $0 $386,984
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $2,579,890
$0 $0 $0 $0 $257,989
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0
Total
all
Years
$2,579,890
$257,989
Potential FWlding Sources:
General Fund revenues, Aquatics Program Development Impact Fees, miscellaneous state and federal grants.
.
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Construct Locker/Administration Building
ProgrllDl :
Aquatics Facilities
Submitting Department(s):
Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Project No.:
AQ-02
Project Description:
The City's existing standard of pool locker/maintenance building space is 0.484 square foot per resident. This is based upon the provision of
2,563 square feet of pool building space for the City's 5,300 residents (2,563/5,300 = 0.484). Based upon this existing standard and the
potential for 67,094 additional residents at General Plan build-out, the City could adopt and impose impact fees that would construct an
additional 8,118 square feet of pool building space.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
The 8,118 additional pool building square feet would mainlain the 0.121 of building square feet per resident standard.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Without adding to the City's inventory of locker room building available for its residents, the standard of 0.121 square foot per person would
drop 25% to about 0.090 square foot per person and the existing facilities would become more crowded and the experience would be decreased
in value.
Reference Document:
Staff planning.
Project Timing:
The timing of the capita! construction or acquisition described herein,
was not included in the scope of this engagement, thus all project costs
default to the "Build-out" colunm. All costs are at nominal, or current
dollar value.
2010-]]
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $240,968
Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,606,455
$0 $0 $0 $0 $160,646
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,008,069
Potential Funding Sources:
General Fund revenues, Aquatics Program Development Impact Fees, miscellaneous slate and federal grants.
Total
all
Years
$1,606,455
$160,646
$0
$2,008,069
.
City of San Bernardino
Parkland Acquisition and
Facilities Improvements
I .
r
...
... ::I
.~ ~]
....... e 'a ~
a.:;i:!l
..
i
i~~'5
6 ~ 1
> ~ ,Sl ~
>~~~
...
.
.:
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
...
..
..
.
.
c
~~
i ~ a.:;
} s.~
..:.:: ~ .Q
> Cl 7:i
... r}'l ~
'Cl ...
.. ~ ~
I>.... ~
Iii U <;
~~~~~ ~
~~~'~~' ~.
..; ...... !:;:' ...; ,,- !::!.
~ ~ ... ...... -
;;
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~'~~-~
~a~;;4
~~~~~ ~
c
~
I
~
~~~~~ ~
~
I
~
}
~~~~~ ~
~
K
~
'"
c
~
~
~~~~~ ~
i
.......
i
ii
i
Q.;
i .t
Q.; El
..0 a
-l2 ~ a
~ ~ ~
l a ~ ]'
~~":!o
~ ~ ~ ~ ;
.~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ !:: :::.
e~~ ~~
\l <::> <::> ..... ~
~ <:i iii -!< .~
<::> -. ~ Iii "
iii 5 3 Q.; ~
.!l ~ c ~ ~ .
"l "l ~ ~ 8
~~~~~
~ ~ ~ .~ i
l) l) l) ::s 0
'5
~
c
]
I::l
.~
~
"
~
~
Q.;
~
~
:0
:~
~
~
"e
~ 999
~I}! i\': i\': i\':
~ 9
i\': i\':i
~
C")
co
C\I
C1l
<(
()
c::
o
-
...
~
"5
l.L.
~
~
"
c
"
j
!.;;
~
"
C
I
"e
""
"
Cl:l
.9
-.
-.
I
<::>
~
u
'5
.9
~
::;
~
.g
j1J
.~
C'
a,
"il
~
~
'"
'"
<::
.~
C'
a,
.~
'5
'0
5
~
~
8
"
c
"
.~
""
.S:;
.~
.~
C'
~ <t
~ ~
-
Ul
o
()
'0
c::
as
Q)
::l
c::
Q)
>
Q)
ex:
. .
()
...i
...i
ui
-
.!!?
(ij
'(3
Q)
0-
f/)
-
nilwijl'ffl ",,,,,,,,,' " "..,', i
i"ii
" iii >
City of San Bernardino ...... ...................................................
i Master Facilities Plan Project Detail ii iii
'.",..,iii ',',',', i'.' "', ".','"
""iJqi
i Project Tide: Program: t
Ii Construct Six 5.0 Acre Neighborhood Parks Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development ii
lit Submitting Department(s): Project No.: i
I Community Services Department PK-OI
ii
Ii ii
I Project Description: ii
Acquire land for/develop six 5.0 acre neighborhood parks designed to meet neighborhood access to youth and adults for nearby .."...""
non-programmed sports and activity use. Examples of improvements would include a turfed sports field. a small scale baseball backstop for ii
ii "pick-up" play, a concrete basketball court, a small playground climbing apparatus, a drinking fountain, small restroom. and picnic tables and I~;
"".,'
:i benches. Project design, project administration and inspection costs are included in the $340,945 per acre construction cost. Land costs are
t included at $10.00 per square foot.
ii
,i
ii
/ Justification/Requirement for Project: i
ii A neighborhood park, according to the National Parks and Recreation Association. is "Easily accessable to neighborhood population-
ii geographically centered with safe walking and bike access. May be developed as a school-park facility." There are no specific plans for the l'G
i possible combinations of parks (e.g. neighborhood, community or sports parks) to be configured from the 200 acres of parks that could be
it fmanced by a park development impact fees. Such plans would be All park improvements must meet the American with Disabilities Act
iii requirements of access for all.
i Ii
,.,
Ii
..".' Consequences of Not Completing Project:
It Demands for local and acessable park facilities would go unmet for this area.
I 11'i!
I
:
'i
I........... Reference Document: Project Timing: i
I'.'" None. the future needs are merely based upon the standards The timing or scheduling of the capital construction or capital outlay i
Iii representing Quimby Act provisions and users statistics. acquisition described herein. was not included in the scope of this
I engagement, thus all project cost default to the "Build-out" column.
I
2010-11 Totsi !ii
Ii PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through siI
Ii EXPENDITURES Build-out Years i
ii
,., Design/Inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,508,846 $2,508.846 i
,"
,'"
,., L81Id Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,068,000 $13,068,000
."",.,.,
.'.......
i Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,432,942 $6.432,942
, ii Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $1.286,586 $1.286,586
,.",.'.
"....,.
,., Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,296.374 $23,296,374
I Potential Funding Sources:
,ii Park Impact Fees, Quimby Fees, General Fund contributions. State Park grants and occasional federal grants
i
"',.".'.' i~'>.. ".: ..i
,.",,, ."...
-
.'. . "" .:',."',. ....
'. ..... .'. '..' .'
. ':..,
'.
. .
, . ',.
'. . .'.
I
Submitting Department(s):
I' Community Services Department
I
I
. .
I
I
I
I
'.. .
.... ,:. .
'. :..... . . .. .
. .' ....
.' ,
..' .:. .
. ..... . .
..... .
.' .
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
'.
Project Title:
Construct Seven 10.0 Acre Passive Community Parks
Program :
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
Project No. :
PK-02
Project Description:
Acquire land for/develop seven 10.0 acre community parks designed to meet area-wide passive needs for nearby non-programmed sports,
activity and picnicing use. Community parks are intended to meet passive uses for families and groups. Improvements would include informal
sportsfields, play areas with playground apparatus, restrooms, numerous picnic tables a number of them under shade structures, barbeques,
benches and non-lighted tennis, basketball and vol1eyball courts. Passive parks may also have a concrete stage, bandshel1 or a large gazebo.
There would also be sidewalks, security lighting and park signage. Project design, project administration and inspection costs are included in
the $340,945 per acre construction cost. Land costs are included at $10.00 per square foot.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
A community park, according to the National Parks and Recreation Association as an .. Area of diverse environmental quality. May include
areas suited for intense recreational facilities, such as atheletice complexes, large swimming pools. May be an area of natural quality for
outdoor recreation, such as walking, viewing, sitting, picknicing. May be any combination of the above, depending upon site suitability and
community need. There are.no specific plans for the possible combinations of parks (e.g. neighborhood, community or sports parks) to be
configured from the 200 acres of parks that could be financed by park development impact fees. Such plans would be All park improvements
must meet the American with Disabilities Act requirements of access for all.
. .
.
.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
The City currently maintains a 2.69 acres per 1,000 person standard. 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 fmanced by
park impact fees. Failure to maintain existing park acres will ultimately decrease the usage and viability of the parks reducing the accessability
of recreational activities.
Reference Document:
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.
i
>i
i> PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08
:.:,": EXPENDITURES
/
I> Design/Inspection/Administration $0
,>.
:.... Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0
I
Construction $0
Iii Contingency $0
Ii
I Equipment/Other $0
I TOTAL COST $0
>>.
$0
2010-11 Total
2008-09 2009-10 through all
Build-out Years
$0 $0 $5,853,974 $5,853,974
$0 $0 $30,492,000 $30,492,000
$0 $0 $15,010,198 $15,010,198
$0 $0 $3,002,041 $3,002,041
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $54,358,213 $54,358,213
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Potential Funding Sources:
Park Impact Fees, Quimby Fees, General Fund contributions, State Park grants and occasional federal grants
I
I
I Id
" .
.' .
,,'
"
. .
I
:.
.
.
,
'.:
.
......
.'.
I
I
.
I '
I
I
!
I
I
I>
.
.'..:.':.
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Construct Four 25.0 Acre Active (sports) Community Parks
Progrl1lD :
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
Submitting Department(s):
Community Services Department
Project No.:
PK-03
Project Description:
Acquire land for/develop four 25.0 acre sports parks designed to meet area-wide active needs for nearby programmed sports, activity and
minor picnicing use. Sports parks are intended to meet active uses for associations and large groups. Improvements would include lighted
baseball and softball fields, lighted soccer/football fields. Other improvements typically include groups fo five or six full-sized basketball
courts and a number of lighted tennis courts. Project design, project administration and inspection costs are included in the $340,945 per acre
construction cost. Land costs are included at $10.00 per square foot.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
A community park, according to the National Parks and Recreation Association as an "Area of diverse environmental quality. May include
areas suited for intense recreational facilities, such as atheletice complexes, large swimming pools. May be an area of natural quality for
outdoor recreation, such as walking, viewing, sitting, picknicing. May be any combination of the above, depending upon site suitability and
community need. There are no specific plans for the possible combinations of parks (e.g. neighborhood, community or sports parks) to be
configured from the 200 acres of parks that could be 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.
COJlsequences 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 fmanced by
park impact fees. Failure to maintain existing park acres will ultimately decrease the usage and viability of the parks reducing the accessability
of recreational activities.
Reference Document:
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.
2010 11
PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
EXPENDITURES Build-out
Design/Inspection/ AdministratioJl $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,362,828
L8Jld Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,560,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $21,443,144
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,288,628
Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,654,600
Potential Funding Sources:
Park Impact Fees, Quimby Fees, General Fund contributions, State Park grants and occasional federal grants
Tof1u
all
Years
$8,362,828
$43,560,000
. ." "., .
I..' '.' ... '. .
. ,
, .
'. '. .......,........
...... . ...............
, '.' .
Project Description:
Improvements could include, but would not be limited to: basketball courts, playground climbing apparatus, drinking fountains, restrooms,
picnic tables, barbeques and benches. basketball courts, playground climbing apparatus, drinking fountains, restrooms, picnic tables, barbeques
and benches. Park construction costs are estimated at $357,437/acre for the 39.5 acres of mixed active/passive parkland development. Project
design, project administration and inspection costs are included in the $340,945 per acre construction cost. Land costs are included at $10.00
per square foot.
..
.. '.
, :,0;
..... .
.... .:'
Project Titie:
... Miscellaneous Park Improvements
I
!
t
.
.'; .
:.' ,
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
.
':'.\ ..,.,"1
.'
Program:
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
Submitting Department(s):
Community Services Department
Project No. :
PK -04
.
,
.
.
.
.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
Some of the 537.3 acres of existing parks are in need of additional facilites to meet local needs that could not have been anticipated at the time
the park was designed and constructed. Additionally, changes in the demographics of 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 access for all.
I
I
I
I
I
[
I
.
.' ... .
. .
.
.
.
.. ."
. .
'.
......:
I .
I
I
I
. .
.
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 fmanced by
park impact fees. Failure to maintain existing park acres will ultimately decrease the usage and viability of the parks reducing the accessability
of recreational activities.
Reference Document:
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 def~ult to the "Build-out" column.
I
I 20iO-11
':'
...:.:.:: PROPOSED 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 through
.,.' EXPENDiTURES Build-out
.:.':'
.:... Design/inspection/Administration $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000
., Land Acquisition/Right of Way $0 $0 $0 $0
< $0
.:.........' Construction $0 $0 $0 $0
!., $800,000
\/ Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000
<.
....:.. Equipment/Other $0 $0 $0 $0
$0
, TOTAL COST $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000
Potential Funding Sources:
Park Impact Fees, Quimby Fees, General Fund contributions, State Park grants and occasional federal grants
.,'
(e) ..
,". ;.,
.'
T otRl
all 1<
Years i
$100,000
<
$0
$800,000
$100,000
$0
$1,000,000 <
<
City of San Bernardino
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Project Title:
Open Space Acquisition (159.4 acres)
Program:
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
Submitting Depsrtment(s):
Community Services Department
Project No.:
PK -05
Project Description:
Acquire approximately 169.5 acres 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 connect the City's many trails.
Justification/Requirement for Project:
The construction of new homes, condominiums, apartments and businesses will eliminate what are now open spaces. The impact fee, if
adopted and imposed uniformly, would enable the City to acquire 169.5 acres of open space at approximately $1.00 per square foot. There are
no costs for development of the open space but natural trails and minimal improvements like trailheads could be expected.
Consequences of Not Completing Project:
Open space would not be acquired and perhaps many of the existing trails could not be connected.
Reference Document:
None, the future needs 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 "Build-out" column.
PROPOSED
EXPENDITURES
2006-07
2007-08
2010-11 Totill
2008-09 2009-10 through all
Build-out Years
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $7,383,988 $7,383,988
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $7,383,988 $7,383,988
Design/Inspection! Administration
$0
$0
Land Acquisition/Right of Way
$0
$0
$0
$0
Contingency
$0
$0
$0
$0
Equipment/Other
TOTAL COST
$0
$0
Potential Funding Sources:
Park Impact Fees, Quimby Fees, General Fund contributions, State Park grants and occasional federal grants