Agenda packet — Mayor and City Council, March 1, 2023 (part 2 of 4)

www.transtech.org
855.595.2495 (toll-free)
Proposal, Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services Quality Management Plans, Geotechnical Reports, and Hydrology/Hydraulic Studies, land development, industrial, commercial, residential, and transportation development projects including Tract and Parcel Maps. He also directed and performed plan check of i mprovement plans submitted by developers to the City. Also, he represented the City of San Bernardino at the South Tehachapi Management Team meetings, coordinated with San Bernardino County Flood Control and FEMA for the certification of City levees and updating of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), and oversaw permitting and tracking of Land Development Projects through the Division of Public Works/Engineering. In addition, Mr. Ackerman has worked intimately with Planning and Building and Safety Divisions on Land Development Projects.

His experience also includes working for Caltrans, District 8 as a civil transportation engineer where he was involved in the design and construction of various projects.

Service Approach/Summary:

Initial Service Analysis: Initial Service Analysis:

If selected by the City, Transtech will conduct a review of existing process, and perform an operational, service and quality assessment and efficiency. Based on this review, we will provide any recommendations we may have for any improvements in service quality, efficiency, and effectiveness.

Process Streamlining:
• Identify and remove any barriers that may exist in order to effective and efficient delivery of services to the public. • Improve by modifying or restructuring the day -to-day operations to eliminate, or significantly reduce areas of any duplicative work, overlapping and conflicting rules, regulations, processes and procedures that might be confusing or that add unnecessary time and cost to the delivery of serv ices. • Note: Objective of streamlining is to “more effective and efficient administration and enforcement of the process, codes and standards”. Streamlining is not regulatory abandonment.

Standards for Project Processing Protocol and Completion Goals and Deadlines:
• Establish deadlines and timeframes for processing applications. • Stick to a strict approval protocol.
• Review and respond to each application should be according to pre-fixed time allotments without exception.

Performance Standards and Monitoring:

Transtech will also develop a monitoring method to document achievement of the performance, and that personnel are providing helpful and courteous service to customers. The monitoring may include, but is not limited to, customer feedback through written questionnaires, interviews, and observations at the counter and during permit inspections and monthly statistical reports.

Transtech’s Plan Check Approach and Standards:

Electronic Plan Check Submittal Portal:

Transtech provides Electronic Plan Check. Please click here for a sample of our electronic plan check portal at one of our contract Cities. We offer electronic plan check submittal portal to our client cities at no cost.

Virtual Counter Portal:

We offer virtual meetings with plan checkers. Please click here to explore the virtual plan check counter appointment calendar for one of the Cities.

Transtech’s unique “Customer Care” approach in delivering Services in an efficient, cost-effective, and timely manner:
 Transtech is well known in providing Cost Effective Services on time with a customer friendly and responsive approach.  Our services are founded on the principles of Total Quality Management for Total Customer Care.  We have a structured approach to execute projects in an efficient manner that makes Transtech capable of providing the City with the highest quality product. Transtech has established guidelines and policies, including written manuals on quality control, project management, and design procedures for its staff and for its contract cities. These guidelines ensure a consistent approach to the execution of assignments undertaken by our organization in compliance with

Packet Pg.
283

February 10, 2023
City of SAN BERNARDINO
Attn.: Susan Pan, P.E., QSD/QSP, Acting Deputy Public Works Director/City Engineer

Page 3 ends

www.transtech.org
855.595.2495 (toll-free)
Proposal, Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services City’s specific procedures, standards, and requirements.  We start by working with the applicant early on and during plan review to help them prepare a set of plans which have all of the required information clearly and logically presented.  Additionally, we never hesitate to make suggestions which help eliminate complicated de tails, reduce construction costs, and/or provide details which are easy to verify in the field. Experience has taught us well that inspection time and applicant frustration can both be substantially reduced, while increasing overall compliance, by producin g a better set of plans during the plan review process. And in the case of homeowners, this policy often demonstrates early on that the City really is truly a partner in a process that can often be a source of stress and tension for many applicants, and we fully understand that.
 This policy reduces the number of plan review rechecks required, allows the applicant to obtain a permit much sooner, and reduces the overall time our staff is required to spend on that particular plan.  Transtech provides all plan check comments on electronic files. All plan check comments are provided on pdf format electronically, as well as hard copies. Plan review corrections are written clearly and are fully detailed to explain the Code deficiency.
 To help the applicant better understand the problem, Transtech provides as much information during plan review as possible. We believe that if the applicant has a clear understanding of the problem, he or she can take the necessary steps to correct the condition. This policy reduces the number of plan review rechecks required, allows the applicant to obtain a permit much sooner, and reduces the overall time our staff is required to spend on that particular plan.

Unclear and/or cryptic corrections are never written, and all correction lists, except those written over the counter, are typed and printed on a laser printer.
 Our plan checkers confer early on and respond to questions from the architect, engineer, designer, applicant, etc.

When requested, our plan checkers also meet with the architect, engineer, designer, applicant, etc. at our offices to answer questions or for rechecks where the plan corrections.  Our policy is to assist the architect, engineer, designer, applicant, etc. as much as p ossible, which helps eliminate complicated details, reduce construction costs, and/or provide details which are easy to verify in the field.  All telephone calls or e-mails received are returned within the same working day, or the following day. We take pride in our “Same Day Response” motto.
 Responsiveness is an integral part of Transtech’s “customer friendly” service approach.  We will strive to enhance the City’s image by public trust to be the most desirable community to live, invest and conduct business.
 Customer Care means highest quality customer service. Transtech is committed to providing “Customer Care” to the City, City's patrons, responding quickly and effectively to the walk -in, telephone, and electronic inquiries of the public related to our services.

We have a qualified team with large pool of well experienced in-house staff readily available with diversified and extensive expertise, and will be able to respond to service requests and mobilize our resources quickly.

We have extensive experience working with Public Agencies in similar assignments. We are accustomed to working with governmental agencies, and have a good understanding of public agency issues, procedures, and policies. We believe our team is well qualified to perform the services requested:
 Successfully providing similar services to many agencies for over 33 years.  Proven track record in on time and within budget project delivery.  Multi-disciplinary engineering consulting service capabilities to provide an array of municipal services.  Ability to work collaboratively with agencies, project applicants, and other stake holders, and communicate effectively with diverse audiences and stakeholders at public forums.  Committed to producing a high-quality work product and deliver a high level of customer care.  Commitment of principal level management and involvement throughout the contract duration.  Well experienced in-house staff readily available to commence with the services upon City’s authorization.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact the undersigned.

Sincerely,
Ali Cayir, PE, Principal
E: [email protected]; E: [email protected]; C: 714-883-8677

Packet Pg.
284

Table of Contents
Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
Our proposal includes information listed in RFP under “ Proposal Content”, and is formatted per the sections listed in the RFP under “Proposal Format”, as listed below:

Proposal Section Page

1. Perception Approach 1.1 – 1.5

1. Project understanding and perception 1.1

2. Approach to the project including steps to ensure ultimate compliance with objectives of the work, quality and accuracy 1.3

2. Methodology 2.1 – 2.5

1. Clearly state the methodology to be used in completing the Scope of Services 2.1

2. Provide QA/QC plan to ensure quality control for the duration of the project 2.5

3. Key Personnel 3.1 – 3.31

1. Experience of key personnel 3.1

2. Responsibilities to be assigned 3.3

3. Amount of each individual’s time to be allocated 3.3

4. Subconsultant(s) to be used (if any) 3.3

5. Resumes of key personnel 3.4

6. Project organization chart 3.31

4. Relevant Experience 4.1 – 4.10

5. Quality of Proposal 5.1 – 5.5

1. Proposal contains all minimum required items and is in proper format 5.1

2. All forms, including addenda (if any) have been completed and signed 5.2

6. Budget / Fee 6.1 – 6.2

Packet Pg.
285

Proposal Section 1
Perception Approach
Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

Packet Pg.
286

1. Perception Approach 1.1

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

1. Perception Approach

1. Project understanding and perception

2. Approach to the project including steps to ensure ultimate compliance with objectives of the work, quality and accuracy

1. Project understanding and perception

City’s Request for Proposals:

The City has requested proposals from on- call consultants for Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services.

With recent changes to the Engineering Division, the Public Works Department seeks to issue a task order consistent with the PSA to a consultant to provide professional engineering and program management services related to implementing the City’s Land Development and NPDES Program.

The City of San Bernardino process about 1,000 land development permit applications per year. The land development and NPDES permits processed including the on-site improvement/grading permit, off-site improvement permit, landscape plan permit, ROW encroachment permit, tract/parcel map, lot line adjustment, lot merger, Water quality management plan, best management practices plan, erosion control plan, and stormwater pollution prevention plan.

Transtech Comment:

Transtech has extensive experience in the requested services. We have been in business for 33 years and provide similar municipal services to approximately 70 public agencies. Our staff and resources include approximately 200 staff, including project managers, civil engineers, designers, traffic and transportation analysts, technicians plan and map checkers, surveyors, inspectors, co nstruction managers, building officials, building plans examiners, building inspectors, planners and support personnel.

Transtech’s Plan Check and Inspection Capacity in numbers:
• We maintain and manage 25 electronic plan submittal portals. • In 2022, we received and processed approximately 13,000 project applications, reviewed 96,000 documents and performed 15,000 inspections.

Scope of Services:

The consultant shall provide professional services to manage 9 City staff and plan check consultants in delivering the land development and NPDES programs. More specifically, program management services shall include but are not limited to the following program activities:

1. Land Development Program
a. Process new land development project applications, collect application fees and development impact fees.
b. Upload completed new applications to Dropbox folders and email consultants and Public Works staff. c. Coordinate plan check review process with applicant and consultant. d. When plan check is completed and approved, issue construction and encroachment permits, collect permit fees.
e. Schedule and conduct pre-construction meeting.

Packet Pg.
287

1. Perception Approach 1.2

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
f. Coordinate construction inspection activities with inspectors. g. Construction completion close-out, as-built plans, bond release. h. Development Environmental Review Committee and Planning projects review and provide comments.

2. NPDES Program
a. Coordinate Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) plan check review process with applicant and consultant. b. Review and approve non-category WQMP, Best Management Practices (BMP) plan, Erosion Control Plan, SWPPP.
c. When plan check is completed and approved, issue construction permit, collect permit fees. d. Schedule and conduct pre-construction meeting.
e. Coordinate construction activities with inspector.
f. Construction completion: WQMP maintenance Agreement signing and recording. g. RWQCB Industrial Permits: regulatory compliance and annual reporting. h. Manage MS4 Permit Compliance and regulatory updates. Respond to illicit

Transtech Comment:
• One of the unique qualifications of Transtech is that we serve public agencies as municipal contract service providers. Several of our senior staff members have previously worked for Public Agencies in various capacities, such as Public Works Director, City Engineer, City Traffic Engineer, CIP Manager, Building Official, Planner, and various other capacities.
• We have extensive experience working with Public Agencies in similar assignments. We are accustomed to working with governmental agencies, and have a good understanding of public agency issues, procedures, and policies.

Per information provided on City’s web site, City’s Current Plan Submittal/Check Process - City only accepts hard copy submittals.

Packet Pg.
288

1. Perception Approach 1.3

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

2. Approach to the project including steps to ensure ultimate compliance with objectives of the work, quality and accuracy

Initial Service Analysis:

If selected by the City, Transtech will conduct a review of existing process, and perform an operational, service and quality assessment and efficiency.

Based on this review, we will provide any recommendations we may have for any improvements in service quality, efficiency, and effectiveness.

Elements of Service Analysis:
• Workflow.
o Do applications enter and proceed through the system efficiently? o Are applicants submitting complete documents?
o What is the % of applications rejected and returned to applicants because it is incomplete for review requiring resubmittal?
o Are inadequate submissions returned early or late in the process? o Are all plan reviewers on a coordinated schedule for each submission or not? • Workload.
o Does the system slow down because it is overloaded or inefficient? o Are there any projections or plans to respond to future growth or decline? • Personnel.
o Does everyone have the skills and training to provide quality and timely services? • Organizational Issues.
o Is there efficient and effective collaboration between departments? o Is there duplication of effort?
• Technical Expertise.
o Is technical expertise sufficient?
• Existing System/Technology.
o Is the existing system/technology being used effectively and efficiently> • Cross-Departmental Communications and Coordination.
o What other departments must be coordinated with to process and complete a plan check (e.g. building, planning, health, fire safety, etc.)?
o Is there effective interdepartmental cooperation?
o Does it need to be improved, if yes, how can communications be enhanced? • Applicants.
o Are there any comments/complaints from applicants for any issues/problems? o Are there any recommendations/suggestions from applicants for an improvements?

Creating Service Philosophy:

Creating a Service Philosophy is an important element in efficient and customer friendly service.

As a reference, Transtech’s Service Philosophy is provided below:

These guidelines ensure a consistent approach to the execution of assignments undertaken by our organization in compliance with City’s specific procedures, standards, and requirements.

Packet Pg.
289

1. Perception Approach 1.4

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
 We start by working with the applicant early on and during plan review to help them prepare a set of plans which have all of the required information clearly and logically presented.  Additionally, we never hesitate to make suggestions which help eliminate complicated details, reduce construction costs, and/or provide details which are easy to verify in the field. Experience has taught us well that inspection time and applicant frustration can both be substantially reduced, w hile increasing overall compliance, by producing a better set of plans during the plan review process. And in the case of homeowners, this policy often demonstrates early on that the City really is truly a partner in a process that can often be a source of stress and tension for many applicants, and we fully understand that.
 This policy reduces the number of plan review rechecks required, allows the applicant to obtain a permit much sooner, and reduces the overall time our staff is required to spend on that particular plan.  Transtech provides all plan check comments on electronic files. All plan check comments are provided on pdf format electronically, as well as hard copies. Plan review corrections are written clearly and are fully detailed to explain the Code deficiency.
 To help the applicant better understand the problem, Transtech provides as much information during plan review as possible. We believe that if the applicant has a clear understanding of the problem, he or she can take the necessary steps to correct the condition. This policy reduces the number of plan review rechecks required, allows the applicant to obtain a permit much sooner, and reduces the overall time our staff is required to spend on that particular plan.

When requested, our plan checkers also meet with the architect, engineer, designer, applicant, etc. at our offices to answer questions or for rechecks where the plan corrections.  Our policy is to assist the architect, engineer, designer, applicant, etc. as much as possible, which helps eliminate complicated details, reduce construction costs, and/or provide details which are easy to verify in the field.  All telephone calls or e-mails received are returned within the same working day, or the following day. We take pride in our “Same Day Response” motto.
 Responsiveness is an integral part of Transtech’s “customer friendly” service approach.  We will strive to enhance the City’s image by public trust to be the most desirable community to live, invest and conduct business.
 Customer Care means highest quality customer service. Transtech is committed to providing “Customer Care” to the City, City's patrons, responding quickly and effectively to the walk-in, telephone, and electronic inquiries of the public related to our services.

Process Streamlining:
• Identify and remove any barriers that may exist in order to effective and efficient delivery of services to the public.
• Improve by modifying or restructur ing the day- to-day operations to eliminate, or significantly reduce areas of any duplicative work, overlapping and conflicting rules, regulations, processes and procedures that might be confusing or that add unnecessary time and cost to the delivery of serv ices. • Note: Objective of streamlining is to “more effective and efficient administration and enforcement of the process, codes and standards”. Streamlining is not regulatory abandonment.

Goals and Results of Process Streamlining:
• Making the process simpler to understand, more convenient to use, more efficient, and more predictable. • Meeting the demands of customers.
• Enabling staff to be project oriented rather than process oriented. • Eliminating duplicate work.

Packet Pg.
290

1. Perception Approach 1.5

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
• Providing greater control and flexibility in re-distributing workload. • Enhancing customer service, and minimizing complaints processes.

Performance Monitoring:

Develop a monitoring method to document achievement of the performance, and that personnel are providing helpful and courteous service to customers.

The monitoring may include, but is not limited to, customer feedback through written questionnaires, interviews, and observations at the counter and during permit inspections and monthly statistical reports.

Packet Pg.
291

Proposal Section 2
Methodology
Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

Packet Pg.
292

2.. Methodology 2.1

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

2. Methodology

1. Clearly state the methodology to be used in completing the Scope of Services

2. Provide QA/QC plan to ensure quality control for the duration of the project

1. Clearly state the methodology to be used in completing the Scope of Services

Following paragraphs describes Transtech’s general approach in plan check services:

Also see Proposal Section 1. Perception Approach, Sub-section 2. Approach to the project including steps to ensure ultimate compliance with objectives of the work, quality and accuracy

Transtech’s unique “Customer Care” approach in delivering Building and Safety Services in an efficient, cost-effective, timely and customer friendly manner:
 Transtech is well known in providing Cost Effective Services on time with a customer friendly and responsive approach.  Our services are founded on the principles of Total Quality Management for Total Customer Care.  We have a structured approach to execute projects in an efficient manner that makes Transtech capable of providing the City with the highest quality product. Transtech has established guidelines and policies, including written manuals on quality control, project management, and design procedures for its staff and for its contract cities.

These guidelines ensure a consistent approach to the execution of assignments undertaken by our organization in compliance with City’s specific procedures, standards, and requirements.  We start by working with the applicant early on and during plan review to help them prepare a set of plans which have all of the required information clearly and logically presented.  Additionally, we never hesitate to make suggestions which help eliminate complicated details, reduce construction costs, and/or provide details which are easy to verify in the field. Experience has taught us well that inspection time and applicant frustration can both be substantially reduced, w hile increasing overall compliance, by producing a better set of plans during the plan review process. And in the case of homeowners, this policy often demonstrates early on that the City really is truly a partner in a process that can often be a source of stress and tension for many applicants, and we fully understand that.
 This policy reduces the number of plan review rechecks required, allows the applicant to obtain a permit much sooner, and reduces the overall time our staff is required to spend on that particular plan.  Transtech provides all plan check comments on electronic files. All plan check comments are provided on pdf format electronically, as well as hard copies. Plan review corrections are written clearly and are fully detailed to explain the Code deficiency.
 To help the applicant better understand the problem, Transtech provides as much information during plan review as possible. We believe that if the applicant has a clear understanding of the problem, he or she can take the necessary steps to correct the condition. This policy reduces the number of plan review rechecks required, allows the applicant to obtain a permit much sooner, and reduces the overall time our staff is required to spend on that particular plan.

When requested, our plan checkers also meet with the architect, engineer, designer, applicant, etc. at our offices to answer questions or for rechecks where the plan corrections.  Our policy is to assist the architect, engineer, designer, applicant, etc. as m uch as possible, which helps eliminate complicated details, reduce construction costs, and/or provide details which are easy to verify in the field.  All telephone calls or e-mails received are returned within the same working day, or the following day. We take pride in our “Same Day Response” motto.
 Responsiveness is an integral part of Transtech’s “customer friendly” service approach.  We will strive to enhance the City’s image by public trust to be the most desirable community to live, invest and

Packet Pg.
293

2.. Methodology 2.2

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
conduct business.
 Customer Care means highest quality customer service. Transtech is committed to providing “Customer Care” to the City, City's patrons, responding quickly and effectively to the walk-in, telephone, and electronic inquiries of the public related to our services.

Plan Check Processing:

When a plan check order is received, it is logged and reviewed by Building Staff and then assigned to applicable plan checkers. The plan check duration is monitored thru the plan check log data base, which generates messages at identified intervals to inform plan checker and supervising Sr. Staff so that they are aware of how the progress and status continuously. If any potential delay is monitored, necessary steps are taken, such as meeting with plan checker to review the schedule, workload, performance, and identify actions, including assigning additional staff, if necessary, to ensure timely completion of assignment.

Plan Check Coordination:
• Our plan checkers respond to questions from the architect, engineer, designer, applicant, etc. When requested, our plan checkers also meet with the architect, engineer, designer, applicant, etc. at our offices to answer questions or for rechecks.
• Our policy is to assist the architect, engineer, designer, applicant, etc. as much as possible, which helps eliminate complicated details, reduce construction costs, and/or provide details which are easy to verify in the field. This pro-active approach reduces inspection time and questions, and applicant frustration, while increasing overall compliance, by producing a better set of plans during plan review process. Especially, when the applicant is a homeowner trying to improve his/her property, this policy often demonstrates early on that the City really is here to help.

Approach to Meeting with Applicants:

Our staff is available to applicants by phone and through email or through virtual meeting for questions or available to meet for rechecks if necessary. Our policy is to meet with applicants virtually via TEAMS or ZOOM or when necessary, at City Hall, but we also have an available facility at our office meetings with applicants.

Expedited/Off-Business Hours/Weekend Services:

If the City receives a request from applicants for expedited plan check services, Transtech staff is able to provide additional resources to accommodate such a request. If the City requests inspection services, Transtech staff will provide additional resources to accommodate inspection requests during off business hours and weekends.

Quick Turn Around and Expedited Service:

Transtech will provide plan checks on a quick turn-around schedule. Transtech also provides expedited service when requested. Applicant will be able to see online on real time the progress of plan check submittals.

Weekend, Holiday & Atter Work Inspection:

Transtech is readily available and has the resources to provide weekend, holiday, and after -work hour inspections as requested by the City Manager or designee.

Training Program:

We offer any City staff, who are involved in inspection, plan check and permit issuance, an option to participate in our training program for code updates and process, as well as ICC certification training.

Other Services:

Transtech is a full -service municipal consulting firm that currently provides a variety of different city services for public agencies. We understand that Transtech would be responsible for all correspondence related to activities of the Building and Safety Division. In addition, Transtech would respond to any complaints, perform investigations, provide problem - solving methods for unique or challenging plan check or code interpretation issues, provide report writing and policy &

Packet Pg.
294

2.. Methodology 2.3

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
procedure recommendations, and attend City Council and Commission meetings as requested by the City Manager or designee.

Virtual Counter:
• We offer virtual meetings with plan checkers.
• Sample of one of our virtual plan check counter appointment calendar:

South Pasadena Virtual Plan checker
https://outlook.office365.com/owa/calendar/[email protected]/bookings/

Electronic Plan Check:
• Transtech provides Electronic Plan Check.
• Sample of one of our electronic plan check portals:

West Covina
https://gopost-transtech.eplansoftreview.com/#/login?portal=westcovinabldg

Following pages include sample snap shots of various types of electronic plan checks.

Packet Pg.
295

2.. Methodology 2.4

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

Packet Pg.
296

2.. Methodology 2.5

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

2. Provide QA/QC plan to ensure quality control for the duration of the project

Our services are founded on the principles of Total Quality Management for Total Customer Care.

We have a structured approach to execute projects in an efficient manner that makes Transtech capable of providing the City with the highest quality product.

Transtech has established guidelines and policies, including written manuals on quality control, project management, and des ign procedures for its staff and for its contract cities. These guidelines ensure a consistent approach to the execution of assignments undertaken by our organization in compliance with City’s specific procedures, standards, and requirements.

Transtech provides all plan check comments on electronic files. All plan check comments are provided on pdf format electronically, as well as hard copies . Plan review corrections are written clearly and are fully detailed to explain the Code deficiency.

Our policy is to assist the architect, engineer, designer, applicant, etc. as much as possible, which helps eliminate complicated details, reduce construction costs, and/or provide details which are easy to verify in the field.

Also see Proposal Section 1. Perception Approach, Sub-section 2. Approach to the project including steps to ensure ultimate compliance with objectives of the work, quality and accuracy.

Packet Pg.
297

Proposal Section 3
Key Personnel
Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

Packet Pg.
298

3. Key Personnel 3.1

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

3. Key Personnel

1. Experience of key personnel

2. Responsibilities to be assigned

3. Amount of each individual’s time to be allocated

4. Subconsultant(s) to be used (if any)

5. Resumes of key personnel

6. Project organization chart

1. Experience of key personnel

Professional Licenses by Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists Transtech Staff Members possess Professional Engineer Licenses in various engineering categories (i.e. Civil Traffic, etc.)

ICC Certifications:

Licenses and Certificates of the Firm and Staff Members in Diversified Fields:

Transtech staff members have extensive experience and in-depth knowledge of applicable codes and regulations. Our staff members are certified by the International Code Council (ICC). We have staff who have reached the highest possible level of code administration with the Master Code Professional designation certification from the ICC. In addition, some of our staff members are certified as Fire Plan Checkers and Inspectors, as we provide these services to some agencies.

Following are various ICC certifications held by various staff members:

Building Official Certifications:
 Certified Master Code Professional
 Building Code Official
 Building Official

Plan Check Certifications:
 Residential Building Plans Examiner
 Commercial Building Plans Examiner
 California Building Plans Examiner
 Certified Sustainability Professional
 CalGreen Plans Examiner
 Accessibility Plans Examiner
 Commercial Energy Conservation Plans Examiner
 Residential Plans Examiner
 Mechanical Plans Examiner
 Plumbing Plans Examiner
 Electrical Plans Examiner

State of California Safety Assessment Program:
 CalOES SAP Evaluator

Inspection Certifications:
 Combination Inspector
 Commercial Building Inspector
 Residential Building Inspector
 Accessibility Inspector
 Commercial Energy Conservation Inspector
 Electrical Inspector
 Commercial Electrical Inspector

Packet Pg.
299

3. Key Personnel 3.2

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
 Residential Electrical Inspector
 Residential Energy Conservation Inspector
 Residential Building Inspector
 Residential Mechanical Inspector
 Mechanical Inspector
 Commercial Mechanical Inspector
 Plumbing Inspector
 CalGreen Inspector
 Building Inspector CBC
 Building Inspector UBC
 Plumbing Inspector UPC
 California Building Inspector
 California Commercial Plumbing Inspector
 California Residential Mechanical Inspector
 California Residential Mechanical Inspector

Additional Inspection Certifications:
 IAPMO Plumbing, Mechanical Inspector
 Fire Code Inspector
 Fire Inspector II
 California UST Inspector

Permit Technician Certification: Permit Technician

CACEO Certified Code Enforcement Officer

California State Fire Marshall Certifications:

Certified EMT1 (AED Certification), Driver Operator 1A, Driver Operator 1B, Driver Operator, Command 1A, 1B, 2A, Firefighter 1, 2, Hazardous Materials First Responder, Instructor 1A, 1B, Investigation, 1A, Management, 1, Prevention, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2A, 3A,3B, ICS 100, 200, S-290, S-130, S-190, PC832 with Firearms.

Fire control 3, S-230 S-231 S-215, Fire Safety Officer

FEMA: IS 100, 200, 241, 242, 275, 700, 288, 800, 08-A, 1900  Also, our plan check engineers, who review maps and engineering plans are licensed as professional engineer by the State of California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists (BPELSG).  In addition, some of our staff members are certified as Fire Plan Checkers and Inspectors, as we provide these services to some agencies.

Our staff members are involved in many local and national International Code Council (ICC) and California Building Officials (CALBO) committees, and are involved in the development of local and national guidelines and codes for Building and Safety:
• Chair; ICC Sustainability Membership Council
• Chair; ICC LA Basin Chapter Inspection Committee
• Commissioner; ICC Codes & Standards Council
• Commissioner; CALBO Green Committee
• Commissioner; ICC/CALBO CA Exam Committee
• Commissioner; CALBO Outreach/Communications
Committee
• ICC Los Angeles Basin Chapter Board of Directors
• ICC Building Officials Membership Governing Council
• ICC Code Development Committee Vice Chair
• ICC Technology/Web Advisory Group
• IAS Accreditation Committee
• ICC LA Chapter Accessibility Committee
• Commissioner; CALBO State Licensing Boards Committee

Packet Pg.
300

3. Key Personnel 3.3

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

2. Responsibilities to be assigned

Proposed Lead Staff Person for this Project- Michael Ackerman, PE, QSD, QSP, QISP: Transtech will assign Michael Ackerman, PE, QSD, QSP, QISP as the Lead Staff Person for this Project.

Other technical support staff will be assigned as necessary.

3. Amount of each individual’s time to be allocated

Staff time will be as needed.

Sr. Level staff is anticipated to provide approx. 2 days on site support and 2 to 3 days off site support per week.

Other technical support staff is anticipated to provide approx. 2 to 3 days on site support and 2 days off site support per week.

4. Subconsultant(s) to be used (if any)

Transtech has in-house staff to provide the requested services.

Packet Pg.
301

3. Key Personnel 3.4

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

5. Resumes of key personnel

MICHAEL ACKERMAN, PE, QSD, QSP, QISP, Sr. Engineer, Principal/Supervising Program Manager

Education
• Bachelor of Science in
Engineering, the University
of Iowa
• Land Development
Desktop, AutoCAD Civil
3D, and Microstation
Certification - Westech
College

Registration
• Registered Civil Engineer

Certifications
• Resident Engineer
Academy, Caltrans
• Water Pollution Control
Compliance on
Construction Sites for
Resident Engineers,
Caltrans
• Asphalt Pavement
Fundamentals: Design,
Construction, and
Rehabilitation
• Construction Program
Management Workshop,
FHWA
• Field Office Procedures
Course, Caltrans
• California Work Zone
Inspection – High Speed,
Caltrans
• Asphalt Concrete
Inspection and
Rehabilitation Strategies,
Caltrans
• CalOES SAP Evaluator

Highlights
• 20 years of experience in
Mr. Ackerman has approximately 25 years of experience. At Transtech, he has been working as a Sr. Engineer at various Transtech City Engineering Contracts. He has a broad knowledge of municipal govern ment operations, including preparation and presentation of staff reports/resolutions to city councils, committees and interaction with public, various city departments, city council and other governmental agencies.

He managed Engineering and CIP, attended and coordinated with COG Regional Transportation Planning, GWMA Gateway Water Management Association, and Los Angeles Upper Reach 2 Storm Water Management Group.

Mr. Ackerman’s experience also includes working at various positions for public agencies including:
• Caltrans:

Mr. Ackerman was a civil transportation engineer for Caltrans District 8 where he was involved in the design and construction of various projects. • Construction Division: In the Construction Division, Mr. Ackerman was Resident Engineer for various projects, including:
o Watson Wash Bridge Replacement Right (Rte 40)
o Replacement of Drains and Earthwork (Rte 40)
o Fenner Overhead Bridge Replacement (Replacement of two bridges over BNSF Railroad, Rte 40).
• Design Division: Designed plans, specifications, and estimates for the rehabilitation of Route 10 freeway from the Riverside/San Bernardino County line to Beaumont.
• Traffic Operations Division: Performed studies and analyses to interpret and mitigate above average accident volume areas on highways and freeways.

Also, he performed traffic studies.

• City of San Bernardino:

Mr. Ackerman worked at the City of San Bernardino as a Civil Engineer. He was involved in many projects including Development Review and Plan Check, design and review of Street Improvement Plans, Rough and Precise Grading Plans, Sewer Plans, Storm Drain Plans, Street Lighting Plans, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans, Water Quality Management Plans, Geotechnical Reports, and Hydrology/Hydraulic Studies, land development, industrial, commercial, residential, and transportation development projects including Tract and Parcel Maps. He also directed and performed plan check of improvement plans submitted by developers to the City. Also, he represented the City of San Bernardino at the South Tehachapi Management Team meetings, coordinated with San Bernardino County Flood Control and FEMA for the certification of City levees and updating of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), and oversaw permitting and tracking of Land Development Projects through the Division of Public Works/Engineering. In addition, Mr. Ackerman has worked intimately with Planning and Building and Safety Divisions on Land Development Projects.

• City of Huntington Park:

Mr. Ackerman worked for the City as City Engineer. He was responsible for the engineering operations, plan check, CIP Management.

Mr. Ackerman provides services to various Transtech Contract Cities as needed.

Following are various tasks representative of his general engineering experience:
• Planned, coordinated, and directed the activities of the Engineering Division; • Supervised the preparation of designs, specifications, plans, estimates and reports involved in the construction of public works engineering projects, such as

Packet Pg.
302

3. Key Personnel 3.5

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
City Engineering.
• Experience includes
working for Caltrans and
Cities of San Bernardino
and Huntington Park.
• Extensive experience in
working with Caltrans.
• Extensive experience in
NPDES requirements.
• Extensive experience in
the management and
administration of federally
and state funded projects
in compliance with
Caltrans Local Assistance
Procedures Manual
(LAPM).
• Served as Resident
Engineer on several
Federally Funded Projects.
• Cal OSHA 10 hour
Construction Certified

storm drains, sewer systems, and water facilities;
• Reviewed and approved engineering plans, specification and contract documents;
• Analyzed bids and supervises the preparation of contracts; • Supervised building construction by outside contractors on special projects; • Provided technical assistance and consults with other departments, agencies, commission, and other bodies on engineering matters;
• Prepared reports for the various gove rning bodies concerning economic comparison, environmental impact studies, subdivisions, land use conversion, and capital improvements
• Planned, coordinated and directed the traffic engineering functions of the City including traffic control device installations, traffic studies and local and regional area traffic growth management;
• Site visits to various locations to conduct field and construction inspections, surveying, and perform other engineering activities;
• Administered the use of revenue obtained through subventions from the State and County;
• Represented the Division to other City departments, elected officials and outside agencies; explained and justified Engineering Division programs, policies and activities; negotiated and resolved sensitive, significant and controversial issues;

• Managed and participated in the development and administration of the Engineering Division budget; participated in the preparation of and implement budgetary adjustments;
• Coordinated Engineering Division activities with those of other departments and outside agencies and organizations; provided staff assistance to the City Manager and City Council; prepared and presented staff reports and other necessary correspondence;
• Directed the work involved in the custody of maps, charts and other records dealing with City owned facilities;
• Supervised and evaluated subordinate staff;
• Responded to citizen inquiries and resolve difficult and sensitive complaints; and • Participated on a variety of boards and commissions; attended and participated in professional group meetings; stayed abreast of new trends and innovations in the engineering field.

Following are various projects representative of his Public Works Projects Experience:

Mr. Ackerman has also served as Project Design Engineer, Project Manager, and Construction Manager/Resident Engineer on a number of projects. Partial listing of projects representative of his project experience on recent projects include:
• Project Engineer for City of Commerce, Garfield Avenue Telegraph Road to Malt Avenue Street Improvements; Eastern Avenue Pavement Overlay Stevens Thru City Boundary; Garfield Avenue and Slauson Avenue Intersection Improvements; Washington/Ayers Intersection: Prep ared PS&E. Federally funded projects as part of Stimulus Program.
• Project Engineer for City of Baldwin Park, Francisquito Avenue Overlay Project; Ramona Boulevard Overlay Project: Prepared PS&E. Federally funded projects as part of Stimulus Program.
• Project Engineer for City of San Bernardino, Sewer upgrade project: Preparation of a pro ject PS&E for upgrade of main sewer lines at various locations per the City’s Sewer Master Plan.
• Project Engineer for City of Commerce - Master Sewer Study Telegraph Corridor re-vitalization project: Documentation of existing system. Design capacity analysis based upon land use designations. Produced master plan study report for the project along with cost estimates.
• Resident Engineer for Rosemead Safety and Enhancement and ADA Improvements Project. Served as the Resident Engineer for the Rosemead Safety and Enhancement Project. The project includes widening and reconstruction of

Packet Pg.
303

3. Key Personnel 3.6

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
2 miles of Rosemead Boulevard, including new medians, bike lanes, signals, sidewalks, curb & gutter, street lighting, landscape, street scape. The project is federally funded and is managed in compliance with Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual. Cost $20m.
• Principal CM/Resident Engineer for Valley Boulevard Rehabilitation and ADA Improvements Project (Federally Funded), Alhambra: Project involved reconstruction, pavem ent overlay, medians, landscape, curb and gutter, sidewalk, traffic signals and other misc. improvements. Project was inspected and managed in compliance with Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual. Project also involved coordination with Caltrans fo r work at the 710 Freeway ramps under Caltrans Encroachment Permit. Project was completed in various phases, including nigh time construction for several phases, to minimize inconvenience to public on this heavily travelled major Arterial. • Principal CM/Resident Engineer for New Avenue, from North to South City Limit Rehabilitation and ADA Improvements Project (Federally Funded), Alhambra:

Project involved reconstruction, pavement overlay, curb and gutter, sidewalk, traffic signals and other misc. improvem ents. Project was inspected and managed in compliance with Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual.

Project also involved coordination with Caltrans for work at the I -10 Freeway ramps under Caltrans Encroachment Permit.
• Principal CM/Resident Engine er for Garfield Rehabilitation and ADA Improvements Project (Federally Funded), Alhambra: Project involved reconstruction, pavement overlay, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and other misc. improvements. Project was inspected and managed in compliance with Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual.
• Principal CM/Resident Engineer for City of San Bernardino, Via Duct Boulevard/2nd Street Realignment Project: Prepared PS&E and served as Construction Manager/Resident Engineer.
• Project Engineer for CSUSB (Cal State SB University) San Bernardino Main Access Road: Prepared PS&E and provided construction administration for the project.

Project involved d esign of a new roadway for a length of approximately 1.5 miles, and include street, medians, landscape, lighting, traffic signals, water, sewer, storm drain and various other utilities.
• Project Engineer for CSUSB (Cal State SB University) Perimeter Road for CSUSB Palm Desert Campus: Prepared PS&E for the project. Improvements included street, water, landscape, grading, drainage, street lighting and various other improvements.
• Project Engineer for CSUSB (Cal State SB University): Campus Health Center Expansion: Prepared PS&E for the project for grading, utilities and c ivil engineering.
• Project Engineer for University of California, Riverside - West Campus Infrastructure: Prepared West Campus Infrastructure Development Design/Study, which identified utility and surface infrastructure requirements, and how these improvements could be phased to accommodate proposed campus growth, for an area of 236.8 acres to support approximately 5 million gross square feet of academic, research, support, and student housing facilities. • Project Engineer for City of San Bernardino Camp us Parkway Roadway Design:

Prepared PS&E as well as provided construction management and inspection services for the project. Improvements included street, water, sewer, storm drain, landscape, street lighting, traffic signal, and signing and striping.

Packet Pg.
304

3. Key Personnel 3.7

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
AARON MLYNARSKI, Office Engineer Support

EDUCATION
• BA, Business
Administration, Cal Baptist
University

HIGHLIGHTS:
• Strong Communication
and collaboration skills
• Preparation and
processing of Special
Studies (SWPPP, WQMP
and Hydrology)
• Experience in Public
Works, Building and
Safety, Planning and
Surveying
Mr. Mlynarski has approximately 20 years of experience. He serves as an Office Engineer and provides technical and administrative support to Project Managers. His experience includes CIP management support, coordination with City Departments, Utility Companies, Caltrans, other Regulatory Agencies, Developers, Consultants, Contractors, Field Survey, Community Outreach and overall management and coordination of a variety projects from d esign thru plan review and approvals and construction. As Office Engineer, he assists Project Managers, Construction Mangers and Resident Engineers with contract administration, RFI and submittals coordination, document control, contract compliance, proje ct coordination, project controls and various other tasks.

As part of Transtech’s Municipal Services, Mr. Mlynarski also assists Project Managers, and Engineers at various Transtech Contract Cities and performs various tasks including:
• Prepare Staff Reports and Presentations for Council Meetings, Commission Meetings, and Ad-Hoc Committees
• Prepare Requests for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQ’s and RFP’s) to hire consultants and outside contractors to perform services for City projects. • Analyze submitted proposals and bids
• Prepare staff reports for City Council meetings.
• Participate in the plan check, review, and processing of plans for private developments affecting city streets, sewers, drains, and related public works facilities and ensure that they all meet City imposed requirements. • Coordinate with other departments such as Planning and Building Department for Plan Checks
• Respond to inquiries and requests for information from the general public, contractors, and other agencies.
• Prepare memos, letters, and field reports in the course of performing work. • Attend and participate in meetings and conferences with City staff, consultants, contractors, utility companies, and various stake holders regarding requirements for public works projects, land development/subdivision projects and other matters relating to areas of assigned responsibilities.

SWPPP (Special Studies):
• Prepare weekly logs for SWPPP compliance to provide to the LRP/owner. • Inspect site BMP’s and other site conditions as needed for compliances. • Prepare and file annual report with the State Waterboard. • Prepare and file annual report with Caltrans.
• Advise and consult on SWPPP matters as requested by ownership. • Processing the General Permit with the State Waterboard (NOI, Annual Report and NOT)

SWPPP Projects:
• AMES Construction – 650,000 cubic yards of stockpile material. Branch Water Pipeline Project, Mentone 2016-2017.
• SD Homes – 328 multi-family units on 19 acres, Redlands 2017-present. • The Standard – 282 multi-family units. 9.54 acres, Redlands 2020-present. • Eagle Yucaipa 55 – 96 senior rental units on 3.48 acres, Yucaipa 2018-2020. • Loma Villas – 70 multi -family apartment units. 2.68 acres, San Bernardino 2020- present.
• Grand Terrace Fleet Yard – Truck Storage Facility. 22 acres, G rand Terrace 2020- present.
• Hesperia Senior 55 – 96 multi-family apartment units. 10.02 acres, Hesperia 2015- present.
• Crystal Ridge – 89 lot single family development 2013-2018

Packet Pg.
305

3. Key Personnel 3.8

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
Various other projects representative of his experience include:
• City of San Be rnardino, Metrolink Parking Structure at Historic Santa Fe Rail Depot:

Mr. Mlynarski served as Office Engineer. Daily site walks, site photos and meeting with sub-contractors and City staff to maintain an efficient construction schedule.

Coordinated app lication and plan submittals with the City’s Public Works and Community Development Departments.
• City of San Bernardino Historic Renovation adoptive reuse of Santa Fe Rail Depot:

Mr. Mlynarski served as Assistant to Construction Manager. Managed RFI’s, Change Orders and other documents between City staff, contractor and Construction Manager.
• County of Los Angeles, Building Department Technician: Mr. Mlynarski served as Building Technician and coordinated plan reviews and permit process. Mr. Mlynarski was responsible for confirming and logging in permit information using multiple GIS programs as the County of Los Angeles was transferring to a digital platform 2010- 2012.
• City of Alhambra: Mr. Mlynarski served as Building Technician and coordinated plan reviews and permit process 2012-2013.
• City of South Pasadena: Mr. Mlynarski served as Building Technician and coordinated plan reviews and permit process 2012.
• Waterman Gardens/Arrowhead Grove: Mr. Mlynarski served as a project coordinator for the redevelopment of the low -income housing community. Mr.

Mlynarski was responsible for coordination between the County of San Bernardino Housing Authority (SBCHA), National CORE, San Bernardino City agencies and subcontractors. He was involved in all plan submittals, weekly meetings and permit issuances 2015-present.

Technical Highlights:

Outlook, Adobe, HTML, Photoshop CS2, Image Ready CS2, Excel, Access, Power Point, Word, Word Perfect

Packet Pg.
306

3. Key Personnel 3.9

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
DENNIS TARANGO, CBO, ICC Certified Building Official, Plans Examiner, Inspector, Sr. Level Technical Support Staff

EDUCATION
• California State
Polytechnic University,
Pomona, Engineering
• Fresno State University,
Business Administration
• Rio Honda College,
General Studies

ICC CERTIFICATIONS
• Certified Building Official
• Building Plans Examiner
• Commercial Building
Inspector
• Building Inspector UBC
• Fire Plans Examiner

HIGHLIGHTS
• Currently on ICC
Sustainability
Membership Council
Governing Committee
• CalOES SAP Evaluator
Mr. Tarango has over 20 years of experience in the building and safety division. He is experienced in managing building and safety departments of different municipalities. Currently he is serving as Building Official for Transtech Contract Cities. At Transtech, Mr. Tarango is responsible for the Building and Safety Division as well as business development, client relations, and management oversight. With his analytical and strategic management skills, he provides strong leadership and develops staff to enhance the Departments abilities. Prior to working for Transtech, Mr. Tarango served as Deputy Building Official, Plans Examiner, and Senior Building Inspector for various local cities including the City of Diamond Bar, City of Yorba Linda, and City of Hemet.

Mr. Tarango’s experience of building and safety operations, comes from working in the capacity of Building Official, Acting Building Official, Deputy Building Official, Plans Examiner and Building Inspector. He has comprehensive knowledge of municipal government operations, including preparation and presentation of staff reports and resolutions to city councils, committees and related interaction with members of the public, other city departments and other governmental agencies.

He has extensive experience in construction codes, building and safety plan review and inspection, code interpretations, and resolving code related construction and plan review problems on a broad range of projects.

As Building Official, he provides necessary code interpretation in collaboration with other City Departments and applicants on building and safety related issues. He manages building and zoning code violations with the aid of the City Prosecutor to abate violations. He also provides over the counter plan check as Building Official/Plans Examiner.

As Plans Examiner, he is responsible for examination and approval of architectural and structural plans submitted to municipalities for a wide variety of projects ranging from small residential additions to large, multistory commercial and industrial facilities.

As Building Inspector, he has inspected an array of projects ranging from small residential additions to large complex
multifamily, commercial, and industrial
facilities. He was also responsible for inspector training and development.

EXPERIENCE IN LARGE COMPLEX PROJECTS (PARTIAL LIST) IN WHICH BUILDING OFFICIAL OVERSIGHT WAS PROVIDED:
• San Manuel Casino, Refresh Project ($200M): This three-year project was a multi- phase remodel of the entire 400,00 SF casino floor including 5 new restaurants, 3 new bars, retail stores, food court, executive offices, chiller plant, bridge, and 50,000 SF of new gaming area. Transtech provided plan check, inspection, Building Official services.
• County of Riverside Economic Development Agency, Facility Evaluation:

Located at 41888 Motor Car Pkwy Transtech provided Facility Evaluation Services including an accessibility compliance review to allow the 297,033 SF 5- story office building to operate as an essential services facility. • County of Riverside Economic Development Agency, Facility Evaluation:

Located at 450 E. Alessandro Blvd Transtech provided Facility Evaluation Services comprised of a high-level analysis of the structural system and a code compliance evaluation of the entire 5 Acre property including a 16,826 SF office building, outdoor theater, and several assessor structures. • Temple City Camellia Square (Project Value: $15M): Transtech provided full plan review as well as inspection services, the project included a shopping center with an underground garage and 4 total buildings as follows: a one -story 6,600 SF building; a two-story 25,700 SF building, a two -story 4,500 SF building; and, a

Packet Pg.
307

3. Key Personnel 3.10

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
two-story 43,400 SF building. This also included Map Check Services, including review of Tentative Parcel Map, Lot Line Adjustment, Perfecting Deed and Final Parcel Map, Off -site Improvements PW Inspection, and Building Inspection Services for this project.
• Linden Walk Residential Development (Project Value: $18.5M): Transtech provided full plan review as well as inspection services for this development which included 74 Single Family Dwellings. This project is located in Temple City.

This also included Map Check Services, including review of Tentative Parcel Map, Lot Line Adjustment, Perfecting Deed and Final Parcel Map, Off -site Improvements PW Inspection, and Building Inspection Services for this project. • Blossom Walk Residential Development (Project Value: $5.7M): Transtech provided full plan review as well as insp ection services of for this development which includes 24-unit condominiums and 4 single family homes. This project is located in Temple City. This also included Transtech also provided Map Check Services, including review of Tentative Parcel Map, Lot Line Adjustment, Perfecting Deed and Final Parcel Map, Off -site Improvements PW Inspection, and Building Inspection Services for this project.
• Pacific Plaza (Project Value: $30.3M): Located at 11 S 3rd St (condo) and 300 W Main St (retail). Transtech provided full plan review as well as inspection services of for this development which includes 120 condo units and retail space below.

This project is located in Alhambra. This also included Map Check Services, including review of Tentative Parcel Map, Lot Line Adjustment, Perfecting Deed and Final Parcel Map, Off -
site Improvements PW Inspection, and Building
Inspection Services for this project.
• The Alhambra (Project Value: $57.8M): Located at 88 S Garfield Avenue, 2 S Garfield Avenue, 100 & 150 E Main St. Transtech provided full plan review as well as inspection services of for this development which includes 260 apartment units, 4-story parking garage, 72,000 sq ft 2- story retail building, 16,730 sq ft 1- story retail building, and 23,000 sq ft 1-story retail building. This project is located in Alhambra. This also included
Map Check Services, including review of
Tentative Parcel Map, Lot Line Adjustment, Perfecting Deed and Final Parcel Map, Off-site Improvements PW Inspection, and Building Inspection Services for this project.
• Midwick Collection (Project Value: $13M): Located at 2400 S Fremont Avenue.

Transtech provided full plan review as well as inspection services of for this development which includes 36 single family dwellings and 28 townhomes. This project i s located in Alhambra. This also included
Map Check Services,
including review of Tentative Parcel Map, Lot Line Adjustment, Perfecting Deed and Final Parcel Map, Off -
site Improvements PW Inspection, and Building
Inspection Services for this project.
• Casita de Zen (Project Value: $21M): Located at 28 N 3rd St (condo) and 235 W Main St (retail). Transtech provided full plan review as well as inspection services of for this development which includes mixed use project with 92 condos on top, and retail on bottom. This project is located in Alhambra. This also included Map Check Services, including review of Tentative Parcel Map, Lot Line Adjustment, Perfecting Deed and Final Parcel Map, Off -site Improvements PW Inspection, and Building Inspection Services for this project. • Main Street Collection (Project Value: $23M): Located at 410 W Main Street.

Transtech provided full plan review as well as inspection services of for this development which includes construction of new office building with one

Packet Pg.
308

3. Key Personnel 3.11

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
residential unit above, new 15 unit townhome cluster with office fronting Mission Street with one -level subterranean parking, convert existing 3- story industrial building into 9 residential units, construct 13 townhome units. This project is located in South Pasadena.
• Alta Med Medical Group (Project Value: $4M): Located at 1900 E Sl auson Ave.

Transtech provided full plan review as well as inspection services of for this development which includes a new mixed-use building of office space and an adult day care with new on grade parking. This project is located in Huntington Park. This also included review of Tentative Parcel Map, Lot Line Adjustment, Perfecting Deed and Final Parcel Map, Off -site Improvements PW Inspection, and Building Inspection Services for this project.

AS PART OF THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A BUILDING OFFICIAL, BELOW IS

PARTIAL LIST OF DUTIES AS IT RELATES TO THE ROLE OF CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL POSITION:
• Manage multiple Building and Safety Departments and staff and provide any other services as may be necessary for administration and enforcement of the California Building Code and related codes, and applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code.
• Represent City’s as its building official while interfacing with the public and other agencies.
• Respond quickly in the event of a local, regional, or national em ergency or disaster, as building official.
• Read, interpret and analyze plans for major structures. • Visit construction sites and conduct building code inspections when needed as well as conduct job-site evaluations of construction projects for the purpose of monitoring/enforcing compliance with approved plans and code requirements.
• Oversee and participate in the management of a comprehensive building department processes.
• Oversee, direct, and coordinate the work of building staff. • Participate in th e development and administration of the division goals, objectives, and procedures.
• Prepare clear and concise administrative and financial reports as it related to the building department.
• Work with professional architects, engineers, builders, and the ge neral public with a customer service approach.
• Formulate and apply uniform policies and standards for the building inspection programs; formulate, interpret and explain specific building codes, ordinances and administrative orders.
• Research regulations, p rocedures and/or technical materials relating to building codes and enforcement.
• Represent the City before other agencies and groups on building inspection and enforcement matters.
• Make effective presentations before large and small groups of people. • Coordinate division services with other programs and services within the County and with outside organizations, and agencies.
• Analyze problems, identify alternative solutions, project consequences of proposed actions and implement recommendations in support of goals. • Research, analyze, and evaluate new service delivery methods and techniques.
• Interpret and apply federal, state, and local policies, laws, and regulations. • Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing.

Packet Pg.
309

3. Key Personnel 3.12

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
DAVID RAGLAND, PE, PLS, QSD, QSP, QISP, Sr. Engineer, Sr. Level Technical Support Staff

EDUCATION
• Humboldt State University,
CA, Bachelor of Science

REGISTRATION
• Registered Civil Engineer
• Licensed Land Surveyor

HIGHLIGHTS
• Civil engineer and land
surveyor with
approximately 30 years of
diverse experience in a
wide variety of projects.
• Managed numerous multi-
disciplinary teams dealing
with the planning,
engineering, entitlement,
environmental permitting,
development and
construction of urban and
rural development, and
public works projects.
• In the past 10 years, at
Transtech, has been
working as Engineering
Manager and providing
engineering services to
various Cities.
• Served as Principal Project
Manager for the design,
construction and
management of a variety
of projects, including:
o Major infrastructure
projects for public
agencies (Freeway
Interchanges,
Roadways, Water, Storm
Drain and Sewer
Facilities and Master
Plans).
o Commercial and Retail
Mr. Ragland is a civil engineer and land surveyor has over 35 years of diverse experience in a wide variety of projects in civil engineering. He has managed numerous multi -
disciplinary teams dealing with the planning, engineering, entitlement, environmental permitting, development and construction of urban and rural development, and public works projects. His experience also includes special emphasis on complex grading and hillside developments (has worked on the civil engineering and development of more
than 40,000 acres of hillside properties),
preparation of due diligence and project feasibility analysis, through conceptual planning and design to entitlement and construction.

Following is a partial listing of projects representative of Mr. Ragland’ s diversified experience:

General Civil Engineering Projects:
• A number of projects in Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County and San Diego County, including roadway, drainage, water, sewer improvements. • Parkway Business Centre: Design and construction of the 460 Acre industrial park including South Poway Parkway for ADI Properties, Inc. Also served as Assessment Engineer for Communities Facilities District. • Campus Parkway Roadway: Design of a new roadwa y for a length of approximately 2 miles, and included street, medians, landscape, lighting, traffic signals, water, sewer, storm drain and various other utilities. • CalState University Main Access Road: Design of a new roadway for a length of approximately 1.5 miles, and include street, medians, landscape, lighting, traffic signals, water, sewer, storm drain and various other utilities. • Cannon Roadway and Sewer: Design of approximately 2 miles of roadway and 36 inch sewer pipe and pump station. This proje ct required careful consideration to pipe buckling due to the extreme soils conditions of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Special bedding techniques were used along with special coupling of the pipes to allow for potential deflection as the bridge abutment and road fill settled.
• Lopez Canyon Roadway and Sewer: Design and construction of over 5 miles of roadway sewer ranging up to 36 inches in diameter.
• Sorrento Valley Boulevard: Design and construction of 4 miles of roadway.

Drainage and Sewer Projects:
• Northpark Boulevard Sewer Extension: Half mile gravity sewer main extension for University Park Subdivision in the City of San Bernardino. Project required special structural designs and encroachment permitting for crossing 100’ aqueduct right-of-way.
• University Park Storm Drain Design: Design of storm drain system with pipes ranging in size from 18 to 60 inches and trapezoidal channel design for 4500 cfs. • Eagle Bice, Muscupiabe Land Area Infrastructure Master Plan (Devore area in San Bernardino) Drainage, Sewer and Water Master Plan: Approximately 500 acre area for future 1,100 unit master planned community. The project also included a full infrastructure (roadways, storm drain, water, sewer, parks, and utilities) needs and assessment and cost analysis for this future development. • San Elijo Ranch Drainage, Sewer and Water Master Plan, San Marcos: 2,000 acre / 3500 unit master planned community. The project included literally miles of storm drain, sewer and water lines, sedimentation areas, pump stations, booster stations, water reservoirs and force mains. Cannon Road Trunk Sewer and Pump Station - Design of 8-12 inch gravity sewer, 6 and 8 inch force main, pump station and wet well. City of Carlsbad
• Penasquitos Canyon Trunk Sewer: PS&E for two miles 36- inch gravity sewer including design study reports. City of San Diego
• Ranch Santa Fe Road: Relocation and rehabilitation of 1.5 miles of sewer main.

Packet Pg.
310

3. Key Personnel 3.13

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
Development.
o Master Planned
Communities.
o Residential
Development.
o Educational/University
Infrastructure Master
Plan Studies and
Development.
• Extensive experience in
working with Caltrans and
County of Los Angeles.
• Extensive experience in
NPDES requirements.
• Extensive experience in
the management and
administration of federally
and state funded projects
in compliance with
Caltrans Local Assistance
Procedures Manual
(LAPM).
• Estimated valuation of
projects that Mr. Ragland
has been involved is
approximately
$1,000,000,000.

City of San Marcos
• Arrowhead Springs Drainage, Sewer and Water Master Plan: 4,000-acre site at the foothills of San Bernardino Mountains, and includes 1,500 to 2,000 residential units, 1,000,000 square feet of commercial and office space, 199- acre/18-hole public golf course, renovation and reuse of the historic Arrowhead Springs Hotel with a new 115 room annex, new 300-room hotel, a conference center, 14-acre corporate office area.
• Otay River hydrology study and dam breach analysis: 22,000 acre Otay Ranch project in Chula Vista. Flows up to 33,000 cfs were studied for the Otay River.

Water Projects:
• City of San Diego, Green Valley Water line design and construction. 5000 feet, 30” Reinforced concrete water line and pressure reducing station and details for connection to a 60-inch San Diego County Water Authority Pipeline. • City of San Diego, Structural arch and encasement designs for road crossings over various SDCWA pipelines up to 108 inches in diameter. • City of San Diego, Design and construction of Mercy Road pressure booster. • City of San Bernardino, Design of 3500 feet of 20 to 36 inch duc tile iron water transmission main for the development of University Park. • City of San Bernardino, Design of over 10,000 feet of 8 thru 12 inch DIP water main for water distribution.
• City of San Bernardino, Structural arch design for road crossing over the Dept of Water Resources 109-inch Santa Ana pipeline.
• City of San Marcos Structural arch and encasement designs for road crossings over various SDCWA pipelines up to 108 inches in diameter. • Design of 30- inch CMLC steel water transmission main and pressur e reducing stations. Included structural designs for hanging the waterline on a bridge. • City of Carlsbad, Design of many thousands of feet of PVC and DIP water lines for multiple subdivisions in the City with Carlsbad Municipal Water District and the Olivenhain Water District.

Master Plans:
• San Elijo Hills Specific Plan. Provided planning, engineering, surveying services for the design and development of the 2,000 acre 3,500 dwelling unit Specific Plan and Master Tentative Map.
• Shandin Hills Specific Plan. Provided planning engineering services for the preparation of the Specific Plan and Tentative Map. The project is a proposed 240 acre 1049 dwelling unit community.
• Arrowhead Springs Specific Plan (including annexation into the City): 4,000-acre site, which includes 1,500 to 2,000 residential units, 1,000,000 square feet of commercial and office space, 199-acre/18-hole public golf course, renovation and reuse of the historic Arrowhead Springs Hotel with a new 115 room annex, new 300-room hotel, a conference center, 14-acre corporate office area. • Eagle Bice, Muscupiabe Land Area Infrastructure Master Plan Drainage, Sewer and Water Master Plan: Approximately 500 acre area for future 1,100 unit master planned community. The project also included a fu ll infrastructure (roadways, storm drain, water, sewer, parks, and utilities) needs and assessment and cost analysis for this future development.
• University Development Master Plan: Approximately 200 acre site in association with the City of San Bernardin o, Watson Development and Cal-State SB for the development of 200 residential, mixed use, live -work, retail, office and student housing, educational and training facilities and offices for Cal State SB University.

Packet Pg.
311

3. Key Personnel 3.14

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
AYLA JEFFERSON, CBO, CSP ICC Certified Building Official, Plans Examiner, Inspector, Sr. Level Technical Support Staff

EDUCATION
• Rio Honda College, CE
• Bosphorous Univ, Turkey
• Athanee Royal, Belgium

CERTIFICATIONS
• ICC Certifications:

Building Code Official,
Certified Building Official,
Certified Sustainability
Professional,
Accessibility Inspector,
Accessibility Plans
Examiner,
Building Plans Examiner,
California Building Plans
Examiner,
CalGreen Plans Examiner
and Inspector,
Building Inspector CBC,
Building Inspector UBC,
Plumbing Inspector UPC,
California Commercial
Plumbing Inspector,
Residential Mechanical
Inspector,
California Residential
Mechanical Inspector,
Permit Technician
• IAPMO Certifications:

Plumbing Inspector
Mechanical Inspector
• CalOES Certifications:

SAP Evaluator

Ms. Jefferson has over 25 years of experience in private and governmental sector.

She has extensive experience in managing building and safety departments of different municipalities under Transtech
contracts. Ms. Jefferson holds over 15
International Code Council issued professional certifications including Certified Building Code Official and 2 IAPMO certifications.

She has served as Building Official, Deputy Building Official, Plan Checker, Code Enforcement Official, Community Improvement Coordinator, Planning Technician, and Inspector for various municipalities. As Building Official, she provides necessary code interpretations, and coordinates with agency staff and departments, and applicants on building and safety related issues. She handles building and zoning code violations as well as working in coordination with the City Prosecutor to abate violations. She also provides over the counter plan check as Deputy Building Official/Plans Examiner
. She has broad knowledge of municipal government
operations, including preparation and presentation of staff reports and resolutions to city councils, committees and related interaction with members of the public, other city departments and other governme ntal agencies. She has extensive experience in construction codes, building and safety plan review and inspection, code interpretations, and resolving code related construction and plan review problems on a broad range of projects.

She also coordinates code adoptions for Transtech contract cities. She is involved on various ICC boards, and has served and/or currently serving on a number of ICC Councils, Committees and Boards, locally and nationally. She also served on Calbo Green Committee on State level. She was also appointed as the first national Chair to the ICC Sustainability Membership Council. Ms. Jefferson is responsible for the management of Transtech’s Building and Safety Department, and coordination with Transtech’s municipal clie nts. With her analytical and strategic management skills, she provides strong leadership, develops and collaborates with primary contacts to protect and to enhance Transtech’s position in specific proceedings; she facilitates and maintains close, long -term
working relationships with
municipalities in the building and safety realm.

HIGHLIGHTS
She served as Chair and Vice Chair on ICC Sustainability Membership Council (2011- 2019) ; Served Calbo State Licensing Boards Committee (2019-2022); Served Calbo Community & Outreach Committee (2018) ; Served ICC/Calbo California Codes Exam Committee; Served on ICC Codes & Standards Council; Served Calbo Green Committee; Chaired ICC Los Angeles Basin Chapter Inspection Committee

EXPERIENCE IN LARGE COMPLEX PROJECTS ( PARTIAL LIST) IN WHICH BUILDING OFFICIAL OVERSIGHT WAS PROVIDED:
• Temple City Camellia Square (Project Value: $15M): Transtech provided full plan review as well as inspection services, the project included a shopping center with an underground garage and 4 total buildings as follows: a one-story 6,600 SF building; a two-story 25,700 SF building, a two -story 4,500 SF building; and, a two-story 43,400 SF building. This also included Map Check Services, including review of Tentative Parcel Map, Lot Line Adjustment, Perfecting Deed and Final Parcel Map, Off -site Improvements PW Inspection, and Building Inspection Services for this project.
• Linden Walk Residential Development (Project Value: $18.5M): Transtech provided full plan review as well as inspection services for this development which included 74 Single Family Dwellings. This project is located in Temple City.

Packet Pg.
312

3. Key Personnel 3.15

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
This also included Map Check Services, including review of Tentative Parcel Map, Lot Line Adjustment, Perfecting Deed and Final Parcel Map, Off -site Improvements PW Inspection, and Building Inspection Services for this project. • Blossom Walk Residential Development (Project Value: $5.7M): Transtech provided full plan review as well as insp ection services of for this development which includes 24-unit condominiums and 4 single family homes. This project is located in Temple City. This also included Transtech also provided Map Check Services, including review of Tentative Parcel Map, Lot Line Adjustment, Perfecting Deed and Final Parcel Map, Off -site Improvements PW Inspection, and Building Inspection Services for this project.
• Pacific Plaza (Project Value: $30.3M): Located at 11 S 3rd St (condo) and 300 W Main St (retail). Transtech provided full plan review as well as inspection services of for this development which includes 120 condo units and retail space below.

Transtech provided full plan review as well as inspection services of for this development which includes 36 single family dwellings and 28 townhomes. This project i s located in Alhambra. This also included
Map Check Services,
including review of Tentative Parcel Map, Lot Line Adjustment, Perfecting Deed and Final Parcel Map, Off -site Improvements PW Inspection, and Building Inspection Services for this project.
• Casita de Zen (Project Value: $21M): Located at 28 N 3rd St (condo) and 235 W Main St (retail). Transtech provided full plan review as well as inspection services of for this development which includes mixed use project with 92 condos on top, and retail on bottom. This project is located in Alhambra. This also included Map Check Services, including review of Tentative Parcel Map, Lot Line Adjustment, Perfecting Deed and Final Parcel Map, Off -site Improvements PW Inspection, and Building Inspection Services for this project. • Main Street Collection (Project Value: $23M): Located at 410 W Main Street.

Transtech provided full plan review as well as inspection services of for this development which includes 4 -story mixed -use project with 8,200 s ft retail space, 52 condos, 9 live/work units, 19 townhomes, and 6 shopkeeper units. This project is located in Alhambra. This also included
Map Check Services,
including review of Tentative Parcel Map, Lot Line Adjustment, Perfecting Deed and Final Parcel Map, Off -site Improve ments PW Inspection, and Building Inspection Services for this project.
• City of Alhambra, Civic Center Library Project ($25M): Transtech provided plan check, inspection, construction management and owner representative services, the project included construction of a 45,000 SF Library with an underground parking garage.
• 820 Mission Development LLC (Project Value: $10M): Located at 820 Mission St.

Transtech provided full plan review as well as inspection services of for this development which includes construction of new office building with one residential unit above, new 15 unit townhome cluster with office fronting Mission Street with one -level subterranean parking, convert existing 3- story industrial building into 9 residential units, construct 13 townhome units. This project is

Packet Pg.
313

3. Key Personnel 3.16

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
located in South Pasadena.
• Alta Med Medical Group (Project Value: $4M): Located at 1900 E Sl auson Ave.

AS PART OF THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF A BUILDING OFFICIAL, BELOW IS

PARTIAL LIST OF DUTIES AS IT RELATES TO THE ROLE OF CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL POSITION:
• Manage multiple Building and Safety Departments and staff and provide any other services as may be necessary for administration and enforcement of the California Building Code and related codes, and applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code.
• Represent City’s as its building official while interfacing with the public and other agencies.
• Respond quickly in the event of a local, regional, or national em ergency or disaster, as building official.
• Read, interpret and analyze plans for major structures. • Visit construction sites and conduct building code inspections when needed as well as conduct job-site evaluations of construction projects for the purpose of monitoring/enforcing compliance with approved plans and code requirements.
• Oversee and participate in the management of a comprehensive building department processes.
• Oversee, direct, and coordinate the work of building staff. • Participate in the development and administration of the division goals, objectives, and procedures.
• Prepare clear and concise administrative and financial reports as it related to the building department.
• Work with professional architects, engineers, builders, and the gene ral public with a customer service approach.
• Formulate and apply uniform policies and standards for the building inspection programs; formulate, interpret and explain specific building codes, ordinances and administrative orders.
• Research regulations, pro cedures and/or technical materials relating to building codes and enforcement.
• Represent the City before other agencies and groups on building inspection and enforcement matters.
• Make effective presentations before large and small groups of people. • Coordinate division services with other programs and services within the County and with outside organizations, and agencies.
• Analyze problems, identify alternative solutions, project consequences of proposed actions and implement recommendations in support of goals. • Research, analyze, and evaluate new service delivery methods and techniques.
• Interpret and apply federal, state, and local policies, laws, and regulations. • Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing.

Packet Pg.
314

3. Key Personnel 3.17

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
ZIAD Y. MAZBOUDI, PE, QSD, QSP, CPSWQ, CPESC, LEED AP, D.WRE, Sr. Engineer, Sr. Level Technical Support Staff

Education
• BS Civil Engineering
• MBA

Registration
• Registered Civil Engineer
• Certified Professional in
Erosion & Sediment
Control (#4174). CASQA
QSD and QSP, July 2010
• Certified Professional in
Stormwater Quality
(#232)
• Trainer of Record for QSD
and QSP, California
Construction General
Permit, CASQA, July 2010
• USGBC LEED Accredited
Professional (AP), May
2009
• GIS, and Programming
for GIS Certificates:

California State
Polytechnic University
Pomona, 2000
• California Emergency
Management Agency,
CalEMA, Disaster Safety
Assessment Program,
SAP, Volunteer
#SAP62639. Certified OES
SAP Coordinator,2008.

Certified CalEMA Trainer
for SAP
• OSHA Hazardous Waste
Operations and
Emergency Response
(HAZWOPER, 29 CFR
1910.120)
• OSHA Confined Space
Entry (29 CFR 1910.146).

Certified OSHA
Supervisor’s Health and
Safety training
Mr. Mazboudi has 34 years of progressively responsible, diversified experience in public works, engineering, utilities, development engineering, facilities maintenance, sustainability, environmental programs and project management in both the public and private sector, supported by a strong educational background in civil engineering, geographic information systems, water quality/urban runoff, business administration and environmental programs.

At Transtech, Mr. Mazboudi has been working as a Sr. Engineer at various Transtech Contact Cities. He has served at various Cities under Transtec h’s City Engineering Contracts, including South El Monte, Maywood, and Commerce, and managed Engineering staff and CIP Programs.

Mr. Mazboudi has a broad knowledge of municipal government operations, including preparation and presentation of staff reports/resolutions to city councils, committees and interaction with public, various city departments, city council and other governmental agencies.

Mr. Mazboudi’s responsibilities included:
• Planned, coordinated, and directed the activities of the Engineering Division; Public Works
• Supervised the preparation of designs, specifications, plans, estimates and reports involved in the construction of public works engineering projects, such as storm drains, sewer systems, and water facilities;
• Reviewed a nd approved engineering plans, specification and contract documents;
• Analyzed bids and supervises the preparation of contracts; • Provided technical assistance and consults with other departments, agencies, commission, and other bodies on engineering matters;
• Prepared reports for the various governing bodies;
• Represented City Engineering Division to other City departments, elected officials and outside agencies;
• Managed and participated in the development and administration of the Public Works Department a nd Engineering Division budget and CIP budget; participated in the preparation of and implement budgetary adjustments; • Coordinated Engineering Division activities with those of other departments and outside agencies and organizations;
• Presented staff reports at City Council and Commissions Meetings. • Supervised and evaluated subordinate staff;
• Responded to citizen inquiries and resolve difficult and sensitive complaints;

Mr. Mazboudi’s prior experience includes:

City of San Clemente - Public Works Department
Deputy Public Works Director/Engineering
Manage the Engineering division of the Public Works department, including Development Engineering and encroachment permit section, traffic and transportation section, street and CIP section, CMMS and GIS section.

Responsible for the preparation of the City's CIP budget including utilities (water, sewer and drainage), facilities, parks and recreation, street pavement and maintenance, traffic signals. In addition, he was responsible for the preparation of t he Engineering Division's operation budget and assisted the Public Works Director in the preparation of the department's operational budget and annual strategies. Manage the City's emergency planning and disaster preparedness and responsible for all EOC operation. Manage the City's traffic division including oversight and approval and recommendation to the City Council of all traffic calming requests and striping modifications, traffic signal projects,

Packet Pg.
315

3. Key Personnel 3.18

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
• Cross Connection Control
Specialist and Backflow
prevention Devices
testing and maintenance
training
• FEMA Floodplain
Manager Certification,
1999, Community Rating
System Certificate, CRS,
Aug 2010
• Fellow Member ASCE
• Diplomate in Water
Resources Engineering
from the American
Academy of Water
Resources

Highlights
• 34 years of past
experience in City Public
Works
• Deputy Public Works
Director/ Engineering, City
of San Clemente Public
Works
• Engineering Services
Manager, City of Laguna
Niguel Public Works
• Senior Civil Engineer,
Environmental Division
Manager, Public
Works/Utilities Department,
City of San Juan
Capistrano
• Associate Civil
Engineer/Development
Engineer, City of
Westminster
• Assistant Civil Engineer/
CIP, City of La Habra

synchronization and bike lane projects. Ensure complian ce with all environmental requirements including CEQA/NEPA, NPDES (Stormwater requirements), solid waste and recycling, air quality, floodplain and grants as it relates to CIPs and developments and coordinates with the Utilities department incorporation of Water Quality Management Plans, WQMPs in new developments and inspections. Prepared and acted as project manager on all pavement projects including slurry seals, overlays and reconstruction.

City of Laguna Niguel - Public Works Department
Engineering Services Manager
Plan, direct, manage and oversee the day -to-day operation and activities of the Public Works and Engineering Department, including capital project improvements, traffic and transportation, sustainability and environmental programs, maintenance of facilities, parks, open space and public right of way.

Coordinate assigned activities with other City departments and outside agencies. Provide technical and professional assistance to the Public Works Director and act as Director of Public Works and Engineering in his absence.

Oversee, review and accept final engineering plans and specifications for public works, private developments, and permits. Select, train, motivate and evaluate department personnel; coordinate staff training; work with employees to correct deficiencies; implement disciplinary procedures. Manage and participate in the development and administration of the department operating and capital improvement budgets. Managed the City’s Environmental division including the stormwater quali ty program, solid waste/recycling, and wetlands maintenance. Managed the design and construction of the City’s community center building and community pool and site improvements and the construction of bridge and wetland at Crown Valley Park. Managed the construction of the City’s pickle ball courts.

Atkins Global Consulting (www.atkinsglobal.com)
Assigned under Atkins Contract as Director/Vice Secretary General, Economic Cities Authority, Saudi Arabia
Responsible for planning, organizing, directing and coordinating all Planning and Oversight (P&O) Division activities to fulfill the Economic Cities Authority (ECA) obligations for Economic Cities (EC) program development under ECA Board of Director strate gies. Provided leadership for the development and maintenance of a high-performance division team. Division included Enterprise Portfolio Management Office, Inspection and code compliance, Urban Planning, Real Estate and Municipal Affairs. Delivered the E C Development Program. Supervised project execution; and ensured the EC development program and projects were delivered to the terms of the ECA and Master Developer contract in compliance with standards of quality, safety, and performance expectations. Re viewed processes and approved efficient operations of the division. Negotiated with master developers on various activities and resolved high level issues. Negotiated with EMAAR, KAEC master developer.

City of San Juan Capistrano - Public Works/Utilities Department Senior Civil Engineer/Environmental Division Manager
Managed the following programs:
• Stormwater/watershed and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
• Sanitary sewer, Fat, Oil and Grease (FOG) program, and California State Waste Discharge Requirements compliance.
• Solid waste and recycling. Oversaw the City’s solid waste franchise agreement.
• Used oil and household hazardous waste programs
• Green Building, sustainability and air quality. Wrote environmental articles

Packet Pg.
316

3. Key Personnel 3.19

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
bi-weekly in local newspapers.
• Provided regular presentations on sustainability and environmental programs to local businesses, chamber of commerce, Rotary Club and other local groups. Worked with local businesses to audit and identify opportunities to green the businesses including increase recycling efforts, energy and water conservation.
• Floodplain Management, Community Rating System (CRS) and National Flood Insurance Program for compliance with FEMA regulations. • South Orange County Wastewater Authority, (SOCWA) coordination.

Represented the City at SOCWA’s Engineering and Technical Advisory Committees.
• Member of the South Orange County Joint Regional Water Supply System Team.
• Oversee the City’s air quality regulations and all SC AQMD permits • Developed the City’s sustainability charter, solar incentive program and green procurement policy.
• Managed the City’s energy conservation program and the development of the City’s energy masterplan.
• Supervised the Public Works Permit Processing division, encroachment and transportation permits.
• Department safety officer. Developed the City’s Illness and Injury Prevention Plan, IIPP, and a member of the City’s Safety Committee. Member of the City’s EOC team, positions held are Alternate Operations Chief, Utilities liaison and represent the City on the Water Emergency Response of Orange County.

City of Westminster- Public Works Department
Associate Civil Engineer/Development Engineer
Responsible for the review and approval of all developments in the City, including encroachment in the Public Right of Way and issuance of encroachment and transportation permits. Developed and Implemented the City’s GIS system.

City of La Habra - Public Works Department
Assistant Civil Engineer/Capital Improvement Projects
Responsible for developing the City’s 7 Year CIP budget and designing, bidding, construction and project management of the City’s CIP, including paving, sidewalks, water, sewer and sto rm drain. Issued encroachment and transportation permits and reviewed and provided comments on private developments.

Consulting Services - Various private firms, CA
Project Manager
Managed from bidding through construction grading, paving and concrete work projects. Managed the construction of a 240 townhome construction project. Managed the construction of a flood control channel in Camarillo.

Managed the construction various facilities including Azusa Pacific University Performing Art Center, Life P acific University in San Dimas, Lereta campus in Pomona and others.

Special International Projects:

US Green Building Council (www.usgbc.org)
Egyptian Green Building Council (EGBC)
February 2009
Represented the US Green Building Council, to assist in the formation and establishment of the EGBC. Provided lectures on the role of government in

Packet Pg.
317

3. Key Personnel 3.20

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
Green Building and on the US Green Building Program, LEED.

USAID International Development Agency (www.usaid.gov)
In partnership with USAID and ICMA Kingdom of Jordan Commercial/Industrial Environmental Audit
Sep 2009
In partnership with USAID and ICMA, developed a training manual for the audit of commercial and industrial facilities in Jordan. Provided training and lectures to Environmental Ministry staff and local municipalities representatives.

Performed audits in Jordan and provided recommendations to the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Local Government.

Academic Position:

Adjunct Professor: Goldenwest College, Huntington Beach, CA, October 2012- May 2013 Lectured on and taught Sustainability and Zero Waste for Communities. The course was part of the College Resource Management Program and encouraged the development of students work for cities with an understanding of green and sustainable programs.

Professional Affiliations:
• County of Orange Stormwater Program, General Permittee Committee Chair:
2004, 2005, 2009-2014
• County of Orange Stormwater Program, Public Education Committee Chair:
2003, 2004, 2005
• County of Orange Stormwater Program Trash and Debris Task Force 2005- 2008, Chair 2009-2014
• Chair of the San Juan Creek Watershed Committee 2005- 2011-2014 • Chair of the South Orange County Team Arundo Committee, 2005-2014 • Chair of the San Juan Capistrano’s Committee on Sustainability and the Environment 2006-2014
• Member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) o Secretary of the LA Section 2016-18
o Orange County Past President, 2011-12
o OC Branch President 2010-11
o Vice-President, 09-10
o Treasurer, 2008-09.
o Secretary, 2007-08
o Branch newsletter editor, 2007-2008
o OC Legislative Committee Chair 2006-2007
o Member of the Sustainability Committee 2009-10
o National ASCE Committee on Critical Infrastructure (2011-14) • ASCE Fellow
• Diplomate in Water Resources Engineering, D.WRE by the American Academy of WRE
• California ASCE Disaster Preparedness and Response/Safety Assessment Program Chair,2021, 2009-11, Member of the Cal EMA DSW Committee • Member of the American Public Works Association (APWA), Member of the National Solid Waste Management Committee, 2006- 2011. Member of APWA National Disaster Preparedness Committee 2013-14
• Member of Orange County Chapter, US Green Building Council, USGBC Advocacy Committee 2006-2010
• Represented ASCE on the Presidential Policy Directive on Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience.

Awards:
• 2019 ASCE OC Outstanding Civil Engineer in the Public Sector Award. • 2012 South Coast Air Quality Management District “Model Community

Packet Pg.
318

3. Key Personnel 3.21

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
Achievement Clean Air” Award
• 2012 ASCE California “Outstanding Branch Officer” Award. Received grade of FELLOW in ASCE
• 2011 ASCE “Citizen Engineer”, 2010 ASCE California “Outstanding Civil Engineer in Community Service”
• 2009 ASCE OC Sustainability project of the Year award. 2008 APWA project of the Year Award.
• 2007 APWA Southern California “NPDES Public education program of the Year Award”
• 2005 ASCE “Government Engineer of Merit Award”, nominated “Government Engineer of the Year Award”
• 2005 Orange County Engineering Council “Outstanding Environmental Engineering Merit Award”
• 2000 City of Westminster “Public Servant of the Year Award” for dedication and excellence

Articles, Publications And Speaking Arrangements:
• Solid waste articles in the APWA Reporter, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. ASCE newsletter, 2006-2010
• Co-Author of The Solid Waste Manager’s Reference guidebook, published by APWA 2009.
• Speaker at USGBC conference, “Greening the Orange” 2008, ASCE Speakers series, “Green Civil Engineers ”2008, APWA International Congress, “Zero in on Zero Waste” 2007, Zero Waste Conference 2006
• Speaker at Headwaters Ocean Conference 2013, “Infrastructure Controls in Orange County”.

Packet Pg.
319

3. Key Personnel 3.22

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
MOHAMMAD MOSTAHKAMI, PE, Sr. Engineer, Sr. Level Technical Support Staff

Education
• MS and BS Civil
Engineering

Registration
• Registered Civil Engineer

Highlights
• 35 years of past
experience in City
Engineering
• Was Active member of
Metro Technical Advisory
Committee, Gateway
Cities Council of
Government
Transportation Committee,
I-710 Major Corridor
Technical Advisory
Committee and Gateway
Water Management
Authorities
• Extensive experience in
management of Federal,
State, Metro and other gran
funded Public Works and Pa
projects
• Extensive experience in
preparation of 5 year CIP
and annual operating
budget and
administration
• Extensive experience in
management and
administration of traffic
control system, traffic
signal synchronization,
traffic calming and traffic
safety enhancement
• NPDES and TMDL
Compliance activities
Mr. Mostahkami has over 35 years of experience and has worked for various Public Agencies as Public Works Director, City Engineer, Project Engineer, Plan Checke r, Designer, including for the Cities of
• Downey, Public Works Director
• South Gate, Sr. Engineer, City Engineer, Public Works Director • Arcadia, Civil Engineer

He has a broad knowledge of municipal government operations, including preparation and presentation of staff reports/resolutions to city councils, committees and interaction with public, various city departments, city council and other governmental agencies.

City of Downey, CA
Director of Public Works 2014 - 2018
Provided oversight, support and direction of the operation of the Public Works involving engineering, construction, operation and maintenance of water production and distribution, maintenance of sewer lines and storm drains, administration of street sweeping activities and managemen t of solid waste disposal, and weed abatement, the operations of street maintenance, equipment maintenance and facilities upkeep, the operation of the Engineering Division including Traffic Engineering, Office Engineering and Capital Improvements, beverage and oil recycling program, directed the compilation of reports, technical studies and research activities. Prepared the Departmental Annual Budget, review maintenance schedules and methods of performance, directed training activities; promoted safety pro
grams and safe work practices, advised on personnel
recruitment and reviewed performance evaluations, , participated in a public Works and other internal and external Committees, Commissions meetings as necessary, conferred with developers, businesses and residents on respective matters, developed short and long range department goals and objectives, policies and procedures, oversaw compliance of City’s NPDES and TMDL compliance regulations , oversaw development and implementation of public improvements associated with developments, participated in various community functions , secured grants from Federal, State, Metro, etc., performed other related duties as assigned,.

City of South Gate, CA
Director of Public Works/ City Engineer 2010 - 2014
Provided ov ersight, support and direction of the operation of the Public Works involving engineering, construction, operation and maintenance of water production and distribution, maintenance of sewer lines and storm drains, administration of street sweeping activiti es and management of solid waste disposal, and weed abatement, the operations of street maintenance, equipment maintenance and facilities upkeep, the operation of the Engineering Division including Traffic Engineering, Office Engineering and Capital Improv ements, beverage and oil recycling program, directed the compilation of reports, technical studies and research activities. Prepared the Departmental Budget, reviewed maintenance schedules and methods of performance, directed training activities; promoted safety programs and safe work practices, advised on personnel recruitment and reviewed performance evaluations, performed other related duties as assigned, participated in various community functions and outside Committees, secured grants from Federal, State, Metro, etc.

City of South Gate, CA
City Engineer 2002 – August 2010
Responsible for day to day operation of the engineering division including planning, directing, organizing, coordinating, supervising, and reviewing the functions, programs and projec ts of the engineering divisions; assisted in the General Plan

Packet Pg.
320

3. Key Personnel 3.23

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
experience

• Secured over $60 million in
SR2S, HSIP, Measure R and
M Metro Early Action Call
for project, AQMD and
other grant funds.

Circulation Element update, prepared RFQ, RFP and Consultant Agreements, selected, supervised and evaluated consulting services, reviewed subdivision and land developments, addressed citizen complaints and inquiries, coordinated public works activities with other City departments and outside agencies, involved in right of way acquisition for a major intersection widening project, completed CIP projects including but not limited to: streets, sew ers lighting, water main replacement and upgrade, wells and reservoirs, drainage system, traffic signal ,etc. participated in various community functions and outside committees, secured Federal , State , and County grants, assumed functions of Director of Public Works during his absence, etc.

City of South Gate, CA
Assistant City Engineer 2001 -2002
Responsible for planning, directing, organizing and supervising civil engineering work, implementation of CIP projects, preparation of operating budget and CIP, preparation of RFQ, RFP, agreement, resolution, ordinance, agenda reports and recommendations for City Council, securing Federal, State , Metro,… grants; responding to citizen inquiries and concerns, promoting staff development and motivation, review of major development EIR and other CEQA documents, coordinating public works activities with other City departments and outside agencies, participating in selection and training of division personnel, etc.

City of South Gate, CA
Senior Civil Engineer 1997-2001
Under general direction of the Director of Public Works reviewed and supervised preparation of engineering plans and specifications for construction of public works projects, managed and administered construction contracts, supervised and participated in development of plans, specifications, estimates and work orders for public works construction projects, supervised work of subordinate engineering personnel, prepared reports and recommendations as appropriate, prepared RFQ, RFP and Agreement for Federal and State funded project consultants and prepared public works conditions of approval for multiple residential, commercial and industrial developments.

City of Arcadia, CA
Assistant City Engineer 1994- 1997
Responsible for : planning, directing, organizing and supervising civil engineering work, NPDES compliance activities, preparation of Pavement Management System, Sewer and Drainage Master Plan, overseeing design and construction inspection of CIP projects, traffic engineering , preparing conditions of approval for development, reviewing tract and parcel maps and development plans, securing and administering various grants, preparing CIP and annual budget, selecting and training of division personnel, preparing agenda reports,…

City of Arcadia, CA
Senior Civil Engineer 1991 - 1994
Under general direction of the City Engineer and Director of Public Works managed the Engineering Division. Coordinated work with other departments, public and private agencies and consultants. Performed offi ce and field engineering work, prepared special studies and reports for City Council, oversaw capital improvement program and acted as Assistant City Engineer.

City of Arcadia, CA
Associate Civil Engineer 1989 - 1991
Coordinated engineering work with other departments, public and private agencies and consultants, performed complex professional and technical office and field engineering work, evaluated, developed and implemented various engineering and department procedures, etc.

Packet Pg.
321

3. Key Personnel 3.24

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

City of Arcadia, CA
Assistant Civil Engineer 1985 - 1989
Performed professional engineering work in connection with a wide variety of civil engineering projects, prepared plans, specifications and administered various public works projects, reviewed projects to determine scope and preliminary project costs, prepared plans to provide project concept and criteria for field inspection and final estimates, prepared design plans and specifications, contract documents, estimates and reports for streets, sewers and storm drains and perform ed hydraulic studies for sump pumps and drainage areas.

Packet Pg.
322

3. Key Personnel 3.25

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
KAREN VIGIL, PTP, EIT, Associate Engineer, Office Engineer Support Staff

Education
• BS, Civil Engineering, Cal
Poly Pomona 2013

Registration
• Professional
Transportation Planner
(PTP)
• Road Safety Professional
(RSP)

Highlights
• Serves as a Traffic
Analysts and Associate
Engineer for several
Traffic Authorities and
Traffic Commissions.
• Serves as assistant to City
Engineer/Public Works
Director preparing
budgeting, contract
management, staff
report writing, and misc.
items.
• Bilingual in both written
and spoken Spanish
• Extensive experience in
diagram and conceptual
preparation for design.
• Secured over $15M in
federal and state grant
funds for various
agencies
• Completed Caltrans
Resident Engineer
Academy, very familiar
with the management
and administration of
federally funded projects
in compliance with
Caltrans Local Assistance
Procedures Manual
(LAPM).

Ms. Vigil has over 5 years of experience. He has been providing support services on various projects and various Cities under Transtech’s Municipal Engineering Contracts as associate/office engineer. She also coordinates public works encroachment permits, and inspections at the engineering departments at various cities.

She has worked in the Public Works Department and Building and Safety Department and assists in the preparation of staff reports, contract administration, RFP preparation, bid analysis, budgeting, traffic safety and calming studies, stop and signal warrants/studies, traffic impact studies, traffic calming reports, parking studies, and responding to requests from Public and City Officials. She also prepares grant applications for transportation related projects includin g detailed figures,
diagrams, and exhibits.

Ms. Vigil completed Caltrans Resident Engineer Academy, very familiar with the management and administration of federally and state funded projects in compliance with Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM).

Examples of her project experience includes:

City of Commerce (City of Commerce is a Contract City. Transtech serves as City’s Contract Engineering and Building and Safety Department. Transtech staff members serve as City Engineer, City Traffic Engineer, Building Official, CIP Manager, Plan Checker, Inspector).

Staff Augmentation, Capital Projects Management Support, Technical and Administrative Support to City Engineer, Public Works Permits Review and Processing, Coordination with Developers and City Departments for the review and processing of Development Projects Applications and Submittals.

Public Works Department Experience: As part of Transtech’s Municipal Services, Ms.

Vigil worked for one year in the City of Rosemead as assistant to the Public Works Director/City Engineer. Her tasks included the following:
• Prepare Staff Reports and Presentations for Council Meetings, Commission Meetings, and Ad-Hoc Committees
• Prepare Requests for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQ’s and RFP’s) to hire consultants and outside contractors to perform services for City projects. • Analyze submitted proposals and bids
• Prepare staff reports for City Council meetings.
• Prepare staff reports for Traffic Commission items.
• Participate in City Council and Traffic Commission Meetings. • Participate in the processing of plans for private developments affecting city streets, sewers, drains, and related public works facilities and ensure that they all meet City imposed requirements. Coordinate with other departments such as Planning and Building Department for Plan Checks
• Respond to inquiries and requests for information from the general public, contractors, and other agencies.
• Prepare memos, letters, and field reports in the course of performing work. • Attend and participate in meetings and conferences with City boards and commissions, City departments, public officials, professional organizations and contractors regarding requirements for public works projects, land development/subdivision projects and other matters relating to areas of assigned responsibilities.
• Prepare a variety of reports, correspondence and special studies.

Experience in Traffic and Transportation Engineering: As part of Transtech’s Municipal Services Contracts, Ms. Vigil also assists in the preparation of traffic safety

Packet Pg.
323

3. Key Personnel 3.26

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
• Cal OSHA 10 hour
Construction Certified

and calming studies, stop and signal warr ants/studies, traffic impact studies, calming reports, responding to requests from Public and City Officials. She also attends Traffic Commission meetings and assists in presentations of reports. (Cities she was involved include: Temple City, South El Monte, Alhambra, Rosemead, West Covina, Commerce, Monterey Park, Cudahy, San Marino)

Experience in Grant Writing: Ms. Vigil also assist in the preparation of grant applications for transportation projects, awarded grants she worked on include:
• City of Monterey Park: 2018 ATP -4, Citywide School and xwalk Safety Improvements Project, $1,367,000
• City of Monterey Park: 2018 HSIP Cycle 9, Signal Safety Enhancement Project, $540,000
• City of Alhambra: HSIP Cycle 9, Ped Safety Improvements at Signalized Intersections, $600,000
• City of South El Monte: 2018 HSIP-9, Signal Safety Enhancement Project, $876,000 • City of Commerce: 2018-19 Rubberized Pavement Grant Program (Cal Recycle), $348,600
• City of Commerce: 2016-17 Rubberized Pavement Grant Program (Cal Recycle), $281,400
• City of Rosemead: 2015 Metro Call for Projects, Garvey Avenue Regional Access & Capacity Improvement Project, $2,315,305
• City of Rosemead: 2015 HSIP-7, Installation of HAWK system, Award Amount:
$241,300
• City of Monterey Park: 2015 Metro (MTA) Call for Projects, Monterey Pass Road Complete Streets Bike Project, Award Amount: $1,993,627 • City of Alhambra: 2013 Metro (MTA) Call for Projects, Alhambra Ped Improvement/Walking Viability Project on Valley, $323,427 • City of San Gabriel: 2015 HSIP-7, Signal Safety Enhancements Project, $569,800 • City of San Gabriel: 2016 HSIP-8, Install overhead flashing beacon, $270,200 • City of Huntington Park: 2015 ATP-3 Citywide Uncontrolled Crosswalk Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Project, $1,757,000
• City of Huntington Park: 2016(ATP-2, Uncontrolled Crosswalk SRTS Ped Safety, $1,032,000
• City of Cudahy: 2015 ATP-2, Wilcox Avenue Complete Streets and SRTS Project, $1,344,000
• City of Cudahy: 2015 Metro Call for Projects, Cudahy City Wide Complete Streets Improvement Project, $2,134,449
• City of Cudahy: 2015 HSIP-7, Salt Lake Ave Safety Project, $363,180 • City of Cudahy: 2016 ATP-3, Atlantic Ave Bicycle and Ped Enhancement Project, $1,784,000
• City of Pico Rivera: 2016 HSIP-8, Sign Improvements, $696,300 • City of Commerce: 2013 Metro Call for Projects, Commerce Goods Movement Atlantic Blvd: Washington to Como, $631,137
• City of Commerce: 2016-17 Rubberized Pavement Grant Program (Cal Recycle), $281,400

Packet Pg.
324

3. Key Personnel 3.27

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
JULIE ROBBINS, ICC Certified Permit Technician, Permit Process Technical Support Staff

EDUCATION
• B.A. in Business
Administration, Los
Angeles Harbor College
(current)
• BA in Political Science,
University of LaVerne
• Associate’s in Business
Administration;
Paralegal Education;
Political Science;
General Education;
SCACEO Code
Enforcement Courses,
Rio Hondo Community
College

ICC CERTIFICATIONS
• ICC Certified Permit
Technician

HIGHLIGHTS
• Spanish Speaker
• CACEO Certified Code
Enforcement Officer,
CCEO
• Certified Hearing Officer
• PC832 Modules I, II and
III
• Microsoft Excel,
PowerPoint, Word,
Outlook, QuickBase,
Access
• Notary Public

Mrs. Robbins has approximately 34 years of City Government and Building and Safety experience. Mrs. Robbins has been working in Transtech’s Building and Safety department in various contract cities performing various clerical and technical duties in support of Building Inspections, Plan Checkers, and the Building Official.

Some of her duties include representing the Code Enforcement, Permit Processing, and Building profession. She is highly organized, and proficient in record keeping, tracking and report wr
iting. Mrs. Robbins is also proficient in Parking Citation Enforcement, Administrative Citations and as a Hearing Officer as well as a Municipal Building Permit Technician; and in Short Term Rental Enforcement and investigations. She can provide leaderships skills and build and maintain professional internal and external partnerships with her peers and community. She is proficient in all Building Department functions, including Permit Technician, Plan Check routing and submittal, Program Management and the
following Code Enforcement
programs: Medical Marijuana enforcement, Weed Abatement, Property foreclosures, and the Vehicle Abatement (AVA) Program. She is also highly skilled in field investigations, various computer programs, administrative duties and Cod e Enforcement tracking systems. This program is still in place today. She is currently continuing her education to obtain her bachelor’s degree, and she takes every opportunity to obtain knowledge that will make her more successful in her career and an asset to her employer, through ICC and CALBO. Prior to working for Transtech Engineers Mrs. Robbins worked for the Orange County Public Works Department.

Knowledge of Building and Safety Procedures:
• Procedures and techniques of permit processing and process for plan review and inspection.
• Building and zoning codes and ordinances enforced by the city. • Customer Service principles and practices including conflict resolution. • Processes for compiling and analyzing data for special projects. • Effectively communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing. • Interpret and explain policies and regulations accurately and tactfully to the public.

Previous Experience
Management Analyst (Through HR Green California Inc.)
Some of her responsibilities included handling the day to day operation of the DPC in processing and routing plans and planning checks and permits for issuance.

During her time there, Mrs. Robbins also helped enforce the Municipal Code for various municipalities that for HRGreen California, Inc. and supervised the Program Management and Code Enforcement Officers. She has also worked for numerous California cities in which she performed administrative and parking citation hearings for appellants contesting p arking citations or administrative citations issued by the cities. She has conducted research and used her expertise in enforcing the Municipal Code to ascertain where citations were being administered justifiably by the jurisdictions. Mrs. Robbins was instrumental in developing the Code Enforcement POST Certified, Education System which trains Code Enforcement Officers throughout the State of California in their job functions through CACEO (formally SCACEO). Her duties as Permit Technician and Code Enforce ment officer has
serviced over ten cities, two counties, and four private corporations.

Hearing Officer (Various Jurisdiction)
Perform Administrative and Parking Citation Hearings for Appellants contesting parking citations or Administrative Citations issued by the Cities. Conduct research, and use her expertise in enforcing the Municipal Code, to ascertain whether Citations are being administered justifiably by the jurisdictions. The Hearings relate to Parking, Building and Safety, and Zoning violations. Presently conduct Hearings, via telephone, in person or in writing, and administer all administrative work for

Packet Pg.
325

3. Key Personnel 3.28

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
several jurisdictions, such as the following:
• City of Garden Grove
• City of Placentia
• City of Whittier
• City of Ventura
• City of Corona
• City of Norco
• City of Claremont
• City of Glendora
• City of Yorba Linda
• City of Santa Clara
• City of San Fernando
• County of Riverside Code Enforcement and Animal Control • And other jurisdictions as needed

Permit technician Duties, Code Enforcement and Administrative duties for the following jurisdictions and employers (1986- 2012). 30- year career as a Code Enforcement Officer, at var ious jurisdictions, has given me the experience, networking and compassion for the job. I have had the privilege of working with, and for, some very exemplary employees and Municipalities • County of Orange
• Garden Grove
• Laguna Hills
• City of Downey
• City of Arcadia
• City of Manhattan Beach
• City of Los Alamitos
• County of Los Angeles
• City of Desert Hot Springs
• City of Lawndale
• City of Jurupa Valley
• City of Laguna Hills
• Berryman & Heniger
• JAS Pacific
• RKA Civil Engineers
• HRGreen, California, Inc.

Packet Pg.
326

3. Key Personnel 3.29

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
ALI CAYIR, PE, Sr. Engineer

Education
• BS Engineering
• MBA
• Project/Construction
Management, UC Irvine

Registration
• Registered Civil Engineer
• Licensed Gen Contractor A
• Licensed Gen Contractor B

Highlights
• Over 35 years of
experience in City
Engineering.
• Served as contract City
Engineer, Interim PW
Director, City Traffic
Engineer for many Cities.
• Extensive experience in the
management and
administration of federally
and state funded projects
in compliance with
Caltrans Local Assistance
Procedures Manual
(LAPM).
• Served as Resident
Engineer on several
Federally Funded Projects.

Mr. Cayir has over 35 years of experience in engineering. He has participated on numerous multi-disciplinary teams dealing with the planning and development of civil and traffic engineering, urban and rural development, and public works projects. He served as Principal Project Manager for the design, construction and management of a variety of projects, including:
• Public Works and Infrastructure Improvements
• Educational and University Campuses
• Institutional
• Commercial and Retail
• Transportation and Parking Facilities
• Residential and Master Community Development

Mr. Cayir served as contract City Engineer, Traffic Engineer and Interim Public Works Director for many municipalities in Southern California.

Construction Management Experience
Mr. Cayir has served as CM, PM, RE for numerous construction projects. He has extensive experience in Federally Funded Projects. Mr. Cayir also served as contract City Engineer for many municipalities. Some of the significant projects where Mr.

Cayir served as CM/PM/RE/Project Principal include:
• Washington Boulevard Widening and Reconstruction Project (Federally Funded), City of Commerce/Caltrans ($40m). Transtech provided CM/Resident Engineer, Inspector, Office Engineer Services. The project includes widening and reconstruction of 2.7 miles of Roadway (including approx. 3,500 tons rubberized AC overlay). The project is federally funded and being managed in compliance with Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual. • Rosemead Boulevard Improvements Project, City of Tempe City (Federally Funded) ($20m). Transtech p rovided CM/Resident Engineer, Inspector, Office Engineer Services. The project included widening and reconstruction of 2 miles of roadway (including approx. 6,000 tons rubberized AC overlay). The project was federally funded and managed in compliance with
Caltrans Local
Assistance Procedures Manual.
• Cactus Avenue and Nason Street Improvements and 135’ Span Bridge Project, City of Moreno Valley ($21m). Transtech p
rovided CM/Resident Engineer,
Inspector, Office Engineer Services. The funding included State Local Partnership Program (SLPP) grant
and was inspected and managed in
compliance with Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual. • Rte 71/Mission Bl Grade Separation Project (Federally Funded) City of Pomona ($40m). Transtech provided CM/Resident Engine er, Inspector, Office Engineer Services. Project was inspected and managed in compliance with Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual. Caltrans was the oversight/jurisdictional Agency.
• City of Commerce, Rosewood Community Center. Transtech was retai ned by the City to take over the management of this multimillion dollar facility which was 2 years behind schedule. Within 5 months, Transtech brought the construction to substantial completion level allowing the City to start the move- in process, and 2 months after, the facility was opened to public use. Currently, Transtech is assisting the City in claims analysis and change order resolution.

Construction Cost: $15m.
• Ontario Great Park DB (Design -Build Project). ($45M). The project is being delivered under DB delivery. Transtech is City’s Owner’s

Packet Pg.
327

3. Key Personnel 3.30

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
Representative/Program Manager
• City of Alhambra Downtown Revitalization Program: Involved 11 projects, including Renaissance Plaza (multi-plex theater, public plaza with fountain and unique art features, restaurants, retail, 800 space parking structure), Fremont Plaza (modifications/reconstruction of existing buildings for lease by ToysRUs and Party City, construction of a new 30,000 SF store for PetSmart, and various other retail buildings) and Downtown Revitalization (modification/upgrade of existing buildings for Starbucks, 4 Restaurants and various retail businesses), 4 parking structures. (Cost: $80m).

Civil Engineering Experience
• CSUSB (Cal State SB University) San Bern ardino Main Access Road: Prepared PS&E and provided construction administration for the project. Cost $5m. • I-710 Freeway Interim Improvements and Fremont Widening and Reconstruction: Transtech provided Turn -key Services, including Program Management, Construction Management, Design, Surveying, Right -of-Way Engineering, and Environmental. The project included major roadway improvements, removal/demolition of various buildings for additional right -of- way and reconstruction of buildings behind new right -of-way, traffic signals, infrastructure, utilities, pavement, drainage, water, sewer, landscape, street lighting, traffic signal, pavement improvements. Project was funded by Federal Funds, and was managed and inspected in compliance with Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual. (Cost $15m).
• University Park Development/San Bernardino: The project included 2 miles of new roadway, sewer, water, utility and extensive hill side grading for a master planned residential and commercial development on 130-acre site across from the San Bernardino State University. Cost $40m.
• Valley Boulevard Widening and Reconstruction project which is funded by State and Federal funds and required complete project and environmental report, including Righ t-of-Way, Relocation, SHPO, NEPA, SEQA, Noise, Parking, Economic, Hazardous Materials technical studies, and processed through Caltrans and FHWA. Construction cost ($6m).
• Carlsbad to San Diego Rail Trail Project Report, which is funded by State and Federal funds and required complete project and environmental report, including Right -of-Way, Relocation, SHPO, NEPA, SEQA, Noise, Parking, Economic, Hazardous Materials technical studies, and processed through Caltrans and FHWA.
• Alameda Corridor Agency East (ACE) Rail Grade Crossing Improvement Project encompassing 6 agencies and 14 locations in Los Angeles County. Work involved roadway realignment and reconstruction, signalization, traffic control, and construction phasing as well as related improvements such as storm drain, water, sewer landscaping, underground utilities, etc. Cost $5,000,000.

Traffic Engineering Experience
• Design and management of a variety of traffic and transportation engineering projects, including traffic signals (more than 1000 locatio ns), traffic signal
interconnect system, street lighting, traffic control, signing and striping design; signal timing and coordination studies; traffic signal management studies; traffic safety projects (OTS) including traffic control device inventories an d speed surveys; traffic impact and parking studies for more than 100 projects; and feasibility studies for traffic control measures, freeway access, bikeways and street improvements. Mr. Cayir has also served as consultant Traffic Engineer for various agencies in Southern California.

Packet Pg.
328

3. Key Personnel 3.31

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

6. Project Organization Chart

CITY DESIGNATED STAFF
MICHAEL ACKERMAN, PE, QSD, QSP, QISP, Principal/Supervising Program Manager AARON MLYNARSKI, Office Engineer Support
DENNIS TARANGO, CBO, ICC Certified Building Official, Plans Examiner, Inspector, Sr. Level Technical Support Staff DAVID RAGLAND, PE, PLS, QSD, QSP, QISP, Sr. Engineer, Sr. Level Technical Support Staff AYLA JEFFERSON, CBO, CSP ICC Certified Building Official, Plans Examiner, Inspector, Sr. Level Technical Support Staff ZIAD Y. MAZBOUDI, PE, QSD, QSP, CPSWQ, CPESC, LEED AP, D.WRE, Sr. Engineer, Sr. Level Technical Support Staff MOHAMMAD MOSTAHKAMI, PE, Sr. Engineer, Sr. Level Technical Support Staff KAREN VIGIL, PTP, EIT, Associate Engineer, Office Engineer Support Staff JULIE ROBBINS, ICC Certified Permit Technician, Permit Process Technical Support Staff Transtech has a large pool of well experienced staff and resources readily available to provide requested services, and respond to requests in a timely, efficient, and cost-effective manner. Our staff and resources include approximately 200, including building officials, plan checkers, inspectors, permit technicians, engineers, project managers, designers, plan checkers, inspectors, construction managers, traffic and transportation analysts, technicians, support personnel.

Contract Principal
Ali Cayir, PE

Packet Pg.
329

Proposal Section 4
Relevant Experience
Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

Packet Pg.
330

4. Relevant Experience 4.1

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

4. Relevant Experience

Following are examples of few municipal service contracts representative of Transtech’s experience in the requested services:

CITY OF ALHAMBRA (Year started and completed: 1993 – Ongoing Service) Contact: Andrew Ho, Community Development Director; T: 626 -570-5041; E:
[email protected]
Services Provided: Building & Safety Services (Building Official, Plan Check, Inspection); City Engineering Services; Traffic Engineering; CIP Management; Federally Funded Project Management; Engineering Design; Public Works Permit Inspections; Map Check.

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA (Year started and completed: 1999 – Ongoing Service) Contact: Angelica Frausto-Lupo, Community Development Director; T: 626-403-7222; E: [email protected]
Services Provided: Building & Safety Services (Building Official, Plan Check, Inspection)

CITY OF TEMPLE CITY (Year started and completed: 2012 – Ongoing Service) Contact: Bryan Cook, City Manager; T: 626-285-2171; E: [email protected] Services Provided: Building & Safety Services (Building Official, Plan Check, Inspection); City Engineering Services; Traffic Engineer ing; CIP Management; Federally Funded Project Management; Engineering Design; Public Works Permit Inspections; Map Check.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK (Year started and completed: 2013 – Ongoing Service) Contact: Ron Bow, City Manager; T: 626-307-1255; E: [email protected] Services Provided: Building & Safety Services (Building Official, Plan Check, Inspection); City Engineering Services; Traffic Engineering; CIP Management; Fede rally Funded Project Management; Engineering Design; Public Works Permit Inspections; Map Check.

CITY OF WEST COVINA (Year started and completed: 2019 – Ongoing Service) Contact: David Carmany, City Manager; T: 626-939-8401; E: [email protected] Services Provided: Building & Safety Services (Building Official, Plan Check, Inspection); City Engineering Services; Traffic Engineer ing; CIP Management; Federally Funded Project Management; Engineering Design; Public Works Permit Inspections; Map Check.

CITY OF COMMERCE (Year started and completed: 2003 – Ongoing Service)

Packet Pg.
331

4. Relevant Experience 4.2

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
Contact: Vilko Domic, Assistant City Manager; T: 323-722-4805; E: [email protected] Services Provided: Building & Safety Services (Building Official, Plan Check, Inspection); City Engineering Services; Traffic Engineering; CIP Management; Fede rally Funded Project Management; Engineering Design; Public Works Permit Inspections; Map Check.

CITY OF AZUSA (Year started and completed: 2019 – Ongoing Service) Contact: Sergio Gonzalez, City Manager; T: 626-812-5239; E: [email protected] Services Provided: Building & Safety Services (Building Official, Plan Check, Inspection)

CITY OF BELL (Year started and completed: 2015 – Ongoing Service) Contact: Manuel Acosta, Community Development Director, T: (323) 588- 6211, E:
[email protected]
Services Provided: Building & Safety Services (Building Official, Plan Check, Inspection) Please see reference letters on following pages from above references:

Packet Pg.
332

4. Relevant Experience 4.3

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

Packet Pg.
333

4. Relevant Experience 4.4

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

Packet Pg.
334

4. Relevant Experience 4.5

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

Packet Pg.
335

4. Relevant Experience 4.6

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

Packet Pg.
336

4. Relevant Experience 4.7

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

Packet Pg.
337

4. Relevant Experience 4.8

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

Packet Pg.
338

4. Relevant Experience 4.9

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

Packet Pg.
339

4. Relevant Experience 4.10

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

Packet Pg.
340

Proposal Section 5
Quality of Proposal
Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

Packet Pg.
341

5. Quality of Proposal 5.1

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

5. Quality of Proposal

1. Proposal contains all minimum required items and is in proper format

2. All forms, including addenda (if any) have been completed and signed

1. Proposal contains all minimum required items and is in proper format

Our proposal contains all minimum required items and is in proper format.

Our proposal includes information listed in RFP under “Proposal Content”, and is formatted per the sections listed in the RFP under “Proposal Format”, as listed below:

Proposal Content: A responsive proposal shall contain the following documentation:

1. Cover Letter- Proposals shall include a letter signed by a principal or authorized representative who can make legally binding commitments for the entity.

2. Understanding of Need - Proposal shall include an outline which demonstrates the firm’s understanding of the project goals and objectives and scope of work, and most of all, familiarity with the existing condition and needs. This outline should include the firm’s anticipated approach toward providing required services, tasks necessary for its successful completion, and suggestions or special concerns of which the City should be made aware.

3. Scope of Services - Proposal shall include a Scope of Services which details the consultant’s approach towards completing the project, work phases, the tasks to be accomplished and the deliverables to be provided, based upon the requested Scope of Services included in this RFP.

4. QA/QC Plan- Provide QA/QC plan to ensure quality control for the duration of the project which shall include maintaining organization and communication over the entire project team, cost and schedule monitoring and constructability review of project plans, specifications and estimates upon their completion.

5. Key Personnel- Consultants shall list key personnel as well as subconsultants, if any, they propose to use on their respective project team. Resumes, limited to one page maximum, shall be included for each key personnel and subconsultant(s). In addition, this section of the proposal shall include a project organization chart with each key individual and subconsultant(s) listed by position or title. Furthermore, a table shall be included listing each key individual and subconsultant(s) by position or title along with percentage of each individual’s and subconsultant’s time (by percentage) to be devoted to this project.

6. Relevant Experience- This section of the proposal shall include a list of at least three (3) relevant or similar projects completed by the project team within the past five years. Each project included shall have a description of the project, name of the client, reference representing client who can be contacted regarding the project along with contact information, year completed and total project cost.

7. Fee Proposal- The consultant’s fee proposal shall be submitted concurrently with the technical proposal. The fee proposal shall include a com petitive fee which outlines the hours to complete the scope of services along with personnel to be involved in the project with the number of hours by personnel to be assigned by task and hourly rate.

Packet Pg.
342

5. Quality of Proposal 5.2

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services
Our proposal includes all information listed in RFP under “Proposal Content”, which is recited above.

Proposal Format: Proposal shall, at a minimum, contain a detailed Scope of Services and be formatted to include the following sections. The basis of consultant selection for this project will be based on the following criteria:

1. Perception Approach

2. Methodology

3. Key Personnel- This section of the proposal shall be formatted as follows:

4. Relevant Experience- T

5. Quality of Proposal

6. Budget/Fee-

Our proposal is formatted per the sections listed in the RFP under “Proposal Format”, which is also recited above.

2. All forms, including addenda (if any) have been completed and signed

All forms, including addenda (if any) have been completed and signed.

Packet Pg.
343

5. Quality of Proposal 5.3

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

Packet Pg.
344

5. Quality of Proposal 5.4

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

Packet Pg.
345

5. Quality of Proposal 5.5

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

Our proposal is emailed to [email protected] with cc to [email protected]

Packet Pg.
346

Proposal Section 6
Budget / Fee
Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

Packet Pg.
347

6. Budget / Fee 6.1

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

6. Budget / Fee

Staff time will be allocated as needed / as requested by the City.

Sr. Level Staff:

Sr. Level staff is anticipated to provide approx. 2 days on site support and 2 to 3 days off site support per week.

Lower Level Support Staff:

Other technical support staff is anticipated to provide approx. 2 to 3 days on site support and 2 days off site support per week.

Invoicing will be based on actual hours per Transtech current hourly rates in effect at the time service is provided.

Please see below for Transtech’s current Hourly Rate Schedule for all staff classifications.

Packet Pg.
348

6. Budget / Fee 6.2

Proposal
Land Development and NPDES Program Management Services

Field Technician $80 - $90 Labor Compliance Analyst $140 - $145 Engineering Technician $90 - $100 Funds Coordinator $145 - $155 Assistant CAD Drafter $100 - $115 Office Engineer $140 - $150 Senior CAD Drafter $115 - $130 Construction Inspector $135 - $145 Associate Designer $130 - $145 Senior Construction Inspector $145 - $155 Senior Designer $145 - $160 Construction Manager $155 - $175 Design Project Manager $180 - $190 Resident Engineer $175 - $190 Assistant Engineer $110 - $120
Associate Civil Engineer $135 - $145 Public Works Inspector $135 - $145 Senior Civil Engineer $190 - $210 Senior Public Works Inspector $145 - $155 Traffic Analyst Technician $95 - $105 Supervising PW Inspector $155 - $165 Associate Traffic Analyst $140 - $150
Senior Traffic Analyst $150 - $160 Survey Analyst $140 - $145 Professional Transportation Planner $160 - $175 Senior Survey Analyst $145 - $150 Traffic Engineer Technician $90 - $100 2-Man Survey Crew $330 - $340 Associate Traffic Engineer $135 - $145 Survey & Mapping Specialist $175 - $185 Traffic Engineer $160 - $175 Licensed Land Surveyor $200 - $210 Senior Traffic Engineer $175 - $195
Project Manager $175 - $195 Funds Analyst $140 - $145 Senior Project Manager $195 - $215 Senior Funds Analyst $145 - $155 Deputy City Engineer $160 - $180 Grant Writer $160 - $170 City Engineer $180 - $195 Funds & Grant Project Manager $180 -- $190 Principal Engineer $195 - $215
Community Development Technician $75 - $85
Permit Technician $70 - $80 Planning Technician $85 - $95 Plan Check Technician/Analyst $100 - $120 Assistant Planner $95 - $115 Building Inspector $120 - $125 Associate Planner $115 - $135 Senior Inspector $125 - $135 Senior Planner $135 - $160 Plans Examiner/Checker $135 - $150 Planning Manager $160 - $180 Plan Check Engineer $150 - $160
Deputy Building Official $150 - $160 Administrative/Clerical $65 -- $75 Building Official $160 - $170 Project Accountant $75 -- $85 TRANSTECH ENGINEERS, INC.

SCHEDULE OF HOURLY RATES
Effective through June 30, 2023
Rates are average ranges, negotiable and can be adjusted to establish a fee for each assignment based on the specific project’s scope, when such projects are identified by the City.

The above fees are increased each year July 1st automatically by the percentage change Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim California Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) for the preceding twelve-month period as calculated for February by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics and published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistic.

FUNDING & GRANT WRITING

PLANNING

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

SURVEY AND MAPPING

PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION

BUILDING & SAFETY

ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

Packet Pg.
349

CONSENT CALENDAR
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: March 1, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Charles E. McNeely, Interim City Manager;
Daniel Hernandez, Agency Director of Public Works,
Operations and Maintenance
Department: Public Works
Subject: Bid Rejection for Construction Contract Award – Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation (21 Locations)
(Wards All)
Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, adopt Resolution No. 2023-035 rejecting bids for construction of the Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation at 21 locations.

Background
The City of San Bernardino is responsible for maintaining streets citywide. On November 24, 2021, a Pavement Management Analysis (PMA) was completed which used scientific methods to rate the condition of all public streets in the City. Street segments (intersection to intersection) were rated based on Remaining Service Life (RSL) in years with a rating of 20 representing the condition of a recently completed street. Segments with RSL between 20 and 10 are usually maintained using crack sealing and slurry sealing. Segments with an RSL of 10 or less are generally in need of major maintenance, usually consisting of mill and overlay. Segments with RSL less than 5 require complete removal and replacement.

In anticipation of this work, the citywide pavement rehabilitation for 21 locations (Project No’s 8834, 8835, 8836, 8837, 8838, 8839, 8840, 8842, 8843, 8844, 8845, 8846, 8847, 8849, 8851, 8852, 8853, 8854, 8855, 8856, 8857) were included in the FY 2021/22 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which was adopted on June 16, 2021, by the Mayor and City Council. The CIP established Measure S and Measure I funding in the amount of $5,855,000 for the project to rehabilitate following locations:
•Belleview Street from Mt. Vernon Avenue to K Street (Ward 3) •27th Street from Davidson Avenue to Little Mountain Drive. (Ward 2) •Temple Street from Medical Center Drive to End (Ward 6)

Packet Pg.
350

•Alameda Street from Rialto Avenue to Newport Avenue (Ward 1) •H Street from Highland Avenue to 27th Street (Ward 7)
•Oak Street from K Street to Eureka Avenue (Ward 3)
•Sonora Drive from Ralston Avenue to Palmyra Drive (Ward 7) •6th Street from Meridian Avenue to Pepper Avenue (Ward 6) •Guthrie Street from Pacific Street to Sunrise Lane (Ward 2) •Oak Street from Arrowhead Avenue to E Street (Ward 3)
•16th Street from Sierra Way to Mt. View Avenue (Ward 2) •Business Center Drive from Hospitality Lane to Commerce Center (Ward 3) •35th Street from Mountain View Avenue to Belle Street. (Ward 2) •Tamarisk Avenue from Atchison Street to South End (Ward 3) •2nd Street from Lena Road to Tippecanoe Avenue (Ward 1) •13th Street from Waterman Avenue to Sierra Way (Ward 2) •Vanderbilt Way from Waterman Avenue to Carnegie Drive (Ward 3) •43rd Street from Sepulveda Avenue to East End (Ward 4) •Ohio Avenue from Palm Avenue to Olive Avenue (Ward 5)
•Dallas Avenue from Spruce Street to Etiwanda Avenue (Ward 6) •33rd Street from E Street to H Street (Ward 7)
Plans and specifications were prepared with the proposed scope of work at the locations to include pavement rehabilitation and providing missing sidewalk and ADA access ramps.

Discussion
Project 13511 to provide pavement rehabilitation, was advertised for public bidding on December 12 and 13, 2022, in the San Bernardino County Sun Newspaper, F. W.

Dodge, Construction Bid Board, High Desert Plan Room, San Diego Daily Transcript, Sub-Hub Online Plan Room, Reed Construction Data, Bid America Online, Construction Bid Source, Bid Ocean, the City’s websites, and the San Bernardino Area Chamber of Commerce.

Three sealed bids were received and opened on January 12, 2023. The lowest apparent bidder was Matich Corporation of San Bernardino, California, with a bid of $14,272,200. The lowest bid is significantly above the budget allocated for the citywide pavement rehabilitation for 21 locations. Staff recommends that the City reject all bids submitted for the subject project at this time.

Public Code Section 20166 states that the Mayor and City Council has the authority to reject all bids and the notice inviting bids. The specification reiterates the same authority. Staff will reevaluate the project, evaluate additional funding sources and readvertise once a strategy is reached on how to improve bid results or reduce the scope.
2021-2025 Strategic Targets and Goals
This project is consistent with Key Target No. 1f: Improved Operational & Financial

Packet Pg.
351

Capacity. This project will contribute to financial stability by creating an asset management plan.

Fiscal Impact
Funding for this project was previously established in the adopted FY 2021/22 CIP budget in amount of $5,835,695. The lowest bid received was $14,272,200. To complete the project, there would need to be funding appropriated from the city’s reserves which is not being proposed at this time. As indicated in the discussion section, staff will reevaluate the scope to determine how to best deliver the desired outcome.

Conclusion
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, adopt Resolution No. 2023-035 rejecting bids for construction of the Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation at 21 locations.

Attachments
Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 2023-035
Attachment 2 – Location Map
Ward:

All Wards
Synopsis of Previous Council Actions:

June 16, 2021 Mayor and City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-138 approving Capital Improvement Program FY 2021/22.

Packet Pg.
352

Resolution No. 2023-035
Resolution No. 2023-035
March 1, 2023

Page 1 of 3 ends

2 2
3 9
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-035

RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA,
REJECTING BIDS FOR SPECIAL PROVISION 13511 -

CONSTRUCTION OF CITYWIDE PAVEMENT

REHABILITATION AT TWENTY-ONE LOCATIONS
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining streets Citywide; and
WHEREAS, the City previously approved funding in the total amount of $5,855,000 in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan for the construction of Citywide pavement rehabilitation at twenty-one locations; and
WHEREAS, plans and specifications (Special Provision No. 13511– Construction of Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation at Twenty-One Locations “Project”) were released for bid on November 24, 2022, soliciting bids for twenty-one project sites as a single collective project; and WHEREAS, sealed bids were received from three bidders on January 12, 2023; and WHEREAS, the cost submittals resulting from the solicitation far exceed the Project funding available.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized and directed to reject all bids for project entitled “Pavement rehabilitation at twenty-one locations”, Special Provisions No. 13511 pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 20166 and San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 3.04.070(E).

SECTION 3.The City Council finds this Resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty, as in this case, that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

SECTION 4.Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are declared to be severable.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

Packet Pg.
353

Resolution No. 2023-035
Resolution No. 2023-035
March 1, 2023

Page 2 of 3 ends

2 2
3 9
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk this 1st day of March 2023.

Helen Tran, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Attest:

Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk
Approved as to form:

Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney

Packet Pg.
354

Resolution No. 2023-035
Resolution No. 2023-035
March 1, 2023

Page 3 of 3 ends

2 2
3 9

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO) ss

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
I, Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk, hereby certify that the attached is a true copy of Resolution No. 2023-035, adopted at a regular meeting held on the 1 st day of March 2023 by the following vote:

Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
SANCHEZ _____ _____ _______ _______
IBARRA _____ _____ _______ _______
FIGUEROA _____ _____ _______ _______
SHORETT _____ _____ _______ _______
REYNOSO _____ _____ _______ _______
CALVIN _____ _____ _______ _______
ALEXANDRA _____ _____ _______ _______
WITNESS my hand and official seal of the City of San Bernardino this ___ day of ____________ 2023.

Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk

Packet Pg.
355

Packet Pg.
356

Packet Pg.
357

Packet Pg.
358

Packet Pg.
359

Packet Pg.
360

Packet Pg.
361

Packet Pg.
362

Packet Pg.
363

Packet Pg.
364

Packet Pg.
365

CONSENT CALENDAR
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: March 1, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Charles E. McNeely, Interim City Manager;
Daniel Hernandez, Agency Director of Public Works,
Operations, and Maintenance
Department: Public Works
Subject: Resolution Rejecting Construction Bids for Speicher Park Renovation (Ward 7)
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 2023-036 of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, Rejecting Construction Bids for Speicher Park Renovation.

Background
In June of 2021, the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors passed the San Bernardino County Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Spending Plan to spend its $423.5M allotment of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding to support recovery efforts post pandemic. Also, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians supports programs that closely align with their pillars of giving: Inspiring Our Future through Education, Preserving Cultural Traditions & Empowering Indian Country, Empowering Lives, and Reinforcing Safe and Resilient Communities.

The rehabilitation of Speicher Memorial Park was submitted to both San Bernardino County and San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for funding. The County of San Bernardino awarded $950,000 and San Manuel Band of Mission Indians awarded $1,000,000 for improvements to Speicher Memorial Park. On September 21, 2022, the Mayor and City Council accepted the grants and Authorized the Agency Director of Administrative Services to amend the FY2022/23 Budget to appropriate $1,950,000 in grant funding for Speicher Memorial Park improvement project.

Discussion
The Speicher Park renovation project includes demolition and replacement of the existing building, field lighting upgrades, installation of synthetic turf, leveling and renovation of baseball field, new scoreboards, bleachers, water fountains, concrete paving, prefabricated concession stands with bathrooms, ADA accessible facilities

Packet Pg.
366

and general amenities improvements. The notice inviting bids was advertised for public bidding on December 16, 2022, and December 22, 2022, in the San Bernardino County Sun Newspaper, Bid America Plan Room, E-Bid Board Plan Room, and City’s website.

Sealed bids were received and opened on January 12, 2023. The City received only one bid as follows:

Bidder City Base Bid
Quality Light & Electrical City of Bloomington $ 6,494,181.00 The City has reviewed the bid package and confirmed that Quality Light & Electric of City of Bloomington, California, is the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, with a total bid amount of $6,494,181.00. Since City received only one bid and the lowest bid is significantly above the Engineer’s overall estimate, staff recommends that the City rejects the bid submitted for the subject project at this time.

The Public Code Section 20166 states that the Mayor and City Council has the authority to reject all bids. In addition, the notice inviting bids and the specification reiterates the same authority. Staff will reevaluate the project, work with the Parks and Recreations Management team to revise the scope of work, and re-advertise in a manner that improves bid results.
2021-2025 Strategic Targets and Goals
This project is consistent with the Key Target No. 2: Focused, Aligned Leadership and Unified Community through the opportunity to improve city parks, increase community engagement and involvement in city-run recreation activities, and Key Target No. 3:

Improved Quality of Life through encouraging active lifestyles and crime reduction through built environment and increased community visibility.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact with this action. Available funding for this project is $1,950.000 and lowest bid received was $6,494,181.00.

Conclusion
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-036 of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, rejecting the bids for Speicher Park Renovation.

Attachments
Attachment 1 Resolution No. 2023-036
Ward:

Seventh Ward
Synopsis of Previous Council Actions:

Packet Pg.
367

Sep. 21, 2022 Mayor and City Council approved Resolution No. 2022-205, accepting Grant Funds in the amount of $1,000,000 from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and $950,000 from the County of San Bernardino.

Packet Pg.
368

Resolution No. 2023-036
Resolution 2023-036
March 1, 2023

Page 1 of 3 ends

2 2
4 0
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-036

RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 2023 REJECTING BIDS

FOR THE SPEICHER PARK RENOVATION
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2022, the Mayor and City Council accepted the grants from the County of San Bernardin in the amount of $950,000 and San Manuel Band of Mission Indians in the amount of $1,000,000 for improvements to Speicher Park; and WHEREAS, plans and specifications were released for bid on January 5, 2022, one bid was received.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. Mayor and City Council hereby authorize and direct the City Manager to reject all bids for project entitled “Speicher Park Renovation” Special Provisions No. 13574 pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 20166 and San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 3.04.070(E).

SECTION 3.The Mayor and City Council finds this Resolution is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty, as in this case, that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk this 1st day of March 2023.

Helen Tran, Mayor
City of San Bernardino

Packet Pg.
369

Resolution No. 2023-036
Resolution 2023-036
March 1, 2023

Page 2 of 3 ends

2 2
4 0
Attest:

Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk
Approved as to form:

Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney

Packet Pg.
370

Resolution No. 2023-036
Resolution 2023-036
March 1, 2023

Page 3 of 3 ends

2 2
4 0

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO) ss

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
I, Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk, hereby certify that the attached is a true copy of Resolution No. 2023-036, adopted at a regular meeting held on the 01 day of March 2023 by the following vote:

Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
SANCHEZ _____ _____ _______ _______
IBARRA _____ _____ _______ _______
FIGUEROA _____ _____ _______ _______
SHORETT _____ _____ _______ _______
REYNOSO _____ _____ _______ _______
CALVIN _____ _____ _______ _______
ALEXANDER _____ _____ _______ _______
WITNESS my hand and official seal of the City of San Bernardino this ___ day of ____________ 2023.

Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk

Packet Pg.
371

1 1
2 3

CONSENT CALENDAR
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: March 1, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Charles E. McNeely, Interim City Manager;
Daniel Hernandez, Agency Director of Public Works,
Operations and Maintenance
Department: Public Works
Subject: Resolution Accepting the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) (All Wards)
Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, adopt Resolution No. 2023-037, accepting the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP).

Background
The City applied and was awarded grant funding for the preparation of the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) through the California Department of Transportation grant program. Completion of Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is required for the city to be eligible for future Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding.

On February 3, 2021, the Mayor and City Council adopted Resolution No 2021-23 accepting the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) grant in the amount of $180,000; approve grant matching funds in the amount of $20,000 from Local Regional Circulation Funds. On October 6, 2021, the Mayor and the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-244, approving the award of a Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $177,999.64 for the preparation of the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) with KOA Corporation (KOA).

Discussion
A Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) provides a framework for organizing stakeholders to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local and rural roads. Preparing the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) provides an opportunity to address unique roadway safety needs in San Bernardino while contributing to the success of the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

Staff and KOA developed a process that is tailored to the community’s needs and

Packet Pg.
372

1 1
2 3
issues. It began with safety data analysis and stakeholder engagement, resulting in the selection of areas of emphasis. Examples of areas of emphasis may include places that experience unsafe speeds, pedestrian safety, and intersection accidents. The process would further help the Mayor and City Council to prioritize future safety improvements on the arterial streets within the City of San Bernardino.

The Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) report has been prepared per California Department of Transportation Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) guidelines and the California Department of Transportation Local Safety Manual (LRSM) version

1.6, dated June 2022.

The general content of the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) report follows this outline:

1. Crash data source and analysis techniques.

2. Crash data analysis results and highest occurring crash types.

3. High risk corridor and intersection analysis and safety countermeasures.

4. Cost estimates of recommended improvements.

5. Prioritization of projects based on cost-benefit ratio and effectiveness of safety improvements.

The City has received Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grants in the past. The completion of Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) will ensure that the City continues to meet the eligibility requirement to apply and receive future Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds. In addition, the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) will build the foundation for a comprehensive identification of safety issues and subsequent development of improvements.

Lastly, staff presented the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) to the City’s Public Safety and Human Relations Commission (PSHRC) at its January 9, 2023, meeting.

The Commission has recommended the acceptance of the plan.

2021-2025 Strategic Targets and Goals
This project is consistent with Key Target No. 3c: Improved Quality of Life - Constantly evaluate public safety service delivery models to enhance the quality of service. Preparing the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) provides an opportunity to address unique roadway safety needs in San Bernardino while contributing to the success of the State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact to accepting the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). All future CIP projects stemming from the LSRP will be budgeted in accordance with the City’s annual budget.

Conclusion
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, adopt Resolution No. 2023-037, accepting the Local Roadway Safety

Packet Pg.
373

1 1
2 3
Plan (LRSP).

Attachments
Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 2023-037
Attachment 2 – Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) Report
Attachment 3 – Appendix A - Concepts and Cost Estimates Attachment 4 – Appendix B - SB Countermeasures
Attachment 5 – Appendix C - Countermeasures Reference
Attachment 6 – Appendix D - PCF Glossary
Attachment 7 – Presentation

Ward:

All Wards
Synopsis of Previous Council Actions:

February 3, 2021 Resolution No. 2021-23 Council acceptance of the LRSP grant in the amount of $180,000; approving grant matching funds in the amount of $20,000 from Local Regional
Circulation Funds.

October 6, 2021 Resolution No. 2021-244 Award Professional Service Agreement for (LRSP) to KOA Corporation.

Packet Pg.
374

Resolution No. 2023-037
Resolution 2023-037
March 1, 2023

Page 1 of 3 ends

2 0
6 7
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-037

RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA,

ACCEPTING THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP) PREPARED BY KOA CORPORATION
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino Public Works Department is responsible for the preparation of federal and state aid transportation related to funding applications. This includes the assessment and implementation of safety measures adjacent to schools and throughout the City of San Bernardino, evaluation of stop sign installations, parking restrictions, and painted curbs for loading and unloading of passenger and commercial vehicles; and WHEREAS, on February 3, 2021, the Mayor and City Council adopted Resolution No 2021-23 accepting the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) grant in the amount of $180,000; approving grant matching funds in the amount of $20,000 from Local Regional Circulation Funds; and
WHEREAS, in March 2021, staff solicited proposals for the preparation of the LRSP and in April 2021, received proposals from six firms; and WHEREAS, in June 2021, staff conducted interviews for the top three firms for the selection of the firm to be awarded a Professional Services Agreement for the preparation of the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) Report; and
WHEREAS, on October 6, 2021, the Mayor and City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-244, approving the award of a Professional Service Agreement in the amount of $177,999.64 for the preparation of the LRSP with KOA Corporation; and WHEREAS, the approval of the LRSP would enable City staff to submit the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant applications, with the goal of receiving funds to implement the LRSP priority projects.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2.Accept the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) report and recommendations.

Packet Pg.
375

Resolution No. 2023-037
Resolution 2023-037
March 1, 2023

Page 2 of 3 ends

2 0
6 7
the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty, as in this case, that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.

APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk this 1st day of March 2023.

Helen Tran, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Attest:

Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk
Approved as to form:

Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney

Packet Pg.
376

Resolution No. 2023-037
Resolution 2023-037
March 1, 2023

Page 3 of 3 ends

2 0
6 7

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO) ss

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
I, Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk, hereby certify that the attached is a true copy of Resolution No. 2023-037, adopted at a regular meeting held on the 1 st day of March 2023 by the following vote:

Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
SANCHEZ _____ _____ _______ _______
IBARRA _____ _____ _______ _______
FIGUEROA _____ _____ _______ _______
SHORETT _____ _____ _______ _______
REYNOSO _____ _____ _______ _______
CALVIN _____ _____ _______ _______
ALEXANDER _____ _____ _______ _______
WITNESS my hand and official seal of the City of San Bernardino this ___ day of ____________ 2023.

Genoveva Rocha, CMC, City Clerk

Packet Pg.
377

City of San Bernardino

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

NOVEMBER 2022

Prepared for:

City of San Bernardino
Department of Public Works
201B North E Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401

Prepared By:

2141 W Orangewood Ave
Orange, CA 92868
T: 714.573.0317 | F: 714.573.9584
www.koacorp.com

JC13054

Packet Pg.
378

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Prominent Collision Patterns ........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.3 Safety Emphasis Areas .................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 INTRODUCTION 2

2.1 Four E’s of Safety ............................................................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Purpose of the LRSP......................................................................................................................................................... 2 2018 Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) 2

2.3 City of San Bernardino .................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.4 LRSP Overview.................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.4.1 Data Collection 4

2.4.2 Safety Data Analysis 4

2.4.3 Identify Safety Measures 4

2.4.4 Develop Safety Projects & Cost Estimates 4

2.5 Policy and Programming Summary ........................................................................................................................... 4

2.5.1 City of San Bernardino General Plan – Circulation Element (2005) 5

2.5.2 City of San Bernardino General Plan – Public Facilities and Services Element (2005) 6

2.5.3 San Bernardino Active Transportation Plan (2022) 6

2.5.4 San Bernardino County Regional Safe Routes to School Plan (2015, 2017) 8

2.5.5 SBCTA Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (2018) 9

2.5.6 Other Planning Documents 11

3.0 METHODOLOGY 13

3.1 Collision Data Sources ................................................................................................................................................. 13

3.1.1 SWITRS 13

3.1.2 OTS 13

3.2 Stakeholder Outreach .................................................................................................................................................. 13

3.2.1 San Bernardino Police Department 13

3.2.2 San Bernardino City Unified School District (SBCUSD) 14

3.2.3 San Bernardino Neighborhood Associations Council 14

3.2.4 City Services Request System 14

3.3 Identifying Locations for Engineering Countermeasures ............................................................................... 15

3.3.1 Ranking Function 16

3.3.2 Average Crash Frequency 16

3.3.3 Crash Rate 16

3.3.4 EPDO Score Weights 16

3.4 Proposing Engineering Countermeasures ............................................................................................................ 17

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS: COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS 18

Packet Pg.
379

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE ii

4.1 Total Collisions and Collision Modes ..................................................................................................................... 18

4.2 Collisions by Facility Type ........................................................................................................................................... 26

4.3 City of San Bernardino vs. County of San Bernardino ...................................................................................... 29

4.4 San Bernardino vs. Similarly Sized Cities ............................................................................................................... 32

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS 34

5.1 Pedestrian Safety............................................................................................................................................................ 34

5.2 Unsafe Speeds ................................................................................................................................................................. 35

5.3 Intersection Safety ......................................................................................................................................................... 36

5.4 Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence .............................................................................................................. 37

5.5 School Collisions ............................................................................................................................................................ 38

5.6 Top Collision Locations ................................................................................................................................................ 40

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES 42

6.1 Identified Project Locations ....................................................................................................................................... 44

6.1.1 Identified Roadway Segments 44

6.1.2 Identified Intersections 44

6.2 Roadway Segment Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 45

6.2.1 Kendall Drive (University Parkway to H Street) 45

6.2.2 9th Street (Waterman Avenue to Del Rosa Drive) 47

6.2.3 Rialto Avenue (between Pepper Avenue and Muscott Street) 49

6.2.4 Meridian Avenue (between Etiwanda Street and Rialto Avenue) 50

6.2.5 E Street (between CA-210 Overcrossing and Fairway Drive) 51

6.2.6 Lynwood Drive/30th Street (between San Gabriel Street and Cedar Street) 52

6.3 Intersection Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 53

6.3.1 Highland Avenue and Eucalyptus Drive 53

6.3.2 9th Street and Sierra Way 55

6.3.3 Cajon Boulevard and Medical Center Drive 56

6.3.4 E Street and Valley Street 58

6.3.5 E Street / Inland Center Drive and Mill Street 59

6.3.6 G Street and Inland Center Drive 61

6.3.7 Meridian Avenue and Rialto Avenue 63

6.3.8 E Street and Kendall Drive (North of 36th Street) 65

6.3.9 Rialto Avenue and F Street 67

6.3.10 E Street and 21st Street 68

6.3.11 E Street and 9th Street 68

6.3.12 5th Street and Victoria Avenue 69

6.3.13 E Street and Orange Show Road 71

7.0 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES 73

7.1 Driving Under the Influence ....................................................................................................................................... 73

7.1.1 Education 73

7.1.2 Enforcement 73

Packet Pg.
380

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE iii

7.1.3 Funding Sources 73

7.2 Speeding ........................................................................................................................................................................... 74

7.2.1 Education 74

7.2.2 Enforcement 74

7.2.3 Funding Sources 75

7.3 Pedestrians and Bicyclists ........................................................................................................................................... 75

7.3.1 Education 75

7.3.2 Enforcement 75

7.3.3 Funding Sources 76

7.4 School Collisions ............................................................................................................................................................ 76

7.4.1 Education 76

7.4.2 Enforcement 77

7.4.3 Funding Sources 77

7.5 Emergency Vehicles ...................................................................................................................................................... 77

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS 78

8.1 Project Scopes and Benefit Calculations ............................................................................................................... 78

8.2 Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................................................................... 79

8.3 Benefit/Cost Ratio .......................................................................................................................................................... 79

8.4 Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................................................. 81

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: San Bernardino Citywide Collision Map (2016-2020) .......................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2.2 – City of San Bernardino Active Transportation Plan Network ......................................................................................... 7 Figure 2.3: Safe Routes to School Focus Areas and Proposed Commute Network ....................................................................... 9 Figure 2.4: City of San Bernardino Bicycle Facilities, Planned and Existing .................................................................................... 10 Figure 3.1 311 Service Request – Traffic Safety Requests ..................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 4.1: Total Collisions by Year ................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 4.2: Automobile Collisions by Year ................................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 4.3: Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Truck Collisions by Year ............................................................................................................... 19 Figure 4.4: Collision Share by Mode, All Collisions and KSI Collisions ............................................................................................. 20 Figure 4.5: Collision Share by Type, Total Collisions and KSI Collisions .......................................................................................... 21 Figure 4.6: Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (PCF) ......................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 4.7: Top Collision Types and Primary Collision Factors ............................................................................................................ 23 Figure 4.8: Collisions by Lighting Conditions ............................................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 4.9: Pedestrian and Bicyclist Collisions by Facility Type ........................................................................................................... 24 Figure 4.10: Annual Collisions by Year and Severity ................................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 4.11: Traffic Injuries and Fatalies by Age ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 5.1: Pedestrian Collision Heat Map .................................................................................................................................................. 35

Packet Pg.
381

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE iv Figure 5.2: Unsafe Speed Collision Heat Map ............................................................................................................................................ 36 Figure 5.3: Intersection Safety Collision Heat Map .................................................................................................................................. 37 Figure 5.4: DUI Collision Heat Map ................................................................................................................................................................ 38 Figure 5.5: School Collision Map ..................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 6.1 – Recommendation Corridors & Intersections ..................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 6.1: Kendall Drive Collision History ................................................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 6.2 – 9th Street Recommendations – Typical Cross Section .................................................................................................... 47 Figure 6.2: 9th Street Collision History ........................................................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 6.4: Rialto Avenue Collision History ................................................................................................................................................. 49 Figure 6.5: Recommended Rialto Avenue Median and Sidewalk Countermeasures .................................................................. 50 Figure 6.6: Meridian Avenue Collision History ........................................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 6.7: E Street Collision History .............................................................................................................................................................. 52 Figure 6.8: Highland Avenue And Eucalyptus Drive Collision History .............................................................................................. 54 Figure 6.9: Highland Avenue And Eucalyptus Drive Design Concept ............................................................................................... 55 Figure 6.10: 9th Street and Sierra Way Design Concept ......................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 6.11: Cajon Boulevard and Medical Center Drive Collision History ..................................................................................... 57 Figure 6.12: Cajon Boulevard and Medical Center Drive Design Concept ..................................................................................... 58 Figure 6.13: E Street and Valley Street Design Concept ........................................................................................................................ 59 Figure 6.14: E Street, Inland Center Drive, and Mill Street Collision History .................................................................................. 60 Figure 6.15: E Street, Inland Center Drive, and Mill Street Design Concept .................................................................................. 61 Figure 6.16: G Street and Inland Center Drive Collision History ......................................................................................................... 62 Figure 6.17: G Street and Inland Center Drive Design Concept .......................................................................................................... 63 Figure 6.18: Meridian Avenue and Rialto Avenue Collision History .................................................................................................. 64 Figure 6.19: Meridian Avenue and Rialto Avenue Design Concept ................................................................................................... 65 Figure 6.20: E Street and Kendall Drive Collision History ...................................................................................................................... 66 Figure 6.21: E Street and Kendall Drive Design Concept ....................................................................................................................... 67 Figure 6.22: Rialto Avenue and F Street Design Concept ...................................................................................................................... 68 Figure 6.23: E Street and 9th Street Collision History ............................................................................................................................... 69 Figure 6.24: 5th Street and Victoria Avenue Collision History .............................................................................................................. 70 Figure 6.26: E Street and Orange Show Road Collision History .......................................................................................................... 72

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Collision Crash Values and EPDO Score .................................................................................................................................. 17 Table 4.1: Collision Share by Facility Type ................................................................................................................................................... 26 Table 4.2: Collision Types by Facility Type ................................................................................................................................................... 27 Table 4.3: Primary Collision Factor by Facility Type ................................................................................................................................. 27 Table 4.4: Street Lighting by Facility Type ................................................................................................................................................... 28 Table 4.5: Broadside Collisions by Facility Type ........................................................................................................................................ 29 Table 4.6: Rear-End Collisions by Facility Type .......................................................................................................................................... 29

Packet Pg.
382

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE v Table 4.7: Total Collision Comparison, San Bernardino City vs. County .......................................................................................... 30 Table 4.8: KSI Collision Comparison, San Bernardino City vs. County .............................................................................................. 30 Table 4.9: Collision Type Comparison, San Bernardino City vs. County .......................................................................................... 31 Table 4.10: PCF Comparison, San Bernardino City vs. County ............................................................................................................. 31 Table 4.11: 2017-19 OTS Rankings, City of San Bernardino ................................................................................................................. 33 Table 5.1: Top 10 Collisions for Intersections ............................................................................................................................................. 40 Table 5.2: Top 10 Collisions for Non-Signalized Intersections ............................................................................................................ 40 Table 5.3: Top 10 Collisions for Roadway Segments ............................................................................................................................... 41 Table 6.1: Safety Countermeasures Applied to San Bernardino LRSP .............................................................................................. 42 Table 7.1: Driving Under the Influence Program Funding Sources ................................................................................................... 74 Table 7.2: Speeding Program Funding Sources ........................................................................................................................................ 75 Table 7.3: Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding Sources .............................................................................................................. 76 Table 7.4: Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding Sources .............................................................................................................. 77 Table 3.1: Collision Crash Values and EPDO Score .................................................................................................................................. 78 Table 8.2: Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Safety Project ...................................................................................................................... 80 Table 8.3: Transportation Safety Funding Sources Summary .............................................................................................................. 82

APPENDICES
Appendix A – Priority Project Concepts & Cost Estimates Appendix B – Benefit-Cost Ratio Analysis
Appendix C – LRSM Countermeasure Index
Appendix D – PCF Glossary

Packet Pg.
383

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) established a program for cities to prepare a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) to identify safety needs and recommend projects to address these needs.

This document serves as the LRSP for the City of San Bernardino.

1.1 OVERVIEW
An LRSP analyzes collision data, assesses infrastructure deficiencies through an inventory of roadway system elements, and identifies roadway safety solutions on a citywide basis. The LRSP was created by the State to help local agencies develop safety projects that can be submitted for funding by the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). HSIP cycles require an LRSP or equivalent plans such as a Vision Zero Plan or System Safety Analysis Report. This document will guide roadway safety measures that can be achieved through a variety of funding sources, including but not limited to HSIP.

This report has been prepared per Caltrans LRSP guidelines and the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) version 1.6 dated June 2022. The general content of this LRSP report follows this outline:
• Crash data source and analysis techniques
• Crash data analysis results and highest occurring crash types • High-risk corridor and intersection analysis and safety countermeasures • Cost estimates of recommended improvements
• Prioritization of projects based on cost-benefit ratio and effectiveness of safety improvement • Strategies for safety project implementation
• Traffic safety analysis based on Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) data The LRSP fulfills the following purposes:
• Identify the highest occurring collision types and the roadway characteristics contributing to the collisions.
• Identify high-risk corridors and intersections.
• Propose safety countermeasures to address the safety issues. • Prioritize safety improvement projects based on benefit/cost ratio and other considerations.

1.2 PROMINENT COLLISION PATTERNS
The collision trend analysis draws from the five years of data obtained from SWITRS collision records.

From January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020, 8,855 collisions occurred in the City of San Bernardino, inclusive of collisions on both City streets and state highways (such as SR-66 or SR-18) within the City.

Collisions on the Interstate system and grade separated state highways (such as I-215 or SR/I-210) were not included; collisions at the intersection of highway ramps and a local street were included. These collisions occurred on alignments that are grade-separated from City streets, and not part of the scope of this analysis or in the immediate jurisdiction of the City. Out of the collisions within the City’s jurisdiction, 311 resulted in fatal or severe injuries.

Five years of collision records were utilized from January 2016 to December 2020, adhering to the maximum period permitted by the HSIP for a safety infrastructure project application for federal funding.

The collisions were categorized by severity, collision type, Primary Collision Factor (referred to as “PCF”, is the probable, main factor that contributing to the cause of the collision, as determined by the officer

Packet Pg.
384

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 2 taking the collision report.), involved parties, lighting conditions, and facility type (signalized intersections, non-signalized intersections, and mid-block locations). The following summarizes the collision patterns within the City:
• The most common collision types were broadside, rear-end, sideswipe, and hit object. • Pedestrian-related collisions accounted for approximately 6% of total collisions, but about 33% of fatal and severe injury collisions.
• The most common Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) for broadside collisions are automobile right-of- way violations and signals/signage violations.
• The most common Primary Collision Factor (PCF) for rear-end collisions is unsafe speed.

1.3 SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
The following transportation safety emphasis areas were identified based on the collision data analysis:
• Pedestrian Safety
• Unsafe Speeds
• Intersection Safety
• Driving Under the Influence
• School Collisions

The LRSP recommends engineering and non-engineering countermeasures which help to address the identified emphasis areas derived from the collision analysis. Concerns and recommended improvements were discussed with City staff and stakeholders, including law enforcement and the fire department, Omnitrans, Caltrans, school districts and neighborhood association representatives.

Some of the engineering countermeasures recommended for multiple locations in the City include:
• Upgrade intersection pavement markings
• Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
• Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations • Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs Additionally, engineering analysis recommended other safety countermeasures to address high collision locations on a location by location basis. Funding for engineering countermeasures listed in the LRSP are available from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and funding sources listed below.

In addition to the infrastructure improvements mentioned above, non-engineering safety measures address traffic safety concerns through education, encouragement, and enforcement. Several state and federal grant programs offer funds for non-engineering roadway safety projects, listed below:
• CTC Active Transportation Program
• SCAG Sustainable Communities Grant Program
• USDOT Safe Streets and Roads for All
• CA Office of Traffic Safety Grants (Non-engineering countermeasures) In addition to these programs, the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) has begun to program additional discretionary grant and formula funding programs focused on roadway safety, active transportation and mobility technology improvements. These programs should be considered as they are programmed and incorporated into the City’s infrastructure funding strategies.

Packet Pg.
385

2.0 INTRODUCTION

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 2

2.0 INTRODUCTION
KOA Corporation (KOA) has been retained by the City of San Bernardino to develop a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). Traditionally, agencies have selected safety projects based on historical crash records, focusing on sites with a concentration of recent severe collisions. By contrast, the LRSP shares a similar framework with the California Statewide Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which focuses on engineering and non-engineering solutions to roadway safety issues. The LRSP identifies the most common collision categories across a roadway network to target projects that address the factors associated with those categories. By focusing on causal factors rather than collisions, the LRSP allows agencies to assess risks before a collision occurs. Systemic improvements target a broader geography than the traditional spot location improvements. The systemic project selection favors the broad implementation of cost-effective countermeasures.

2.1 FOUR E’S OF SAFETY
The LRSP not only focuses on engineering improvements to mitigate crashes, but also addresses other safety improvements in key areas that include enforcement, education, and emergency services.

According to the SHSP 2020-2024, two-thirds of all crashes are the result of aggressive driving. Male drivers are more likely to be at fault in aggressive driving-related crashes regardless of age. Making roadways safer requires the Four E’s to be involved (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services). Working together with the Four E’s at the jurisdiction level will help make city roads safer through a comprehensive. Recently, Federal and State agencies have also considered Emerging Technologies and Equity as additional E’s to improve traffic safety. For instance, considering the use of emerging technologies such as “smart” traffic signal equipment can serve to connect vehicles and traffic control systems to enhance traffic safety.

2.2 PURPOSE OF THE LRSP
The LRSP systematically identifies and analyzes safety problems and recommends safety improvements.

Preparing the LRSP facilitates collaboration through the development of partnerships between San Bernardino and stakeholders, which includes the city’s Police and Fire Departments, school districts serving the City, relevant transportation agencies, the County of San Bernardino Public Health Department, and community groups such as the San Bernardino Neighborhood Council. The results of the LRSP are summarized with a set of systemic recommendations to be implemented citywide, and a prioritized list of improvements and actions at specific locations. The LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing roadway safety needs in San Bernardino.
2018 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT (SSAR)
In 2018, the City completed a Systemic Safety Analysis Report, which undertook similar analytical approach to analyzing crash patterns in San Bernardino. The SSAR was also focused on assessing the sign and signal infrastructure in the City, and provided a limited set of recommendations, including:
• Sign replacements to improve retro-reflectivity
• Advanced dilemma detection and signal timing improvemetns on five major arterials • Various traffic signal hardware improvements citywide The SSAR also had less focus on stakeholder outreach and policy or programming recommendations.

Packet Pg.
386

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 3 Nonetheless, the City was awarded $9.8 million in HSIP funds to implement many of the SSAR’s recommended improvements.

2.3 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
San Bernardino is the largest incorporated city in, and county seat of,. San Bernardino County, California.

According to the 2010 US Census, San Bernardino had a population of 222,101; the US Census estimated the 2021 population at 222,203.

Based on the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database, from 2016 to 2020, a total of 8,855 collisions occurred in the City of San Bernardino, inclusive of collisions on both City streets and state highways (such as SR-66 or SR-18) within the City. Collisions on the Interstate system and grade separated state highways (such as I-215 or SR/I-210) were not included; collisions at the intersection of highway ramps and a local street were included. These collisions occurred on alignments that are grade- separated from City streets, and not part of the scope of this analysis or in the immediate jurisdiction of the City. Out of these collisions, 311 resulted in fatal or severe injuries. Figure 2.1 is a heat map of all collisions citywide, and locations counts of where collisions resulted in serious injury or death.

Figure 2.1: San Bernardino Citywide Collision Map (2016-2020)

Packet Pg.
387

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 4

2.4 LRSP OVERVIEW
The following sections include a brief description of the tasks associated with the development of this LRSP, with a more detailed description of each task in subsequent sections of this document.

2.4.1 DATA COLLECTION
A comprehensive Geographic Information Systems (GIS) project database was developed by utilizing the following data:
• Five years (1/1/2016 to 12/31/2020) of collision data collected via the SWITRS collision database • Traffic count information
• Base map with street centerlines, traffic signal locations, and other contextual information

2.4.2 SAFETY DATA ANALYSIS
Following collection of data, the collision data was analyzed for San Bernardino. Collisions were compared to the safety emphasis areas as defined in the California SHSP. The safety data analysis is summarized in Section 4 of this document. The transportation emphasis areas are identified based on the collision data analysis and are discussed in Section 5 of this document.

High Priority Challenge Areas:
• Pedestrian Safety
• Unsafe Speed
• Intersection Safety
• Driving Under the Influence
• School Collisions

2.4.3 IDENTIFY SAFETY MEASURES
In coordination with city staff, a list of engineering-related safety countermeasures and non-engineering safety measures were developed for use as recommendations in this LRSP. These countermeasures are discussed in Section 6 and Section 7 of this document.

2.4.4 DEVELOP SAFETY PROJECTS & COST ESTIMATES
Roadways and intersections were ranked based on the collision frequency and EPDO (equivalent property damage only) scores. The top locations of interest were investigated to determine appropriate safety improvements. The improvements include new traffic signals, additional signal heads at existing signalized intersections, and new bicycle facilities. Planning-level cost estimation are provided for each safety project. The list of safety projects are prioritized based on the following considerations:
• Benefit/Cost Ratio (for engineering solutions only)
• Funding availability for engineering and non-engineering programs • Stakeholder input
• Other factors recommended by city staff
The safety projects and cost estimates are discussed in Section 8 of this document.

2.5 POLICY AND PROGRAMMING SUMMARY
The following section includes a information about the various planning and policy documents that

Packet Pg.
388

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 5 support increased roadway safety in the City of San Bernardino. Several of them are in the process of being updated at the time of the LRSP’s writing (General Plan Elements, SRTS Phase IV Implementation).

All page numbers reference the individual plan documents, several of which employ section page numbering, instead of a standard page numbering sequence.

2.5.1 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN – CIRCULATION ELEMENT (2005) The purpose of the Circulation Element is to “design and improve a circulation system to meet the current and future needs of all its residents” (p. 6-1). Its Vision Statement includes a desire to “expand the safety of our streets and neighborhoods” (p. 6-3).

The Element is heavily reliant on Level of Service (LOS) standards as they relate to traffic congestion (p. 6- 15). The City considers minimum acceptable levels of service as “C” for roadways and “D” for intersections (p. 6-16). Mitigation measures in the Element prioritize LOS improvement (p. 6-19).

Mobility Priorities
The Element outlines the following vision as the basis for safe travel in San Bernardino:

Our street system needs to be safe, not only for vehicular travel, but for pedestrians and bicyclists too. Our street system needs to accommodate more than cars. Pedestrians, bicyclists, as well as landscaping, signs, gateways, and infrastructure all need to coexist within our street right-of-ways in a manner that is safe and aesthetically pleasing. Advanced technologies in traffic control and operations should be employed to maximize the capacity and efficiency of the arterial system (p. 6- 23).

Goals and Policies
Circulation Element goals that are consistent with roadway safety include:
• Goal 6.1: Provide a well-maintained street system. (p. 6-23) • Goal 6.3: Provide a safe circulation system. (p. 6-24) • Goal 6.5: Develop a transportation system that reduces conflicts between commercial trucking, private/public transportation, and land uses. (p. 6-27) • Goal 6.6: Promote a network of multi-modal transportation facilities that are safe, efficient, and connected to various points of the City and the region. (p. 6-28) City policies that are consistent with roadway safety include:
• Policy 6.1.1: Maintain and rehabilitate all components of the circulation system, including roadways, sidewalks, bicycle facilities and pedestrian facilities. (p. 6-23) • Policy 6.2.5: Design roadways, monitor traffic flow, and employ traffic control measures (e.g. signalization, access control, exclusive right and left turn-turn lanes, lane striping, and signage) to ensure City streets and roads continue to function safely within our Level of Service standards. (p. 6- 24)
• Policy 6.2.6: Improve intersection operations by modifying signal timing at intersections and coordinating with other signals, as appropriate. (p. 6-24) • Policy 6.2.7: Install new signals as warranted. (p. 6-24) • Policy 6.3.2: Discourage high speeds and through traffic on local streets through traffic control devise such as signage, speed bumps, etc. as acceptable by the local neighborhood. (p. 6-25)

Packet Pg.
389

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 6 • Policy 6.3.5: Limit direct access from adjacent private properties to arterials to maintain an efficient and desirable quality of traffic flow. (p. 6-25)
• Policy 6.3.6: Locate new development and their access points in such a way that traffic is not encouraged to utilize local residential streets and alleys. (p. 6-25) • Policy 6.3.7: Require that adequate access be provided to all developments in the City including secondary access to facilitate emergency access and egress. (p. 6-25)

2.5.2 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO GENERAL PLAN – PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT (2005) This Element intends to promote “high quality public services and facilities such as fire protection, law enforcement, libraries, and schools [which] significantly influence the health and viability of our residential, commercial, and industrial communities” (7-2).

It also notes: “Our two major educational institutions, California State University, San Bernardino and the San Bernardino Valley College, must be fully integrated with the rest of the City through physical linkages…” (p. 7-2)
Goals and Priorities
Policies consistent with roadway safety include:
• Policy 7.2.2: Assess the effects of increases in development density and related traffic congestion on the provision of adequate facilities and services ensuring that new development will maintain fire protection services of acceptable levels. (p 7-7)

2.5.3 SAN BERNARDINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2022)
The City of San Bernardino Active Transportation Plan (adopted by Council in July 2022) promotes a walkable and bikeable future for the City of San Bernardino. It establishes a number of goals and recommendations that seek safety improvements for pedestrians and cyclists using roadways in the City, and lays out a roadmap for the implementation of active transportation facilities, programs and policy change recommendations. The ATP’s proposed network, which includes multi-modal corridors, school routes, and community connectors, is shown in Figure 2.2.

Goals (p. 44)
• Connectivity: Improve the walkability and bikeability of the City of San Bernardino by creating a local network of connected bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • Local Access & Mobility: Provide the City of San Bernardino residents greater access to transit, jobs, goods, services, schools, and parks without the need to drive a car. • Safety: Improve the overall safety of people walking, biking, and riding public transportation in the City of San Bernardino through infrastructure and programming strategies. • Health & Environment: Prioritize strategies that will improve public health conditions and reduce the impacts of driving on the environment in the City of San Bernardino. • Funding & Implementation: Provide strategies to fund and implement infrastructure and non- infrastructure programs that support Plan recommendations.

Strategies (p. 44)
The Plan recommends a number of strategies within each goal; the following strategies pertain to

Packet Pg.
390

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 7 roadway safety:
• Strategy 1.3: Develop Standard Plans for common active transportation infrastructure such as sidewalks, driveways, curb ramps, crosswalks, pedestrian-scale lighting, and bike facilities. • Strategy 2.6: Develop a comprehensive citywide streetscape plan. • Strategy 3.2: Provide traffic calming infrastructure improvements and identify opportunities to update signal timing and phasing at locations with high collision frequencies across the city.

Reference the Local Road Safety Plan for projects.
• Strategy 3.3: Conduct a study to re-evaluate speeds along the City’s roadways in response to Assembly Bill 43, Traffic Safety.
• Strategy 3.4: Assess and implement enhanced crossing treatments to reduce pedestrianautomobile collisions at multi-lane crossings, including median refuge islands, rapid-rectangular flashing beacons, pedestrian hybrid beacons, raised crosswalks, and other treatments. • Strategy 3.6: Develop a program to review traffic signal locations with prohibited pedestrian crossings and where feasible and appropriate, modify to restore prohibited crossings.

Figure 2.2 – City of San Bernardino Active Transportation Plan Network

Packet Pg.
391

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 8

2.5.4 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY REGIONAL SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN (2015, 2017) The San Bernardino County Regional Safe Routes to School Plan establishes a strategic vision for the safety and accessibility of non-motorized transportation networks around San Bernardino County schools. Phase I was completed in 2015, and Phase II was completed in 2017. Among the listed objectives of Phases I and II of the Plan are:
• Integrate Safe Routes to School corridors with Countywide active transportation efforts including the other components of the [County] Active Transportation Plan. • Address both actual and perceived safety concerns, together with strategies that could significantly decrease bicycle and pedestrian facilities and injuries. • Define a series of possible implementation efforts to identify and remove barriers, over time, to active transportation for all of the schools in the County. • Develop a student data collection strategy to document the benefits of active transportation in order to leverage more SRTS funding for local jurisdicitons.

Pertaining to roadway safety and interaction with other documents in place, the Plan notes:
• Many of the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (NMTP) proposed facilities are bike lanes or routes on major roads, which are considered unsuitable for children getting to school, due to high vehicular speeds and volumes.
• Five schools noted significant barriers to implementing SRTS programs at their schools. Reasons cited include parents, guardians, and babysitters that choose to not follow the traffic rules or pick up/drop off guidelines, a lack of sidewalks, parental concerns about trip distances and traffic safety, liability concerns about walk to school programs, and not knowing about the options.

Figure 2.3 below shows the SRTS focus areas and the long-term approach to an active transportation school commute network. Class II and Class III facilities are only considered acceptable for school trip usage if the streets are below 30 mph. Phase III of the SRTS implemented SRTS Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, and Evaluation programming at 25 priority schools; Phase IV will continue Phase III’s work at the remaining 33 schools, adding an Equity programming category to the implementation plan.

Packet Pg.
392

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 9 Figure 2.3: Safe Routes to School Focus Areas and Proposed Commute Network

2.5.5 SBCTA NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2018)
The 2018 San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (NMTP) seeks to develop a “cohesive, integrated plan” to expand the network of active transportation infrastructure throughout the entirety of San Bernardino County.

Goals (NTMP p. ES-4)
• Increased bicycle and pedestrian access - Expand bicycle and pedestrian facilities and access within and between neighborhoods, to employment centers, shopping areas, schools, and recreational sites.
• Increased travel by cycling and walking - Make the bicycle and walking an integral part of daily life in San Bernardino County, particularly (for bicycle) for trips of less than five miles, by implementing and maintaining a bikeway network, providing end-of-trip facilities, improving bicycle/transit integration, encouraging bicycle use, and making bicycling safer and more convenient. • Routine accommodation in transportation and land use planning - Routinely consider bicyclists and pedestrians in the planning and design of land development, roadway, transit, and other transportation facilities, as appropriate to the context of each facility and its surroundings.

Packet Pg.
393

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 10 • Improved bicycle and pedestrian safety - Encourage local and statewide policies and practices that improve bicycle and pedestrian safety.
• Improvement of the pedestrian environment on major regional arterials and at regional activity centers. (NTMP p. ES-9)
System Recommendations
• Develop a better “sense of a [bicycle] system” through improved signage, markings, and way-finding for both cyclists and pedestrians. (p. ES-8)
• Generally speaking, bike paths that cross roadways with Average Daily Trips (ADTs) over 15,000 vehicles will require signalization, grade separation, flashing LED beacons, crossing islands, other devices, or a combination of such features. Roundabouts can provide desirable treatment for a bike path intersecting with roadways where the bike path is not next to a parallel street. (p. 6-4) • Lighting should be provided where commuters will likely use the bike path in the evenings. (p. 6-5) • Bike boxes as a traffic-calming measure (p. 6-22)
• Completion of local sidewalk systems (p. 6-31)
Figure 2.4: City of San Bernardino Bicycle Facilities, Planned and Existing

Source: SBCTA Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, 2018

Packet Pg.
394

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 11

2.5.6 OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS
San Bernardino Countywide Transportation Plan (2015)
The purpose of the San Bernardino Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) is to lay out a strategy for long term investment in and management of San Bernardino County’s transportation assets, with the following stated goals and objectives:
• Improve safety and mobility for all modes of travel in San Bernardino County by residents, businesses, employees, students and visitors. (p. ES-5) • Reduce collision rates (p. ES-6)
• Encourage local and statewide policies and practices that improve bicycle and pedestrian safety (p.

II-33)
• Improving pedestrian safety and access through more adequate transportation infrastructure and inclusive land use (p. II-36)
• Vehicle to vehicle communication technology (as a long-term future consideration) (p. VI-7) SCAG Connect SoCal Plan (2020)
The purpose of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Connect SoCal Plan is to establish a long-term cohesive regional vision for the build-out of the transportation network within the SCAG region (which includes San Bernardino County). It notes the following about traffic safety:
• Unsafe speed is the primary collision factor in the SCAG region, accounting for about 30 percent of collisions. (p. 36)
• Approximately 90 percent of collisions are occurring in urban areas, with most taking place on local roads, not highways. (p. 36)
• 65% of fatalities and serious injuries occur on less than 1.5% of the region’s roadway network (p. 37) • The active transportation investments in Connect SoCal are allocated across a range of active transportation strategies that address planning, policy making and implementation for both short and regional trips. Additionally, they are designed to improve environmental justice outcomes and enhance the safety and comfort of people walking and bicycling. (p. 68) Waterman + Baseline Specific Plan (2015)
This specific plan establishes a land use and development framework, identifies transportation and infrastructure improvements, and serves as a marketing tool for attracting developers to key sites and for boosting economic development in Central San Bernardino.

It identifies the following issues in the Waterman-Baseline area (p. 6-2):
• Sidewalks are not continuous or wheelchair accessible • Drivers don’t watch for pedestrians
• Cars travel at unsafe speeds
• More lighting is needed
It also identifies the following as potential countermeasures (p. 6-2):
• New street signage
• Improve sidewalks

Packet Pg.
395

2.0 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 12 • Reduce speeding through curb bulb-outs and other traffic calming measures San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (2014) This plan, adopted in 2014, summarizes the actions that each city has selected in order to reduce GHG emissions, state-mandated actions, GHG emissions avoided in 2020 associated with each local and state action, and each city’s predicted progress towards their selected GHG reduction goal. The plan mostly addresses energy sources and VMT reduction, but includes some information pertaining to safety:
• Develop and implement a bicycle safety education program to teach drivers and bike riders the laws, riding protocols, routes, safety tips, and emergency maneuvers to increase confidence, safety, and frequency of use for new and existing bike riders. (p. 4-17) The plan states that travel modes should shift away from the automobile, but avoids specific countermeasures and design elements to promote such changes.

Packet Pg.
396

3.0 METHODOLOGY

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 13

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 COLLISION DATA SOURCES
This analysis was supported by collision data from the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), which documented collisions within the City of San Bernardino between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020. Additionally, the California Office of Traffic Safety Rankings (OTS) most currently available collision ranking for year 2019 was reviewed.

3.1.1 SWITRS
The California Highway Patrol’s SWITRS collects and processes data on reported collisions throughout the state of California. The online SWITRS application provides geographically- and temporally-targeted collision reports in an electronic format. KOA used SWITRS to evaluate data on collisions in the City of San Bernardino between 2016 and 2020, both in aggregate and classified by control type (signalized, non-signalized, and mid-block locations).

3.1.2 OTS
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Safety Rankings compare traffic safety statistics among cities in California with similar populations, with a focus on the number of collisions where people are killed or seriously injured (KSI). Cities can use these comparisons to see the areas in which they are improving traffic safety outcomes, and where they can make improvements. In the OTS Collision Ranking system, San Bernardino belongs to Group B, which contains 59 cities (58 cities in 2017) with a population between 100,001 and 250,000. The LRSP drew on 2017-2019 OTS Safety Rankings to help inform the development of safety emphasis areas.

3.2 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
In addition to using analytical methods to identify locations for treatments and make recommendations, the LRSP also focuses on partnerships with the community to give input into this process and provide feedback on areas that the LRSP should focus on. Stakeholder meetings took place on December 14, 2021 and July 19, 2022. These meetings were attended by representatives from the San Bernardino Police Department, San Bernardino City Unified School District, and representatives from the San Bernardino Neighborhood Association Council, which consists of 34 active Neighborhood Assocations representing different communities within the City of San Bernardino. The stakeholder outreach process also analyzed reports from the City’s Services Request System that involved residents reporting roadway safety issues

3.2.1 SAN BERNARDINO POLICE DEPARTMENT
San Bernardino Police Department (San Bernardino PD) considers speeding a major safety issue in the City, especially along State Route 18, Tippecanoe Avenue, and 5 th Street. San Bernardino PD also cites
street racing and “street takeovers” as a major issue, particularly affecting the south side of the City.

Baseline Street is considered a major focus area for both pedestrian safety and DUI activity. San Bernardino PD uses OTS grants to fund some of their enforcement and education programs. San Bernardino PD uses SWITRS guidelines for traffic collision data collection and does not collect data on non-injury incidents.

Packet Pg.
397

3.0 METHODOLOGY
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 14

3.2.2 SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (SBCUSD) The San Bernardino City Unified School District (SBCUSD) supports pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK) installations at various locations. Some SBCUSD schools (e.g. Pacific High School) have in-ground pedestrian beacons, but SBCUSD noted that they were often ineffective at busy school crossings, and not well adhered-to by drivers. SBCUSD has its own Police Department, which uses OTS grants for enforcement-type activities such as crosswalk violations. SBCUSD also uses OTS grants for educational programs, informational banners, and events such as Walk to School Day.

Although some SBCUSD students use school buses, the vast majority are responsible for their own travel to and from school, which consists of a mix of travel modes between walking, biking, and being dropped off by car. SBCUSD also noted that driving for pick-up and drop-off is more common than in prior generations, which walked and biked more. Top concerns cited by parents include speeding and illegal parking. Top locations of concern include Lynwood Drive, between Sterling Avenue and Del Rosa Avenue, and 48th Street (full corridor).

SBCUSD also expressed interest in developing a better understanding the patterns of collisions related to school trips. This can be the studied further through analysis and field observations or walk audits around specific school sites, potentially as an evaluative component of the Regional SRTS Plan.

3.2.3 SAN BERNARDINO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS COUNCIL
The North End Neighborhood Association cited Waterman Avenue and 30th Street as an area of safety concern due to high traffic volumes. Other intersections mentioned by various Neighborhood Associations include Waterman Avenue and Marshall Boulevard, Mountain View Avenue and Marshall Boulevard, Kendall Drive and University Parkway, Kendall Drive and Little Mountain Drive, the CA-210 offramp onto Waterman Avenue, I-10 off ramps at Waterman Avenue and Tippecanoe Avenue, and the Kendall Drive to E Street transition.

Other issues mentioned include semi-trailer trucks parking on residential streets, excessive potholes and roads in need of resurfacing, and storm drains unable to keep up with rainfall during rainstorms. They also considered it important to look to speeding and unsafe driving countermeasures beyond signage, supporting an end goal of changing driver behavior when possible.

The Neighborhood Associations Council has proposed collaboration with Davidson Elementary School to make walking safer and more desirable around the school.

3.2.4 CITY SERVICES REQUEST SYSTEM
City staff provided anonymized data from the City’s Services Request System that included complaints related to excessive speeding, requests for speed bump installation, and other general traffic safety requests, between 2017-2021. Service requests are submitted by either calling the City directly, or with the GO SBCity mobile application. The 196 request locations were geocoded to the intersection level, then aggregated to show areas of overlap with high frequencies of collisions where the primary collsion factor was coded as Unsafe Speed in the SWITRS database. See Figure 3.1, which shows the two datasets overlapping to identify focuse areas for speeding-related countermeasures.

Packet Pg.
398

3.0 METHODOLOGY
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 15 Figure 3.1 311 Service Request – Traffic Safety Requests

3.3 IDENTIFYING LOCATIONS FOR ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES Crash data analysis for this LRSP was conducted using collision data from the SWITRS collision database.

The collision records include a variety of information about each collision, including the location, date, time of the day, crash type, crash severity, primary violation category, transportation mode of the involved parties, and movement of the involved parties prior to the collision. Per California state law, motor vehicle collisions must be reported when vehicle or property damage exceeds $1,000, or when any of the parties suffer an injury or fatality. Collisions with no injured parties or little property damage might not be reported and, therefore, are not included in the collision database.

Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners1 (LRSM) encourages a pro- active rather than reactive approach to safety issue identification. Traditionally, agencies using a reactive approach have located and implemented safety projects solely based on recent crashes, specific crash concentrations, or safety issues raised by stakeholders. A pro-active approach is preferred, according to the LRSM, because with traditional methods, “crash concentrations and crash trends may be missed if

1 Version 1.6, April 2022

Packet Pg.
399

3.0 METHODOLOGY
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 16 local agencies rely exclusively on these identifiers for their roadway safety effort.” A pro-active approach would identify safety improvements by analyzing the safety of the entire roadway network. For this document, the process for identifying candidate locations for safety improvements considers any one of the following three factors:
• An extensive crash history at high-collision frequency locations providing insight into which roadway characteristics are associated with certain types of crashes • Professional engineering judgment regarding the availability of feasible engineering countermeasures to fix the safety issues
• Applicability of the engineering countermeasures at other locations with roadway characteristics associated with similar types of crashes regardless of their crash history The LRSM guidelines require analyzing at least three to five years of the most recent crash data. Five years-worth of collision data from January 2016 to December 2020 was reviewed for the San Bernardino LRSP. Five years of crash data usage adheres to the maximum threshold permitted by the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) for a safety infrastructure project application for federal funding.

3.3.1 RANKING FUNCTION
A candidate intersection or roadway segment for safety improvements does not necessarily need to demonstrate a history of high or severe collisions to be considered for further evaluation. However, locations with high numbers of collisions are often good starting points for safety analysis due to the rich information provided by the collision history. Three ranking methods were utilized to identify high collision frequency intersections and roadway segments: Average Crash Frequency, Crash Rate, and Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scores. A brief description of each of the methods is provided in the following sections.

3.3.2 AVERAGE CRASH FREQUENCY
Average Crash Frequency is the most basic method for assessing collision incidence. The analysis tallies the numbers of collisions at each location in the roadway network, both in aggregate and by a category of interest (e.g. level of severity, collision type, and others). The analysis then ranks intersections or roadway segments based on the collisions’ frequency.

3.3.3 CRASH RATE
The Crash Rate method goes a step beyond average crash frequency, normalizing facilities’ crash frequency by the amount of vehicle traffic or travel. This method divides the number of collisions (or collisions in a particular category) by the quantity of Million Entering Vehicles (for intersections) or 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (for roadway segments). While the Crash Rate method accounts for differences in facilities’ length and traffic volume, it may instead unduly favor low-volume and low- collision roadways where countermeasures produce the lowest net benefit for travelers.

3.3.4 EPDO SCORE WEIGHTS
Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scores assign weighting factors to crashes by severity relative to property damage only (PDO) collisions. The weight generally reflects an order of magnitude difference between the cost of fatal/severe injury crashes and non-severe injury collisions. The weights by crash severity come from the 2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual.

Packet Pg.
400

3.0 METHODOLOGY
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 17 Table 3.1: Collision Crash Values and EPDO Score
Collision Severity Location
Type Crash Cost EPDO Score
Value
Fatality (K) and Severe Injury (A)
Signalized
Intersection $1,787,000 119.93
Non-
Signalized
Intersection
$2,843,000 190.81
Combined (KA) Roadway $2,461,000 165.17
Evedident Injury - Other Visible (B) Any $159,900 10.73 Possible Injury–Complaint of Pain (C) Any $90,900 6.10 Property Damage Only (O) Any $14,900 1.00
Source: Appendix D of the Caltrans LRSM, 2022

EPDO scores are useful for a benefit-to-cost analysis as collision costs can be translated into measurable benefits from installing improvements that reduce the collisions in question. However, EPDO scores may place undue weight on the injury outcomes of previous collisions rather than overall trends suggested by collision patterns regardless of injury outcome. Furthermore, a location’s EPDO score could be inflated by a fatal or severe collision caused by DUI or other factors that cannot be remedied by engineering countermeasures alone.

3.4 PROPOSING ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
After ranking the intersections and roadway segments, the following steps were used to propose engineering countermeasures:
• Develop citywide collision maps for dominant collision types. Identify high-risk locations by collision type.
• Review crash details (party involved, movement before the crash, primary collision factor, violation code, time of the day, and others) at high-risk locations. Obtain detailed police reports from the City and reviewed for all the fatal and severe injury collisions. • Manually create collision diagrams for high-risk locations. Review field conditions through physical site visits in the City. Assess the nature of prevalent crash types with respect to the intersection’s control type, geometrical features, and signal phasing/timing. • Evaluate and screen countermeasures from the LRSM or Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse (http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/
), a searchable database that can be easily queried
to identify CMFs and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs).
• Identify intersections/roadway segments that do not have a demonstrated crash history but resemble other locations with documented crash history and risk factors. Once identified, these locations can be analyzed through the steps mentioned above.

Packet Pg.
401

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS: COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 18

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS: COLLISION TRENDS AND

PATTERNS

4.1 TOTAL COLLISIONS AND COLLISION MODES
The collision trend analysis draws from the five years of data obtained from the SWITRS database. From January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020, 8,855 collisions occurred in the City of San Bernardino, inclusive of collisions on both City streets and state highways (such as State Route 66 or 18) within the City. Collisions on the Interstate system and grade separated state highways (such as I-215 or SR/I-210) were not included; collisions at the intersection of highway ramps and a local street were included. These collisions occurred on alignments that are grade-separated from City streets, and not part of the scope of this analysis or in the immediate jurisdiction of the City. Out of these collisions, 311 resulted in fatal or severe injuries.

Figure 4.1 highlights the annual number of collisions per year over the five-year period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020). Overall, collision totals remained relatively consistent between 2016 and 2018. Starting in 2019, collisions increased by 16% to 2,017, but then declined by 22% in 2020 to 1,572, the lowest value for the entire collision analysis period. This sharp decline may be related to several factors, but one explanation is that the reduced rates of travel related to the COVID-19 pandemic reduced the overall collision risk in the City. However, many other cities in California also saw an increase in traffic collisions in 2020, so the cause should not be assigned solely to this reason alone.

Figure 4.1: Total Collisions by Year

Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Figure 4.2 shows year-by-year totals of automobile collisions, which were by far the most common collision mode, and were the primary driver of the pattern as overall collisions, including their largest decline in in 2020.

Packet Pg.
402

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS: COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 19 Figure 4.2: Automobile Collisions by Year

Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Figure 4.3 highlights pedestrian, bicycle, motorcycle, and truck-involved collisions per year. Pedestrian collisions fluctuated up and down between 2016 and 2020 by as much as 38% year on year, but overall declined to a low of 72 by 2020. Pedestrian collisions were by far the highest non-automobile collision type, with a total of 493 over the analysis period. Truck and motorcycle collisions also saw large fluctuations year to year. Truck collisions hit their high of 74 in 2018, and followed a decline by 2020.

Motorcycle collisions, experienced an increase from 2016 to 2017, followed by a general decline as well, with their lowest year in 2020. Bicycle collisions saw a general decline overall from 2016 to 2020, with a low of 22 in 2020.

Figure 4.3: Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Truck Collisions by Year

Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Figure 4.4 illustrates the collision percentages by mode relative to the share of fatal and severe injury (KSI) collisions. The difference between the two values demonstrates that these more vulnerable mobility groups (people walking, biking, or riding motorcycles) are likelier to have a disproportionately higher injury and fatality rate compared to drivers. The highest number of collisions by mode are automobile related at 85%, however, this mode was less than half of KSI collisions (41%); when compared to pedestrian collisions that accounted for only 6% of the collisions regardless of severity, but 33% of KSI collisions. Motorcycles collisions were a small share of all collisions (4%), but accounted for 18% of KSI collisions. These stark differences in KSI vs all collisions demonstrate that people walking and riding

Packet Pg.
403

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS: COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 20 motorcycles have a much higher risk of being killed or severely injured in a collision. While those modes have less protection than someone driving (lack of airbags, vehicle frame, and other safety features found in autos), additional infrastructure to increase the safety for those modes can help to offset the existing increased risk.

Bicycle collisions demonstrated a smaller relative risk compared to pedestrians, which is unusual. While the share of KSI collisions (5%) is still higher than for any severity of collision (2%), it is much lower than the differential for pedestrian collisions. However, what this may demonstrate is not that the risk for people riding bicycles is low, and therefore not an area of concern, but rather the risk for people walking is so much higher, and should be addressed immediately.

Figure 4.4: Collision Share by Mode, All Collisions and KSI Collisions

Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Figure 4.5 summarizes all collisions by type, as well as each collision type’s share of KSI collisions.

Broadside collisions are the most frequent type, accounting for approximately 30% of the total collisions, it represents only an 11% share of the KSI collisions. Collision types that have a higher chance of being a fatal or causing severe injury are: head-on, (14%), pedestrian (31% KSI), and overturned vehicle (4%) collisions. The highest disparity between the number of total collisions and KSI collision share corresponds to pedestrian collisions, which make up only 6% of the total collisions but are 31% of the KSI collisions. Head-on collisions had a slightly higher frequency of KSI to total collisions (14% vs 12%), as did overturned vehicle (2% vs 4%), but these collision types are due to the type and forces the of impact between two vehicles, rather than the increased risk to the human body that is hit by a moving vehicle.

Packet Pg.
404

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS: COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 21 Figure 4.5: Collision Share by Type, Total Collisions and KSI Collisions

Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Figure 4.6 summarizes the Primary Collision Factor (PCF) for all collisions over the past five years based on a 14 PCF categories. The PCF is the leading cause of the collision based on the opinion of the officer who completed the collision report at the scene. Among all collisions, improper turning (26%), unsafe speed (23%), automobile right-of-way (15%) and traffic sign or signal violations (12%) were the top four primary collision factors.

However, when comparing the share of total collisions to the share of collisions where a person was killed or severely injured (KSI), several specific categories stand out. If the level of risk for all roadway users was equal, it would be expected that the share of KSI collisions would be roughly equal for various PCFs, regardless of mode. However, since non-automotive roadway users are more vulnerable to injury and death that people in vehicles (due to the presence of multiple safety systems in most vehicles, including seatbelts, airbags, and the vehicle frame and body which absorb impact forces), some PCFs will carry a higher share of KSI collisions versus all collisions. Pedestrian violation collisions comprise only

2.8% of all collisions, but are 19.7% of KSI collisions, indicating that there is a higher risk of injury or death for people walking; a ratio of nearly 7:1 for KSI collisions. Second to pedestrian violations in the ratio of KSI collisions (3.5%) to all collisions (1%) is the Pedestrian ROW PCF. While not truly interchangeable with the Pedestrian Violation PCF, this also indicates a need for a safer walking experience in the City.

Packet Pg.
405

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS: COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 22 Figure 4.6: Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (PCF)

Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Figure 4.7 outlines the primary collision factors linking to San Bernardino’s top four collision types (broadside, rear end, hit object, and vehicle/pedestrian, respectively). The top cause of broadside collisions are due to right-of-way violations and not following traffic signs or signals properly, and a smaller share due to improper turning. The majority of these collisions occurred at signalized intersections (58%), which is consistent with the collision type and primary cause. Countermeasures that address turning movements are most appropriate for this combination, which accounts for 20% of all collisions citywide. Rear end collisions are overwhelmingly caused by unsafe speeds (63%), and 65% of all rear end collisions occurred at signalized intersections. Reducing intersection approach speeds can help address this, as well as including the causes of distracted driving in collision reports. Of the 8,855 collisions from 2016 to 2020, only 5% of the collision records included information about driver inattention.

Packet Pg.
406

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS: COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 23 Figure 4.7: Top Collision Types and Primary Collision Factors

Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Figure 4.8 compares the roadway lighting conditions versus the percentage of KSI collisions. As presented, the majority of collisions (55%), but only 35% of KSI collisions, occur during the daytime.

However, much greater share of KSI collisions occur at night (59%), even when street lights are present (51%). Even though there are fewer hours in a day for nighttime driving, and being a much smaller overall share of all collisions (34%), there is a higher risk of a KSI collision occurring when it is dark. This may indicate the need for additional review of high-frequency collisions areas where street lighting is present, and determining if there is a need to adjust the spacing or brightness of the existing street lights.

Packet Pg.
407

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS: COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 24 Figure 4.8: Collisions by Lighting Conditions

Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Figure 4.9 shows pedestrian-vehicle collisions by facility type. The high rate of pedestrian collisions at signalized intersections (53%), regardless of other collision factors, could indicate a need to review and enhance pedestrian protection at intersections.

Figure 4.9: Pedestrian and Bicyclist Collisions by Facility Type

Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Figure 4.10 illustrates the severity of traffic collisions over the five-year period. Fatal collisions fluctuated between 2016 and 2018, and ultimately declined to their lowest annual number (5 collisions) in 2020.

Collisions that resulted in a severe injury did the opposite, and steadily increased from 2016 (40 collisions) to 2020 )55 collisions. Injury, complaint of pain, and property damage only (PDO) collisions stayed relatively consistent across the analysis period, never increasing by more than 10%, with the exception of 2019, which saw an overall increase in collisions regardless of severity. In 2019, injury collisions increased by 34%, however complaint of pain and property damage only (PDO) collisions only

Packet Pg.
408

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS: COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 25 increased 10% and 16%, respectively.

Figure 4.10: Annual Collisions by Year and Severity

Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Figure 4.11 presents a summary of traffic collisions and fatal or severe injury collisions (KSI) by age group.

While there is a large variability in the total number of collisions versus KSI collisions for each age group, the proportion of collisions to KSI is relatively consistent for each age group, with deaths making up approximately 5-7% of the combined collisions over the five-year period. Younger (18 years and younger) and older victims (56 years and older) have slightly elevated risk of collisions resulting in severe injury or death (7-9%), which may be more related to the risk of traumatic injury at those ages than any infrastructure, engineering, or other traffic safety programming.

Figure 4.11: Traffic Injuries and Fatalies by Age

Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020

Packet Pg.
409

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS: COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 26

4.2 COLLISIONS BY FACILITY TYPE
Collision patterns by facility type (intersections vs. mid-block locations) were analyzed by using SWITRS data from 2016 to 2020. This analysis was used to determine the effect of access control and intersection geometry on collision frequency. Intersections are defined as any location where two streets cross, excluding unnamed alleys and non-signalized driveways. The analysis classifies collisions by facility type as follows:
• Collisions that occurred within 250 feet of signalized intersections are considered signalized intersection collisions;
• Collisions that occurred within 150 feet of non-signalized intersections are considered non-signalized intersection collisions; and
• Collisions that occur more than 250 feet away from any signalized intersection and more than 150 feet away from any non-signalized intersection are classified as mid-block collisions.

These definitions are consistent with the definition of intersections in the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, and are also consistent with the accepted statewide methodology for calculating the equivalent property damage only (EPDO) value for used to calculate the benefit-cost ratio of proposed safety countermeasures.

Table 4.1 shows the total number of collisions associated with each type of facility. 49% of all collisions occurred at signalized intersections, 37% occurred at non-signalized intersections, and only 15% occurred at mid-block locations. The high share of collisions occurring at signalized intersections is not unusual, where there is often elevated risk where major streets cross. The high rate of collisions at intersections, regardless of control type, could be reduced by systemic countermeasures across the city that slow speeds and clarify users’ right of way when proceeding through intersections. This is supported by the review of collision PCFs across the city, which indicated that unsafe speeds, unsafe turning, and right of way violations were the most common factors that could be countered by changes thoughtful changes in intersection design infrastructure. Speed reduction measures in particular would increase safety for all modes, which is a major factor in KSI collisions involving pedestrians.

Table 4.1: Collision Share by Facility Type
Category
Signalized Non-Signalized Mid-Block
Total
Collisions % Collisions % Collisions %
All Collisions 4,311 49% 3,258 37% 1,286 15% 8,855 Pedestrian Collisions 259 53% 167 34% 67 14% 493 Bicycle Collisions 91 50% 63 35% 28 15% 182
Motorcycle Collisions 138 44% 121 39% 53 17% 312 Truck Collisions 161 53% 98 32% 47 15% 306
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Table 4.2 shows how the collision type share varies by location. Broadside collisions comprise the largest share of collisions at signalized and non-signalized intersections (36% and 28%, respectively). Rear-end collisions are the second most common (33%) at signalized intersections, which are typically along

Packet Pg.
410

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS: COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 27 arterial corridors with higher speeds, and the third most common at non-signalized intersections (19%).

Non-signalized intersections see a slightly different trend, with sideswipes being the second most common (18%) after broadsides. At mid-block locations, hit object collisions (23%) are most prevalent, while sideswipe and rear-end collisions comprise the second- and third-largest categories (19% for both).

Table 4.2: Collision Types by Facility Type
Collision Type
Signalized Non-Signalized Mid-Block Total
Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Collisions Share Broadside 1,532 36% 914 28% 192 15% 2,638 30%
Rear End 948 22% 536 16% 249 19% 1,733 20%
Sideswipe 560 13% 595 18% 239 19% 1,394 16%
Hit Object 399 9% 542 17% 301 23% 1,242 14%
Head-On 510 12% 381 12% 161 13% 1,052 12%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 268 6% 164 5% 58 5% 490 6%
Overturned 43 1% 50 2% 55 4% 148 2%
Other 46 1% 71 2% 28 2% 145 2%
Not Stated 5 0% 5 0% 2 0% 12 0%
Total 4,311 100% 3,258 100% 1,285 100% 8,854 100%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Table 4.3 compares Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) by facility type. Regardless of location, unsafe speed and improper turning are the most significant factors in the City’s collision data, followed by the combination of various intersection-related factors, which include automobile right of way, and traffic signs and signals. These account for between 43% and 64% of collisions based on the facility type, and 50% of all collisions in the city. At mid-block locations, the high rates of unsafe speed and improper turning may indicate that there are right of way or visibility issues at driveway locations, which should be evaluated at high-frequency locations.

Table 4.3: Primary Collision Factor by Facility Type
PCF Category
Signalized Non-Signalized Mid-Block

Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Total
Improper Turning 871 20% 1,032 32% 462 36% 2,365
Unsafe Speed 1,013 23% 709 22% 342 27% 2,064
Automobile Right of Way 658 15% 584 18% 98 8% 1,340
Traffic Signals and Signs 874 20% 196 6% 13 1% 1,083
Unknown 187 4% 147 5% 57 4% 391
Under the Influence 149 3% 107 3% 58 5% 314
Pedestrian Violation 118 3% 79 2% 51 4% 248
Unsafe Starting or Backing 48 1% 98 3% 50 4% 196
Other Improper Driving 79 2% 60 2% 32 2% 171
Wrong Side of Road 43 1% 60 2% 31 2% 134
Not Stated 38 1% 46 1% 17 1% 101

Packet Pg.
411

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS: COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 28 Pedestrian Right of Way 66 2% 26 1% 1 0% 93
Other Than Driver (or
Pedestrian) 24 1% 31 1% 29 2% 84
Unsafe Lane Change 39 1% 27 1% 14 1% 80
Improper Passing 15 0% 30 1% 13 1% 58
Following Too Closely 42 1% 10 0% 4 0% 56
Other Hazardous Violation 39 1% 6 0% 7 1% 52
Hazardous Parking 4 0% 6 0% 2 0% 12
Other Equipment 1 0% 2 0% 2 0% 5
Impeding Traffic 2 0% 1 0% 1 0% 4
Brakes 1 0% 1 0% 1 0% 3
Lights - 0% - 0% 1 0% 1
Total 4,311 100% 3,258 100% 1,286 100% 8,855

Table 4.4 shows the relationship between street lighting conditions and facility type. At all location types, most collisions occurred in daylight (55% of all collisions). Most collisions that occurred in the dark were in the presence of functioning street lights (34% of all collisions), and at signalized intersections. 51% of all KSI collisions occurred at night where street lights were present, with the majority of those collisions (78 out of 160) occurring at signalized intersections.

Table 4.4: Street Lighting by Facility Type
Signalized Non-Signalized Mid-Block Total
Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Collisions %
Daylight 2,429 56% 1,769 54% 634 49% 4,832 55%
Dark - Street Lights 1,502 35% 1,086 33% 446 35% 3,034 34% Dusk - Dawn 168 4% 135 4% 55 4% 358 4%
Not Stated 152 4% 118 4% 38 3% 308 3%
Dark - No Street Lights 49 1% 141 4% 105 8% 295 3%
Dark - Street Lights Not
Functioning 11 0% 9 0% 8 1% 28 0%
Total 4,311 100% 3,258 100% 1,286 100% 8,855 100%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
As shown in Table 4.2, broadside collisions were the most common collision type in San Bernardino from 2016 to 2020. Automobile right-of-way, signs/signals, and improper turning violations were the highest- occurring primary collision factor (PCF) in broadside collisions. Table 4.5 provides a summary of broadside collisions with these “intersection factor” PCFs by facility type. 83% of broadside collisions resulted from intersection factors, with the highest share of those at signalized intersections (84% of).

Additionally, 38% of broadside collisions were left turn related, and 58% of those were also at signalized intersections.

Packet Pg.
412

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS: COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 29 Table 4.5: Broadside Collisions by Facility Type
Facility Broadside
Collision
Broadside Collision
w/ Intersection
Factor*
% Intersection
Factor
% Left-Turn
Related
Signalized 1,532 1,289 84% 36%
Non-
Signalized
914 767 84% 44%
Mid-Block 192 135 70% 50%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Rear-end collisions were the second most-prevalent collision type (20% of all collisions). Typically, rear- end collisions are a result of a motorists traveling at unsafe speeds as the primary collision factor, with additional secondary factors such as distracted driving or following too closely, a statement supported by collision data. Table 4.6 tabulates rear-end collisions, and of those, collisions caused by unsafe travel speeds. Rear-end collisions resulting from unsafe travel speeds was highest (76%) at signalized intersections, with non-signalized and mid-block collisions at just under 50%. Second to speeding was improper turning (14%), which is related to individual behavioral choices rather than roadway design or infrastructure. Other common contributing factors such as unsafe starting/backing, or driving under the influence were much lower, causing no more than 5% of all rear-end collisions.

Table 4.6: Rear-End Collisions by Facility Type
Facility Rear End
Rear End and
Unsafe
Speed
% Unsafe Speed Distracted
Driver
Alcohol-
Involved
Signalized 948 717 76% 18 163
Non-Signalized 536 258 48% 10 97
Mid-Block 249 117 47% 4 47
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020

4.3 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO VS. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SWITRS data was extracted for the entire County of San Bernardino using the same five-year period from January 2016 to December 2020 to compare the characteristics of injury and fatality collisions in the County of San Bernardino with the City of San Bernardino. In order to make a meaningful comparison of the two datasets, collisions on State highways were excluded from the County data, so that it was consistent with the City data. Highway speeds and operating conditions are significantly different from those on local roadways, with fewer turning movements, bicycle and pedestrian prohibitions, and an overall higher design and travel speed. As shown in Table 4.7, between 2016 and 2020, the City had a total of 8,855 collisions on local streets. With a 2020 population of 222,101, this amounts to 7,974 collisions per million residents, per year over the five-year period. In all of San Bernardino County during the same period, there were a total of 140,083 collisions, at a rate of 12,842 collisions per one million residents per year. Thus, the City had a substantially lower collision rate than the County.

Packet Pg.
413

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS: COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 30 Table 4.7: Total Collision Comparison, San Bernardino City vs. County Measure City of San
Bernardino
County of San
Bernardino
Population (2020 Census) 222,101 2,181,654
Total Collisions 8,855 140,083
Annual Collisions per Million
Residents 7,974 12,842
KSI Collisions 311 5,127
KSI (% of Total) 3.5% 3.7%
Pedestrian Collisions 493 2,878
Pedestrian (% of Total) 5.6% 2.1%
Bicycle Collisions 182 1,589
Bicycle Collisions
(% of Total) 2.1% 1.1%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020. U.S. Decennial Census
The City had a slightly lower percentage of KSI collisions (3.5% vs. 3.7%), but pedestrian-involved collision percentages were nearly double in the City (5.6% vs. 2.1%). Bicycle KSI collision share was also higher in the City (2.1% and 1.1%, respectively).

Table 4.8 focuses on the KSI collision share differences between the City and County. While the City did have a lower rate of KSI collisions per million residents compared to the County, both had an equal share of fatal collisions (1%) from total collisions, as well as nearly equal rates of severe injury collisions (2.6% and 2.7% respectively. In addition, both pedestrian and bicycle KSI collision shares in the City were double than the County (1.2%/0.2% vs 0.6%/0.1%, respectively). The City did have a lower rate of KSI collisions for pedestrian collisions (20% vs 29%), however this is significantly higher than the KSI share of all collisions regardless of mode, which was only 3.5% citywide (see Table 4.7). The same trend was true for bicycle KSI collisions, which was 1% lower in the City, but at 8.8%, still much higher than the 3.5% share for all collisions citywide. These results indicate that while the City has a lower rate of KSI collisions than the County, it still needs to evaluate and implement countermeasures to improve safety for people walking and riding bicycles.

Table 4.8: KSI Collision Comparison, San Bernardino City vs. County Measure City of San
Bernardino
County of San
Bernardino
Population (2020 Census) 222,101 2,181,654
Fatal & Severe Collisions (KSI) 8,855 140,083
Annual KSI Collisions per
Million Residents 7,974 12,842
Fatal Collisions 88 1,381
Fatal (% of KSI) 1.0% 1.0%
Severe Injury Collisions 227 3,746
Severe Injury (% of KSI) 2.6% 2.7%
Pedestrian KSI Collisions 103 850
Pedestrian (% of KSI) 1.2% 0.6%
Pedestrian KSI Collisions
(% of All Pedestrian Collisions) 20.9% 29.5%
Bicycle KSI Collisions 16 148

Packet Pg.
414

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS: COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 31 Bicycle KSI Collisions
(% of KSI) 0.2% 0.1%
Bicycle KSI Collisions
(% of All Bicycle Collisions) 8.8% 9.3%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Table 4.9 summarizes the SWITRS data by collision type for the City and County. Both the City and County had similar rates of occurrence for most collision types However, there was a much higher share of head-on collisions in the City (4.6% greater), and a higher share of pedestrian collisions (2.7% higher).

Table 4.9: Collision Type Comparison, San Bernardino City vs. County Collision Type City of San
Bernardino
County of San
Bernardino Difference
Broadside 29.7% 29.9% -0.2%
Rear End 19.5% 24.3% -4.8%
Sideswipe 15.8% 15.3% 0.5%
Hit Object 14.1% 15.0% -0.9%
Head-On 11.8% 7.2% 4.6%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 5.5% 2.8% 2.7%
Overturned 1.7% 2.2% -0.5%
Other 1.7% 1.8% -0.1%
Not Stated 0.1% 1.5% -1.3%
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020
Table 4.10 compares PCFs for the City and the County. As with collision type, the most frequent PCF categories in the City is mostly aligned with that of the County. In both geographies, unsafe speed, automobile right-of-way, and improper turning comprise the top three PCF categories. Improper turning factors are 7.4% higher in the City than the County, and a slightly higher rate of traffic sign/signal violation- collisions (2.6% higher). The City has a lower share of DUI collisions (4.4 % lower), but there is no immediate factor in the collision data that explains that difference.

Table 4.10: PCF Comparison, San Bernardino City vs. County Collision Type City of San
Bernardino
County of San
Bernardino Difference
Improper Turning 27.1% 19.6% 7.4%
Unsafe Speed 23.5% 25.6% -2.1%
Automobile Right of Way 15.2% 17.5% -2.2%
Traffic Signals and Signs 12.3% 9.7% 2.6%
Unknown 4.4% 3.7% 0.7%
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drug 3.7% 8.0% -4.4%
Pedestrian Violation 2.8% 1.4% 1.4%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 2.2% 3.2% -1.0%
Other Improper Driving 2.1% 0.8% 1.3%
Wrong Side of Road 1.5% 2.8% -1.3%
Pedestrian Right of Way 1.0% 0.7% 0.3%
Other Than Driver (or
Pedestrian) 1.0% 1.3% -0.3%
Unsafe Lane Change 0.9% 2.5% -1.5%
Improper Passing 0.7% 1.3% -0.6%

Packet Pg.
415

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS: COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 32 Collision Type City of San
Bernardino
County of San
Bernardino Difference
Following Too Closely 0.6% 0.9% -0.3%
Other Hazardous Violation 0.6% 0.6% -
Hazardous Parking 0.1% 0.2% -
Other Equipment 0.1% 0.1% -
Impeding Traffic - 0.1% -
Brakes - - -
Lights - - -
Source: SWITRS, 2016-2020

4.4 SAN BERNARDINO VS. SIMILARLY SIZED CITIES
In the State of California’s OTS Collision Ranking system, San Bernardino is part of Group B. This group consists of 59 cities (58 in 2017) in the state of California with a population between 100,001 and 250,000.

Table 4.11 shows the City’s 2019 fatal and severe injury collisions ranking among the cities in Group B (1 being the highest/worst and 59 being the lowest/best). The City’s traffic safety indicators ranks higher than the County’s in several areas based on the OTS rankings over time, when compared to the citywide crash analysis results.
• The City ranked 2
nd for underage, alcohol-involved collisions that led to fatal or injured parties in 2019, which was a significant increase from previous years. It is ranked 29th for all alcohol-involved collisions for ages 21-34, but more than half (57%) of all alcohol-involved collisions in the City were the fault of people 34 or younger.
• The City was ranked in the top ten for motorcycle (8th) and pedestrian (7th) collisions. This is in line with the share of KSI collisions for those modes in the citywide analysis, where they comprised 51% of all KSI collisions.
• Pedestrian collisions involving children and seniors were also ranked very high, worsening over the past three years of data, indicating that additional protection for these vulnerable groups is needed. • Speed related collisions during the nighttime (9:00 PM – 2:59 AM) ranked 3 rd overall, and hit and run
collisions were ranked highest in the entire Group B.
• The OTS ranking for bicycle collisions is 51/59, and 55/59 for bicyclists under the age of 15, one of the best rankings for Group B, and a general improvement since 2017.

Compared to the collisions rankings from the previous two years (2017 and 2018), the categories that rank higher over time are underage DUI collisions, motorcycle, and pedestrian collisions were ranked the same or worse by 2019. Total fatal or injury collisions also worsened in 2019, up 175 from 2017. DUI arrests also decreased between 2017 and 2019, but the City was still ranked 12 th for their group of cities.

The City’s rate of fatal/injury collisions per million miles traveled also increased from 2017 to 2019, from 622 to 752 collisions.

Packet Pg.
416

4.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS: COLLISION TRENDS AND PATTERNS CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 33 Table 4.11: 2017-19 OTS Rankings, City of San Bernardino Categories
2017 2018 2019
Collisions Rank Collisions Rank Collisions Rank
Total Fatal and Injury 1,429 14/58 1,353 17/59 1,604 7/59 Alcohol Involved 138 13/58 154 9/59 157 8/59
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 4 32/58 6 16/59 8 2/59 Had Been Drinking Driver 21 – 34 32 29/58 40 18/59 18 29/59 Motorcycles 82 5/58 48 29/59 53 8/59
Pedestrians 120 7/58 98 15/59 117 7/59
Pedestrians < 15 4 52/58 13 9/59 11 11/59
Pedestrians 65+ 5 44/58 9 26/59 14 13/59
Bicyclists 44 35/58 42 40/59 24 51/59
Bicyclists < 15 4 44/58 4 38/59 1 55/59
Composite 703 12/58 637 15/59 749 8/59
Collision Types
Speed Related 198 19/58 168 31/59 218 12/59
Nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am) 177 3/58 134 14/59 176 3/59 Hit and Run 154 2/58 135 8/59 172 1/59
Other Measures
DUI Arrests 276 12/58 288 16/59 238 12/59
Daily VMT 2,297,620 2,250,310 2,132,450
Fatal/Injury Collisions per million
miles 622 601 752
Source: OTS 2017, 2018, 2019

Packet Pg.
417

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 34

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
Transportation safety emphasis areas provide a strategic framework for developing and implementing the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). The emphasis areas provide the City of San Bernardino the areas to focus on when developing projects and programs based on the LRSP. The implementation of the emphasis areas should directly relate to the goals, policies, and strategies of the LRSP.

Based on the collision data analysis conducted for the City and trends in the OTS rankings, the following transportation safety emphasis areas were identified:
• Pedestrian Safety
• Unsafe Speed
• Intersection Safety
• Driving Under the Influence
• School Collisions
The following section explains how each area was selected based on the aforementioned collision analysis.

5.1 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
Pedestrians are among the most vulnerable roadway users. Pedestrian commuters in suburban communities are often too young or old to drive, or lack the means to purchase a car. Broad streets with narrow sidewalks, long crossing distances, and limited crossing opportunities can make walking not only uncomfortable, but especially unsafe when people are crossing the street. Unsafe speeds can also increase the likelihood of death or serious injury if a cyclist or pedestrian is struck by a vehicle. A pedestrian or cyclist getting hit by a car traveling at 35+ mph is at a very high risk for fatal injury. Vehicles traveling at unsafe speeds increase the energy of an impact, and also result in a motorist having less reaction time and ability to avoid a collision due to increased stopping distance and greater risk of losing control of the vehicle. While pedestrian-involved collisions comprised only 6% of total collisions in San Bernardino, they accounted for 33% of KSI collisions.

Packet Pg.
418

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 35 Figure 5.1: Pedestrian Collision Heat Map

5.2 UNSAFE SPEEDS
Speeding-involved collisions are the second-most frequent collision factor city-wide, with the majority of rear-endings (the most common PCF across all collisions) being caused by speeding.

The level of risk for injury when vehicles are traveling above 35 miles per hour increases dramatically, even with a “slight” increase in speed (5-10 MPH). Speed-related collision reductions could be achieved with a combination of traffic calming countermeasures, speed limit reductions where permitted under state and local guidance, and education or enforcement campaigns that focus on corridors with a high frequency of speeding (based on collision history, outreach and police citation data). Vehicles traveling at unsafe speeds create an elevated level of risk for all roadway users, but especially people walking or bicycling, whose safety is an overarching emphasis area for this entire LRSP. In addition to the above approaches, roadway and intersection design that re-allocates the roadway cross section to different travel modes (motor vehicle, pedestrians, bicyclists) can provide redundancy to elevated vehicle speeds; this can also be combined with vertical separation elements like bollards, medians, or raised pavement.

Packet Pg.
419

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 36 Figure 5.2: Unsafe Speed Collision Heat Map

5.3 INTERSECTION SAFETY
The improper turning and automobile ROW collision factors are present across many of the collision types in the City, and carry a higher risk of injury or death if it results in broadside collision.

Both a systemic review of all intersections, and a focused review of turning-related collisions at signalized intersections will indicate where additional protected turning movements, warning signage, leading pedestrian intervals, or other countermeasures could be implemented. For all of these countermeasures, the goal should be to separate modes in time and space, thus removing conflict points, and improve safety, especially for pedestrians and turning vehicles. Where there are high frequencies of pedestrian or bicycle collisions, curb radii at intersections can be decreased to reduce turning speeds and increase pedestrian visibility, prohibiting right-turn-on-red where intersection operation permits it, and striping conflict zones at intersections and approaches to clearly indicate space for people walking or riding.

Other design changes like stop bar set-backs, bicycle boxes, and two-stage turn queue boxes can also enhance bicycle safety at intersections. Countermeasures like these would complement the emphasis

Packet Pg.
420

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 37 area focused on pedestrian and bicycle safety, and improving intersection safety for all modes and users.

Figure 5.3: Intersection Safety Collision Heat Map

5.4 DRIVING OR BICYCLING UNDER THE INFLUENCE
Driving under the influence (DUI) is responsible for 3.6% of collisions in the City and 7.3% of KSI collisions. DUI collisions are consistently present in the PCF cause for two of the four most common collision types (rear-end and hit object), reinforcing the trend that DUIs play an outsized role in causing traffic collisions, especially KSI collisions. Figure 5.4 shows the locations of DUI-related collisions in the City, with notable concentrations occurring in the downtown areas along Baseline Street and Highland Avenue, as well as a high concentration along Mt. Vernon Avenue north of 5th Street.

In the California OTS rankings, from 2017 to 2019, San Bernardino ranked 13th, 9th, and 8th among Group B cities (out of 59) for alcohol-involved collisions. In 2019, the City ranked 2nd in collisions where people under 21 had been drinking. Reducing DUI collisions will require a long-term strategy to educate a broad spectrum of stakeholders. This could include education programs for drivers, funding “ride-home” programs in partnership with local businesses that serve alcohol, and DUI checkpoints on weekends and in the evenings, when these collisions most frequently occur.

Packet Pg.
421

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 38

Figure 5.4: DUI Collision Heat Map

5.5 SCHOOL COLLISIONS
The final Safety Emphasis Area consists of collisions near schools, particularly affecting travel to and from schools. While specific destination data is not readily available in SWITRS or OTS databases, certain filters can help with narrowing collision records to place a greater emphasis on school collisions. 515 collisions met the criteria of occurring within 750 feet of a public school and taking place on a weekday. Within these geographic areas, 96.8% (515 of 532) collisions took place on weekdays. Of the 515 weekday collisions, 50 collisions (9.7%) met the additional criteria of involving a pedestrian and/or cyclist.

Countermeasures such as upgraded pedestrian crossings and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) can mitigate these types of collisions. Figure 5.5 shows the locations of schools within the city, and the school-adjacent collisions (and highlighting non-motorized user collisions within that group).

Packet Pg.
422

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 39 Figure 5.5: School Collision Map

Packet Pg.
423

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 40

5.6 TOP COLLISION LOCATIONS
This is a general process for identifying potential locations by ranking intersections and roadway segments based on Crash Frequency and EPDO score. The ranking is a quantitative method used to evaluate a particular corridor segment and compare it with other segments. This tool is intended to streamline the collision analysis and the selection process for potential locations, but is by no means the sole determining factor.

Table 5.1: Top 10 Collisions for Intersections
ID Intersection
Grand Total
Fatal
Severe
Injury
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Property
Damage

Broadside
Rear End
Sideswipe
Hit Object
Head-On
Vehicle/
Pedestrian
Overturned
Other EPDO
Score
Collision
Frequency
Rank
1 30th St & Waterman Ave 55 0 1 6 26 22 25 9 7 3 7 3 1 0 364.94 1 2 Waterman Ave & 40th St 44 0 1 10 17 16 18 9 10 4 2 0 0 1 346.96 2 3 Highland Ave & Arden Ave 39 0 0 6 11 22 15 11 8 3 1 0 0 1 153.50 3 4 E St & Orange Show Rd 33 0 0 6 9 18 15 7 4 1 2 3 0 1 137.30 4 5 Foothill Blvd & Meridian Ave 30 0 0 10 15 5 11 10 3 2 1 3 0 0 203.83 5 6 E St & Mill St 26 0 0 5 9 12 6 10 4 2 3 1 0 0 120.56 6 7 SR-18 & Old Waterman Canyon Rd 24 0 2 9 7 6 7 0 2 8 2 0 3 2 385.15 7 8 Highland Ave & Eucalyptus Dr 23 0 0 4 14 5 9 8 2 0 2 2 0 0 133.34 8 9 E St & 16th St 21 0 0 0 9 12 10 2 6 3 0 0 0 0 66.91 9 10 Rancho Ave & Foothill Blvd 20 2 2 6 6 4 8 2 4 4 1 1 0 0 584.72 10

Table 5.2: Top 10 Collisions for Non-Signalized Intersections ID Intersection
Grand Total
Fatal
Severe
Injury
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Property
Damage
Broadside
Rear End
Sideswipe
Hit Object
Head-On
Vehicle/
Pedestrian
Overturned
Other EPDO
Score
Collision
Frequency
Rank
1 21st St & Mountain View Ave 17 0 0 3 10 4 14 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 97.20 1 2 E St & 36th St 16 0 1 1 5 9 5 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 241.04 2 3 J St & Rialto Ave 16 0 0 3 8 5 7 0 2 1 6 0 0 0 86.00 2 4 D St & 10th St 15 0 0 4 6 5 5 0 4 3 3 0 0 0 84.53 4

Packet Pg.
424

5.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 41 ID Intersection
Grand Total
Fatal
Severe
Injury
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Property
Damage
Broadside
Rear End
Sideswipe
Hit Object
Head-On
Vehicle/
Pedestrian
Overturned
Other EPDO
Score
Collision
Frequency
Rank
5 Waterman Ave & 29th St 15 0 0 1 9 5 7 2 3 0 3 0 0 0 70.64 4 6 Highland Ave & Rockford Ave 14 0 2 3 5 4 7 3 0 0 3 1 0 0 448.31 6 7 Dallas Ave & Foothill Blvd 14 0 0 2 6 6 3 4 1 3 2 1 0 0 64.07 6 8 6th St & Sierra Way 14 0 0 2 6 6 7 1 4 1 0 0 0 1 64.07 6 9 Waterman Ave & I-10 13 0 0 2 7 4 7 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 68.17 9 10 Cajon Blvd & Medical Center Dr 9 1 1 0 2 5 2 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 398.81 10 Table 5.3: Top 10 Collisions for Roadway Segments
ID Roadway From To
Grand Total
Fatal
Severe Injury
Visible Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Property
Damage Only
Collisions per
Mile
Broadside
Rear End
Sideswipe
Hit Object
Head-On
Vehicle -
Pedestrian
Overturned
Other
EPDO
Score
Collision
Frequency
Rank
13 Baseline St Pepper Ave Tippecanoe
Ave 745 12 28 107 279 319 274 235 174 95 74 74 71 10 12 7,967 1 10 Waterman
Ave 28th St Washington
Ave 562 6 12 83 218 243 423 172 144 84 49 61 43 4 5 4,622 2 5 Highland Ave Waterman
Ave Palm Ave 456 4 16 61 177 198 164 157 99 66 44 48 34 1 7 4,331 3 3 9th St G St Del Rosa Dr 345 5 11 73 121 135 64 134 80 50 18 33 18 5 7 3,576 4 7 Sierra Wy 40th St 4th St 313 1 9 61 101 141 78 115 65 49 27 30 16 4 7 2,611 5 4 Rialto Ave Pepper Ave Tippecanoe
Ave 297 2 4 68 99 124 97 111 34 42 26 52 20 7 5 2,177 6 1 Kendall Dr University
Pkwy E St 178 8 6 35 57 72 44 46 36 22 26 32 8 5 3 2,474 7 6 Tippecanoe
Ave Baseline St Orange Show
Rd 165 3 4 37 52 69 178 51 33 24 33 16 5 2 1 1,623 8
9 Mill St G St Tippecanoe
Ave 153 3 4 20 47 79 70 41 37 20 27 20 3 2 3 1,420 9
11 Victoria Ave Lynwood Dr Highland Ave 70 0 1 7 36 26 11 15 29 9 2 10 4 0 1 441 10 2 Little
Mountain Dr Kendall Dr Edgehill Rd 62 1 6 11 19 25 83 13 4 5 13 14 0 11 2 1,098 11

Packet Pg.
425

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 42

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
The recommended Engineering Countermeasures (improvements to enhance transportation safety) address the emphasis areas on bicyclists, speeding/rear-end collisions and emergency medical services.

Five years of collision data from January 2016 to December 2020 were utilized to conduct a more in- depth review of the collision data. Safety countermeasures for the identified candidate locations were selected based on the following collision patterns:
• Collision severity
• Lighting conditions
• Involved parties, especially bicyclists and pedestrians • Type of collision
• Primary collision factor
• Movements of the involved parties preceding the occurrence of the collision Table 6.1 summarizes the list of safety countermeasures included in the LRSM and applied to the LRSP as a set of primary recommendations. The table summarizes each countermeasure’s applicable crash types, crash reduction factor (CRF), project life of the recommended improvement, maximum reimbursement percentage, and the opportunity for a systemic approach.

Table 6.1: Safety Countermeasures Applied to San Bernardino LRSP CM No. Countermeasure Name Crash
Type CRF Expected Life
(Years)
HSIP
Eligibility
Systemic
Opportunity?
S01 Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) Night 40% 20 90% Medium S02
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-
plates with retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and number
All 15% 10 90% Very High
S03 Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, red, yellow, or operation) All 15% 10 50% Very High S06
Install left-turn lane and add turn phase
(signal has no left-turn lane or phase
before)
All 55% 20 90% Low
S07 Provide protected left turn phase (left turn
lane already exists) All 30% 20 90% High
S09 Install raised pavement markers and
striping (Through Intersection) All 10% 10 90% Very High S18PB Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.) P & B 25% 20 90% High S21PB Modify signal phasing to implement a
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) P&B 60% 10 90% Very High NS01 Add intersection lighting Night 40% 20 90% Medium
NS03 Install signals All 30% 20 90% Low
NS06
Install/upgrade larger or additional stop
signs or other intersection
warning/regulatory signs
All 15% 10 90% Very High

Packet Pg.
426

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 43 CM No. Countermeasure Name Crash
Type CRF Expected Life
(Years)
HSIP
Eligibility
Systemic
Opportunity?
NS07 Upgrade intersection pavement markings
(NS.I.) All 25% 10 90% Very High
NS09 Install flashing beacons as advance
warning (NS.I.) All 30% 10 90% High
NS14 Install raised median on approaches
(NS.I.) All 25% 20 90% Medium
NS18 Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn
lane exists) All 35% 20 90% Low
NS19PB Install raised median (refuge islands) P&B 45% 20 90% Medium NS20PB Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled
locations (new signs and markings only) P & B 25% 10 90% High NS21PB
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations (with enhanced
safety features)
P & B 35% 20 90% Medium
NS23PB Install Pedestrian Signal (including
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) P & B 55% 20 90% Low R08 Install raised median All 25% 20 90% Medium
R14 Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a
two way left-turn and bike lanes) All 35% 20 90% Medium R21 Improve pavement friction (High Friction
Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% High
R22 Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting (regulatory or warning) All 15% 10 90% Very High R28 Install edge-lines and centerlines All 25% 10 90% Very High R31 Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes All 15% 10 90% High R32PB Install bike lanes P&B 35% 20 90% High
R33PB Install separated bike lanes P&B 45% 20 90% High
R34PB Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking
along roadway) P&B 80% 20 90% Medium
Source: Local Roadway Safety Manual, Version 1.6 April 2022 The countermeasure numbers (“CM No.” column) in Table 6.1 represent the ID number for the types of improvements that are eligible for HSIP funding, and correspond to the countermeasure IDs used in the 2022 LRSM. Throughout this document, countermeasures that are referenced from LRSM will be accompanied by an ID number, and those that are not referenced from the LRSM will be described only.

The City of San Bernardino is also in the project delivery phase of a multi-year HSIP Cycle 9 funding award implementation to improve 224 signalized intersections and multiple corridors across the city,

Packet Pg.
427

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 44 including new signal heads, pedestrian countdown signals and pushbuttons, advanced dilemma zone detection and other related intersection improvements. In order to not duplicate these improvements with similar recommendations from the LRSP’s analysis, those locations were not included for new improvements in the identified project locations. This will also allow for an appropriate post-construction evaluation of the Cycle 9 improvements; future LRSP updates may assess the potential need for additional improvements at these recently improved locations.

6.1 IDENTIFIED PROJECT LOCATIONS
The lists below of roadway segment and intersection project recommendations are the results of the collision analysis, development of safety emphasis areas, incorporation of stakeholder feedback and alignment with supporting City, regional, and state policies. The recommendations may change once in- depth engineering and feasibility review is completed, funding potential assessed, or additional stakeholder feedback is received. Once they are presented to residents and community members and reviewed by other City departments, final design and implementation may differ from what is presented in the LRSP.

6.1.1 IDENTIFIED ROADWAY SEGMENTS
According to the City’s Circulation Element of the General Plan, all roadways within the City are classified into the following categories of roadways: Freeways, Major Arterials, Secondary Arterials, Collector Streets, and Local Streets.

Six roadway segments of various categories were selected for focused analysis, and subsequent development of safety improvement recommendations:

1. Kendall Drive (between University Parkway and H Street)

2. 9th Street (between Waterman Avenue and Del Rosa Drive)

3. Rialto Avenue (between Pepper Avenue and Muscott Street)

4. Meridian Avenue (between Etiwanda Street and Rialto Avenue)

5. E Street (between CA-210 overcrossing and Fairway Drive)

6. Lynwood Drive (between San Gabriel Street and Cedar Street)

6.1.2 IDENTIFIED INTERSECTIONS
All intersections located on City streets in the public right-of-way were included in the safety analysis, and were reviewed using industry standard crash frequency and “EPDO” methods. 14 intersections were identified as having opportunities for roadway safety countermeasures:

1. Highland Avenue and Eucalyptus Drive

2. 9th Street and Sierra Way

3. Cajon Boulevard and Medical Center Drive

4. E Street and Valley Street

5. E Street, Inland Center Drive, and Mill Street

6. G Street and Inland Center Drive

7. Meridian Avenue and Rialto Avenue

8. E Street and Kendall Drive

9. Rialto Avenue and F Street

10. E Street and 21st Street

Packet Pg.
428

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 45

11. E Street and 9th Street

12. 5th Street and Victoria Avenue

13. Richardson Street and San Bernardino Avenue

14. E Street and Orange Show Road
Figure 6.1 – Recommendation Corridors & Intersections

6.2 ROADWAY SEGMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

6.2.1 KENDALL DRIVE (UNIVERSITY PARKWAY TO H STREET)
This segment on Kendall Drive between University Parkway and H Street is approximately 2.0 miles long.

The average daily traffic (ADT) of the segment was 14,458 in 2021. The width of the segment is approximately 75 feet wide along most of the length, widening to 80 feet near the southern end south of Little Mountain Road. The roadway carries four lanes and a two-way left-turn lane, with a speed limit of 50 mph. This segment serves as a major connection between communities in north San Bernardino, (including Kendall Hills, Verdermont, Shandin Hills, and Arrowhead Farms) with Downtown and other parts of the city. It is also a major access corridor for California State University, San Bernardino. The segment is primarily residential frontage along the northern half, and a mix of retail businesses and

Packet Pg.
429

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 46 residential uses along the southern half. Between F Street and H Street, there are no bike lanes, and there is a sidewalk on the south side; the north side has a curb and mainly consists of driveways, parking lots, and vegetation. Between 40
th Street and F Street, there are sidewalks on both sides of the roadway, with no bike lanes. Between Little Mountain Drive and 40th Street, there are bike lanes on both sides and a continuous sidewalk on the south side, while the north sidewalk is intermittent. Between University Parkway and Little Mountain Drive, there are sidewalks on both sides and one bike lane on the north side. 154 collisions in total have occurred on this segment from January 2016 to December 2020, with ten resulting in either fatality or severe injury. 44 collisions (28.6%) were broadside, 35 collisions (22.7%) were rear-end, and 27 collisions (17.5%) were head-on. Unsafe speeds were the most common Primary Collision Factor, with 36 collisions (23.4%), followed by improper turning at 33 collisions (22.7%) and automobile right-of-way violation at 31 collisions (20.8%). The segment of Kendall Drive between University Parkway and E Street, which this segment (University Parkway to H Street) mostly encompasses, ranks at 7th in collision frequency and 6th in EPDO score among roadway segments in the City.

Figure 6.1: Kendall Drive Collision History

The following countermeasures are recommended for this corridor:

Packet Pg.
430

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 47 - R33PB2: Install Class IV separated bike lanes with parking protection along both sides of the corridor. o Remove center two-way left turn lane (TWLT) to create space along the roadway. o Create left-turn pockets and receiving pockets where necessary. - R34PB: Install a new sidewalk on the north side of Kendall Drive between 4th Avenue and Mountain Drive, and south of Western Avenue, along existing gaps where no sidewalk currently exists. - NS21PB: Upgrade to continental crosswalks along entire corridor at all existing marked crossings, and install amber crosswalks at locations along school routes.
- NS03: Signalize intersection of Kendall Drive and Lakewood Drive to shorten the un-signalized segment, providing speed control and create a safer pedestrian crossing opportunity. - NS14: Prohibit left turns from southbound 3rd Avenue to eastbound Kendall Drive with a directional median on 3rd Avenue.
- Install green bicycle conflict striping at driveways and through intersections. - Evaluate the potential to lower speed limits along the corridor in tandem with other design changes o Install additional speed limit signs along each roadway segment if the operating speed limit is lowered o Assembly Bill 43 (CA) allows a 5-10 mph reduction in speed limits along higher-density commercial or residential corridors, or corridors with “vulnerable users, such as children, seniors, people with mobility issues, or the unhoused”.

6.2.2 9TH STREET (WATERMAN AVENUE TO DEL ROSA DRIVE)
This segment is approximately 1.0 miles long. The curb-to-curb width is approximately 68 feet at the easternmost portion, with narrows to approximately 64 feet at the bridge crossing East Twin Creek, and maintains this width to Waterman Avenue. The roadway is four lanes wide with a two-way center left turn lane along the entire extent. Parking is currently permitted on both sides of the entire segment, except for the portion in front of Sierra High School.

Figure 6.2 – 9th Street Recommendations – Typical Cross Section

There are no bicycle facilities along this segment. Sierra High School and Robertson Elementary School both have their parking lots and pick-up/drop-off areas on this street. The segment also contains

2 If applying for HSIP funds, this would not count as countermeasure R14-Road Diet, which specifies a two-way left turn lane and travel lane reductions.

Packet Pg.
431

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 48 commercial uses and light industrial uses which include automotive services and a school bus yard, as well as an apartment complex, mobile home parks, and an RV park. 148 collisions in total have occurred along this segment, including nine resulting in fatalty or severe injury. 57 collisions (38.5%) were broadside, 35 collisions (23.6%) were rear-end, and 21 collisions (14.2%) were sideswipe. The four most common Primary Collision Factors are improper turning at 33 collisions (22.3%), unsafe speeds at 31 collisions (20.9%), automobile right-of-way violation at 26 collisions (17.6%), and traffic signals/signs at 24 collisions (16.2%).

Figure 6.2: 9th Street Collision History

The following countermeasures are recommended for this corridor:
- R14: Reduce one travel lane in each direction, install class II bike lanes (R32PB), retain current parking configuration.
- Install green bicycle conflict striping at driveways and through intersections. - Install cross-hatched edge line striping wherever parking is currently prohibited to maintain lane widths and bike lane space.

At the intersection of 9th Street and Preston Street:
- NS23PB: Install pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK) crosswalk along west leg of the intersection.

Packet Pg.
432

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 49 - NS19PB: Install concrete pedestrian refuge island to protect pedestrians using HAWK crosswalk. - Install green bicycle conflict striping at driveways and through intersections.

See Appendix A for a complete concept drawing of the improvements proposed on 9th Street.

6.2.3 RIALTO AVENUE (BETWEEN PEPPER AVENUE AND MUSCOTT STREET) This segment is approximately 1.75 miles long. Rialto Avenue has four lanes along most of this segment, with the exception of a 0.5-mile segment between Meridian Avenue and Macy Street which is two lanes.

The segment passes through residential, commercial, and industrial areas, including an at-grade crossing of BNSF rail right-of-way and a bridge over a BNSF railyard. The segment does not have consistent sidewalk coverage.

A total of 109 collisions have taken place on this corridor, including five resulting in fatality or severe injury. The most common Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) are improper turning (24.8%), unsafe speed (19.3%), automobile right-of-way violation (17.4%) and traffic signals and signs (15.6%). The most common collision types are broadside (30.3%) and head-on (20.2%).

Figure 6.4: Rialto Avenue Collision History

The following countermeasures are recommended for this corridor:
- R32PB: Add bike lanes eastbound (Class IV) and westbound (Class II)

Packet Pg.
433

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 50 o Bi-directional Class IV lanes are possible but would require adjusting intersection approach striping or providing additional intersection striping to delineate Class IV path across intersections. o R31 (Optional): If bicycle infrastructure will require more advanced planning/engineering, install edgeline/rumble strips to delineate lane boundaries.
- R34PB: Install new sidewalk along the south side of Rialto Avenue to fill sidewalk gaps between Pepper Avenue and Muscott Street.
o At Rancho Ave/Rialto Ave, direct pedestrians to cross and walk along the southern sidewalk only, which will align with existing railroad overcrossing’s sidewalk, and avoid conflicts with intermodal facilities on north side of Rialto Avenue (between Rancho Avenue and Pico Avenue) o Consider restricting parking on the south side of Rialto Avenue between Pepper Avenue and Rancho Avenue, to limit demand (and associated conflicts) for crossing to large mobile home parks on the north side, and to create adequate ROW for bicycle facilities or sidewalks. Crossings are limited in this area, with pedestrians potentially crossing midblock to avoid inconveniently diverting to a marked crossing.
- R08: Install median along Rialto Avenue, running from 400 feet E of Rancho Avenue and ending 575 feet E of Pennsylvania Avenue.
o Include a break in the median for the Rialto Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue intersection. o Do not include a break at Rialto Avenue and Arrow Route intersection (restrict traffic to right-on/right- off only, as left turning vehicles can use Pennsylvania Avenue for access). - R31: Install edge-line rumble strips between Rancho Avenue and Muscott Street to address head-on, hit- object, and run off road collisions.

Figure 6.5: Recommended Rialto Avenue Median and Sidewalk Countermeasures

6.2.4 MERIDIAN AVENUE (BETWEEN ETIWANDA STREET AND RIALTO AVENUE) This segment is approximately 1.0 miles long. The roadway segment is has one travel lane in each direction, serving primarily residential areas and providing a connection to the commercial corridor along Foothill Boulevard to the south, approaching Baseline Road to the north, and access to Myers Elementary School north of Etiwanda Street.

A total of 68 collisions have taken place on this corridor, including two resulting in severe injury. The most common Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) are improper turning (29.4%), unsafe speed (22.1%), and

Packet Pg.
434

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 51 automobile right-of-way violation (14.7%). The most common collision types are broadside (27.9%) and rear end (23.5%).

Figure 6.6: Meridian Avenue Collision History

The corridor provides an opportunity to link to the Caltrans Route 66 Complete Streets project, which is currently in the design phase. The following countermeasures are recommended:
- NS20PB: Install continental crosswalks across Meridian at 6th Street (ADA curb ramps), midblock crossing at Nicholson Park, 2nd Street, Rialto Avenue, 7th Street.
o NS08/NS09: Consider advance flashing beacons at these intersections to warn motorists of stop controls.
- S01: Improve intersection lighting at Etiwanda Avenue. - Reduce speed limit from 40 mph to 35 mph through California Assembly Bill 43 regulations.

6.2.5 E STREET (BETWEEN CA-210 OVERCROSSING AND FAIRWAY DRIVE) This segment is approximately 5.3 miles long and passes through various neighborhoods within the City of San Bernardino, including Downtown. The segment crosses several major arterial roads at signalized intersections, as well as minor crossings and commercial or residential driveways.

A total of 406 collisions have taken place on this corridor, including 9 resulting in fatality or severe injury.

The most common Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) are unsafe speed (23.6%), improper turning (18.2%), traffic signals and signs (17.5%), and automobile right-of-way violation (15.5%). The most common

Packet Pg.
435

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 52 collision types are broadside (33.3%) and rear end (23.2%).

The following countermeasures are recommended for this corridor:
- NS20PB: Stripe continental crosswalks at all arterial and collector street intersections along E Street for major crossings in all directions.
o Stripe continental crosswalks at Mall Way and the Orange Show Event Center entrance.

Figure 6.7: E Street Collision History

6.2.6 LYNWOOD DRIVE/30TH STREET (BETWEEN SAN GABRIEL STREET AND CEDAR STREET) This segment is approximately ¼ mile long. The roadway is named 30th Street as it approaches from the west; as it intersects with Lynwood Drive, it assumes the name Lynwood Drive as it continues eastward.

The roadway is four lanes with a center yellow line and has an approximate width of 65 feet. The segment contains sharp corners and signage warning to approach the turns with caution.

A total of 16 collisions have occurred on this corridor, including two that resulted in fatality or severe injury. The most common Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) are unsafe speeds (31.3%), automobile right- of-way violation (25.0%), and improper turning (25.0%). The most common collision types are hit object (37.5%) and broadside (31.3%).

The following countermeasures are recommended for this corridor:
- R21: Improve pavement friction to reduce stopping distances for vehicles that would otherwise depart the roadway or hit an object if they are unable to stop in time. - R28: Install/upgrade edgelines and centerlines

Packet Pg.
436

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 53 o Install raised pavement markers to warn motorists when they are approaching the outside edge of the lane, and narrow the outside lane where possible (it is currently 20’ wide in both directions) o Upgrade centerline to double-yellow with hatching in the middle to separate vehicles traveling in opposite directions. Include raised pavement markers along the edge of each double yellow centerline to warn motorists when they are approaching the inside edge of the lane.

6.3 INTERSECTION RECOMMENDATIONS

6.3.1 HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EUCALYPTUS DRIVE
This location is a non-signalized three-way intersection between a major arterial road and a minor road.

Highland Avenue is a four-lane arterial road with a two-way left-turn lane. The south sidewalk extends 370 feet west of the intersection to the CA-210 offramp and 400 feet east of the intersection to a private lot, and then continues eastward intermittently. The north sidewalk begins at the intersection and continutes eastward. There is no sidewalk in front of the vacant lot northwest of the intersection, but there is a dirt path connecting to the nearest sidewalk. Eucalyptus Drive is a two-lane minor road that leads to a residential neighborhood; a sidewalk exists on the east side that faces a commercial shopping center, but ends at the end of that lot. Both sides of Highland Avenue have commercial uses fronted by parking lots.
23 collisions in total have occurred at this intersection. The two most common collision types are broadside at 9 collisions (55.3%) and rear-end at 8 collisions (34.8%). The two most common Primary Collision Factors are automobile right-of-way violation at 10 collisions (43.5%) and unsafe speeds at 9 collisions (55.3%).

Packet Pg.
437

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 54 Figure 6.8: Highland Avenue And Eucalyptus Drive Collision History

The following countermeasures are recommended for this intersection:
- NS23PB: Install pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK) crosswalk – Install at NE corner of Eucalyptus Drive and 450’ east of I-210 southbound off-ramp, at the end of the curb taper. o Will require new pole and mast arm for beacon installation in each direction. o Include pedestrian push buttons and warning signage on new pole and mast arm. o Will require minor relocation of transit stop signs to provide clear - NS19PB: Install concrete pedestrian refuge island to protect pedestrians using HAWK crosswalk. o Allow sufficient clearance for left turns onto Highland Avenue from southbound Eucalyptus Drive and northbound shopping center driveway
- NS06: Install new advance warning signage for new HAWK crosswalk (pedestrian crossing, indicator arrow, stop here on red, etc.) as advance warning to prepare drivers to stop. o NS09 (Optional): Provide enhanced protection by installing advance warning beacons with warning signage, and synchronize HAWK beacon and advance warning beacons operation. - Relocate bus stop signage as needed to accommodate the above improvements

Packet Pg.
438

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 55 Figure 6.9: Highland Avenue And Eucalyptus Drive Design Concept

6.3.2 9TH STREET AND SIERRA WAY
This location is a signalized intersection of two arterial roads. 9th Street has four travel lanes and a two- way left-turn lane. Sierra Way is two lanes with left turn pockets at the intersection. Left turns are protective-permissive in the north-south direction and fully protected in the east-west direction.

Sidewalks and standard crosswalks exist on all sides of the intersection. The area around the intersection is primarily residential, with some commercial uses adjacent to the intersection.

Two collisions have taken place at this intersection, one of them being a broadside collision between a motor vehicle and a bicycle which resulted in visible injury, and the other being a sideswipe collision between a motor vehicle and a bicycle which occurred at night, resulting in a complaint of pain.

The following countermeasures are recommended for this intersection:
- S01: Add intersection lighting with luminaire lighting and mast arm - Relocate existing push buttons to new push button posts. - S02 (Optional): Install nearside signals eastbound and westbound on 9th Street

Packet Pg.
439

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 56 Figure 6.10: 9th Street and Sierra Way Design Concept

6.3.3 CAJON BOULEVARD AND MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE
This location is a non-signalized three-way intersection between two two-lane roads. Stop controls exist on Medical Center Drive, while traffic on Cajon Boulevard does not stop. The intersection is located in a primarily rural and industrial area, with approaches in each direction coming from long straightaways with little by the side of each road. There are no sidewalks, bike lanes, or crosswalks in the vicinity of the intersection.

A total of 9 collisions have occurred at this intersection. The most common Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) are automobile right-of-way violation and improper turning, at 33% each, and the most common collision types are broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit object, all at 22% each.

Packet Pg.
440

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 57 Figure 6.11: Cajon Boulevard and Medical Center Drive Collision History

The following countermeasures are recommended for this location:
- NS01: Add intersection lighting to northeast or northwest corner. - NS18: Install left turn lane for Medical Center Drive. - NS06: Install additional warning signage for all approaches. - NS07: Upgrade intersection pavement markings.
- Adjust lane striping to balance out lane widths and shoulder widths.

Packet Pg.
441

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 58 Figure 6.12: Cajon Boulevard and Medical Center Drive Design Concept

6.3.4 E STREET AND VALLEY STREET
This is a three-way signalized intersection. Both roads carry one lane of traffic in each direction with dedicated left-turn lanes. E Street contains the sBX bus rapid transit corridor in its median, which is separated from general traffic and is a part of the signal phasing. Traffic on nearby driveways along E Street cannot cross the sBX corridor. Left turns are protected for southbound traffic. Northbound traffic on E Street has a dedicated U-turn lane and signal phase (which contains standard left-turn signal heads).

The intersection contains standard crosswalks on the south and east legs of the intersection.

A total of two collisions have occurred at this intersection. Both were vehicle-pedestrian collisions resulting in a complaint of pain.

The following countermeasures are recommended for this location:
- S21PB: Implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
- S02: Install nearside vehical signal heads with retroreflective yellow borders - Convert existing crosswalks to continental striping
- (Optional) Replace northbound left-turn signal head with a U-turn signal head

Packet Pg.
442

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 59 Figure 6.13: E Street and Valley Street Design Concept

6.3.5 E STREET / INLAND CENTER DRIVE AND MILL STREET
This is a five-way signalized intersection between major roads. All streets are four lanes, with Inland Center Drive and Mill Street containing two-way left turn lanes. E Street contains the sBX bus rapid transit corridor in the median, which is separated from general traffic and is a part of the signal phasing. Traffic on nearby driveways along E Street cannot cross the sBX corridor. Left turns are protected in all directions. This intersection contains standard crosswalks on the north, west, and east legs of the intersection.

A total of 26 collisions have occurred at this location. The most common Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) are unsafe speed (36.0%), improper turning (16.0%), and traffic signals and signs (16.0%). This collision history indicates that the location could benefit from greater clarity in signage and lane markings. The most common collision types are rear end (38.5%) and broadside (23.1%).

Packet Pg.
443

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 60 Figure 6.14: E Street, Inland Center Drive, and Mill Street Collision History

The following countermeasures are recommended for this location:
- S18PB: Install pedestrian crossings in the southeast corner across Inland Center Drive and across E Street. - S02: Upgrade vehicle signal heads with retroreflective yellow borders. - Upgrade all existing crosswalks to continental striping. - (Optional) Upgrade overhead signage at intersection approaches to indicate which streets each lane leads to.

Packet Pg.
444

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 61 Figure 6.15: E Street, Inland Center Drive, and Mill Street Design Concept

6.3.6 G STREET AND INLAND CENTER DRIVE
This location is a four-way signalized intersection between a major and minor road that also includes an access point to the Inland Center Mall parking lot. Inland Center Drive has four lanes, a median barrier, and dedicated left turn lanes. G Street has two lanes and a center two-way left-turn lane. Left turns are protective-permissive along Inland Center Drive and fully permissive along G Street and for traffic exiting Inland Center mall. G Street contains Class II bike lanes in each direction, while Inland Center drive has a two-way pedestrian and bicycle path that originates from the intersection and continues southwest.

Aside from the path, there are no sidewalks on either street.

A total of 11 collisions have occurred at this location. The most common Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) are automobile right-of-way violatioin (36.4%) and traffic signals and signs (27.3%). The most common collision type is overwhelmingly broadside (72.7%).

Packet Pg.
445

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 62 Figure 6.16: G Street and Inland Center Drive Collision History

The following countermeasures are recommended for this location:
- S03: Improve northbound left turn lane detection.
o Consider flashing yellow arrow signals in all directions. - S02: Upgrade vehicle signal heads with retroreflective yellow borders. - R33PB: Extend Class I path on the north side of the street, from G Street to E Street (including bridge crossing). - Upgrade all existing crosswalks to continental striping.

Packet Pg.
446

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 63 Figure 6.17: G Street and Inland Center Drive Design Concept

6.3.7 MERIDIAN AVENUE AND RIALTO AVENUE
This location is a four-way signalized intersection. Rialto Avenue has two lanes and a two-way left-turn lane, with a 45 mph speed limit. Meridian Avenue has two lanes and a center yellow line on the northbound and southbound approaches to the intersection. Left turns are protective-permissive for east-west traffic on Rialto Avenue and fully permissive for north-south traffic on Meridian Avenue. The intersection contains standard crosswalks on all legs. Sidewalks only exist on one side of each street; sidewalks originate from the northwest and southeast corners, while sidewalks do not exist on the other corners or on either street’s approach to those corners. The uses surrounding the neighborhood are almost exclusively residential, with a shopping center approximately 750 feet west of the intersection.

A total of 15 collisions have occurred at this location, with one resulting in severe injury. The most common Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) are improper turning (40.0%) and unsafe speed (26.7%). The most common collision types are broadside (26.7%), vehicle/pedestrian (20.0%), head-on (20.0%), and hit object (20.0%).

Packet Pg.
447

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 64 Figure 6.18: Meridian Avenue and Rialto Avenue Collision History

The following countermeasures are recommended for this location:
- S02: Consider replacing five-section protective-permissive left turn with flashing yellow arrows. - S03: Improve signal timing. Review yellow and all-red timing parameters.

Packet Pg.
448

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 65 Figure 6.19: Meridian Avenue and Rialto Avenue Design Concept

6.3.8 E STREET AND KENDALL DRIVE (NORTH OF 36TH STREET) This is a non-signalized three way intersection between a major arterial road and a minor street. Kendall Drive has four lanes and a left-turn pocket for northbound traffic. Southbound traffic approaches downhill after climbing over the Shadin Hills. From the northwest corner, E Street is a minor, two-lane residential street. Kendall Drive assumes the name of E Street as it continues south from the intersection.

Kendall Drive/E Street does not have edge lines as it tracks through the intersection. There are no marked crosswalks at this intersection. Uses around the intersection are primarily residential.

A total of 11 collisions have occurred at this location. The most common Primary Collision Factor (PCF) is overwhelmingly unsafe speed (81.8%). The most common collision types are sideswipe and hit object, at

27.3% each.

Packet Pg.
449

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 66 Figure 6.20: E Street and Kendall Drive Collision History

The following countermeasures are recommended for this location:
- NS07: Restripe southbound E Street approach and stop bar to be perpendicular to centerline of Kendall Drive. o Install a striped bulb out on the west edge of the intersection to orient traffic to the new stop bar and provide better sightline angles.
- R28: Provide an edge line for southbound Kendall Drive through the curve as it approaches and departs the intersection.
- NS06: Consider warning signs with flashing beacon or a speed feedback sign for southbound traffic at the intersection approach and departure from the intersection.

Packet Pg.
450

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 67 Figure 6.21: E Street and Kendall Drive Design Concept

6.3.9 RIALTO AVENUE AND F STREET
This is a three-way signalized intersection that includes a bus-only fourth leg that serves as the entrance and exit for the San Bernardino Transit Center. Both roads are four lanes wide; Rialto Avenue also includes a two-way left-turn lane. Left turns are protective-permissive for east-west traffic. Both roads have sidewalks on both sides, and there are standard crosswalks on all legs of the intersection. There are no bike lines on either street, but Rialto Avenue is marked with shared lane markings. This location, in Downtown San Bernardino, is surrounded by almost exclusively commercial uses.

A total of 7 collisions have occurred at this intersection. The most common Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) are automobile right-of-way violation (42.9%) and pedestrian violation (28.6%). The most common collision types are vehicle/pedestrian (42.9%) and broadside (28.6%).

The following countermeasures are recommended for this location:
- R32PB: Add bike lanes along Rialto Avenue
- S21PB: Implement Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) for northbound and southbound pedestrian movements o (Optional) Install curb bulb-outs
- (Optional) Upgrade existing crosswalks to continental striping.

Packet Pg.
451

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 68 Figure 6.22: Rialto Avenue and F Street Design Concept

6.3.10 E STREET AND 21ST STREET
This is an non-signalized four-way intersection with a 75-foot offset as 21st Street crosses E Street. E Street is a major arterial road with four lanes of traffic. 21st Street is a minor residential street, Traffic on 21st Street has stop controls, while traffic on E Street does not stop. The intersection is approximately 250 feet south of an sBX bus rapid transit stop. The area around the intersection is residential with commercial corridors along E Street and nearby Highland Avenue, which is approximately 350 feet north.

San Bernardino High School is ¼ mile south of the intersection. There are no marked crosswalks at this intersection.

A total of 9 collisions have taken place at this intersection, including two resulting in severe injury. The most common Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) are pedestrian violation (33%) and improper turning (22%). The most common collision types are broadside (44%) and vehicle/pedestrian (33%).

The following countermeasures are recommended for this location:
- NS06: Add new warning signage prohibiting pedestrians crossing E Street at 21st Street, directing pedestrians to cross at Highland Avenue to the north or at 20th Street to the south

6.3.11 E STREET AND 9TH STREET
This is a four-way signalized intersection between two major roads. E Street contains two lanes of general traffic with dedicated left turn lanes, while 9th Street contains four lanes and a two-way left-turn lane. E Street contains the sBX bus rapid transit corridor in its median, which is separated from general traffic

Packet Pg.
452

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 69 and is a part of the signal phasing. Traffic on nearby driveways along E Street cannot cross the sBX corridor. Left turns are protective-permissive for east-west traffic on 9th Street and fully protected for north-south traffic on E Street. There are currently standard crosswalks on all legs of the intersection.

A total of 10 collisions have taken place at this location, including one resulting in severe injury. The most common Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) are traffic signals and signs (33%), pedestrian violation (22%), and improper turning (22%). The most common collision types are broadside (30%), sideswipe (20%), and vehicle/pedestrian (20%).

Figure 6.23: E Street and 9th Street Collision History

The following countermeasures are recommended for this location:
- S21PB: Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) o Northbound and southbound crossings are highly recommended, but all four crossings can be considered.
- Upgrade existing crosswalks to continental striping.

6.3.12 5TH STREET AND VICTORIA AVENUE
This is a four-way signalized intersection between two major roads. Victoria Avenue contains four lanes

Packet Pg.
453

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 70 of traffic without left turn lanes, while 5th Street contains two lanes of traffic as it approaches from the west, and four lanes of traffic with a two-way left-turn lane as it approaches from the east. Left turns are fully permissive in all directions. There are currently standard crosswalks on all legs of the intersection, with inconsistent sidewalk coverage nearby. 5th Street has Class II bike lanes. The intersection is located in a primarily industrial area with some residential uses nearby.

If 5th Street between Victoria Avenue and Roberts Street will be widened to accommodate additional logistics facilities on the north and south, it is critical that those improvements be paid through development fees and delivered by the City, or as part of the facility’s construction.

A total of 10 collisions have taken place at this location, with the most common Primary Collision Factor (PCF) being automobile right-of-way violation (40.0%). The most common collision type is overwhelmingly broadside (80.0%).

Figure 6.24: 5th Street and Victoria Avenue Collision History

The following countermeasures are recommended for this location:
- S06: Install northbound and southbound left turn lanes. - S07: Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound traffic. - S02: Improve signal heads (increased size, retroreflective back plates, near side signal heads for left turns).

Packet Pg.
454

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 71

6.3.13 E STREET AND ORANGE SHOW ROAD
This location is a four-way signalized intersection between major arterial roadways. E Street contains two lanes of general traffic with dedicated left-turn lanes, while Orange Show Road contains four lanes and a two-way left-turn lane as it approaches from the east, and four lanes from the west that are joined by two left-turn lanes and a dedicated right-turn lane. E Street contains the sBX bus rapid transit corridor in its median, which is separated from general traffic and sBX operations are incorporated into the corridor’s signal phasing. Traffic on nearby driveways along E Street cannot cross the sBX corridor. Left turns are fully protected in the intersection. There are currently standard crosswalks on all legs of the intersection.

A total of 33 collisions have taken place at this location. The most common Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) are unsafe speed and automobile right-of-way violation (24.2% each). The most common collision types are broadside (45.5%), rear end (21.2%), and sideswipe (12.1%).

Packet Pg.
455

6.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 72 Figure 6.26: E Street and Orange Show Road Collision History

The following countermeasures are recommended for this location:
- S21PB: Evaluate potential for LPI across all legs; examine need for complementary right turn on red (RTOR) restriction.
- S09: Add guidance striping across the intersection for BRT lanes; consider using high-visibility, colored striping to clearly delineate lane assignment at the intersection approach and crossing the intersection. o Consider guidance striping for northbound/southbound left turn lanes on Orange Show Road to help vehicles avoid accidentally entering the BRT lanes.
- S02: Upgrade vehicle signal heads with retro-reflective yellow borders, increased signal lens sizes, etc. - Upgrade existing crosswalks to continental striping

Packet Pg.
456

7.0 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 73

7.0 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
This section presents the non-infrastructure solutions to San Bernardino’s roadway safety needs. The programs will promote safe behavior in each plan’s identified transportation safety emphasis areas through education, law enforcement, and encouragement.

7.1 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE
Driving Under the Influence (DUI) remains a major issue in the City of San Bernardino, ranking 8th in collisions involving DUI among cities of similar size in California, and ranking 2nd in collisions involving DUI with a driver under the age of 21. Therefore, education and enforcement meant to address DUI should work to target underage drinking but also address DUIs from drivers of all age groups.

7.1.1 EDUCATION
• The San Bernardino City Unified School District can consider incorporating Every 15 Minutes3 into the curriculum. The Every 15 Minutes program is a two-day program focusing on high school juniors and seniors. The program challenges them to think about drinking, driving, personal safety, the responsibility of making decisions, and the impact their decisions have on their family, friends, and community. The program is funded through OTS grants and California Highway Patrol mini-grants. • The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) operates the Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs (LEAD) training program for store managers and employees on how to sell alcohol safely, responsibly, and legally, with an emphasis on preventing sales to minors and clearly intoxicated customers

4. This program is voluntary and free through OTS grants. • Collaborate with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to implement their Teen Influencer Institute Program for San Bernardino, which trains middle and high school students on how to be effective peer-to-peer educators.

7.1.2 ENFORCEMENT
• Provide training to San Bernardino Police Department for finding DUIs and other driving behaviors. • Monitor local liquor stores and bars suspected of selling alcohol to minors. • Set up police checkpoints at night to enforce DUI and California's Graduated Licensing Law. The Graduated Licensing Law prohibits children under age 18 from driving with someone under the age of 21 between 11 pm and 5 am without an adult (25 years or older) supervising.

7.1.3 FUNDING SOURCES
Table 7.1 presents potential funding sources for the programs addressing Driving Under the Influence.

3 https://www.chp.ca.gov/programs-services/programs/youth-programs/every-15-minutes 4 https://www.abc.ca.gov/education/lead-training/

Packet Pg.
457

7.0 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 74

Table 7.1: Driving Under the Influence Program Funding Sources Description Responsible Agency Funding Source

EDUCATION
Establish and stage an Interactive Simulation program for high school students – Every 15 Minutes. The Interactive Simulation program aims to challenge high school juniors and seniors about drinking, driving, and mature decision-making.

San Bernardino City Unified School
District OTS Grants
Promote Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs (LEAD)
certification for store managers and employees on how to sell alcohol safely, responsibly, and legally.

City of San Bernardino Department
of Community and Economic
Development, City of San
Bernardino Department of Parks,
Recreation & Community Services
OTS Grants
Collaborate with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to implement peer-to-peer education among middle and high school students through MADD’s Teen Influencer Institute Program.

San Bernardino City Unified School
District OTS Grants

ENFORCEMENT
Monitor local liquor stores and bars suspected of selling alcohol to minors. San Bernardino Police Department OTS Grants
Set up police checkpoints at night to enforce DUIs and California's Graduated Licensing Law. San Bernardino Police Department OTS Grants

7.2 SPEEDING
Speeding contributes significantly to crash frequency and severity. For instance, a car hitting a pedestrian is eight times more likely to kill that pedestrian when moving at 40 miles per hour than when moving at 20 miles per hour. San Bernardino ranked 12
th in speed-related collisions among cities with similar sizes in California. Unsafe speeds were responsible for 23.2% of all collisions and 22.3% of KSI collisions in the City between 2016 and 2020, which makes it the number-one most-common Primary Collision Factor for collisions resulting in fatality and/or severe injury.

The following safety (non-engineering) programs or program elements can be considered to address rear ends and speeding-related crashes.

7.2.1 EDUCATION
• Create a social media campaign to help drivers become more aware of how their speed impacts the risk of death for vulnerable road users. This campaign could be led by the City of San Bernardino Department of Public Works or the San Bernardino Police Department.

7.2.2 ENFORCEMENT
• Deploy San Bernardino Police Department officers equipped with radar or LIDAR technology at strategic locations to ticket speeding drivers.

Packet Pg.
458

7.0 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 75

7.2.3 FUNDING SOURCES
Table 7.2 presents potential funding sources for the programs addressing speeding.

Table 7.2: Speeding Program Funding Sources
Description Responsible Agency Funding Source

EDUCATION
Create a social media campaign warning of the
dangers of speeding.

City of San Bernardino Department
of Public Works, San Bernardino
Police Department
OTS Grants

ENFORCEMENT
Deploy police officers equipped with radar or
LIDAR technology at strategic locations to ticket
speeding drivers.

San Bernardino Police Department OTS Grants

7.3 PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS
Pedestrians and cyclists are a highly vulnerable set of road users, particularly at night. San Bernardino ranked 7th in pedestrian-involved collisions among cities of similar size in California. The City also ranked 3rd in nighttime collisions among the same group. While motorists have a responsibility to drive safely, pedestrians and cyclists can also take steps to enhance their own safety through increased awareness and measures to make themselves more visible.

The following safety (non-engineering) programs or program elements can be considered to address pedestrian and bicycle crashes:

7.3.1 EDUCATION
• Implement a “See and Be Seen” pedestrian and cyclist safety campaign which includes signal wrap artwork and signage.
• Support adult bicycle rider skills classes, such as those offered by the League of American Bicyclists. • Offer student pedestrian and bicycle traffic safety education in schools. Lessons related to walking can include the danger of walking with distractions, while bicycle lessons can include helmet and bicycle fit, hand signals, and riding safely with traffic. • The City can collaborate with community-based organizations to hold events where safety equipment is distributed to the public, especially for outreach in low-income communities and bilingual/trilingual communities.
• Create a partnership between local agencies and SCAG to launch a Go Human campaign, which encourages drivers to slow down and watch for people walking and biking. SCAG co-brands its Go Human safety advertisements with partner logos and provides them at no cost. Local jurisdictions, agencies, non-profits, and community-based organizations can request print or digital material.

7.3.2 ENFORCEMENT
• Offer diversion classes for bicycle riders who have been cited for traffic violations. These classes would help bicyclists learn about rights and responsibilities without issuing punitive consequences that adversely affect their driving record.

Packet Pg.
459

7.0 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 76

7.3.3 FUNDING SOURCES
Table 7.3 presents potential funding sources for the programs addressing pedestrian and bicycle safety.

Table 7.3: Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding Sources Description Responsible Agency Funding Source

EDUCATION
Implement a “See and Be Seen” campaign for pedestrians and cyclists
City of San Bernardino Department
of Community and Economic
Development, City of San
Bernardino Department of Parks,
Recreation & Community Services
OTS Grants
Support adult bicycle rider skills classes. City of San Bernardino, League of American Bicyclists OTS Grants
Offer student pedestrian and bicycle traffic safety education. San Bernardino City Unified School District OTS Grants
Partner with SCAG Go Human campaign to encourage drivers to slow down and watch for people walking and biking.

City of San Bernardino Department
of Public Works, City of San
Bernardino Department of Public
Health, SCAG
SCAG*

ENFORCEMENT
Offer diversion classes for bicycle riders. City of San Bernardino OTS Grants *Resources are offered free of charge.

7.4 SCHOOL COLLISIONS
While trips to and from school are not specifically measured in SWITRS or OTS data, the available data is comprehensive enough to make inferences about school trips. As mentioned in Section 3, a total of 515 collisions met the criteria of occurring within 750 feet of a public school and taking place on a weekday, which accounts for 5.8% of all collisions within the City. Additionally, the City ranks 11 th in collisions
involving pedestrians under the age of 15 among cities of similar size in California.

The following safety (non-engineering) programs or program elements can be considered to address school trip collisions:

7.4.1 EDUCATION
• Expand the existing “I Drive 25 or Less” campaign held by the San Bernardino City Unified School District to increase awareness of speed limits in school zones. The current campaign includes vehicle bumper stickers. The program can be expanded to include signage and more large-scale media campaigns.
• Implement Walking School Buses and Bike Trains, which are regularly-held gatherings where adults accompany students on a pre-planned walking or biking route to school. By gathering in groups, students may be less likely to be involved in a vehicle collision than when walking alone.

Packet Pg.
460

7.0 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 77 • Implement a program that solicits feedback on safety issues encountered by students and parents while traveling to and from school, which could be funded through the SCAG Sustainable Communities Program under the category of Civic Engagement, Equity, and Environmental Justice.

7.4.2 ENFORCEMENT
• Offer Deploy police officers equipped with radar or LIDAR technology at locations near schools where speeding is prevalent and ticket speeding drivers.

7.4.3 FUNDING SOURCES
Table 7.4 presents potential funding sources for the programs addressing Speeding.

Table 7.4: Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Funding Sources Description Responsible Agency Funding Source

EDUCATION
Expand existing “I Drive 25 or Less” campaign. San Bernardino City Unified School District OTS Grants
Implement Walking School Buses and Bike Trains. San Bernardino City Unified School District OTS Grants
Implement a program that solicits feedback on safety issues encountered by students and parents while traveling to and from school.

San Bernardino City Unified School
District, San Bernardino County
Department of Public Health, SCAG
SCAG

ENFORCEMENT
Deploy police officers equipped with radar or LIDAR technology at locations near schools where speeding is prevalent and ticket speeding drivers.

San Bernardino Police Department OTS Grants

7.5 EMERGENCY VEHICLES
A total of 182 collisions were related to an emergency vehicle in San Bernardino from 2016 to 2020. The City of San Bernardino has its own Police Department. Since 2016, the City has used San Bernardino County Fire Department for its fire services.

Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) systems may not be provided at all major intersections in the City.

Signal preemption allows emergency vehicles to interrupt a normal signal cycle in order to proceed through the intersection more quickly and under safer conditions. An EVP system may assist emergency vehicles traveling through traffic prone areas when responding to an emergency call. Implementation of the EVP system citywide may improve the emergency response team’s response time.

Packet Pg.
461

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 78

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS
This chapter provides the project scope, collision reduction benefits calculation, cost estimation, and Benefit to Cost (B/C) ratio analysis. It will also also outline the project prioritization process based on the State’s HSIP Analyzer tool used to evalueate HSIP grant applications.

8.1 PROJECT SCOPES AND BENEFIT CALCULATIONS
The development of project scopes involves identifying one or more specific countermeasures at potential locations for safety improvements. Expected benefits are derived by applying the proposed countermeasures and corresponding Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) to the expected crashes. This involves:
• Identifying the current number of crashes without treatment • Applying CRFs by type and severity
• Applying a benefit value by crash severity
• Calculating the annual collision reduction benefits and multiplying by the project life in years Caltrans has established some key requirements and procedures for its calls-for-projects to allow agencies maximum flexibility in combining countermeasures and locations into a single project while ensuring all projects can be consistently ranked on a statewide basis. These include:
• Only a maximum of three individual countermeasures can be utilized in the B/C ratio for a project’s location type (e.g. three signalized countermeasures and one non-signalized countermeasure is acceptable for a systemic project).

An engineer determining the benefits of newly installed infrastructure first determines the number of collisions with the potential to be prevented by the improvement. The engineer then applies the CRF, which gives the rough percentage of crashes that would be prevented. The next step in estimating the overall benefit of a proposed improvement project is multiplying the expected reduction in crashes by a generally accepted value for the “cost” of crashes. The expected “benefit” value for a project is the expected “reduction in costs” value from reducing future crashes. The values weights by crash severity come from the 2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual.

Table 3.1: Collision Crash Values and EPDO Score
Collision Severity Location Type Crash Cost EPDO Score Value Fatality (K) and Severe Injury (A)
Signalized Intersection $1,787,000 119.93
Non-Signalized Intersection $2,843,000 190.81
Combined (KA) Roadway $2,461,000 165.17
Evident Injury - Other Visible (B)
All Location Types

$159,900 10.73
Possible Injury–Complaint of Pain
(C) $90,900 6.10
Property Damage Only (O) $14,900 1.00
Source: Appendix D, Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, 2022

Packet Pg.
462

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 79 The final step in calculating the total safety project benefits is to divide the benefits by the number of years the collision data was collected (five years for this project) and multiply this value by the project life in years.

The safety project scopes are listed in Table 8.1, including the applicable countermeasure category for each improvement and benefits calculated according to the method above.

It is important to note that while the HSIP cost/benefit ratio process provides a well-documented and rigorous approach for developing and prioritizing projects, it is not the only way that a project or location can be prioritized to assess systemic safety improvements. Nor do agencies have to limit their funding source to HSIP alone. Many of the projects described in Section 6.0 would be eligible for funding from several of the grant programs listed in Section 8.5.

8.2 COST ESTIMATE
Planning-level cost estimates were developed for each countermeasure. Cost estimates were prepared based on recent bid tabulations and estimates of current construction costs consisting of unit-based cost estimates and contingencies. The costs include construction costs and include estimates engineering and administrative costs. A contingency is added to the construction cost of each project depending on the complexity of the scope. The engineering and administration cost is assumed to be 25 percent of the total construction cost, including the contingency. While some projects only utilize planning level costs to determine their BCR, with pre-determined costs for each countermeasure, more detailed design concepts and cost estimates were completed as examples of projects that could be transformative for locations with particularly high collision frequencies or unique circumstances. Those more detailed cost estimates, along with the project concepts, can be found in Appendix A.

8.3 BENEFIT/COST RATIO
A Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) is the ratio of a project's benefits relative to its costs, and both are expressed in monetary terms. The BCR is calculated by taking a project’s overall benefit and dividing it by the overall project cost. Projects with a higher BCR mean greater benefits relative to costs, while a lower BCR means fewer benefits than costs. All project costs, from planning and design through construction completion are included when calculating the BCR.

Based on Caltrans’s need for a fair, data-driven, statewide project selection process for HSIP call-for- projects, the benefit and cost calculations were completed using the same process shown in the HSIP Analyzer to calculate the B/C ratio of the project. The B/C ratios were used to identify the projects with high cost-effectiveness that may have a greater chance of receiving federal funding in Caltrans call-for- projects. Table 8.2 summarizes the B/C ratio proposed safety projects. The benefit/cost ratio is calculated according to the HSIP Analyzer from the HSIP grant application. Appendix B includes a full summary of each project countermeasure and associated costs. Note that, while BCR is the primary selection criteria for HSIP applications, the City can always turn to other funding sources that use different selection criteria entirely.

Packet Pg.
463

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 80 Table 8.2: Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Safety Project Location CM # Collision Reduction
Benefits
Project Cost
Estimate
Benefit/Cost
Ratio (BCR)
Cajon Boulevard & Medical Center Drive NS01, NS18, NS06, NS07 $17,669,540 $9,820.00 1,799.34 E Street & 21st Street NS06 $1,848,990 $2,700.00 684.81 9th Street & Sierra Way S01, S02 $4,686,270 $8,780 533.74 9th Street & Preston Street/Valencia Avenue NS23PB, NS19PB $25,026,400 $99,895 250.53 E Street (CA-210 to Fairway Drive) NS20PB $1,838,450 $7,430.00 247.44 E Street & 9th Street NS20PB, S21PB $4,017,270 $23,530 170.73 E Street & Valley Street S21PB, S02 $2,237,490 $23,800 94.01 Highland Avenue & Eucalyptus Drive/Rockford Avenue NS23PB, NS19PB, NS06 $30,690,800 $352,752.00 87.00 30th Street (San Gabriel Street to Cedar Street) R21, R28 $13,988,440 $162,819.60 85.91 Meridian Avenue & Rialto Avenue S02, S03 $900,090 $14,700 61.23 9th Street (Waterman Avenue to Del Rosa Drive) R14, R32PB $47,038,880 $919,272.00 51.17 E Street, Inland Center Drive, & Mill Street S18PB, S02 $1,068,140 $26,480 40.34 Rialto Avenue (Pepper Avenue to Muscott Street) R32PB, R34PB, R08, R31 $32,865,280 $858,467.43 38.28 Rialto Avenue & F Street R32PB, S21PB $1,739,380 $47,421.02 36.68 Meridian Avenue (Etiwanda Street to Rialto Avenue) NS20PB, NS09 $3,518,500 $107,150.00 32.84 E Street & Orange Show Road S21PB, S09, S02 $1,515,690 $57,330 26.44 Kendall Drive (University Drive to H Street) R34PB, NS21PB, NS03, NS14, R33PB $65,378,060 $2,645,900.00 24.71
N. E Street & Kendall Drive NS07, R28, NS09 $717,470 $32,485.80 22.09 Richardson Street & San Bernardino Avenue S02, R22 $702,090 $32,180 21.82 G Street & Inland Center Drive S03, R33PB, S02 $2,476,170 $122,086 20.28 5th Street & Victoria Avenue S06, S07, S02 $4,639,800 $1,132,700 4.10

Packet Pg.
464

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 81

8.4 FUNDING SOURCES
Several state and federal grant programs offer to fund engineering and non-engineering roadway safety projects. The California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Active Transportation Program (ATP) encourages bicycle and pedestrian use in the state by funding programs that increase bike or pedestrian mode share or improve bicycle or pedestrian safety. Caltrans also administers the Sustainable Communities Grant Program, which awards grants to municipal projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support multi-modal transportation. The Sustainable Communities Program prioritizes projects that solicit stakeholder and community engagement and support state policies like the 2040 California Transportation Plan. The California Office of Traffic Safety awards grants for projects addressing any one or more of ten priority areas, including Driving Under the Influence, Distracted Driving, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, Police Enforcement, Safety Data Collection, and Marketing/Publicity Campaigns.

At the federal level, the Safe Streets and Roads For All program (SS4A) the primary goal to support increased roadway safety through proven countermeasures and program deployment. The Advanced Transportation Technologies & Innovative Mobility Deployment Program (ATTAIN) funds technology to promote safety and efficiency in the transportation system, which can be used to deploy extensive signal system interconnections and upgrades that increase safety on major arterials. The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds roadway safety improvements on any public roadway, which is distributed through State and local programs (California swaps federal HSIP funds with State highway funds, so HSIP funded projects are almost completely funded with State, rather than federal funds, reducing the administrative burden). In addition to these programs, the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) has begun to program additional discretionary grant and formula funding programs focused on roadway safety, active transportation and mobility technology improvements. These programs, and others that stem from new or re-purposed revenue streams in the State, should be considered as they are programmed and incorporated into the City’s infrastructure funding strategies.

Table 8.3 provides a list of eligible programs and the funding sources for related to transportation safety.

Packet Pg.
465

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 82 Table 8.3: Transportation Safety Funding Sources Summary Oversight Agency Source Eligible Programs Areas Addressed Federal Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program (HSIP)
Any work on public roads, bikeways and pedestrian
paths/trails “that improves the safety for its users”. For the most part, only engineering projects are eligible, but the FAST act also permits funding for data collection by law enforcement1, 2. Funding awards are adminsitered by the State through a bi-annual funding call for projects.

Data Collection,
Countermeasure
Implementation
Federal Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
Advanced
Transportation
Technologies &
Innovative Mobility
Deployment
(ATTAIN)
Funds advanced transportation and congestion management technologies to improve safety, efficiency and performance.

Examples of funded project types include advanced traveler information systems and data collection and analysis efforts

3. The City can partner with the County or SCAG on innovation- focused projects that support the goals of the ATTIMD
program.

Digital Enforcement;
Technology Partnerships
Federal Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
Surface
Transportation
Block Grant
Program (STBG)
Provides flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge and
tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects, including intercity bus terminals

4. Active Transportation
US Department of
Transportation
Safe Streets and
Roads for All
(SS4A)
The purpose of SS4A grants is to improve roadway safety by significantly reducing or eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries through safety action plan development and implementation focused on all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, motorists, personal conveyance and micromobility users, and commercial vehicle operators.

Roadway Safety, Active
Transportation, Planning
& Design, Education and
Enforcement, Data
Collection
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans)
Active
Transportation
Program (ATP)
Local government projects that improve the safety or
increase the mode share of bicycling and walking. Additional program objectives include reducing emissions and
enhancing public health

5. Bicycle and Pedestrian
Education and
Enforcement
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans)
Sustainable
Communities Grant
Program
The program awards "Competitive Grants" to local
governments. These grants prioritize projects that reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, support multi-modal
transportation, involve stakeholder/ community engagement and support related plans like the California Transportation Plan and California Complete Streets Framework
6 .

Active Transportation,
Speed, Education

Packet Pg.
466

8.0 SAFETY PROJECTS

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 83 Oversight Agency Source Eligible Programs Areas Addressed San Bernardino
County
Transportation
Authority (SBCTA)
Measure I
Transportation
Funds
Measure I is the half-cent sales tax collected throughout San Bernardino County for transportation improvements,
including major arterial projects, grade separations, and local street improvements. The City of San Bernardino can
designate safety projects for inclusion in their annual Measure I capital project plans.

Countermeasure
Implementation, Active
Transportation,
Preventative
Maintenance
California Office of
Traffic Safety
Office of Traffic
Safety (OTS) Grants
Programs should address one of ten priority areas (eight are listed to the right). Grant recipients should expect to wait up to 90 days before being reimbursed/funded, and should be able to provide traffic safety data to justify funded
programs

7. Alcohol-Impaired
Driving, Drug-Impaired
Driving, Police Traffic
Services, Roadway Safety
and Traffic Records,
Emergency Medical
Services, Occupant
Protection, Pedestrian
and Bicycle Safety, Public
Relations/Advertising/
Marketing
California Air
Resources Board
Sustainable
Transportation
Equity Program
(STEP)
Aims to address community residents’ transportation needs, increase access to key destinations, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by funding planning, clean transportation, and supporting projects particularly in disadvantaged and low- income communities via two types of grants: Planning and Capacity Building Grants and Implementation Grants.

Countermeasure
Implementation
Sources:

1. Highway Safety Improvement Program Guidelines, September 2021

2. Highway Safety Improvement Program, Pub. L. No. 148, 23 US Code (2015). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/148.

3. Federal Highway Administration. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding Programs. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan- infrastructure-law/attain.cfm

4. Federal Highway Administration. Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/stp/

5. California Transportation Commission. 2023 Active Transportation Program Guidelines. March 16, 2022. Resolution G-22-30.

6. California Department of Transportation. Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program 2022-23 Grant Application Guide.

September 2021.

7. California Office of Traffic Safety Grant Manual for Federal Fiscal Year 2022. October 2021.

Packet Pg.
467

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

APPENDIX A

PRIORITY PROJECT CONCEPTS &

DETAILED COST ESTIMATES

Packet Pg.
468

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

APPENDIX B

BENEFIT/COST RATIO ANALYSIS

Packet Pg.
469

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

APPENDIX C

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL

COUNTERMEASURE INDEX

Packet Pg.
470

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

APPENDIX D

PCF GLOSSARY

Packet Pg.
471

Orange, California 928682141 W. Orangewood Ave., Suite ATel: (714) 573-0317 Fax: (714) 573-9534

Packet Pg.
472

COUNTER

MEASURE ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT

PRICE ITEM TOTAL
CIVIL
Demo/unclassified excavation 130 CY $350 $45,500 Native fill 115 CY $60 $6,900
Install curb and gutter 800 LF $65 $52,000 Install 4" PCC sidewalk 4,794 SF $15 $71,910 Install curb ramp 2 EA $6,500 $13,000 $189,310

SIGNING AND STRIPING
Remove striping 3,715 LF $1 $3,715
Install limit line striping 1,051 LF $3 $3,153 Install white continental crosswalk 5,547 SF $4 $22,188 Install yellow continental crosswalk 2,616 SF $4 $10,464 $39,520

TRAFFIC SIGNAL
Install new traffic signal 1 LS $500,000 $500,000
$500,000

SIGNING AND STRIPING
Remove striping 57,941 LF $1.00 $57,941
Remove pavement marking 32 EA $300 $9,600 Install striping (solid) 23,341 LF $1.40 $32,677 Install striping (dashed) 15,870 LF $1.80 $28,566 Install striping (double yellow) 11,815 LF $2.20 $25,993 Install green conflict zone striping 5,291 LF $15 $79,365 Install pavement marking 134 EA $500 $67,000 Remove sign and post (R1-1 at 3rd Ave) 1 EA $150 $150 Install sign panel and post 20 EA $550 $11,000 Install sign panel - R2-1(40) 4 EA $500 $2,000 Remove sign panel - R2-1(50) 4 EA $50 $200 Install K71-Type bollard delineator 332 EA $225 $74,700 Install red curb 415 LF $2 $830
$390,022
CIVIL
Demo/unclassified excavation 10 CY $350 $3,500 Native fill 10 CY $60 $600
Install curb only 102 LF $50 $5,100 Install 4" PCC sidewalk 407 SF $15 $6,105

SIGNING AND STRIPING
Remove striping 30 LF $1 $30
Remove pavement marking 1 EA $300 $300 Install limit line 12 LF $3.50 $42 Install pavement marking 1 EA $500 $500 $16,177
$1,135,029
$113,503
$50,000
$20,000
$120,000
$80,840
$113,503
$120,000
$525,863
$442,194
$2,720,932
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
30% CONTINGENCY
INFLATION ADJUSTMENT (3% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND MONUMENTATION

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
R33PB

COUNTERMEASURE SUBTOTAL
NS14

COUNTERMEASURE SUBTOTAL

TOTAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS
NS21PB

COUNTERMEASURE SUBTOTAL
NS03

COUNTERMEASURE SUBTOTAL

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO

KENDALL DRIVE BETWEEN UNIVERSITY PARKWAY AND H STREET

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
R34PB

COUNTERMEASURE SUBTOTAL

Packet Pg.
473

Orange, California 928682141 W. Orangewood Ave., Suite ATel: (714) 573-0317 Fax: (714) 573-9534  
  
 
Packet Pg. 474

COUNTER

MEASURE ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT

PRICE ITEM TOTAL

TRAFFIC SIGNAL (HAWK)
Install Type 332 cabinet with 2070 controller complete 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 Install Type III-BF service pedestal complete 1 EA $10,000 $10,000 Install Type 19 standard and foundation complete 1 EA $12,000 $12,000 Install Type 24 standard and foundation complete 1 EA $17,000 $17,000 Install 30' mast arm complete 1 EA $3,600 $3,600
Install 35' mast arm complete 1 EA $4,200 $4,200
Install 3-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 4 EA $1,200 $4,800 Install Type B pedestrian push button 2 EA $750 $1,500
Install LED countdown pedestrian head with mounting 2 EA $1,600 $3,200 Install sign on mast arm 2 EA $800 $1,600
Install sign on pole 4 EA $250 $1,000

SIGNING AND STRIPING
Relocate bus sign 1 EA $250 $250
$84,150

SIGNING AND STRIPING
Remove striping 310 LF $1 $310
Install striping 172 LF $3.00 $516
Install white continental crosswalk 980 SF $4.00 $3,920 CIVIL
Install curb ramp 2 EA $6,500 $13,000
$17,746
CIVIL
Demo/unclassified excavation 10 CY $350 $3,500
Native fill 52 CY $60 $3,120
Install curb only 130 LF $50 $6,500
Install sidewalk 175 SF $15 $2,625
$15,745
CIVIL
Install tubular hand railing 12 LF $225 $2,700
$2,700

SIGNING AND STRIPING
Install sign panel and post 4 EA $550 $2,200
$2,200
$122,541
$12,254
$6,000
$5,000
$40,000
$28,200
$12,254
$1,000
$68,175
$57,328
$352,752

OTHER SUBTOTAL
OTHER

COUNTERMEASURE SUBTOTAL
NS06

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO

HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EUCALYPTUS DRIVE

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE
NS23PB

COUNTERMEASURE SUBTOTAL
OTHER

OTHER SUBTOTAL
NS19PB

COUNTERMEASURE SUBTOTAL
18% INFLATION (3% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND MONUMENTATION

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
30% CONTINGENCY

TOTAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS

MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY

Packet Pg.
475

Orange, California 928682141 W. Orangewood Ave., Suite ATel: (714) 573-0317 Fax: (714) 573-9534

Packet Pg.
476

COUNTER

MEASURE ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED

QUANTITY

UNIT OF

MEASURE
UNIT

PRICE ITEM TOTAL

TRAFFIC SIGNAL (HAWK)
Install Type 332 cabinet with 2070 controller complete 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 Install Type III-BF service pedestal complete 1 EA $10,000 $10,000 Install Type 1-A standard and foundation complete 1 EA $3,650 $3,650 Install Type 19 standard and foundation complete 2 EA $12,000 $24,000 Install 25' mast arm complete 2 EA $3,300 $6,600
Install 3-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 2 EA $1,200 $2,400 Install Type B pedestrian push button 2 EA $750 $1,500
Install LED countdown pedestrian head with mounting 2 EA $1,600 $3,200 Install sign on mast arm 2 EA $800 $1,600
Install sign on pole 4 EA $250 $1,000
$78,950

SIGNING AND STRIPING
Remove striping 480 LF $1 $480
Install striping 25 LF $3 $75
Install yellow continental crosswalk 290 SF $4 $1,160
CIVIL
Install curb ramp 2 EA $6,500 $13,000
$14,715
CIVIL
Demo/unclassified excavation 9 CY $350 $3,150
Native fill 6 CY $60 $360
Install curb only 120 LF $50 $6,000
Install sidewalk 322 SF $15 $4,830
$14,340
CIVIL
Install tubular hand railing 12 LF $225 $2,700
$2,700

SIGNING AND STRIPING
Install sign panel and post 2 EA $550 $1,100
$1,100

SIGNING AND STRIPING
Remove pavement marking 21 EA $300 $6,300
Remove striping 17,975 LF $1 $17,975
Install pavement marking 70 EA $500 $35,000
Install striping 37,240 LF $3 $111,720
Install green conflict zone striping 2,770 LF $15 $41,550 Install sign panel and post 11 EA $550 $6,050
$212,545
$310,010
$31,001
$12,000
$5,000
$55,000
$28,200
$31,001
$120,000
$177,664
$149,396
$919,272
NS06

COUNTERMEASURE SUBTOTAL

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
9TH STREET BETWEEN WATERMAN AVENUE AND DEL ROSA AVENUE

PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S COST ESTIMATE

OTHER SUBTOTAL

COUNTERMEASURE SUBTOTAL
NS23PB
OTHER
NS19PB

COUNTERMEASURE SUBTOTAL
OTHER

OTHER SUBTOTAL

TOTAL FOR BASE BID ITEMS

MOBILIZATION & DEMOBILIZATION

TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND SAFETY
R14

COUNTERMEASURE SUBTOTAL
18% INFLATION (3% PER YEAR @ 6 YEARS)

GRAND TOTAL

CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND MONUMENTATION

FINAL DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
30% CONTINGENCY

Packet Pg.
477

J:\2021\JC13054_San Bernardino_LRSP\Documents\Report\03_LRSP Report\Appendix\SB_Countermeasure BCR.xlsx - All_Locations Page 1 # Location Type CM # Countermeasure
Names Description Collision
Type CRF Project Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
EPDO
Collision
Reduction
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimate
Benefit/Cost
Ratio (BCR)
HSIP Max
Share

1.01 Non-Signalized NS01 Add intersection lighting
(NS.I.)
Additional intersection lighting at NE or NW corner of intersection (based on available ROW) Night 40% 20 3 $2,872,800 $4,596,480 $4,960.00 926.71 90%

1.02 NS18 Install left-turn lane (where no
left-turn lane exists)
Restripe to eastbound left turn lane for NORTHBOUND left from Medical Center Dr. All 35% 20 9 $5,942,300 $8,319,220 $810.00 10,270.64 90%

1.03 NS06
Install/upgrade larger or
additional stop signs or other
intersection
warning/regulatory signs
Additional warning signage for all approaches (W4-4aP for Medical Center Drive, SW4-1 for SOUTHBOUND Cajon Boulevard) All 15% 10 9 $5,942,300 $1,782,690 $3,375.00 528.20 90%

1.04 NS07 Upgrade intersection
pavement markings (NS.I.)
Add additional markings for southbound/northbound approaches to as advance warning to complement improved signage (NS06) All 25% 10 9 $5,942,300 $2,971,150 $675.00 4,401.70 90%

2.01 Non-Signalized NS07
Upgrade intersection
pavement markings (NS.I.)
Restripe the southbound E Street approach and stop bar so it is perpendicular to the centerline of Kendall Drive. Install a striped bulb out on the west edge of the intersection to orient traffic to the new stop bar, and provide a less extreme angle for sight lines. Relocate the stop sign to align with new stop bar position and bulb out.

All 25% 10 10 $515,000 $257,500 $13,500.00 19.07 90%

2.02 Roadway R28 Install edge-lines and
centerlines
Provide an edge line for southbound Kendall Drive through the curve as it approaches and departs the E Street intersection
All 25% 10 10 $515,000 $257,500 $4,985.80 51.65 90%

2.03 Non-Signalized NS09
Install flashing beacons as
advance warning (NS.I.)
Consider warning signs with flashing beacon or a speed feedback sign for southbound traffic at the intersection approach and departure the intersection All 15% 10 11 $674,900 $202,470 $14,000.00 14.46 90%

3.01 Non-Signalized NS23PB Install Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon (HAWK)
Install at NE corner of Eucalyptus Drive and 450’ east of I-210 SOUTHBOUND off-ramp, at the end of the curb taper.

Pedestrian
and Bicycle 55% 20 7 $6,133,500 $13,493,700 90%

3.02 NS19PB Install raised medians (refuge
islands)
Install concrete pedestrian refuge island to protect pedestrians using HAWK crosswalk.

Pedestrian
and Bicycle 45% 20 7 $6,133,500 $11,040,300 90%

3.03 NS06
Install/upgrade larger or
additional stop signs or other
intersection
warning/regulatory signs
Install new advance warning signage for new HAWK crosswalk (pedestrian crossing, indicator arrow, etc.) as advance warning to prepare drivers to stop. All 25% 10 47 $12,313,600 $6,156,800 90% 4 4.01
E Street & 21st Street Non-Signalized NS06
Install/upgrade larger or
additional stop signs or other
intersection
warning/regulatory signs
Add warning signage prohibiting crossing across E Street, directing pedestrians to cross at Highland Avenue to the north or at 20th Street to the south
All 15% 10 9 $6,163,300 $1,848,990 $2,700.00 684.81 90%

5.01 Signalized NS20PB Upgrade pedestrian crossing Stripe continental crosswalks on all legs of the intersection. Pedestrian and Bicycle 25% 10 10 $2,363,100 $1,181,550 $7,430.00 159.02 90%

5.02 S21PB
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Northbound and southbound only Pedestrian
and Bicycle 60% 10 10 $2,363,100 $2,835,720 $16,100.00 176.13 90%

6.01 Signalized S01 Add intersection lighting (S.I.) Install a new streetlight on the southwest corner Night 40% 20 13 $2,407,800 $3,852,480 $1,080.00 3,567.11 90%

6.02 S02 Improve signal hardware Install nearside signals eastbound and westbound on 9th Street All 15% 10 18 $2,779,300 $833,790 $7,700.00 108.28

7.01 9th Street & Preston Street/Valencia
Avenue
Non-Signalized NS23PB Install Pedestrian Hybrid
Beacon (HAWK)
Install a HAWK pedestrian signal (if it meets the required warrant) or an RRFB Pedestrian and Bicycle 55% 20 6 $6,256,600 $13,764,520 $84,150.00 163.57 90%

7.02 NS19PB Install raised medians / refuge
islands (NS.I.)
Install concrete pedestrian refuge island to protect pedestrians using HAWK crosswalk.

Pedestrian
and Bicycle 45% 20 6 $6,256,600 $11,261,880 $15,745.00 715.27 90%

8.01 Signalized S06
Install left-turn lane and add
turn phase (signal has no left-
turn lane or phase before)
Install northbound and southbound left turn lanes
All 55% 20 10 $1,254,000 $2,758,800 $375,000.00 7.36 90%

8.02 S07 Add left turn phase Add left turn phase for eastbound and westbound traffic All 30% 20 10 $1,254,000 $1,504,800 $750,000.00 2.01 90%

8.03 S02 Improve signal hardware Improve signal heads (increased size, retroreflective back plates, near side signal heads for left turns).

All 15% 10 10 $1,254,000 $376,200 $7,700.00 48.86 90%

9.01 Signalized S02 Improve signal hardware Upgrade vehicle signal heads with retro-reflective yellow borders, increased signal lens sizes, etc.

All 15% 10 5 $2,074,600 $622,380 $7,700.00 80.83 90%

9.02 Roadway R22 Install/upgrade signs Install school crossing warning signage along Richardson Street between San Bernardino and the City limits at I-10.

All 15% 10 3 $265,700 $79,710 $24,480.00 3.26 90%
1 2
3 Cajon Boulevard & Medical Center Drive
N. E Street & Kendall Drive
Highland Avenue & Eucalyptus
Drive/Rockford Avenue $352,752.00 87.00
5 E Street & 9th Street
6 9th Street & Sierra Way
8 5th Street & Victoria Avenue
9 Richardson Street & San Bernardino
Avenue
7 Packet Pg.
478

J:\2021\JC13054_San Bernardino_LRSP\Documents\Report\03_LRSP Report\Appendix\SB_Countermeasure BCR.xlsx - All_Locations Page 2 # Location Type CM # Countermeasure
Names Description Collision
Type CRF Project Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
EPDO
Collision
Reduction
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimate
Benefit/Cost
Ratio (BCR)
HSIP Max
Share

10.01 Signalized S21PB
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Evaluate potential for LPI across all legs; examine need for complementary right turn on red (RTOR) restriction Pedestrian
and Bicycle 60% 10 3 $410,700 $492,840 $32,200.00 15.31 90%

10.02 S09
Install raised pavement
markers and striping
(Through Intersection)
Add guidance striping across the intersection for BRT lanes; consider using high-visibility, colored striping to clearly delineate lane assignment at the intersection approach and crossing the intersection
All 10% 10 33 $2,045,700 $409,140 $2,030.00 201.55 90%

10.03 S02
Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back-plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and number
Upgrade signal hardware with retro-reflective borders
All 15% 10 33 $2,045,700 $613,710 $23,100.00 26.57 90%

11.01 Signalized S03
Improve signal timing
(coordination, phases, red,
yellow, or operation)
Fix northbound left turn lane detection (when observed in the field, it was intermittent; unsure if it is dynamic based on time-of-day); Consider flashing yellow arrow signals
All 15% 10 11 $2,045,700 $613,710 $7,000.00 87.67 50%

11.02 Roadway R33PB Install Separated Bike Lanes Complete Class I path on the north side of the street, from G St to E St (including bridge crossing)
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 45% 20 2 $992,900 $1,787,220 $107,386.36 16.64 90%

11.03 Signalized S02
Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back-plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and number
Upgrade signal heads with retro-reflective borders
All 15% 10 11 $250,800 $75,240 $7,700.00 9.77 90%

12.01 Signalized S18PB Install pedestrian crossing
(S.I.)
Consider installing new pedestrian crosswalks to the Southeast corner across Inland Center Drive and across E Street
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 25% 20 2 $992,900 $992,900 $3,380.00 293.76 90%

12.02 S02
Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back-plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and number
Upgrade signal hardware with retro-reflective borders
All 15% 10 26 $250,800 $75,240 $23,100.00 3.26 90%

13.01 Signalized S21PB
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Pedestrian and Bicycle 60% 10 3 $1,796,400 $2,155,680 $16,100.00 133.89 90%

13.02 S02
Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back-plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and number
Install nearside vehicle signal heads with retro-reflective yellow borders. Install new signal heads with U-turn arrow instead of left-turn arrow. All 15% 10 7 $272,700 $81,810 $7,700.00 10.62 90%

14.01 Roadway R32PB Install Bike Lanes Add bike lanes eastbound and westbound (consider Class IV if adequate space)
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20 7 $401,300 $561,820 $31,321.02 17.94 90%

14.02 Signalized S21PB
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Implement leading pedestrian intervals for northbound and southbound pedestrian movements Pedestrian
and Bicycle 60% 10 3 $981,300 $1,177,560 $16,100.00 73.14 90%

15.01 Signalized S02
Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back-plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and number
Consider replacing five-section protective-permissive left turn with flashing yellow arrows All 15% 10 15 $479,700 $143,910 $7,700.00 18.69 90%

15.02 S03
Improve signal timing
(coordination, phases, red,
yellow, or operation)
Review yellow and all-red timing parameters
All 15% 10 15 $2,520,600 $756,180 $7,000.00 108.03 50%

16.01 Roadway R34PB
Install sidewalk/pathway (to
avoid walking along roadway)
Install a new sidewalk on the north side of Kendall Drive between 4th Avenue and Mountain Drive, and south of Western Avenue, along existing gaps where no sidewalk currently exists.

Pedestrian
and Bicycle 80% 20 2 $10,847,200 $34,711,040 90%

16.02 Non-Signalized NS21PB
Upgrade pedestrian crossing Upgrade to continental crosswalks along entire corridor at all existing marked crossings, and install amber crosswalks at locations along school routes.

Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20 3 $3,002,900 $4,204,060 90%

16.03 NS03
Install signals Signalize intersection of Kendall Drive and Lakewood Drive to shorten the un- signalized segment, providing speed control and create a safer pedestrian crossing opportunity.

All 30% 20 12 $3,024,800 $3,629,760 90%
Meridian Avenue & Rialto Avenue15
16 Kendall Drive (University Drive to H
Street) $2,645,900.00 24.71
Rialto Avenue & F Street
11 14
10 E Street & Orange Show Road
G Street & Inland Center Drive
12 E Street, Inland Center Drive, & Mill
Street
13 E Street & Valley Street

Packet Pg.
479

J:\2021\JC13054_San Bernardino_LRSP\Documents\Report\03_LRSP Report\Appendix\SB_Countermeasure BCR.xlsx - All_Locations Page 3 # Location Type CM # Countermeasure
Names Description Collision
Type CRF Project Life
(Years)
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
EPDO
Collision
Reduction
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimate
Benefit/Cost
Ratio (BCR)
HSIP Max
Share

16.04 Roadway R33PB
Install Separated Bike Lanes Install Class IV separated bike lanes with parking protection along both sides of the corridor. Remove center two-way left turn lane (TWLT) to create space along the roadway. Create left-turn pockets and receiving pockets where necessary.

Pedestrian
and Bicycle 45% 20 12 $5,810,000 $10,458,000 90%

16.05 Non-Signalized NS14 Install raised median on
approaches (NS.I.)
Prohibit left turns from southbound 3rd Avenue to eastbound Kendall Drive with a directional median on 3rd Avenue. All 25% 20 9 $12,375,200 $12,375,200 90%

17.01 Roadway R32PB Install bike lanes Add bike lanes eastbound (Class IV) and westbound (Class II) Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 9 $12,375,200 $17,325,280 $80,325.00 215.69 90%

17.02 R34PB
Install sidewalk/pathway (to
avoid walking along roadway)
Install continuous sidewalk along south side of Rialto Avenue to fill gaps between Pepper Avenue to Muscott Street Pedestrian
and Bicycle 80% 20 9 $3,319,200 $10,621,440 $342,329.55 31.03 90%

17.03 R08
Install median Install median between Rancho Avenue and Muscott Street. Include a break in the median for the Rialto Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue intersection. Do not include a break at Rialto Avenue and Arrow Route intersection (restrict traffic to right-on-right-off, as left turners could easily use Pennsylvania Avenue for access)
All 25% 20 10 $3,319,200 $3,319,200 $434,520.00 7.64 90%

17.04 R31
Install edge-line rumble
strips/stripes
Install edge-line rumble strips between Rancho Avenue and Muscott Street All 15% 10 10 $5,331,200 $1,599,360 $1,292.89 1,237.04 90% 18 18.01 Meridian Avenue (Etiwanda Street to
Rialto Avenue) Non-Signalized NS20PB
Install pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations (new
signs and markings only)
Continental crosswalks across Meridian at 6th Street (ADA curb ramps), midblock crossing at Nicholson Park, 2nd Street, Rialto Avenue, 7th Street. Pedestrian and Bicycle 25% 10 1 $5,331,200 $2,665,600 $37,150.00 71.75 90%

18.02 NS09 Install Flashing Beacons Consider advance flashing beacons at the above intersections to warn motorists of stop sign control. All 15% 10 12 $2,843,000 $852,900 $70,000.00 12.18 90% 19 19.01
E Street (CA-210 to Fairway Drive) Non-Signalized NS20PB Install pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations (new
signs and markings only)
Stripe continental crosswalks at all arterial and collector street intersections along E Street for major crossings in all directions Pedestrian and Bicycle 25% 10 41 $3,676,900 $1,838,450 $7,430.00 247.44 90%

20.01 Roadway R14
Road Diet (Reduce travel
lanes and add a two way left-
turn and bike lanes)
Apply road diet with bike lane and buffer from Waterman Avenue to Tippecanoe Avenue, and potentially prohibit parking on the south side of 9th Street
All 35% 20 37 $21,108,500 $29,551,900 90%

20.02 Roadway R32PB Install Bike Lanes Install buffered bike lanes along segment Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 15 $12,490,700 $17,486,980 90%

21.01 Roadway R21
Improve pavement friction Improve pavement friction to reduce stopping distances for vehicles that would otherwise depart the roadway or hit an object if they are unable to stop in time.

All 55% 10 16 $11,257,900 $12,383,690 $142,045.45 87.18 90%

21.02 R28 Install edge-lines and
centerlines
Install edge lines and double-yellow centerlines with raised pavement markings All 25% 10 16 $3,209,500 $1,604,750 $20,774.15 77.25 90% 20 9th Street (Waterman Avenue to Del
Rosa Drive)
21 30th Street (San Gabriel Street to Cedar
Street)

Rialto Avenue (Pepper Avenue to
Muscott Street)17
$919,272.00 51.17

Packet Pg.
480

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL REFERENCE
The following codes are used to denote specific safety countermeasures from the Local Roadway Safety Manual (2022). While these are not a complete list of potential improvements for each location, these are the countermeasures that are eligible for reimbursement from the 2022 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION COUNTERMEASURES
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash
Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic Approach
Opportunity?
S01 Lighting Add intersection lighting (S.I.) Night 40% 20 90% Medium S02 Signal Mod. Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number All 15% 10 90% Very High S03 Signal Mod. Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) All 15% 10 50% Very High S04* Signal Mod. Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high speed approaches All 40% 10 90% High S05 Signal Mod. Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems Emergency Vehicle 70% 10 90% High
S06 Signal Mod. Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) All 55% 20 90% Low
S07 Signal Mod. Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) All 30% 20 90% High S08 Signal Mod. Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) All 30% 20 90% Medium S09 Operation/ Warning Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) All 10% 10 90% Very High S10 Operation/ Warning Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) All 30% 10 90% Medium S11 Operation/ Warning Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% Medium S12 Geometric Mod. Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) All 25% 20 90% Medium S13PB Geometric Mod. Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches P & B 35% 20 90% Low S14 Geometric Mod. Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and U- turns (S.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium
S15 Geometric Mod. Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium S16 Geometric Mod. Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) All Varies 20 90% Low S17PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian countdown signal heads P & B 25% 20 90% Very High S18PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.) P & B 25% 20 90% High S19PB Ped and Bike Pedestrian Scramble P & B 40% 20 90% High

Packet Pg.
481

No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash
Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic Approach
Opportunity?
S20PB Ped and Bike Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) P & B 15% 10 90% Very High S21PB Ped and Bike Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) P & B 60% 10 90% Very High *CM S04 has been deleted in the HSIP Cycle 11 call for projects.

NON-SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION COUNTERMEASURES
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash
Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic Approach
Opportunity?
NS01 Lighting Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) Night 40% 20 90% Medium NS02 Control Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) All 50% 10 90% High NS03 Control Install signals All 30% 20 90% Low
NS04 Control Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop) All Varies 20 90% Low NS05 Control Convert intersection to roundabout (from stop or yield control on minor road) All Varies 20 90% Low
NS05mr Control Convert intersection to mini-roundabout All 30% 20 90% Medium NS06 Operation/ Warning Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs All 15% 10 90% Very High
NS07 Operation/ Warning Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.) All 25% 10 90% Very High NS08 Operation/ Warning Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections All 15% 10 90% High NS09 Operation/ Warning Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) All 30% 10 90% High NS10 Operation/ Warning Install transverse rumble strips on approaches All 20% 10 90% High NS11 Operation/ Warning Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) All 20% 10 90% High NS12 Operation/ Warning Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% Medium NS13 Geometric Mod. Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches All 40% 20 90% Medium NS14 Geometric Mod. Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.) All 25% 20 90% Medium NS15 Geometric Mod. Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and U- turns (NS.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium
NS16 Geometric Mod. Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium NS17 Geometric Mod. Install right-turn lane (NS.I.) All 20% 20 90% Low NS18 Geometric Mod. Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists) All 35% 20 90% Low

Packet Pg.
482

No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash
Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic Approach
Opportunity?
NS19PB Ped and Bike Install raised medians / refuge islands (NS.I.) P & B 45% 20 90% Medium NS20PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (new signs and markings only) P & B 25% 10 90% High
NS21PB Ped and Bike Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium
NS22PB Ped and Bike Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium NS23PB Ped and Bike Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) P & B 55% 20 90% Low

ROADWAY COUNTERMEASURES
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash
Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic Approach
Opportunity?
R01 Lighting Add segment lighting Night 35% 20 90% Medium R02 Remove/Shield
Obstacles Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone All 35% 20 90% High R03 Remove/ Shield
Obstacles Install Median Barrier All 25% 20 90% Medium R04 Remove/ Shield
Obstacles Install Guardrail All 25% 20 90% High
R05 Remove/ Shield
Obstacles Install impact attenuators All 25% 10 90% High R06 Remove/ Shield
Obstacles Flatten side slopes All 30% 20 90% Medium R07 Remove/ Shield
Obstacles Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail All 40% 20 90% Medium R08 Geometric Mod. Install raised median All 25% 20 90% Medium R09 Geometric Mod. Install median (flush) All 15% 20 90% Medium R10PB Geometric Mod. Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches P & B 35% 20 90% Low R11 Geometric Mod. Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes All 25% 20 90% Low R12 Geometric Mod. Widen lane (initially less than 10 feet) All 25% 20 90% Medium R13 Geometric Mod. Add two-way left-turn lane All 30% 20 90% Medium R14 Geometric Mod. Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) All 35% 20 90% Medium

Packet Pg.
483

No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash
Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic Approach
Opportunity?
R15 Geometric Mod. Widen shoulder All 30% 20 90% Medium R16 Geometric Mod. Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only) All 45% 20 90% Medium R17 Geometric Mod. Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves) All 50% 20 90% Low R18 Geometric Mod. Flatten crest vertical curve All 25% 20 90% Low R19 Geometric Mod. Improve curve super-elevation All 45% 20 90% Medium R20 Geometric Mod. Convert from two-way to one-way traffic All 35% 20 90% Medium R21 Geometric Mod. Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% High R22 Operation/ Warning Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) All 15% 10 90% Very High R23 Operation/ Warning Install chevron signs on horizontal curves All 40% 10 90% Very High R24 Operation/ Warning Install curve advance warning signs All 25% 10 90% Very High R25 Operation/ Warning Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) All 30% 10 90% High R26 Operation/ Warning Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs All 30% 10 90% High R27 Operation/ Warning Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers All 15% 10 90% Very High R28 Operation/ Warning Install edge-lines and centerlines All 25% 10 90% Very High R29 Operation/ Warning Install no-passing line All 45% 10 90% Very High R30 Operation/ Warning Install centerline rumble strips/stripes All 20% 10 90% High R31 Operation/ Warning Install edge line rumble strips/stripes All 15% 10 90% High R32PB Ped and Bike Install bike lanes P & B 35% 20 90% High R33PB Ped and Bike Install Separated Bike Lanes P & B 45% 20 90% High R34PB Ped and Bike Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) P & B 80% 20 90% Medium R35PB Ped and Bike Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R36PB Ped and Bike Install raised pedestrian crossing P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R37PB Ped and Bike Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R38 Animal Install animal fencing Animal 80% 20 90% Medium

Packet Pg.
484

1 of 1
Glossary of Primary Collision Factor (PCF) Terms
PCF Category Description
Driving Under Influence Driving or bicycling while under the influence of alcohol or drug
Unsafe Speed Driving at a speed unsafe for the conditions Following Too Closely Following a vehicle at a distance too close for the speed and conditions
Wrong Side of Road Driving on the wrong side of the road Improper Passing
Ignoring proper protocol when passing a vehicle (e.g.
passing across center lane without clearance, passing on the right, passing in a no-passing zone, departing the
roadway to pass, passing a school bus when lights are
flashing, giving inadequate space)
Unsafe Lane Change Changing lanes in a situation where there is insufficient clearance, and/or no turn signal was used
Improper Turning
Turning at a distance unnecessarily far from a curb, turning without using turn signals, or making a type of turn
prohibited by signage
Automobile Right of Way Making a maneuver without respecting the right-of-way of another driver
Pedestrian Right of Way Making a maneuver from a motor vehicle without respecting the right-of-way of a pedestrian
Pedestrian Violation Making a maneuver as a pedestrian without respecting the right-of-way of a motor vehicle
Traffic Signals and Signs Collision was caused by inadequate, inconsistent, and/or confusing signage
Hazardous Parking Parking a vehicle in an unsafe location that leaves it vulnerable to collisions
Impeding Traffic
Driving at an unnecessarily slow speed, or coming to a
complete stop, that impedes or blocks the normal and
reasonable movement of traffic
Unsafe Starting or Backing Moving a vehicle forwards or backwards from a stop without sufficient clearance
Lights Driving without proper lighting for the conditions, or lighting failure
Brakes Failure of vehicle brakes
Other Equipment Failure of vehicle equipment other than lights or brakes Other Hazardous Violation Hazardous behavior not listed here Other Improper Driving Driving recklessly without regard for safety Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian) Collision was caused by another person not affected by the collision
Pedestrian or "Other" Under the Influence Collision was caused by a pedestrian under the influence of alcohol or drug
Fell Asleep Driver fell asleep while driving

Packet Pg.
485

Title: Local Roadway Safety Plan
(LRSP)
Presented by: Daniel Hernandez, Agency Director of Public Works, Operations and Maintenance & Jonathan Raspa, KOA Senior Associate Planner

Packet Pg.
486

Project Purposes & Goals
1 Systemic approach to address transportation safety issues through various “E”s
2 Facilitate collaboration among the City and other stakeholders 3 Identify competitive projects for HSIP applications
4 Define a procedure to continuously evaluate and update the LRSP

Packet Pg.
487

Related City Planning Projects
Currently Ongoing
- General Plan Update
- Truck Routes Study
- Downtown Specific Plan
Completed
- Systemic Safety Analysis Report (2018)
- Active Transportation Plan (2022)

Packet Pg.
488

Collision Data Analysis
Safety Emphasis Areas:

1. Pedestrian Safety

2. Unsafe Speeds

3. Intersection Safety

4. Driving Under the
Influence

5. School Collisions

Packet Pg.
489

Stakeholder Engagement
Internal & External Stakeholders
• Police Department
• SB City Unified School District
• SB Neighborhood Association Council
• City Services Request System

Packet Pg.
490

Recommended Improvements
Intersections:

1. Highland Ave & Eucalyptus Dr

2. 9th St & Sierra Way

3. Cajon Blvd & Medical Center Dr

4. E St & Valley St

5. E St/Inland Center Dr & Mill St

6. G St & Inland Center Dr

7. Meridian Ave & Rialto Ave

8. E St & Kendall Dr

9. Rialto Ave & F St

10. E St & 21st Str

11. E St & 9th St

12. 5th St & Victoria Ave

13. Richardson St & San Bernardino Ave

14. E St & Orange Show Rd
Corridors:

1. Kendall Dr: University Pkwy – H St

2. 9th Street: Waterman Ave – Del Rosa Dr

3. Rialto Ave: Pepper Ave – Muscott St

4. Meridian Ave: Etiwanda St – Rialto Ave

5. E St: SR-210 – Fairway Dr

6. Lynwood Dr: San Gabriel St – Cedar St

Packet Pg.
491

HSIP Project Concept Plan
Kendall Drive Corridor: Active Mobility Safety Improvements

Packet Pg.
492

Questions?

Packet Pg.
493

1 1
3 7

CONSENT CALENDAR
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: March 1, 2023
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Charles E. McNeeley, Interim City Manager;
Darren L. Goodman, Chief of Police
Department: Police
Subject: Acceptance of FY 2022 Edward Byrne Justice
Assistance Grant (All Wards)
Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino California, adopt Resolution No. 2023-038, authorizing:

1. The City Manager to accept the 2022 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant, and

2. The Agency Director of Administrative Services to amend the FY2022/23 Adopted Budget by $213,617 in both revenue and expenditures.

Background
The San Bernardino Police Department is a sub-recipient of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) through the County of San Bernardino. The JAG grant is a formulary grant that is allocated based on population and a three-year average of reported violent crime. The City of San Bernardino has been designated a disparate jurisdiction, which allows the City to receive one-and-one half the County allocation. San Bernardino County serves as the grant recipient, administrator and fiscal agent for the JAG program funds and is allowed to charge each jurisdiction a 5% administrative fee from the jurisdiction’s allocation. JAG grants are cash grants paid in advance with no requirement for matching funds.

Discussion
The San Bernardino Police Department has received a grant award in the amount of $213,617 for FY 2022 for the grant period of 10/1/2021 through 9/30/2025. The grant was awarded to the City on September 26, 2022, with agreements sent for final approval on December 20, 2022. Two projects have been proposed for the FY 2022 JAG grant; each project is technology based and responds to the need to improve the Department’s ability to extract valuable information from mobile devices and the internet.

Packet Pg.
494

1 1
3 7
2021-2025 Strategic Targets and Goals
The request to authorize the receipt, obligation and expenditure of the FY2022 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Grant aligns with Goal No. 1. Improved Operational & Financial Capacity: Implement, maintain, and update a fiscal accountability plan.

Fiscal Impact
There is no General Fund impact to the City with this recommendation as there is no grant-match requirement. The FY 2022/23 Operating Budget will be amended in both revenues and expenditures by $213,617.

Conclusion
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, adopt Resolution No. 2023-038, authorizing:

1. The City Manager to accept the 2022 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant, and

2. The Agency Director of Administrative Services to amend the FY2022/23 Adopted Budget by $213,617 in both revenue and expenditures.

Attachments
Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2023-038
Attachment 2 – Grant Award
Attachment 3 – JAG 2022 – Interlocal Agreement
Ward:

All Wards
Synopsis of Previous Council Actions:

July 20, 2022 Mayor and City Council adopted Resolution 2022-147, accepting the 2020 & 2021 JAG grants in the total amount of $379,025.

July 20, 2020 Mayor and City Council adopted Resolution 2020-220, accepting the 2017, 2018 & 2019 JAG grants in the total amount of $533,314.

Nov 7, 2016 Mayor and City Council adopted Resolution 2016-230, accepting the 2016/17JAG grants in the total amount of $154,574.

May 2, 2016 Mayor and City Council adopted Resolution 2016-87, accepting the 2015/16 JAG grants in the total amount of $136,504.

June 16, 2014 Mayor and City Council adopted Resolution 2014-17, accepting the 2014/15 JAG grants in the total amount of $142,943.

August 5, 2013 Mayor and City Council adopted Resolution 2013-230, accepting the 2013/14 JAG grants in the total amount of $130,007.

Packet Pg.
495

1 1
3 7
May 7, 2012 Mayor and City Council adopted Resolution 2012-75, accepting the 2012/13 JAG grants in the total amount of $136,168.

Packet Pg.
496

Resolution No. 2023-038
Resolution 2023-038
March 1, 2023

Page 1 of 3 ends

Mayor and City CouncilMarch 1, 2023

Mayor and City Council
March 1, 2023