Mayor and City Council
June 17, 2026

FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
AND

WM INLAND INVESTORS IV LP
This First Amendment to Lease Agreement (“First Amendment”) is made and entered into as of [____], 2026 (“Effective Date”), by and between the City of San Bernardino (a charter city and municipal corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at Vanir Tower, 290 North D Street, San Bernardino, California 92401) (“Lessee”) and WM Inland Investors IV LP (a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of business at 500 Inland Center Drive, San Bernardino, California 92408) (“Lessor”). Lessee and Lessor are sometimes referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as “Parties”.

RECITALS
A. The Parties entered into a lease agreement dated February 1, 2020 (“Lease”), for Lessor to lease property located in the enclosed shopping mall known as Inland Center Mall for use as a community service administrative office or for other police service purpose by the Police Department; and
B. The Parties now desire to amend the Lease to extend the term, modify condition of premises language, and remove early termination reimbursement language.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties mutually agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals listed above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference.

2. Amendment. The Lease is hereby amended as follows:
a. Section 1. Section 1 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following language to read as follows: “The term of the lease will be from February 1, 2020 to January 31, 2032, unless the lease is previously terminated as provided for herein (“Term”).”
b. Section 6. A new paragraph is add at the end of Section 6 to read as follows: “Lessee acknowledges and agrees that Lessor shall have no obligation to undertake any work of improvement upon the Premises and that Lessee shall continue to lease the Premises for the Term in an "As Is" condition; however, nothing in this Section shall be deemed to modify Lessor's repair obligations as expressly set forth in the lease.

The Premises have not undergone an inspection by a CASp.” c. Section 16. Section 16 is amended by deleting the following language: “If Lessee terminates this Lease under this Section 16 prior to the expiration of the Term, Lessee shall reimburse Lessor for the remaining unamortized value of the Initial Packet Page. 1522

Improvements, which the parties have agreed shall be fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) for each year remaining on the Term of this lease, prorated accordingly for partial calendar years; provided, however, Lessee shall not be obligated to reimburse Lessor for the remaining unamortized value of the Initial Improvements if this Lease is terminated due to Lessor's default. Payment of all such sums shall be made by Lessee upon the termination of this Lease.”

3. Continuing Effect of Lease. Except as amended by this First Amendment, all provisions of the Lease as amended shall remain in full force and effect, and shall govern the actions of the Parties under this First Amendment. Whenever the term “Lease” appears in the original Lease from and after the date of this First Amendment, it shall mean the Lease as amended.

3. Electronic Transmission. A manually signed copy of this First Amendment which is transmitted by facsimile, electronic mail, or other means of electronic transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original executed copy of this First Amendment for all purposes. This First Amendment may be signed using an electronic signature.

4. Counterparts. This First Amendment may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this First Amendment on the Effective Date.

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Approved By:

Eric Levitt
City Manager
Attested By:

Telicia Lopez, CMC
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:

City Attorney
Best Best & Krieger LLP

WM INLAND INVESTORS IV LP
[__________]
[__________]
Packet Page. 1523

CONSENT CALENDAR
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: June 17, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Lynn Merrill, Director of Public Works.

Department: Public Works
Subject: Accepting the Baseline Street Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Safety Study Report (Wards 1,2, 6)
Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, adopt Resolution No. 2026-084 of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, accepting the Baseline Street Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Safety Study Report and authorizing staff to utilize the study findings and recommendations in support of future transportation safety improvement projects and grant funding applications.

City Manager's Comments
City Manager recommends approval.

Executive Summary
The City of San Bernardino received federal funding through the United States Department of Transportation’s Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Program to prepare the Baseline Street Safety Study. The study developed corridor-wide safety recommendations and conceptual improvement alternatives focused on reducing severe and fatal collisions for all roadway users. The study evaluated historical collision data, traffic operations, and pedestrian and bicycle activity to develop its recommendations. Additionally, extensive public outreach, including community meetings, pop-up events, and online engagement, helped identify key safety concerns and informed the recommended improvements and implementation strategies.

Adoption of the study positions the City to pursue future state and federal funding opportunities for implementation of identified safety improvements and supports the City’s ongoing commitment to improving transportation safety and quality of life.

Background
In 2021, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) established the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Program to support communities in improving Packet Page. 1524
roadway safety and reducing traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries. The City of San Bernardino successfully secured federal SS4A grant funding for the preparation of the Baseline Street Safety Study through a competitive application process. The study focuses on improving roadway safety along the Baseline Street corridor between Meridian Avenue and Tippecanoe Avenue. The Baseline Street Safety Study builds upon the City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), which was adopted by the Mayor and City Council in 2023. The LRSP identified Baseline Street as the highest-priority corridor for safety improvements due to the significant number of collisions, including fatal and severe injury crashes, occurring along the corridor.

The purpose of the SS4A Baseline Street Safety Study is to identify existing roadway safety concerns, evaluate crash patterns, conduct stakeholder and community engagement, and develop corridor-wide conceptual safety improvements and implementation strategies that align with the Federal Highway Administration’s Safe System Approach.

On January 15, 2025, the Mayor and City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with KOA Corporation in the amount of $280,500 to prepare the Baseline Street Safety Study under the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Program. The project was funded through a $240,800 federal SS4A grant and a $60,200 local match from Regional Circulation Fund 263.

Discussion
Baseline Street is a major east-west corridor serving residential neighborhoods, schools, parks, businesses, transit users, pedestrians, bicyclists, and regional traffic.

The corridor experiences significant traffic volumes and has historically experienced a high number of traffic collisions, including collisions involving pedestrians and bicyclists. Due to the corridor’s importance within the City’s transportation network, the City initiated the Baseline Street Safety Study to evaluate existing conditions and identify potential safety improvements.

The study included a comprehensive review of historical collision data, roadway geometry, intersection operations, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit accessibility, speed trends, and traffic patterns throughout the corridor. The analysis utilized Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) methodologies, including crash severity weighting and systemic safety evaluation approaches, to identify high-risk locations and corridorwide safety needs. The study corridor extends approximately seven miles along Baseline Street between Meridian Avenue and Tippecanoe Avenue and serves as one of the City’s primary east-west transportation corridors. The corridor provides access to schools, businesses, residential neighborhoods, transit routes, employment centers, and community destinations.

The safety analysis identified a total of 722 crashes between 2019 and 2023 along the corridor, including 43 fatal and severe injury crashes. Signalized intersections accounted for approximately 71 percent of all collisions. Vulnerable roadway users, including pedestrians and bicyclists, represented a disproportionately high percentage Packet Page. 1525
of severe injury and fatal crashes. The study identified the following primary emphasis areas for safety improvements:
• Intersection Safety
• Speed Management and Aggressive Driving
• Impaired Driving
• Pedestrian Safety
• Bicycle Safety
The study also identified several recommended safety countermeasures and conceptual improvements, including:
• High-visibility crosswalks
• Protected bicycle facilities and Class IV bikeways
• Leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs)
• Signal timing and signal visibility improvements
• Intersection Bulb-outs
• Road Diet
• Class II Bike lanes
• Scrambled xwalks
• Installation of High Intensity Activated Crosswalk Signal (HAWK) The study further developed a prioritization methodology to identify high-priority intersections and segments for future funding and implementation. The report also includes conceptual cost estimates, implementation strategies, and potential funding opportunities through federal, state, regional, and local grant programs.

Extensive stakeholder and community engagement was conducted between August 2025 and April 2026, including public workshops, online surveys, stakeholder meetings, social media outreach, and interactive mapping tools. Community Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement. Public outreach and stakeholder engagement were critical components of the Baseline Street SS4A Safety Study. The City’s consultant Outreach Team coordinated multiple community engagement efforts throughout the study process to ensure that residents, businesses, schools, transit users, and corridor stakeholders had the opportunity to provide input regarding existing safety concerns and desired improvements along the corridor. The Outreach Team also coordinated with neighborhood organizations, local schools, community members, and other corridor stakeholders to gather feedback related to pedestrian safety, speeding concerns, bicycle connectivity, accessibility improvements, traffic operations, and overall corridor safety.

The outreach process helped identify community priorities including improved pedestrian crossings, enhanced lighting, traffic calming measures, safer access to schools and transit stops, improved bicycle connectivity, and roadway improvements intended to reduce speeding and collision severity along the corridor.

The study provides both corridor-wide recommendations and location specific conceptual Packet Page. 1526
improvements intended to reduce fatal and serious injury collisions while improving multimodal access and mobility. Recommendations contained within the study may be implemented incrementally as future funding opportunities become available. The Baseline Street Safety Study identified a series of recommended safety improvements at the ten highest-priority intersections along the corridor. The proposed improvements include pedestrian safety enhancements, traffic signal modifications, ADA-compliant curb ramps, sidewalk and curb improvements, upgraded lighting, enhanced striping and signage, pedestrian scramble operations, a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK), and other traffic calming measures intended to improve safety and accessibility for all roadway users. Based on the conceptual engineer’s cost estimate prepared by the consultant, the total estimated construction cost for the recommended improvements at the top ten intersections is approximately $2.32 million, including construction, contingency, construction engineering, mobilization, and traffic control. The estimate is preliminary and will be refined during future design and project development phases.

Acceptance of the study does not commit the City to immediate construction of all proposed improvements. Individual projects identified within the study will require additional engineering analysis, environmental review, public outreach, design development, and future City Council approval prior to implementation. However, adoption of the study will allow the City to pursue future federal, state, and regional grant funding opportunities for eligible transportation safety projects identified within the study.

The Baseline Street SS4A Safety Study also supports the City’s broader transportation safety, active transportation, and infrastructure improvement goals by identifying strategies intended to improve pedestrian safety, bicycle connectivity, accessibility, traffic operations, and overall quality of life for residents and corridor users. 2021-2025 Strategic Targets and Goals
This project consists of Key Target No 3e: Improved Operational and Financial Capacity, and Economic Growth & Development by minimizing risk and litigation exposure. The study supports the City's efforts to reduce transportation-related safety risks and position the City for future infrastructure investment.

Fiscal Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund associated with the acceptance of the study.

The study was previously funded through a combination of federal SS4A grant funds in the amount of $240,800 and local match fund (fund 263) in the amount of $60,200.

Conclusion
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, adopt Resolution No. 2026-084 of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, accepting the Baseline Street Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Safety Study Report and authorizing staff to utilize the study findings and recommendations in support of future transportation safety improvement projects and grant funding applications.

Packet Page. 1527
Attachments
Attachment 1 Resolution No. 2026-084
Attachment 2 Baseline Safety Study Report
Attachment 3 Corridor-Wide overview and concept plans
Attachment 4 Cost estimates
Ward: 1,2,6
Synopsis of Previous Council Actions:

January 15, 2025. Mayor and City Council authorized an award for Professional Services Agreement for Safe Streets and Roads for all (SS4A) for Baseline Street Study analysis to KOA Corporation.

June 5, 2024 Mayor and City council adopted Resolution 2024-137 accepting Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant.

CC: Eric Levitt, City Manager
Packet Page. 1528
Resolution No. 2026-084
Resolution 2026-084
June 17, 2026

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-084

A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA,

ACCEPTING THE BASELINE STREET SAFETY STUDY

PREPARED FOR THE SAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR
ALL (SS4A) PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO

UTILIZE THE STUDY FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS IN SUPPORT OF FUTURE

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS AND GRANT FUNDING APPLICATIONS.

WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino Public Works Department is responsible for the planning, development, and implementation of transportation safety improvements throughout the City, including roadway safety enhancements for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and school-aged children; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino was awarded on June 5, 2024 federal funding through the United States Department of Transportation Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Program in the amount of $240,800 in reimbursable grant funding with local match of $60,200 to prepare the Baseline Street Safety Study; and
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2025, the Mayor and City Council awarded a Professional Services Agreement to KOA Corporation in the amount of $280,500 for preparation of the Baseline Street Safety Study under the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Program; and WHEREAS, the Baseline Street Safety Study was built upon the City's Local Roadway Safety Plan adopted in 2023, which identified Baseline Street as a priority corridor for roadway safety improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Baseline Street Safety Study evaluated existing roadway conditions, traffic collision history, pedestrian and bicycle safety concerns, traffic operations, and multimodal transportation needs along the Baseline Street corridor; and WHEREAS, the study included extensive public outreach and stakeholder engagement efforts, including coordination with residents, businesses, schools, community organizations, and partner agencies to identify safety concerns and develop potential improvement strategies; and WHEREAS, the Baseline Street Safety Study analyzed reported collisions utilizing established Federal Highway Administration safety methodologies, including crash severity and Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) analyses, to identify high-priority safety improvement locations along the corridor; and
Packet Page. 1529
Resolution No. 2026-084
Resolution 2026-084
June 17, 2026

WHEREAS, the Baseline Street Safety Study developed a comprehensive toolbox of potential safety countermeasures and conceptual improvements intended to reduce traffic collisions, improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, enhance accessibility, and support safer multimodal travel throughout the corridor; and
WHEREAS, acceptance of the Baseline Street Safety Study and its recommendations will position the City to pursue future state and federal funding opportunities for roadway safety, active transportation, and infrastructure improvement projects; and WHEREAS, the acceptance of the Baseline Street Safety Study does not constitute approval of any specific construction project, environmental determination, or funding commitment, and future projects identified in the study will be subject to additional review, environmental clearance, design, and City Council approval as required.

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 Mayor and City Council hereby accept the Baseline Street Safety Study and its recommendations and authorize staff to utilize the Study findings and recommendations in support of future transportation safety improvement projects and grant funding applications.

SECTION 3. The City Council finds that acceptance of the Baseline Street Safety Study is not a project subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that acceptance of the Study and authorization to use its findings for planning and grant application purposes will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable physical change in the environment.

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.

APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk this 17th day of June 2026.

Helen Tran, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Packet Page. 1530
Resolution No. 2026-084
Resolution 2026-084
June 17, 2026

Attest:

Telicia Lopez, CMC, City Clerk
Approved as to form:

Sonia Carvalho, City Attorney
Packet Page. 1531
Resolution No. 2026-084
Resolution 2026-084
June 17, 2026

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO) ss

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
I, Telicia Lopez, CMC, City Clerk, hereby certify that the attached is a true copy of Resolution No. 2026-084, adopted at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of June 2026 by the following vote:

Council Members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT
SANCHEZ _____ _____ _______ _______
IBARRA _____ _____ _______ _______
FIGUEROA _____ _____ _______ _______
SHORETT _____ _____ _______ _______
KNAUS ____ _____ _______ _______
FLORES ____ ____ _______ _______
ORTIZ _____ _____ _______ _______
WITNESS my hand and official seal of the City of San Bernardino this 18th day of June 2026.

Telicia Lopez, CMC, City Clerk
Packet Page. 1532

PEOPLE PROCESSES PROTECTION PERFORMANCE

SAFER STREETS

SAN BERNARDINO

BASELINE STREET STUDY

SAFE STREETS FOR ALL

STRONGER COMMUNITY

BETTER SAN BERNARDINO
SPRING 2026
Packet Page. 1533
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 2 Safe Streets for All
Baseline Street Study
Prepared by Prepared for
HW Lochner | An Egis Company
225 W Washington St 12th floor,
Chicago, IL 60606
Vanir Tower
290 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Packet Page. 1534
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 3 Table of Contents
Chapter One - Introduction 5
Welcome to Baseline Street 6
What is the Baseline Street Safety Study? 7
How Does the Baseline Street Safety Study Make Travel Safer? 9 The Principles of the Safe System Approach 10
What Do We Hope to Accomplish? 11
Chapter Two - State of the System and Safety Analysis 12 Plans and Policies Overview 13
Safety Analysis Overview 20
Emphasis Areas 27
Chapter Three - Stakeholder & Community Engagement 32
Stakeholder and Community Engagement Overview 33
Engagement Methods and Tools 33
Engagement Feedback Analysis 39
Key Findings 44
Packet Page. 1535
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 4 Chapter Four - Countermeasures Toolbox & Priority Projects 46 Toolbox and Priority Projects Overview 47
Countermeasure Description 47
Prioritization Methodology 62
Top 10 Intersection Breakdown 63
Chapter Five - Implementation 87
Overview 88
Funding Opportunities 88
Funding Strategy Summary 93
Benchmark and Evaluation Metrics 93
San Bernardino Local Roadway Safety Plan Amendment 94
Developing an SS4A-Compliant LRSP 98
Packet Page. 1536
Chapter One -
Introduction
Packet Page. 1537
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 6 Welcome to Baseline Street
Home to six schools, 1,600 jobs, and 35,000 people,
Baseline Street is the soul of a thriving City of San
Bernardino Community. Baseline Street is served
by Omnitrans Route 3 and 4 and the City of San
Bernardino has the highest average weekday boardings
out of all cities served by Omnitrans. There are six
schools along the five-mile Baseline Street corridor that includes four elementary schools, one middle school,
and one high school. The annual average daily traffic
(AADT) weekday average along the Baseline Street
corridor is 9,600 - 29,100 vehicles.

For more than 150 years, Baseline Street has played a
significant role in shaping San Bernardino and Southern California. Originally established as a survey line that helped define land boundaries across the region, it
has since evolved into a major corridor serving the
heart of the San Bernardino Valley. Today, Baseline
Street connects three bus lines and serves tens of
thousands of travelers, providing access to destinations throughout San Bernardino and beyond.

As seen in Figure 1.1, Baseline Street (highlighted in
Blue) is a major thoroughfare serving commercial
land uses (parcels in Red and Purple) almost along its
entire extent, major destination attractors for residents around the area. Although residential uses (parcels
in Yellow and Orange) are not located directly along
Baseline Street, the corridor continues to serve a
significant portion of central San Bernardino residents by functioning as one of the City’s primary east-west
corridors.

Figure 1.1: Project Area Map
Packet Page. 1538
7 San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safet Study The Baseline Street Safety Study represents the City of San Bernardino’s commitment to making this corridor
safer for everyone. In partnership with community
members, the City has developed a comprehensive
plan that identifies key safety concerns and outlines
targeted improvements. Once implemented, these
enhancements will help reduce and ultimately eliminate
serious injury and fatal crashes, while preserving and
protecting the people, neighborhoods, and destinations
that make Baseline Street unique.

What is the Baseline Street Safety
Study?
The Baseline Street Safety Study is a federallyfunded initiative to create safer communities across the United States.

In 2021, the United States government established
the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program to
support communities of all sizes in improving roadway
safety and reducing traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries. Recognizing the need to enhance safety along
Baseline Street, the City of San Bernardino successfully secured a 2023 SS4A grant to fund the Baseline Street
Safety Study. With the study now complete, the City
is well positioned to pursue additional funding to
implement the improvements identified in Chapters 4
and 5.

Packet Page. 1539
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 8 Figure 1.2: Study Funding Flowchart
The USDOT Adminsters the
SS4A Program and offers
funding for SS4A Plans to
eligible entites
The City of San Bernardino
created the City of San
Bernardino Local Roadway
Safety Plan (LRSP)
The California Transportation
Commission, USDOT, and the
Southern California
Association of Governments
distribute funding for
implementing the LRSP
recommendations.

The City of San Bernardino is
awarded funding from the SS4A
program to develop The
Baseline Street Safety Study
The United States Congress created
and provided funding for
transportation projects
Requests SS4A Funding From:

Delegates Funding Distribution
To:

Granted funding to:

Applies for funding from:

Awards funding to:

The President and U.S.

Department of Transportation
(USDOT) set the transportation
budget priorities for the next five
years
The Baseline Street Safety Study originated from
the City of San Bernardino’s Local Roadway Safety
Plan (LRSP), which was adopted in late 2022. The
LRSP identified Baseline Street as the highest-priority corridor for safety improvments due to its high
concentration of roadway and traffic-related collisions.

Building upon the findings of the LRSP, the City
further evaluated existing safety concerns and
opportunities along the corridor to develop targeted
recommendations and strategies through this Study. To
advance these efforts, the City submitted an appliction to the United States Department of Transportration’s
Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program to
demonstrate the need for a comprehensive corridor
safety analysis. The application was successfully
awarded funding, allowing the City to undertake the
development of the Baseline Street Safety Study.

Figure 1.2 illustrates the overall funding and planning process associated with the Study.

Packet Page. 1540
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 9 Figure 1.3: Safe Systems Approach Overview1 2
THE

SAFE SYSTEM

APPROACH
It is our responsibility to
travel as safely as we
can, both on Baseline
Street and anywhere
else we travel.

Safe road users
When possible,
vehicles and vehicle
regulations should
minimize the risk of
crashes.

Safe vehicles
Roads are safer when they are
designed to protect everyone
and discourage situations
where crashes occur.

Safe roads
If a crash does happen, first
responders, media, and public officials
work together to ensure safety,
messaging, and future policy changes.

Post-Crash Care
Slower travel speeds
greatly reduce the
risk of crashes with
injury or death.

Safe speeds
The Safe
System
Approach
The Baseline
Street Safety
Study’s
approach to
roadway
safety.

How Does the Baseline Street Safety
Study Make Travel Safer?
Crashes may not always be preventable;
however, the frequency and severity of crashes
can be significantly reduced through thoughtful
planning, safer street design, effective policies,
and community-focused transportation
strategies. By reimagining how streets are
designed and operated, communities can beter
protect all roadway users and minimize the risk
of serious injuries and fatalities when creases
do occur.

The Baseline Street Safety Study (the Plan) is founded
on the Safe System Approach, a roadway safety
framework developed by the United States Department
of Transportation (USDOT) to reduce traffic-related
fatalities and seriour injuries. The Safe System
Approach emphasizes proactive safety strategies that
recognize human error while designing transportation
systems to minimize likelihood and severity of crashes.

Through safer roadway design, policies, speeds, and
operations, each component of the transportation
network works together to better protect all users and
reduce the potential for severe outcomes when crashes
occur.
1 Safe System Brochure | Federal Highway Administration 2 Vision Zero Toolkit | Federal Highway Adminstration
Packet Page. 1541
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 10 One component may fail to protect someone, but
another component could prevent a crash anyway.

Crashes only occur when every component of the
system fails to prevent a crash.

The safe system approach offers multiple
layers of protection.

Safe road
users
Safe road
users
Safe
vehicles
Safe
vehicles
Safe
speeds
Safe
speeds
Safe
roads
Safe
roads
Postcrash
care
Postcrash
care
The Principles of the Safe System Approach
Death/Serious Injury is Unacceptable. The City
is committed to improving safety along Baseline
Street so all users can travel safely regardless of
their mode of transportation.

Humans Make Mistakes. Humans are vulnerable to
serious injury during roaday collisions, particularly
pedestrians, bicyclists, and other unprotected
users. It is therefore essential for the City and
this Study to recognize and address the physical
forces generated during crashes by implementing
transportation improvements that reduce crash
severity and enhance overall roadway safety for
all users.

Humans Are Vulnerable. It is important for the
City and the Study to account for the crash forces
that pose a threat to human wellbeing.

Responsibility is Shared. It is the responsibility
of everyone who interacts with Baseline Street
(travelers, vehicles pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.) to
ensure that crashes do not lead to injury or death.

Safety is Proactive. The Baseline Street Safety
Study proactively identifies and creates mitigation
strategies for factors that could cause lifethreatening crashes.

Redundancy is Crucial. To reduce the risk of fatal
and severe injury crashes, the transportation
system must provide multiple layers of protection.

Packet Page. 1542
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 11 What Do We Hope to Accomplish?
The Baseline Street Safety Study will serve as the
primary plan for roadway safety along Baseline Street.

This chapter introduces the Study and its purpose.

Future chapters will discuss Baseline Street’s past,
examine the conditions that affect its present, and
propose designs and strategies for the future.

Chapter 2
Existing Conditions
This chapter examines
Baseline Street’s current
situation. It includes a “State
of the System” review, a
review of relevant plans,
policies, and projects, and
a collision analysis of the
crashes that have occurred
along Baseline Street over
the past five years.

Chapter 3
Stakeholder
and Community
Engagement
This chapter discusses the
community’s role in shaping
the Baseline Street Safety
Study. It highlights the City’s
efforts to reach current
community members and
their concerns about travel
safety on Baseline Street.

Chapter 4
Countermeasures
Toolbox & Priority
Projects
This chapter provides
a toolbox of potential
countermeasures that
are suitable for Baseline
Street. Following the
toolbox, the chapter
highlights key sections of
Baseline Street that have a
notable potential for traffic
safety improvements. It
showcases these potential
improvements in the form of
factsheets and conceptual
plans to summarize these
safety improvements.

Chapter 5
Implementation
This section outlines
how to implement the
Baseline Street Safety
Study, including potential
funding strategies for
improvements and ways to
track the effectiveness of
implemented projects.

Packet Page. 1543
12 Chapter Two -
State of the System and
Safety Analysis
Packet Page. 1544
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 13 Plans and Policies Overview
The following section summarizes transportationrelated planning documents found at the federal, state, and regional/county level. Upon review of these
documents, the City and project team identified
existing challenges and potential improvement
strategies concerning roadway safety along both the
Baseline Street corridor and in the surrounding area.

These items played a key role in informing the
development of this study. Figure 2.1 illustrates the
sections of Baseline Street that are discussed in each
planning document discussed in the following sections
in terms of safety issues, community concerns, and
recommended improvements.

Figure 2.1: Relevant Plans and Plan Extents
Packet Page. 1545
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 14 Federal
FHWA Highway Safety Programs
The San Bernardino Baseline Street Safety Action Plan
reflects United States Department of Transportation
(USDOT) strategies and priorities, including:
° The Safe System Approach, as discussed in
Chapter 1, creates a framework for reaching a goal
of zero deaths on roadways in the United States.

The Safe System Approach is intended to shape
approaches to roadway safety at every level of
government and is the basis for the Plan’s analysis
and recommendations.
° FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures initiative
(PSCi), a collection of 28 roadway design and
policy and strategies effective in reducing
roadway fatalities and serious injury crashes.

Many of the recommendations in the Plan include
countermeasures taken from FHWA’s Proven
Safety Countermeasures list.

State
2025 – 2029 Strategic Highway Safety Plan
As a comprehensive safety document, the Strategic
Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) guides roadway safety
policies for every level of jurisdiction in California. The Plan will rely on the SHSP as a source for potential
program- and policy-based recommendations as well
as completely aligning with SHSP’s goals of safe and
accessible travel for all modes of transportation and
zero fatalities and severe injury on all of California’s roads.
2050 California Transportation Plan (2021)
The 2050 California Transportation Plan (CTP)
is California’s roadmap to improving the state’s
transportation system over the next 25 years. Like
the SHSP, it does not outline specific projects but
creates a set of program-centered recommendations
that California can implement to encourage better
transportation policy across the state. This plan will
align with CTP’s goals of:
° [Expanding] access to safe and convenient active
transportation options,
° [Expanding] access to jobs, goods, services, and
education,
° Enhancing transportation safety and security
Regional/County
Connect SoCal (2024)
Connect SoCal is the Southern California Association
of Government’s (SCAG’s) Regional Transportation
Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. Many
of the goals outlined in Connect SoCal align with
improvements proposed for Baseline Street in regional
and City plans, such as:
° Complete Streets, or roads that are designed to
enable safe access for all road users,
° Transit and multimodal integration into the makeup
of the City’s streets,
° Integrating emerging transportation technology
into street design and traffic control devices,
° And chiefly, eliminating transportation-related
fatalities and serious injuries.

Packet Page. 1546
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 15 As a major transportation corridor within the City of San Bernardino, Baseline Street is identified in several Connect SoCal plans and regional transportation
discussions as a corridor of regional significance,
uncluding the following:
° SCAG’s High-Injury Network (HIN) a collection of
Southern California streets that host 65% of the
region’s fatal and severe injury collisions. The areas
of the Plan area within an HIN are:
° Meridian Avenue to California Street and G
Street to Del Rosa Avenue (All Modes and
Automobiles)
° G Street to Del Rosa Drive (Pedestrians)
° SCAG’s High-Quality Transit Corridors, which
outlines transit corridors expected to have core
service frequencies of 15 minutes or better by
2050.

SCAG’s Priority Development Areas (PDA), which are
parts of Southern California where future development
can be concentrated to meet Connect SoCal’s
transportation and sustainability goals. Much of
Baseline Street is within a PDA zone. SCAG is a major
partner of the City, and the Baseline Street Safety
Action Plan is designed to advance the area and City
towards Connect SoCal’s regional planning goals. While
this plan does not include land use recommendations,
the City recognizes the interconnectivity between
current and future development alongside the
implementation of the Safe System Approach in
reducing fatal and severe injury crashes.

San Bernardino County Countywide Plan
Transportation and Mobility Element (2020)
The Transportation and Mobility Element of the San
Bernardino County Countywide Plan sets the policies
and goals for the County’s transportation network.

Within the Transportation and Mobility element,
Baseline Street is classified as a “Major Highway.” The element also recommends that Baseline Street receive
Class II bike lanes along the road’s entire route within San Bernardino County.

San Bernardino Associated Governments
Complete Streets Strategy (2015)
The San Bernardino Associated Governments
Complete Streets Strategy (Complete Streets Strategy)
encourages the adoption of complete streets policies
by its constituent municipalities. Complete streets
policies dictate how and when new and upgraded
roads must incorporate infrastructure for all users into their designs. The Complete Streets Strategy published
examples of practices implemented elsewhere and
created guidelines cities could follow to implement
their own policies.

Many of the elements suggested, such as bicycle lanes
and transit stop improvements, are eventually included
in the City of San Bernardino Active Transportation
Plan.

Packet Page. 1547
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 16 San Bernardino County Local Roadway Safety Plan
(2022)
The San Bernardino County Local Roadway Safety Plan
(County LRSP) focuses on evaluating why roadway
crashes occur in unincorporated San Bernardino County
and proposes solutions in reducing crashes. Many of the general solutions proposed in the County LRSP, such as
Advanced Dilemma Zone Technology, signal upgrades,
and bike lanes, are proposed in other city plans.

Customer-Focused, Technology-Enabled MultiModalism Action Plan (2018) The Customer-Focused, Technology-Enabled MultiModalism Action Plan (Multimodal Action Plan) was a joint effort by the San Bernardino County
Transportation Authority (SBCTA), SCAG, and
Omnitrans to leverage emerging transportation
technologies and strategies to encourage public and
active transportation throughout the San Bernardino
Valley. The Multimodal Action Plan’s only specific
suggestion for Baseline Street is the incorporation
of lighting and emergency call boxes into bus stops
Omnitrans found to have “Low Safety Ratings.” The
Multimodal Action Plan highlights several bus stops
recommended for improvements along Baseline Street
near its intersection with Waterman Avenue. The
Multimodal Action Plan also generally suggests creating comfortable and safe bike infrastructure.

San Bernardino County Non-Motorized
Transportation Plan (2018)
The San Bernardino County Non-Motorized
Transportation Plan (2018 NMTP) created a countywide plan for new bicycle infrastructure, including along Baseline Street. The 2018 NMTP proposed Class II bike
lanes along all of Baseline Street within City limits.

These Class II bike lanes would continue into Rialto in the west and Highland to the east.

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
Regional Safe Routes to School, Volume 2 (2017)
The SBCTA Regional Safe Routes to School project
aims to create safety recommendations for select
schools in San Bernardino County. One of the three
schools selected to study for the plan was what is now
referred to as Riley College Preparatory Academy (Riley Prep). The SBCTA SRTS Plan recommends that the City
paint high-visibility crosswalks, Class II bicycle lanes, and school zone markings along Baseline Street. It also recommends accessibility upgrades and additional
school signage. All high visibility crosswalks should
also be painted in school zone yellow, instead of the
standard white color paint.

Omnitrans Short Range Transit Plan FY 2023-2030
The Omnitrans Short Range Transit Plan outlines
upcoming changes and modifications to the Omnitrans
bus network. While the routes that serve Baseline
Street (3,4, and 10) are mentioned, none of them are
slated to receive any changes in the Project area.

Packet Page. 1548
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 17 City of San Bernardino
San Bernardino City Active Transportation Plan
(2022)
The San Bernardino City Active Transportation Plan
(ATP) created a recommended network of bicycle,
pedestrian, and accessibility improvements throughout
the City. Within San Bernardino’s new active
transportation framework, Baseline Street was classified as a multi-modal corridor, meaning that the street
provides regional connectivity to destinations both
inside and outside of the city for several different types of road users. The 2022 plan proposed that Baseline
Street receive sidewalks, curb ramps, and a Class IV
bicycle lane along its entire length. It recommended
other improvements as well, including:
° Transit Stop Improvements
° High Visibility Crosswalks
° Leading Pedestrian Intervals
° Speed Feedback Signs
° Pedestrian HAWK Signals
° Advance Stop Bars
° Advance Yield Lines
° Street Trees
° Sidewalk Obstruction Removal
The ATP also found Baseline Street to be the highest
priority corridor for improvements in San Bernardino
and recommends that the City focus on improving the
street between Meridian Avenue and Del Rosa street.

San Bernardino City Local Roadway Safety Plan
(2022)
The San Bernardino City Local Roadway Safety Plan
(City LRSP) created recommendations for improving
travel safety on streets owned and maintained by
the City. Much like this Plan, the 2022 LRSP focused
on roadway collisions, focusing particularly on five
categories:
° Pedestrian safety
° Unsafe speeds
° Intersection safety
° Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence
° Collisions near schools
° Collision density
The City LRSP found a collection of collisions in each
category above to have been present along Baseline
Street. Additionally, Baseline Street between Meridian
and Tippecanoe Avenues had 742 collisions between
2016 and 2020, making it, by far, the corridor with the most crashes in San Bernardino. It also had more than
double the number of fatal and severe injury crashes
than the 2nd-ranked corridor in the City, Waterman
Avenue.

San Bernardino City Final Systemic Safety Analysis
Report/Inventory Report (2018)
The San Bernardino City Final Systemic Safety Analysis
Report/Inventory Report (SSARP) is another document
that identifies possible strategies for improving safety on San Bernardino’s roadway network. It includes a
specific focus on traffic control devices and, as a part of its recommendations, advises that the City replace
Packet Page. 1549
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 18 several signs and traffic lights along Baseline Street.

It also recommends that the City pursue traffic signal
upgrades at several intersections along the street.

One of the upgrades prescribed by the plan is the
installation of Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection
Systems, a type of Intelligent Transportation System
(ITS) technology that adjusts the yellow phase of a
traffic light to reduce the number of drivers who need
to decide where to continue through or stop before an
intersection.

The SSARP ultimately named Baseline Road as the
corridor most recommended for improvements. From
2013 to 2017, Baseline Street from Medical Center
Drive to Del Rosa Drive had more collisions than any
other city corridor. However, it also found that these
improvements would make travel along Baseline Street
substantially safer. The improvements, if implemented,
would generate more than 29 times the benefits for
their cost.

San Bernardino City Dilemma Zone Upgrades
(2025)
In Spring 2024, the City of San Bernardino upgraded
signals at 49 intersections across the City (including 19 on Baseline Street) to include Dilemma Zone detection
technology. The Dilemma Zone is the area before the
stop bar of an intersection where a driver needs to
decide whether to stop at a traffic light or continue
through the intersection. Dilemma Zone technology is
designed to extend the red light duration for all sides of the intersection to ensure that drivers who do decide
to proceed through the light in the Dilemma Zone have
adequate time to clear the intersection before traffic
from other directions enter.

The preliminary results of a study conducted by
SCAG and its partners show positive safety results.

San Bernardino City’s “Red Protect” Dilemma Zone
technology, which was implemented in conjunction
with other improvements like reflective backplates,
new electrical equipment, and pedestrian and ADA
improvements, resulted in a 53% decrease in average
crashes per year and a 72% decrease in average serious
and fatal injury crashes per year for participating
signalized intersections along Baseline Road.

Additionally, three of the five intersections with the
largest crash reductions (Waterman Avenue, Arrowhead
Avenue, and H Stret) were along Baseline Street.

Waterman/Baseline Neighborhood Specific Plan
(2016)
The 2016 Waterman/Baseline Neighborhood Specific
Plan creates a vision for future development and
improvements to the public realm in the vicinity of
Waterman Avenue and Baseline Street. The Plan details
several aspects of planning and development for the
area including a mobility plan that envisions a walkable, connected, mixed-use neighborhood.

The mobility plan proposes reconfiguring the
intersection of Baseline Street and Waterman Avenue
to add more turn lanes on Baseline Road while
also suggesting several safety components such as
streetscape and pedestrian improvements, including
adding lighting, accessibility features, medians, street trees, and bus stop improvements.

Packet Page. 1550
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 19 It also called for all crosswalks to be upgraded to highvisibility crosswalks, flashing beacons to be installed where necessary, and for a full set of crosswalks to
be installed at the intersection of Baseline Street and Windsor/Myrtle Drives. The mobility plan recommends
Class II bike lanes along Baseline Street within the
entirety of the plan area. These facilities would intersect with Class II bike lanes at Wall Avenue and a Class I
shared-use path that follows a drainage canal between
Canyon Road and Barton Street. Local residents and
community stakeholders had opportunities to discuss
the issues they have experienced in their neighborhood
and to identify potential solutions.

Neighboring Jurisdictions
Highland Circulation Element (2012)
The City of Highland’s Circulation Element of its 2012
Master Plan outlines the City’s priorities in maintaining and enhancing their transportation network. Baseline
Street, known as Base Line Street within Highland’s
boundaries, is classified as a truck route and a “Major Highway”, which at their ultimate design, includes four travel lanes, a raised median, and shoulder space that
can either be used for parking or Class II bike lanes.

This reflects Base Line Street’s current conditions in
the City of Highland, where a Class II buffered bike lane begins at Highland’s border with San Bernardino and
continues to just east of Boulder Avenue.

Rialto General Plan Circulation Element (2023)
Baseline Street, which is Base Line Street within the
City of Rialto, is classified as a “Major Arterial” in the Circulation Element of Rialto’s General Plan. Major
Arterial streets have an ultimate configuration of three travel lanes in each direction separated by a raised
median. However, Base Line Street currently maintains
four travel lanes and curbside parking throughout most
of its length in Rialto. It currently also has Class II bike lanes between Lilac and Maple Avenues.

Rialto Safe Routes to School Plan
The Rialto Safe Routes to School Plan recommends
several safety improvements within the vicinity of
Rialto schools, including several close to Baseline Street (known as Base Line Street within Rialto). The most
notable recommendation is Class II bike lanes that
would begin at Rialto’s border with San Bernardino and
continue throughout Rialto to Fontana.

Packet Page. 1551
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 20 Safety Analysis Overview
As is evident through its history and physical context, Baseline Street is an integral corridor that serves
the City of San Bernardino. Aside from carrying high
volumes of traffic through the entire east-west extent
of the city, it also accommodates major destinations
such as multiple schools and shopping centers.

However, due to high volumes and high demands
of travel, Baseline Street was also identified as one
of the highest crash rate corridors according to San
Bernardino’s LRSP, adopted in 2022.

Consequently, this safety anaysis will focus on
Baseline Street as the study area, specifically the
portion between Meridian Avenue and Tippecanoe
Avenue. Safety recommendations will be provided
based on the most recent five-year crash history,
2019-2023, as provided by the Statewide
Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). This is
supplemented by a review of the 2024-2025 crash
data from the Dilemma Zone study. A brief overview
of crash trends will be explored, alongside more
detailed investigations into the top crash locations
along Baseline Street.

Crash Trends by Year
A total of 722 crashes occurred between 2019 and
2023. As seen in Figure 2.2, Baseline Street saw
relatively consistent crash numbers between the
years of 2019 to 2021. However, crash totals saw a
significant drop in 2022 and even more in 2023.

Potential reasons may be related to the City’s
implementation of safety countermeasures on
Baseline Street between the years 2022 and
2023, specifically the installation of retroreflective
backplates for signalized intersections. Since then,
several more attempts have been made to address
safety on Baseline Street. For example, a recent study
was conducted between 2024 and 2025 for Dilemma
Zone implementation at signalized intersections along
Baseline Street.

Preliminary results show that total crashes along
Baseline have decreased by about 50% in these two
years. While not directly comparable to this plan’s
crash data as 2019 to 2023 is a five-year period, the
study is expected to have significant impact for the
years between 2026 to 2028 if the same crash trends
continue.

In addition to the Dilemma Zone study, the City
completed a speed-limit study in 2024 that resulted
in reduced speed limits along several segments of
Baseline Street. However, becuase these improvements
were implemented after 2023 and did not cover the
entier corridor, the crash data associated with these
Figure 2.2: Crash Trends by Year
Packet Page. 1552
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 21 studies was not included in this analysis.

Although total crash numbers have declined between
2019 to 2023, it is important to note that Killed and
Severe Injury (KSI) crashes still remained relatively
consistent, hovering between 4% to 6%. The year 2022
saw a spike in KSI crashes, constituting about 10% of all crashes. So, while it is commendable for total crashes
to have declined throughout the corridor, specific
countermeasures may need to be considered to target
further reductions in KSI crashes.

Crash Mode and Fatal/Serious Injury (KSI)
Proportions
Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.4 categorizes crashes by mode
of transportation. Automobile-only crashes were the
most common, comprising 86% of all crashes. Pedestrian
crashes were the second most common followed by
motorcycle and bicycle crashes roughly sharing the
same proportions.

While it is unsurprising to see automobile-only crashes comprising the greatest number of KSI crashes, the
expected KSI proportions are substantially lower in
comparison, at 53%. In contrast, while pedestrian crashes were only 8% of total crashes, they comprised 26% of
all KSI crashes. The same pattern of overrepresentation is observed for motorcycle crashes, at 14%, and bicycle crashes, at 7%.

Exploring each mode’s crash severity proportions paints a similar scenario. As per Figure 2.5, about 20% of all pedestrian crashes resulted in a KSI. KSI proportions
are even higher for motorcycle crashes at almost 25%.

Bicycle crashes also had high KSI rates at around 15%.

Automobile KSI rates were only at about 4%, showing
Figure 2.3: Total Crashes by Mode of
Transportation
Figure 2.4: Further investigated crash modes by
KSI proportions.

Packet Page. 1553
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 22 Figure 2.5: Crash Severity by Mode of Transportation that Vulnerable Road Users (VRU) KSI rates are several
magnitudes higher compared to automobile KSI rates.

Ultimately, these results indicate that while VRU crashes occur at lower numbers, they have a much higher risk
of resulting in severe or fatal conditions when they do occur. With almost half of all KSI crashes on Baseline
Street being attributed to VRUs, recommendations
should be specifically tailored to these types of crashes, especially regarding pedestrian crashes, which make up
more than a quarter of all KSI crashes.

Crash Location Facilities
Aside from analyzing the crash data by travel mode,
it is imperative to also analyze general crash location types on Baseline Street. The project extent of Baseline Street covers a long stretch within the city with
different traffic volumes, land uses, and densities, so an analysis on location types helps direct attention to areas with the most need.

Table 2.1 breaks down the 722 crashes by their
corresponding location type, categorized into
Signalized Intersections, Unsignalized Intersections, and Segments. Crashes are assigned to segments if they
occur beyond 250 ft of a signalized intersection, or 150 ft of an unsignalized intersection.

The project extent of Baseline Street has a relatively
Packet Page. 1554
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 23 lower number of signalized intersections to
unsignalized intersections, 22 and 35 respectively.

Despite having more unsignalized intersections, about
71% of all crashes occurred at signalized intersections, likely due to the high volumes of traffic and activity
along signalized intersections as denser developments
and land uses are generally located near signalized
intersections.

Signalized Unsignalized Roadway Segment
Property Damage Only 203 62 11
% of Total 39.6% 35.8% 30.6%
Complaint of Pain 198 62 10
% of Total 38.6% 35.8% 27.8%
Visible Injury 88 36 9
% of Total 17.2% 20.8% 25.0%
Severe Injury 18 5 3
% of Total 3.5% 2.89% 8.33%
Fatal 6 8 3
% KSI 1.2% 4.6% 8.3%
TOTAL 513 173 36
GRAND TOTAL 722
Table 2.1: Crashes by Location Type
About 24% of crashes occurred at unsignalized
intersections, while only about 5% occurred along
segments. Segment crashes are relatively few since
Baseline Street is largely built out with intersections often being only a few hundred feet apart. However,
some longer portions do run uninterrupted across the
City where some segment crashes occur.

Packet Page. 1555
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 24 Crash Location and Crash Type
Table 2.2 and Table 2.3 details the crash type associated with each location facility type. The most common
types of collisions that occur at signalized intersections are broadside, rear end, and sideswipe crashes. These
three types of collisions also often occur at unsignalized intersections, though crash types are relatively evenly spread out for unsignalized intersections.

Generally, broadside and sideswipe crashes are related to turning movements which often occur at intersections.

Rear ends are most often associated with speeding
but may also include other factors such as distracted
driving. Again, note that vehicle/pedestrian crash types are less common but have the highest rates of KSIs for
both intersection types.

Segment crashes have slightly different proportions of
crash types with hit object being the most common,
followed by rear end and sideswipe. Hit object crashes
are also often attributed to speeding or unsafe turning movements.

Intersection
Crash Type
Signalized Total Signalized
KSI
%
Resulting in KSI
UnsignalizedTotal
Unsignalized KSI
%
Resulting in KSI
Broadside 194 14 7.22% 45 4 8.89%
Rear End 119 1 0.84% 27 0 0.00%
Sideswipe 60 1 1.67% 29 0 0.00%
Hit Object 43 1 2.33% 29 1 3.45%
Head-On 47 2 4.26% 20 3 15.00%
Vehicle/
Pedestrian
34 5 14.71% 20 3 15.00%
Overturned 6 0 0.00% 2 0 0.00%
Segment Collision Type Number of Crashes Total KSI % Resulting in KSI Hit Object 12 1 8.33%
Rear End 6 0 0.00%
Sideswipe 4 0 0.00%
Head-On 3 1 33.33%
Overturned 3 1 33.33%
Broadside 3 0 0.00%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 4 3 75.00%
Table 2.2: Baseline Street Intersection Crash Types
Table 2.3: Baseline Street Segment Crash Types
Packet Page. 1556
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 25 Crash Location and Primary Collision Factor
Aside from the types of crashes, it is also beneficial to investigate the Primary Collision Factors (PCF) that
are often attributed to location types. PCFs identify
common causes that may lead to crashes and help
direct countermeasures to address the cause factors at
similar location types.

As represented in Table 2.4, Traffic Signals and Signs
are the most common PCF for signalized intersections,
inferring that systemic improvements for traffic signal hardware or sign placements may be an important
focus.

Note that the City has implemented traffic signal
improvements along many of the major signalized
intersections along Baseline Street since 2022, which
may explain the decrease of total crash numbers
observed earlier in the analysis. However, KSI rates
for this PCF are also quite high especially considering its total crash amount, at close to 8%; compared to
the 2nd and 3rd most common PCFs, which both
have KSI rates at only about 1%, this is a much higher
comparative KSI rate. Recalling that though total
collisions were reduced in 2022 and 2023, KSI rates
remained the same and rose in 2022, so further
improvements at specific locations may need to be
considered.

Intersection Crash PCFs Signalized Total Signalized KSI% Resulting in KSI
Unsignalized Total
Unsignalized
KSI
% Resulting
in KSI
Traffic Signals and Signs 134 11 8.21% 2 0 0.00%
Unsafe Speed 118 2 1.69% 31 1 3.23%
Improper Turning 95 1 1.05% 55 4 7.27%
Automobile Right of Way 62 2 3.23% 36 0 0.00%
Unknown 25 1 4.00% 7 0 0.00%
Pedestrian Violation 15 2 13.33% 13 2 15.38%
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drug
15 3 20.00% 8 4 50.00%
Pedestrian Right of Way 10 1 10.00% 1 0 0.00%
Table 2.4: PCFs for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections Packet Page. 1557
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 26 Table 2.5: PCFs for Roadway Segments
Unsafe Speeds ranked as the 2nd PCF for signalized
intersections followed by improper turning, inferring
that speeding and unsafe or illegal turning movements
often occur at signalized intersections.

For unsignalized intersections, the most common PCF
was improper turning followed by automobile right
of way and unsafe speeds. Mitigations that restrict
dangerous turning movements and reducing speeds of
incoming vehicles may address many crashes that often
occur at unsignalized intersections. Crashes related to Automobile Right of Way relate to drivers disregarding
standard traffic right of way and failing to yield to
incoming traffic. Mitigations may include increased
enforcement and education for reducing aggressive or
unsafe driving behaviors.

Crash Type Segment Total
Signalized KSI
Unsafe Speed 10 2
Improper Turning 10 0
Automobile Right of Way 3 0
Pedestrian Violation 3 3
Unsafe Starting or Backing 2 0
Unsafe Lane Change 2 0
Other Hazardous Violation 2 0
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug 1 1 Other Improper Driving 1 0
Other Other Then Driver (or Pedestrian) 1 0
Hazardous Parking 1 0
Table 2.5 similarly depicts PCFs that occur on
segments. Segment Crashes constituted 36 crashes
out of the 722 crashes on Baseline Street. While only a small portion of crashes occurred on segments, 6 KSI
crashes were recorded on these segments and should
also be considered for mitigation. The most common
PCFs related to segment crashes were unsafe speeds
and improper turning, with 2 KSI’s attributed to unsafe speeds. Mitigations to address issues of speeding may
include speed feedback signs, wider edge lines, and
road diets.

Packet Page. 1558
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 27 Emphasis Areas
Apart from analyzing crash trends by location,
facility types, and PCFs, California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) also recommends jurisdictions to analyze crashes through the lens of Emphasis
Areas (EAs). EAs (also known as Challenge Areas) are
designated as factors that have historically created
the greatest challenges to roadway safety and/or
provide the greatest opportunity to achieve the goal
of zero fatal and severe injury crashes on all California public roads. In more simplified terms, EAs are the
most common crash types and cause factors found
amongst all crashes identified by Caltrans. Each crash
is then grouped into corresponding categories to
summarize common factors leading to certain crashes,
so that targeted approaches may be directed toward
addressing the highest number of crashes. These
EAs have been identified through careful analysis of
historical crash data, such as SWITRS, and through the
feedback of traffic safety stakeholders. Below is the
complete list of the 14 EAs as defined by Caltrans:
° Speed Management/Aggressive Driving
° Lane Departures
° Intersections
° Impaired Driving
° Pedestrians
° Motorcyclists
° Occupant Protection
° Young Drivers
° Commercial Vehicles
° Aging Drivers
° Distracted Driving
° Bicyclists
° Work Zones
City-wide Emphasis Areas vs Baseline
Street Emphasis Areas
Caltrans’ Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) was
used to gather statistics on the most prevalent EAs
for the City of San Bernardino. Table 2.6 compares the
top five EAs specifically for Baseline Street against
the City-wide EAs percentages. It ranks the top five
EAs found for Baseline Street, compared to the City
of San Bernardino, sorted by highest to lowest based
on City-wide percentages. Because Baseline Street
is only one corridor out of the entire city network,
some noticeable differences are apparent as noted
in the EA percentages for both Lane Departures
and Intersections. Due to its low percentages, Lane
Departures was not analyzed in this study.

Emphasis Area
Name
Baseline St EA
%
City-wide EA %
Speed Management/
Aggressive Driving

37.21% 40.26%
Lane Departures 4.65% 32.99%
Intersections 86.05% 29.65%
Impaired Driving 20.93% 26.16%
Pedestrians 18.60% 25.73%
Table 2.6: Emphasis Areas for Baseline St vs. City Wide Packet Page. 1559
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 28 The percentage of each EA notes the proportion of KSI victims that are attributed to that specific EA. EAs are not mutually exclusive and a singular KSI crash may
contribute to multiple KSI percentages of several EAs
at the same time if they fulfill those qualifications. For example, a KSI collision that occurred at an intersection and involved both a pedestrian and an impaired driver
can be counted in the three EAs of Intersections,
Impaired Driving, and Pedestrians. The following
section is a brief description of the top five EA’s and some potential countermeasure strategies that may
help mitigate these EA crashes.

Intersections
General EA trends across Federal, State, and Municipal
statistics often cite Intersections as one of the most
common EAs associated with KSIs due to the increased
volumes and conflict zones that occur at intersections.

However, while the City-wide Intersection EA accounts
for almost 30% of KSI victims, Baseline’s Intersection
EA accounts for 86% of KSI victims, a significantly
higher portion in comparison. Potential reasons may be
due to the physical characteristics of Baseline Street
itself. Baseline Street is a relatively built out corridor and a multitude of North-South streets cross Baseline
throughout its extent. Only a few stretches towards
the west of the street run uninterrupted; the rest of
the corridor have either signalized or unsignalized
intersections every few hundred feet. So, while high,
this statistic falls in line with the overall crash statistics, where 686 out of 722 crashes occurred at intersections.

In light of these findings, the Intersection EA focuses on identifying issues that lead to fatal or serious
injury crashes at or near intersection facilities.

Countermeasures often include infrastructure
improvements such as improved signals or signs,
dilemma zone management, pedestrian-bicycle
enhancements, etc. Education on appropriate driving
behavior such as yielding or signage comprehension
can also help drivers better navigate intersection rightof-way movements.

Speed Management/Aggressive Driving
Speed Management/Aggressive Driving is another
common EA that is often identified as a priority to
address. The statistics for Baseline Street are similar to those found in the City-wide percentages, off only
by three percent. Baseline Street, being an extremely
straight four-lane arterial road with relatively wide
shoulders, presents the corridor as a fast-speed road,
enticing drivers to often go above the posted speed
limit. With more than a third of KSI victims attributed to unsafe speeds or aggressive driving, it is important factor to mitigate on Baseline Street.

As a result, this EA focuses on identifying strategies
and mitigation measures that reduce issues of driving
too fast, tailgating, and other reckless driving behaviors.

Countermeasures may include lowering the speed limit,
improving signal or sign visibility, road diets, etc.

Packet Page. 1560
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 29 Impaired Driving
Impaired driving is the 3rd highest EA noted on
Baseline Street and the 4th highest City-wide. Impaired driving occurs when a person is operating a vehicle
under the influence of substances or under conditions
that diminish the driver’s ability to properly operate
the vehicle. This includes alcohol, both legal and illegal drugs, and even extreme fatigue. Driving under the
influence of alcohol (DUI) is the most common and
dangerous form of impaired driving, affecting a driver’s motor skills, reaction times, judgement, and overall
cognitive functions. Drugs also have a similar effect
but may vary significantly depending on the substance.

Driving while fatigued can also impair reaction times,
judgement, and vigilance similar to the previous
substances.

Countermeasures primarily focus on enforcement, and
education/awareness campaigns specifically targeting
impaired driving. Policies that encourage designated
drivers and ridesharing, ignition interlock devices that require a person to blow into a breathalyzer before
starting the vehicle, drowsiness detection systems, and addiction support and fatigue management are useful
tools to mitigate impaired driving.

Pedestrians
Pedestrians is the 4th highest EA noted on Baseline
Street and 5th highest for City-wide, with about 20% of KSI victims on Baseline being attributed as pedestrianrelated. The Pedestrians EA focuses on improving pedestrian safety and reducing fatal or serious injury
crashes that involve vehicles and pedestrians. This
EA not only includes those who walk but also those
who utilize wheelchairs, scooters, and non-motorized
transportation modes such as bikes or e-bikes. As
mentioned in the collision analysis, 11% of Baseline
Street crashes were attributed to pedestrians and
bicyclists. Yet pedestrians and bicyclists constituted
close to 33% of all KSI crashes, disproportionate to its expected share based on total crash distributions.

Due to their vulnerability and lack of protection
relative to a vehicle, countermeasures for this EA aims to separate the space these modes utilize for travel,
provide as much buffering as possible when space
is limited, or reduce the amount of time pedestrians
and bicyclists are on vehicle lanes during crossings.

Countermeasures include high-visibility crosswalks,
curb extensions, leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs),
sidewalk installations, pedestrian hybrid beacons, etc.

Packet Page. 1561
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 30 Disadvantaged Community Analysis
Another important factor to consider is Baseline
Street’s relationship with underserved areas as defined by state or federal standards. Funding opportunities
from federal grant programs use Areas of Persistent
Poverty (APP) as their most common indicator when
prioritizing projects in disadvantaged communities. For the state of California, agencies such as Caltrans often utilize CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (CES 4.0) or Healthy Places Index (HPI) 3.0 as their disadvantaged communities
indicator. Figure 2.6 on the following page analyzes
census tracts adjacent to Baseline Street based on the
three indicators of APP, CES 4.0 and HPI.

As represented in Figure 2.6, Baseline Street is
entirely located within the census tracts that qualify as disadvantaged under the APP, CES 4.0, and HPI.

Census tracts are counted as an APP if at least 20% of
its population have lived in poverty for consistently at least three data points: the 1990 and 2000 decennial
census and the most recent Small Area Income &
Poverty Estimates. Census tracts with a poverty rate
of at least 20% according to the American Community
Survey (ACS) are also counted as an APP. Generally,
for CES 4.0, any census tract that scores in the top 25th percentile are counted as disadvantaged according to
state guidelines. HPI scores disadvantaged tracts in the opposite manner, with tracts scoring on the bottom
25th percentile being qualified as disadvnataged.

Note that the characterstics measured between CES

4.0, APP, and HPI are different in nature. CES 4.0
measures the level of pollution while HPI measures
community conditions that may effect life expectancy.

Both of these indicators take into account a
multitude of environmental and socioeconomic data
to estimate which census tracts are overburdened
by above average pollution levels or below average
life expectancy. APP primarily focuses on median
household income and poverty levels as the two main
data sources, unlike CES 4.0 and HPI.

Ultimately, while these three indicators measure
different disadvantaged characterstics, many of these
data points are highly correlated with one another and
reveal that Baseline Street is bearing above average
burdens in all three measurements.

Packet Page. 1562
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 31 Figure 2.6: Disadvantaged Indicators for Baseline Street Packet Page. 1563
Chapter Three -
Stakeholder &
Community Engagement
Packet Page. 1564
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 33 Stakeholder and Community
Engagement Overview
This chapter summarizes the stakeholder and
community engagement conducted to support the
Baseline Street Safety Study. Between August 2025
and April 2026, the City of San Bernardino conducted a
range of outreach activities to identify location-specific safety concerns, understand corridor-level priorities,
and gather feedback on potential safety improvements
along Baseline Street. Input collected through these
efforts helped identify corridor needs and informed the recommendations and prioritization presented in later
chapters.

Consistent with the Safe System Approach, the
engagement process focused on understanding how
people use Baseline Street, where they experience
safety and accessibility concerns, and what types
of changes they believe would improve corridor
conditions. The study utilized in-person and online
participation formats to ensure multiple opportunities
for people to participate and share feedback in ways
that were accessible and responsive to different levels of interest and availability.

The following sections describe the communication
and outreach materials developed to support public
awareness and summarize the in-person events and
stakeholder meetings conducted during the study.

Key themes and location-specific feedback collected
through survey-based engagement tools provided a
broader understanding of existing conditions along the
corridor and helped inform the study’s recommended
safety improvements.

Engagement Methods and Tools
To support community participation throughout the
Baseline Street Safety Study, a range of informational
materials and engagement tools were developed to
introduce the study, communicate its purpose, and
provide accessible ways for community members
and stakeholders to share feedback. These resources
supported both awareness-building and input collection
across in-person and online formats.

Communication and Outreach
Communication and outreach materials were used to
support public awareness of the study and connect
community members to opportunities for participation.

These included public-facing digital tools, bilingual
printed materials, promotional outreach through
social media and email, and survey-based tools used
throughout the study process. Table 3.1 summarizes
the informational materials and engagement tools used
during the engagement process.

Packet Page. 1565
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 34 Tool Purpose Input
Project Website
(StoryMap)
A public-facing tool that served as the main online hub for engagement and provided study background and outreach
updates. Directed users to the interactive feedback map, a link to a standalone webmap page, and included a project email for general questions and specific comments.

Location-based comments submitted through the interactive feedback map, along with direct questions or comments
submitted through the project email.

Mapping feedback was open from August to December
2025; with a total of 49 comments received.

Project Flyer Produced in English and Spanish and used in both print and digital formats to promote awareness of the study and direct community members to participate in the survey, community workshop, and project website. Adapted versions were used as social media-style promotional graphics linking users to the survey, workshop, website, or other engagement opportunities.

No input was collected; it served as a promotional and
directional tool.

Fact Sheet A more detailed printed project handout used primarily at outreach events to summarize the study, communicate key project information, and direct participants to the project website and online feedback tools through QR codes.

No input was collected, as it served as an informational handout.

Social Media Shared project information and promoted the survey, project website, and community workshop on Instagram, Facebook, and Nextdoor. Posts provided direct links to participation opportunities and supported broader public awareness.

No input was collected; used as a directional tool to mobilize traffic to the survey and project website.

E-blasts/Stakeholder
Email Database
Used to distribute flyers and project updates to stakeholder and community contacts throughout the outreach process and to promote participation.

No input was collected; it promoted participation in
upcoming engagement events.

Table 3.1: Outreach Materials and Engagement Tools
Project Branding
Project branding was developed to promote
recognition of the Baseline Street Safety Study and to
distinguish it as a focused safety initiative within the City of San Bernardino. Using a stylized traffic-signal logo featuring icons for driving, bicycling, and walking, the project branding established a distinct visual
identity for the Baseline Street Safety Study and used
a color palette that complemented the City’s broader
visual identity, creating a consistent look across publicfacing materials and presentations.

Surveys
Surveys were used to collect structured feedback from
community members in both digital and paper formats.

These tools supported the broader outreach process
by providing opportunities for participants to identify safety concerns, describe travel experiences, and
respond to proposed improvements along the corridor.

Packet Page. 1566
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 35 Interactive Survey Webmap
This tool was developed to collect geographically
specific feedback along the Baseline Street corridor.

The web-based tool allowed users to add point or line
comments directly on the map, select from predefined
categories, and provide written comments describing
safety concerns, barriers, or improvement needs. The
webmap was embedded within the project website and
made available through a standalone link. QR codes
included on project flyers also directed users to the
standalone map.

Draft Recommendation Comment Card
A paper comment card was used during the community
workshop to collect feedback on the study’s draft
recommendations. Participants were asked to review
the project boards and indicate whether each of the
ten proposed roadway safety projects was important
to them and whether the proposed improvements
would make them feel more comfortable using those
roadways. Participants also had the opportunity to
identify any additional concerns they believed should
be addressed through an open-ended question
included on the comment card.

Intercept Survey
Intercept surveys were conducted in-person at selected
locations along the Baseline Street corridor. These
surveys were administered through brief conversations
that allowed participants to describe current conditions, identify immediate safety concerns, and respond to
potential improvement needs based on their experience
at or near specific intersections and transit-access
locations. This survey was able to capture corridor
feedback from people who were actively traveling and
included individuals who may not have participated
through online or workshop-based engagement.

Public Engagement and Stakeholder
Meetings
This section summarizes the in-person events,
workshops, and meetings conducted as part of
the outreach process. These activities provided
opportunities for community members, local
stakeholders, and agency representatives to learn
about the study and share feedback on safety
issues and potential improvements along Baseline
Street. Engagement formats varied by activity and
included pop-up outreach, workshop-style review of
recommendations, and meeting-based discussions with
committees and school representatives.

Community Outreach Events
The project team participated in three pop-up outreach
events that collectively reached approximately 435
community members. The first two events focused
on location-specific feedback and improvement
preferences, while the third focused primarily on
awareness-building and promotion of the March 3,
2026 community workshop. Refer to Table 3.2 on the
following page for a summary of completed community
outreach events.

Packet Page. 1567
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 36 # Event Date Location and Time Activities Engagement and Outputs 1 Mt. Vernon
Bridge
Reopening
Celebration
August
23, 2025
Mt. Vernon Bridge
San Bernardino, CA
9:30 AM–1:00 PM
Pop-up booth; oneon-one conversations;
printed Baseline
Street project area
map for locationbased comments;
project email sign-up;
flyer distribution.
140 booth visitors including families, seniors, and teens. 20 Spanish-speaking participants
19 email sign-ups.
75 flyers distributed with additional flyers provided to library staff.

Verbal comments and place-based map comments collected through map activity.

Emphasis placed on poor pavement conditions and the need for repaving; requests for safer and more visible crossings near schools; interest in bicycle infrastructure, and concern about sidewalk and streetscape conditions.

Participants also noted that cleanliness and conditions in the pedestrian environment affect comfort and perceived safety along the corridor. 2 12th Annual
Rendezvous
Back to
Route 66
October
11, 2025
Court Street
Square, San
Bernardino, CA
10:00 AM-4:00 PM
Project booth;
project map activity;
voting on potential
improvements.
135 booth visitors including families, seniors, teens, and Spanish-speaking participants.

Verbal comments and place-based map comments collected through map activity.

Participants identified high-visibility crosswalks as the most preferred improvement, followed by RRFBs and road diets.
3 San
Bernardino
Lunar New
Year Festival
February
21, 2026
Court Street
Square, San
Bernardino, CA
10:00 AM-6:00 PM
Project booth;
workshop promotion
and project
information sharing.
125 booth visitors, including families, seniors, teens, and Spanish-speaking participants.

Primary goal was awareness-building and promotion of the March 3, 2026 community workshop.

Attendees were also encouraged to participate through the City’s website and social media channels and to add their information to the project email contact list. Flyers were distributed at the library, senior center, and schools along the Baseline Street corridor.
4 Community
Workshop
at Feldheym
Library
March
3, 2026
Feldheym Library
555 W 6th Street
San Bernardino
5:30 PM–7:00 PM
Review of
recommendation
boards for 10 key
intersections; review
of countermeasure
toolbox; questions
and discussion;
written comment
cards; family-friendly
activity area.
10 attendees.

Comment themes included improved crosswalks, bike lanes, RRFBs, diagonal crossings at key intersections, and sidewalk cleaning.

Table 3.2: Outreach Materials and Engagement Tools
Packet Page. 1568
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 37 # Meeting Date Location and Time Activities Participation and Key Topics 1 Northwest
Project Area
Committee
(NWPAC)
Meeting
September 8,
2025
New Hop Family
Life Center, San
Bernardino, CA
6:00 PM-8:00 PM
15-minute
presentation; project
flyer distribution;
facilitated discussion
and Q&A; information
provided on how to
submit comments
through the project
mapping tool.

Approximately 40 attendees, including Councilmember Mario Flores, Planning Commissioners, City of San Bernardino police officers, and City code enforcement staff.

Nine project email sign-ups received
Key topics included speeding, red-light running, flashing beacons, bicycle lane feasibility, sun glare/shade, online survey availability, and a sidewalk gap near the wash/Arroyo Valley High School area toward Meridian Avenue.
2 Martin
Luther King
Jr. Middle
School
Meeting with
Principal
March 18,
2026
Virtual (Zoom)
2:30-3:00 PM
Review of
recommendations for
Baseline Street and
Medical Center Drive
with Principal Ernesto
Calles.

Principal Calles supported the proposed curb extension and identified student safety issues near El Super, including heavy after-school crossings, jaywalking, limited waiting space, and conflicts affecting students who walk, bike, or use scooters.

Approximately 250 students gather at the corner after school, with approximately 30 students commuting by bike or scooter.

Feedback highlighted concentrated school-area safety challenges involving dismissal-period crowding, heavy vehicle activity, limited pedestrian waiting space, and multimodal conflicts near the intersection.

Table 3.3: Stakeholder Outreach Events
Stakeholder Meetings
Stakeholder meetings provided a more focused
setting for discussion with committee members,
local leadership, and school representatives familiar
with corridor conditions and community travel
patterns. These meetings generally included a project
presentation or review of recommendations, followed
by facilitated discussion and questions. Input collected through these meetings helped supplement public
feedback by identifying location-specific concerns,
operational issues, and implementation considerations
relevant to Baseline Street. Refer below to Table 3.3 for a summary of stakeholder meetings conducted as part
of the outreach process.

Packet Page. 1569
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 38 # Meeting Date Location and Time Activities Participation and Key Topics 3 Arroyo Valley
High School
Coffee with a
Principal
April 15, 2026 Arroyo Valley High
School Library, San
Bernardino, CA
9:30-11:30 AM
10-minute
presentation followed
by 10-minute
facilitated discussion
and Q&A in English
and Spanish;
included review of
recommendations for
Baseline Street and
Medical Center Drive.

Principal Manuel Gonzalez hosted the two-hour meeting, of which the project team had 20 minutes for a discussion on the Baseline Street Safety Study. Approximately 20 attendees, including Councilmember Mario Flores, City of San Bernardino police officers, and local parents.

Meeting attendees were appreciative to learn about the project. Many shared concerns about the safety at the intersection of Medical Center Drive and Baseline Street, and concerns about potential for conflicts between students and vehicles near the school areas. Attenddees especially apprecieated the idea of curb extensions and asked for additional solutions to keep students safe. They also shared concerns about commercial truck usage of Baseline Street and overall street quality (potholes).
4 Gomez
Elementary
School
Coffee with a
Principal
April 29,
2026
Gomez Elementary
School, San
Bernardino, CA
2:30-3:30 PM
10-minute
presentation
followeed by
10-minute facilitated
discussion and
Q&A in Spanish;
included review of
recommendations for
Baseline Street and
Medical Center Drive
Principal Maria Martinez hosted a Coffee With a Principal event attended by approximately six parent attendees and four Gomez Elementary administrators.

Meeting attendees expressed appreciation for the proposed improvements and requested additional measures, including electronic speed feedback signs along Baseline Street near schools, safety rails at corners adjacent to school sites, and additional crosswalks where feasible to reduce student jawalking. Participants also requested that trees be trimmed where they obstruct visibility of speed limit signs. 5 Martin
Luther King
Jr. Middle
School Meet
and Greet
April 30,
2026
Martin Luther King Jr.

Middle School, San
Bernardino, CA
10:00-11:00 AM
10-minute
presentation followed
by 10-minute
facilitated discussion
and Q&A in English
and Spanish;
included review of
recommendations for
Baseline Street and
Medical Center Drive.

Principal Ernesto Calles hosted a Meet and Greet attended by four parents and eight school administrators.

Attendees expressed concerns about collisions at Medical Center Drive and Baseline Street, including an incident within the past year in which an MLK Middle School student was struck by a vehicle.

Participants requested additional crosswalks where feasible to reduce student jaywalking, as well as a pedestrian scramble. Attendees noted that these improvements could help encourage students to use the crosswalk at Medical Center Drive and Baseline rather than jaywalk farther north along Medical Center Drive.

Packet Page. 1570
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 39 Engagement Feedback Analysis
This section summarizes feedback collected through
survey-based outreach activities conducted as part of
the Baseline Street Safety Study. These tools captured
both existing conditions feedback and responses to
proposed safety improvements, allowing the project
team to compare corridor concerns with reactions to
draft recommendations.

Interactive Survey Webmap
Feedback collected through the Interactive Survey
Webmap provided insight into how participants
experience Baseline Street. Comments submitted
were most associated with walking, followed by key
destinations and bicycling, suggesting participants
primarily used the tool to identify pedestrian
accessibility issues, destination-based travel needs, and multimodal safety concerns. Feedback collected also
identified recurring issues at specific intersections and corridor segments of concern that informed the study’s
understanding of existing conditions.

Participants often identified physical barriers rather
than general perceptions of discomfort. Many of
the comments were tied to individual intersections
where users noted missing or incomplete pedestrian
infrastructure, particularly ADA curb ramps, crossing
treatments, and sidewalk connections. Refer to Table

3.4 for the distribution of comments per travel mode
category and Table 3.5 for additional details on
identified locations.

Category Count
Walking 15
Key Destination 11
Biking 9
Getting to Transit 6
Driving 5
Add your own comment 3
Table 3.4: Distribution of Comments per Travel Mode Categories Packet Page. 1571
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 40 Location Nearby Destination Comment Summary Survey Category Garner Avenue Between Mt. Vernon Avenue and
I-215
Need westbound Route 10 bus bench and shelter Getting to Transit Meridian Avenue Arroyo Valley High School /
school access
Install Class IV bikeway from Meridian Avenue to the
high school, including grade separation
Biking
Arrowhead Avenue Abraham Lincoln Elementary
School
Request for an ADA curb ramp on the northwest corner
of the intersection
Walking
N Berkeley Avenue Salsa Taco House Restaurant and
Riley College Prep Academy
Request for an ADA curb ramp on the westbound side Walking Valencia Avenue Bradley Elementary School /
school access
Request for ADA curb ramps on both sides of the
intersection
Walking
Windsor Drive Residential area Request for an ADA curb ramp on the northeast corner of the intersection
Walking
Cedar Street Hopeful Things Thrift Shop Request for ADA curb ramps on both corners of the intersection
Walking
Creek trail crossing Warm Springs Creek / trail
connection
Add mid-block crossing with wide curb ramps and
rectangular rapid flashing beacons
Walking
Perris Hill to
Tippecanoe Avenue
South side of Baseline Street
corridor
Construct the sidewalk on the south side of the corridor Walking H Street Riley College Prep Academy /
school access
Need to narrow the curb radii on the northwest corner
to reduce turning speeds
Walking
Davidson Avenue Santa Fe Market / Family Dollar /
residential access
Provide a center median and refuge island for pedestrian crossing on Baseline Street
Walking
E Street & F Street Adult Education Center (Inland
Career) / freeway access area
Signal and queueing issues causing congestion and
blocked intersections
Driving
Mountain View /
Alfredo’s area
Alfredo’s Restaurant Turning difficulty at night because of limited left-turn options and the lack of a left-turn arrow
Add your own comment
Madison Street
to Medical Center
Drive
Corridor segment Request for additional tree coverage, including sycamore trees
Add your own comment
Table 3.5: Location Specific Feedback
Packet Page. 1572
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 41 Draft Recommendations Comment Card
The Draft Recommendations Comment Card was used
during the March 3, 2026 community workshop, held
at the Norman F. Feldheym Public Library, to collect
structured feedback on the study’s proposed safety
improvements at ten project locations along the
Baseline Street corridor. A total of seven completed
comment cards were submitted and form the basis
of the results summarized in this section. Participants were asked to identify which of the ten proposed
projects were most important to them, indicate
whether the improvements would make them feel
more comfortable using those roadways, and share any
additional roadway safety concerns.

Table 3.6 lists the proposed project locations evaluated through the survey. These locations correspond to
the site-specific recommendations presented in the
Draft Recommendations Comment Card and served as
the basis for the yes/no responses summarized in the
following discussion.

Table 3.7 summarizes the three questions on the
comment card and the response format used for each.

No. Project Location
1 East Baseline Street & North Waterman Avenue
2 West Baseline Street & North Medical Center Drive
3 West Baseline Street & North Mt Vernon Avenue
4 Baseline Street & Sierra Way Avenue
5 West Baseline Street & North H Street
6 West Baseline Street & North E Street
7 West Baseline Street & North G Street
8 West Baseline Street & North D Street
9 West Baseline Street & North Arrowhead Avenue
10 East Baseline Street & North Lugo Avenue
Table 3.6: Proposed Project Locations
Packet Page. 1573
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 42 # Question Response Format
1 Which of the specific proposed
roadway safety projects on the
boards are most important to you?
Yes/No by project
location
2 If these safety improvements
were made, would you feel more
comfortable using these roadways?
Yes/No by project
location
3 Do you have any additional roadway
safety concerns regarding Baseline
Street that you would like the project
team to address in the Baseline
Street Safety Study?
Open-ended
written response
Project Location Yes No
E Baseline St & N Waterman Ave 7 0
W Baseline & N Medical Center Dr 6 0
W Baseline & N Mt Vernon Ave 6 1
Baseline St & Sierra Way Ave 6 1
W Baseline St & N H St 5 1
W Baseline St & N E St 5 1
W Baseline St & N G St 4 2
W Baseline St & N D St 3 2
W Baseline St & N Arrowhead Ave 3 2
E Baseline St & N Lugo Ave 3 2
Table 3.7: Draft Recommendations Comment Card Questions Table 3.8: Recommendations Question 1 Results Responses to Question 1 suggest participants were
selective when identifying the locations they viewed
as highest priority. The strongest responses were
concentrated among a smaller group of locations,
with East Baseline Street and North Waterman Avenue
receiving the highest number of “Yes” responses.

This pattern suggests that participants distinguished
between projects they generally supported and those
they viewed as most important for implementation.

Packet Page. 1574
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 43 Table 3.9 summarizes responses to Question 2, asking participants whether the proposed improvements
would make them feel more comfortable using the
roadway at each location. Unlike Question 1, which
required participants to identify relative priorities,
responses to Question 2 were uniformly positive across
all project locations.

Project Location Yes No
W Baseline & N Mt Vernon Ave 7 0
Baseline St & Sierra Way Ave 7 0
E Baseline St & N Waterman Ave 7 0
W Baseline & N Medical Center Dr 6 0
W Baseline St & N H St 6 0
W Baseline St & N G St 6 0
W Baseline St & N E St 6 0
W Baseline St & N D St 6 0
W Baseline St & N Arrowhead Ave 6 0
E Baseline St & N Lugo Ave 6 0
Table 3.9: Draft Recommendations Question 2 Results
Table 3.10 summarizes responses to the open-ended
Questions 3, asking participants if they had any
additional roadway safety concerns regarding Baseline
Street.

Additional Comments
Baseline and California Ave and going towards Rialto
(safety concerns)
Love the bike lanes, maybe add some protection? Poles, street parking?
Budget to keep sidewalks clean
Again, need clean sidewalks
Safety
More crosswalks for school safety
More neighborhood watch
New laws for speeding
The comment card results suggest a difference
between priority and general support. Participants were more selective when identifying which locations were
most important but were broadly positive when asked
whether the proposed improvements would make them
feel more comfortable using the roadway. This pattern
indicates that, while certain locations emerged as
clearer priorities, the workshop participants generally supported the recommended improvement approach
across the corridor.

Table 3.10: Additional Roadway Safety Concerns Question 3 Results
Packet Page. 1575
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 44 Intercept Surveys
Intercept surveys conducted on April 6 and April 7,
2026 provided additional location-specific insight at
several key corridor locations identified during the
Community Workshop. Comments collected at Baseline
Street and Waterman Avenue, Baseline Street and
Mt. Vernon Avenue, and Baseline Street and E Street
identified recurring concerns related to speeding,
limited lighting and nighttime visibility, uneven
pavement and crosswalk surfaces, stop sign visibility,
and overall maintenance conditions.

Participants also described challenges for people
walking, including the need for safer crossings,
smoother walking surfaces, and cleaner streets. At
Baseline Street and E Street, bicyclists and transit users raised concerns about driver behavior around cyclists,
the need for bike lanes or more visible bicycle facilities, and personal security concerns affecting comfort near
the bus stop.

Key Findings
The outreach activities conducted for the Baseline
Street Safety Study revealed a set of recurring themes
related to corridor safety conditions, user experience, and improvement priorities. Although feedback varied
by location and engagement format, several consistent
issues emerged across the study process. The key
findings presented below summarize those broader
patterns and highlight the issues that informed the
study’s understanding of existing conditions and
recommend safety improvements.

Pedestrian Safety, Driver Behavior, and
Corridor Visibility
Comments related to unsafe crossings, speeding, redlight running, limited visibility, and other conditions that make travel along Baseline Street feel unsafe were the most common amongst all the outreach events
and feedback channels. Webmap comments pointed
to missing ADA curb ramps, crossing treatments,
and sidewalk connections. Similar concerns were
raised through stakeholder discussions and intercept
surveys, where participants described fast driving,
poor nighttime visibility, uneven crosswalk surfaces,
and turning movements that create conflicts for people
walking and bicycling. These comments indicate that
safety concerns along the corridor are closely tied to
both physical crossing conditions and the way vehicles
operate at key locations.

Packet Page. 1576
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 45 Targeted Intersection and Crossing
Improvements
Public feedback reflected broad support for treatments
intended to improve visibility, clarify movements,
and increase user comfort. At the Route 66 pop-up
event and the Community Workshop, high-visibility
crosswalks and rectangular rapid flashing beacons were
among the most supported improvements. Interest in
treatments such as curb extensions, diagonal crossings, and median-related improvements were also expressed
to help improve pedestrian access and better organize
movements at intersections. Participants responded
positively to targeted improvements at key Baseline
Street locations where crossing needs and broader
safety concerns had already been identified through
earlier outreach, including East Baseline Street at North Waterman Avenue, West Baseline Street at North
Medical Center Drive, and West Baseline Street at North Mt. Vernon Avenue.

Multimodal Travel Needs and School Access
Feedback collected indicates Baseline Street functions
as an important access route for school-aged children.

Comments related to school access included safety
issues where high pedestrian activity, limited space,
and turning vehicle movements overlap, particularly
during arrival and dismissal periods. Related feedback
from other outreach activities reinforced the need for
safer bicycle connections, improved transit access, and roadway conditions that better accommodate people
using the corridor in different ways. This suggests
that improvements along Baseline Street should not
be evaluated only in terms of vehicle operations, but
also in how well they support safe and predictable
multimodal access to schools.

Corridor Conditions, Maintenance, and User
Comfort
Participants identified potholes, cracked pavement,
uneven walking surfaces, dim lighting, sidewalk
cleanliness, and other maintenance-related concerns as
issues that affect how safe and comfortable Baseline
Street feels to use. These concerns appeared alongside
requests for crossing improvements and traffic
safety measures, suggesting that day-to-day corridor
conditions influence comfort and accessibility in ways
that shape overall perceptions of safety along Baseline Street.

Packet Page. 1577
Chapter Four -
Countermeasures
Toolbox & Priority
Projects
Packet Page. 1578
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 47 Toolbox and Priority Projects Overview
Due to the scale of the corridor, this plan does
not include detailed conceptual analyses for all 57
intersections. Instead, conceptual diagrams will
be prepared for ten priority locations to provide
the City with clear, location-specific illustrations of proposed recommendations. In addition to these
ten concept plans, a countermeasure toolbox will be
developed for the remaining 47 intersections and
select roadway segments along Baseline Street. The
toolbox will identify each intersection and outline
the recommended improvements for that location.

The toolbox is intended as a planning-level reference
and is neither exhaustive nor a final determination for construction. All locations will be subject to further
evaluation, including detailed design, feasibility analysis, and applicable review and approval processes, prior to
implementation.

Countermeasure Description
Figure 5.1 presents a list of countermeasures applicable to the Baseline Street corridor. Each countermeasure
is accompanied by an illustrative image and a brief
description. The improvements in this list are common
infrastructure improvements often utilized to target
crashes occurring on both intersection and segment
facilities. Some additional countermeasures not present on the toolbox (bolded in Green) were also included
in the descriptions as potential supplemental systemic
improvements for future safety concerns on Baseline
Street.

Packet Page. 1579
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 48 “Rest in red” is a traffic safety technology where signals default to a red light in all directions, turning green only when sensors detect approaching vehicles (often traveling within speed limits). This is often implemented at night after the PM rush period, and before the AM rush period begins.

A four-headed signal that features a yellow flashing arrow in addition to the standard red, yellow, and green arrows. It allows vehicles to make a left-turn after yielding to incoming traffic and pedestrians, after the protected green arrow’s cycle.

Countermeasure Descriptions
Flashing Yellow Arrow Rest in Red
Yellow retroreflective strip with a minimum width of 1 inch and a maximum width of 3 inches placed on the perimeter of the face on the signal backplate. Retroreflective backplates added to a traffic signals improve the visibility of the signal by increasing contrast.

This can reduce crashes by increasing visibility of the traffic signal heads, particularly at night and for drivers with vision limitations.

Retroreflective Backplates
Traffic signal that provides left-turning drivers with their own protected phase, allowing them to turn without conflicting with oncoming traffic or pedestrian crossings. Dedicated left-turn phasing reduces the chance of angle and head-on collisions by creating predictable movements. This can be especially helpful for high volume intersections with a variety of users.

Dedicated Left-turn Phasing
Figure 5.1: Countermeasure Descriptions
Packet Page. 1580
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 49 Dedicated, separated spaces next to the street where active transportation users can safely travel. New walkways in areas previously without one dramatically increase safety by separating vulnerable road users from vehicle traffic.

An advanced stop bar is a standard stop bar is placed further away from the crosswalk, creating more distance between vehicles and pedestrians. The space between the stop bar and the crosswalk is also considered in California to be a bike box - a place where cyclists are visible to drivers and can safely wait for a green traffic signal.

Walkways (Sidewalks, Multi-use Paths)
Advance Stop Bars
Dedicated road spaces where pedestrians can safely cross from one side of the street to another. Installing crosswalks where there currently are none can alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians.

Crosswalks also improve safety in school zones and where pedestrians need to cross multiple lanes of turning traffic. Upgrading existing crosswalks to High-Visibility Crosswalks and/or installing enhanced safety and visibility features can increase pedestrian safety.

High-Visibility Crosswalks
Countermeasure Descriptions
Packet Page. 1581
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 50 A specialized traffic signal that pedestrians can activate to stop traffic and create an opportunity to cross the street. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs, also called HAWKs) have a yellow “Slow Down” phase, a solid red “Do Not Proceed” phase, and a flashing “Stop” phase. PHBs greatly increase pedestrian safety when compared to unsignalized crosswalks by separating pedestrians from vehicles and completely stopping traffic.

A signal designed to give pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles. Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) increase the visibility of pedestrians at intersections, encourage motorists to yield to pedestrians, and greatly reduce conflicts between motorists and pedestrians.

Pedestrian-activated flashing lights that enhance the visibility of pedestrians using a crosswalk. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) enhance driver awareness and decrease conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHB/HAWK)
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Countermeasure Descriptions
Packet Page. 1582
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 51 Dedicated turn lanes are auxiliary lanes at intersections that separate vehicles intending to turn left or right from those going straight. By giving turning vehicles a dedicated lane to decelerate or wait, they reduce conflicts with through traffic lowering the likelihood of rearend or turning collisions and improving overall flow. These lanes are especially beneficial at intersections with heavy turning volumes or a history of turn-related crashes.

Flashing lights placed in advance of a traffic signal to warn drivers they are approaching a signalized intersection. Advanced Warning Flashing Beacons activate before the signal changes, giving motorists additional time to slow down and prepare to stop. By improving driver awareness and reducing abrupt braking, these beacons enhance safety at intersections with higher speeds, limited visibility, or complex conditions.

A signal treatment that adjusts the length and coordination of signal phases to better manage traffic flow through an intersection or corridor. Improved timing smooths vehicle movement, reduces delays, and adjusts yellow intervals to discourage late left turns. By creating more predictable traffic patterns and reducing stop-andgo conditions, optimized timing improves safety for all users and provides clearer crossing opportunities for pedestrians and cyclists.

Dedicated Turn Lanes
Signal Timing Improvements Advance Warning Flashing Beacons The re-organization of a roadway’s geometry to create more space for turning movements and other road users. Road diets decrease vehicle speeds, improve the safety of on-street parking, and reduce serious head-on factors. The new geometry may also make way for dedicated travel lanes for bikes, sidewalks, or even multi-modal paths.

Road Diet/Road Reconfiguration
Countermeasure Descriptions
Packet Page. 1583
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 52 At grade with bollards or raised sidewalk or curb sections that extend into the roadway at intersections or mid-block crossings.

They shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians, improve visibility between drivers and people walking, and naturally slow turning vehicles by narrowing the travel lane.

A roadway safety treatment that uses specialized surface materials or concrete design to increase tire-to-road grip, especially in areas prone to skidding or wet conditions. High friction pavement is often applied on curves, steep grades, or intersections to help drivers maintain control, reduce stopping distances, and prevent run-offroad or rear-end crashes.

Pavement markings that increase a driver’s perception of the edge of the travel lane by enhancing the visibility of travel lane boundaries compared to traditional edge lines. Wider edge lines should be a width of 6 inches, as opposed to the traditional 4 inches. These markings are particularly effective on roadways with presence of curves, high traffic volumes, and a history of nighttime crashes.

High Friction Pavement Curb Extensions
Wider Edge Lines
Milled or raised elements on the pavement that alert drivers through vibration and sound that their vehicle has left the travel lane. They can help reduce head on collisions by alerting distracted, drowsy, or otherwise inattentive drivers who drift from their lane.

Rumble Strips
Countermeasure Descriptions
Packet Page. 1584
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 53 Similar to separated walkways and paths, separated bike lanes provide significant safety improvements for bicycle users sharing the road with automobiles. Bicycle lanes may be separated by edgelines (Class II Bike Lanes) or more physical measures such as bollards or even raised pavement (Class IV Bike Lanes).

Separated Bike Lanes
An area within a raised median that provides a protected space for pedestrians to wait while crossing the road. The raised, separated space creates separation between pedestrians and vehicles.

Pedestrian Refuge Islands also give pedestrians a chance to cross a street wait for break in traffic before continuing to cross the street.

Pedestrian Refuge Islands
A raised divider installed along the center of a roadway to separate opposing lanes of traffic. The physical barrier prevents head-on collisions, reduces unsafe passing in the opposite lane, and organizes turning movements. They can also create space for pedestrian refuges making it easier and safer for people to cross wide or busy streets.

Concrete Medians
Countermeasure Descriptions
Packet Page. 1585
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 54 Name Control East/
West
Traffic
Signal Pedestal Mount
Upgrade to
Pole
Nearside
Signals
Mast
Arm Upgrades /
Additional Heads
Signal
Timing
for Consistency
with LPI
Intersections
Retroreflective
Backplates
Protected-Left
Turns or
Flashing
Yellow
Arrow
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
(LPI)
Stop Line
Striping
at cross
street
Repaint
Pavement
Markings
Intersection
Lighting
Curb
Extensions
HighVisibility
Crosswalks
ADA
Curb
Ramps
Sidewalk Advance
Stop
Bars
Class
II Bike
Lanes
Stop
Sign
Flashing
Beacon
Additional
Signage
Red Curb
approaching
Baseline St
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon/
RRFB
Road
Diet w/
Class
IV Bike
Lanes
Restin-Red
Signal
E Baseline Rd
& N Meridian
Ave
Signal W X X X X X X X X X
W Baseline St
& N Martin Rd
Unsignalized W X W2-2 X
W Baseline St
& N Lassen St
Unsignalized W X X
W Baseline St
& N University
Pkwy
Signal W Interconnect
signal with
the one at
California St
X X X X (signal
ahead PM
and signs)

X X X X
W Baseline St
& N California
St &
Signal W Interconnect
signal with
the one at
University

X X X X X X X X X X
W Baseline
St & N
Pennsylvania
Ave
Unsignalized W X W1-7,
OM1-1 ,
W2-2
X (install
only when
the curb
lane is >18’)
X
W Baseline St
& N Madison
St
Unsignalized W X W 1-7 &
OM 1-1,
W2-2
X X
W Baseline St
& N Wilson St
Unsignalized W X W 1-7 &
OM 1-1,
W2-2
X X
W Baseline St
& N Hancock
St
Unsignalized W X X W 1-7 &
OM 1-1,
W2-2
X X
W Baseline St
& N Medical
Center Dr
Signal W X X X X X X (signal
ahead PM
and signs)
X X W3-3 X X
W Baseline St
& N Tiajuana
St
Unsignalized W X X W1-7,
OM-1-1,
W2-2
X X
W Baseline St
& N Ramona
Ave
Unsignalized W W1-7,
OM-1-1,
W2-2
X X
W Baseline St
& N Western
Ave
Unsignalized W W1-7,
OM-1-1,
W2-2
X X
W Baseline
St & N
Blackstone
Ave
Unsignalized W W1-7,
OM1-1,
W2-2
X
W Baseline St
& N Pico Ave
Unsignalized W W1-7,
OM1-1,
W2-2
X
Table 5.1 below outlines each intersection along with the proposed improvements for each location.

Packet Page. 1586
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 55 Name Control East/
West
Traffic
Signal Pedestal Mount
Upgrade to
Pole
Nearside
Signals
Mast
Arm Upgrades /
Additional Heads
Signal
Timing
for Consistency
with LPI
Intersections
Retroreflective
Backplates
Protected-Left
Turns or
Flashing
Yellow
Arrow
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
(LPI)
Stop Line
Striping
at cross
street
Repaint
Pavement
Markings
Intersection
Lighting
Curb
Extensions
HighVisibility
Crosswalks
ADA
Curb
Ramps
Sidewalk Advance
Stop
Bars
Class
II Bike
Lanes
Stop
Sign
Flashing
Beacon
Additional
Signage
Red Curb
approaching
Baseline St
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon/
RRFB
Road
Diet w/
Class
IV Bike
Lanes
Restin-Red
Signal
W Baseline
St & N
Herrington
Ave
Unsignalized W W1-7,
OM1-1,
W2-2
X
W Baseline St
& N Mt Vernon
Ave
Signal W X X X X X X X
plus
Pedestrian
Scramble
Crosswalk
X X W3-3 X X
W Baseline
St & N Garner
Ave
Unsignalized W X X W1-7,
OM1-1,
W2-2
W Baseline St
& N Davidson
Ave
Unsignalized W X X X X W1-7,
OM1-1,
W2-2
PHB
W Baseline St
& N L St
Unsignalized W X W1-7,
OM1-1,
W2-2
W Baseline
St & N
Massachusetts
Ave
Signal W X X X X X X X X X X X
W Baseline St
& N K St
Unsignalized W X X W1-7,
OM1-1,
W2-2
W Baseline St
& N Perris St
Signal W X X X X X X X X X X X W1-7,
OM1-1,
W2-2
W Baseline St
& N H St
Signal E X X X X X
plus extend
the EB
left turn
pocket and
WB “FWY
ONLY”
lanes*

X X X X
W Baseline St
& N G St
Signal E X X X X X X X X X X X X
W Baseline St
& N Berkeley
Ave
Unsignalized W X W1-7,
OM1-1,
W2-2
W Baseline St
& N F St
Signal E X X X X X X X X X X X
W Baseline
St & N Acacia
Ave
Unsignalized E X X X X X X PHB
W Baseline St
& N E St
Signal E X X X X X X X X X X X
W Baseline St
& N Stoddard
Ave
Unsignalized E X X X X
W Baseline St
& N D St
Signal E X X X X X X X X
* City coordination with Caltrans is required for these improvements.

Packet Page. 1587
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 56 Name Control East/
West
Traffic
Signal Pedestal Mount
Upgrade to
Pole
Nearside
Signals
Mast
Arm Upgrades /
Additional Heads
Signal
Timing
for Consistency
with LPI
Intersections
Retroreflective
Backplates
Protected-Left
Turns or
Flashing
Yellow
Arrow
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
(LPI)
Stop Line
Striping
at cross
street
Repaint
Pavement
Markings
Intersection
Lighting
Curb
Extensions
HighVisibility
Crosswalks
ADA
Curb
Ramps
Sidewalk Advance
Stop
Bars
Class
II Bike
Lanes
Stop
Sign
Flashing
Beacon
Additional
Signage
Red Curb
approaching
Baseline St
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon/
RRFB
Road
Diet w/
Class
IV Bike
Lanes
Restin-Red
Signal
W Baseline St
& N Mayfield
Ave
Unsignalized E X X X W1-7,
OM1-1,
W2-2
W Baseline
St & N
Arrowhead
Ave
Signal E X X X X X X X X X X X
W Baseline St
& N Mountain
View Ave
Signal E X X X X X X X X X X X X
W Baseline St
& N Genevieve
St
Unsignalized E X X
Baseline Ave
& Sierra Way
Signal E X X X X X X X X X X X X
E Baseline St
& N Lugo Ave
Unsignalized E X X X X X X X PHB
E Baseline St
& N Sepulveda
Ave
Unsignalized E X X X X X X W2-2
E Baseline St
& N Wall Ave
Unsignalized E X X X X X X W2-2
E Baseline St
& N Belle St
Unsignalized E X X X X W2-2
E Baseline St
& N Waterman
Ave
Signal E X X X X X X X X W3-3 X
E Baseline St
& N Pepper
Tree Ln
Unsignalized E X W2-2
E Baseline St
& N Crestview
Ave
Signal E X X X X X X X X
E Baseline St
& N La Junta
St
Unsignalized E X X W2-2
E Baseline St
& N Valencia
Ave
Unsignalized E X X X X X X X W2-2
E Baseline St
& N Windsor
Dr
Signal same
signal as
Myrtle

E X X X X X X X X X X X
E Baseline St
& N Myrtle St
Signal same
Signal as
Windsor

E X X X X X X X
E Baseline St
& N Bobbett
Dr
Unsignalized E X X X X X X W2-2
E Baseline St
& N Cedar Ave
Unsignalized E X X X X X X W2-2 X
Packet Page. 1588
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 57 Name Control East/
West
Traffic
Signal Pedestal Mount
Upgrade to
Pole
Nearside
Signals
Mast
Arm Upgrades /
Additional Heads
Signal
Timing
for Consistency
with LPI
Intersections
Retroreflective
Backplates
Protected-Left
Turns or
Flashing
Yellow
Arrow
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
(LPI)
Stop Line
Striping
at cross
street
Repaint
Pavement
Markings
Intersection
Lighting
Curb
Extensions
HighVisibility
Crosswalks
ADA
Curb
Ramps
Sidewalk Advance
Stop
Bars
Class
II Bike
Lanes
Stop
Sign
Flashing
Beacon
Additional
Signage
Red Curb
approaching
Baseline St
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon/
RRFB
Road
Diet w/
Class
IV Bike
Lanes
Restin-Red
Signal
E Baseline St
& N Belvan
Ave
Unsignalized E X X X X X X X
E Baseline St
& N Canyon
Rd
Unsignalized E X X X X X X W2-2 X PHB
E Baseline St
& N Barton St
Unsignalized E X W2-2
E Baseline
St & N Perris
Hill Rd
Unsignalized E X X X X X X X X X PHB
E Baseline
St & N
Tippecanoe
Ave
Unsignalized E X W2-4 X
E Baseline St
& Tippecanoe
Signalized E X X X X X X X X
Following the table, select countermeasures are described in greater detail, including discussion of their potential application along Baseline Street and example locations or extents where they may be appropriate. This toolbox is intended as a planning-level resource and does not represent a final capital improvements program, nor does it obligate the City to implement the recommendations as presented.

Rather, the toolbox provides suggested strategies for the City’s consideration, and any potential implementation would be subject to further evaluation, including detailed design and feasibility analysis on a location-by-location basis.

Note that a visual reprentation of many of these toolbox countermeasures can be found in Appendix D, where a corridor-wide graphic is presented along with the general location of proposed improvements.

Packet Page. 1589
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 58 Road Diet/Roadway Reconfigurations
As mentioned in the toolbox description, road diets/
roadway reconfigurations are often considered in areas
where high speeds coexist with pedestrian and bicyclist traffic. However, road diets must also take into account capacity and flow of the corridor, meaning that road
diets may not be feasible depending on the number of
reduced lanes and current traffic volumes. As such, an
analysis to explore the feasibility of Baseline Street was conducted to identify portions of Baseline appropriate
for a road diet.

The analysis found that the western portion of Baseline Street, west of the I-215 ramps, experienced a lower
Annual Average Daily Trips (AADT) in comparison to
Baseline Street east of the I-215 ramps. AADT volumes
logged between 9,600 vehicles and 15,000 vehicles (all
day) between Meridian Avenue and Vernon Avenue.

The existing lane configuration on Baseline Street
includes two through lanes (in both directions)
alongside a center left-turn lane. See Figure 5.2
below for a cross section of the existing roadway
configurations and dimensions of the roadway. Note that these existing dimensions are mostly consistent in both west and east Baseline Street.

In its current configuration, the western portion of
Baseline Street experiences about half of the traffic
volume experienced on the east side of Baseline
Street. To compare, AADTs ranged from about 18,000
vehicles to 29,000 vehicles (all day) on Baseline east
of the I-215, a substantially higher range than west of I-215, specifically between H Street and Sierra Way.

The reasoning may be that western Baseline Street is
predominantly characterized by residential communities
and local schools, land uses that generally do not
generate as many vehicular trips compared to the more
commercially heavy areas of eastern Baseline Street. Figure 5.2: Existing Cross-section of Baseline Street Packet Page. 1590
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 59 Figure 5.3: Proposed Road Diet Lane Configuration (West of Massachusetts Avenue) These residential and school land uses also prefer
lower speeds to ensure safer travel for students and
parents that may prefer walking or biking to school.

Considering the low volumes and the higher desire
for slower speeds, a road diet may be a feasible
recommendation for the majority of the western
portion of Baseline Street, specifically between
Meridian Avenue and Mount Vernon Avenue. Figure 5.3
above illustrates the proposed road diet configuration, reconfiguring the two through lane corridor in
each direction into a one through lane corridor,
supplemented by separated bike lanes.

Signal Timing/Protected Left Turns/Leading
Pedestrian Intervals (LPI)/Flashing Yellow
Arrow (FYA)
Another important recommendation that should be
considered on Baseline Street is to improve signal
timing, specifically to accommodate for LPIs.

Baseline Street has multiple signalized intersections
that experienced both pedestrian and bicycle crashes;
while some were due to pedestrian violations, the
majority were due to vehicles not yielding the rightof-way for active transportation users. LPIs mitigate this potential by allowing pedestrians and bicyclists to begin crossing first for a few seconds, then followed
by a green signal for the through traffic. Refer to the above Toolbox Description figure or a visualization.

Packet Page. 1591
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 60 Baseline Street as a corridor experienced relatively high numbers of pedestrian crashes, therefore,
implementation of LPIs may be a priority for the City to consider.

The implementation of LPIs, however, necessitates
retiming not just that particular intersection
recommended for an LPI, but also the signals before
and after that LPI intersection. This ensures a smooth
flow across that section of the corridor. It is highly
recommended that all signalized intersections be
eventually retimed to include LPIs as a high number of
signalized intersections throughout Baseline Street are recommended for these improvements.

Aside from accommodating LPIs, signal timing
improvements may also be used to target vehicleto-vehicle crashes, especially those often related to turn-phases in the signal timing cycle. Left turnphasing adjustments are context-specific and heavily depend on volumes and queueing considerations,
so in-depth analysis will be required for individual
implementation. For the purposes of the plan, signal
timing improvements were also recommended for
intersections that experienced many broadside or
sideswipe collisions.

For example, one particular intersection, Baseline
Street at Arrowhead Avenue, is a potential candidate
for adjusting its left-turn phases to only include a
protected phase; it is currently a protected-permissive left turn, likely to accommodate the high volumes of
traffic at this location. However, this intersection ranks number three in total crash rank with more than 50% of
its crashes being broadside or sideswipe crashes. The
left-turn movement volumes are 153 vehicles during
the PM periods while the rest of the day averages
between 50 to 80 left-turn. With these considerations,
adjusting to a protected-only phasing, or adjusting the cycle length of the left-turn phasing, may be a feasible improvement for this intersection.

An alternative to a protected left is an FYA. An FYA
displays a yellow arrow that flashes, indicating that left turns are permitted after yielding to oncoming traffic
and pedestrians. Unlike a steady green ball, the arrow
shape clearly communicates that the indication applies
only to left-turning vehicles, reducing driver confusion.

FYAs are recommended at locations where there are
no Protected Left turns, but which may experience high
levels of turning-related crashes.

The final signal timing adjustment recommendation is
the rest-on-red timing, where all approaches remain
red until a vehicle approaches. This recommendation
is effective during off-peak hours, helping slow
down traffic from all directions. This improvement is
recommended for the Top 10 signalized intersections
as these locations had high proportions of crashes
occurring between 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)/Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB/
HAWK)
As a special mention, RRFBs and PHB signals are
also essential to implement, especially on roadway
segments or unsignalized intersections. Smaller
and more affordable than a full set of traffic signals, they perform similar functions in notifying drivers
that pedestrians or bicyclists are about to cross. A
consistent number of pedestrian crashes are already
Packet Page. 1592
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 61 occurring on Baseline Street, so implementing RRFBs
or PHBs will substantially reduce the likelihood of these crashes.

Additionally, with the recommendation of implementing
either a road diet or Class II separated bike lanes along the project extent of Baseline Street, bicycle volumes
may also increase in the future, necessitating additional safety measures at popular crossings.

A few unsignalized intersections were included as
potential candidates for a RRFB or PHB. For example,
Baseline Street at Davidson Avenue is a T-intersection
with a high visibility crosswalk and “shark teeth” stop bars to alert vehicles of potential crossings. Despite
these measures, this intersection experienced another
pedestrian crash while also being an intersection prone to multiple vehicular crashes, including one severe
injury, due to unsafe speeds. A PHB may prove to be
a much more visible countermeasure to mitigate the
potential of future Killed and Serious Injury pedestrian crashes as a commercial building is immediately
adjacent to the intersection.

Another intersection, Baseline Street at Lugo
Avenue, experienced three pedestrian crashes,
with one resulting in a fatal crash. An PHB is highly
recommended for this intersection as it immediately
follows a high-volume signalized intersection.

To reiterate, the above intersections are examples
on reasonings of installing potential RRFBs or PHBs
for other unsignalized intersections along Baseline
Street. Implementation of these countermeasures will
still depend on each intersection’s physical context
and other important factors such as cost and traffic
volumes to determine their feasibility.

Aside from these additional sign types, systemic
lighting improvements are also considered throughout
Baseline Street, upgrading the current bulbs to 10,000
lumens for brighter and more extensive lighting along
the corridor.

Packet Page. 1593
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 62 Prioritization Methodology
As the project extent of Baseline Street stretches
almost the entirety of the City of San Bernardino,
a prioritization process was utilized to identify the
areas of Baseline Street with the most urgent need for
improvements. Each intersection was scored based
on two variables: Total Crash Score and Equivalent
Property Damage Only (EPDO) Score, as recommended
by Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual. These two
variables take into account both the amount of crashes
and also the severity of crashes, as EPDO scores weight crashes that result in an injury higher than property
damage only crashes.

Intersections ranking in the top 5 for these categories will receive five points respectively; similarly, those scoring below the top 20 will only receive one point.

A supplemental column for community engagement
mentions was also included to account for public
requests or concerns for certain intersections. If a
particular intersection was named at least once through surveys or during any events, that intersection will
receive one point to its prioritization score. Table

5.2 ranks the top 10 prioritized intersections along
Baseline Street based on these score metrics. Table 5.3 follows the top 10 intersections with the rest of the 47 intersections, using the same metrics discussed above.

Intersection Total
Collisions
Control EPDO/
Crash Cost
Score
Total
Collision
Score
Community
Engagement
Mentions
Total
Prioritization
score
Baseline St & Sierra Way Ave 48 Signal 5 5 10
W Baseline St & N Arrowhead Ave 41 Signal 5 5 1 11
E Baseline St & N Waterman Ave 66 Signal 4 5 9
W Baseline St & N G St 36 Signal 4 5 9
W Baseline St & N H St 34 Signal 4 4 1 9
W Baseline St & N D St 29 Signal 5 4 9
W Baseline St & N Medical Center Dr 30 Signal 3 4 7
W Baseline St & N Mt Vernon Ave 24 Signal 3 4 7
E Baseline St & N Lugo Ave 11 Unsignalized 5 2 7
W Baseline St & N E St 38 Signal 1 5 1 7
Table 5.2: Top 10 Intersection Prioritization Scores
Packet Page. 1594
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 63 Top 10 Intersection Breakdown

1. W Baseline St & N Arrowhead Ave (Score:
11)
» Highest overall priority
» High crash frequency and high severity
» Received community concern input
» Represents both a data-driven and public-driven
priority
» Strong candidate for near-term safety
improvements

2. Baseline St & Sierra Way Ave (Score: 10)
» High collision volume and severity
» No community mentions, but crash data alone
places it near the top
» Indicates a systemic safety issue independent of
public perception

3. (Tie). E Baseline St & N Waterman Ave
(Score: 9)
» Highest total crashes (66)
» Slightly lower EPDO weighting than top-ranked
locations
» Data suggests frequent crashes, potentially with
mixed severity

4. (Tie). W Baseline St & N G St (Score: 9)
» High collision frequency and severity
» No community input, but strong quantitative
justification
» Likely benefits from signal operations or
geometric improvements

5. (Tie). W Baseline St & N H St (Score: 9)
» Moderate-to-high crashes and severity
» Community engagement elevates its ranking
» Demonstrates alignment between crash data and
public concern
6 (Tie). W Baseline St & N D St (Score: 9)
» High severity score (EPDO = 5)
» Slightly lower crash frequency
» Suggests fewer crashes, but more severe
outcomes

7. (Tie). W Baseline St & N Medical Center
Dr (Score: 7)
» Moderate crash frequency and severity
» Lower urgency relative to top-tier intersections
» Still warrants inclusion due to consistent crash
history
Packet Page. 1595
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 64 8. (Tie). W Baseline St & N Mt Vernon Ave
(Score: 7)
» Moderate scores across all categories
» Represents a secondary priority within the
corridor

9. (Tie). E Baseline St & N Lugo Ave (Score:
7)
» Unsignalized intersection with high severity
weighting
» Lower crash frequency but elevated EPDO score
» Indicates potential benefit from control or visibility improvements

10. (Tie). W Baseline St & N E St (Score: 7)
» High crash frequency
» Low severity score offset by community
engagement
» Suggests perceived safety concerns despite less
severe outcomes
The final portion of this chapter showcases the top
10 priority locations with their corresponding vicinity maps, some basic crash statistics, high-level project
cost estimate, and a concept plan for the City’s
reference and use during eventual implementation.

Packet Page. 1596
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 65 Intersection Total
Collisions
Control EPDO/Crash
Cost Score
Total
Collision
Score
Community
Engagement
Mentions
Total
Prioritization
Score
W Baseline St & N F St 23 Signal 3 3 1 7
E Baseline St & N Cedar Ave 4 Unsignalized 5 1 1 7
N California St & W Baseline St 9 Signal 4 2 6
W Baseline St & N Mountain View Ave 29 Signal 1 4 5
E Baseline St & N Tippecanoe Ave 23 Signal 2 3 5
E Baseline St & N Crestview Ave 7 Signal 4 1 5
W Baseline St & I-215 S 18 Signal 1 3 4
W Baseline St & I-215 N 17 Signal 1 3 4
E Baseline St & N Wall Ave 17 Unsignalized 1 3 4
E Baseline St & N Bobbett Dr 8 Unsignalized 3 1 4
E Baseline St & N Sepulveda Ave 7 Unsignalized 3 1 4
E Baseline St & N Windsor Dr 13 Signal 1 2 1 4
W Baseline St & N Davidson Ave 8 Unsignalized 2 1 1 4
W Baseline St & N Western Ave 10 Unsignalized 1 2 3
E Baseline St & N Belle St 9 Unsignalized 1 2 3
W Baseline St & N Herrington Ave 5 Unsignalized 2 1 3
N Perris Hill Rd & E Baseline St 5 Unsignalized 2 1 3
W Baseline St & N Mayfield Ave 8 Unsignalized 2 1 3
W Baseline St & N University Pkwy 6 Signal 1 1 1 3
W Baseline St & N Garner Ave 2 Unsignalized 1 1 1 3
E Baseline Rd & N Meridian Ave 1 Signal 1 1 1 3
W Baseline St & N Tiajuana St 4 Unsignalized 1 1 2
W Baseline St & N Massachusetts Ave 8 Signal 1 1 2
W Baseline St & N Perris St 8 Signal 1 1 2
W Baseline St & N Acacia Ave 8 Unsignalized 1 1 2
W Baseline St & N Stoddard Ave 8 Unsignalized 1 1 2
E Baseline St & N Canyon Rd 7 Unsignalized 1 1 2
E Baseline St & N Valencia Ave 6 Unsignalized 1 1 2
W Baseline St & N Hancock St 5 Unsignalized 1 1 2
Table 5.3 : Prioritization of the 47 Other Intersections Packet Page. 1597
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 66 Intersection Total
Collisions
Control EPDO/Crash
Cost Score
Total
Collision
Score
Community
Engagement
Mentions
Total
Prioritization
Score
W Baseline St & N Berkeley Ave 5 Unsignalized 1 1 2
E Baseline St & N Myrtle St 5 Signal 1 1 2
E Baseline St & Tippecanoe Ave 5 Unsignalized 1 1 2
W Baseline St & N Wilson St 4 Unsignalized 1 1 2
W Baseline St & N Pennsylvania Ave 3 Unsignalized 1 1 2 W Baseline St & N Ramona Ave 3 Unsignalized 1 1 2
W Baseline St & N L St 3 Unsignalized 1 1 2
W Baseline St & N Genevieve St 3 Unsignalized 1 1 2
E Baseline St & N Barton St 3 Unsignalized 1 1 2
W Baseline St & N Lassen St 2 Unsignalized 1 1 2
W Baseline St & N Blackstone Ave 2 Unsignalized 1 1 2
E Baseline St & N Pepper Tree Ln 2 Unsignalized 1 1 2
N La Junta St & E Baseline St 2 Unsignalized 1 1 2
E Baseline St & N Belvan Ave 2 Unsignalized 1 1 2
W Baseline St & N Madison St 1 Unsignalized 1 1 2
W Baseline St & N Pico Ave 1 Unsignalized 1 1 2
W Baseline St & N Martin Rd 0 Unsignalized 1 1 2
W Baseline St & N K St 0 Unsignalized 1 1 2
Packet Page. 1598
At a Glance
Cost Estimate
Countermeasures
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study Project Factsheet 67 $192,000
EXHIBIT A-2
Madison St
Wilson StHancock St
Baseline Street
Medical Center Dr
0 1/8 1/4 Mi N
Total
CyclistInvolved
Crashes
1 Total
PedestrianInvolved
Crashes
3 Total Fatal &
Serious Injury
Crashes
1 Total
Crashes
30 Medical Center Drive
Recommended Countermeasure
Curb Extensions: Extensions of sidewalk or curb sections into the roadway; also known as bulb-outs. Shorten crossing distance for VRUs and slows down roadway speeds by visually narrowing lane width and forcing slower turns
Retroflective Backplates: Yellow retroreflective strip placed on the perimeter of a signal plate. Improves visibility of the signal by increasing contrast, especially during dusk or dark hours Near-Side Signal: Installation of a traffic signal on the near-side of the intersection, increasing visibility of the traffic signal cycle for incoming traffic
Road Diet: Re-organization of a roadway’s geometry to
accommodate for turning movements and other road users. Decreases vehicle speeds and allows for dedicated lanes for VRUs
Other Systemic Signal Upgrades: Includes systemic hardware upgrades such as additional signal heads, advance warning signs, and signal timing upgrades
Packet Page. 1599
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study Project Factsheet 68 Conceptual Plan Medical Center Drive
Packet Page. 1600
At a Glance
Cost Estimate
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study Project Factsheet 69 Countermeasures
$441,000
Baseline St
K StPerris St
Harrington Ave
Baseline Street
Mt Vernon Ave
0 1/8 1/4 Mi N
Total
CyclistInvolved
Crashes
0 Total
PedestrianInvolved
Crashes
1 Total Fatal &
Serious Injury
Crashes
1 Total
Crashes
24 Mt Vernon Avenue
Recommended Countermeasure
Advance Stop Bars: A stop bar that is placed further away from the crosswalk to create more distance between a stopping vehicle and the crosswalk
High Visibility Crosswalk: Enhanced crosswalks with
improved striping and more noticeable patterns, increasing safety and visibility of those crossing
Pedestrian Scramble Crosswalk: A “WALK” phase at the
signalized intersection where all vehicle traffic is required to stop, allowing pedestrians to cross throguh the intersection in any direction, including diagonally.

Near-Side Signal: Installation of a traffic signal on the nearside of the intersection, increasing visibility of the traffic signal cycle for incoming traffic
Road Diet: Re-organization of a roadway’s geometry to
accommodate for turning movements and other road users.

Decreases vehicle speeds and allows for dedicated lanes for VRUs
Other Systemic Signal Upgrades: Includes systemic
hardware upgrades such as additional signal heads,
retroreflective backplates, leading pedestrian interval (LPI), signal timing upgrades, and advance warning signs
Packet Page. 1601
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study Project Factsheet 70 Conceptual Plan Mt Vernon Avenue
Packet Page. 1602
At a Glance
Cost Estimate
Countermeasures
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study Project Factsheet 71 $83,000
Continued in the map below - E
NB Off-Ramp NB On-R

INTERSTATE
210

INTERSTATE
210
Baseline Street
H Street
0 1/8 1/4 Mi
N
Recommended Countermeasure
Advance Stop Bars: A stop bar that is placed further away from the crosswalk to create more distance between a stopping vehicle and the crosswalk
Curb Extensions: Extensions of sidewalk or curb sections into the roadway; also known as bulb-outs. Shorten crossing distance for VRUs and slows down roadway speeds by visually narrowing lane width and forcing slower turns
Leading Pedestrian Interval: Signal timing improvement that allows VRUs the opportunity to enter the intersection before vehicles are allowed the green light. Encourages vehicles to yield to those in the crosswalk
Class II Bike Lanes: Bike-only lanes separated by striping with no-parking signs
Other Systemic Signal Upgrades: Includes systemic hardware upgrades such as additional retroreflective backplates, and signal timing upgrades
Other Considerations: Coordination with Caltrans to extend the WB “FWY ONLY” lanes along with the EB left-turn lane to increase capacity and minimize intersection blocking at H Street Total
CyclistInvolved
Crashes
0 Total
PedestrianInvolved
Crashes
2 Total Fatal &
Serious Injury
Crashes
2 Total
Crashes
34 H Street
Packet Page. 1603
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study 72 Conceptual Plan H Street
Project Factsheet
Packet Page. 1604
At a Glance
Cost Estimate
Countermeasures
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study Project Factsheet 73 $217,000
Recommended Countermeasure
Advance Stop Bars: A stop bar that is placed further away from the crosswalk to create more distance between a stopping vehicle and the crosswalk
Curb Extensions: Extensions of sidewalk or curb sections into the roadway; also known as bulb-outs. Shorten crossing distance for VRUs and slows down roadway speeds by visually narrowing lane width and forcing slower turns
Leading Pedestrian Interval: Signal timing improvement that allows VRUs the opportunity to enter the intersection before vehicles are allowed the green light. Encourages vehicles to yield to those in the crosswalk
Retroflective Backplates: Yellow retroreflective strip placed on the perimeter of a signal plate. Improves visibility of the signal by increasing contrast, especially during dusk or dark hours Class II Bike Lanes: Bike-only lanes separated by striping with noparking signs Other Signal Upgrades: Includes mast arm upgrades, intersection lighting, luminaire upgrades, additional signal heads, and signal timing upgrades

CONCEPT PLAN C
NB Off-Ramp NB On-Ra
H St
Baseline St

INTERSTATE
210

INTERSTATE
210
Baseline Street
G Street
0 1/8 1/4 Mi N
Total
CyclistInvolved
Crashes
0 Total
PedestrianInvolved
Crashes
1 Total Fatal &
Serious Injury
Crashes
2 Total
Crashes
36 G Street
Packet Page. 1605
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study Project Factsheet 74 Conceptual Plan G Street
Packet Page. 1606
At a Glance
Cost Estimate
Countermeasures
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study Project Factsheet 75 $211,000
F St
Acacia Ave
Acacia Ave
Berkeley Ave
Baseline Street
E Street
0 1/8 1/4 Mi N
Recommended Countermeasure
Advance Stop Bars: A stop bar that is placed further away from the crosswalk to create more distance between a stopping vehicle and the crosswalk
Curb Extensions: Extensions of sidewalk or curb sections into the roadway; also known as bulb-outs. Shorten crossing distance for VRUs and slows down roadway speeds by visually narrowing lane width and forcing slower turns
Leading Pedestrian Interval: Signal timing improvement that allows VRUs the opportunity to enter the intersection before vehicles are allowed the green light. Encourages vehicles to yield to those in the crosswalk
Retroflective Backplates: Yellow retroreflective strip placed on the perimeter of a signal plate. Improves visibility of the signal by increasing contrast, especially during dusk or dark hours Class II Bike Lanes: Bike-only lanes separated by striping with no-parking signs
Other Signal Upgrades: Includes mast arm upgrades, protected only left-turn signal heads, advance warning signs, and signal timing upgrades
Total
CyclistInvolved
Crashes
2 Total
PedestrianInvolved
Crashes
0 Total Fatal &
Serious Injury
Crashes
0 Total
Crashes
38 E Street
Packet Page. 1607
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study Project Factsheet 76 Conceptual Plan E Street
Packet Page. 1608
At a Glance
Cost Estimate
Countermeasures
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study Project Factsheet 77 $126,000
ow - G
Continued in the map below - F
Baseline Street
D Street
0 1/8 1/4 Mi
N
Recommended Countermeasure
Advance Stop Bars: A stop bar that is placed further away from the crosswalk to create more distance between a stopping vehicle and the crosswalk High Visibility Crosswalk: Enhanced crosswalks with improved striping and more noticeable patterns, increasing safety and visibility of those crossing Curb Extensions: Extensions of sidewalk or curb sections into the roadway; also known as bulb-outs. Shorten crossing distance for VRUs and slows down roadway speeds by visually narrowing lane width and forcing slower turns Leading Pedestrian Interval: Signal timing improvement that allows VRUs the opportunity to enter the intersection before vehicles are allowed the green light.

Encourages vehicles to yield to those in the crosswalk
Retroflective Backplates: Yellow retroreflective strip placed on the perimeter of a signal plate. Improves visibility of the signal by increasing contrast, especially during dusk or dark hours
Class II Bike Lanes: Bike-only lanes separated by striping with no-parking signs Other Systemic Signal Upgrades: Signal timing upgrades
Total
CyclistInvolved
Crashes
1 Total
PedestrianInvolved
Crashes
5 Total Fatal &
Serious Injury
Crashes
3 Total
Crashes
29 D Street
Packet Page. 1609
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study Project Factsheet 78 Conceptual Plan D Street
Packet Page. 1610
At a Glance
Cost Estimate
Countermeasures
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study Project Factsheet 79 $230,000
below - G
Continued in the map below - F
CONC
E
P
T
P
LAN
F
Baseline St
D
Mayfield Ave
Sepulveda AveWall Ave
Baseline Street
Arrowhead Ave
0 1/8 1/4 Mi
N
Recommended Countermeasure
Advance Stop Bars: A stop bar that is placed further away from the crosswalk to create more distance between a stopping vehicle and the crosswalk
High Visibility Crosswalk: Enhanced crosswalks with improved striping and more noticeable patterns, increasing safety and visibility of those crossing Curb Extensions: Extensions of sidewalk or curb sections into the roadway; also known as bulb-outs. Shorten crossing distance for VRUs and slows down roadway speeds by visually narrowing lane width and forcing slower turns Leading Pedestrian Interval: Signal timing improvement that allows VRUs the opportunity to enter the intersection before vehicles are allowed the green light. Encourages vehicles to yield to those in the crosswalk Retroflective Backplates: Yellow retroreflective strip placed on the perimeter of a signal plate. Improves visibility of the signal by increasing contrast, especially during dusk or dark hours
Class II Bike Lanes: Bike-only lanes separated by striping with no-parking signs
Other Systemic Signal Upgrades: Includes additional signal heads and signal timing upgrades
Total
CyclistInvolved
Crashes
1 Total
PedestrianInvolved
Crashes
6 Total Fatal &
Serious Injury
Crashes
3 Total
Crashes
41 Arrowhead Avenue
Packet Page. 1611
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study Project Factsheet 80 Conceptual Plan Arrowhead Avenue
Packet Page. 1612
At a Glance
Cost Estimate
Countermeasures
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study Project Factsheet 81 $132,000

CONCEPT PLAN J
Mountain View Ave
Genevieve St
Baseline Street
Sierra Way
0 1/8 1/4 Mi N
Recommended Countermeasure
Advance Stop Bars: A stop bar that is placed further away from the crosswalk to create more distance between a stopping vehicle and the crosswalk
Curb Extensions: Extensions of sidewalk or curb sections into the roadway; also known as bulb-outs. Shorten crossing distance for VRUs and slows down roadway speeds by visually narrowing lane width and forcing slower turns Leading Pedestrian Interval: Signal timing improvement that allows VRUs the opportunity to enter the intersection before vehicles are allowed the green light. Encourages vehicles to yield to those in the crosswalk Retroflective Backplates: Yellow retroreflective strip placed on the perimeter of a signal plate. Improves visibility of the signal by increasing contrast, especially during dusk or dark hours
Near-Side Signal: Installation of a traffic signal on the near-side of the intersection, increasing visibility of the traffic signal cycle for incoming traffic Class II Bike Lanes: Bike-only lanes separated by striping with no-parking signs
Other Systemic Signal Upgrades: Includes additional signal heads and signal timing upgrades
Total
CyclistInvolved
Crashes
1 Total
PedestrianInvolved
Crashes
1 Total Fatal &
Serious Injury
Crashes
2 Total
Crashes
48 Sierra Way
Packet Page. 1613
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study Project Factsheet 82 Conceptual Plan Sierra Way
Packet Page. 1614
At a Glance
Cost Estimate
Countermeasures
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study Project Factsheet 83 $568,000
Recommended Countermeasure
Advance Stop Bars: A stop bar that is placed further away from the crosswalk to create more distance between a stopping vehicle and the crosswalk
High Visibility Crosswalk: Enhanced crosswalks with improved striping and more noticeable patterns, increasing safety and visibility of those crossing
Curb Extensions: Extensions of sidewalk or curb sections into the roadway; also known as bulb-outs. Shorten crossing distance for VRUs and slows down roadway speeds by visually narrowing lane width and forcing slower turns
Pedestrian Hybrid Signal: Specialized traffic signals activated by VRUs to create a crossing opportunity. They have a yellow “Slow Down” phase, a solid red “Do Not Proceed” phase, and a flashing “Stop” phase. Vehicles are obligated to stop at the red light to wait for the VRUs to complete the crossing
Class II Bike Lanes: Bike-only lanes separated by striping with noparking signs Lugo Avenue
SEE EXHIBIT C-1
Mountain View Av
Sierra W
Genevieve St
Baseline Street
Lugo Ave
0 1/8 1/4 Mi N
Total
CyclistInvolved
Crashes
1 Total
PedestrianInvolved
Crashes
3 Total Fatal &
Serious Injury
Crashes
2 Total
Crashes
11 Packet Page. 1615
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study Project Factsheet 84 Conceptual Plan Lugo Avenue
Packet Page. 1616
At a Glance
Cost Estimate
Countermeasures
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study Project Factsheet 85 $125,000
Recommended Countermeasure
Advance Stop Bars: A stop bar that is placed further away from the crosswalk to create more distance between a stopping vehicle and the crosswalk
Curb Extensions: Extensions of sidewalk or curb sections into the roadway; also known as bulb-outs. Shorten crossing distance for VRUs and slows down roadway speeds by visually narrowing lane width and forcing slower turns
Leading Pedestrian Interval: Signal timing improvement that allows VRUs the opportunity to enter the intersection before vehicles are allowed the green light. Encourages vehicles to yield to those in the crosswalk
Retroflective Backplates: Yellow retroreflective strip placed on the perimeter of a signal plate. Improves visibility of the signal by increasing contrast, especially during dusk or dark hours
Class II Bike Lanes: Bike-only lanes separated by striping with noparking signs Other Systemic Signal Upgrades: Includes signal timing upgrades and advance warning signs
Total
CyclistInvolved
Crashes
0 Total
PedestrianInvolved
Crashes
7 Total Fatal &
Serious Injury
Crashes
1 Total
Crashes
66 Waterman Avenue
Wall AveBelle St
Valencia Ave
Baseline Street
Waterman Ave
0 1/8 1/4 Mi N
Packet Page. 1617
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Study Project Factsheet 86 Conceptual Plan Waterman Avenue
Packet Page. 1618
Chapter Five -
Implementation
Packet Page. 1619
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 88 Overview
This chapter provides the framework for implementing
the recommendations of the Baseline Street Safety
Study. It outlines a phased approach for organizing
improvements, identifying funding opportunities, and
preparing priority projects for design and construction.

As conditions change and project needs evolve, the
implementation strategy can be updated to reflect
refined scopes, resource availability, and other
considerations related to advancing priority projects.

Following the funding section will be a section
identifying some benchmark and evaluation metrics
the City can use to monitor safety trends on Baseline
Street.

Funding Opportunities
Federal Funding Opportunities
Safe Streets for All (SS4A)
The United States Department of Transportation
(USDOT) Safe Streets for All (SS4A) program provides
competitive federal funding to help jurisdictions plan
for and implement strategies that reduce fatal and
serious injury crashes. Applicants must maintain a
Comprehensive Safety Action Plan that meets all
federal Action Plan requirements, allowing the City
to pursue SS4A Implementation Grants for eligible
projects identified in this Study.

For Baseline Street, SS4A can support improvements
enhancing pedestrian access and support multimodal
travel consistent with the Safe System Approach, such
as road diets, bike lanes, and signal improvements. The program typically provides up to 80 percent of eligible project costs, with a minimum 20 percent non-federal
match, offering the City a dependable funding pathway
to advance future Baseline Street safety projects.

Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage
Development (BUILD)
United States Department of Transportation (USDOT)
Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development
(BUILD) program provides competitive federal
funding for surface transportation projects. Eligible
projects include advancing safety, mobility, community
connectivity, economic competitiveness, and stateof-good-repair outcomes. Applications are required to submit a detailed benefit-cost analysis for multiple merit criteria (BCA).

BUILD may fund both planning and capital construction
activities, enabling the City to advance corridor-wide
improvements through a scalable federal funding
pathway. Capital requests may be up to $25 million,
with a minimum of $5 million required for urban
projects. The federal share may cover up to 80 percent
of eligible project costs, while projects located fully within an Area of Persistent Poverty or Historically
Disadvantaged Community may be eligible for up to
100 percent federal funding. Together, these provisions position BUILD as a viable option for implementing
larger-scale Baseline Street improvements.

Packet Page. 1620
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 89 Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment
Program (ATIIP)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
The Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment
Program (ATIIP) provides competitive federal
funding to develop connected pedestrian and bicycle
networks that improve safety, access, and mobility for
people walking and biking. Eligible projects include
multi-modal investments supporting the creation of
continuous, connected active transportation corridors
that close gaps and strengthen multimodal connections
within and between communities.

For Baseline Street, ATIIP can support improvements
that address gaps in walking and biking infrastructure, enhance access to schools and transit stops, and
improve connectivity to nearby neighborhoods and
community destinations. The program may fund
planning, design, and construction activities for
bike lanes and road diets/roadway reconfigurations
consistent with the Study’s Safe System–oriented
recommendations. Federal funding may cover up to
80 percent of eligible project costs, with opportunities for full federal participation where eligibility criteria are met, offering the City a potential pathway to advance
active transportation enhancements along the corridor.

Highway Safety Improvement Program
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is
a core Federal-aid program, administered by Caltrans
as part of the California’s State HSIP component. Its
purpose is to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries. It requires detailed crash data in order to perform a benefit-cost ratio (BCR)
analysis. Applicants with the highest BCR are awarded
funding up to a certain BCR cut-off. The BCR score
cut-off differs on a yearly basis, depending on average applicant scores and availability of funding.

HSIP funds a multitude of improvements, including
those recommended on Baseline Street. Note that
only a total of three infrastructure improvements
can be recommended for a single application, so it
is recommended for the City to utilize other grant
opportunities for the rest of the improvements. Note
that the local match/reimbursement rate of the project
costs will depend on the countermeasures chosen.

Generally speaking, most countermeasures have a local
match requirement of 10%.

Packet Page. 1621
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 90 Regional and State Funding Opportunities
Active Transportation Program
California Transportation Commission (CTC)
Active Transportation Program (ATP) encourages
increased use of active modes of transportation, such
as biking and walking. Main goals of the program
include increasing the proportion of trips accomplished by walking and biking, increasing the safety and
mobility of non-motorized users, advancing efforts of
regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction
goals, enhancing public health, and providing a broad
spectrum of projects to benefit many types of users
including disadvantaged communities. Local matches
are not required, but applications are awarded extra
points during the application process if provided.

For Baseline Street, the ATP can be an important
source of funding for the pedestrian and bicycle
improvements recommended in the previous
chapters, especially regarding the road diets, bike lane implementation, curb extension upgrades, pedestrian
signals, and others.

Sustainable Transportation Equity Program
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The Sustainable Transportation Equity Program
(STEP) is a funding initiative focusing on communityled projects that enhance transportation access and reduce vehicle emissions, especially in low-income
and disadvantaged communities. Its eligible projects
include a combination of strategies such as public
transit, electric/micro mobility, and infrastructure
improvements. Applying for STEP funding is a two-step
process; applicants must apply for the Concept Phases
to be eligible for the Full Phase. The application also requires a 11.47% local match for funded projects.

Note that as of April 2026, no future dates have been
provided for the next round of applications.

Table 6.1 briefly summarizes the above funding
opportunities. Additionally, Table 6.2 presents the
top 10 priority projects alongside potential grant
opportunities suitable to fund the respective projects.

Since this plan is a corridor study, the individual top priority projects may share similar physical contexts
and crash trends, making them suitable for similar
funding opportunities.

Packet Page. 1622
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 91 Oversight Agency Source Program Objectives 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 enforcement, Funding awards are administered by the State through a biannual funding call for projects.

Data Collection,
Countermeasure
Implementation
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)
Active Transportation
Infrastructure
Investment Program
(ATIIP)
Focuses on connecting pedestrian and bicycle networks that improve safety, access, and mobility for people walking and biking. Eligible projects include multi-modal investments supporting the creation of continuous, connected active transportation corridors that close gaps and strengthen multimodal connections within and between communities.

Active Transportation,
Planning, Design,
Implementation
US Department of
Transportation (USDOT)
Better Utilizing
Investments to Leverage
Development (BUILD)
Eligible projects include advancing safety, mobility,
community connectivity, economic competitiveness, and
state-of-good-repair outcomes.

Active Transportation,
Vulnerable Road
Users
US Department of
Transportation (USDOT)
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)
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 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 lowincome communities via two types of grants: Planning and Capacity Building Grants and Implementation Grants.

Countermeasure
Implementation
Table 6.1: Funding Opportunity Summary
Packet Page. 1623
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 92 Intersection Total
Crashes
Control EPDO/Crash
Cost Score
Total
Collision
Score
Community
Engagement
Mentions
Total
Prioritization
Score
Potential
Funding
Opportunities
W Baseline St & N
Arrowhead Ave
41 Signal 5 5 1 11 ATP, HSIP, SS4A
Baseline St & Sierra
Way Ave
48 Signal 5 5 10 HSIP, SS4A
E Baseline St & N
Waterman Ave
66 Signal 4 5 9 ATP, HSIP, SS4A
W Baseline St & N
G St
36 Signal 4 5 9 HSIP, SS4A
W Baseline St & N
H St
34 Signal 4 4 1 9 HSIP
W Baseline St & N
D St
29 Signal 5 4 9 ATP, HSIP,
W Baseline St & N
Medical Center Dr
30 Signal 3 4 7 ATP, STEP, ATIIP
W Baseline St & N
Mt Vernon Ave
24 Signal 3 4 7 SS4A
E Baseline St & N
Lugo Ave
11 Unsignalized 5 2 7 ATP, HSIP,
W Baseline St & N
E St
38 Signal 1 5 1 7 SS4A
Table 6.2: Priority Project and Potential Funding
Packet Page. 1624
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 93 Potential Funding Opportunities for the
Road Diet
One component for funding opportunities not
represented in the table is the road diet implementation as this improvement encompasses a multitude of
locations. Baseline Street’s road diet extends from
Meridian Avenue to Mount Vernon Avenue, comprising
almost the entire western portion of the corridor.

A roadway reconfiguration is highly recommended
to be implemented as one large project instead of
spot treatments by individual roadway segments or
intersections. Grants suitable for a large infrastructure project such as this include BUILD, SS4A, and ATP. HSIP may be an alternative opportunity but has restrictions
on the calculation of crash BCA’s depending on the
design of the road diet.

Funding Strategy Summary
As seen in Table 6.2, multiple intersections may be
competitive for multiple types of the same grant
funding opportunities. It is advised for the city to
bundle up projects for specific grant opportunities
instead of pursuing applications based on individual
intersections. The grant funding recommendations
from this chapter are preliminary in nature and only
consider a few surface-level factors of crash trends and countermeasure types to determine the funding type
applicability. More in-depth analysis will be required to determine which intersections and countermeasures to
include in an application during the grant preparation
process.

Also note that not all funding opportunities fund all
types of countermeasures. This chapter provides
some initial insights on which funding opportunities
fund which types of improvements, but it is highly
recommended to refer to each guideline at its source to identify which countermeasures are most appropriate
for the respective funding opportunity. It is also
beneficial to include some of the other 47 intersections not in the top 10 as part of a funding opportunity,
assuming that they coincide well with the rest of the
project.

Benchmark and Evaluation Metrics
Aside from the physical implementation of the
recommendations, evaluation during the postimplementation periods is also a crucial step to ensure the efficacy and effectiveness of the proposed
strategies. While the infrastructure improvements in this plan have been identified as proven countermeasures
by federal agencies such as USDOT, they may not
completely eliminate all fatal and severe injury (KSI)
crashes.

It is unfeasible for recommendations to be implemented
immediately so best practices generally measure
collision statistics for about five years to identify
general trends. If there are still a few KSI Crashes
consistently occurring on Baseline Street after that
period, the City is able to consider smaller scale
strategies to address the last remaining KSI crashes.

Just as this Baseline Street Study supplements the
Dilemma Zone Study that has been implemented
since 2024, so should the City continue to utilize other strategies to reduce any remaining KSI crashes.

Evaluation and benchmark metrics may come in several
forms, such as:

Packet Page. 1625
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 94 ° Yearly reduction of KSI crashes by a certain
percentage so that a benchmark percentage may
be achieved on Baseline Street by a certain year
° The number of implemented recommendations in a
certain number of years on Baseline Street, based
on a list of projects, such as the top 10 priority
projects
Table 6.3 presents the yearly percentage reduction
needed for KSI crashes to achieve a 75% reduction by
2036 on Baseline Street.

Year Average Annual
KSI
Reduction Per
Year
2026 8.6 0.645
2027 7.955 0.645
2028 7.31 0.645
2029 6.665 0.645
2030 6.02 0.645
2031 5.375 0.645
2032 4.73 0.645
2033 4.085 0.645
2034 3.44 0.645
2035 2.795 0.645
2036 2.15 0.645
Table 6.3: Average Annual KSI
Based on the 2019 to 2023 crash data, an average of

8.6 KSI crashes occur on an annual basis. Assuming a
reduction of 75% by the year 2036. While this equates
to an average reduction of approximately 0.6 KSI
crashes per year over a 10-year period, crash reductions are not expected to occur linearly. Meaningful
reductions will primarily be realized following the
implementation of key infrastructure improvements.

Therefore, measurable decreases in KSI crashes may
not occur until project components are constructed
and fully operational. The overall timeline for achieving the target reduction will depend on funding availability, project delivery schedules, and completion of design,
environmental, and construction phases.

San Bernardino Local Roadway Safety
Plan Amendment
Purpose
The City of San Bernardino adopted a Local Roadway
Safety Plan (LSRP) in 2022 to identify corridors in need of safety improvements. In 2026, a follow-up plan was
developed to analyze and recommend improvements
on Baseline Street, one of the top corridors prioritized through the LRSP process.

The Baseline Street Study incorporates granular
analysis of safety trends in the corridor and identifies appropriate countermeasures to mitigate safety
challenges. Additionally, the Baseline Street Study
also included a comprehensive outreach effort to
ensure that stakeholders and local residents had
opportunities to comment and provide feedback on
recommendations throughout the planning process.

As the LRSP did not include an extensive outreach
Packet Page. 1626
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 95 process, this amendment summarizes the outreach
methodology used in the Baseline Street Study. It
provides lessons learned from the planning process for
a potential comprehensive citywide outreach effort.

Supplementing the existing LRSP with a citywide
outreach component will be a major step toward
adapting the document into a Safe Streets for All
(SS4A) - compliant plan (i.e., Comprehensive Safety
Action Plan), opening avenues for additional grant
opportunities for the entire city, not just Baseline Street.

Community Engagement Methodology
Utilized in the Baseline Street Study
Disadvantaged Communities Analysis
The first step before conducting field outreach was
to perform a spatial analysis of census tracts around
Baseline Street. The SS4A program and numerous other
grant opportunities award higher points to applications that benefit underserved communities. For the Baseline
Street Study, two state indicators and one federal
indicator were reviewed, such as:

State
• CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (CES 4.0)
• Healthy Places Index (HPI)
Federal
• Areas of Persistent Poverty (APP)
As shown in Figure 6.1, the entire length of Baseline
Street falls under disadvantaged indicators for CES 4.0 and APP. No census tracts near Baseline Street fulfilled the disadvantaged threshold for HPI.

Identifying disadvantaged communities early in the
planning process enables a more holistic approach
to designing and strategizing engagement activities
in the field. This is a crucial step, as engagement,
especially engagement in underserved communities,
is an integral component of a comprehensive safety
action plan. The exercise of targeting engagement in
underserved communities was relatively simple in the
case of the Baseline Street Study, as Baseline Street
is entirely located within underserved communities.

For the supplemental citywide engagement process,
however, it is highly recommended to conduct a
disadvantaged communities analysis early on to ensure
that engagement includes opportunities for residents in these areas to participate in the project.

Identification of Engagement Methodology
Once the underserved communities had been
identified, the Baseline Street Study project team
identified the most effective way to gather feedback
from residents who use Baseline Street most often.

Engagement methods include:
• Creation of a project webpage alongside online
mapping and text-based surveys, in both English
and Spanish
• Attending community-based events near Baseline
Street with pop-up tables and in-person surveys
• Cooperating with local schools and public
organizations to provide project-specific
presentations and discussion meetings
Project Webpage and Online Surveys
As it is common for working adults in the area to
be unavailable during the work week for additional
gatherings outside their daily schedules, an online
platform was created so they could still share thoughts, recommendations, or concerns throughout the project
Packet Page. 1627
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 96 phase. Communities around Baseline Street also had
high percentages of Spanish-speaking-only adults, so
online materials were translated into Spanish.

Note that the two surveys were made available to the
public during specific project milestones, and each
was open for comments for several months before
closing. The online mapping survey was opened
during the existing conditions portion of the project
and was available for comments until late 2025. The
priority projects survey was opened during the project
recommendations stage and remained open for
comments until mid-2026.

In-person Pop-up Booths at Community Events
Another important aspect that required early planning
was identifying community-based events suitable
for hosting a pop-up booth by the project team.

Cooperation with the City of San Bernardino was an
integral step, as they assisted the team in identifying 0 0.42 0.85 Miles ¯
Legend
San Bernardino City Boundary
Baseline Crashes
Dense
Sparse
CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Areas of Persistent Poverty
Healthy Places Index
Baseline Street
Figure 6.1: Disadvantaged Community Indicators
Packet Page. 1628
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 97 which events would be largely attended by community
members and had the highest chance of reaching the
most participants. Early coordination was needed as
some events required registration and coordination
with the event team. Community events the team
appeared at include:
• Mt. Vernon Bridge Re-opening Community
Celebration
• 12th Annual Rendezvous Back to Route 66
• San Bernardino Lunay New Year Festival
Project-specific Meetings and Gatherings at Local
Community Locations
Once general comments and understandings of existing
conditions have been collected from the community,
the project team combined these findings with data
from the safety analysis. A selection of projects was
developed and presented to the community for
another round of feedback and engagement. Meetings
dedicated to discussing this project were organized at
schools and libraries near Baseline Street to provide a convenient meeting place for residents, such as:
• Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School
• Arroyo Valley High School
• Gomez Elementary School
• Feldheym Library
Tips and Lessons Learned for Citywide
Engagement
As is evident throughout the discussion of the
engagement methodology, public participation
and feedback were actively sought throughout the
project life, not just during the initial stages. The
engagement process had both ups and downs during
the coordination and “in-the-field” stages, so a brief
discussion of several takeaways and tips that were
learned throughout the engagement process:
• Convening a stakeholder group consisting
of various local organizations, agencies, and
community groups at the onset of the project to
make them aware of the project goals and gather
their feedback throughout the development
process.
• Creating a stakeholder group will also
allow for more focused feedback from
community members with local knowledge
to identify key issues and potential
solutions.
• Leverage existing relationships with school staff
to ensure that families and school personnel have
opportunities to engage with the project team.
• Continue to participate in well-attended
City-hosted events to maximize community
engagement efforts.

Packet Page. 1629
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 98 • Prepare a resolution to be adopted by City
Council, formalizing the City’s commitment to
improving roadway safety.
• As part of the LRSP augmentation process,
identify a target date and develop a schedule
that outlines how the City will be able to reach
its goal of achieving zero fatalities and serious
injuries.

Planning Structure
As part of the Action Plan development process, SS4A
requires that a committee, task force, implementation
group, or similar body was established and charged
with the plan’s development, implementation, and
monitoring. The City’s LRSP did lead to the creation
of a Stakeholder Group consisting of representatives
from the City’s Police Department, San Bernardino
City Unified School District, and the San Bernardino
Neighborhood Association Council. However,
engagement with stakeholders was not as extensive
in order to fulfill the Planning Strcuture component
requirements.

The proposed strategies are recommended for the City
to consider and implement to ensure that a Planning
Structure has been established:

Developing an SS4A-Compliant LRSP
When applying for federal funding through the USDOT
SS4A program, the City will need to complete a SelfCertification Elibility Worksheet. This worksheet serves as a checklist tool for applicants to determine if they qualify for SS4A funding. The checklist outlines several components that are required for all Comprehensive
Safety Action Plans, including LRSPs. These
components include:

1. Leadership Commitment and Goal Setting

2. Planning Structure

3. Safety Analysis

4. Engagement and Collaboration

5. Policy and Process Changes

6. Strategy and Project Selections

7. Action Plan Date
The components in bold are areas that the City should
focus on expanding when augmenting the existing
LRSP, and are discussed on the following pages.

Leadership Commitment and Goal Setting
This component requires that the eligible Action Plan
inlcudes a formal commitment from a high-ranking
official/governing body to reach the eventual goal of
zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries; and set a timeline to acheive this goal by a specific date. There are several steps that the City can undertake to ensure that the LRSP can fulfill this component:

Packet Page. 1630
San Bernardino Safe Streets for All Baseline Street Safety Study 99 • Invite stakeholders from other agencies and
organizations (e.g., advocacy groups, senior
residents, etc.) to participate in the LRSP
development process and gather different
perspectives.
• Confirm that the Stakeholder Group involved
in the development of the LRSP augmentation
process and the stakeholders who participated in
the Baseline Street Study can evolve into a task
force (i.e., Safety Committee) to assist with the
implementation and monitoring of the LRSP.

Engagement and Collaboration
This Action Plan component involves the following:
• Engaging with the public and relevant
stakeholders, including the prviate sector and
community groups;
• Incorporation of information received from the
engagement and collaboration into the plan; and
• Coordiantion that includes inter- and intragovernmental cooperation and collaboration, as appropriate.

Building on the key takeaways that were discussed in
the previous section, the City should utilize a similar approach that was used to conduct public outreach
and engagement throughout the development of the
Baseline Street Study. These engagement strategies
should be expanded to conduct outreach on a citywide
scale versus on a corridor-level. The current LRSP
showed that additional engagement is needed with
stakeholders to fully satisfy the requirements in this
component.

Moving forward, the City should refer to the SelfCertitification Eligibility Worksheet when augmenting the LRSP to ensure that the revised document will be
able to meet the Action Plan components listed on
the checklist. Upon confirmation that each component
has been met, the City will be able to apply for federal funding through the SS4A program.

Packet Page. 1631
0 30 60 90 FT N
0 30 60 90 FT N
0 30 60 90 FT N
Continued in the map below - A
Continued in the map below - A
Continued in the map below - B
Continued in the map below - B
Continued in the map below - C
BASELINE STREET PROPOSED CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONSSAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL (SS4A) SAFETY ACTION PLANCITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Curb Extensions Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Lighting Improvements
High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacon (HAWK) / Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) Traffic Signal Improvements Road DietClass II Bike Lanes
Green Conflit Markings for BicyclistsAdvance Stop BarHigh Visibility Crosswalk - School Areas Legend
High Visibility Crosswalk
SEE EXHIBIT A-2
SEE EXHIBIT A-1
EXHIBIT A-1 EXHIBIT A-2

SEE CONCEPT PLAN
Meridian Ave
Lassen St
Terrace Rd
Baseline Rd Baseline St
Baseline St
Baseline St
Tiajuana St
Baseline St
Baseline St Baseline St
California St
California St
Pennsylvania Ave
Madison St
Wilson St
Hancock St
Medical Center Dr
State St
University Pkwy
Packet Page. 1632
0 30 60 90 FT N
0 30 60 90 FT N
0 30 60 90 FT N
Continued in the map below - D
Continued in the map below - D
Continued in the map below - E
Continued in the map below - E
Continued in the map below - F
Continued in the map below - C
BASELINE STREET PROPOSED CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONSSAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL (SS4A) SAFETY ACTION PLANCITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Curb Extensions Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Lighting Improvements
High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacon (HAWK) / Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) Traffic Signal Improvements Road DietClass II Bike Lanes
Green Conflit Markings for BicyclistsAdvance Stop BarHigh Visibility Crosswalk - School Areas Legend
High Visibility Crosswalk
SEE EXHIBIT B-1
SEE EXHIBIT B-2
SEE EXHIBIT B-3 SEE EXHIBIT B-4
EXHIBIT B-1 EXHIBIT B-2 EXHIBIT B-3 EXHIBIT B-4

SEE CONCEPT PLAN

SEE CONCEPT PLAN SEE CONCEPT PLAN SEE CONCEPT PLAN
Baseline St Baseline St
Baseline St
Garner Ave
Davidson Ave
Massachusetts Ave
K St
Perris St
Perris St
SB On-Ramp SB Off-Ramp
NB Off-Ramp NB On-Ramp
H St
G St
F St
Acacia Ave
Acacia Ave
E St
Stoddard Ave
Berkeley Ave
L St
Baseline St
Baseline St Baseline St
Western Ave
Ramona Ave
Harrington Ave
Mt Vernon Ave

INTERSTATE
210

INTERSTATE
210

INTERSTATE
210

INTERSTATE
210
Packet Page. 1633
0 30 60 90 FT N
0 30 60 90 FT N
0 30 60 90 FT N
0 30 60 90 FT N
Continued in the map below - G
Continued in the map below - G
Continued in the map below - H
Continued in the map below - H
Continued in the map below - I
Continued in the map below - I Continued in the map below - F BASELINE STREET PROPOSED CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONSSAFE STREETS AND ROADS FOR ALL (SS4A) SAFETY ACTION PLANCITY OF SAN BERNARDINO Curb Extensions Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Lighting Improvements
High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacon (HAWK) / Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) Traffic Signal Improvements Road DietClass II Bike Lanes
Green Conflit Markings for BicyclistsAdvance Stop BarHigh Visibility Crosswalk - School Areas Legend
High Visibility Crosswalk
SEE EXHIBIT C-1
SEE EXHIBIT C-2
EXHIBIT C-1 EXHIBIT C-2

SEE CONCEPT PLAN SEE CONCEPT PLAN SEE CONCEPT PLAN SEE CONCEPT PLAN

SEE CONCEPT PLAN
Baseline St Baseline St
Baseline St
Baseline St
Baseline St Baseline St
Baseline St
D St
Mayfield Ave
Arrowhead Ave
Mountain View Ave
Sierra Way
Lugo Ave
Baseline St
Sepulveda Ave
Wall Ave
Belle St
Waterman Ave
Pepper Tree Ln
Crestview Ave
Junita St
Valencia Ave
Windsor Dr
Perris Hill Rd
Tippecanoe Ave
Tippecanoe Ave
Myrtle Dr
Bobbett Dr
Cedar St
Canyon Rd
Barton St
Barton St
Belvan Ave
Genevieve St
Packet Page. 1634

MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE

BASELINE STREET
SAN BERNARDINO SS4A CONCEPTUAL PLANS BASELINE STREET & MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE SCALE 1:40
SIGNAL AHEAD W3-3
= CURB
= EXISTING STRIPING
= RIGHT OF WAY (ROW)
= PROPOSED CURB EXTENSION
= SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
= EXISTING HIGH VISIBILITY

CROSSWALKS
= DRIVEWAYS
= PROPOSED SIGNAL HEADS

SIGNAL TIMING UPGRADES,

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL,

ROAD DIET

REFLECTIVE SIGNAL BACKPLATES
(IF NOT YET INSTALLED)
SIGNAL AHEAD W3-3
SIGNAL AHEAD W3-3
SIGNAL AHEAD W3-3
= PROPOSED SIGNAGE
= EXISTING SIGNAGE
= PROPOSED STRIPING
= REMOVED STRIPING
= EXISTING DIMENSIONS
= PROPOSED DIMENSIONS

PROPOSED CLASS IV BIKE LANES
= PROPOSED FLEXIBLE POST

PROPOSED CLASS IV BIKE LANE
= PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKERS

PROPOSED BIKE LANE
BIKE LANE R3-17
NO PARKING IN BIKE LANE R7-9
BIKE LANE R3-17
NO PARKING IN BIKE LANE R7-9

ADDITIONAL SIGNAL HEADS

PROPOSED NEAR-SIDE

SIGNAL HEAD

PROPOSED NEAR-SIDE

SIGNAL HEAD

ADDITIONAL SIGNAL HEADS

REFLECTIVE SIGNAL BACKPLATES
(IF NOT YET INSTALLED)

ADDITIONAL SIGNAL HEADS

PROPOSED NEAR-SIDE

SIGNAL HEAD

PROPOSED NEAR-SIDE

SIGNAL HEAD
= EXISTING SIGNAL HEADS
Packet Page. 1635

MT VERNON AVENUE

BASELINE STREET
SAN BERNARDINO SS4A CONCEPTUAL PLANS BASELINE STREET & MT VERNON DRIVE SCALE 1:40
= CURB
= EXISTING STRIPING
= RIGHT OF WAY (ROW)
= PROPOSED CURB EXTENSION
= SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
= EXISTING HIGH VISIBILITY

CROSSWALKS
= DRIVEWAYS
= PROPOSED SIGNAL HEADS

SIGNAL TIMING UPGRADES,

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL,

PEDESTRIAN SCRAMBLE, ROAD DIET

REFLECTIVE SIGNAL BACKPLATES
(IF NOT YET INSTALLED)
= PROPOSED SIGNAGE
= EXISTING SIGNAGE
= PROPOSED STRIPING
= REMOVED STRIPING
= EXISTING DIMENSIONS
= PROPOSED DIMENSIONS

PROPOSED CLASS IV BIKE LANES
= PROPOSED FLEXIBLE POST

PROPOSED CLASS IV BIKE LANE
= PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKERS
PROPOSED BIKE LANE BIKE LANE R3-17
NO PARKING IN BIKE LANE R7-9
BIKE LANE R3-17
NO PARKING IN BIKE LANE R7-9
SIGNAL AHEAD W3-3
SIGNAL AHEAD W3-3
SIGNAL AHEAD W3-3
SIGNAL AHEAD W3-3

ADDITIONAL SIGNAL HEADS

ADDITIONAL SIGNAL HEADS

ADDITIONAL SIGNAL HEADS

PROPOSED NEAR-SIDE

SIGNAL HEAD

PROPOSED NEAR-SIDE

SIGNAL HEAD

PROPOSED NEAR-SIDE

SIGNAL HEAD

PROPOSED NEAR-SIDE

SIGNAL HEAD
= EXISTING SIGNAL HEADS
Packet Page. 1636

BASELINE

H STREET

BASELINE
STREET
SAN BERNARDINO SS4A CONCEPTUAL PLANS BASELINE STREET & H STREET SCALE 1:40
= CURB
= EXISTING STRIPING
= RIGHT OF WAY (ROW)
= PROPOSED CURB EXTENSION
= SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
= PROPOSED HIGH VISIBILITY

CROSSWALKS
= DRIVEWAYS
= EXISTING SIGNAL HEADS
= PROPOSED SIGNAGE
= EXISTING SIGNAGE
= PROPOSED STRIPING
= REMOVED STRIPING
= EXISTING DIMENSIONS
= PROPOSED DIMENSIONS
= PROPOSED FLEXIBLE POST
= PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKERS

SIGNAL TIMING UPGRADES,

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL

REFLECTIVE SIGNAL BACKPLATE

REFLECTIVE SIGNAL BACKPLATE

REFLECTIVE SIGNAL BACKPLATE

REFLECTIVE SIGNAL BACKPLATE
BIKE LANE R3-17
NO PARKING IN BIKE LANE R7-9

PROPOSED CLASS II BIKE LANES
= PROPOSED SIGNAL HEADS

PROPOSED LEFT-TURN

LANE EXTENSION
Packet Page. 1637

G STREET

BASELINE STREET

H STREET
STREET
SAN BERNARDINO SS4A CONCEPTUAL PLANS BASELINE STREET & G STREET SCALE 1:40
= CURB
= EXISTING STRIPING
= RIGHT OF WAY (ROW)
= PROPOSED CURB EXTENSION
= SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
= PROPOSED HIGH VISIBILITY

CROSSWALKS
= DRIVEWAYS
= EXISTING SIGNAL HEADS
= PROPOSED SIGNAGE
= EXISTING SIGNAGE
= PROPOSED STRIPING
= REMOVED STRIPING
= EXISTING DIMENSIONS
= PROPOSED DIMENSIONS
= PROPOSED FLEXIBLE POST
= PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKERS

SIGNAL TIMING UPGRADES,

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL

REFLECTIVE SIGNAL BACKPLATE

INTERSECTION LIGHTING

TRAFFIC SIGNAL PEDESTAL UPGRADE

MAST ARM UPGRADE

REFLECTIVE SIGNAL BACKPLATE

TRAFFIC SIGNAL PEDESTAL UPGRADE

INTERSECTION LIGHTING

MAST ARM UPGRADE
BIKE LANE R3-17
NO PARKING IN BIKE LANE R7-9
BIKE LANE R3-17
NO PARKING IN BIKE LANE R7-9

PROPOSED CLASS II BIKE LANES

PROPOSED CLASS II BIKE LANES
= PROPOSED SIGNAL HEADS

UPGRADE LUMINAIRE

ADDITIONAL SIGNAL HEADS

UPGRADE LUMINAIRE

ADDITIONAL SIGNAL HEADS
Packet Page. 1638

BASELINE

E STREET

BASELINE STREET
SAN BERNARDINO SS4A CONCEPTUAL PLANS BASELINE STREET & E STREET SCALE 1:40
= CURB
= EXISTING STRIPING
= RIGHT OF WAY (ROW)
= PROPOSED CURB EXTENSION
= SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
= PROPOSED HIGH VISIBILITY

CROSSWALKS
= DRIVEWAYS
= EXISTING SIGNAL HEADS
= PROPOSED SIGNAGE
= EXISTING SIGNAGE
= PROPOSED STRIPING
= REMOVED STRIPING
= EXISTING DIMENSIONS
= PROPOSED DIMENSIONS
= PROPOSED FLEXIBLE POST
= PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKERS

SIGNAL TIMING UPGRADES,

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL

PROPOSED CLASS II BIKE LANES

PROPOSED CLASS II BIKE LANES

REFLECTIVE SIGNAL BACKPLATE

PROTECTED ONLY LEFT-TURN

MAST ARM UPGRADE

REFLECTIVE SIGNAL BACKPLATE

PROTECTED ONLY LEFT-TURN

MAST ARM UPGRADE REFLECTIVE SIGNAL BACKPLATE

REFLECTIVE SIGNAL BACKPLATE
BIKE LANE R3-17
NO PARKING IN BIKE LANE R7-9
BIKE LANE R3-17
NO PARKING IN BIKE LANE R7-9
SIGNAL AHEAD W3-3
SIGNAL AHEAD W3-3
= PROPOSED SIGNAL HEADS
Packet Page. 1639

BASELINE

D STREET

BASELINE STREET

E STREET
STREET
SAN BERNARDINO SS4A CONCEPTUAL PLANS BASELINE STREET & D STREET SCALE 1:40
= CURB
= EXISTING STRIPING
= RIGHT OF WAY (ROW)
= PROPOSED CURB EXTENSION
= SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
= PROPOSED HIGH VISIBILITY

CROSSWALKS
= DRIVEWAYS
= EXISTING SIGNAL HEADS
= PROPOSED SIGNAGE
= EXISTING SIGNAGE
= PROPOSED STRIPING
= REMOVED STRIPING
= EXISTING DIMENSIONS
= PROPOSED DIMENSIONS
= PROPOSED FLEXIBLE POST
= PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKERS

SIGNAL TIMING UPGRADES,

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL

PROPOSED CLASS II BIKE LANES

PROPOSED CLASS II BIKE LANES
BIKE LANE R3-17
NO PARKING IN BIKE LANE R7-9
BIKE LANE R3-17
NO PARKING IN BIKE LANE R7-9
= PROPOSED SIGNAL HEADS
Packet Page. 1640

ARROWHEAD AVENUE

BASELINE STREET

D STREET
STREET
SAN BERNARDINO SS4A CONCEPTUAL PLANS BASELINE STREET & ARROWHEAD AVENUE SCALE 1:40
= CURB
= EXISTING STRIPING
= RIGHT OF WAY (ROW)
= PROPOSED CURB EXTENSION
= SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
= PROPOSED HIGH VISIBILITY

CROSSWALKS
= DRIVEWAYS
= EXISTING SIGNAL HEADS
= PROPOSED SIGNAGE
= EXISTING SIGNAGE
= PROPOSED STRIPING
= REMOVED STRIPING
= EXISTING DIMENSIONS
= PROPOSED DIMENSIONS
= PROPOSED FLEXIBLE POST
= PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKERS

SIGNAL TIMING UPGRADES,

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL

REFLECTIVE SIGNAL BACKPLATES
(IF NOT YET INSTALLED)

PROPOSED CLASS II BIKE LANES

REFLECTIVE SIGNAL BACKPLATES
(IF NOT YET INSTALLED)
PROPOSED CLASS II BIKE LANES NO PARKING IN BIKE LANE R7-9 NO PARKING IN BIKE LANE R7-9

ADDITIONAL SIGNAL HEADS

ADDITIONAL SIGNAL HEADS
= PROPOSED SIGNAL HEADS
Packet Page. 1641

BASELINE STREET SIERRA WAY

BASELINE STREET LUGO AVENUE
SAN BERNARDINO SS4A CONCEPTUAL PLANS BASELINE STREET & SIERRA AVENUE SCALE 1:40
= CURB
= EXISTING STRIPING
= RIGHT OF WAY (ROW)
= PROPOSED CURB EXTENSION
= SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
= EXISTING HIGH VISIBILITY

CROSSWALKS
= DRIVEWAYS
= PROPOSED SIGNAL HEADS
= PROPOSED SIGNAGE
= EXISTING SIGNAGE
= PROPOSED STRIPING
= REMOVED STRIPING
= EXISTING DIMENSIONS
= PROPOSED DIMENSIONS
= PROPOSED FLEXIBLE POST
= PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKERS

SIGNAL TIMING UPGRADES,

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL

REFLECTIVE SIGNAL BACKPLATES
(IF NOT YET INSTALLED)

PROPOSED CLASS II BIKE LANES

PROPOSED CLASS II BIKE LANES
NO PARKING IN BIKE LANE R7-9
NO PARKING IN BIKE LANE R7-9

ADDITIONAL SIGNAL HEADS

PROPOSED NEAR-SIDE

SIGNAL HEAD

ADDITIONAL SIGNAL HEADS

PROPOSED NEAR-SIDE

SIGNAL HEAD
= EXISTING SIGNAL HEADS
Packet Page. 1642

BASELINE STREET SIERRA WAY

BASELINE STREET LUGO AVENUE
SAN BERNARDINO SS4A CONCEPTUAL PLANS BASELINE STREET & LUGO AVENUE SCALE 1:40
= CURB
= EXISTING STRIPING
= RIGHT OF WAY (ROW)
= PROPOSED CURB EXTENSION
= SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
= EXISTING HIGH VISIBILITY

CROSSWALKS
= DRIVEWAYS
= PROPOSED SIGNAL HEADS
= PROPOSED SIGNAGE
= EXISTING SIGNAGE
= PROPOSED STRIPING
= REMOVED STRIPING
= EXISTING DIMENSIONS
= PROPOSED DIMENSIONS
= PROPOSED FLEXIBLE POST
= PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKERS

INSTALL HAWK SIGNAL

STOP SIGN FLASHING BEACON

PROPOSED CLASS II BIKE LANES

PROPOSED

YIELD LINES

PROPOSED CLASS II BIKE LANES

PROPOSED

YIELD LINES

STOP SIGN FLASHING BEACON

YIELD HERE FOR

PEDESTRIANS
SIGN R1-5(LT)

YIELD HERE FOR

PEDESTRIANS
SIGN R1-5(LT)
NO PARKING IN BIKE LANE R7-9
NO PARKING IN BIKE LANE R7-9

CROSS STREET

DOES NOT STOP
SIGN W4-4P
= EXISTING SIGNAL HEADS
Packet Page. 1643

BASELINE STREET WATERMAN AVENUE
SAN BERNARDINO SS4A CONCEPTUAL PLANS BASELINE STREET & WATERMAN AVENUE SCALE 1:40
= CURB
= EXISTING STRIPING
= RIGHT OF WAY (ROW)
= PROPOSED CURB EXTENSION
= EXISTING HIGH VISIBILITY

CROSSWALKS
= DRIVEWAYS
= PROPOSED SIGNAL HEADS

SIGNAL TIMING UPGRADES,

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL

REFLECTIVE SIGNAL BACKPLATES
(IF NOT YET INSTALLED)
= PROPOSED SIGNAGE
= EXISTING SIGNAGE
= PROPOSED STRIPING
= REMOVED STRIPING
= EXISTING DIMENSIONS
= PROPOSED DIMENSIONS
= PROPOSED FLEXIBLE POST
RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT R3-7
RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT R3-7

PROPOSED CLASS II BIKE LANES

PROPOSED CLASS II BIKE LANES
BIKE LANE R3-17
NO PARKING IN BIKE LANE R7-9
BIKE LANE R3-17
NO PARKING IN BIKE LANE R7-9
SIGNAL AHEAD W3-3
SIGNAL AHEAD W3-3
= SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
= PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKERS
= EXISTING SIGNAL HEADS
Packet Page. 1644
Preliminary Engineers Cost Estimate
City: San Bernardino
Project: Baseline Street Study Analysis and Strategy Design Phase: Conceptual
Date: 5/12/2026
ITEM NO. REF

CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL P1 Remove Type 1-A complete 2 EA 1,950 $ 3,900 $
P4 Remove Type 19 complete 5 EA 2,000 $ 10,00 $ 0
P8 Install 20' mast arm complete 1 EA 2,350 $ 2,350 $
P9 Install 25' mast arm complete 6 EA 3,300 $ 19,80 $ 0 P10 Install 30' mast arm complete 1 EA 3,600 $ 3,600 $
P17 Install Type 17 standard and foundation complete 1 EA 9,500 $ 9,500 $ P18 Install Type 19 standard and foundation complete 3 EA 12,00 $ 36,00 0 $ 0 P19 Install Type 24 standard and foundation complete 4 EA 17,00 $ 68,00 0 $ 0 Install Pedestrian Scramble 1 EA 150,00 $ 150,00 0 $ 0
Signal Timing Upgrades with Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 9 EA 3,000 $ 27,00 $ 0 VH1 Remove vehicle head and mounting 25 EA 365 $ 9,125 $ PH1 Remove pedestrian head and mounting 11 EA 300 $ 3,300 $ PPB1 Remove pedestrian push button 7 EA 150 $ 1,050 $
VH2 Install 3-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 32 EA 1,250 $ 40,00 $ 0 VH4 Install 5-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 14 EA 3,000 $ 42,00 $ 0 VH7 Install VH retroreflective border on blackplate 70 EA 150 $ 10,50 $ 0 PH2 Install LED countdown pedestrian head with mounting 11 EA 1,650 $ 18,15 $ 0 PPB2 Install Type B pedestrian push button 7 EA 750 $ 5,250 $ L1 Remove HPSV luminaire 11 EA 350 $ 3,850 $
L3 Install LED luminaire complete 13 EA 800 $ 10,40 $ 0 ST1 Remove stripe 1,205 LF 1 $ 1,205 $
ST2 Install stripe 7,440 LF 2 $ 14,88 $ 0
ST3 Install pavement marking 95 EA 500 $ 47,50 $ 0
ST5 Install white continental crosswalk 10,615 SF 7 $ 74,305 $ ST6 Remove pavement marking 2 EA 300 $ 600 $
M7 K71-Type bollard delineator 24 EA 225 $ 5,400 $
S3 Install sign panel & post 32 EA 550 $ 17,60 $ 0
S4 Install sign panel 5 EA 500 $ 2,500 $
Install High intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) 1 EA 300,00 $ 300,00 0 $ 0 Install Stop-Sign Flashing Beacon 2 EA 500 $ 1,000 $
AC1 Demo/unclassified excavation. 361 CY $ 36,089 100 $ AC3 AC pavement (slot patch & base course). 180 TON 125 $ 22,55 $ 6 M1 CMB 180 TON 100 $ 18,04 $ 4
PCC3 Install curb and gutter 2,510 LF 40 $ 100,40 $ 0
PCC7 Install sidewalk 9,744 SF 8 $ 77,952 $
PCC8 Install curb ramp 76 EA 4,000 $ 304,00 $ 0
$ 1,497,806
$ 299,561
$ 224,671
$ 149,781
$ 149,781
$ 2,321,599
Civil Improvements
Traffic Improvements
Contingency (20%)
Construction Engineering (15%)
Mobilization (10%)
Traffic Control (10%)
TOTAL

SUBTOTAL
5/12/2026
Packet Page. 1645
Medical Center Drive
Mt Vernon AvenueH StreetG StreetE StreetD StreetArrowhead AvenueSierra WayLugo AvenueWaterman AvenueTOTAL P1 Remove Type 1-A complete 2 2 EA
P4 Remove Type 19 complete 1 2 2 5 EA
P8 Install 20' mast arm complete 1 1 EA
P9 Install 25' mast arm complete 1 1 2 2 6 EA
P10 Install 30' mast arm complete 1 1 EA
P17 Install Type 17 standard and foundation complete 1 1 EA P18 Install Type 19 standard and foundation complete 1 2 3 EA P19 Install Type 24 standard and foundation complete 2 2 4 EA Install Pedestrian Scramble 11 EA
Signal Timing Upgrades with Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 EA VH1 Remove vehicle head and mounting 4 4 2 7 4 4 25 EA
PH1 Remove pedestrian head and mounting 1 6 2 2 11 EA
PPB1 Remove pedestrian push button 12 2 2 7EA
VH2 Install 3-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 5 4 1 4 6 4 6 2 32 EA VH4 Install 5-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 2 4 2 2 2 2 14 EA VH7 Install VH retroreflective border on blackplate 9 11 17 4 15 6 5 3 70 EA PH2 Install LED countdown pedestrian head with mounting 1 6 2 2 11 EA PPB2 Install Type B pedestrian push button 12 2 2 7EA
L1 Remove HPSV luminaire 1 4 22 2 11 EA
L3 Install LED luminaire complete 1 4 42 2 13 EA
ST1 Remove stripe 460 380 365 1,205 LF
ST2 Install stripe 1,080 1,115 1,045 625 605 560 600 590 760 460 7,440 LF ST3 Install pavement marking 8 8 5 10 10 10 10 10 14 10 95 EA ST5 Install white continental crosswalk 2,750 2,490 2,560 2,215 600 10,615 SF ST6 Remove pavement marking 11 2 EA
M7 K71-Type bollard delineator 12 12 24 EA
S3 Install sign panel & post 5 5 1 2 4 2 2 2 4 5 32 EA
S4 Install sign panel 1 1 2 1 5 EA
Install High intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) 1 1EA Install Stop-Sign Flashing Beacon 2 2 EA
AC1 Demo/unclassified excavation. 57 72 19 26 30 28 31 24 22 51 361 CY AC3 AC pavement (slot patch & base course). 28 36 10 13 15 14 16 12 11 26 180 TON M1 CMB 28 36 10 13 15 14 16 12 11 26 180 TON
PCC3 Install curb and gutter 370 410 135 205 240 240 225 210 190 285 2,510 LF PCC7 Install sidewalk 1,535 1,940 520 695 819 755 840 650 600 1,390 9,744 SF PCC8 Install curb ramp 8 8 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 76 EA
Curb Ramp Area (SF) 1535 1940 520 695 819 755 840 650 600 1390 Curb Ramp Volume (CF) 1535 1940 520 695 819 755 840 650 600 1390 Curb Ramp Volume (CY) 57 72 19 26 30 28 31 24 22 51
Packet Page. 1646
Category Ref # Improvement Unit Unit Price
P1 Remove Type 1-A complete EA $1,950
P2 Remove Type 16 complete EA $1,800
P3 Remove Type 17 complete EA $1,500
P3.1 Remove Type 18 complete EA $1,800
P4 Remove Type 19 complete EA $2,000
P5 Remove Type 24 complete EA $3,000
P6 Remove Type 26 complete EA $3,000
P7 Remove Type 29 complete EA $3,800
P7.1 Install 15' mast arm complete EA $2,100
P8 Install 20' mast arm complete EA $2,350
P9 Install 25' mast arm complete EA $3,300
P10 Install 30' mast arm complete EA $3,600
P11 Install 35' mast arm complete EA $4,200
P12 Install 40' mast arm complete EA $4,200
P13 Install 45' mast arm complete EA $4,800
P13.1 Install 55' mast arm complete EA $3,500
P14 Install PPB Post and foundation complete EA $2,050
P15 Install Type 1-A standard and foundation complete EA $3,650 P16 Install Type 15 standard and foundation complete EA $6,500 P16.1 Install Type 16 standard and foundation complete EA $8,000 P17 Install Type 17 standard and foundation complete EA $9,500 P18 Install Type 19 standard and foundation complete EA $12,000 P18.1 Install Type 23 standard and foundation complete EA $16,500 P19 Install Type 24 standard and foundation complete EA $17,000 P20 Install Type 26 standard and foundation complete EA $17,500 P21 Install Type 29 standard and foundation complete EA $18,500 P22 Install Type 61 standard and foundation complete EA $23,500 P23 Remove Type 15 complete EA $1,500
P24 Remove Type 58J complete EA $2,000
P25 Remove mast arm. EA $1,000
VH1 Remove vehicle head and mounting EA $365
PH1 Remove pedestrian head and mounting EA $300
PPB1 Remove pedestrian push button EA $150
PPB4 Remove push button. Plate to smooth finish EA $500 VH2 Install 3-12" LED vehicle head with mounting EA $1,250 VH3 Install 4-12" LED vehicle head with mounting EA $1,650 VH4 Install 5-12" LED vehicle head with mounting EA $3,000 VH5 Repaint existing vehicle head backplate and visor EA $150 VH6 Remove and reinstall decorative base, repaint decorative base EA $200 VH7 Install VH retroreflective border on blackplate EA $150 PH2 Install LED countdown pedestrian head with mounting EA $1,650 PPB2 Install Type B pedestrian push button EA $750
PPB3 Install APS pedestrian push button EA $2,000
L1 Remove HPSV luminaire EA $350
L2 Remove luminaire mast arm & luminaire EA $500
L3 Install LED luminaire complete EA $800
L4 Install 12' luminaire mast arm and luminaire complete EA $1,850 L5 Install 15' luminaire mast arm and luminaire complete EA $1,950 L6 Install 15' luminaire mast arm EA $2,100
L7 Remove luminaire mast arm EA $1,000
L8 Relocate luminaire EA $700
C1 Remove controller cabinet and foundation EA $2,500
C2 Remove service cabinet and foundation EA $2,000
C3 Install 332 controller cabinet complete EA $25,000
C4 Install service meter cabinet complete EA $7,500
C5 Install new cabinet complete with 2070ATC controller EA $30,000 C6 Install 2070ATC controller with OMNI eX controller program EA $5,000 C7 Install Safety Monitor (2010ECLip) EA $3,000
C8 Install battery backup system and cabinet complete EA $5,000 C9 Install GPS Time Source Unit Module EA $1,000
C10 Replace BBS batteries and rewire as needed LS $2,000 C11 Install ethernet switch EA $3,300
C12 Remove pole mounted service meter EA $1,000
C13 Install 332 controller cabinet complete EA $25,000
C14 Install McCain ATX Flex controller program EA $5,000 C15 Furnish and install Type III-BF service cabinet and foundation complete EA $22,000 I1 Remove video detection camera EA $1,000
I2 Remove wireless antenna EA $1,000
I3 Relocate wireless antenna EA $1,500
I4 Relocate existing CCTV camera EA $1,500
I5 Relocate existing video detection EA $1,500
I6 Install EVP LS $10,000
I7 Install Iteris Vector Hybrid Video Detection System complete. (4 cameras) LS $32,000 Vehicle Heads,
Pedestrian
Heads, and
Pedestrian
Push Buttons
ITS Elements
Luminaires and
Luminaire
Mast Arms
Controller
Cabinet,
Service, and
Internal
Elements
Traffic Signal
Signal Poles
and Mast Arms
Packet Page. 1647
Category Ref # Improvement Unit Unit Price
I8 Install two (2) Iteris Vector Hybrid and two (2) Iteris RZ4 video detection cameras (4 cameras total) LS $28,600 I9 Install Gridsmart Video Detection System complete. (2 cameras) LS $22,102 I10 Re-wire intersection LS $15,000
I11 Relocate EVP EA $1,500
I12 Wiring and integration LS $5,000
I13 Install #10 wire LF $2
I14 Install 48 single mode fiber optic cable LF $13
PB1 Remove pull box complete and repair concrete panel EA $500 PB2 Install #6E pull box EA $1,200
PB3 Install #6 pull box EA $1,000
PB4 Install N48E splice vault EA $1,200
PB5 Remove pull box EA $150
CO1 Install 2" conduit LF $55
CO2 Install 3" conduit LF $70
CO3 Install 4" conduit LF $60
CO4 Install 1.5" galvanized rigid steel conduit LF $30
TSS1 Remove sign LS $150
TSS2 Relocate sign EA $200
TSS3 Relocate Reflectorized Street Name Sign EA $550
TSS4 Install sign on mast arm EA $800
TSS5 Install RSNS EA $1,100
TSS6 Install LED IISNS EA $2,500
TSS7 Remove IISNS EA $500
TSS8 Install sign on pole EA $250
TSS9 Remove RSNS EA $200
TSC1 Clean and paint existing Type 1-A EA $500
TSC2 Clean and paint existing Type 19 & mast arm EA $1,000 TSC3 Decorative base (Type 1-A) EA $2,000
TSC4 Decorative base (Type 19 & 26) EA $3,000
TSC5 Decorative pole toper EA $800
TSC6 Decorative luminaire mast arm EA $2,300
TSC7 Decorative LED luminaire EA $500
TSC8 Install Type E detector loops EA $700
TSC9 Install Type D detector loops EA $700
TSC10 Remove and reinstall decorative base, repaint decorative base EA $200 PCC1 Remove curb and gutter LF $5
PCC2 Remove sidewalk, curb ramps, and driveways SF $2
PCC3 Install curb and gutter LF $40
PCC4 Install curb only LF $30
PCC5 Install cross-gutter or bus pad SF $15
PCC6 Install bus pad SF $15
PCC7 Install sidewalk SF $8
PCC8 Install curb ramp EA $4,000
PCC9 Install driveway SF $15
AC1 Demo/unclassified excavation. CY $100
AC2 Cold mill AC pavement, variable depth. SF $0.5
AC3 AC pavement (slot patch & base course). TON $125
AC4 ARHM TON $100
U1 Remove & replace utility box/cover EA $950
U2 Adjust manhole to grade EA $1,200
U2 Adjust valve cover to grade EA $500
U4 Modify water service line EA $1,000
LI1 Remove tree EA $800
LI2 Top soil and grading CY $100
LI3 Landscape and irrigation modification SF $8
M1 CMB TON $100
M3 Cobble stone SF $11
M4 Install metal hand railing LF $100
M5 Remove street light EA $1,000
M6 Relocate street light EA $1,500
M7 K71-Type bollard delineator EA $225
M8 Wheel stop EA $100
PCC
Conduit and
Pull Boxes
Custom
ITS Elements
MISC.

Utilities
AC
Civil
Landscaping
and Irrigation
Signage
Packet Page. 1648
Category Ref # Improvement Unit Unit Price
ST1 Remove stripe LF $1
ST2 Install stripe LF $2
ST3 Install pavement marking EA $500
ST4 Install yellow continental crosswalk SF $7
ST5 Install white continental crosswalk SF $7
ST6 Remove pavement marking EA $300
ST7 Install green conflict zone striping SF $7
ST8 Install red, yellow, or blue curb. LF $2
ST9 Remove continental crosswalk SF $1
S1 Remove sign panel & post EA $150
S2 Remove sign panel EA $50
S3 Install sign panel & post EA $550
S4 Install sign panel EA $500
S5 Relocate sign panel and/or post EA $250
S6 Install rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) EA $15,000 S7 Install Bike Blvd Sign Topper EA $100
Signage
Striping
Signing and
Striping
Packet Page. 1649
Preliminary Engineers Cost Estimate
City: San Bernardino
Project: Baseline Street Study Analysis and Strategy Design Phase: Conceptual - Medical Center Drive
Date: 5/12/2026
ITEM NO. REF

CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL P1 Remove Type 1-A complete 0 EA 1,950 $ - $
P4 Remove Type 19 complete 1 EA 2,000 $ 2,000 $
P8 Install 20' mast arm complete 0 EA 2,350 $ - $
P9 Install 25' mast arm complete 1 EA 3,300 $ 3,300 $
P10 Install 30' mast arm complete 0 EA 3,600 $ - $
P17 Install Type 17 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 9,500 $ - $ P18 Install Type 19 standard and foundation complete 1 EA 12,00 $ 12,00 0 $ 0 P19 Install Type 24 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 17,00 $ - 0 $ Install Pedestrian Scramble 0 EA 150,00 $ - 0 $
Signal Timing Upgrades with Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 1 EA 3,000 $ 3,000 $ VH1 Remove vehicle head and mounting 4 EA 365 $ 1,460 $ PH1 Remove pedestrian head and mounting 1 EA 300 $ 300 $ PPB1 Remove pedestrian push button 1 EA 150 $ 150 $
VH2 Install 3-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 5 EA 1,250 $ 6,250 $ VH4 Install 5-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 2 EA 3,000 $ 6,000 $ VH7 Install VH retroreflective border on blackplate 9 EA 150 $ 1,350 $ PH2 Install LED countdown pedestrian head with mounting 1 EA 1,650 $ 1,650 $ PPB2 Install Type B pedestrian push button 1 EA 750 $ 750 $ L1 Remove HPSV luminaire 1 EA 350 $ 350 $
L3 Install LED luminaire complete 1 EA 800 $ 800 $
ST1 Remove stripe 460 LF 1 $ 460 $
ST2 Install stripe 1,080 LF 2 $ 2,160 $
ST3 Install pavement marking 8 EA 500 $ 4,000 $
ST5 Install white continental crosswalk 0 SF 7 $ - $
ST6 Remove pavement marking 1 EA 300 $ 300 $
M7 K71-Type bollard delineator 12 EA 225 $ 2,700 $
S3 Install sign panel & post 5 EA 550 $ 2,750 $
S4 Install sign panel 1 EA 500 $ 500 $
Install High intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) 0 EA 300,00 $ - 0 $ Install Stop-Sign Flashing Beacon 0 EA 500 $ - $
AC1 Demo/unclassified excavation. 57 CY $ 5,685 100 $
AC3 AC pavement (slot patch & base course). 28 TON 125 $ 3,553 $ M1 CMB 28 TON 100 $ 2,843 $
PCC3 Install curb and gutter 370 LF 40 $ 14,80 $ 0
PCC7 Install sidewalk 1,535 SF 8 $ 12,28 $ 0
PCC8 Install curb ramp 8 EA 4,000 $ 32,00 $ 0
$ 123,391
$ 24,678
$ 18,509
$ 12,339
$ 12,339
$ 191,256
Traffic Control (10%)
TOTAL
Traffic Improvements
Civil Improvements

SUBTOTAL
Contingency (20%)
Construction Engineering (15%)
Mobilization (10%)
5/12/2026
Packet Page. 1650
Preliminary Engineers Cost Estimate
City: San Bernardino
Project: Baseline Street Study Analysis and Strategy Design Phase: Conceptual - Mt Vernon Avenue
Date: 5/12/2026
ITEM NO. REF

CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL P1 Remove Type 1-A complete 0 EA 1,950 $ - $
P4 Remove Type 19 complete 0 EA 2,000 $ - $
P8 Install 20' mast arm complete 0 EA 2,350 $ - $
P9 Install 25' mast arm complete 0 EA 3,300 $ - $
P10 Install 30' mast arm complete 0 EA 3,600 $ - $
P17 Install Type 17 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 9,500 $ - $ P18 Install Type 19 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 12,00 $ - 0 $ P19 Install Type 24 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 17,00 $ - 0 $ Install Pedestrian Scramble 1 EA 150,00 $ 150,00 0 $ 0
Signal Timing Upgrades with Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 1 EA 3,000 $ 3,000 $ VH1 Remove vehicle head and mounting 4 EA 365 $ 1,460 $ PH1 Remove pedestrian head and mounting 0 EA 300 $ - $
PPB1 Remove pedestrian push button 0 EA 150 $ - $
VH2 Install 3-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 4 EA 1,250 $ 5,000 $ VH4 Install 5-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 4 EA 3,000 $ 12,00 $ 0 VH7 Install VH retroreflective border on blackplate 11 EA 150 $ 1,650 $ PH2 Install LED countdown pedestrian head with mounting 0 EA 1,650 $ - $ PPB2 Install Type B pedestrian push button 0 EA 750 $ - $ L1 Remove HPSV luminaire 0 EA 350 $ - $
L3 Install LED luminaire complete 0 EA 800 $ - $
ST1 Remove stripe 380 LF 1 $ 380 $
ST2 Install stripe 1,115 LF 2 $ 2,230 $
ST3 Install pavement marking 8 EA 500 $ 4,000 $
ST5 Install white continental crosswalk 2,750 SF 7 $ 19,25 $ 0 ST6 Remove pavement marking 1 EA 300 $ 300 $
M7 K71-Type bollard delineator 12 EA 225 $ 2,700 $
S3 Install sign panel & post 5 EA 550 $ 2,750 $
S4 Install sign panel 1 EA 500 $ 500 $
Install High intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) 0 EA 300,00 $ - 0 $ Install Stop-Sign Flashing Beacon 0 EA 500 $ - $
AC1 Demo/unclassified excavation. 72 CY $ 7,185 100 $
AC3 AC pavement (slot patch & base course). 36 TON 125 $ 4,491 $ M1 CMB 36 TON 100 $ 3,593 $
PCC3 Install curb and gutter 410 LF 40 $ 16,40 $ 0
PCC7 Install sidewalk 1,940 SF 8 $ 15,52 $ 0
PCC8 Install curb ramp 8 EA 4,000 $ 32,00 $ 0
$ 284,409
$ 56,882
$ 42,661
$ 28,441
$ 28,441
$ 440,833
Traffic Control (10%)
TOTAL
Traffic Improvements
Civil Improvements

SUBTOTAL
Contingency (20%)
Construction Engineering (15%)
Mobilization (10%)
5/12/2026
Packet Page. 1651
Preliminary Engineers Cost Estimate
City: San Bernardino
Project: Baseline Street Study Analysis and Strategy Design Phase: Conceptual - H Street
Date: 5/12/2026
ITEM NO. REF

CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL P1 Remove Type 1-A complete 0 EA 1,950 $ - $
P4 Remove Type 19 complete 0 EA 2,000 $ - $
P8 Install 20' mast arm complete 0 EA 2,350 $ - $
P9 Install 25' mast arm complete 0 EA 3,300 $ - $
P10 Install 30' mast arm complete 0 EA 3,600 $ - $
P17 Install Type 17 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 9,500 $ - $ P18 Install Type 19 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 12,00 $ - 0 $ P19 Install Type 24 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 17,00 $ - 0 $ Install Pedestrian Scramble 0 EA 150,00 $ - 0 $
Signal Timing Upgrades with Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 1 EA 3,000 $ 3,000 $ VH1 Remove vehicle head and mounting 2 EA 365 $ 730 $
PH1 Remove pedestrian head and mounting 0 EA 300 $ - $
PPB1 Remove pedestrian push button 0 EA 150 $ - $
VH2 Install 3-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 1 EA 1,250 $ 1,250 $ VH4 Install 5-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 2 EA 3,000 $ 6,000 $ VH7 Install VH retroreflective border on blackplate 17 EA 150 $ 2,550 $ PH2 Install LED countdown pedestrian head with mounting 0 EA 1,650 $ - $ PPB2 Install Type B pedestrian push button 0 EA 750 $ - $ L1 Remove HPSV luminaire 4 EA 350 $ 1,400 $
L3 Install LED luminaire complete 4 EA 800 $ 3,200 $
ST1 Remove stripe 365 LF 1 $ 365 $
ST2 Install stripe 1,045 LF 2 $ 2,090 $
ST3 Install pavement marking 5 EA 500 $ 2,500 $
ST5 Install white continental crosswalk 0 SF 7 $ - $
ST6 Remove pavement marking 0 EA 300 $ - $
M7 K71-Type bollard delineator 0 EA 225 $ - $
S3 Install sign panel & post 1 EA 550 $ 550 $
S4 Install sign panel 0 EA 500 $ - $
Install High intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) 0 EA 300,00 $ - 0 $ Install Stop-Sign Flashing Beacon 0 EA 500 $ - $
AC1 Demo/unclassified excavation. 19 CY $ 1,926 100 $
AC3 AC pavement (slot patch & base course). 10 TON 125 $ 1,20 $ 4 M1 CMB 10 TON 100 $ 963 $
PCC3 Install curb and gutter 135 LF 40 $ 5,400 $
PCC7 Install sidewalk 520 SF 8 $ 4,160 $
PCC8 Install curb ramp 4 EA 4,000 $ 16,00 $ 0
$ 53,288
$ 10,658
$ 7,993
$ 5,329
$ 5,329
$ 82,596
Traffic Control (10%)
TOTAL
Traffic Improvements
Civil Improvements

SUBTOTAL
Contingency (20%)
Construction Engineering (15%)
Mobilization (10%)
5/12/2026
Packet Page. 1652
Preliminary Engineers Cost Estimate
City: San Bernardino
Project: Baseline Street Study Analysis and Strategy Design Phase: Conceptual - G Street
Date: 5/12/2026
ITEM NO. REF

CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL P1 Remove Type 1-A complete 2 EA 1,950 $ 3,900 $
P4 Remove Type 19 complete 0 EA 2,000 $ - $
P8 Install 20' mast arm complete 1 EA 2,350 $ 2,350 $
P9 Install 25' mast arm complete 1 EA 3,300 $ 3,300 $
P10 Install 30' mast arm complete 1 EA 3,600 $ 3,600 $
P17 Install Type 17 standard and foundation complete 1 EA 9,500 $ 9,500 $ P18 Install Type 19 standard and foundation complete 2 EA 12,00 $ 24,00 0 $ 0 P19 Install Type 24 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 17,00 $ - 0 $ Install Pedestrian Scramble 0 EA 150,00 $ - 0 $
Signal Timing Upgrades with Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 1 EA 3,000 $ 3,000 $ VH1 Remove vehicle head and mounting 7 EA 365 $ 2,555 $ PH1 Remove pedestrian head and mounting 6 EA 300 $ 1,800 $ PPB1 Remove pedestrian push button 2 EA 150 $ 300 $
VH2 Install 3-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 4 EA 1,250 $ 5,000 $ VH4 Install 5-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 2 EA 3,000 $ 6,000 $ VH7 Install VH retroreflective border on blackplate 4 EA 150 $ 600 $ PH2 Install LED countdown pedestrian head with mounting 6 EA 1,650 $ 9,900 $ PPB2 Install Type B pedestrian push button 2 EA 750 $ 1,500 $ L1 Remove HPSV luminaire 2 EA 350 $ 700 $
L3 Install LED luminaire complete 4 EA 800 $ 3,200 $
ST1 Remove stripe 0 LF 1 $ - $
ST2 Install stripe 625 LF 2 $ 1,250 $
ST3 Install pavement marking 10 EA 500 $ 5,000 $
ST5 Install white continental crosswalk 0 SF 7 $ - $
ST6 Remove pavement marking 0 EA 300 $ - $
M7 K71-Type bollard delineator 0 EA 225 $ - $
S3 Install sign panel & post 2 EA 550 $ 1,100 $
S4 Install sign panel 0 EA 500 $ - $
Install High intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) 0 EA 300,00 $ - 0 $ Install Stop-Sign Flashing Beacon 0 EA 500 $ - $
AC1 Demo/unclassified excavation. 26 CY $ 2,57 100 $ 4
AC3 AC pavement (slot patch & base course). 13 TON 125 $ 1,609 $ M1 CMB 13 TON 100 $ 1,287 $
PCC3 Install curb and gutter 205 LF 40 $ 8,200 $
PCC7 Install sidewalk 695 SF 8 $ 5,560 $
PCC8 Install curb ramp 8 EA 4,000 $ 32,00 $ 0
$ 139,785
$ 27,957
$ 20,968
$ 13,978
$ 13,978
$ 216,667
Traffic Control (10%)
TOTAL
Traffic Improvements
Civil Improvements

SUBTOTAL
Contingency (20%)
Construction Engineering (15%)
Mobilization (10%)
5/12/2026
Packet Page. 1653
Preliminary Engineers Cost Estimate
City: San Bernardino
Project: Baseline Street Study Analysis and Strategy Design Phase: Conceptual - E Street
Date: 5/12/2026
ITEM NO. REF

CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL P1 Remove Type 1-A complete 0 EA 1,950 $ - $
P4 Remove Type 19 complete 2 EA 2,000 $ 4,000 $
P8 Install 20' mast arm complete 0 EA 2,350 $ - $
P9 Install 25' mast arm complete 2 EA 3,300 $ 6,600 $
P10 Install 30' mast arm complete 0 EA 3,600 $ - $
P17 Install Type 17 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 9,500 $ - $ P18 Install Type 19 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 12,00 $ - 0 $ P19 Install Type 24 standard and foundation complete 2 EA 17,00 $ 34,00 0 $ 0 Install Pedestrian Scramble 0 EA 150,00 $ - 0 $
Signal Timing Upgrades with Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 1 EA 3,000 $ 3,000 $ VH1 Remove vehicle head and mounting 4 EA 365 $ 1,460 $ PH1 Remove pedestrian head and mounting 2 EA 300 $ 600 $ PPB1 Remove pedestrian push button 2 EA 150 $ 300 $
VH2 Install 3-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 6 EA 1,250 $ 7,500 $ VH4 Install 5-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 2 EA 3,000 $ 6,000 $ VH7 Install VH retroreflective border on blackplate 15 EA 150 $ 2,250 $ PH2 Install LED countdown pedestrian head with mounting 2 EA 1,650 $ 3,300 $ PPB2 Install Type B pedestrian push button 2 EA 750 $ 1,500 $ L1 Remove HPSV luminaire 2 EA 350 $ 700 $
L3 Install LED luminaire complete 2 EA 800 $ 1,600 $
ST1 Remove stripe 0 LF 1 $ - $
ST2 Install stripe 605 LF 2 $ 1,210 $
ST3 Install pavement marking 10 EA 500 $ 5,000 $
ST5 Install white continental crosswalk 0 SF 7 $ - $
ST6 Remove pavement marking 0 EA 300 $ - $
M7 K71-Type bollard delineator 0 EA 225 $ - $
S3 Install sign panel & post 4 EA 550 $ 2,200 $
S4 Install sign panel 0 EA 500 $ - $
Install High intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) 0 EA 300,00 $ - 0 $ Install Stop-Sign Flashing Beacon 0 EA 500 $ - $
AC1 Demo/unclassified excavation. 30 CY $ 3,033 100 $
AC3 AC pavement (slot patch & base course). 15 TON 125 $ 1,896 $ M1 CMB 15 TON 100 $ 1,517 $
PCC3 Install curb and gutter 240 LF 40 $ 9,600 $
PCC7 Install sidewalk 819 SF 8 $ 6,552 $
PCC8 Install curb ramp 8 EA 4,000 $ 32,00 $ 0
$ 135,818
$ 27,164
$ 20,373
$ 13,582
$ 13,582
$ 210,518
Traffic Control (10%)
TOTAL
Traffic Improvements
Civil Improvements

SUBTOTAL
Contingency (20%)
Construction Engineering (15%)
Mobilization (10%)
5/12/2026
Packet Page. 1654
Preliminary Engineers Cost Estimate
City: San Bernardino
Project: Baseline Street Study Analysis and Strategy Design Phase: Conceptual - D Street
Date: 5/12/2026
ITEM NO. REF

CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL P1 Remove Type 1-A complete 0 EA 1,950 $ - $
P4 Remove Type 19 complete 0 EA 2,000 $ - $
P8 Install 20' mast arm complete 0 EA 2,350 $ - $
P9 Install 25' mast arm complete 0 EA 3,300 $ - $
P10 Install 30' mast arm complete 0 EA 3,600 $ - $
P17 Install Type 17 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 9,500 $ - $ P18 Install Type 19 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 12,00 $ - 0 $ P19 Install Type 24 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 17,00 $ - 0 $ Install Pedestrian Scramble 0 EA 150,00 $ - 0 $
Signal Timing Upgrades with Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 1 EA 3,000 $ 3,000 $ VH1 Remove vehicle head and mounting 0 EA 365 $ - $
PH1 Remove pedestrian head and mounting 0 EA 300 $ - $
PPB1 Remove pedestrian push button 0 EA 150 $ - $
VH2 Install 3-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 0 EA 1,250 $ - $ VH4 Install 5-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 0 EA 3,000 $ - $ VH7 Install VH retroreflective border on blackplate 0 EA 150 $ - $ PH2 Install LED countdown pedestrian head with mounting 0 EA 1,650 $ - $ PPB2 Install Type B pedestrian push button 0 EA 750 $ - $ L1 Remove HPSV luminaire 0 EA 350 $ - $
L3 Install LED luminaire complete 0 EA 800 $ - $
ST1 Remove stripe 0 LF 1 $ - $
ST2 Install stripe 560 LF 2 $ 1,120 $
ST3 Install pavement marking 10 EA 500 $ 5,000 $
ST5 Install white continental crosswalk 2,490 SF 7 $ 17,43 $ 0 ST6 Remove pavement marking 0 EA 300 $ - $
M7 K71-Type bollard delineator 0 EA 225 $ - $
S3 Install sign panel & post 2 EA 550 $ 1,100 $
S4 Install sign panel 0 EA 500 $ - $
Install High intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) 0 EA 300,00 $ - 0 $ Install Stop-Sign Flashing Beacon 0 EA 500 $ - $
AC1 Demo/unclassified excavation. 28 CY $ 2,796 100 $
AC3 AC pavement (slot patch & base course). 14 TON 125 $ 1,748 $ M1 CMB 14 TON 100 $ 1,398 $
PCC3 Install curb and gutter 240 LF 40 $ 9,600 $
PCC7 Install sidewalk 755 SF 8 $ 6,040 $
PCC8 Install curb ramp 8 EA 4,000 $ 32,00 $ 0
$ 81,232
$ 16,246
$ 12,185
$ 8,123
$ 8,123
$ 125,910
Traffic Control (10%)
TOTAL
Traffic Improvements
Civil Improvements

SUBTOTAL
Contingency (20%)
Construction Engineering (15%)
Mobilization (10%)
5/12/2026
Packet Page. 1655
Preliminary Engineers Cost Estimate
City: San Bernardino
Project: Baseline Street Study Analysis and Strategy Design Phase: Conceptual - Arrowhead Avenue
Date: 5/12/2026
ITEM NO. REF

CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL P1 Remove Type 1-A complete 0 EA 1,950 $ - $
P4 Remove Type 19 complete 2 EA 2,000 $ 4,000 $
P8 Install 20' mast arm complete 0 EA 2,350 $ - $
P9 Install 25' mast arm complete 2 EA 3,300 $ 6,600 $
P10 Install 30' mast arm complete 0 EA 3,600 $ - $
P17 Install Type 17 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 9,500 $ - $ P18 Install Type 19 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 12,00 $ - 0 $ P19 Install Type 24 standard and foundation complete 2 EA 17,00 $ 34,00 0 $ 0 Install Pedestrian Scramble 0 EA 150,00 $ - 0 $
Signal Timing Upgrades with Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 1 EA 3,000 $ 3,000 $ VH1 Remove vehicle head and mounting 4 EA 365 $ 1,460 $ PH1 Remove pedestrian head and mounting 2 EA 300 $ 600 $ PPB1 Remove pedestrian push button 2 EA 150 $ 300 $
VH2 Install 3-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 4 EA 1,250 $ 5,000 $ VH4 Install 5-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 2 EA 3,000 $ 6,000 $ VH7 Install VH retroreflective border on blackplate 6 EA 150 $ 900 $ PH2 Install LED countdown pedestrian head with mounting 2 EA 1,650 $ 3,300 $ PPB2 Install Type B pedestrian push button 2 EA 750 $ 1,500 $ L1 Remove HPSV luminaire 2 EA 350 $ 700 $
L3 Install LED luminaire complete 2 EA 800 $ 1,600 $
ST1 Remove stripe 0 LF 1 $ - $
ST2 Install stripe 600 LF 2 $ 1,200 $
ST3 Install pavement marking 10 EA 500 $ 5,000 $
ST5 Install white continental crosswalk 2,560 SF 7 $ 17,92 $ 0 ST6 Remove pavement marking 0 EA 300 $ - $
M7 K71-Type bollard delineator 0 EA 225 $ - $
S3 Install sign panel & post 2 EA 550 $ 1,100 $
S4 Install sign panel 0 EA 500 $ - $
Install High intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) 0 EA 300,00 $ - 0 $ Install Stop-Sign Flashing Beacon 0 EA 500 $ - $
AC1 Demo/unclassified excavation. 31 CY $ 3,111 100 $
AC3 AC pavement (slot patch & base course). 16 TON 125 $ 1,94 $ 4 M1 CMB 16 TON 100 $ 1,556 $
PCC3 Install curb and gutter 225 LF 40 $ 9,000 $
PCC7 Install sidewalk 840 SF 8 $ 6,720 $
PCC8 Install curb ramp 8 EA 4,000 $ 32,00 $ 0
$ 148,511
$ 29,702
$ 22,277
$ 14,851
$ 14,851
$ 230,192
Traffic Control (10%)
TOTAL
Traffic Improvements
Civil Improvements

SUBTOTAL
Contingency (20%)
Construction Engineering (15%)
Mobilization (10%)
5/12/2026
Packet Page. 1656
Preliminary Engineers Cost Estimate
City: San Bernardino
Project: Baseline Street Study Analysis and Strategy Design Phase: Conceptual - Sierra Way
Date: 5/12/2026
ITEM NO. REF

CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL P1 Remove Type 1-A complete 0 EA 1,950 $ - $
P4 Remove Type 19 complete 0 EA 2,000 $ - $
P8 Install 20' mast arm complete 0 EA 2,350 $ - $
P9 Install 25' mast arm complete 0 EA 3,300 $ - $
P10 Install 30' mast arm complete 0 EA 3,600 $ - $
P17 Install Type 17 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 9,500 $ - $ P18 Install Type 19 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 12,00 $ - 0 $ P19 Install Type 24 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 17,00 $ - 0 $ Install Pedestrian Scramble 0 EA 150,00 $ - 0 $
Signal Timing Upgrades with Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 1 EA 3,000 $ 3,000 $ VH1 Remove vehicle head and mounting 0 EA 365 $ - $
PH1 Remove pedestrian head and mounting 0 EA 300 $ - $
PPB1 Remove pedestrian push button 0 EA 150 $ - $
VH2 Install 3-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 6 EA 1,250 $ 7,500 $ VH4 Install 5-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 0 EA 3,000 $ - $ VH7 Install VH retroreflective border on blackplate 5 EA 150 $ 750 $ PH2 Install LED countdown pedestrian head with mounting 0 EA 1,650 $ - $ PPB2 Install Type B pedestrian push button 0 EA 750 $ - $ L1 Remove HPSV luminaire 0 EA 350 $ - $
L3 Install LED luminaire complete 0 EA 800 $ - $
ST1 Remove stripe 0 LF 1 $ - $
ST2 Install stripe 590 LF 2 $ 1,180 $
ST3 Install pavement marking 10 EA 500 $ 5,000 $
ST5 Install white continental crosswalk 2,215 SF 7 $ 15,505 $ ST6 Remove pavement marking 0 EA 300 $ - $
M7 K71-Type bollard delineator 0 EA 225 $ - $
S3 Install sign panel & post 2 EA 550 $ 1,100 $
S4 Install sign panel 0 EA 500 $ - $
Install High intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) 0 EA 300,00 $ - 0 $ Install Stop-Sign Flashing Beacon 0 EA 500 $ - $
AC1 Demo/unclassified excavation. 24 CY $ 2,407 100 $
AC3 AC pavement (slot patch & base course). 12 TON 125 $ 1,505 $ M1 CMB 12 TON 100 $ 1,20 $ 4
PCC3 Install curb and gutter 210 LF 40 $ 8,400 $
PCC7 Install sidewalk 650 SF 8 $ 5,200 $
PCC8 Install curb ramp 8 EA 4,000 $ 32,00 $ 0
$ 84,751
$ 16,950
$ 12,713
$ 8,475
$ 8,475
$ 131,364
Traffic Control (10%)
TOTAL
Traffic Improvements
Civil Improvements

SUBTOTAL
Contingency (20%)
Construction Engineering (15%)
Mobilization (10%)
5/12/2026
Packet Page. 1657
Preliminary Engineers Cost Estimate
City: San Bernardino
Project: Baseline Street Study Analysis and Strategy Design Phase: Conceptual - Lugo Avenue
Date: 5/12/2026
ITEM NO. REF

CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL P1 Remove Type 1-A complete 0 EA 1,950 $ - $
P4 Remove Type 19 complete 0 EA 2,000 $ - $
P8 Install 20' mast arm complete 0 EA 2,350 $ - $
P9 Install 25' mast arm complete 0 EA 3,300 $ - $
P10 Install 30' mast arm complete 0 EA 3,600 $ - $
P17 Install Type 17 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 9,500 $ - $ P18 Install Type 19 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 12,00 $ - 0 $ P19 Install Type 24 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 17,00 $ - 0 $ Install Pedestrian Scramble 0 EA 150,00 $ - 0 $
Signal Timing Upgrades with Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 0 EA 3,000 $ - $ VH1 Remove vehicle head and mounting 0 EA 365 $ - $
PH1 Remove pedestrian head and mounting 0 EA 300 $ - $
PPB1 Remove pedestrian push button 0 EA 150 $ - $
VH2 Install 3-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 0 EA 1,250 $ - $ VH4 Install 5-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 0 EA 3,000 $ - $ VH7 Install VH retroreflective border on blackplate 0 EA 150 $ - $ PH2 Install LED countdown pedestrian head with mounting 0 EA 1,650 $ - $ PPB2 Install Type B pedestrian push button 0 EA 750 $ - $ L1 Remove HPSV luminaire 0 EA 350 $ - $
L3 Install LED luminaire complete 0 EA 800 $ - $
ST1 Remove stripe 0 LF 1 $ - $
ST2 Install stripe 760 LF 2 $ 1,520 $
ST3 Install pavement marking 14 EA 500 $ 7,000 $
ST5 Install white continental crosswalk 600 SF 7 $ 4,200 $ ST6 Remove pavement marking 0 EA 300 $ - $
M7 K71-Type bollard delineator 0 EA 225 $ - $
S3 Install sign panel & post 4 EA 550 $ 2,200 $
S4 Install sign panel 2 EA 500 $ 1,000 $
Install High intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) 1 EA 300,00 $ 300,00 0 $ 0 Install Stop-Sign Flashing Beacon 2 EA 500 $ 1,000 $
AC1 Demo/unclassified excavation. 22 CY $ 2,222 100 $
AC3 AC pavement (slot patch & base course). 11 TON 125 $ 1,389 $ M1 CMB 11 TON 100 $ 1,111 $
PCC3 Install curb and gutter 190 LF 40 $ 7,600 $
PCC7 Install sidewalk 600 SF 8 $ 4,800 $
PCC8 Install curb ramp 8 EA 4,000 $ 32,00 $ 0
$ 366,042
$ 73,208
$ 54,906
$ 36,604
$ 36,604
$ 567,365
Traffic Control (10%)
TOTAL
Traffic Improvements
Civil Improvements

SUBTOTAL
Contingency (20%)
Construction Engineering (15%)
Mobilization (10%)
5/12/2026
Packet Page. 1658
Preliminary Engineers Cost Estimate
City: San Bernardino
Project: Baseline Street Study Analysis and Strategy Design Phase: Conceptual - Waterman Avenue
Date: 5/12/2026
ITEM NO. REF

CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL P1 Remove Type 1-A complete 0 EA 1,950 $ - $
P4 Remove Type 19 complete 0 EA 2,000 $ - $
P8 Install 20' mast arm complete 0 EA 2,350 $ - $
P9 Install 25' mast arm complete 0 EA 3,300 $ - $
P10 Install 30' mast arm complete 0 EA 3,600 $ - $
P17 Install Type 17 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 9,500 $ - $ P18 Install Type 19 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 12,00 $ - 0 $ P19 Install Type 24 standard and foundation complete 0 EA 17,00 $ - 0 $ Install Pedestrian Scramble 0 EA 150,00 $ - 0 $
Signal Timing Upgrades with Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 1 EA 3,000 $ 3,000 $ VH1 Remove vehicle head and mounting 0 EA 365 $ - $
PH1 Remove pedestrian head and mounting 0 EA 300 $ - $
PPB1 Remove pedestrian push button 0 EA 150 $ - $
VH2 Install 3-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 2 EA 1,250 $ 2,500 $ VH4 Install 5-12" LED vehicle head with mounting 0 EA 3,000 $ - $ VH7 Install VH retroreflective border on blackplate 3 EA 150 $ 450 $ PH2 Install LED countdown pedestrian head with mounting 0 EA 1,650 $ - $ PPB2 Install Type B pedestrian push button 0 EA 750 $ - $ L1 Remove HPSV luminaire 0 EA 350 $ - $
L3 Install LED luminaire complete 0 EA 800 $ - $
ST1 Remove stripe 0 LF 1 $ - $
ST2 Install stripe 460 LF 2 $ 920 $
ST3 Install pavement marking 10 EA 500 $ 5,000 $
ST5 Install white continental crosswalk 0 SF 7 $ - $
ST6 Remove pavement marking 0 EA 300 $ - $
M7 K71-Type bollard delineator 0 EA 225 $ - $
S3 Install sign panel & post 5 EA 550 $ 2,750 $
S4 Install sign panel 1 EA 500 $ 500 $
Install High intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) 0 EA 300,00 $ - 0 $ Install Stop-Sign Flashing Beacon 0 EA 500 $ - $
AC1 Demo/unclassified excavation. 51 CY $ 5,148 100 $
AC3 AC pavement (slot patch & base course). 26 TON 125 $ 3,218 $ M1 CMB 26 TON 100 $ 2,57 $ 4
PCC3 Install curb and gutter 285 LF 40 $ 11,40 $ 0
PCC7 Install sidewalk 1,390 SF 8 $ 11,12 $ 0
PCC8 Install curb ramp 8 EA 4,000 $ 32,00 $ 0
$ 80,580
$ 16,116
$ 12,087
$ 8,058
$ 8,058
$ 124,899
Traffic Control (10%)
TOTAL
Traffic Improvements
Civil Improvements

SUBTOTAL
Contingency (20%)
Construction Engineering (15%)
Mobilization (10%)
5/12/2026
Packet Page. 1659

CONSENT CALENDAR
City of San Bernardino
Request for Council Action
Date: June 17, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
From: Lynn Merrill, Director of Public Works
Azzam Jabsheh, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Department: Public Works
Subject: Award Design Services Agreement for the California Theatre Parking Structure (3-Level) Rehabilitation Project to IDS Group, Inc. in the amount of $114,980 and a
Contingency of $10,020 for a Total Amount of $125,000
(Ward 1)
Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California;

1. Approve the award of a Design Services Agreement with IDS Group, Inc. in the amount of $114,980 for the California Theatre Parking Structure (3- Level) Rehabilitation Project; and

2. Authorize a contingency amount of $10,020, bringing the total project budget to $125,000; and

3. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all documents with IDS Group, Inc.; and

4. Authorize the City Manager or designee to expend the contingency fund, if necessary, to complete the project.

City Manager's Comments
The City Manager recommends approval of the design services agreement with IDS Group Inc.

Executive Summary
Packet Page. 1660
Awarding the agreement for the California Theatre Parking Structure (3-Level) Rehabilitation Project (“Project”) will allow the City to advance the design phase of a capital improvement effort focused on upgrading an existing parking facility within the downtown area. The Project involves a coordinated rehabilitation program addressing multiple building systems and components throughout the structure. Improvements are focused on minor structural repairs to selected elements, architectural finishes, lighting systems, drainage infrastructure, fire protection components, and general site features. The scope also includes pavement and striping improvements, expansion joint work, and enhancements to signage and overall appearance.

This effort is intended to support continued use of the facility by addressing aging conditions and updating key elements of the structure. Funding for the Project is provided through Measure S as part of the City’s FY 2025/2026 Capital Improvement Program.

Background
The California Theatre Parking Structure is a three-level facility located in the downtown area of San Bernardino, near the former Carousel Mall site. The structure supports the California Theatre and surrounding commercial and public uses, and functions as part of the City’s downtown parking system.

The facility has been in service for an extended period and reflects typical aging associated with long-term use. Various components, including surface finishes, lighting systems, drainage features, and building systems, have reached a stage where coordinated rehabilitation is appropriate to maintain overall functionality and usability.

In response, the City identified the need for a comprehensive project that addresses the structure as a whole rather than through isolated improvements. The California Theatre Parking Structure (3-Level) Rehabilitation Project was developed to provide a coordinated design approach that integrates multiple disciplines and supports future construction implementation.

The current phase of the Project focuses on advancing professional design engineering services, including preparation of plans, specifications, and cost estimates, to support the next stages of project delivery. Funding for this effort is included in the City’s FY 2025/2026 Capital Improvement Program.

Discussion
Staff recommends approval of a Design Services Agreement (“Agreement”) with IDS Group, Inc. to provide professional design engineering services for the California Theatre Parking Structure (3-Level) Rehabilitation Project. The Agreement includes preparation of bid-ready plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E), as well as design support during bidding and construction. The consultant will perform site investigations, prepare construction documents, coordinate with City staff, and support the project through final design and implementation phases.

The design scope includes, but is not limited to:

Packet Page. 1661
- Minor structural concrete repair and rehabilitation of selected elements - Interior and exterior painting of ceilings, walls, columns, staircases, and façade - Replacement and upgrade of lighting systems with vandal-resistant LED fixtures and solar-powered rooftop lighting
- Drainage system cleaning, repair, and related improvements - Fire protection system updates, including piping and related components - Pavement preparation, pressure washing, restriping, and removal of damaged wheel stops
- Asphalt improvements at the rooftop area near the Enterprise building, along with striping throughout the parking structure
- Expansion joint replacement and sealing
- Installation of updated signage systems, including illuminated exterior signage - General site cleanup, including landscape areas and fencing improvements Staff issued Request for Proposals (RFP No. F-26-1053) through PlanetBids seeking qualified firms to provide professional design engineering services for the Project. The RFP was released on February 17, 2026, and proposals were due on March 13, 2026.

The City received three (3) proposals from qualified firms: IDS Group, Inc., Walter P.

Moore and Associates, Inc., and Ware Malcomb.

The evaluation process was conducted in accordance with the criteria established in the RFP. Proposals were initially evaluated and ranked based on qualifications, including firm experience, technical competence, project understanding, and proposed approach. Fee proposals were not considered during the initial evaluation phase.

Based on this evaluation, IDS Group, Inc. was determined to be the highest-ranked firm. Following the ranking, cost proposals were opened and reviewed. The original fee proposals submitted by the firms are summarized below:

Firm Name Original Fee Proposal
IDS Group, Inc. $126,639.00
Walter P. Moore and Associates, Inc. $478,335.00
Ware Malcomb $263,930.00
The City then entered into negotiations with IDS Group, Inc. to establish a mutually agreed-upon fee for the scope of services. Through this process, IDS Group, Inc. agreed to revise their proposed fee to $114,980. Based on the evaluation process and the negotiated fee, IDS Group, Inc. is recommended for award of the Professional Design Services Agreement. The project budget is summarized below:

Description Amount
Available Budget $125,000.00
Design Services Agreement (IDS Group, Inc.) $114,980.00 Packet Page. 1662
Description Amount
Contingency $10,020.00
Remaining Budget $0.00
2021-2025 Strategic Targets and Goals
This project is consistent with Goal No. 4 – Improved Quality of Life by supporting the maintenance and enhancement of public facilities and infrastructure.

Fiscal Impact
The fiscal impact associated with awarding a Design Services Agreement to IDS Group, Inc. is $125,000. Sufficient budget is available in the Department’s FY 2025/2026 Capital Improvement Program (Measure S) to fund this agreement. There is no additional impact to the General Fund.

Conclusion
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Bernardino, California;

1. Approve the award of a Design Services Agreement with IDS Group, Inc. in the amount of $114,980 for the California Theatre Parking Structure (3-Level) Rehabilitation Project; and

2. Authorize a contingency amount of $10,020, bringing the total project budget to $125,000; and

3. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all documents with IDS Group, Inc.; and

4. Authorize the City Manager or designee to expend the contingency fund, if necessary, to complete the project.

Attachments
Attachment 1 - Design Services Agreement with IDS Group, Inc.

Attachment 2 - IDS Group, Inc. Updated Proposal
Attachment 3 - Location Map
Ward:

Ward 1
Synopsis of Previous Council Actions:

June 04, 2025, FY 2025/2026 Budget Presentation (All Wards) CC: Eric Levitt, City Manager
Packet Page. 1663
1 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO

DESIGN SERVICES AGREEMENT

1. PARTIES AND DATE.

This Agreement is made and entered into as May 20, 2026 (“Effective Date***) by and between the City of San Bernardino, a charter city and municipal corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business at Vanir Tower, 290 North D Street, San Bernardino, California 92401 (“City”), and IDS Group, Inc., a California Corporation, with its principal place of business at 1250 Corona Pointe Court, Suite 409, Corona, CA 92879 (hereinafter referred to as “Designer”). City and Designer are sometimes individually referred to herein as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”

2. RECITALS.

2.1 City. City is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, with power to contract for services necessary to achieve its purpose.

2.2 Designer. Designer desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional design services required by the City on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Designer warrants that it is fully licensed, qualified, and willing to perform the services required by this Agreement; provided, however, that if Designer is a corporation or other organization, the Project Designer designated pursuant to Section 3.2, and not the Designer itself, shall be fully licensed to practice as an architect and/or engineer in the State of California.

2.3 Project. City desires to engage Designer to render such services for the CALIFORNIA THEATRE PARKING STRUCTURE (3-LEVEL) REHABILITATION PROJECT ("Project") as set forth in this Agreement.

3. TERMS

3.1 Employment of Designer.

3.1.1 Scope of Services. Designer promises and agrees to furnish to City all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately supply the professional design and related services necessary for the full and adequate completion of the Project consistent with the provisions of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “Services”). The Services are more particularly described throughout this Agreement, including Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, any exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations. All Services performed by Designer shall be subject to the sole and discretionary approval of the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.

3.1.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from May 20, 2026 to May 20, 2027, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines.

3.2 Project Designer; Key Personnel.

3.2.1 Project Designer. Designer shall name a specific individual to act as Project Designer, subject to the approval of City. Designer hereby designates IDS Group, Inc.

Packet Page. 1664
2 (License No. 2091154) to act as the Project Designer for the Project. The Project Designer shall:
(1) maintain oversight of the Services; (2) have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Designer for all purposes under this Agreement; (3) supervise and direct the Services using his or her best skill and attention; (4) be responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures used for the Services; (5) adequately coordinate all portions of the Services; and (6) act as principal contact with City and all contractors, consultants, engineers and inspectors on the Project. Any change in the Project Designer shall be subject to the City’s prior written approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The new Project Designer shall be of at least equal competence as the prior Project Designer. In the event that City and Designer cannot agree as to the substitution of a new Project Designer, City shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause.

3.2.2 Key Personnel. In addition to the Project Designer, Designer has represented to the City that certain additional key personnel, engineers and consultants will perform the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel, engineers or consultants become unavailable, Designer may substitute others of at least equal competence upon written approval of the City. In the event that City and Designer cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, engineers or consultants, City shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause. As discussed below, any personnel, engineers or consultants who fail or refuse to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the City, or who are determined by the City to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the Designer at the request of the City. The key additional personnel, engineers and consultants for performance of this Agreement are as follows:
✓ Said Hilmy, PhD, PE, SE, LEED AP
• Title: Principal in Charge / Contract Administrator
• License: California Registered Professional Engineer (PE) and Structural Engineer (SE)
✓ John Silber, AIA
• Title: Principal Architect / Project Manager
• License: California Licensed Architect (AIA)
✓ Shelley Sviska, RA, LEED AP
• Title: Project Manager
• License: California Licensed Architect (RA)

3.3 Hiring of Consultants and Personnel.

3.3.1 Right to Hire or Employ. Designer shall have the option, unless City objects in writing after notice, to employ at its expense architects, engineers, experts or other consultants qualified and licensed to render services in connection with the planning and/or administration of the Project, and to delegate to them such duties as Designer may delegate without relieving Designer from administrative or other responsibility under this Agreement. Designer shall be responsible for the coordination and cooperation of Designer’s architects, engineers, experts or other consultants. All consultants, including changes in consultants, shall be subject to approval by City in its sole and reasonable discretion. Designer shall notify City of the identity of all consultants at least fourteen (14) days prior to their commencement of work to allow City to Packet Page. 1665
3 review their qualifications and approve to their participation on the Project in its sole and reasonable discretion.

3.3.2 Qualification and License. All architects, engineers, experts and other consultants retained by Designer in performance of this Agreement shall be qualified to perform the Services assigned to them, and shall be licensed to practice in their respective professions, where required by law.

3.3.3 Standards and Insurance. All architects, engineers, experts and other consultants hired by Designer shall be required to meet all of the same standards and insurance requirements set forth in this Agreement, unless other standards or requirements are approved by the City in writing. Unless changes are approved in writing by the City, Designer’s agreements with its consultants shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement.

3.3.4 Assignments or Staff Changes. Designer shall promptly obtain written City approval of any assignment, reassignment or replacement of such architects, engineers, experts and consultants, or of other staff changes of key personnel working on the Project. As provided in the Agreement, any changes in Designer’s consultants and key personnel shall be subject to approval by City.

3.3.5 Draftsman and Clerical Support. Draftsmen and clerical personnel shall be retained by Designer at Designer’s sole expense.

3.4 Standard of Care.

3.4.1 Standard of Care. Designer shall perform all Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals qualified to perform the Services in the same discipline in the State of California, and shall be responsible to City for damages sustained by the City and delays to the Project as specified in the indemnification provision of this Agreement. Without limiting the foregoing, Designer shall be fully responsible to the City for any increased costs incurred by the City as a result of any such delays in the design or construction of the Project. Designer represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Designer warrants and represents that all of its employees, architects, engineers, experts and other consultants shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Designer represents that it, its employees, architects, engineers, experts and other consultants have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services assigned to or rendered by them and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. As provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, Designer shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from the City, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Designer’s failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein.

3.4.2 Performance of Employees. Any employee or consultant who is determined by the City to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project, a threat to the safety of persons or property, or any employee or consultant who fails or refuses to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the City, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the Designer and shall not be re-employed to perform any of the Services or to work on the Project.

Packet Page. 1666
4 3.5 Laws and Regulations.

3.5.1 Knowledge and Compliance. Designer shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Services or the Project, and shall give all notices required of the Designer by law. Designer shall be liable, pursuant to the standard of care and indemnification provisions of this Agreement, for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with its Services. If the Designer performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations, Designer shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom.

Designer shall defend, indemnify and hold City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations.

3.5.2 Drawings and Specifications. Designer shall cause all drawings and specifications to conform to any applicable requirements of federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations, including the Uniform Building Code, in effect as of the time the drawings and specifications are prepared or revised during the latest phase of the Services described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Any significant revisions made necessary by changes in such laws, rules and regulations after this time may be compensated as Additional Services which were not known or reasonably should not have been known by Designer. Designer shall cause the necessary copies of such drawings and specifications to be filed with any governmental bodies with approval jurisdiction over the Project, in accordance with the Services described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. For the preparation of all such drawings and specifications, the Designer shall use Computer Aided Design Drafting (“CADD”) (e.g., AutoCAD) or other technology acceptable to the Designer and City.

3.5.3 Americans with Disabilities Act. Designer will use its best professional efforts to interpret all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations with respect to access, including those of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Designer shall inform City of the existence of inconsistencies of which it is aware or reasonably should be aware between federal and state accessibility laws, rules and regulations, as well as any other issues which are subject to conflicting interpretations of the law, and shall provide the City with its interpretation of such inconsistencies and conflicting interpretations. Unless Designer brings such inconsistencies and conflicting interpretations to the attention of the City and requests City’s direction on how to proceed, the Designer’s interpretation of such inconsistencies and conflicting interpretations shall be the sole responsibility and liability of Designer, and the Designer shall correct all plans, specifications and other documents prepared for the Project at no additional cost if its interpretations are shown to be incorrect. In the event that the Designer request’s City’s direction on how to proceed with respect to any inconsistent and/or conflicting interpretation, the Designer shall be responsible to the City only pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement.

3.5.4 Permits, Approvals and Authorizations. Designer shall provide City with a list of all permits, approvals or other authorizations required for the Project from all federal, state or local governmental bodies with approval jurisdiction over the Project. Designer shall then assist the City in obtaining all such permits, approvals and other authorizations. The costs of such permits, approvals and other authorizations shall be paid by the City.

3.5.5 Water Quality Management and Compliance.

Packet Page. 1667
5 (a) Compliance with Water Quality Laws, Ordinances and Regulations.

Designer shall keep itself and all subcontractors, staff, and employees fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations that may impact, or be implicated by the performance of the Services including, without limitation, all applicable provisions of the City’s ordinances regulating water quality and storm water; the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.); the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal Water Code §§ 13000-14950); and any and all regulations, policies, or permits issued pursuant to any such authority. Designer shall additionally comply with the lawful requirements of the City, and any other municipality, drainage district, or other local agency with jurisdiction over the location where the Services are to be conducted, regulating water quality and storm water discharges.
(b) Standard of Care. Designer warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the work assigned to them without impacting water quality in violation of the laws, regulations and policies described in Sections 3.5.5(a) of this Agreement. Designer further warrants that it, its employees and subcontractors will receive adequate training, as determined by the City, regarding these requirements as they may relate to the Services.
(c) Liability for Non-compliance.
(i) Indemnity: Failure to comply with laws, regulations, and ordinances listed in Sections 3.5.5(a) of this Agreement is a violation of federal and state law.

Notwithstanding any other indemnity contained in this Agreement, Designer agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officials, officers, agents, employees and authorized volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses or liabilities of any kind or nature which the City, its officials, officers, agents, employees and authorized volunteers may sustain or incur for noncompliance with the laws, regulations, and ordinances listed above, arising out of or in connection with the Services, except for liability resulting from the sole established negligence, willful misconduct or active negligence of the City, its officials, officers, agents, employees or authorized volunteers.
(ii) Defense: City reserves the right to defend any enforcement action or civil action brought against the City for Designer’s failure to comply with any applicable water quality law, regulation, or policy. Designer hereby agrees to be bound by, and to reimburse the City for the costs associated with, any settlement reached between the City and the relevant enforcement entity.
(iii) Damages: City may seek damages from Designer for delay in completing the Services caused by Designer’s failure to comply with the laws, regulations and policies described in Section 3.5.5(a) of this Agreement, or any other relevant water quality law, regulation, or policy.

3.5.6 Air Quality.
(a) Compliance with Air Quality Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations.

Contractor must fully comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations in furnishing or using equipment and/or providing services, including, but not limited to, emissions limits and permitting requirements imposed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Contractor shall specifically be aware of the CARB limits and requirements’ application to “portable equipment”, which definition is considered by CARB to include any item of equipment with a fuel-powered Packet Page. 1668
6 engine. Contractor shall indemnify City against any fines or penalties imposed by CARB or any other governmental or regulatory agency for violations of applicable laws, rules and/or regulations by Contractor, its subcontractors, or others for whom Contractor is responsible under its indemnity obligations provided for in this Agreement.

3.6 Independent Contractor.

3.6.1 Control and Payment of Subordinates. City retains Designer on an independent contractor basis and Designer is not an employee of City. Designer is not an employee for state tax, federal tax or any other purpose, and is not entitled to the rights or benefits afforded to City’s employees. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Designer shall also not be employees of City, and shall at all times be under Designer’s exclusive direction and control. Designer shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Designer shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers’ compensation insurance.

3.7 Schedule of Services.

3.7.1 Designer Services. Designer shall fully and adequately complete the Services described in this Agreement and in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

3.7.2 Timely Performance Standard. Designer shall perform all Services hereunder as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care, as well as the orderly progress of the Project work so as not to be the cause, in whole or in part, of delays in the completion of the Project or in the achievement of any Project milestones, as provided herein.

Specifically, Designer shall perform its Services so as to allow for the full and adequate completion of the Project within the time required by the City and within any completion schedules adopted for the Project. Designer agrees to coordinate with City’s staff, contractors and consultants in the performance of the Services, and shall be available to City’s staff, contractors and consultants at all reasonable times.

3.7.3 Performance Schedule. Designer shall prepare an estimated time schedule for the performance of Designer’s Services, to be adjusted as the Project proceeds.

Such schedule shall be subject to the City’s review and approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, and shall include allowances for periods of time required for City’s review and approval of submissions, and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over Project approval and funding. If City and Designer cannot mutually agree on a performance schedule, City shall have the authority to immediately terminate this Agreement. The schedule shall not be exceeded by Designer without the prior written approval of City. If the Designer’s Services are not completed within the time provided by the agreed upon performance schedule, or any milestones established therein, it is understood, acknowledged and agreed that the City will suffer damage for which the Designer will be responsible pursuant to the indemnification provision of this Agreement.

3.7.4 Excusable Delays. Any delays in Designer’s work caused by the following shall be added to the time for completion of any obligations of Designer: (1) the actions of City or its employees; (2) the actions of those in direct contractual relationship with City; (3) the actions Packet Page. 1669
7 of any governmental agency having jurisdiction over the Project; (4) the actions of any parties not within the reasonable control of the Designer; and (5) Force Majeure Event . Neither the City nor the Designer shall be liable for damages, liquidated or otherwise, to the other on account of such delays. Such a non-compensable adjustment shall be Designer’s sole and exclusive remedy for such delays and the Designer will not receive an adjustment to the contract price or any other compensation. A Force Majeure Event shall mean an event that materially affects a party’s performance and is one or more of the following: (1) Acts of God or other natural disasters occurring at the project site; (2) terrorism or other acts of a public enemy; (3) orders of governmental authorities (including, without limitation, unreasonable and unforeseeable delay in the issuance of permits or approvals by governmental authorities that are required for the work); (4) pandemics, epidemics or quarantine restrictions; and (5) strikes and other organized labor action occurring at the project site and the effects thereof on the work, only to the extent such strikes and other organized labor action are beyond the control of Designer and its subcontractors, of every tier, and to the extent the effects thereof cannot be avoided by use of replacement workers. For purposes of this section, “orders of governmental authorities,” includes ordinances, emergency proclamations and orders, rules to protect the public health, welfare and safety, and other actions of the City in its capacity as a municipal authority.

3.7.5 Request for Excusable Delay Credit. The Designer shall, within fifteen (15) calendar days of the beginning of any excusable delay, notify the City in writing of the causes of delay (unless City grants in writing a further period of time to file such notice prior to the date of final payment under the Agreement). City will then ascertain the facts and the extent of the delay, and grant an extension of time for completing the Services when, in its sole judgment, the findings of fact justify such an extension. The City’s findings of fact thereon shall be final and conclusive on the parties. Extensions of time shall apply only to that portion of the Services affected by the delay and shall not apply to other portions of the Services not so affected. The sole remedy of Designer for extensions of time shall be an extension of the performance time at no cost to the City. If Additional Services are required as a result of an excusable delay, the parties shall mutually agree thereto pursuant to the Additional Services provision of this Agreement. Should Designer make an application for an extension of time, Designer shall submit evidence that the insurance policies required by this Agreement remain in effect during the requested additional period of time.

3.8 Additional Designer Services.

3.8.1 Request for Services. At City’s request, Designer may be asked to perform services not otherwise included in this Agreement, not included within the basic services listed in Exhibit “A” attached hereto, and/or not customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted design practice.

3.8.2 Definition. As used herein, “Additional Services” mean: (1) any work which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary for the Designer to perform at the execution of this Agreement; or (2) any work listed as Additional Services in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Designer shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Additional Services without prior written authorization from City and without an agreement between the City and Designer as to the compensation to be paid for such services. City shall pay Designer for any approved Additional Services, pursuant to the compensation provisions herein, so long as such services are not made necessary through the fault of Designer pursuant to the indemnification provision of this Agreement.

Packet Page. 1670
8 3.8.3 Examples of Additional Services. Such Additional Services shall not include any redesign or revisions to drawings, specifications or other documents when such revisions are necessary in order to bring such documents into compliance with applicable laws, rules, regulations or codes of which Designer was aware or should have been aware pursuant to the laws and regulations provision of this Agreement above. Such Additional Services may include, but shall not be limited to:
(a) Separately Bid Portions of Project. Plan preparation and/or administration of work on portions of the Project separately bid. (b) Furniture and Interior Design. Assistance to City, if requested, for the selection of moveable furniture, equipment or articles which are not included in the Construction Documents.
(c) Fault of Contractor. Services caused by delinquency, default or insolvency of contractor, or by major defects in the work of the contractor, provided that any such services made necessary by the failure of Designer to detect and report such matters when it reasonably should have done so shall not be compensated. (d) Inconsistent Approvals or Instructions. Revisions in drawings, specifications or other documents when such revisions are inconsistent with written approvals or instructions previously given and are due to causes beyond the control of Designer. (e) Legal Proceedings. Serving as an expert witness on City's behalf or attending legal proceedings to which the Designer is not a party. (f) Damage Repair. Supervision of repair of damages to any structure. (g) Extra Environmental Services. Additional work required for environmental conditions (e.g. asbestos or site conditions) not already contemplated within the Designer's services for the Project.

3.9 City Responsibilities. City’s responsibilities shall include the following:

3.9.1 Data and Information. City shall make available to Designer all necessary data and information concerning the purpose and requirements of the Project, including scheduling and budget limitations, objectives, constraints and criteria. As part of the budget limitation information, the City shall provide the Designer with a preliminary construction budget (“City’s Preliminary Construction Budget”).

3.9.2 Project Survey. If required pursuant to the scope of the Project and if requested by Designer, City shall furnish Designer with, or direct Designer to procure at City’s expense, a survey of the Project site prepared by a registered surveyor or civil engineer, any other record documents which shall indicate existing structures, land features, improvements, sewer, water, gas, electrical and utility lines, topographical information and boundary dimensions of the site, and any other such pertinent information.

3.9.3 Bid Phase. Distribute Construction Documents to bidders and conduct the opening and review of bids for the Project.

Packet Page. 1671
9 3.9.4 Testing. Retain consultant(s) to conduct chemical, mechanical, soils, geological or other tests required for proper design of the Project, and furnish such surveys, borings, test pits, and other tests as may be necessary to reveal conditions of the site which must be known to determine soil condition or to ensure the proper development of the required drawings and specifications.

3.9.5 Required Inspections and Tests. Retain consultant(s) to conduct materials testing and inspection or environmental/hazardous materials testing and inspection pursuant to any applicable laws, rules or regulations.

3.9.6 Fees of Reviewing or Licensing Agencies. Directly pay or reimburse the payment of all fees required by any reviewing or licensing agency, or other agency having approval jurisdiction over the Project.

3.9.7 City’s Representative. The City hereby designates Azzam Jabsheh, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement (“City’s Representative”). City’s Representative shall have the power to act on behalf of the City for all purposes under this Contract. Representative hereby designates Azzam Jabsheh, City Engineer, or his or her designee, as the City’s contact for the implementation of the Services hereunder. Contractor shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the City’s Representative or his or her designee.

3.9.8 Review and Approved Documents. Review all documents submitted by Designer, including change orders and other matters requiring approval by the City Council or other officials. City shall advise Designer of decisions pertaining to such documents within a reasonable time after submission, so as not to cause unreasonable delay as provided in the excusable delay provisions of this Agreement above.

3.10 Compensation.

3.10.1 Designer’s Compensation for Basic Services. City shall pay to Designer, for the performance of all Services rendered under this Agreement, the total not to exceed amount of One Hundred Fourteen Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Dollars. Dollars $114,980) (“Total Compensation”). This Total Compensation amount shall be based upon, and may be adjusted according to, the fee schedule and related terms and conditions attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference. The Total Compensation, as may be adjusted upon mutual agreement, shall constitute complete and adequate payment for Services under this Agreement.

3.10.2 Payment for Additional Services. At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may request that Designer perform Additional Services. As used herein, Additional Services means any work which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the Parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Any additional work in excess of this amount must be approved by the City. If authorized, such Additional Services will be compensated at the rates and in the manner set forth in Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, unless a flat rate or some other form of compensation is mutually agreed upon by the parties. If City requires Designer to hire consultants to perform any Additional Services, Designer shall be compensated therefore at the rates and in the manner set forth in Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, unless a flat rate or some other form of compensation is mutually agreed upon by the parties. City shall have the authority to review and approve the rates Packet Page. 1672
10 of any such consultants. In addition, Designer shall be reimbursed for any expenses incurred by such consultants pursuant to the terms and conditions of Section 3.10.3.

3.10.3 Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses are in addition to compensation for the Services and Additional Services. Designer shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by City, which approval may be evidenced by inclusion in Exhibit “C” attached hereto. Such reimbursable expenses shall include only those expenses which are reasonably and necessarily incurred by Designer in the interest of the Project. Designer shall be required to acquire prior written consent in order to obtain reimbursement for the following: (1) extraordinary transportation expenses incurred in connection with the Project; (2) out-of-town travel expenses incurred in connection with the Project; (3) fees paid for securing approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project; (4) bid document duplication costs in excess of $1,000; and (5) other costs, fees and expenses in excess of $1,000.

3.10.4 Payment to Designer. Designer’s compensation and reimbursable expenses shall be paid by City to Designer no more often than monthly. Such periodic payments shall be made based upon the percentage of work completed, and in accordance with the phasing and funding schedule provided in Exhibit “B” and the compensation rates indicated in Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. In order to receive payment, Designer shall present to City an itemized statement which indicates Services performed, percentage of Services completed, method for computing the amount payable, and the amount to be paid at the address listed in Section 3.29. The statement shall describe the amount of Services provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement, as well as those expenses for which reimbursement is requested for that statement period. The amount paid to Designer shall never exceed the percentage amounts authorized by the phasing and funding schedule located in Exhibit “B” attached hereto. City shall, within thirty (30) days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon pursuant to the provisions of Civil Code Section 3320. Disputed amounts shall be resolved by the parties in a mutually agreeable manner.

Payments made for Additional Services shall be made in installments, not more often than monthly, proportionate to the degree of completion of such services or in such other manner as the parties shall specify when such services are agreed upon, and in accordance with any authorized fee or rate schedule. In order to receive payment, Designer shall present to City an itemized statement which indicates the Additional Services performed, percentage of Additional Services completed, method for computing the amount payable, and the amount to be paid. The statement shall describe the amount of Additional Services provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. City shall, within thirty (30) days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon pursuant to the provisions of Civil Code Section 3320. Disputed amounts shall be resolved by the parties in a mutually agreeable manner.

Upon cancellation or termination of this Agreement, Designer shall be compensated as set forth in the termination provision herein.

3.10.5 Withholding Payment to Designer. The City may withhold payment, in whole or in part, to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the City from claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages, or injuries of any kind to the extent arising out of or caused by the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct protected under the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Failure by City to deduct any sums from a progress payment shall not constitute a waiver of the City’s right to such sums. The City may Packet Page. 1673
11 keep any moneys which would otherwise be payable at any time hereunder and apply the same, or so much as may be necessary therefor, to the payment of any expenses, losses, or damages as determined by the City, incurred by the City for which Designer is liable under the Agreement or state law. Payments to the Designer for compensation and reimbursable expenses due shall not be contingent on the construction, completion or ultimate success of the Project. Payment to the Designer shall not be withheld, postponed, or made contingent upon receipt by the City of offsetting reimbursement or credit from parties not within the Designer’s reasonable control.

3.10.6 Prevailing Wages. Designer is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance” projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Designer agrees to fully comply with and to require its consultants to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. City shall provide Designer with a copy of the prevailing rates of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement.

Designer shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Designer’s principal place of business and at the Project site.

Designer shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure of the Designer or its consultants to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon the Designer and all subconsultants to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775), employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll records (Labor Code Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1). The requirement to submit certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code section 1771.4 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Section 1771.4.

3.10.7 Registration. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Designer and all subconsultants performing such Services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Designer shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants, as applicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the contractor registration requirements mandated by Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1.

3.10.8 Labor Compliance. This Project may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Designer’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Designer or any subcontractor that affect Designer’s performance of Services, including any delay, shall be Designer’s sole responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered Designer caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. Designer shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Designer or any subcontractor.

Packet Page. 1674
12 3.11 Notice to Proceed.

Designer shall not proceed with performance of any Services under this Agreement unless and until the City provides a written notice to proceed.

3.12 Termination, Suspension and Abandonment.

3.12.1 Grounds for Termination; Designer’s Termination for Cause. City hereby reserves the right to suspend or abandon, at any time and for any reason, all or any portion of the Project and the construction work thereon, or to terminate this Agreement at any time with or without cause. Designer shall be provided with at least seven (7) days advanced written notice of such suspension, abandonment or termination. In the event of such suspension, abandonment or termination, Designer shall be paid for Services and reimbursable expenses rendered up to the date of such suspension, abandonment or termination, pursuant to the schedule of payments provided for in this Agreement, less any claims against or damages suffered by City as a result of the default, if any, by Designer. Designer hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement, except as set forth herein, in the event of such suspension, abandonment or termination. Designer may terminate this Agreement for substantial breach of performance by the City such as failure to make payment to Designer as provided in this Agreement.

3.12.2 City’s Suspension of Work. If Designer’s Services are suspended by City, City may require Designer to resume such Services within ninety (90) days after written notice from City. When the Project is resumed, the Total Compensation and schedule of Services shall be equitably adjusted upon mutual agreement of the City and Designer.

3.12.3 Documents and Other Data. Upon suspension, abandonment or termination, Designer shall provide to City all preliminary studies, sketches, working drawings, specifications, computations, and all other Project Documents, as defined below, to which City would have been entitled at the completion of Designer’s Services under this Agreement. Upon payment of the amount required to be paid to Designer pursuant to the termination provisions of this Agreement, City shall have the rights, as provided in this Agreement hereinafter, to use such Project Documents prepared by or on behalf of Designer under this Agreement. Designer shall make such documents available to City upon request and without additional compensation other than as may be approved as a reimbursable expense.

3.12.4 Employment of other Designers. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, City may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated.

3.13 Ownership and Use of Documents; Confidentiality.

3.13.1 Ownership. All plans, specifications, original or reproducible transparencies of working drawings and master plans, preliminary sketches, design presentation drawings, structural computations, estimates and any other documents prepared pursuant to this Agreement, including, but not limited to, any other works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression such as writings, physical drawings and data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes (hereinafter referred to as the “Project Documents”) shall be and remain the property of City. Although the official copyright in all Project Documents shall remain with the Designer or other applicable subcontractors or consultants, the Project Documents shall be the property of City whether or not the work for which they were made is executed or Packet Page. 1675
13 completed. Within thirty (30) calendar days following completion of the Project, Designer shall provide to City copies of all Project Documents required by City. In addition, Designer shall retain copies of all Project Documents on file for a minimum of fifteen (15) years following completion of the Project, and shall make copies available to City upon the payment of reasonable duplication costs. Before destroying the Project Documents following this retention period, Designer shall make a reasonable effort to notify City and provide City with the opportunity to obtain the documents.

3.13.2 Right to Use. Designer grants to City the right to use and reuse all or part of the Project Documents, at City’s sole discretion and with no additional compensation to Designer, for the following purposes:
(a) The construction of all or part of this Project.
(b) The repair, renovation, modernization, replacement, reconstruction or expansion of this Project at any time;
(c) The construction of another project by or on behalf of the City for its ownership and use;
City is not bound by this Agreement to employ the services of Designer in the event such documents are used or reused for these purposes. City shall be able to use or reuse the Project Documents for these purposes without risk of liability to the Designer or third parties with respect to the condition of the Project Documents, and the use or reuse of the Project Documents for these purposes shall not be construed or interpreted to waive or limit City’s right to recover for latent defects or for errors or omissions of the Designer.

Any use or reuse by City of the Project Documents on any project other than this Project without employing the services of Designer shall be at City’s own risk with respect to third parties.

If City uses or reuses the Project Documents on any project other than this Project, it shall remove the Designer’s seal from the Project Documents and hold harmless Designer and its officers, directors, agents and employees from claims arising out of the negligent use or re-use of the Project Documents on such other project.

3.13.3 License. This Agreement creates a non-exclusive and perpetual license for City to copy, use, modify or reuse any and all Project Documents and any intellectual property rights therein. Designer shall require any and all subcontractors and consultants to agree in writing that City is granted a non-exclusive and perpetual license for the work of such subcontractors or consultants performed pursuant to this Agreement.

3.13.4 Right to License. Designer represents and warrants that Designer has the legal right to license any and all copyrights, designs and other intellectual property embodied in the Project Documents that Designer prepares or causes to be prepared pursuant to this Agreement. Designer shall indemnify and hold City harmless pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement for any breach of this Section. Designer makes no such representation and warranty in regard to previously prepared designs, plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates or other documents that were prepared by design professionals other than Designer and provided to Designer by City.

3.13.5 Confidentiality. All Project Documents, either created by or provided to Designer in connection with the performance of this Agreement, shall be held confidential by Packet Page. 1676
14 Designer to the extent they are not subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act. All Project Documents shall not, without the written consent of City, be used or reproduced by Designer for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Designer shall not disclose, cause or facilitate the disclosure of the Project Documents to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Designer which is otherwise known to Designer or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Designer shall not use City’s name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the written consent of City.

3.14 Indemnification.

3.14.1 To the fullest extent permitted by law, Designer shall defend (with counsel of City’s choosing), indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of Designer, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Designer’s services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees and attorney’s fees and other related costs and expenses. Designer's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Designer, the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.

3.14.2 If Designer’s obligation to defend, indemnify, and/or hold harmless arises out of Designer’s performance of “design professional” services (as that term is defined under Civil Code section 2782.8), then, and only to the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully incorporated herein, Designer’s indemnification obligation shall be limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Designer, and, upon Designer obtaining a final adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, Designer’s liability for such claim, including the cost to defend, shall not exceed the Designer’s proportionate percentage of fault.

3.15 Insurance. Designer shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City that it has secured all insurance required under this Section. In addition, Designer shall not allow any subconsultant to commence work on any subcontract until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City that the subconsultant has secured all insurance required under this section.

3.15.1 Types of Insurance Required. As a condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement for work to be performed hereunder, and without limiting the indemnity provisions of the Agreement, Designer shall, at its expense, procure and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of the Agreement the following policies of insurance. If the existing policies do not meet the insurance requirements set forth herein, Designer agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the policies to do so.

3.15.2 Additional Insured. The City of San Bernardino, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be named as additional insureds on Designer’s and its subconsultants’ policies of commercial general liability and automobile liability insurance using the endorsements and forms specified herein or exact equivalents.

Packet Page. 1677
15 3.15.3 Commercial General Liability
(a) The Designer shall take out and maintain, during the performance of all work under this Agreement, in amounts not less than specified herein, Commercial General Liability Insurance, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City. (b) Coverage for Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at least as broad as the following: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 00 01) or exact equivalent. Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for the following:
(1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage
(2) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury
(3) Premises/Operations Liability
(4) Products/Completed Operations Liability
(5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project
(6) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted
(7) Contractual Liability with respect to this Contract (8) Broad Form Property Damage
(9) Independent Consultants Coverage
(c) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; (3) products/completed operations liability; or (4) contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement.
(d) The policy shall give City, the City Council and each member of the City Council, its officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status using ISO endorsement forms CG 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage.
(e) The general liability program may utilize either deductibles or provide coverage excess of a self-insured retention, subject to written approval by the City, and provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured.

3.15.4 Automobile Liability
(a) At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Designer shall maintain Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City.

Packet Page. 1678
16 (b) Coverage for automobile liability insurance shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering automobile liability (Coverage Symbol 1, any auto).
(c) The policy shall give City, the City Council and each member of the City Council, its officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status.
(d) Subject to written approval by the City, the automobile liability program may utilize deductibles, provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured, but not a self-insured retention.

3.15.5 Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability
(a) Designer certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement.
(b) To the extent Designer has employees at any time during the term of this Agreement, at all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Designer shall maintain full compensation insurance for all persons employed directly by him/her to carry out the work contemplated under this Agreement, all in accordance with the “Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Act,” Division IV of the Labor Code of the State of California and any acts amendatory thereof, and Employer’s Liability Coverage in amounts indicated herein.

Designer shall require all subconsultants to obtain and maintain, for the period required by this Agreement, workers’ compensation coverage of the same type and limits as specified in this Section.

3.15.6 Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions)
(a) At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement the Designer shall maintain professional liability or Errors and Omissions insurance appropriate to its profession, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City and in an amount indicated herein. This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Designer. “Covered Professional Services” as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must “pay on behalf of” the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend.

3.15.7 Privacy/Network Security (Cyber
(a) At all times during the performance of work under this Agreement, the Designer shall maintain privacy/network security insurance, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City, for: (1) privacy breaches, (2) system breaches, (3) denial or loss of service, and (4) the introduction, implantation or spread of malicious software code.

3.15.8 Aviation and/or Drone Liability
Packet Page. 1679
17 (a) If applicable, at all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Designer shall maintain Aviation and/or Drone Liability insurance for bodily injury and property damage, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City.

3.15.9 Minimum Policy Limits Required
(a) The following insurance limits are required for the Agreement:

Combined Single Limit
Commercial General Liability $2,000,000 per occurrence/ $4,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury, and property
damage
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage
Employer’s Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence
Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim and aggregate (errors and omissions)
Cyber Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate Aviation/Drone Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence limit (b) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits. (c) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Any available coverage shall be provided to the parties required to be named as Additional Insured pursuant to this Agreement.

3.15.10 Evidence Required
(a) Prior to execution of the Agreement, the Designer shall file with the City evidence of insurance from an insurer or insurers certifying to the coverage of all insurance required herein. Such evidence shall include original copies of the ISO CG 00 01 (or insurer’s equivalent) signed by the insurer’s representative and Certificate of Insurance (Acord Form 25-S or equivalent), together with required endorsements. All evidence of insurance shall be signed by a properly authorized officer, agent, or qualified representative of the insurer and shall certify the names of the insured, any additional insureds, where appropriate, the type and amount of the insurance, the location and operations to which the insurance applies, and the expiration date of such insurance.

3.15.11 Policy Provisions Required
(a) Designer shall provide the City at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Designer shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to nonpayment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of Packet Page. 1680
18 this Agreement, the Designer shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration.
(b) The Commercial General Liability Policy and Automobile Policy shall each contain a provision stating that Designer’s policy is primary insurance and that any insurance, self-insurance or other coverage maintained by the City or any named insureds shall not be called upon to contribute to any loss.
(c) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the Effective Date of this Agreement. Designer shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Designer shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the Effective Date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the Effective Date of this Agreement.
(d) All required insurance coverages, except for the professional liability coverage, shall contain or be endorsed to waiver of subrogation in favor of the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers or shall specifically allow Designer or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Designer hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants. (e) The limits set forth herein shall apply separately to each insured against whom claims are made or suits are brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.

Further the limits set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Designer from liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it limit the Designer’s indemnification obligations to the City and shall not preclude the City from taking such other actions available to the City under other provisions of the Agreement or law.

3.15.12 Qualifying Insurers
(a) All policies required shall be issued by acceptable insurance companies, as determined by the City, which satisfy the following minimum requirements: Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII and admitted to transact in the business of insurance in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law.

3.15.13 Additional Insurance Provisions
(a) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Designer, and any approval of said insurance by the City, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Designer pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification.
(b) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary Packet Page. 1681
19 and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Designer or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Designer payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
(c) The City may require the Designer to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (d) Neither the City nor the City Council, nor any member of the City Council, nor any of the officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement.

3.15.14 Subconsultant Insurance Requirements
(a) Designer shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the City that they have secured all insurance required under this Section. Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the City as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Designer, City may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants.

3.16 Records.

Designer shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Designer shall allow a representative of City during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Designer shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of five (5) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement.

3.17 Standardized Manufactured Items.

Designer shall cooperate and consult with City in the use and selection of manufactured items on the Project, including but not limited to, paint, hardware, plumbing, mechanical and electrical equipment, fixtures, roofing materials and floor coverings. All such manufactured items shall be standardized to City’s criteria to the extent such criteria do not interfere with building design.

3.18 Limitation of Agreement.

This Agreement is limited to and includes only the work included in the Project described herein. Any additional or subsequent construction at the site of the Project, or at any other City site, will be covered by, and be the subject of, a separate Agreement for design services between City and the designer chosen therefor by City.

3.19 Mediation.

Disputes arising from this Agreement may be submitted to mediation if mutually agreeable to the parties hereto. The type and process of mediation to be utilized shall be subject to the mutual agreement of the parties.

Packet Page. 1682
20 3.20 Successors and Assigns.

This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest, executors, administrators and assigns of each party to this Agreement. However, Designer shall not assign or transfer by operation of law or otherwise any or all of its rights, burdens, duties or obligations without the prior written consent of City. Any attempted assignment without such consent shall be invalid and void.

3.21 Asbestos Certification.

Designer shall certify to City, in writing and under penalty of perjury, that to the best of its knowledge, information and belief no asbestos-containing material or other material deemed to be hazardous by the state or federal government was specified as a building material in any construction document that the Designer prepares for the Project. Designer shall require all consultants who prepare any other documents for the Project to submit the same written certification. Designer shall also assist the City in ensuring that contractors provide City with certification, in writing and under penalty of perjury, that to the best of their knowledge, information and belief no material furnished, installed or incorporated into the Project contains asbestos or any other material deemed to be hazardous by the state or federal government. These certifications shall be part of the final Project submittal. Designer shall include statements in its specifications that materials containing asbestos or any other material deemed to be hazardous by the state or federal government are not to be included.

3.22 No Third Party Rights.

This Agreement shall not create any rights in, or inure to the benefits of, any third party except as expressly provided herein.

3.23 Governing Law.

This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with, and governed by, the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in San Bernardino County.

3.24 Exhibits and Recitals.

All exhibits and recitals contained herein and attached hereto are material parts of this Agreement and are incorporated as if fully set forth.

3.25 Severability.

Should any provision in the Agreement be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

3.26 Non-Waiver.

None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be considered waived by either party, unless such waiver is specifically specified in writing.

3.27 Safety.

Packet Page. 1683
21 Designer shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Designer shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of its employees, consultant and subcontractors appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed.

3.28 Harassment Policy.

Designer shall provide a copy of the City's Harassment Policy to each of its employees assigned to perform the tasks under this Agreement. Designer shall submit to the City's Personnel Manager a statement signed by each of its employees who are assigned to perform the Services under this Agreement certifying receipt of City's Harassment Policy and certifying that they have read the Harassment Policy. A finding by the City that any of Designer's employees has harassed a City employee shall be grounds for appropriate discipline, up to and including such employee's removal from performance of this Agreement at City's request.

3.29 Delivery of Notices.

All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:

CITY:

City of San Bernardino
Vanir Tower, 290 North D Street
San Bernardino, California 92401
Attn: City Manager
With a Copy to:

City of San Bernardino
Vanir Tower, 290 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
Attn: City Attorney
DESIGNER:

IDS Group, Inc.
1250 Corona Pointe Court, Suite
409,Corona, CA 92879
Contact Person: John Silber, AIA,
Principal Architect / Project Manager
Phone: 949.387.8500 ext. 509
Email: [email protected]
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.

3.30 Time of Essence.

Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

3.31 City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants.

Packet Page. 1684
22 City reserves right to employ other consultants, including designers, in connection with this Project or other projects.

3.32 Prohibited Interests.

3.32.1 Solicitation. Designer maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Designer, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Designer warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Designer, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability.

3.32.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no director, official, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.

3.33 Equal Opportunity Employment.

Designer represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and that it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or any other classification protected by federal or state law.

Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Designer shall also comply with all relevant provisions of City’s minority business enterprise program, affirmative action plan or other related programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted.

3.34 Labor Certification.

By its signature hereunder, Designer certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker’s Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services.

3.35 Subcontracting.

As specified in this Agreement, Designer shall not subcontract any portion of the Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of City. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to each and every provision of this Agreement.

3.36 Supplemental Conditions.

Any supplemental conditions shall be attached as an exhibit to this Agreement, and that exhibit shall be incorporated herein by reference.

3.37 Electronic Signature.

Packet Page. 1685
23 Each Party acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement may be executed by electronic or digital signature, which shall be considered as an original signature for all purposes and shall have the same force and effect as an original signature.

3.38 Entire Agreement.

This Agreement, with its exhibits, contains the entire agreement of the parties hereto, and supersedes any and all other prior or contemporaneous negotiations, understandings and oral or written agreements between the parties hereto. Each party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements have been made by any person which are not incorporated herein, and that any other agreements shall be void. Furthermore, any modification of this Agreement shall only be effective if in writing signed by all parties hereto. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
Packet Page. 1686
24 SIGNATURE PAGE FOR DESIGN SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
AND IDS Group, Inc.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
APPROVED BY:

Eric Levitt
City Manager
ATTESTED BY:

Telicia Lopez
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney

DESIGNER
IDS Group, Inc.

APPROVED BY:

John Silber, AIA
Principal Architect/ Project Manager
Packet Page. 1687
Exhibit A-1

EXHIBIT A
DESIGNER’S SCOPE OF SERVICES

1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.

1.1 Basic Services. Designer agrees to perform all the necessary professional design, engineering (e.g. mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, site engineering, and any other necessary engineering services mutually agreeable to the parties) and construction administration services for the Project in a timely and professional manner, consistent with the standards of the profession, including those provided for herein.

1.2 Exclusions from Basic Services. N/A

1.3 Additional Services. Designer shall perform the following Additional Services for the Project: N/A

1.4 Communication with City. Designer shall participate in consultations and conferences with authorized representatives of City and/or other local, regional, or state agencies concerned with the Project, which may be necessary for the completion of the Project or the development of the drawings, specifications and documents in accordance with the applicable standards and requirements of law and the City. Such consultations and conferences shall continue throughout the planning and construction of the Project and the contractor’s warranty period. Designer shall take direction only from the City’s Representative, or any other representative specifically designated by the City for this Project, including any construction manager hired by the City.

1.5 Coordination and Cooperation with Construction Manager. The City may hire a construction manager to administer and coordinate all or any part of the Project on its behalf. If the City does so, it shall provide a copy of its agreement with the construction manager so that the Designer will be fully aware of the duties and responsibilities of the construction manager.

The Designer shall cooperate with the construction manager and respond to any requests or directives authorized by the City to be made or given by the construction manager. The Designer shall request clarification from the City in writing if the Designer should have any questions regarding the authority of the construction manager.

2. INITIAL PLANNING PHASE.

During the initial planning phase of the Project, Designer shall do all of the following, as well as any incidental services thereto:

2.1 Project Feasibility. Provide advice and assistance to City in determining the feasibility of the Project, analysis of the type and quality of materials and construction to be selected, the site location, and other initial planning matters.

2.2 Meeting Budget and Project Goals. Designer shall notify City in writing of potential complications, cost overruns, unusual conditions, and general needs that potentially impact the Project budget and time line, including the City’s Preliminary Construction Budget.

Designer shall use its best judgment in determining the balance between the size, type and quality of construction to achieve a satisfactory solution within the Project’s budget and construction Packet Page. 1688
Exhibit A-2
allowance. It shall be the duty of the Designer to design the Project within budget. As discussed herein, including in Section 7.3, if the lowest responsive and responsible bid for the Project exceeds the budget by the stated amount, Designer may be required to make the necessary changes in the drawing and specifications, at its sole cost and expense, to bring the bids within the required budget.

2.3 Permits, Approvals and Authorizations. As indicated in Section 3.5.4 of the Agreement, Designer shall assist City in securing easements, encroachment permits, rights of way, dedications, infrastructures and road improvements, as well as coordinating with utilities and adjacent property owners.

3. SCHEMATIC PLAN PHASE.

During the schematic plan phase of the Project, Designer shall do all of the following, as well as any incidental services thereto:

3.1 Funding Documents. Designer shall provide a site plan and all other Projectrelated information necessary and required for an application by City to any federal, state, regional, or local agencies for funds to finance the construction Project.

3.2 Schematic Plans. In cooperation with City, Designer shall prepare preliminary plans and studies, schematic drawings, site utilization plans, and phasing plans showing the scale and relationship of the components of the Project, the plot plan development at the site, and the proposed design concept of the buildings (“Schematic Plans”). Designer shall incorporate the functional requirements of City into the Schematic Plans. The Schematic Plans shall meet all laws, rules and regulations of the State of California. The Schematic Plans shall show all rooms incorporated in each building of the Project in single-line drawings, and shall include all revisions required by City or by any federal, state, regional or local agency having jurisdiction over the Project. All design drawings for the Project shall be in a form suitable for reproduction.

3.3 Preliminary Project Budget. Designer shall use the City’s Preliminary Construction Budget and its own expertise and experience with the Project to establish a preliminary project budget or allowance in a format required by City (“Designer’s Preliminary Project Budget”). The purpose of the Designer’s Preliminary Project Budget is to show the probable Project cost in relation to City’s Preliminary Construction Budget and the construction standards of any applicable funding agency. If Designer perceives site considerations which render the Project expensive or cost prohibitive, Designer shall disclose such conditions in writing to City immediately. As discussed herein, including in Section 7.3, if the lowest responsive and responsible bid for the Project exceeds the budget by more than the stated amount, Designer may be required to make the necessary changes in the drawings and specifications, at its sole cost and expense, to bring the bids within the required budget Designer shall provide a preliminary written time schedule for the performance of all construction work on the Project.

3.4 Copies of Schematic Plans and Other Documents. Designer, at its own expense, shall provide a complete set of the Schematic Plans described herein for City’s review and approval. Additionally, at City’s expense, Designer shall provide such documents as may be required by any federal, state, regional or local agencies concerned with the Project. Any additional copies required by City shall be provided at actual cost to City.

Packet Page. 1689
Exhibit A-3

4. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE.

During the design development phase of the Project, Designer shall do all of the following, as well as any incidental services thereto:

4.1 Design Development Documents. Once City provides Designer with specific written approval of the Schematic Plans described herein, Designer shall prepare design development documents consisting of: (1) site and floor plans; (2) elevations; and (3) any other drawings and documents sufficient to fix and describe the types and makeup of materials, as well as the size and character of the Project’s structural, mechanical and electrical systems, and to outline the Project specifications (“Design Development Documents”). The Design Development Documents shall be prepared in sufficient form to present to the City Council for approval.

4.2 Copies of Design Development and Other Documents. Designer, at its own expense, shall provide a complete set of the Design Development Documents described herein for City’s review and approval. Additionally, at City’s expense, Designer shall provide such documents as may be required by any federal, state, regional or local agencies concerned with the Project. Any additional copies required by City shall be provided at actual cost to City.

4.3 Updated Project Budget. Designer shall use its Preliminary Project Budget and expertise and experience with the Project to establish an updated estimate of probable construction costs, containing detail consistent with the Design Development Documents as set forth herein and containing a breakdown based on types of materials and specifications identified herein (“Designer’s Updated Project Budget”).

4.4 Timetable. Designer shall provide a written timetable for full and adequate completion of the Project to City.

4.5 Application for Approvals. Designer shall assist City in applying for and obtaining required approvals from all federal, state, regional or local agencies concerned with the Project. Designer shall furnish and process all design and engineering information required to prepare and process applications to applicable utilities in order to secure priorities and materials, to aid in the construction of the Project and to obtain final Project approval and acceptance by any of the above agencies as may be required.

4.6 Color and Other Aesthetic Issues. Designer shall provide, for City’s review and approval, a preliminary schedule of all color materials and selections of textures, finishes and other matters involving an aesthetic decision about the Project.

5. FINAL WORKING DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS.

During the final working drawings and specifications phase of the Project, Designer shall do all of the following, as well as any incidental services thereto:

5.1 Final Working Drawings and Specifications. Once City provides Designer with specific written approval of the Design Development Documents described herein, Designer shall prepare such complete working drawings and specifications as are necessary for developing complete bids and for properly executing the Project work in an efficient and thorough manner (“Final Working Drawings and Specifications”). Such Final Working Drawings and Specifications shall be developed from the Schematic Plans and Design Development Documents approved by City. The Final Working Drawings and Specifications shall set forth in detail all of the following:

Packet Page. 1690
Exhibit A-4
(1) the Project construction work to be done; (2) the materials, workmanship, finishes, and equipment required for the architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical systems; and (3) the utility service connection equipment and site work. As indicated in Section 3.9.2 of the Agreement, City may be requested to supply Designer with the necessary information to determine the proper location of all improvements on and off site, including record drawings (“asbuilt drawings”) in City’s possession. Designer will make a good-faith effort to verify the accuracy of such information by means of a thorough interior and exterior visual survey of site conditions.

City shall also make a good-faith effort to verify the accuracy of the as-built drawings and provide any supplemental information to Designer which may not be shown on the as-built drawings.

5.2 Form. The Final Working Drawings and Specifications must be in such form as will enable Designer and City to secure the required permits and approvals from all federal, state, regional or local agencies concerned with the Project. In addition, the Final Working Drawings and Specifications must be in such form as will enable City to obtain, by competitive bidding, a responsible and responsive bid within the applicable budgetary limitations and cost standards.

The Final Working Drawings and Specifications shall be clear and legible so that uniform copies may be on standard architectural size paper, properly indexed and numbered, and shall be capable of being clearly copied and assembled in a professional manner by Designer.

5.3 Approval and Revisions. City shall review, study, and check the Final Working Drawings and Specifications presented to it by Designer, and request any necessary revisions or obtain any necessary approvals by the City Council, subject to the approval of all federal, state, regional or local agencies concerned with the Project. Designer shall make all City-requested changes, additions, deletions, and corrections in the Final Working Drawings and Specifications at no additional cost, so long as they are not in conflict with the requirements of public agencies having jurisdiction or prior approval, or inconsistent with earlier City direction or Designer’s professional judgment. Designer shall bring any such conflicts and/or inconsistencies to the attention of City. The parties agree that Designer, and not the City, possesses the requisite expertise to determine the constructability of the Final Working Drawings and Specifications.

However, the City reserves the right to conduct one or more constructability review processes with the Final Working Drawings and Specifications, and to hire an independent designer or other consultant to perform such reviews. Any such independent constructability review shall be at City’s expense. Designer shall make all City-requested changes, additions, deletions, and corrections in the Final Working Drawings and Specifications which may result from any constructability review, at no additional cost to the City, so long as they are not in conflict with the requirements of public agencies having jurisdiction or prior approval, or inconsistent with earlier City direction or Designer’s professional judgment. If such changes, additions, deletions or corrections are inconsistent with prior City direction, Designer shall make such alterations and be compensated therefore pursuant to the Additional Services provision of this Agreement.

5.4 Costs of Construction. It is understood by Designer that should the Final Working Drawings and Specifications be ordered by City, City shall specify the sum of money set aside to cover the total cost of construction of the work, exclusive of Designer’s fees. Should it become evident that the total construction cost will exceed the specified sum, Designer shall at once present a statement in writing to the City’s Representative setting forth this fact and giving a full statement of the cost estimates on which the conclusion is based.

5.5 Copies of Final Working Drawings and Specifications and Other Documents.

Designer, at its own expense, shall provide a complete set of the Final Working Drawings and Specifications described herein for City’s review and approval. Additionally, at City’s expense, Designer shall provide such documents as may be required by any federal, state, regional or local Packet Page. 1691
Exhibit A-5
agencies concerned with the Project. Any additional copies required by City shall be provided at actual cost to City.

6. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.

During the construction contract documents phase of the Project, Designer shall do all of the following, as well as any incidental services thereto:

6.1 Bid and Contract Documents. If so required by City, Designer shall assist City in the completion of all bid and construction documents, including but not limited to, the Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Contract Bid Forms (including Alternate Bids as requested by City), Contract, General Conditions, Supplementary General Conditions, Special Conditions, DVBE and other applicable affirmative action documents, Performance Bond, Payment Bond, Escrow Agreement for Security Deposits, and any other certifications and documents required by federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations which may be reasonably required in order to obtain bids responsive to the specifications and drawings. All such documents shall be subject to the approval of City and City’s legal counsel.

6.2 Final Estimate. At the time of delivery of these bid and construction documents, which shall include the Final Working Drawings and Specifications (collectively referred to herein as the “Construction Documents”), Designer shall provide City with its final estimate of probable construction cost (“Designer’s Final Estimate”). As discussed herein, including in Section 7.3, it shall be the Designer’s duty to design the Project within budget.

7. BID PHASE.

During the bid phase of the Project, Designer shall do all of the following, as well as any incidental services thereto:

7.1 Reproducible Construction Documents. Once City provides Designer with specific written approval of the Construction Documents and Designer’s Final Estimate, Designer shall provide to City one set of reproducible Construction Documents.

7.2 Distribution of Contract Documents and Review of Bids. Designer shall assist City in distributing the Construction Documents to bidders and conducting the opening and review of bids for the Project.

7.3 Over Budget. If the apparent lowest responsive and responsible bid on the Project exceeds the Designer’s Final Estimate by more than five percent (5%), City may request Designer to amend, at Designer’s sole cost and expense, the Final Drawings and Specifications in order to rebid the Project and receive a lowest responsive and responsible bid equal to or less than the Designer’s Final Estimate. All revisions necessary to bring the lowest responsible and responsive bid within the Designer’s Final Estimate, including any omissions, deferrals or alternates, shall be made in consultation with, and subject to the approval of, the City.

8. CONSTRUCTION PHASE.

During the construction phase of the Project, Designer shall do all of the following, as well as any incidental services thereto:

Packet Page. 1692
Exhibit A-6

8.1 Observation. The Project Designer shall observe work executed from the Final Working Drawings and Specifications in person, provided that City may, in its discretion, consent to such observation by another competent representative of Designer.

8.2 General Administration. Designer shall provide general administration of the Construction Documents and the work performed by the contractors.

8.3 Pre-Construction Meeting. Designer shall conduct one or more pre-construction meetings, as the City determines is needed for the Project, with all interested parties.

8.4 Site Visits of Contractor’s Work. Designer shall conduct site visits to observe each contractors’ work for general conformance with the Construction Documents and with any approved construction schedules or milestones. Such site visits shall be conducted as often as are necessary and appropriate to the stage of construction, according to the City’s sole discretion, but in no event less than weekly.

8.5 Site Visits of Inspector’s Work. Designer shall conduct site visits to communicate and observe the activities of the City inspectors. Such site visits shall be conducted as often as is mutually acceptable to Designer and City. Designer shall direct the City inspectors and the Project contractors to coordinate the preparation of record drawings indicating dimensions and location of all “as-built” conditions, including but not limited to, underground utility lines.

8.6 Coordination of Designer’s Consultants. Designer shall cause all architects, engineers and other consultants, as may be hired by Designer or City, to observe the work completed under their disciplines as required, and approve and review all test results for general conformance with the Construction Documents.

8.7 Reports. Designer shall make regular reports as may be required by applicable federal, state or local laws, rules or regulations, as well as the federal, state, regional or local agencies concerned with the Project.

8.8 Construction Meetings; Minutes. Designer shall attend all construction meetings and provide written reports/minutes to the City after each construction meeting in order to keep City informed of the progress of the work. Such meetings shall occur at a frequency necessary for the progress of the Project work, according to the City’s sole discretion, but no less than weekly.

8.9 Written Reports. Designer shall make written reports to City as necessary to inform City of problems arising during construction, changes contemplated as a result of each such problems, and progress of the Project work.

8.10 Written Records. Designer shall keep accurate written records of the progress and quality of the Project work and the time schedules, and shall advise the contractors and City of any deviations from the time schedule which could delay timely completion of the Project.

8.11 Material and Test Reports. Designer shall check and process, in a timely manner, all required material and test reports for the Project work. In addition, Designer shall provide notice of any deficiencies in material or work reflected in such reports, as well as its recommendation for correction of such deficiencies, to the contractors and City.

Packet Page. 1693
Exhibit A-7

8.12 Review and Response to Submissions. Designer shall review and respond, in a timely manner, to all schedules, submittals, shop drawings, samples, information requests, change requests, and other submissions of the contractor and subcontractors for compliance with, or alterations and additions to, the Construction Documents. Designer’s review and response shall be done in such a manner so as to ensure the timely and uninterrupted progress of the Project work.

8.13 Rejection of Work. Designer shall promptly reject, as discussed with City, work or materials which do not conform to the Construction Documents. Designer shall immediately notify the City and contractor(s) of such rejections. Designer shall also have the authority to recommend to the City that additional inspection or testing of the work be performed, whether or not such work is fabricated, installed or completed.

8.14 Substitutions. Designer shall consult with City, in a timely manner, with regard to substitution of materials, equipment and laboratory reports thereof, prior to the City’s final written approval of such substitutions. Designer’s consultation shall be done in such a manner so as to ensure the timely and uninterrupted progress of the Project work.

8.15 Revised Documents and Drawings. Designer shall prepare, at no additional expense to City, all documents and/or drawings made necessary by errors and omissions in the originally approved Construction Documents.

8.16 Change Requests and Material Changes. Designer shall evaluate and advise City, in a timely manner and in writing, of any change requests and material change(s) which may be requested or necessary in the Project plans and specifications. Designer shall provide the City with its opinion as to whether such change requests should be approved, denied or revised.

If the City has not hired a construction manager or other person to do so, the Designer shall prepare and execute all change orders and submit them to the City for authorization. If the City has designated a construction manager or other person to prepare all change orders, the Designer shall review all change orders prepared by such person, execute them and deliver them to the City for authorization if they meet with the Designer’s approval, or submit them to the City with recommendations for revision or denial if necessary. Designer shall not order contractors to make any changes affecting the contract price without approval by City of such a written change order, pursuant to the terms of the Construction Documents. Designer may order, on its own responsibility and pending City Council approval, changes necessary to meet construction emergencies, if written approval of City’s Representative is first secured.

8.17 Applications for Payment. Designer shall examine, verify and approve contractor’s applications for payment, and shall issue certificates for payment in amounts approved by the City’s inspector.

8.18 Final Color and Product Selection. Designer shall coordinate final color and product selection with City’s original design concept.

8.19 Substantial Completion. Designer shall determine the date of substantial completion, in consultation with the City.

8.20 Punch List. After determining that the Project is substantially complete, Designer shall participate in the inspection of the Project and shall review all remaining deficiencies and minor items needed to be corrected or completed on the Project, including those identified on the punch list prepared by the contractor (“Punch List Items”). Designer shall notify contractor in Packet Page. 1694
Exhibit A-8
writing that all Punch List Items must be corrected prior to final acceptance of the Project and final payment. Designer shall also notify City of all Punch List Items.

8.21 Warranties. Designer shall review materials assembled by the contractor and subcontractors with regard to all written warranties, guarantees, owners’ manuals, instruction books, diagrams, record “as built” drawings, and any other materials required from the contractors and subcontractors pursuant to the Construction Documents. Designer shall coordinate and provide these materials to the City.

8.22 Certificate of Completion. Designer shall participate in any further inspections of the Project necessary to issue Designer’s Certificate of Completion and final certificate for payment.

8.23 Documents for Project Close-Out. Designer shall cause all other architects, engineers and other consultants, as may be hired by Designer, to file any and all required documentation with the City or other governmental authorities necessary to close out the Project.

Designer shall assist the City in obtaining such documentation from all other architects, engineers, or other consultants.

9. AS-BUILT DRAWINGS.

During the as-built drawings phase of the Project, Designer shall do all of the following, as well as any incidental services thereto:

9.1 As-Built Drawings and Specifications. Not later than thirty (30) days after substantial completion of the Project, before receipt of final payment, Designer shall review and forward the Final Working Drawings and Specifications, indicating on them all changes made by change orders or otherwise pursuant to the Construction Documents, as well as all information called for on the specifications, thus producing an “as-built” set of Final Working Drawings and Specifications (“As-Built Drawings and Specifications”). The As-Built Drawings and Specifications shall show, among other things, the location of all concealed pipe, buried conduit runs and other similar elements within the completed Project. Designer shall personally review and certify that the As-Built Drawings and Specifications are a correct representation of the information supplied to Designer by any inspectors and the contractor, and shall obtain certifications from any inspectors and the contractor that the drawings are correct.

9.2 Approval. Once City provides Designer with specific written approval of the AsBuilt Drawings and Specifications, Designer shall forward to City the complete set of original AsBuilt Drawings and Specifications or a complete set of reproducible duplicate As-Built Drawings and Specifications. The tracing shall be of such quality that clear and legible prints may be made without appreciable and objectionable loss of detail.

9.3 Documents for Final Payment. Prior to the receipt of Designer’s final payment, Designer shall forward to City all of the following: (1) one clear and legible set of reproductions of the computations; (2) the original copy of the specifications; (3) the As-Built Drawings and Specifications as required herein; and (4) Designer’s Certificate of Completion.

10. WARRANTY PERIOD.

During the warranty period phase of the Project, Designer shall do all of the following, as well as any incidental services thereto:

Packet Page. 1695
Exhibit A-9

10.1 Advice. Designer shall provide advice to City on apparent deficiencies in the Project during any applicable warranty periods for the Project.

Packet Page. 1696
Exhibit C-1

EXHIBIT B

FEE AND PHASING/FUNDING SCHEDULES

1. FEE SCHEDULE.

Designer will invoice City on a monthly cycle based on the following fee schedule.

Designer will include with each invoice a detailed progress report that indicates the amount of budget spent on each phase and the total amount spent against the Total Compensation.

Designer will inform City regarding any out-of-scope work being performed by Designer for which Designer intends to seek compensation from City.

2. PHASING/FUNDING SCHEDULE.

Progress payments towards Total Compensation shall never exceed the following percentages of Total Compensation as of the phase indicated:

Packet Page. 1697
City of San Bernardino
Professional Design Engineering Services

CALIFORNIA THEATER PARKING STRUCTURE
REHABILITATION - Project No. 9140
Apr il 15, 2026 - Updated

COST FILE
Packet Page. 1698

CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Professional Design Engineering Services
CALIFORNIA THEATER PS (3-Level) REHABILITATION
RFP No. F-26-1053