EXHIBIT “B”
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN 2003 UPDATE
J
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
2003 UPDATE
CITY COUNCIL
F. H. "Corky" Smith
Mayor
Mike Preston
Vice Mayor
Pia Harris
Hal Martin
Lee B. Thibadeau
CITY STAFF
City Manager R. W. Gittings
Charlie Schaffer
Jerry Backoff
Eugenia Aguilar Franco, P .E.
Development Services Director
Planning Divisfon Director
Carl Blaisdell
Director of Engineering/City Engineer
Building Division Director
CONSULTANT
MuniFinancial/Willdan
9275 Sky Park Court, Suite 110
San Diego, CA 92123
858/467-6950
U:\Projects\San Marcos\2003 PFF Update\Draft Report\2003 PFF Update 10-14-03.doc JN2110003
AGENDA ITEM
# 1-Z
2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
i City of San Marcos
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
2003 UPDATE
Table of Contents
Section Description
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... iv
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background ................................................................................................... l
1.2 Purpose ......................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Key Assumptions ................ ; .......................................................................... 3 1 .4 Summary of Fa<?ility Costs and Fees ........................................................... .4
2. DEVELOPMENT FORECAST
2.1 Development Forecast ................................................................................... 6
2.2 Development Agreements ............................................................................ 9
3. PUBLIC FACILITY REQUIREMENTS, COSTS AND FEE CALCULATIONS
3.1 Circulation Iniprovements .................................... : ..................................... 11 3 .1.1 Street_ Circulation hnprovements .................................................... 11 3 .1.2 Traffic System Management. ......... : ................................................ 14
3.1.3 Traffic Signals .................... : ........................................................... 15
3.2 State Route 78Interchanges ....................................................................... 19
3.3 Drainage Facilities ...................................................................................... 24
3.4 NPDES .......................................... · .............................................................. 29
3.5 Technological hnprovements ..................................................................... 33
3.5.1 Geographic Information Systems .................................................... 33
3.5.2 Web-Based Applications ................................................................. 34
3.5.3 Document Management Systems .................................................... 35
3.6 Parks ..................... : ..................................................................................... 37
3.7 Habitat Conservation Program ..................................................... : ............ .40 APPENDIX ......................................................................... -.. ............................... , .... 43
AGENDA ITEM
# l?
2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
ii City of San Marcos
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
2003 UPDATE
List of Tables
ES-1 1992PublicFacilityFees ......................................................................................... v ES-2 2003 PFF Update Fees ......................... : .................................................................. :v ES-3 Apportionment of Drainage Costs ................................... ; ..................................... vi 1-1 1992 Summary of Public Facility Cost Shares ....................................................... .4 1-2 2003 Summary of Public Facility Cost Shares ....................................................... .4 1-3 1992 Public Facility Fees by Fee Type .................................................................... 5 1-4 2003 PFF Update Fees ............................................................................................. 5 2-1 Projected Future Development ................................................................................ 6 2-2 Land Use Comparison: 1992 vs. 2003 ................................................. : ................... 8 2-3 Active Development Agreements ............................................ · .............................. l_O 3-1-6 Trip Generation and EDU Summary ..................................................................... 17 3-1-7 Circulation System Fee .......................................... '. ............................................... 18 3-2-1 Trip Generation and EDU Summary ...................................................................... 22 3-2-2 SR 78 Interchanges Fee ......................................................................................... 23 3-3-1 Drainage Apportionment ................................................................................... : ... 27 3-3-2 Drainage Fee Per Acre ........................................................................................... 28 3-4-1 NP DES Apportionment .......................................................................................... 32 3-6-1 Proposed Park Facilities ......................................................................................... 38 3-6-2 Land Use Adjusted for Development Agreements ................................................ 39 3-7-1 SubareaPlanPriority Acquisition Areas ........... : .................................................. .41 3-7-2 Potential Cost of Priority Acquisition Areas ............................... , ........................ .42 List of Figures
1 General Plan Circulation Element Map ................................................................. 13 2 Future Traffic Signal Locations ............................................................................. 16 AGENDA ITEM # ,_.,
2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
iii City of San Marcos
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This 2003 Update (hereinafter referred to as "2003 Update") of the Public Facilities Financing Plan (Revised) dated February 21, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "1992 Report") and as established by Ordinance No. 90-856 and adopted by Resolution No. 90-3508 (Public Facilities Fee) on August 14, 1990, is intended to provide an update of the 1992 Report. The 2003 Update identifies the public facilities and capital improvements required to support future development within the City of San Marcos. The public facilities and improvements are included within the following service categories: .
1. Circulation hnprovements
a. Streets and Intersections
b. Traffic System Management (TSM)
c. Traffic Signals
2. . State Route 78 Interchanges
3. Drainage Facilities
4. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
5. Technological hnprovements
1. Geographic Information System (GIS)
11. W eh-based applications
111. Document Management System (DMS)
6. Parks
7. Habitat Conservation Program
The City officially recognized the need for a comprehensive public facility funding strategy with the adoptionof aninterim2 percent (of assessed valuation) Public FacilityF.ee on July 9, 1985. This fee was increased to 4percentin 1989. Then, on August 14, 1990, the Cityreplaced the valuation-based fee with individually calculated fees based on capacity demand.
It was the City's intent in 1990 and 1992 and is still true in 2003 that the costs representing future development's fair share of these public facilities and improvements be imposed on such future development in the form of a fee. State Assembly Bill 1600, enacted in 1987 and effective January 1, 1989, as Government Code 66000 et seq., requires that a city establish a reasonable relationship, or "nexus", between a development project or class of development projects and the public improvement for which a developer fee is charged.
This report satisfies the requirements of Government Code Section 66000 et seq. and City of San Marcos Ordinance No. 90-856 by providing a review and update of the previously adopted fees. 2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
iv City of San Marcos
Executive Summary
The 1992 Report identified the total cost of five (5) categories of facilities plus program administration to be $419,032,300. Of this amount, the "City Share" was $65,089,840 and new development's share (assuming supplemental funding of $70,684,645 was available from other sources, i.e. redevelopment agency grants, etc.) was $264,987,650. These cost shares when applied to each facility's apportionment methodology resulted in the following fees in 1992.
Table ES-1 (1)
1992 Public Facility Fees Ad.iusted In 1999
SFD/SFA MF
FACILITY DWELLING DWELLING COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OFFICE LT.MAN. Bus. PK.
CATEGORY UNIT UNIT ACRE ACRE ACRE ACRE ACRE
SR 78 Interchanges $1,536 $ 922 $ 53,088 $18,432 $39,816 $9,216 $50,702 Streets ·2,267 1,360 31,248 18,750 23,436 13,602 31,248 Parks 3,675. 3,675 0 0 0 0 0
GIS 40 40 134 134 134 134 134
Totals/ DU or Acre $7,518 $5,997 $84,470 $37,316 $63,386 · $22,952 $62,084 The costs of improvements have changed since the 1992 Report due to the completion of some facilities, the identification of additional facilities, changes in the scope and cost of other facilities, the receipt of federal grant monies, and the application of an inflation index to ensure that cost estimates remained current. Most new projects resulted from the availability of new information and studies that showed the need for the facilities and improvements. . Table ES-2 (1)
2003 PFF Update Fees
~
SFD/SFA MF LIGHT.
FACILITY DWELLING-DWELLING COMM. INDUST. OFFICE MANUF. Bus. PARK.
CATEGORY UNIT UNIT · ACRE ACRE ACRE ACRE ACRE
Circulation Imp. $6,121 (2) $3,672 $244,833 $48,967 $183,624 $36,725 $122,416 SR-78 Interchanges $2,907 $1,744 $116,272 $23,254 $87,204 $17,441 $58,136 NPDES $312 $312 $1,247 $1,247 $1,247 $1,247 $1,247
Technological hnp. $40 $40 $134 $134 $134 $134 $134
Parks $5,671 $5,671 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Habitat Conserv. $549 $549 $1,840 $1,840 $1,840 $1,840 $1,840 Totals/ DU or Acre $15,600 $11,988 $364,326 $75,442 $274,049 $57,387 $183,773 Note (1): See Table ES-3 for drainage fees
Note (2): Circulation street fee of$6,121/EDUbased upon availability of other funding sources to reduce total cost of future roadway improvements (Table 3-1-6 on page 17) V
2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
Executive Summary
TableES-3
Apportionment of Drainage Costs per Acre by Drainage Basin Fee Area 1990 Fees 1992 Fees (ad.f. 1999) 2003 Fees (1) Al $1,343 $1,644 $3,288
A2 $2,406 _ $2,945 $5,890
A3 $7,006 $8,575 $17,150
B $7,006 $8,575 $17,150
C $7,006 $8,575 $17,150
D $10,474 $12,820 $25,640
Note (1): 2003 drainage fees based upon availability of other funding sources to reduce drainage costs.
The revised fees are subject to a public hearing prior to adoption by the City Council and the revised fees do not take effect until 60-days after adoption.
2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
vi City of San Marcos
SECTIONl
· 2003 UPDATE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
An essential component of any calculation of impact fees consists of reliable information on what the community will look like in the future or at theoretical buildout. The list of projects to be financed and the land uses on which the fees were imposed were derived for the 2003 Report from the following information sources:
• General plans and elements
• Zoning maps
• Specific plans
• Master plans
• Master facilities plans
• Capltal improvement plans
• Capital budgets
• Redevelopment plans
• 2001 City of San Marcos Traffic Model
The updated San Marcos General Plan, adopted June 10, 1997, is a statement of the community's vision for the future. The General Plan includes planning elements addressing land use in the eight (8) neighborhood planning areas; circulation; housing; conservation and open space; public health, safety, and seismic safety; noise; and parks and recreation.
At a special election held June 7, 1988, San Marcos voters approved Proposition R that required a· public facilities financing plan be adopted for each of the City's eight General Plan neighborhoods.
The City Council subsequently adopted Ordinance No. 88-799 to codify the proposition and to clearly establish a public facilities approach to growth management involving the identification of necessary facilities to accommodate new growth, how those facilities will be financed, and when construction and completion of the improvements will be required.
On August 14, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 90-856 and Resolution 90-3508. The ordinance adopted the Public Facility Financing Plan dated June 1, 1990, and the resolution set forth the amount of the public facility fees (PFF). The ordinance and resolution set forth certain :findings with respect to the public facilities justifying the requirement for funding of those facilities from various sources, including, without limitation, new development. 1 2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
Introduction
The 1990 Public Facility Financing Plan was updated in 1991 to include revised cost estimates for State Route 78 interchanges, circulation element streets, flood control facilities, parks, and a geographic information system (GIS) that resulted in creation of the 1992 Report.
The public facilities and infrastructure improvements required to support the current and projected development within San Marcos are identified in the General Plan and EIR, as well as, numerous cumulative impact analyses in subsequent studies. In particular, since the fees were originaliy established, the City has completed the San Marcos Traffic Model Study, which includes updated projections and trip generation data, which are used in part to calculate the fees. This report incorporates the new updated information from these subsequent studies and recommends appropriate adjustments to the fees based upon a fair share allocation of costs.
1.2 PURPOSE
· The 2003 Update identifies the public facilities and capital improvements required to support future development within the City of San Marcos' General Plan area. The public facilities and improvements are included within the following service categories:
Facility/Equipment
• Circulation Improvements
Streets and Intersections
-Traffic System Management (TSM)
Traffic Signals
• State Route 78 Interchanges
• Drainage Facilities
• NPDES
• Technological Improvements
-Geographic Information System (GIS)
Web-based Applications .
-Document Management System (DMS)
• Parks
• Habitat Conservation Program
Nexus Measurement
Traffic generation rates
Traffic generation rates
Acreage
Acreage
Population/Employment Factors
Residential dwellings
Acreage
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
2 City of San Marcos
Introduction
1.3 KEY ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions were used in the preparation of this 2003 Update:
1. For the purposes of this 2003 Update, the "Area of Benefit" includes all land within the . city limits of San Marcos.
2. Development for the purposes of this 2003 Update is considered to take place at a constant straight-line absorption rate to the year 2020.
3. For the purposes of assigning benefit and apportioning fees, a common denominator has been created to provide a relationship of benefit between different land uses. The most common form of this common factor is the Equivalent Dwelling Unit(EDU). The single family dwelling unit is equal to one EDU and all other residential and non-residential land uses are a ratio of the base measure. ·
4. The facility costs contained in this report are based upon year 2002 dollars and were not adjusted for assumed inflation or construction iI).dex increases to the planning horizon or buildout. It is recommended that the costs identified herein be adjusted annually to · reflect any change in the .Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Diego area. Any such cost adjustments will be reflected in a change in the fee amounts.
5. The impact fees resulting from this 2003 Update are based on the best estimate of facility costs available at this time. The costs of improvements and facilities contained herein are based upon the latest facility cost data available.
6. The need for an improvement or facility is documented in the City's General Plan, a specific plan for a development project, a facility master plan, or other documents as required by Government Code 66000. Any new documentation used for the 2003 Update is listed at the end of each facility section.
7. · fu addition to the capital cost of facilities, two (2) percent of the cost of a project has been added for development impact fee administration. Such administration includes the cost of staff time for those staff members not directly involved in any one project, but rather those administering or overseeing the fee program itself This· amount is consistent with such fees charged by other cities.
8. The cost of the new facilities· identified herein are apportioned to both the existing population base ( city share) and to new development (new development's share). The apportionment formulas are designed to ensure that the fees paid by each property owner of future developing property are substantially proportional to the fair share of the benefits accruing to the landowner's property as a result of the completed facilities and • improvements. A detailed discussion of the apportionment formulas is contained in the 2003 Report.
2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
3 City of San Marcos
Introduction
1.4 SUMMARY OF FACILITYCOSTS AND FEES
Table 1-2 lists the types of public facilities necessary for the full development of the City of San Marcos together with the total facility costs segregated between the city's share and future development's share of the costs.
The costs of improvements have changed since the 1992 Report as shown in Tables 1-1 and 1-2 due to the completion of some facilities, changes in the scope and cost of other facilities, the receipt of federal grant monies, changes in prqjected land use quantities, and the application of an inflation index to ensure that cost estimates remained current. For streets and intersections, additional projects were identified following the completion of an updated traffic analysis. The new projects resulted from the use of traffic forecasting as well as increased trips from additional projected new development. Costs have also increased due to higher costs for land acquisition, more stringent design criteria, environmental requirements, etc.
TABLE 1-1
1992 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC FACILITY COST SHARES
NEW TOTAL FACILITY CITY SHARE DEVELOPMENT'S COST SHARE(I) SR 78 Interchanges $6,150,000 . $70,697,385 $76,847,385 Streets $7,628,870 $104,342,330 $111,971,200
Drainage $6,327,030 $102,322,020 $108,649,050
Parks $44;225,000 $56,631,200 $100,856,200
GIS $758,940 $1,679,360 $2,438,300
Total $65,089,840 $335,672,295 $400,762,135
Note (1): New development's share was reduced to $264,987,650 based upon the assumption that "other funding sources" would be available, i.e. redevelopment agency funding, federal and state infrastructure grants, etc.
TABLE 1-2
2003 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC FACILITY COST SHARES
NEW TOTAL FACILITY CITY SHARE DEVELOPMENT'S
SHARE(l) COST
Circulation Improvements $9,902,270 $142,498,650 $152,400,920 SR-78 Interchanges $7,982,700 $78,547,643 $86,530;343
Drainage $60,688,389 $148,943,493 $209,631,882
NPDES $12,523,416 $5,580,840 $18,104,256
Technological Improvements $1,706,080 $614,517 $2,320,597 Parks $40,500,000 $37,360,407 $77,860,407
Habitat Conservation Program $18,427,140 $8,278,860 $26,706,000 Total $145,329,995 $421,824,410 $573,554,405
Note (1 ): New development's share based upon availability of other funding sources 2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
4· City of San Marcos
Introduction
The fee for parks has increased due to substantial increases in the estimated cost of facilities associated with the Park and Recreation Element of the 1990 General Plan. This occurred despite the fact that thirty-three percent (33%) of these costs were assumed to be funded through public/private partnerships and therefore excluded from future funding requirements. The fee has also increased due to a thirty-one percent (31 % ) reduction in the number of potential residential units over which the cost of the facilities is apportioned.
The calculation of all fees was also affected by a substantial reduction in the projected quantity of· future commercial and industrial land use categories and a significant increase in the projected office category. These new projections are the result of a more comprehensive inventory of potential development conducted by City planning staff.
Tables 1-3 and 1-4 compare the PFF fees between the 19Q2 updates and the 2003 updates.
Table 1-3
1992 Public Facility Fees Ad.iusted In 1999
FEE PER FEEPER
SFD/SFA MF FEEPER FEEPER FEEPER FEEPER FEE PER
FACILITY DWELLING DWELLING COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OFFICE LT.MAN. Bus.PK.
CATEGORY UNIT UNIT ACRE ACRE ACRE ACRE ACRE
SR 78 Interchanges $1,536 $ 922 $53,088 $18,432 $39,816 $9,216 $30,702 Streets 2,267 1,360 31,248 18,750 23,436 13,602 31,248
Parks 3,675 3,675 0 0 0 0 0
~1s 40 40 134 134 134 134 134
rotals / DU or Acre $7,518 $5,997 $84,470 $37,316 $63,386 $22,952 $62,084 Table 1-4 (t)
2003 PFF Update Fees
SFD/SFA MF LIGHT.
FACILITY DWELLING DWELLING COMM. INDUST. OFFICE MANUF. Bus.PARK.
CATEGORY UNIT UNIT ACRE ACRE ACRE ACRE ACRE
Circulation Imp. $6,121 $3,672 $244,833 . $48,967 $183,624 $36,725 · $122,416 SR-78 Interchanges $2,907 $1,744 $116,272 $23,254 $87,204 $17,441 $58,136 NPDES $312 $312 $i,247 $1,247 $1,247 $1,247 $1,247
Technological Imp. $40 $40 $134 $134 $134 $134 $134
Parks $5,671 -$5,671 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Habitat Conserv. $549 $549 $1,840 $1,840 $1,840 $1,840 $1,840 Totals/ DU or Acre $15,600 $11,988 $364,326 $75,442 $274,049 $57,387 $183,773 NOTE (1): See Table 3-3-1 for drainage fees.
2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
5 City of San Marcos
SECTION2
2003 UPDATE
DEVELOPMENT FORECAST
2.1 GROWTH PROJECTIONS IN THE 2003 UPDATE
The General Plan includes policies and programs for growth management to assure that Levels of Service for transportation and other public facilities and services are maintained. fu addition, a significant portion of the land still undeveloped would be difficult to develop because of slopes, wetlands, and other environmental constraints. The 2003 Report used these development considerations to predict the amount of future development that could be expected.
Table 2-1 provides a summary pf the year 2020 projected future development within city limits as determined by the City of San Marcos Planning Department, this includes all project areas including SanElijo Hills, Rancho Dorado, Twin Oaks Valley Ranch, Santa Fe Hills, andHeartoftheCity. All residential yields were calculated using the midrange density numbers and, where applicable, an 85% cap on such density. Parkland and constrained land identified in the General Plan was also taken into consideration in calculating the potential development identified in Table 2-1.
TABLE2-1
Potential Development By Neighborhood (As of 4/30/2003) Ci Limits
Non
Residential Office Light Business Residential
Total Comm. Prof. Industrial Industrial Park Total
Nei hborhood SFDU MFDU Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres
1. Richmar 163 73 236 45.1 0 34.6 4.6 12.7
2. Barham/Discovery 1314 1122 2436 15.9 0 9.0 0 245.3
3. Richland 300 225 525 64.0 0 20.0 9.8 0
4. College 868 0 868 13.8 0 29.1 0 0
5. Business/Industrial 117 342 459 154.0 3.8 48.7 46.9 0 253.
6. Questhaven/La Costa 2858 904 3762 14.6 0 51.0 0 0 65.
7. Twin Oaks Valley 385 0 385 0 0 0 0 0 0.
8. Lake San Marcos 83 Q 83 3.0 Q Q Q Q '3.
Total 6,088 2,666 8,754 310.4 3.8 192.4 61.3 258.0 825. 2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing P.lan
6 City of San Marcos·
Development Forecast
Table 2-2 compares the 1992 future land buildout to the 2003 data. The table indicates that total future residential dwelling units declined overall while non-residential land uses also declined. This trend is to be expected to continue as the city builds out the General Plan. 2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
7 City of San Marcos
Future
LAND USE TYPE Development Circulation
Residential
Single Family DU 6,088 3,650
Multi-Family DU 2,666 1,762
Total DU's 8,754 5,412
Non-Residential
Commercial Acres 310.4 293.3
Office Professional Acres 3.8 3.8
Light Industrial Acres 192.4 179.6
Industrial Acres 61.3 61.3
Business Park Acres 258.0 258.0
Total Acres 825.9 796.0
8 TABLE 2-2 EXPANDED
PFF LAND USE
(as of 4/30/03)
Develop1.. .... t Forecast
Modifications for Development Agreements per Table 2-3
SR-78 NPDES
6,088 4,121
2,666 2,467
8,754 6,588
310.4 295.4
3.8 3.8
192.4 192.4
61.3 61.3
258.0 258.0
825.9 810.9
Technology Parks Habitat
6,088 4,121 3,650
2,666 2,467 1,762
8,754 6,588 5,412
310.4 N/A 293.3
3.8 N/A 3.8
192.4 N/A 179.6
61.3 N/A 61.3
258.0 N/A. 258.0
825.9 N/A 796.0
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
Development Forecast
2.2 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
In several instances, the City has entered into development agreements in which property owners have agreed to certain requirements for the payment of Public Facility Fees. Currently, there are two development agreements that modify or exclude the payment of PFF fees. Table 2-3 identifies those properties on which an active agreement is in effect. A development agreement, unless otherwise noted in the agreement, supersedes and takes precedence over an impact fee ordinance arising from this report. ·
These agreements have been accounted for within the apportionment methodology for each facility component by removing the dwelling unit and non-residential acreage counts from the land use component of the fee formula and by removing the total fee revenues anticipated from payment of the fees contained iri each development agreement. This approach ensures that the land uses and fee revenues resulting from existing development agreements are factored out of the fee formulas contained herein to ensure equity and fairness among future development projects. 2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
9 City of San Marcos
Developn. .,?orecast
TABLE2-3
ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
PAY PUBLIC FACILITY FEES?
D.A TITLE EXPIRATION DEVELOPMENT CIRCULATION GIS DRAINAGE PARKS SR-78 NPDES HABITAT
DATE DATE REMAINING
Aug-97 San Elijo Ranch 20 yrs. from 1967 SFR No(l)
effective date
(1997)
199 multi family
Dec-01 University 2012 471 SFR No (1)
Commons
705 multi family
2.IACCOMM
12.8 AC LT INDUST
NOTE (1 ): Full PFF credit due to developer following construction of eligible facilities.
Yes No (1) No (1)
Yes· No (I) Yes
Yes ($1,084/SFR) No No
$651 multi family
44,240 commercial acre
Yes Yes No
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City , · ~<in Marcos
Circulation Improvements
SECTION3
. 2003 UPDATE
PUBLIC FACILITY REQUIREMENTS, COSTS AND APPORTIONMENT
3.1 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
This category of facilities includes the following:
a. Street Circulation Improvements
b. Traffic System Management (TSM)
c. Traffic Signals
3.1.1 STREET CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS
Existing Roadway Network, Traffic Conditions, and Deficiencies The streets that are to be included and financed through an impact fee program are those roadways that provide major links in the City circulation system and that are identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan ( see Figure 1). These backbone roadways connect various parts of the City with each other and with adjacent communities for the purpose of moving traffic either within the City, between different neighborhoods, or from the City's local neighborhoods to the regional circulation system.
East-west travel within the City of San Marcos is accommodated through three principal corridors:
Mission Avenue, San Marcos Boulevard, and Barham Drive in addition to several collector streets.
North-south travel within the City is also accommodated through three principal corridors: Twin Oaks Valley Road, Las Posas Road, and Rancho Santa Fe Road. The existing traffic volumes of these major arterials and of other collector streets and their associated LOS are shown in Table 3-1-1 (Technical Appendix).
In the 1991 Revision of the 1990 Base Public Facilities Financing Plan dated February 21, 1992, Figure 16 identified the City's share of street costs totaling $7,628,870 (1991 dollars). This amount repres·ented the cost of existing deficiencies in the street network that were not attributable to future growth. This base year deficiency is carried forward from year to year and adjusted by the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost fudex (20-city average) which, in this case, increases the cost 29.8% to $9,902,270. This amount is deducted from the cost of future facilities as shown in the calculation.
Facility Standard
The City's adopted threshold for Street Circulation Element is as follows:
• Maintain LOS C or better on all street segments as measured by the average daily trips (ADT). • Maintain LOS C or better at all intersections, with the exception that LOS D may occur at signalized intersections for a period not to exceed a total of two hours per day. 2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
.11 City of San Marcos
Circulation Improvements
Traffic Forecast Model
In order to forecast future traffic volumes and level of service on the City's street network of the Circulation Element, the City used the TRANPLAN model maintained and operated by the San Diego association of Governments (SAND AG) under the direction of the City's Traffic Engineer consultant, RBF Consulting. This model is also used by all agencies in the San Diego Region to forecast traffic volumes on the Region's major arterials and is the model used to update the City's Circulation Element of the General.Plan in 1997. · This modeling effort (May 2, 2001) uses year 2000 land uses as "Base Year". The build-out land use element of this modeling effort is identified as "Alternative 1" model run in order to reflect the city's .
General Plan land uses, which is slightly different from the land uses in the SANDAG general model. Table 3-1-2 (Technical Appendix) depicts the projected build-out ADT and LOS on the City's circulation element street segments based on this latest modeling effort.
Needed Facilities (2003)
Figure 1 identifies the roadway network system that provides adequate capacity to meet the projected City's build-out land uses. This roadway network system is based on the latest traf:qc forecast modeling analysis performed by SANDAG under the direction of the City's Traffic Engineer consultant, RBF Consulting, and dated May 2, 2001. Table 3-1-3 (Technical Appendix) is a list of the City of San Marcos classified roadway segment deficiencies.
Cost of Needed Improvements
Table 3-1-4 (Technical Appendix) identifies the improvement cost for the needed facilities including bridges and intersection improvements required at build-out of the City. The proposed roadway improvement cost including San Marcos Creek overcrossings is estimated at $195,766,700: · 2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
12 City of San Marcos
LEGEND
-·-·-·-·-·-•--ID(R)-•-ID(li)--4 LINES, IMlED . ,..-. -k ------io---l0-4 IMlED
....... · ...... ~ .......... 40"••···· 41H LINES, IAHMlEll NCID R/,1.. I I I I II I II I I I ti I II II I I I I
Sl'IE!E Of NUlEllCE
-SQIO!XS • -EXlSIIIG PARl<S
(D -FlllUlE PARl<S
TYPICAL CROSS-SECTIONS
lr.,byaorllfylld&Gontn,ll'b,
---offlcl<al!r C>lopodbfhCIJc...dbf ..
-lb.117-2.B ... '"""""'11.
--~-.... ~ ... p,i>lloi-t,g,.
CORONADO HlllS AREA
lli{~ i §
Mf::STOIURY «'BifBW.
I@!!!;
-LEGEND ~T~:m • PIWA1E llllM>
-~ Cir Clllt
1,,_,i,yoort11Jlhotlhl~cn
.. -.... --"'""'
__ .,.,.CIJofSan
-CJ:.
-
c.l'.A.- Ila
-
11/11,,,.. - .....,. ,---· -·-.. ~-LEGEND
-·---· ----.. -.. -Pflll'lilt: ROM)S
..... ---'MtNI.,.._._. .. .. .. PU8llC siREEJs
--
n,_
--D D O COIINEClllRS
DEVELOPMENT SERVI~ DEPARTMENT
FIGURE 1
~ -1RAlt. FENCE
El -TRAIL
~ -E.O. 1RAL ttf ~~~-::=i
.f'lllllCS!ll£Er
ll'flQl"CFW
~ --=-~
'!£TAUi) ILIPS AY/VBE. II Elt<HIRtlQ --NOTlllSCN.E-
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
GEN. PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT.
3.1.2 TRAFFIC SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM)
Existing Traffic System Management
Circulation Improvements
Currently, the City of San Marcos has a traffic system management center that uses Bitrans QUIKNET/4 software to control and monitor existing traffic signals along San Marcos Boulevard.
Communication between the center and field signals is provided via hard wires ( copper and Fiber optic) and radio.
Need for Citywide Traffic System Management
The City of San Marcos retained the services of ADV ANTEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. to prepare an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Master Plan. This ITS Master Plan evaluates the existing City of San Marcos transportation system infrastructure, including its communication (traffic signal interconnect) system, identifies and prioritizes ITS improvements, and recommends components to implement a coherent ITS system that would enhance overall operation of the transportation network. This plan presents a strategic and integrated approach to help the City implement an ITS plan that will meet the City's needs over the next decade.
Cost of Needed Improvements
Based on the Intelligent Transportation Systems Master Plan dra:ftreport, prepared by ADV ANTEC Consulting Engineers for the City of San Marcos and dated September 7, 2001, the following elements should be included in the proposed traffic System Management:
A. Traffic Operations Center with Adaptive Traffic System: $83,000 $220,(XX) B.
C.
D.
E.
11 Closed Circuit TV cameras:
Fiber Optic Communication network:
Highway Advisory Radio System:
Pre-Trip Traveler Information:
Total System Cost:
$5,000,000
$200,(XX)
$100,(XX)
$5,603,000
2003 Upd.ate -Public Facilities Financing Plan
14 . ~ityofSanMarcos .
Circuiation Improvements
3.1.3 TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Existing Traffic Signals
Currently the City San Marcos has seventy-five (75) traffic signals in addition to the signalized ramps along State Route 78. The City is also funding five (5) additional traffic signals through the Capital hnprovement Program (CIP). These traffic signall? tend to concentrate along the major arterials because of the high traffic volumes.
Need for Traffic Signals
Traffic signals are needed at intersections in order to provide for safe and efficient movement of traffic and increase the handling capacity of the intersection. The justification for a traffic signal is based on the warrants listed in chapter 9 of the California Traffic Manual. In general, the traffic signal warrants provide thresholds for vehicular and pedestrian volumes, congestion, school location, and accident history.
The City has determin_ed that the need for traffic signals is primarily due to growth or increase in. traffic resulting from new developments. Therefore, these new traffic signals should be funded by those developments. · ·
Based on the planning warrants recommended in the Traffic Manual for future intersections and using projected traffic volumes from the City's latest model forecast, we estimate that the City will need fifty-five (55) traffic signals under build-out conditions in addition to the seventy-five (75) existing traffic signals and the five (5) new traffic signal currently fully funded under the City's CIP program. At build-out, the City of San Marcos will have one hundred thirty-five (135) signalized intersections. Figure 2 shows the location of the proposed traffic signals to be funded under the 2003 City of San Marcos Public Facilities Financing Plan.
Cost of Needed Improvements
Table 3-1-5 (Technical Appendix) lists the future traffic signals to be funded under the 2003 City San Marcos Public Facilities Financing Plan. The total cost to install fifty-five (55) new traffic signals at the warranted intersections is estimated to be $9,625,000 at $175,000 per signal. 2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
15 City of San Marcos
I I
N.T.S.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
FIGURE 2
LEGEND
0 -FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECTS (53)
A -UNFUNDED CIP TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECT (1)
l!I -PARTIALLY FUNDED TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECTS (I)
e -CIP TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECTS (5)
(c;F¥Y <tl'FI 9.1£1\fr ~AD<c!1<tl1& ~= = = ~= ~===~ =if====,:,I ~ ~~
FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATIONS
I I
Circulation Improvements
Method of Apportioning Costs
Table 3-1-6 illustrates the methodology used to calculate the fees for the Circulation Improvements Element. Table 3-1-7 represents the proposed fee updates for the Circulation Improvement Element categorized based on land use.
TABLE 3-1-6
2003 PFF UPDATE
TRIP GENERATION AND EDU SUMMARY
(ADJUSTED FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS)
LAND-USE FuTURE TRIP RA.TES TRIPS EDU's DEVELOPMENT GENERATED Single Family DU 3,650DU 10/DU 36,500 3,650
Multi-Family DU l,762DU 6/DU 10,572 1,057
Commercial Acres 293.3AC 400/AC 117,320 11,732
Office Professional Acres 3.8AC 300/AC 1,140 114
Light Industrial Acres 179.6AC 60/AC 10,776 1,078
Industrial Acres 61.3AC 80/AC 4,904 490
Business Park Acres 258.0AC 200/AC 51,600 5,160 ·
Totals 232,812. 23,281
Future development's cost is calculated as follows:
Cost of Future Roadway Improvements
Other Funding Sources, if available
$ 195,766,700
50,000,000
Subtotal $145,766,700
Cost of Future TSM Improvements ~,603,000
Cost of Future Traffic Signals $9,625,000
Subtotal Circulation Improvement Costs $160,994,700
Less Cost of Existing Deficiencies (9,902,270)
Less Account Balance on 4/30/03 (10,004,658)
Subtotal Cost Attributable to Future Development $141,087,772 Plus 1 % Fee Program Administration 1,410,878
Total Cost to Future Development $ 142,498,650
2003 Update Cost per EDU = $ 142,498,650 = $ 6,120.81 = $ 6,121/EDU 23,281 EDU's
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
17 City of San Marcos
Circulation Improvements
TABLE 3-1-7
2003 PFF UPDATE
CIRCULATION SYSTEM FEE
RATE PER
LAND USE EDU EDU FEE
Single Family DU 1.0/DU $6,121 · $6,121
Multi-Family DU .6/DU $6,121 $3,672
Commercial Acres 40/AC $6,121 $244,833
Office Professional Acres 30/AC $6,121 $183,624
Light Industrial Acres 6/AC $6,121 $36,725
Industrial Acres 8/AC. $6,121 $48,967
Business Park Acres 20/AC $6,121 $122,416
The system of streets and intersections, traffic system nianagement (TSM) improvements, and traffic signals_ offer a safe and efficient network of travel throughout the City providing a benefit to both existing and future development by virtue of their demand for these facilities. The need for these facilities is well documented in various public reports including the San Marcos General Plan and its accompanying circulation studies.
The vehicular trip rate by land use type is the most frequently used and recognized method of measuring the demand for street improvements and therefore the benefit accruing to property. The methodology used herein to apportion the cost of future circulation improvements among the various land use categories is based on the trip rates identified in the report entitled San Diego Traffic Generators published by SANDAG.
2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan.
18 City of San Marcos
State Route 78 Interchanges
3.2 STATE ROUTE 78 INTERCHANGES
This section of the report includes a review of the interchange facilities along SR-78 within the City of San Marcos. The following facilities would need to be constructed or improved as part of the Cities Circulation Element.
1. Las Posas Road
2. Smilax Road
3. Rancho Santa Fe Road
4. Woodland Parkway
5. Nordahl Road
Authority
The City of San Marcos' 1990 General Plan Circulation Element is an element of the General Plan.
As such, zoning, subdivisions, public works, and private development and specific plans must be consistent with the Circulation Element. The Circulation Element includes seven interchanges along SR 78 Freeway that are within the City of San Marcos: Smilax Road, Rancho Santa Fe Road, Las Posas Road, San Marcos Boulevard, Twin Oaks Valley Road, Nordahl Road and Woodland Parkway.
Existing Facilities and Deficiencies
. .
The State Route 7 8 interchange improvements represent a vital link between the circulation element street system and the regional highway network. The 199 2 Report identified future improvements at Smilax Road, Las Posas Road, San Marcos Boulevard, and Woodland Parkway interchanges as the direct result of traffic from future developments. That report recommended that all improvement costs associated with these interchanges be funded by future developments. The 1992 Report also found that Rancho Santa Fe Road interchange was operating at LOSE and F during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively, and the eastbound ramps of the Twin Oaks Valley Road.interchange operated at LOSE during AM and PM peak.periods. Therefore, the $6,150,000 cost{1991 dollars) of these improvements was assigned to the City.
Like street de:qciency costs, this base year deficiency for SR 78 futerchanges is carried forward from year to year and adjusted by the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost fudex (20-city average) which, in this case, increases the cost 29.8% to $7,982,700. This amount is deducted from the cost of future facilities as shown in the calculation following Table 3-2-1.
Since the 1992 Report was completed, the City has improved the San Marcos Boulevard and the Twin Oaks Valley Road interchanges to address both existing deficiencies and create traffic volume capacity to accommodate future development.
Cal trans, working with the City of San Marcos, prepared two project study reports for Rancho Santa Fe Road and Woodland Parkway interchanges ( dated May 1991 and July 1992 respectively) in order to identify the ultimate interchange improvements. The City of Escondido has filed an application with SANDAG to fund the ultimate improvements at the Nordahl Road interchange as part of the regional arterial system projects. The application was approved by the SANDAG Advisory 2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
19 City of San Marcos
State Route 78 Interchanges
Co:nnnittee on Transportation Funding ( Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee -CTAC) in July 2000.
Facility Description
The State Route 78 interchanges remaining to be constructed or improved with future funds are listed as follows:
1. Las Posas Road
2. Smilax Road
3. Rancho Santa Fe Road
4. Woodland Parkway
5. NordahlRoad
A description of these interchanges and their projected levels of service are discussed below.
According to the policy of the Circulation Element, Level of Service "D" is acceptable during peak hours.
Las Posas Road Interchange (Project No. 1):
The City of San Marcos Circulation Element identifies Las Posas Road/SR-78 Interchange as a critical link for between the City's local roadway network and the regional system. Additionally, SR- 78 Corridor Study, dated December 29, 1988, also identifies the need for a new interchange at Las Posas Road with SR-78. This report calls for a new diamond interchange with dual left lanes at the ramp signals and three through lanes on Las Posas Road (six-lane Prime Arterial).
Smilax Road Interchange (Project No. 2):
Smilax Road interchange is identified in the circulation element of the City General Plan asa critical link between the local and the regional circulation networks. Smilax is classified as a four-lane undivided secondary arterial with 84 feet of right of way. Currently, Smilax Road is a two-lane roadway underpass with no connection to SR-78. The proposed interchange configuration -is a diamond type with a minimum of 300 feet between the eastbound and westbound ramp signals. All ramps are proposed to have two lanes in each direction and four lanes on Smilax Road with two left turn lanes at each signal. The projected levels of service for Smilax interchange under future traffic conditions are expected to be LOS A and B for the eastbound ramp signal during the AM and PM peak periods and LOS B for the westbound ramp signal during the AM and PM pealc periods respectively.
Rancho Santa Fe Road Interchange (Project No. 3):
Caltrans prepared a Project Study Report (PSR) for Rancho Santa Fe Road interchange to identify necessary improvement to meet future traffic demand. The report recommended widening all four ramps from one to two lanes with additional storage area provided at the off-ramps. The report also called out for ramp metering systems and HOV bypass lane with CHP enforcement area. Rancho Santa Fe Road overcrossing needs to be widened by 22 feet to accommodate. the proposed lane configuration and meet state standards. Additional improvements along Rancho Santa Fe Road north 2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
20 City of San Marcos
State Route 78 Interchanges
and south of the interchange are necessary as identified in the report. The report identified the total interchange improvement cost to be $3. 8 million as of 1991.
Woodland Parkway Interchange (Project No. 4):
A PSR dated July 1992 was prepared by Caltrans for this interchange to identify necessary improvements to meet future traffic demand. The total project cost as identified in the report is $37 .0 million and consists of widening and realigning the local streets, replacing the undercrossing structure, signalizing and channelizing the intersections with the interchange area to meet future traffic volumes, and widening and realigning the existing ramps to provide for adequate acceleration, deceleration, and storage area.
Nordahl Road Interchange (Project No. 5):
The City of Escondido has identified the Nordahl Road Interchange as deficient at build-out. As a result, the City ofEscondido filed a funding application for the Nordahl Interchange with SANDAG.
The application was approved on July 20, 2001. The application identifies the following roadway improvements needed to carry the projected build-out traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service:
• Widen both sides of the bridge to add a third lane in each direction; • Widen the eastbound·on-ramp to add a third lane;
• Retrofit the bridge structure to meet seismic thresholds; and • Modify signal ap.d other minor traffic improvements.
With the above noted improvements, the interchange will operate at LOS D under build-out conditions.
Cost Estimates
The cost estimates for Smilax Road and Las Posas Road were taken from SAND AG' s 1989 State Route 78 Corridor Study as reproduced in the 1992 Report. These costs were escalated to the present using Caltrans' Average Construction Cost Index for 2000. An average was used to smooth out dips and spikes that may occur in any given quarter. The cost for the Rancho Santa Fe Road Interchange was taken from the PSRdated May 1991 and escalated to the present. The cost for Woodland Parkway was taken from the PSR dated July 1992 and escalated to the present. 2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
21 City of San Marcos
Interchange
1. Las. Posas Road
2. Smilax Road
3. Rancho Santa Fe
4. Woodland Parkway
5. Nordahl Road
Total All Interchanges
Improvements
New futerchange
New futerchange ·
futerchange Improvements
futerchange Reconstruction
futerchange Up grade
State Route 78 Interchanges
$21,500,000
$24,300,000
$ 5,400,000
$37,000,000
$ 3,352,800
$91,552,800
Method of Apportioning Costs
Table 3-2-1 identifies the average daily trips generated by future development as adjusted for development agreements. Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU' s) are based on ADT rates by land use.
TABLE3-2-l
2003 PFF UPDATE
Trip Generation and EDU Summary
LAND USE TYPE
. FuTURE TRIP TRIPS
DEVELOPMENT RATES GENERATED EDUs
Single Family DU 6,088DU 10/DU 60,880 6,088
Multi-Family DU 2,666DU 6/DU 15,996 1,600
Commercial Acres 31.0.4AC 400/AC 124,160 12,416
Office Professional Acres 3.8AC 300/AC 1,140 114
Light fudustrial Acres 192.4AC 60/AC 11,544 1,154
Industrial Acres 61.3AC 80/AC 4,904 490
Business Park Acres 258.0AC 200/AC 51,600 5,160
Totals 270,224 27,022
2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
22 City of San Marcos
State Route 78 Interchanges
Future development's cost is calculated as follows:
Total SR78 Interchange Costs $91,552,800
Less Cost of Deficiencies (7,982,700)
Less Accou__nt Balance to 4/30/03 (5,800,156)
Subtotal Cost Attributable to Future Development $ 77;769,944 Plus 1 % Fee Program Administration 777,699
Total Cost to Future Development $ 78,547,643
2003 Update Cost per Total EDU = $ 78,547,643 =$2,906.80=$2,907/EDU 27,022 EDU
TABLE3-2-2
2003 PFF UPDATE
SR 78 INTERCHANGES FEE
RATE PER
LAND USE EDU EDU FEE
Single Family DU 1.0/DU $2,907 $2,907.
Multi-Family DU .6/DU· $2,907 $1,744
Commercial Acres 40/AC $2,907 $116,272
Office Professional Acres 30/AC ·$2,907 $87,204
Light Industrial Acres 6/AC $2,907 $17,441
Industrial Acres 8/AC $2,907 $23,254
Business Park Acres 20/AC $2,907 $58,136
The interchanges with SR 78 contribute. to a safe and efficient network for vehicular travel throughout-the City providing a benefit to both existing and future developments by virtue of their demand for these facilities. The need for these facilities is well documented in various public reports including the San Marcos General Plan and its accompanying circulation studies.
The vehicular trip rate by land use type is the most :frequently used and recognized method of measuring the demand for street improvements and therefore the benefit accruing to property. The methodology used herein to apportion the cost of future circulation improvements among the various land use categories· is based on the trip rates identified in the report entitled San Diego Traffic Generators published by SANDAG.
2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
23 City of San Marcos
Drainage
3.3 DRAINAGE
This category of facilities includes the following:
• Backbone drainage facilities 36-inches or larger as identified in the City's Master Plan of Drainage dated January 1990.
Existing Facilities
The City's sphere of influence contains 4 major drainage areas and 11 smaller areas. Runoff from the four major areas flows down major tributaries to San Marcos Creek which discharges into Lake San Marcos. The 11 smaller areas drain away from the major basins and do not add water to the city's backbone drainage system.
Design Standards
The city's backbone drainage system is designed to convey 100 year flow rates as calculated using the methodology outlined in the County of San Diego's Hydrology Manual Revised 1993. The exception to these criteria is San Marcos Creek that uses flow rates developed by the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers as published in the FEMA Flood fusurance Study (FIS) reissued 1993. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers design flow rates have been used as the basis for a number of subsequent studies of San Marcos Creek. The design and construction of the remainder of the backbone system will follow standard design practices using reinforced concrete pipe, box culverts, open channels, and other appropriate drainage structures.
Facility Descriptions
The Master Plan of Drainage forthe City of San Marcos dated January 1990, prepared by a joint venture between Fraser Engineering Inc. and Cooper Engineering Associates, identifies the necessary backbone drainage facilities for ultimate buildout of the City. For the purposes of the developer fee calculation, only the cost for the facilities to be constructed in the four major drainage areas shown in the master plan will be included. The smaller areas do not contribute storm flows to the major backbone systems and will therefore be excluded from the fee. Table 3-3-1 shows the remaining undeveloped acreage for each of the four major drainage areas.
San Marcos Creek
Backbone systems from all four major drainage areas are tributaries to San Marcos Creek. San Marcos is composed of the main branch from Lake San Marcos to Twin Oaks Valley Road and a secondary branch, the Las Posas Branch from San Marcos Boulevard north to Stone Drive. San Marcos Creek has been the subject of a number of studies since the 1990 Master Plan of Drainage.
Whereas the master plan called for the regrading and channelization of the Creek, the more recent concepts involve allowing the Creek to remain in a more natural state. With these concepts the Creek will form the backbone of an open space/recreational amenity through the center of the City. 2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
24 City of San Marcos
Drainage
Cost Estimates
With the major exception of San Marcos Creek, the cost estimates used in this report were developed based on the facility sizes and lengths detailed in the 1990 Master Plan of Drainage. As part of the development of this report the changes in land use designation from 1990 to 2001 were reviewed to insure that they remain valid. The current land use as assigned by the city's general plan has not changed to the point where they will significantly impact the prelimina..ry design flow rates as shown in the 1990 Master Plan.
Individual cost estimates for each of the systems described in the 1990 Master Plan have been developed and can be found in the Appendix. These cost estimates used unit costs as of2001 and the quantities from the 1990 Master Plan. Estimates for the number of appurtenant structures such as manholes, catch basins, connector pipes were added to the quantities in the 1990 Master Plan. Soft cost items such as engineering, construction management, city administration, and environmental processing costs have been added to the basic construction cost estimates. A contingency of 15 percent for'unknown factors has also been added. Table 3-3-1 gives a breakdown of the total cost for drainage facilities by drainage basin exclusive of the cost of San Marcos Creek.
San Marcos Creek Cost Estimate
San Marcos Creek is downstream of all four major drainage areas. For this reason, its costs have been separated out of the drainage basin facility cost listed in Table 3-3-1 so that its cost can .be apportioned to all four drainage basins.
San Marcos Creek can be divided into two sections: the reach from Lake San Marcos to Twin Oaks Valley Road and the reach below Lake San Marcos Dam. The reach below Lake San Marcos Dam is currently planned as a natural watercourse. There are no anticipated expenditures of City capital funds to improve this portion of the creek. For this reason the cost of San Marcos Creek below the dam has been assumed to be negligible for the calculation of cost apportionments.
The reach of San Marcos Creek above Lake San Marcos can be divided into several sections. The section from the lake to Discovery Street runs through an existing golf course. Because this is an existing facility and not anticipated ;for redevelopment, the capital cost of improvements to San Marcos Creek through this reach was again assumed to be negligible.
The reach from Discovery Street to State Route 78 is currently under design by O 'Day Consultants.
For the purposes of this report the cost estimates developed by O'Day will be used for this portion of San Marcos Creek. The cost of the five bridge crossings over San Marcos Creek in this reach have been broken out ancl are included in Table 3-1-4 (Technical Appendix).
The portion of San Marcos Creek from State Route 78 to Twin Oaks Valley Road has been most recently addressed by the San Marcos Creek Special Area Management Plan dated November 4, 1992. This document recommends the construction of a reinforced concrete channel in this reach.
This is similar to the recommendation contained in the 1990 Master Plan of Drainage. These documents have been used as the basis of the cost estimate for San Marcos Creek in this reach. Unit costs have been updated to 2003 figures.
25 2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
Drainage
The Las Posas branch of San Marcos Creek runs north and is the major outlet for Drainage Basin D.
For this reason i~s costs have been included in those for Drainage Basin D.· Method of Apportioning Cost
Drainage basin improvement costs are generally spread to the properties only within the boundaries of the basin. Table 3-3-1 summarizes the drainage basin., undeveloped acreage within that basin, and the drainage facility costs for each major basin. These costs do not include the portion of the cost for San Marcos Creek as discussed below.
The exception to the practice of apportioning costs by drainage basin is San Marcos Creek. San Marcos Creek serves as the outlet for all four of the major drainage basins. However, there are portions of Drainage Basin A that do not contribute storm flows to San Marcos Creek. For this reason, Drainage Basin A was subdivided into three sub-basins: Al, A2, and A3. This subdivision and nomenclature was used in the 1991 Facilities Financing Plan and will be retained for this report.
Sub-basin Al does not contribute storm flows to those portions of San Marcos Creek that are proposed for improvement. Because of this, they have been deleted from the basin area calculations used to apportion the cost of San Marcos Creek to the remaining part of Drainage Basin A2, A3 and Drainage Basins B, C and D.
·The cost of the proposed improvements to San Marcos Creek was apportioned between Drainage Areas A2, A3, B, C, and D based on the ratio of undeveloped acreage within the basin to the total undeveloped acreage within the four basins. This apportioned costwas then added to the intra-basin facility cost to calculate the total drainage facility cost for each of the four major basins Existing Deficiencies
The 1990 base year plan did not identify the City share for the drainage improvements because it was determined at that time that all undeveloped private property would receive the benefit from the future drainage improvements. In 1991 the city prepared a revision to the original plan identifying the number of existing drainage facilities that were deemed inadequate, at that time, to meet the City's current standards and 1990 development conditions. A list of these deficiencies was given in Figure 28 of the 1991 report. These deficiencies, primarily located at street crossings, had a total 1991 value of $6,327,036. This amount has been inflated forward to 2003 costs for a total of $8,299,791.
The City has also assumed a 72% share of improvements to San Marcos Creek in the amount of $52,388,597 as shown in Figure 3-3-1.
2003 Fee Calculation
The total undeveloped acres in each drainage basin is used in the calculation of cost shares in Table 3-3-1 and 3-3-2 as follows:
2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
26 City of San Marcos
Future City
Total Residential Non-Residential
Ci!Y Units CiJ;yAcres
236 97
2,436 270.2
525 93.8
868 42.9
459 253.4
Questhaven 3,762 65.6
·win Oaks Valley 385 0
Lake San Marcos 83 ~
ITotal 8,754 825.9
Total Dwelling Units in Drainage Sub-Area
Total Dwelling Unit Acres Drainage Sub-Area
!Total Non-Residential Acres in Drainage Sub-Area
Total Undeveloped Acres in Drainage Sub~Area
Percent of Total Undeveloped Acres in Drainage Sub Area A-1 not Tributary to San Marcos Creek
Revised Percentage of Total Without A-1 and Inside San Marcos Creek Watershed Total Cost of San Marcos Creek
Caltrans Share (78 Undercrossing)
Special Benefit Area Share (25%)
Special Benefit Area Cost Per Acre
Remaining Cost
Future Devopers Cost of San Marcos Creek by Drainage Area (28%) City Share San Marcos Creek (72%)
Non San Marcos Creek Cost By Drainage Basin
Subtract Existing Deficiencies
'Total Drainage Cost By Basin
Total Drainage Cost Per Acre
Total Drainage Cost Per Dwelling Unit
ity Wide Averai:ie Cost Per Dwelling Unit
,,-·
A1
2552.29
589.17
49.27 638.44
14%
0%
$
$4,203,595
$ 177,420
$4,026,175
$ 6,306
$ 1,455.75
Percent of Undeveloped Area In Drainage Area
A2 A3 A .f2. .Q
Total
3116.64 990.94 6659.88 994.17 906.23
1832.88 107.54 2529.60 781.32 215.16
240.04 152.46 441.77 78.80 157.38
2072.92 260.01 2971.37 860.12 372.54
45% 6% I 65% I 19% I 8%
53% 7% 76% 22% 9%
I Q I
439.96
192.45
176.61
369.05
I 8% I
9%
Total
9000.23
3718.52
854.56
4573.08
100%
100%
$ 97,269,194
$ 4,298,701
$ 24,317,298
$ 215,197
$ 72,951,895
$10,833,540 $ 1,358,846 I $12,192,386 I$ 4.495,166 I$ 1,946,986 I$ 1,928,760 I$ 20,563,298 $ 52,388,597
$17,022,228' $ 7,459,475 $ 28,685,298 $37,930,067 $16,019,424 $33,481,900 $116,116,689 $ 718,455 $ 314,841 $ 1,210,716 $ 4,508,618 $ 1,892,206 $ 688,252 $ 8,299,792 $27,137,314 $ 8,503,480 $ 39,666,969 $37,916,614 $16,074,204 $34,722,408 I $128,380,195 $. 13,091 $ 32,705 $ 13,350 $ 44,083 $ 43,147 $ 94,085
$ 7,698.95 $ 3,549.361 $ 5,070.59 $ 34,644.62 $ 10,244.12 $ 41,154.58 I
$ 10,622
Note: The difference between the total dwelling units in the city and the total in the 6 drainage areas represents those dwelling units that are in the city boundary and outside the 6 drainage areas he same holds true for commercial acres
6/23/2003
Al
$6,306
DRAINAGE FEES PER ACRE BASED ON COST (From Table 3-3-1) A2
13,091
A3
32,705
B
44,083
C
43,147
D
94,085
Drainage
Annually, the City and Redevelopment Agency will analyze the City Capital hnprovement Plan and sources of financing and, if applicable, adjust drainage fees.
The City and Redevelopment Agency have the capability to identify additional funding mechanisms to apply to construction costs. Application of these sources, to include federal, state and local funds, and potentially through partial absorption of drainage costs through construction of circulation streets, is anticipated to reduce costs.
For purposes of this study, per acre costs are established as follows based upon reduction of costs by 1/3 for Basins Al, A2, A3, B, C, D (note: Basin Al does not have a cost requirement for San Marcos Creek).
Al
$4,204
A2
8,727
A3
21,803
B
29,389
C
28,765
D
62,723
The Redevelopment Agency has the ability to generate property tax increment based upon new development or redevelopment. Assuming other funding sources are available from tax increment, to be determined annually, the following table provides the 2003 drainage list/acre:
Al
$3,288
A2
5,890
Table 3-3-2 Drainage Fee/Acre
A3
17,150
B
17,150
C
17,150
D
25,640
. 2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
28 City of San Marcos
NPDES
3.4 NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM {NPDES) . This category of facilities includes the following:
• An NP DES Permit allows the City of San Marcos to discharge storm flows into the waters of the United States.
NPDES Authority
ill 1972 the Federal Clean Water Act (CW A) was amended to provide that the discharge of pollutants to the waters of the United States (receiving waters) was unlawful. ill 1987 the Federal Clean Water Act was again amended to require that municipalities throughout the U.S. obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit to discharge urban runoff from their municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). The NPDES Permit allows the municipality to discharge storm flows into the waters of the United States. ill July 1990 the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) issued Order 90-42 that contained the original CW A requirements for storm water discharges for the San Diego Region.
This order was administratively extended and came up for renewal in 1995. Draft language was developed in 1995 and again in 1998 but Order 90-42 was not reissued by the SDRWQCB.
Therefore the original requirements as drafted in 1990 remained in force.
On February 26, 2001 the SDRWQCB issued Order No. 2001-01. This new permit contains the findings, orders and prohibitions for the NPDES permits for the San Diego Region.
The permit contains the following requirement for new development and significant redevelopment projects: "Flow-based Best Management Practices (BMP's) shall be designed to mitigate the maximum flow rate produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch of rainfall per hour .... " The permit also states that flows generated by existing development shall be treated to the "maximum extent practical" (MEP). ·
Existing Condition
The city currently has an extensive system of underground storm drain facilities that convey storm flows from existing roads and developments. The storm drains typically outlet into an open channel that leads to San Marcos Creek or directly into San Marcos Creek itself. This stonil drain system was designed to convey flows ranging from a 10-year flood to a 100-year flood depending upon the size of the system. These flow rates were calculated using the San Diego County Flood Control District's Hydrology Manual. Because their purpose was to convey flood flows, these storm drains were not designed with any type of water quality treatment capabilities. For this reason, there are currently no storm water treatment devices in place in the city. 2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
29 City of San Marcos
Proposed Facilities
Private Facilities
NPDES
The NP DES permit contains requirements for new developments and redevelopment of older areas.
The permit also requires the City to revise its planning procedures and grading ordinances to insure that the developers are meeting these new requirements. When properly implemented, these requirements should reduce pollutant loads from newly developed areas to an acceptable level.
Any pollutant-reduction measures will be implemented by developers at their own expense. These private facilities have not been included in the public facility fee program in that they will not require capital expenditure by the City.
Public Facilities
New development will increase the population utilizing existing City infrastructure such as roads, parks and other facilities. These new citizens will naturally deposit additional trash, hydrocarbons and other pollutants on public property that will in turn accumulate in the City's storm drains and channels. The new NPDES requirements stipulate that these pollutants be mitigated to the maximum extent practical.
The Master Plan of Drainage for the City of San Marcos dated January 1990, prepared by a joint venture between Fraser Engineering Inc. and Cooper Engineering Associates identifies the necessary backbone drainage facilities for the City. The proposed water treatment devices have been located along these storm drain alignments. The precise location and treatment device type will be subject to the final design of each individual facility. For the purposes of this study, only preliminary treatment device types, locations, and sizes are proposed.
Two types of treatment devices were selected as representative treatment devices and used to · develop a preliminary estimate of the City's NPDES program. The first type is the Continuous Deflection Separator (CDS) hydrodynamic separator for areas of existing infrastructure. The second type is a grass lined dry detention basin for the City's golf course and parks.
The CDS device is of small size that reduces the need for right-of-way acquisition. This unit removes trash, sediment, and hydrocarbons all of which are typical pollutant constituents in runoff from urban areas. These devices come in various sizes depending on the size of the watershed tributary to the device. For this study, however, the 50 cfs unit, representing an average ins~allation . was used.
Using the Master Plan of Drainage,-thirty-four treatment device locations were estimated. The locations were selected where underground storm drains outlet into open channels .. This type of 'end-of-pipe' system protects the downstream channel that could be considered as "receiving waters of the United States." These thirty-four proposed treatment devices have a total capacity ofl 700 cfs.
For the putposes of sizing and location this study assumes that the older parts of the city have to meet the same 0.2 inches per hour treatment volume required of new development. Using the 0.2 inches per hour requirement as a likely guideline for the 'maximum extent practical' yields a total 2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
30 City of San M_arc__os
NPDES
treatment flow of 1,440 cfs from all developed areas (see Table 3-4-1 ). The 1,700 cfs total capacity of the proposed treatment devices is adequate to treat these flows.
The City's twenty-three parks and golf course represent a different challenge for the treatment of their runoff. These types oflarge grassy areas tend to yield a high-level of nutrients and dissolved solids such as pesticides and h~rbicides. The CDS hydrodynamic-separator is ineffective against these types of pollutants.
For best results, a grass lined dry detention basin was selected as a representative treatment device for a park or golf course. These basins are far more effective at removing nutrients and dissolved solids and their grass planted appearance would be less intrusive in a park environment.
Maintenance of the basins is very similar to maintenance of a park or golf course so it may be accomplished with existing city personnel or contracted out. These basins generally cover a larger area. · However, they can be built within the park right-of-way or natural open space elements thereby eliminating the need for right-of-way acquisition.
Cost Estimates
The manufacturer of the CDS hydrodynamic separator has published in-place costs fot the various sizes of their units. · These costs include the price of the unit, as well as installation. See the calculations in Table 3-4-1 for these costs. The typical cost for a small grass lined detention basin was also estimated. These costs are also in the table. The total capital construction cost of the city's NPDES program has been estimated at $18,104,256.
Status of Needed Improvements
No structural NPDES storm flow treatment facilities have been initiated in the City.
Method of Apportioning Costs
The existing developed acres in the city are 10,317 out of an ultimate total area of 14,527 acres. The balance of 4,210 acres is attributable to future development. Future development's share of the NP DES program is 29% as a percentage of the total acres in the city. Using this percentage, future developments' portion of the estimated total cost of$18,104,256 is $5,250,734. Spreading this cost over 4,210 acres results in a cost per acre of $1,247 or $312 per dwelling unit at, for example, an average density of3.35 dwelling units per acre.
2003 Update ~Public Facilities Financing Plan
31 City of San Marcos
Fee Area
Richmar
Barham Discovery
Richland
College
Business Industrial
Questhaven
Twin Oaks Valley
Lake San Marcos
Total
Total Existing Developed Acres in the City
Total Undeveloped Acres in the City
Total Existing and Proposed Developed Acres
Percentage of Undeveloped Acres to Total
Total NPDES Program Cost
Undeveloped Acres Portion of Total Program Cost@ 29%
City Portion of Total Program Cost
Cost Per Acre
Cost Per Dwelling Unit (@4.0DUs/ac=1247/4.0=)
6/23/2003
Future City
Total Residential Non-Residential
City Units City Acres
236 97
2436 270.2
525 93.8
868 42.9
459 253.4
3762 65.6
385 0
83 Q
8754 825.9
10,317
4,210
14,527
29%
$ 18,104,256
$ 5,250,234
$ 12,854,022
$ 1,247
$ 312
Technological Improvements
3.5 TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS
This category of Citywide facilities includes the following:
1. Geographic Information System (GIS)
2. Web-based Applications
3. Document Management System (DMS)
3.5.1 GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS)
Overview
The original scope of services for the GIS portion of the Public Facilities Fee Update (PFF) included a shortened Needs Analysis to identify the needs of two departments. This was to include researching the department needs, determining data sources and costs, and providing an implementation plan and cost analysis. The following information expands on the original scope and now includes nine departments. The shortened Needs Analysis now encompasses a list with a greater depth of department functions. It was also decided to include discussion on the five main · parts ofbuilding a successful GIS: Planning, Analysis, Design, Acquisition and Development, and Operation and Maintenance. The costs for data are included in the Design Section. The costs for hardware, software and implementation are included in the Acquisition and Development Section of this chapter.
The City of San Marcos already has the beginning of a GIS system. As a result, the selection of hardware focuses only on acquiring compatible hardware and operating systems. Since the City has received a grant of ESRI products, it is assumed that all future products and integration will be with · existing or future ESRI products.
The basis for creating a GIS system that will serve the users and meet the needs of the agency for a long time is making sure that an adequate plan has been developed. This plan will then guide the • remaining processes through the analysis, design, acquisition, operation, and maintenance of the GIS. The process is grouped as follows:
Plan
I
L-- - -Analyze
L -- - -Design
L ----
Acquir.e and
Develop
L ----
Operate and
Maintain·
2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
33 City of San Marcos
Technological Improvements
The first part of this report concentrates on the first three processes: Plamring, Analysis, and Design of the GIS system for the City of San Marcos. Some portions of their initial GIS systeni have already been acquired as previously mentioned, but the results in this report will form the basis of the current and future needs for the next four years. Based on hardware and software data and staff time based on the Needs Analysis Report, the estimated cost for the city's GIS progr;nn is $1,312,580.
3.5.2 WEB-BASED APPLICATIONS
The City can make use of their internal network or the Internet to provide GIS and other departmental and public services. These additional services might include front counter/public access applications, internal access and external access for employees or the general public. There are a great number of benefits for the public and the staff by providing such services, but there are also a significant number of risks and privacy i$sues that must be dealt with.
Whether the application is the GIS; the City's web site, internal databases, document management, plan checking, permit processing, parcel location, or business planning they all could make use of a client-server system architecture. In this architecture, the server would be one of the GIS server, the Web server, or a server with web based applications. The GIS application would be ArcIMS Regardless of the architecture and the applications, a database of information must first be developed. In the case of the GIS the database is currently being developed. It may take another year to have data available for an Internet application. Therefore, we recommend that consideration · for web, Internet, or intranet applications wait for at least another year and possibly two years .. At that time, a more thorough review of the needs and applications can be made. Products and applications running on the Internet will also be more mature and stable in another year.
The City will need to decide what data will be made public and what, if any, interaction will be allowed. Typically a City parcel map with some pubiic Works features are displayed and the user can pan and zoom. Data attributes such as APN, street names, etc. should also be made available.
The City has an existing web site that could be enhanced to provide public access to GIS products using a GIS server. In our experience that is not a wise approach. The web site normally provides passive information to the public. GIS information is very interactive and requires signi:fiyant data storage and processing speed. The best solution is to maintain separate servers, one for the web site and another for the GIS Internet services. ·
Installation of ArcIMS or a similar GIS Internet application will require a consultant for the installation. This is a one-time cost of approximately $10,000. The software and support staffing are already included in the GIS report. There will still be a need for someone to develop the data for ArcIMS, but it is assumed that the City will either be doing that or have it done as part of another · project.
. 2003 Update -Public Facilities, Financing Plan
34 City of San Marcos
Technological Improvements
Estimated Cost
The cost of the recommended Weh-based applications has been estimated at. $450,000. The breakout of this cost is contained in the Technical Appendix.
3.5.3 l)ocUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Overview
The City's Document Management System (DMS) is built on the Liberty Imaging System, Liberty NET, and presently serves the City Clerk's office. The City Clerk has two fixed seats and a flatbed Fujitsu scanner with a document feeder for up to 8.5 x 14 inch documents .. They have scanned building permits from 1983 to 1999 and are in the process of using an outside consultant to scan all resolutions and City Council meeting minutes. They plan on scanning documents back twenty years. The City Clerk's Office has a budget of approximately $20,000 per year for the next four years. This year the Clerk's Office will be getting two more fixed seats of the Liberty Imaging System and another one next year for a total of five seats. Once they are at five seats, the license will be changed from fixed seats to floating licenses. This licensing would allow other departments to access the system.
Scanned documents are indexed by date, city agency, resolution number, and title. They are considering adding APN where appropriate. All images reside on a dedicated NT server at the City.
This server has 27 GB of storage and _a level 5 RAID system. DAT backup resides on each server.
The Liberty DMS can also be used to store graphic images, such as drawings for the Engineering and Public Works departments. If drawings, already in a digital format, are to be viewed during a search/retrieval process, they must first be converted from their native format, e.g. AutoCAD to a bitmap format. This conversion is not uncommon. Scanned drawings would be in a bitmap format as a result of the scanning process: Scanned iniages can be cataloged easily and do not require a proprietary program for display.
The Engineering department has a Xerox 8825 Digital Document System available which is a combination large format, D sized, scanner, copier and· printer. This system could be used for scanning the large maps from the planning, engineering and public works departments for the DMS system.
The City Clerk has planned to scan Planning, Engineering and Public Works case files during the 2003-2004 fiscal year.
Estimated Cost
The cost of the recommended Document Management System has been estimated at $600,000. 2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
35 City of San Marcos
Technological Improvements
Method of Apportioning Costs for Technological Improvements Cost Summary
GIS cost
Web-based Applications cost
Document Management System
Total Costs
2003 Fee Calculation
$1,312,580
$ 450,000
$ 600,000
$2,362,580
· The number of developed and undeveloped acres from the NPDES chapter was used in the calculation of cost shares as follows:
2003 Share Responsibility
Existing City Share
Future Development's Share
Total Cost to Year 2020
Future Development's Share
Plus 1 % Fee Program Administration
Subtotal
Apportionment
69%
31%
100%
Amount
$i,630,180
$732,400
$2,362,580
$732,400
7,324.
Less hnpact Fee Account Balance on 4/30/03
$739,724
(174,007)
$565,717
2003 Update Cost per DU =
Subtotal New Development
$565,717 = $134.37/AC
4,210 Acres
Fee per DU@ 3.35 DU's per acre= $134.37/3.35·= $40.11/DU = $40/DU Fee per Acre of Non-Residential= $134.37/Acre = $134/Acre 2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
36 City of San Marcos .
3.6 PARKS
This category of facilities includes Neighborhood and Community Parks.
Authority
Parks
The City of San Marcos' 1990 General Plan Park and Recreation Element is an element of the General Plan. As such, zoning, subdivisions, public works, and private development and specific plans must be consistent with the Park and Recreation Element. A figure of 5 acres per 1,000 population for local parks was determined to be realistically achievable, legally defensible, and within the City's maintenance potential.
Existing Condition
At present, the City owns and operates eight major parks, eleven mini-parks, and nine community facilities. The total major park developed acreage is 138.5 with an additional 6.5 acres of mini parks and 5 acres of park area associated with community facilities. Total developed and undeveloped acreage is 265 acres. ·
Facility Descriptions
The parks are broken down into three categories: neighborhood parks, community parks, and regional parks. Neighborhood parks typically range in size from 5 to 30 acres and are intended to serve the community within a service radius of 0.75 mile. Community parks will have special community and recreational facilities to serve the entire city. Regional parks are in excess of 100 acres and are intended to provide passive recreation opportunities. Regional parks are also intended to take advantage of specific recreational opportunities and landscape features.
Table 3-6-1 identifies the proposed facilities as currently envisioned by the most current parks planning information. The park and recreation element describes existing facilities, the proposed facilities, the location, the size, and planned activities for each of these facilities. The table gives a breakdown of the existing and proposed park facilities and their sizes.
The existing park requirement is 315 acres assuming a current population of approximately 63,000 and a standard of 5 acres per one thousand population.
2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
37 City of San Marcos
Parks
Table 3-6-1
Proposed Facilities (as of 4/30/03)
Park Current Current Estimated Total
Developed Developed& Future Buildout
Acres Undeveloped Acres Acres
Acres
1. Buena Park 0 0 3 3.
2. Twin Oaks Valley Park 0 0 3 3
3. Cerro de Las Posas 12 12 0 12 -
4. Richland Park 5 5 0 5
5. Poinsettia Park 0 0 15 15
6. Hollandia Dairy Park 0 30 0 30
7. Mission Park 14 14 0 14
8. Knob Hill Park 3 3 0 3
9. Jack's Pond Park 12 23 7 30
10. Viewpoint Park 0 6 0 6
11. Questhavyn Park 0 0 4 4
12. Elfin Forest Park 0 18 0 18
13. Merriam Park 0 0 0 0
14. Walnut Grove Park 20 46 0 46
15. Agua Hedionda Park 0 0 8 8
16. Woodland Park 11 11 0 11.
17. Bradley Park 26 34 0 34
18. LaMoreeJ>ark 0 30 a 30
19. Discovery Park 23 23 34 57
20. South Lake Park 0 0 32 32
21. Landfill Site 0 0 0 0
22. Montiel 0 10 0 10
23. Unknown 0 0 54 54
Totals 150 265 160 425
The current anticipated total parks acreage necessary to meet the 5 acres per 1000 population standard with a total expected buildout population of 85,000 is 425 acres. The requirement for the current population of approximately 63,000 is 315 acres. Therefore, the requirement for a future population growth of 22,000 (85,000 -63,000) based on the park standard is 110 acres. The requirement for the existing population is 50 acres needing to be acquired (315 acres-265 acres on hand) and 165 acres needing to be developed (315 acres -150 acres on hand).
Cost Estimates
The estimated cost of completing future development's 110-acre share of the 425-acre park system is based on the following average land acquisition and development costs:
2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
38 CityofSanMarcos
$150,000 average cost per acre for acquisition.
$200,000 average cost per acre to develop
$350,000 average total cost per acre to acquire and develop Parks
These average costs were developed from recent park acquisition and development costs for Mission Park (1988), Jacks Pond Park (1996), andHollandiaPark (2000). Park acquisition and development costs in the cities of Chula Vista and Escondido were also reviewed for comparison purposes.
Therefore, the cost for future development's share of the cost is $38,500,000 and the City's share for the existing population is $40,500,000.
Future Share
110 acres to be acquired and developed@$350,000/ac = $38,500,000 Existing Share
To Acquire: 315 ac---:-265 ac = 50 ac@$150,000/ac =
To Develop: 315 ac-150 ac = 165 ac@$200,000/ac =
Total
Method of Apportioning Costs
TABLE3-6-2
2003 PFF UPDATE
$ 7,500,000
$33,000,000
$40,500,000
LAND USE ADJUSTED FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
LAND USE FuTURE DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTED
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS LAND USE
Single Family DU 6,088DU. 1,967DU
Multi-Family DU 2,666DU 199DU
Total DU 8,754DU 2,166DU
Apportionment
Future Development's Share 110 acres
Plus 1 % DIF Program Administration
Subtotal New Development
Less Impact Fee Balance on 4/30/03
Total New Development Cost Apportionment
4,121DU
2,467DU
6,588DU
Amount
$ · 38,500,000
385,000
$ 38,885,000
1,524,593
$ 37,360,407
2003 Update Cost per DU = $37,360,407 = $5,670~98 = $5,671/DU 6,588 DU's
2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
39 · City of San Marcos
Habitat Conservation Program
3. 7 HABITAT CONSERVATION PROGRAM
This category of facilities includes the acquisition of land for conservation purposes.
Background
A Subarea Plan dated May 2000 was prepared in cooperation with the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the California Department of Fish and Gfillle (CDFG) to meet the applicable requirements of the federal and state Endangered Species Acts and the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act of 1992. The Sub~ea Plan is intended to be consistent with and become a component of the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP) upon adoption by the San Marcos City Council. The MHCP includes certain cities in North San Diego County. The Subarea Plan, which qualifies as a stand-alone document to implement the MHCP, forms the basis for an Implementing Agreement, which will be the legally binding agreement between the City, the Wildlife Agencies that insures implemen~ation of the plan, and provides the City with State and Federal "Take" Authority.
The City's Subarea Plan identifies three significant areas where conservation activities will be focused: 1) the Northern Focused Planning Area (FPA) and associated linkages; 2) the Southern FP A and associated linkages; and 3) the wetlands of San Marcos Creek.
An integral part of the Sub area Plan process is ensuring its successful implementation. The goal of the Plan is to create an urban preserve plan for wildlife that will:
• Maintain populations of sensitive resources
• · · Enhance the region's quality of life
• Provide for planned orderly and efficient growth
• Provide the San Marcos community with recreational and educational opportunities while conserving its biodiversity
Mitigation for sensitive biological resources involves compensating for a project's impacts, at the discretion of the City Manager, through a combination of the following:
• On-site preservation
• Off-site preservation
• Purchase of conservation bank credits
The preserve system will be assembled over time as the City of San Marcos builds out. Monitoring and management activities will generally be the responsibility ofthe owners of the conserved lands, or their designees unless other arrangements have been provided. The City of San Marcos, in cooperation with other North County Cities, USFWS, CDFG, and SAND AG will develop a plan for long-term monitoring and management. The long-term monitoring and management plan will consolidate long-term funding sources for monitoring and management and develop new funding sources.
The MHCP contains estimates for the acquisition, management and monitoring of regional and local habitats. Acquisition lands include: ·
2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
40 City of San Marcos
Habitat Conservation Program
• Conservation of sensitive habitat necessary to achieve take coverage for species in the MHCP to be paid for by Federal and State Government and Regional funding sources and project mitigation; and
• Conservation of sensitive habitat achieved via exactions in the development entitlement process.
The MHCP intends that funds to cover the local costs of acquisition, maintenai.ice and monitoring described, in part, in the Subarea Plan be raised on a regional, County-wide or MHCP Area-wide basis and through project mitigation. In the short-term, prior to approval of a long-term regional financing mechanism, the City will participate with other participating local jurisdictions to seek financing for the acquisition of sensitive habitats during the first three years following the effective date of adoption of the Subarea Plan by City Council and approval by CDFG and USFWS.
Table 3-7-1
Subarea Plan Priority Acquisition Areas
Area Acres to be acquired Comment
1 39 acres Critical location near "County" core
2 163 acres Linkage from San Elijo Hills to County lands 3 66 acres Critical linkage in gnatcatcher corridor
4 20 acres Main eastern linkage in Northern FP A
-288 acres Total purchase for Nprth and South FPA·
Status of Needed Improvements
None of the acreages in Table 3-7-1 have been acquired.
Cost of Needed Improvements
The properties identified in Table 3-7-1 have been characterized as being Coastal Sage Scrub, Chaparral, or grassland. These habitat types require varying degrees of effort and cost to rehabilitate. For this reason, each has been assigned the following cost per acre to accomplish this purpose:
Habitat Type
Coastal Sage Scrub
Chaparral
Grassland
Rehabilitation Cost per Acre
$25,000
$25,000
$15,000
2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
41 City of San Marcos
Habitat Conservation Program
An additional twenty percent of the cost shown in Table 3-7-2 has been added to cover the c·ost of administering the acquisition and to reconfigure or rehabilitate the site.
Table3-7-2
Potential Cost of Priority Acquisition Areas
Area Acres to be acquired Cost Estimate
1 39 acres (aJ $5 lKJacre = $1,989,000
2 163 acres Cm $40KJacre = $6,520,000
3 66 acres Cm $81Kiacre = $5,346,000
4 20.acres @J $420Kiacre = $8,400,000
Subtotals 288 acres Cost Range: $22,255,000
Add 20% for Adm.in. and Rehabilitation $4,451,000
TOTALS $26,706,000
Method of Apportioning Costs
The existing developed acres in the City total 10,317 out of an ultimate total area of 14,527 acres.
The balance of 4,210 acres is attributable to future development. Future development's share of the Habitat Conservation Program is 29% of the total acres in the city. Using this percentage, future developments' portion of the estimated total cost of$26,706,000 is $7,744,740. Spreading this cost over 4,210 acres results in a cost per acre of $1,840 or $549 per dwelling unit at, for example, an average density of 3 .35 dwelling units per acre.
2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
42 City of San Marcos
City of San Marcos
Public Facilities Financing Plan
2003 Update
APPENDIX
1. Resolution No. 2003-__ (Public Facilities Fee)
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
(Under Separate Cover)
2003 Update -Public Facilities Financing Plan
43 City of San Marcos
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
· PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
2003 UPDATE
Technical
Appendix
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
2003 UPDATE
Technical Appen~ix
Table of Contents
Section Description
1. Land Use Tables
2. Circulation Street and Cost Estimate Tables
3. Drainage Area A, B, C, D, and San Marcos Creek Calculations
4. Technological Improvements
5. Individual Park Costs (For Background Only)
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
2003 UPDATE
Land Use
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
LAND USE
The land use figures identified within Table 2-1, '.'Potential Development By Neighborhood (As of 4/30/03)-City Only Includes All Acreage Within City Limits" were determined using the following methodology.
Documents utilized in the analysis included:
• General Plan Elements
• General Plan Amendments
• ZoningMap
• Specific Plans
• Building Permits issued from 1999 to 2003
• Development Agreements
• Constrained Lands (Steep Slopes, Habitat)
• Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan
• Traffic Model Study
Development Services analyses were conducted on a City-wide basis including all parcels within the City boundary of San Marcos. Parcels within the Sphere of Influence (and therefore outside of the City boundary) were not considered in the analyses to . determine the future build-out of the City.
Analyses included a City-wide assessment of all development and land use changes that have occurred since the previous Public Facilities Financing Plan was approved in 1992 and subsequently adjusted in 1999. For the purposes of determining build-out figures for the City, residential yields were calculated using the mid-range of allowable density. For the College, Richmar, Business/Industrial District, Barham/Discovery, and Lake San Marcos General Plan Neighborhoods, residential yields were based on the application of an 85% density cap, which was also applied to the mid-range of the allowable density.
All analyses included a. thorough examination of all building permits issued since the previous plan was subsequently updated in 1999, all General Plan Land Use Amendments, Annexations, Specific Plans (such as San Elijo Hills, Rancho Dorado, University Commons, Twin Oaks Valley Ranch, Sai7.ta Fe Hills, and the Heart of the City), and Development Agreements that affect overall contributions to the Public Facilities Financing structure.
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
2003 UPDATE
Circulation Improvements
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
Circulation Improvements
Table 3--1-1
Existing (Year 2000) Segment ADT and LOS
GP
Classification
Twin Oaks Valley Road
(Prime/Major Arterial)
San Elijo Rd to H St. 4-lane Major
H St to Craven Rd 6-lane Prime
Craven Rd to Barham Rd 6-lane Prime
Barham Rd to San Marcos Blvd 6-lane Prime
San Marcos Blvd to Richmar Av. 6-lane Prime
Richmar Av. to Borden Rd 6-lane Prime
Borden Rd to Cassou Rd 4-lane R\lral
Cassou Rd to Buena Creek Rd 4-lane Rural
Buena Creek Rd to City Limits 4-lane Rural
Nordahl Road
(Prime/Major/Secondary Arterial)
SR-78 to Center Dr 6-lane Prime
Center Dr to Knob Hill Rd 4-lane Major
Knob Hill Rd to Rock Springs Rd 4-lane Second.
Rock Springs Rd to El Norte Pkwy 4-lane Second.
Las Posas Road
(Prime/Major Arterial)
Discovery to Sim Marcos Blvd 6-lane Prime
San Marcos Blvd to Grand Ave 6-lane Prime
Grand Ave to Mission Rd 6-lane Prime
Mission to A venida Azul 6-lane Prime
A venida Azul to Borden Rd 4-lane Major
Borden Rd to A venida Leon 4-lane Second.
A venida Leon to Highland 4-lane Second.
Highland to Buena Creek Rd 4-lane Second.
Notes:
1. Future Roadway
2. ADT as of 1997
3. ADT as of 1996
4. No Traffic Counts Available
1 of5
LOSE Year 00 Segment Segment
Capacity ADT VIC LOS
(1000) (1000)
40 FIR (1)
60 FIR (1)
60 11.4 0.19 A
60 23.4 0.39 B
60 14.0 0.23 A
60 8.7 0.15 A(3)
40 13.8 0.35 B
40 11.5 0.29 B
40 NIA (4)
60 23.2 0.39 B
40 9.7 0.24 A
30 7.4 0.25 A/B (3)
30 NIA (4)
60 NIA (4)
60 8.4 0.14 A
60 8.5 0.14 A
60 7.1 0.12 A
40 1.5 0.04 A (3)
30 FIR (1)
30 FIR (1)
30 FIR (1)
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
· Circulation Improvements
Table 3-1-1 (Cont.)
Existing (Year 2000) Segment ADT and LOS
GP
Classification
Rancho Santa Fe
(Prime/Major Arterial)
Melrose Ave to Lake S.M. Dr 6-lane Prime
Lake S.M. Dr to Linda Vista Dr . 6-lane Prime
Linda Vista Dr to SR-78 6-lane Prime
SR-78 to Mission Road 6-Iane Prime
Melrose A venue
(Secondary Arterial)
Rancho Santa Fe to San Elijo 4-Iane Second.
Mission Road
(Prime/Major/Secondary Arterial)
Smilax Rd to Las Posas Rd 6-lane Prime
Las Posas Rd to San Marcos 4-lane Second.
San Marcos Blvd to Woodland 6-lane Prime
Woodland Pkwy to City Limits 4-lane Major
San Marcos Boulevard
(Prime Arterial)
Business Park Dr to Acacia Dr 6-lane Prime .
Acacia Dr to Twin Oaks Valley 6-lane Prime
Twin Oaks Valley Rd to Mission 6-lane Prime
Discovery St.
(Secondary Arterial)
San Marcos Blvd to La Sombra 4-lane Second.
La Sombra Dr to Craven Rd 4-lane Second.
Craven Rd to Twin Oaks Valley 6-lane Prime
Notes:
1. Future Roadway
2. ADT as of 1997
3. ADT as of 1996
4. No Traffic Counts Available
2of5
LOSE Year 00 Segment Segment
Capacity ADT V/C LOS
(1000) (1000)
60 27.6 0.46 B
60 31.5 0.53 C
60 39.0 0.65 CID
60 22.5 0.38 B
30 FIR (1)
60 14.4 0.24 A(2)
40 19.2 0.48 B
60 18.4 0.31 B
40 22.0 0.55 C (3)
60 27.2 0.45 · B
60 44.7 0.75 D
60 15.8 0.26 B (3)
40 8.9 0.22 A
40 7.0 0.18 A
60 FIR (1)
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
Circulation Improvements.
Table 3-1-1 (Cont.)
Existing (Year 2000) Segment ADT and LOS
GP
Classification
Barham Dr
(Prime/Secondary Arterial)
Twin Oaks Valley to W. La Moree 6-lane Prime
W. La Moree to SR-78 EB Off-Ramp 6-lane Prime
SR-78 EB Off-Ramp to Woodland 6-lane Prime
Woodland Pkwy to Mission Rd 4-lane Second.
Woodland Pkwy
(Prime/Maj or/Secondary Arterial)
Barham Dr to R/R crossing 6-lane Prime
R/R crossing to Mission Blvd 6-lane Prime
Mission Blvd to Rock Springs Rd 4-lane Major
Rock Springs Rd to Borden Rd 4-lane Second.
Rock Springs Road
(Secondary Arterial)
Woodland Pkwy to Bennett Ave 4-lane Second.
Bennett Ave to Nordahl Rd 4-lane Second.
Linda Vista Drive
(Secondary Arterial)
Poinsettia Ave to Tilley Lane 4-lane Second.
Tilley Lane to Rancho Santa Fe 4-larie Second.
Rancho Santa Fe to Las Posas 4-lane Second.
Las Posas Rd to Via Vera Cruz 4-lane Second.
Via Vera Cruz to Grand Ave 4-lane Second.
Notes:
1. Future Roadway
2. ADT as of 1997
3. ADT as of 1996
4. No Traffic Counts Available
3 of5 ·
LOSE Year 00 Segment Segment
Capacity ADT V/C LOS
(1000) (1000)
60 8.8 0.15 A
60 9.2 0.15 A
60 12.8 0.21 A
30 9.2 0.31 B
60 12.4 0.21 A (3)
60 12.4 0.21 B (3)
40 12.4 0.31 B
30 7.5 0.25 A/B
30 4.3 0.14 A
30 4.5 0.15 A
30 5.2 0.17 A
30 5.2 0.17 A
30 6.5 0.22 A(2)
30 4.6 0.15 A
30 2.2 0.07 A (3)
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
Circulation Improvements
Table 3-1-1 Cont.
Existing (Year 2000) Segment ADT and LOS
GP
Classification
Bennett A venue
(Collector)
Mission Blvd to Knob Hill Rd 4-lane Second ..
Knob Hill Rd to Rock Springs Rd 4-lane Second.
Borden Road
(Major Secondary Arterial)
Las Posas to Twin Oaks Valley 4-lane Major
Twin Oaks Valley to Vineyard 4-lane Second.
Vineyard Rd to Mullberry Dr 4-lane Second.
Mullberry Dr to Fulton Rd 4-lane Second.
Fulton Rd to Rose Ranch Rd 4-lane Second.
Rose Ranch Rd to Woodland 4-lane Second.
Smilax Road
(Secondary Arterial)
Oleander Ave to South Santa Fe 4-lane Second.
Poinsettia Ave
(Secondary Arterial)
S. City Limits to Linda Vista Dr 4-lane Second.
Linda Vista Dr to Oleander Ave 4-lane Second.
San Elijo Rd (Questhaven Rd)
(Major Arterial)
Rancho. Santa Fe to Melrose Dr 4-lane Major
Melrose Dr to Elfin Forest Rd 4-lane Major
Elfin Forest to Twin Oaks Valley 4-lane Major
Note:
1. Future Roadway
2. ADT as of 1997
3. ADT as of 1996
4. No Traffic Counts Available
4 of5
LOSE Year 00 Segment Segment
Capacity ADT V/C LOS
(1000) (1000)
30 3.3 0.11 A
30 3.3 0.11 A
40 7.6 0.19 A
30 FIR (1)
30 4.2 0.14 A
30 4.4 0.15 A
30 4.4 0.15 A
30 6.7 0.22 A (3)
30 5.7 0.19 A
30 FIR (1)
30 FIR (1)
40 4.7 0.12 A.
40 4.7 0.12 A
40 NIA (4)
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
Circulation Improvements
Table 3-1-1 (Cont.)
Existing (Year 2000) Segment ADT and LOS
GP
Classification
Via Vera Cruz
(Secondary Arterial)
Discovery St to San Marcos Blvd 4-lane Second.
San Marcos Blvd to Linda Vista 4-lane Second.
Linda Vista Dr to Grand Ave 4-1ane Second.
Grand Avenue
(Major/Secondary Arterial)
Rancho Santa Fe to San Marcos 4-1ane Second.
San Marcos Blvd to Discovery St 4-lane Major
Craven Rd
(Secondary Arterial)
Discovery St to Twin Oaks Valley 4-lane Second.
Knoll Rd
(Secondary Arterial)
San Marcos Blvd to Mission Rd · 4-lane Second.
Mulberry Drive
(Secondary Arterial)
Mission Rd to Borden Rd 4-lane Second.
El Norte Parkway
(Major Arterial)
Woodland Pkwy to Bennett Ave 4-lane Major
Buena Creek Rd
(Secondary Arterial)
Las Posas to Deer Springs Rd 4-lane Second.
Notes:
1. Future Roadway
2. ADT as of 1997
3. ADT as of1996
4. No Traffic Counts Available
5 of5
LOSE Year 00 Segment Segment
Capacity ADT V/C LOS
(1000)
30 30
30 30
40 30
30 .
30 40
30 (1000)
4.0 0.13 A (2)
4.4 0.15 A
4.4 0.15 A
13.2 0.44 B
FIR (1)
8.9 0.30 B
3.0 0.10 A
6.7 0.22 A
14.5 0.36 B
NIA (4)
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
Circulation Improvements
Table 3-1-2
Projected Segment ADT and LOS
GP LOSE Projected Segment Segment
Classification Capacity ADT V/C LOS
(1000) (1000)
Twin Oaks Valley Road
(Prime/Major Arterial)
San Elijo Rd to H St. 4-lane Major 40 27.0 0.68 C
H St to Craven Rd 6-lane Prime 60 47.7 0.80 D
Craven Rd to Barham Rd 6-lane Prime 60 44.1 0.74 D
Barham Rd to San Marcos Blvd 6-lane Prime 60 49.5 0.83 D San Marcos Blvd to Richmar Av. 6-lane Prime 60 38.1 0.64 C Richmar Av. to Borden Rd 6-lane Prime 60 32.3 0.54 C
Borden Rd to Cassou Rd 4-lane Rural 40 16.1 0.40 B
Cassou Rd to Buena Creek Rd 4-lane Rural 40 12.9 0.32 B Buena Creek Rd to City Limits 4-lane Rural 40 37.7 0.94 E(l) Nordahl Road
(Prime/Major/Secondary Arterial)
SR-78 to Center Dr 6-lane Prime 60 30.2 0.50 B/C (2)
Center Dr to Knob Hill Rd 4-lane Major 40 15.1 0.38 B (3) Knob Hill-Rd to Rock Springs Rd 4-lane Second. 30 12.4 0.41 B Rock Springs.Rd to El Norte Pkwy 4-lane Second. 30 7.9 0.26 B Las Posas Road
(Prime/Major Arterial)
Discovery to San Marcos Blvd 6-lane Prime 60 7.6 0.13 A(4) San Marcos Blvd to Grand Ave 6-lane Prime 60 33.8 0.56 C (5) Grand Ave to Mission Rd 6-lane Prime 60 37.0 0.62 C
Mission to Avenida Azul 6-lane Prime 60 30.4 0.51 C
A venida Azul to Borden Rd 4-lane Major 40 17.4 0.44 B
Borden Rd to Avenida Leon 4-lane Second. 30 14.9 0.50 BIC A venida Leon to Highland 4-lane Second. 30 14.9 0.50 B/C Highland to Buena Creek Rd 4-lane Second. 30 14.1 0.47 B Notes:
1. Level of Service can be improved with intersection improvements.
2. Downgrade this segment of Nordahl Road from 6-lane Prime to 4-larie Major (LOS D)
3. Downgrade this segment ofNordahl Road from 4-lane Major to 4-lane Secondary (LOS B/C)
4. Downgrade this segment of Las Posas Road from 6-lane Prime to 4-lane Secondary (LOS A/B)
5. Downgrade this segment of Las Posas Road from 6-lane Prime to 4-lane Major (LOS DIE) 2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
1 of 5 City of San Marcos
Circulation Improvements
Table 3-1-2 (Cont.)
Projected Segment ADT and LOS
GP LOSE Projected Segment Segment
Classification Capacity ADT VIC LOS
(1000) (1000)
Rancho Santa Fe
(Prime/Major Arterial)
Melrose Ave to Lake S.M. Dr 6-lane Prime 60 36.9 0.62 C (1,2) Lake S.M. Dr to Linda Vista Dr 6-lane Prime 60 36.7 0.61 C Linda Vista Dr to SR-78 6-lane Prime 60 28.7 0.48 B (3) SR-78 to Mission Road 6-lane Prime 60 19.1 0.32 B (4)
Melrose A venue
(Secondary Arterial)
Rancho Santa Fe to San Elijo 4-lane Second. 30 24.2 0.81 D Mission Road
(Prime/Major/Secondary Arterial)
Smilax Rd to Las Posas Rd 6-lane Prime 60 24.5 0.41 B (5) Las Posas Rd to San Marcos 4-lane Second. 40 24.7 0.62 C San Marcos Blvd fo Woodland 6-lane Prime 60 34.9 0.58 C Woodland Pkwy to City Limits 4-lane Major 40 31.4 0.79 D San Marcos Boulevard
(Prime Arterial)
Business Park Dr to Acacia Dr 6-lane Prime 60 48.0 0.80 D Acacia Dr to Twin Oaks Valley 6-lane Prime 60 60.0 1.00 E/F (2) Twin Oaks Valley Rd to Mission 6-lane Prime 60 33.8 0.56 C (6) Discovery St.
(Secondary Arterial)
San Marcos Blvd to La Sombra 4-lane Second. 40 30.2 0.76 D La Sombra Dr to Craven Rd 4-lane Second. 40 26.3 0.66 C Craven Rd to Twin Oaks Valley 6-lane Prime 60 27.7 0.46 B Notes:
1. Downgrade this segment of Rancho Santa Fe Road from 6-lane Prime to 4-lane Major (LOSE)
2. Level of Service can be improved with intersection improvements.
3. Downgrade this segment of Rancho Santa Fe Road from 6-lane Prime to 4-lane Major (LOS D) This should depend on the opening of SR-78 & Smilax Rd Interchange.
4. Downgrade this segment of Rancho Santa Fe from 6-lane Prime to 4-lane Secondary (LOS C)
5. Downgrade this segment of Mission Road from 6-lane Prime to 4-lane Secondary (LOS D)
6. Downgrade this segment of San Marcos Blvd from 6-lane Prime to 4-lane Maj_or. 2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
2 of 5 City of San Marcos
Circulation Improvements
Table 3-1-2 (Cont.)
Projected Segment ADT and LOS
GP LOSE Projected Segment Segment
Classification Capacity ADT V/C LOS
(1000) (1000)
Barham Dr
(Prime/Secondary Arterial)
Twin Oaks Valley to W .. La Moree 6-lane Prime 60 38.2 0.64 C W. La Moree to SR-78 EB Off-Ramp 6-lane Prime 60 44.1 0.74 D SR-78 EB Off-Rarnp to Woodland 6-lane Prime 60 50.6 0.84 D Woodland Pkwy to Mission Rd 4-lane Second. 30 34.9 1.16 F (1,2) Woodland Pkwy
(Prime/Major/Secondary Arterial)
Barham Dr to R/R crossing 6-lane Prime 60 22.3 0.37 B
R/R crossing to Mission Blvd 6-lane Prime 60 22.3 0.37 B Mission Blvd to Rock Springs Rd 4-lane Major 40 16.3 0.41 B R9ck Springs Rd to Borden Rd 4-lane Second. 130 10.4 0.35 B Rock Springs Road
(Secondary Arterial)
Woodland Pkwy to Bennett Ave 4-lane Second. 30 13.7 0.46 B Bennett Ave to Nordahl Rd 4~lane Second. 30 10.3 0.34 B Linda Vista Drive
(Secondary Arterial)
Poinsettia Ave to Tilley Lane 4-lane Second. 30 11.6 0.39 B Tilley Lane to Rancho Santa Fe 4-lane Second. 30 13.5 0.45 B Rancho Santa Fe to Las Posas 4-lane Second. 30 24.5 0.82 D Las Posas Rd to Via Vera Cruz 4-lane Second. 30 15.6 0.52 C Via Vera Cruz to Grand Ave 4-lane Second. 30 11.5 0.38 B Notes:
1. Upgrade this segment of Barham Drive from 4-lane Secondary to 4-lane Major (LOSE)
2. Level of Service can be improved with intersection improvements. 2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
3 of 5 City of San Marcos
Circulation Improvements
Table 3-1-2 (Cont.)
Projected Segment ADT and LOS
GP LOSE
Classification Capacity
(1000)
Bennett Avenue
(Collector)
Mission Blvd to Knob Hill Rd 4-lane Second. 30
Knob Hill Rd to Rock Springs Rd 4-lane Second. 30
Borden Road
(Major Secondary Arterial)
Las Posas to Twin Oaks Valley 4-lane Major 40
Twin Oaks Valley to Vineyard 4-lane Second. 30
Vineyard Rd to Mullberry Dr 4-lane Second. 30
Mullberry Dr to Fulton Rd · 4-lane Second. 30
Fulton Rd to Rose Ranch Rd 4-lane Second. 30
Rose Ranch Rd to Woodland 4-lane Second. 30
Smilax Road
(Secondary Arterial)
Oleander Ave to South Santa Fe 4-lane Second. 30
Poinsettia Ave
(Secondary Arterial)
S. City Limits to Linda Vista Dr 4-lane Second. 30
Linda Vista Dr to Oleander Ave 4-lane Second. 30
San Elijo Rd (Questhaven Rd)
(Major Arterial)
Rancho Santa Fe to Melrose Dr 4-lane Major 40
Melrose Dr to Elfm Forest Rd 4-lane Major 40
Elfm Forest to Twin Oaks Valley 4-lane Major 40
Note:
1. Level of Service can be it-nproved with intersection improvements. 4 of5
Projected Segment Segment
ADT V/C LOS
(1000)
10.1 0.34 B
5.9 0.20 A
20.3 0.51 C
20.0 0.67 C
18.6 0.62 C
12.5 0.42 B
17.3 0.58 C
16.6 0.55 C
20.9 0.70 CID
16.7 0.56 C
23.3 0.78 D
23.4 0.59 C
41.1 1.03 F(l)
30.1 0.75 CID
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
.Circulation Improvements
Table 3-1-2 (Cont.)
Projected Segment ADT and LOS
GP LOSE Projected Segment Segment
Classification Capacity ADT V/C LOS
(1000) (1000)
Via Vera Cruz
(Secondary Arterial)
Discovery St to San Marcos Blvd 4-lane Second. 30 13.3 0.44 B San Marcos Blvd to Linda Vista 4-lane Second. 30 9.4 0.31 B Linda Vista Dr to Grand Ave 4-lane Second. 30 15.6 0.52 C Grand A venue
(Major/Secondary Arterial)
Rancho Santa Fe to San Marcos 4-lane Second. 30 20.2 0.67 C San Marcos Blvd to Discovery St 4-lane Major 40 22.5 0.56 C Craven Rd
(Secondary Arterial)
Discovery St to Twin Oaks Valley 4-lane Second. 30 18.7 0.62 C Knoll Rd
(Secondary Arterial)
San Marcos Blvd to Mission Rd 4-lane Second. 30 6.6 0.22 A Mulberry Drive
(Secondary Arterial)
Mission Rd to Borden Rd 4-lane Second. 30 22.8 0.76 D
EI Norte Parkway
(Major Arterial)
Woodland Pkwy to Bennett Ave 4-lane Major 40 28.5 0.71 D Buena Creek Rd
(Secondary Arterial)
Las Posas to Deer Springs Rd 4-lane Second. 30 28.6 0.95 E(l) Notes:
1. Upgrade this segment of Buena Creek Road from 4-lane Secondary to 4-lane Major (LOS D) (Segment within Sphere ·of Influence)
5 of5
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
Twin Oaks Valley Road
(Prime/Major Arterial)
San Elijo Rd to H St.
H St to Craven Rd
Craven Rd to Barham Rd
Barham Rd to San Marcos Blvd
San Marcos Blvd to Richmar Av.
Richrnar Av. to Borden Rd
Borden Rd to Cassou Rd
Cassou Rd to Buena Creek Rd
Buena Creek Rd to City Limits
Nordahl Road
(Prime/Major/Secondary Arterial)
SR-78 to Center Dr
Center Dr to Knob Hill Rd
Knob Hill Rd to Rock Springs Rd
Rock Springs Rd to El Norte Pkwy
Las Posas Road
(Prime/Major Arterial)
Discovery to San Marcos Blvd
San Marcos Blvd to Grand Ave
Grand A veto Mission Rd
Mission to Avenida Azul
A venida Azul to Borden Rd
Borden Rd to A venida Leon
A venida Leon to Highland
Highland to Buena Creek Rd
Notes:
Table 3-1-3
Roadway Segment Deficiency
GP
Classification
4-lane Major
6-lane Prime
6-lane Prime
6-lane Prime
6-lane Prime
6-lane Prime
4-lane Rural
4-lane Rural
4-lane Rural
6-lane Prime
4-lane Major
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
6-lane Prime
6-lane Prime
6-lane Prime
6-lane Prime
4-lane Major
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
Existing
Segment
Conditions
None
6-lane Prime
6-lane Prime
6-lane Prime
4 lanes & Median
3 lanes
4-lane Rural
2 lanes
2 lanes
4-lane Major
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
None
4-lane Secondary
2 lanes
6-lane Prime
4-lane Major
4-lane Secondary
None
None
· 1. Downgrade this segment of Nordahl Road from 6-lane Prime to 4-lane Secondary
2. Downgrade this segment ofNordahl Road from 4-lane Major to 4-lane Secondary
3. Downgrade this segment of Las Posas Road from 6-lane Prime to. 4-lane Secondary
4. Downgrade this segment of Las Posas Road from 6-lane Prime to 4-lane Major Circulation Improvements
Roadway
Segment
Deficiency
4 lanes & Median
None
None
None
2 lanes & Bridge Wid.
3 lanes & Median
None
2 lanes & Median
2 lanes & Median
None (1)
2 lanes (2)
2 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes & Bridge (3)
Median (4)
4 lanes & Median (4)
None
None (4)
None
4 lanes
4 lanes
1 of5
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
Circulation Improvements
Table 3-1-3 (Cont.)
Roadway Segment Deficiency
GP Existing Roadway
Classification Segment Segment
Conditions Deficiency
Rancho Santa Fe
{Prime/Major Arterial)
Melrose Ave to Lake S.M. Dr 6-lane Prime 2 lanes 2 lanes & Median (1) Lake S.M. Dr to Linda Vista Dr 6-lane Prime 4 lanes 2 lanes & Median Linda Vista Dr to SR-78 6-lane Prime 4 lanes Median (2) SR-78 to Mission Road 6-lane Prime 3 lanes 1 lane (3)
Melrose A venue
(Secondary Arterial)
Rancho Santa Fe to San Elijo 4-lane Second. None 4 lanes Mission Road
{Prime/Major/Secondary Arterial)
Smilax Rd to Las Posas Rd 6-lane Prime 2 lanes 2 lanes (4) Las Posas Rd to San Marcos 4-lane Second. 4 lanes Minor Impr. ( 5) San Marcos Blvd to Woodland 6-lane Prime 4 lanes & Median None Woodland Pkwy to City Limits 4-lane Major 4 lanes & Median None San Marcos Boulevard
(Prime Arterial)
Business Park Dr to Acacia Dr 6-lane Prime 6 lanes & Median None Acacia Dr to Twin Oaks Valley 6-lane Prime 4 lanes & Median 2 lanes Twin Oaks Valley Rd to Mission 6-lan'e Prime 4 lanes & Median None (6) Discovery St.
(Secondary Arterial)
San Marcos Blvd to La Sombra 4-lane Second. 2 lanes 2 lanes & New Bridge La Sornbra Dr to Craven Rd 4-lane Second. 2 laries 2 lanes Craven to Twin (?aks Valley 6-lane Prime None 6 lanes & Median [Notes:
1. Downgrade these two segments of Rancho Santa Fe Road from 6-lane Prime to 4-lane Major
2. Downgrade this segment of Rancho Santa Fe Rd from 6-lane Prime to 4-lane Major.
This should depend on the opening of SR-78 & Smilax Rd Interchange.
3. Downgrade this segment of Rancho Santa Fe Rd from 6-lane Prime to 4-lane Secondary
4. Downgrade this segment of Mission Road from 6-lane Prime to 4-lane Secondary
5. See Table 3-1-4 for minor roadway improvement on this segment .
6. Downgrade this segment of San Marcos Boulevard from 6-lane Prime to 4-lane Major · 2 of5
2003 Update-Public Facilities FinancingPlan
City of San Marcos
Table 3-1-3 (Cont.)
Roadway Segment Deficiency
Barham Dr
(Prime/Secondary Arterial).
Twin Oaks Valley to W. La Moree
W. La Moree to SR-78 EB Off-Ramp
SR-78 EB Off-Ramp to Woodland
Woodland Pkwy to Mission Rd
Woodland Pkwy
(Prime/Major/Secondary Arterial)
Barham Dr to R/R crossing
R/R crossing to Mission Blvd
Mission Blvd to Rock Springs
Rock Springs Rd to Borden Rd
Rock Springs Road
(Secondary Arterial)
Woodland Pkwy to Bennett Ave
Bennett Ave to Nordahl Rd
Linda Vista Drive
(Secondary Arterial)
Poinsettia Ave to Tilley Lane
Tilley Lane to Rancho Santa Fe
Rancho Santa Fe to Las Posas
Las Posas Rd to Via Vera Cruz
Via Vera Cruz to Grand Ave
Note:
GP
Classification
6-lane Prime
6-lane Prime
6-lane Prime
4-lane Second.
6-lane Prime ·
6-lane Prime
4-lane Major
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
Existing
Segment
Conditions
5 lanes & Med.
3 lanes
None
2 lanes
2 lanes
5 lanes
4-lane Major
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
None
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
I. Upgrade this segment of Barham Drive from 4-lane Secondary to 4-lane Major Circulation Improvements
I lane
Roadway
Segment
Deficiency
3 lanes & Median
6 lanes & Median
2 lanes & Median (I)
4 lanes & Median
1 lanes & Median
None
2 lanes
None
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes & Ctr Lane
None
2 lanes
2 lanes
3 of5
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
Circulation Improvements
Table 3-1-3 (Cont.)
Roadway Segment Deficiency
GP Existing Roadway
Classification Segment Segment
Conditions Deficiency
Bennett Avenue
(Collector)
Mission Blvd to Knob Hill Rd 4-lane Second. 4 lanes None Knob Hill Rd to Rock Springs Rd 4-lane Second. 2 lanes 2 lanes Borden Road
(Major Secondary Arterial)
Las Posas to Twin Oaks Valley Rd 4-lane Major 4 lanes Minor Impr. (1) Twin Oaks Valley to Vineyard Rd 4-lane Second. None 4 lanes & Bridge Vineyard Rd to Mullberry Dr 4-lane Second. 4 lanes Minor Impr. (1) Mullberry Dr to Fulton Rd 4-lane Second. 2 lanes 2 lanes Fulton Rd to Rose Ranch Rd 4-lane Second. 4 lanes None
Rose Ranch Rd to Woodland Pkwy 4-lane Second. 4 lanes Minor Impr. (1) Smilax Road
(Secondary Arterial)
Oleander Ave to South Santa Fe Dr 4-lane Second. 2 lanes 2 lanes Poinsettia Ave
(Secondary Arterial)
S. City Limits to Linda Vista Dr 4-lane Second. 2 lanes 2 lanes Linda Vista Dr to Oleander Ave 4-lane Second. 2 lanes 2 lanes & Median (2) San Elijo Rd (Questhaven Rd)
(Maj or Arterial)
Rancho Santa Fe to Melrose Dr 4-lane Major None 4 lanes & Median Melrose Dr to Elfin Forest Rd 4-lane Major None 4 lanes & Median Elfin Forest to Twin Oaks Valley 4-lane Major None 4 lanes & Median Notes:
1. See Table 3-1-4 for minor roadway improvement on this segment
2. Upgrade this segment of Poinsettia Drive from 4-lane Secondary to 4-lane Major 4 of5
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
Circulation Improvements
Table 3-1-3 (Cont.)
Roadway Segment Deficiency
GP Existing Roadway
Classification Segment Segment
Conditions Deficiency
Via Vera Cruz
(Secondary Arterial)
Discovery St to San Marcos Blvd 4-lane Second. 2 lanes 2 lanes & Bridge San Marcos Blvd to Linda Vista 4-lane Second. 4 lanes None Linda Vista Dr to Grand Ave 4-lane Second. 2 lanes 2 lanes & Ctr Lane Grand Avenue
(Major/Secondary Arterial)
Rancho Santa Fe to San Marcos 4-lane Second. 4 lanes None San Marcos Blvd to Discovery St 4-lane Major None 4 lanes & Median &Bridge
Craven Rd
(Secondary Arterial)
Discovery St to Twin Oaks Valley 4-lane Second. 4 lanes None &Median
Knoll Rd
(Secondary Arterial)
San Marcos Blvd to Mission Rd 4-lane Second. 4 lanes None Mulberry Drive
(Secondary Arterial)
Mission Rd to Borden Rd 4-lane Second. 2 lanes 2 lanes & Ctr Lane El Norte Parkway
(Major Arterial)
Woodland Pkwy to Bennett 4-lane Major 4 lanes Minor Impr. (1) Buena Creek Rd
(Secondary Arterial)
Las Posas to Deer Springs 4-lane Second. 2 lanes 2 lanes & Median (2) [Notes:
1. See Table 3-1-4 for minor roadway improvement on this segment
2. Upgrade this segment of Buena Creek Road from 4-lane Secondary to 4-lane Major (Segment within Sphere of Itilluence)
5 of5
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
Project
No.
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
2-1
2-2
2-3
3-1
3-2
3-3
Circulation Improvements
Table 3-1-4
Roadway Improvement Cost
Twin Oaks Valley Road
San Elijo Rd to H St.
San Marcos Blvd to Richmar Av.
Richmar Av. to Borden Rd
Cassou Rd to Buena Creek Rd
· Buena Creek Rd to City Limits
Nordahl Road
Center Dr to Knob Hill Rd
Kn.ob Hill Rd to Rock Springs Rd
Rock Springs Rd to El Norte Pkwy
Las Posas Road
Discovery to San Marcos Blvd
San Marcos Blvd to Grand Ave
Avenida Leon to Highland
Notes:
GP
Classification
4-lane Major
6-lane Prime
6-lane Prime
4-lane Secondary
4-lane Secondary
4-lane Major
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
6-lane Prime
6-lane Prime
4-lane Second.
1. See Detailed Cost Estimate Sheet for roadway improvement Roadway
Segment
Deficiency
5 lanes & Median
2 lanes & Bridge W
3 lanes & Median
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes & Bridge
2 lanes & Median
4 lanes
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Roadway
Segment
Cost (1)
18,480,000
1,564,000
1,503,000
1,369,000
1,004,000
1,252,000
1,610,000 ·
2,318,000
(2)
1,981,000 (2)
5,190,000
4,401,000
2. Cost estimate does not include bridge costs. See Page 5 of Table 3-1-4 for bridge costs.
Total Cost this Page
1 of5
$ 40,672,000
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
Project
No.
4-1
4-2
4-3
5-1
5-2
6-1.
7-1
7-2
7-3
Circulation Improvements
Table 3-1-4 (Con't)
Roadway Improvement Cost
GP Roadway Roadway
Classification Segment Segment
Deficiency Cost (1)
Rancho Santa Fe
Lake S.M .. Dr to Linda Vista Dr 6-lane Prime 2 lanes & Median $ 6,202,000 Linda Vista Dr to SR-78 6-lane Prime Median $ 3,408,000 SR-78 to Mission Road 6-lane Prime l lane $ 2,349,000
Mission Road
Smilax Rd to Las Posas Rd 6-lane Prime 2 lanes $ 6,296,000 Las Posas Rd to San Marcos 4-lane Second. Bike Lanes & $ 876,000 Urban Trails
San Marcos Boulevard
Acacia Dr to Twin Oaks Valley 6-lane Prime 2 lanes $ 14,906,000 Discovery St.
San Marcos Blvd to La Sombra 4-lane Second. 2 lanes & Bridge $ 1,851,000 (2) La Sombra Dr to Craven Rd 4-lane Second. 2 lanes $ 5,561,000 Craven to Twin Oaks Valley 6-lane Prime 6 lanes & Median $ 8,299,000 Notes:
1. See Detailed Cost Estimate Sheet for roadway improvement
2. Cost estimate does not include bridge costs. See Page 5 of Table 3-1-4 for bridge costs.
Total Cost this Page
2 of5
$ 49,748,000
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
Project
No.
8-1
8-2
8-3
8-4
9-1
9-2
9-3
10-1
11-1
11-2
11-3
11-4
Circulation Improvements
Table 3-1-4 (Cont.)
Roadway Improvement Cost
Barham Dr
Twin Oaks Valley to W. La Moree
W. La Moree to SR-78 E Off-Ramp
SR-78 E Off-Ramp to Woodland
Woodland Pkwy to Mission Rd
Woodland Pkwy
Barham Dr to R/Road crossing
R/R crossing to Mission Blvd
Rock Springs Rd to Borden Rd
Rock Springs Road
Bennett Ave to Nordahl Rd
Linda Vista Drive
Poinsettia Ave to Tilley Lane
Tilley Lane to Rancho Santa Fe
Las Posas Rd to Via Vera Cruz
Via Vera Cruz to Grand Ave
Notes:
GP
Classification
6-lane Prime
6-lane Prime
6-lane Prime
4-lane Second.
6-lane Prime
6-lane Prime
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
1. See Detailed Cost Estimate Sheet for roadway improvement Total Cost this Page
3 of5
Roadway
Segment
Deficiency
1 lane
3 lanes & Median
6 lanes & Median
2 lanes
4 lanes & Median
1 lanes & Median
2 lanes
2 lanes
4 lanes
2 lanes & Ctr Lane
2 lanes
2 lanes
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Roadway
Segment
Cost (1)
1,478,000
4,760,000
8,077,000
3,897,000
717,000
700,000
3,734,000
3,312,000
2,802,000
2,457,000
2,503,000
1,871,000
36,308,000
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
Project
No.
12-1
13-1
13-2
13-3
13-4
13-5
14-1
15-1 ·
15-2
Circulation Improvements
Table 3-1-4 (Con't)
Roadway Improvement Cost
Bennett A venue
Knob Hill Rd to Rock Springs Rd
Borden Road
Las Posas to Twin Oaks Valley Rd
Twin Oaks Valley to Vineyard Rd
Vineyard Rd to Mullberry Dr
Mullberry Dr to Fulton Rd
Reise Ranch Rd to Woodland Pkwy
Smilax Road
Oleander Ave to South Santa Fe Dr
Poinsettia Ave
S. City Limits to Linda Vista Dr
Linda Vista Dr to Oleander Ave
Notes: .
GP
Classification
4-lane Second.
4-lane Major
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
4-lane Second.
1. See Detailed Cost Estimate Sheet for roadway improvement Roadway
Segment
Deficiency
2 lanes
2 lanes & Median
4 lanes & Bridge
Bike Lanes &
Sidewalks
2 lanes
Bike Lanes &
Sidewalks
2 lanes
2 ianes
2 lanes
2. Cost estimate does not include bridge costs. See Page 5 of Table 3-1-4 for bridge costs.
3. Only North bound lanes are within City Limits. Cost estimate assumes that San Marcos will be responsible for 50% of total improvement cost.
Total Cost this Page
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Roadway
Segment
Cost (1)
1,871,000
2,443,ooo·
2,628,000 (2)
543,000
1,787,000
882,000
2,925,000
3,118,000 (3)
1,895,000 (3)
18,092,000
4of5_
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos·
Project
No.
16-1
16-2
17-1
18-1
19-1
20-1
20-2
20-3
20-4
20-5
20-6
20-7
Circulation Improvements
Table 3-1-4 (Con't)
Roadway Improvement Cost
GP Roadway Roadway
Classification Segment Segment
Deficiency Cost (1)
Via Vera Cruz
Discovery St to San Marcos Blvd 4-lane Second. 2 lanes & Bridge $ 1,424,000 (2) Linda Vista Dr to Grand Ave 4-lane Second. 2 lanes & Ctr Lane $ 1,435,000 Grand A venue
San Marcos Blvd to Discovery St 4-lane Major 4 lanes & Median $ 2,448,000 (2) & Bridge
Mulberry Drive
Mission Rd to Borden Rd. 4-lane Second. 2 lanes & Ctr Lane $ 1,905,000 Buena Creek Rd
City Limits to Deer Springs 4-lane Second. 2 lanes $ 2,906,000 San Marcos Creek Overcrossings
@ Bent Avenue $ 6,647,000
@ Grand Avenue $ 9,982,800
@ McMahr Road $ 3,571,200
@ Via Vera Cruz $ 6,827,800
@ Borden Road $ 4,799,500
@ Discovery Street $ 3,000,600
@Twin Oaks Valley Road (widen existing bridge) $ 5,999,800 Subtotal $ 40,828,700
Notes:
1. See Detailed Cost Estimate Sheet for roadway improvement
2. Cost estimate does not include bridge costs. See above for bridge costs.
Total Cost this Page
Total Cost All Projects
5 of5
$ 50,946,700
$ 195,766,700
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
Table 3-1-5
Future Traffic Signal Locations
Signal
Number
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
Twin Oaks Vall~y Road and
Carmel Street
Private St. s/o Village Dr.
Windy Way
Olive Drive
Private Street
Deer Springs Road
Sycamore Drive
· Nordahl Road and
Rock Springs Road
Las Posas Road and
9 La Mirada Dr
10 Armorlite Dr.
Rancho Santa Fe Road and
11 Via Allondra
12 Security Pl.
13 La Mirada Dr.
14 8th Street
San Marcos Boulevard and
15 Gateway Center
16 Pacific Street
Grand A venue and
17 Pacific Street
18 Via Vera Cruz
19 Bent Avenue
20 Discovery Street
21 Creekside
Signal Location
Circulation Improvements
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
i of 3 City of San Marcos
Circulation Improvements
Table 3-1-5 (Cont.)
Future Traffic Signal Locations
Signal
Number
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 ·Barham Drive and
Redel Road
Shelly Drive
Rush Drive
San Elijo Road
Melrose A venue
Denning Drive
Private Drive
Questhaven Road
Mission Road
Smilax Road
Comet Circle
East of Mulberry Drive
West of Richland Rd.
BougherRd.
Barham Dr.
Bosstick
Las Flores Dr.
Border Road and
37 Comet Circle
38 Woodward Street
39 Vineyard Rd
40 Mulberry Drive
41 Rose Ranch Road
Rock Spring Road and
42 Richland Road
43 Bennett A venue
44 Rees Road
Signal Location
2 of3
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City ofSan Marcos
Circulation Improvements •
Table 3-1-5 (Cont.)
Future Traffic Signal Locations
Signal
Number
45 46
47 Bennett Avenue and
Knob Hill Road
El Norte Parkway
Mission Road
Woodward Street and
48 Dane Drive
49 Mulberry Drive
Mulberry Drive
50 Olive Drive
Linda Vista Drive and
· 51 Pacific Street
52 Via Vera Cruz
Discovery Street and
53 Las Posas Road
54 Via Vera Cruz
55 Bent Ave.
Signal Location
Cost 55 signals @ avg. cost of $175,000 each= $9,625,000 3 of3
2003 Update-Public Facilities Financing Plan
City of San Marcos
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
2003 UPDATE
Drainage
CITY OF SANMARCOS
San Marcos PFF Update
Drainage Area A
San Marcos Creek Main Basin
Summary of Drainage Basin Costs
System
Identification
A South of Lake
A North of Lake
AAB
AB
AC
AD
AE
AF
AG
AH
Al
AJ
AK
AL
AM
AN
AO
AOB
AOC
AOD
AOE
AP
AQ
AR
AS
AT
AU
AV
AW
AWA
AWB
AWC
AWD
Total
Sub Area Costs Without San Marcos Creek
A-1
A-2
A-3
Willdan/Munifinancial
System
Cost
$0
$74,333,015
$618,120
$516,528
$103,212
$1,104,678
$137,484
$1,173,421
$215,496
$334,656
$196,848
$386,784
$247,104
$244,404
$374,976
$844,470
$7,865,375 .
$478,728
$85,590
$304,884
$269,136
$165,024.
$2,161,080
$395,496
$344,700
$744,264
$739,944
$1,173,421
$4,370;585
. $618,660
$720,090
$682,740
$1,067,400
$103,018,314
$4,203,595
$17,022,228
$7,459,475
1 San Marcos PFF Update
Drainage Area B
San Marcos Creek North Basin
Summary of Drainage Basin Costs
System
Identification
B
BA
BB
BC
BD
BE
BF
BG
BH
BHA
MISC.
Debris. Basins
Total
Willdan/Munifinancial
System
Cost
$27,004,168
$597,600
$159,984
$442,,188
$1,593,307
$526,267
.$831,665
$364,143
$768,186
$190,584
$2,080,761
$3,371,213
$37,930,067
1 San Marcos PFF Update
Willdan/Munifinandal
Drainage Area C
San Marcos Creek East Basin
Summary of Drainage Basin Costs
System
Identification
C
CA
CB
CBA
cc
CCA
CCB
CCC
CD
CE
CF
CG
CGA
CGB
CGC
CGD
CH
CHA
CHB
Cl
CIA
CJ
CK
CL
CM
Total
System
Cost
$22,936,178
$2,546,809
$280,386
$124,524
$369,918
$509,670
$418,968.
$369,918
$199,350
$321,516
$161,154
$1,398,510
$443,016
$138,744
$615,600
$333,396
$361,368
$772;362
$129,744
$3,286,940
$498,845
$853,074
$315,036
$998,140
$572,436
$38,955,602
1 San Marcos PFF Update
Drainage Area D
Las Posas Basin
Summary of Drainage Basin Costs
Willdan/Munifinancial
System
Identification
D
DA
DAA
DB
DC
DCA
DCB
DD
ODA
DE
OF
DG
DH
DI
DJ
DK
Total
System
Cost
$16,143,234
$580,536
$382,239
$665,388
$4,175,464
$2,762,001
$344,376
$1,531,350
$382,680
$576,486
$204,156
$644,454
$3,545,677
$464,796
$705,618
$373.,446
$33,481,900
1 San Marcos PFF Update
City of San Marcos
Summary of San Marcos Creek Overcrossing Costs
Overcrossing Cost·
Bent Avenue $ 6,647,256
Grand Avenue $ 9,982,656
McMahr Road $ 3,570,840
Via Vera Cruz $ 6,827,760
Borden Road $ 881,876
Total $ 27,910,388
Willdan/Munifinancial 1 .
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
2003 UPDATE
Technological Improvements
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
GIS NEEDS ANALYSIS
1. Overview
2. Planning
a. Table 1 -Requirements by Department
3. Analysis .
a. Table 2 -GIS Functionality by Department Functions
4. Design
a. Table 3 -Example of Data Providers and Data Users
b. Table 4 -Example of Database Fields
c. Table 5 -Application and Data Correlation
5. Acquisition and Development of the GIS System
6. Operation and Maintenance of the GIS
a. Table 8 -GIS System Configuration
b. Table 9 _; Hardware, .Software, Data and Staffing Requirements Appendices
GIS NEEDS ANALYSIS
OVERVIEW
The original scope of services for the GIS portion of the Public Facilities Fee Update (PFF) was to include a shortened Needs Assessment consisting of the needs from two departments.
This was to include researching the department needs, determination of data sources and costs, an implementation plan and cost analysis. This report expands on the original scope and includes nine departments. The shortened Needs Assessment now encompasses a list with a greater depth of department functions.
The City of San Marcos already has the beginning of a GIS system. Because of this the selection of hardware focuses only on compatible hardware and operating systems. Since the City has received a grant of ESRI products it is assumed that all future products and integration will be with their existing ESRI products or future ESRI products.
The basis for creating a GIS system that will serve the users and meet the needs of the agency for a long time is making sure ·that an adequate plan has been developed. This plan will then guide the remaining pr(?cesses through the analysis, design, acquisition, operation, and maintenance of the GIS. The process are grouped as follows:.
Plan
L-- - -Analyze
L-- - -Design
L-- - -Acquire and
Develop
+
L-- - -
Operate and
Maintain
The first part of this report concentrates on the first three processes: Planning, Analysis, and Design of the GIS system for the City of San Marcos. Some portions of their initial GIS · system have already been acquired as previously mentioned, but the results in this report will form the basis of the current and future needs for the next four years.
PLANNING
The planning con~ists of a user needs study. This study was conducted with department administrators. Each department that is considering immediate or future uses of the GIS system were contacted. For each department a list of work or tasks that they currently do were categorized into three areas: Planning and Design, Processing, and Tracking. This resulted in 107 defined tasks for eight different departments in the City. Since the city has already decided upon GIS software from Environmental Systems Research Institute, ESRI,. this report categorized the GIS functionality by ESRI products, rather than GIS processing functions. This will facilitate the product requirements list in the Design section of this report. The results are shown in Table 1, titled Requirement by Department for GIS and Document Management.
l i...E 1
REQUIREMENTS BY DEPARTMENT FOR GIS AND DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT Engineering
Plannin dD
Design Street Improvements
Design Public Buildings and Facility Improvements
Design and Install Str:eetlights
Prepare Grading Plans
Prepare Traffic Circulation Element (graphic)
Prepare Bicycle Facilities Element (graphic)
Prepare Past and Present Project Inventory
Proces· · ..
Review all Recorded Final Maps, Parcel Maps, Improvement and Grading Plans Prepare Lien Contracts and Agreements
Review and Approve Subdivision Maps
Provide Public with City Records
Prepare and File Easements & Vacations
Prepare and Track Capital Improvement Projects by Year and Funding Prepare/Process Environmental Impact Reports
Prepare Plans and Plan Updates
Perform Development Monitoring
Provide Traffic planning, traffic signals, streetlights and traffic control Review All Proposed Residential, Commercial and Industrial Development Projects Tracki
Track Sewer and Water Facilities
Track Tentative Maps and Projects
Keep Inventory of Maintenance Items under the NPDES Permit .Track Storm Drain System and Appurtenances Facilities
Track Fire Hydrants, Missing Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter Improvement plan checking for all public infrastructure improvements Track Community Facilities District Parcels, Slopes, Parks, Open Space, Landscaped Slopes, etc.
Track Landscape Maintenance Facilities District Parcels, Slopes, Parks, Open Space, Landscaped Slopes, etc.
Track Paid, ln-Leiu Fees of Future Construction
Track Public Street Easement/Dedication
Process and Track Tentative and Final Tract Maps/ Parcel Maps """ o:) ...
0 .e :::
"CJ C w u u ... ...
<( <(
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
E
(I)
""" N ... -o:) C")
(I) 1/)
... >,
~ ~
0 "' (/'J Q, "CJ
~
(I) (I)
:E >< Cl'I
> > w c..
~
(I)
u e e u .Q ... ...
<( <( <( <( <( ::;
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X
X X X
X X
. .3LE 1
REQUIREMENTS BY DEPARTMENT FOR GIS AND DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT Building
Planning and Design
Proces. ·
Perform Plan Check and Issue Building Permits
Perform Field Inspections
Provide Public Information
Process Permits
Tabulate Fees and Valuations
Trackin Kl
Investigate Complaints and Carry Out Building Code Enforcement Track Occupancies
Track the Number of Dwelling.Units
Track Community Facilities District Parcels and Special Assessments Planning and Zoning
Planninq and D
Prepare Plans and Plan Updates
Prepare Land Use Analyses
Prepare/Process Environmental Impact Reports
Prepare General Plan (Land Use)
Processing
Perform Development Review
Process Tentative and Final Tract Maps/ Parcel Maps
Respond to Public Inquiries
Process Zoning Administration Cases
Perform Zoning Enforcement
Perform Administrative Approvals
Process Temporary Use Permits
Perform Demographic Analyses
Review and process permits for signage
Query Vacant vs. Developed Parcels
""" """ o:i ... co Cl ;:: ,2 .... ,
~ C1)
C w > u 0 (.)
... .... -<( < <(
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X
X
X
X
x.
X
X X X
X
X
E
C1)
N ... ....
c-i
C1) UI ... >,
;:: 0 u,
en ii "C
~
C1)
~ >< n:s
~
w c.. u
C1)
~ ~ .Q
-<( <( <( <( ::::;
X X
X X X
X X X
X X
X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X X
X
X. X
X X X
X X X X
Trackin_,.g __________________________________ """T""_.-- ........ _~....,..-.......---.--...---.
Perform Development Monitorin9__ ______ _ ___ ~~ ~~ I I ! x I x l X I I I I T. _E 1
REQUIREMENTS BY DEPARTMENT FOR GIS AND DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT E
Cl)
or-· N ... -2:? u, or- co <"'> >-co .. 0 0
~ :: en
0 - en C. "C
~ - :a Cl)
:E >< I'll C w
~ ~ w Q..
c3 c3
Cl) (.)
f:? f:? .c .. .. .. ..
<( <( <( <( <( <( <( ::::;
-- . - .
Business Information X I X
Demo~rae_hics X I X I X
Processin -=------:-:--~-~:---=-~"":".""'~~:---=--::--:-::------------------------,---.---,---r--..--,---,---,---, Process Home Occupation Permits/ Review Business Licenses X I X I X Tracking
Fire Department
Plannina and D
General Mapping X X X
Special Area Maps X X X
Pre-fire Plans X X X
Incident Analysis X X
Statistical Analysis X X X
Proces. ,sing
Perform fire Inspections X X X
Perform Building Fire Protection Systems Plan Check X X Investigate Public Complaints X X X X
Issue Fire Department Permits X X X
Perform Dispatch/Fire Suppression .. X X
Perform Hazardous Materials Inspection and Enforcement X X X Carry Out Hazardous Materials Response Planning X X
Perform Fire Investigations X X X
Provide Public Education/Information X X X X
Provide Paramedic Services X X X
Hydrant Maintenance and Inspections X X X X
In-Service Training X X X
Cost Recovery X X
Trackin..i.:g _________________________________ -.----.---.----.--~--.--~--.---.
FacilityMaintenance____ ______________________ I I ! x Ix! I I I l X 1LE 1
REQUIREMENTS BY DEPARTMENT FOR GIS AND DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT E
Cl)
,:-; N ... ....
,:-; M
Cl) II)
... Cl0 ... >, Cl0 0 3: 3: ~ en
.E ..... en Q. "C
~ :a Cl) Cl)
::E >< l'O C: w > ~
w 0. u ~
Cl)
... ~ ~ ~ ~ .0
<C <C <C <C <C <C <C :.::i
Public Works
Planninq and -NPDES Storm Water Management including but not limited to; Storm Drain Mapping X X
Watershed Management (Possible layering to include soils, land use, infrastructure, topography, drainage basins, permitted dischargers, tentative maps, septic disposal, habitats, waterways/bodies, rainfall,. etc.) X X X Asset Management, including but not limited to: X X X X Street Signs X X X X
Pavement Management X X X X
Traffic Signals X X X X
Bridges X X X X
Curb and Sidewalk ·x X X X
Striping and Legends X X X X
··Bike Lanes X X X X
Parks X X X x
Trails X X X X
Facilities (buildings,, large capital equipment) X X X X Proces. · --- -
NPDES Storm Water Management including but not limited to; Monitoring X X X
Administration of Public Works Contracts X X X
Review Environmental Issues Impacting Storm Water Discharges and Process NPDES Permits X X Issue Construction Permits for any Work Within the Right-of-Way X X X Issuance of Construction and Encroachment Permits, Traffic Control Permits and Overload Permits X X X Trash Pickup X
Street Sweeping Scheduling X
Administration of CIP Projects X X
Evacuation Permits X X
Work Order Management X X
Tracking
City Clerk
T. _E 1
REQUIREMENTS BY DEPARTMENT FOR GIS AND DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT E
.. Q)
"'"'"
N .....
"'"'" c-j
Q) rn .. C0 .. >,
C0 0
~ ~
0 en
0 ..... en ii 'tJ
~ - :s :'E >< cu C w ~ > w D. 13 13
Q)
0 ~ 0 ·CJ .c .. .. .. .. .. ..
<C <C <C <C <C <C <( :J
Administration of Community Facility Districts and Assessment Districts X I X I X I X I X Proces.~s!!,;,n:L-------------------------------------,..- 11-,--1 -,-,--,--,--, Keep up-to-date and accurate inventory of the City's infrastructure assets to complywith Gf-§B 34 requirements Tracking
Planning and Design
Proces.··
Scanning of all resolutions
Scanning of all City Council meeting minutes
Process Business Licenses and· Renewals
Scan all Resolutions, Ordinances and Minutes for City Council and other Boards/Commissions Trackin 1g
Maintain, Track and Image all Securities (orginals)
Maintain, Track and Image all Contracts/Agreements (orginals) Maintain Log of all Legislative Actions taken by City Council
X I X I X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X
X
X
Police (Sherrif)
.Planning and Design
BeatMae_s
Proces.· · -
Crime Reports
ABC Licenses
Parking Violations
X I X I X
X X X
X X x
X X X
Trackin~g--------------------------------.---.----.---------------- Alarm Services I I ! x ! x I x I I ! I
The results clearly show the wide need for viewing capability. Further analysis is needed to determine the requirements for more core GIS capabilities or add-on products. This is covered in the Analysis section. This table does not show the weighted need for any of the.se products. This is an important consideration, and must be considered during the budgeting and planning for purchase and implementation.
ANALYSIS
In addition to the work functions that the staff performs in ½ach department, it is important to break that down into GIS functionality. This task will help the GIS committee, or future staff, understand the functional needs that are then translated into the needs for core products or add-on products. The Planning and Design have been separated in Table 2 as there are some fundamental differences in the needs for functionality, data and third party applications. s:o "iJ
Ill 0 ii.1 a (!) iii ::, (') (') (') (JI ::,
Ill c: 2S: gi. 10' ::,
ca 3 ::, ::, s· CD CD (Q (JI ca 3::, s·
CD. -ca ::,
Road Engineering Design
Volume Calculation
Cross Sectioning
3-D Viewing/ Surface MapJJ.ing
Spatial Query
Attribute Que
Generalization
r
C (I)
::, "0
Sl,.-1"'
o·
iil
CJ ca· g
~
~
'5"
[
l1. :5·
(Q
";}
CJ"
C
iii -,
CJ·
Ol
6i
~
~
(I)
ii3 g-
~
~
ii3
'al
Query
Scale Change 1compositio
Modify Features/fext n
Graphic Superimposition
Symbolize Polnts
Symbolize Lines
Symbolize Polygons
Text/Annotation
Display Legends
Modify/Update Features/fext
Indexing
Storage
Retrieval
Retrieval
-0
iil C/J
(I)
~
!if
g:
~
CJ c;;·
"O
iii '<
Document
Management
Image Data
Q
s
ill
"O :::;
ff
a?
!if
~
g.
,-..,
(0
N
The results show that the City has only a single need for a full version of Arclnfo 8.1. There will be need for multiple copies of Arc View 3.2 or Arc View 8.1. The front counter application could Jnsist of either several Arc View clients or ArcThfS using Internet Explorer as a client. More• discussion on these needs and their phasing during the growth of the GIS is covered in the Acquisition and Development section.
DESIGN
The design of the GIS system is based upon requirements for creating and maintaining the data needs for each particular function. It also requires the close attention to constructing a well defined database structure and a data dictionary. The data dictionary will provide definition of all of the fields in the database. The database structure will accommodate the data and allow for further modification of future data if necessary.
The data needs are the most important consideration since it will represent about eighty percent of the overall costs and effort to build and maintain the GIS. Therefore, close attention must be given to the correct analysis of the data requirements based upon the needs study and department workflow model.
The data needs are composed of the following parts:
• The data required
o . Relationships and structure of the data
• Characteristics of the data
• · Accuracy, precision and scale of the data
• Availability of the data
• Acquisition, input, and maintenance cost
The base data for the City of San Marcos is the citywide base map. The city has already contracted with the San Diego GIS Data Center (SANGIS) for the city data consisting of the parcels and APN information. The City should be aware of the accuracy of this data by.reading the SANGIS metadata information. Since SANGIS uses single precision data and state plane coordinates, the accuracYis not better than one foot.
The most important thing to remember about the entire GIS is that it is only as good as the least accurate data layeL Or another way to consider the accuracy is to maintain all additional data beyond the Basemap at an equal or greater accuracy. That way the accuracy of the Basemap, which is known, will be the accuracy of any map or report created from the GIS system.
Based upon the User Needs Study, the following is a list of the data layers that will need to be obtained or created:
Base map and Basemap Tabular Data -includes centerline tie maps, benchmarks, geodetic control data, elevation data, and planimetric features. Data within this layer will be used to spatially align other data, themes, coverages or CAD data.
Parcel Basemap -includes basic parcel boundaries for public and private lands. These maps are broadly used cartographic databases because of the breadth of tabular parcel data that can be displayed upon them to produce various types of thematic maps. These include the recorded parcel maps but may also include other "lot" maps at differing accuracies. These are often collectively referred to as parcel maps. SANGIS offers a parcel map database that the city already uses.
Parcel Tabular Data -includes permit records, inspection and complaint records, processing logs, fire incident reports, crime reports, licenses and other parcel event records. These data contain one or more attributes which associate with a specific parcel, such as a parcel identification number, a site address or a legal description.
Area Maps -include districting zone maps, land use maps, census overlays, inspection area maps, and other administrative district maps. Area map data contains coordinate boundary data which define polygon outlines of areas such as census blocks, enumeration areas, and· other statistical and administrative areas. Area map data are frequently used with area tabular data to prepare thematic maps for reports and management analyses.
Area Tabular Data-includes demographic, land use and plan designation data. Area tabular data contains attributes associated with an area of land (e.g., census blocks, city blocks, political districts). These attributes may originate as area attributes (such as census data) or may be derived by aggregating data about smaller areas based on .a geocode applied to the smaller areas.
Street Maps -include street improvement maps and related overlay maps. Street maps contain the layout of all street centerlines and their intersections, including their names or other identifiers. Besides being used to display street attributes, street map data often forms a basis for delineating areas used in other types of mapping products.
Street Tabular Data-includes street permits, parking records and related data. Street tabular data contains attributes associated with street networks, including street-related statistics and information ( e.g., address ranges, road conditions, traffic analyses, road maintenance, street facilities, etc.) Address range data are used in address matching functions to associate site address-based tabular data with the correct street and block face for later analysis or display. · Facility Maps -includes maps of sewer, storm drain, water utility and other utility . infrastructure, The layout of utilities such as gas, electric, cable television, and others can also be included on facility maps. .
Facility Tabular Data -includes facilities inspection and permitting records. Facilities tabular data typically contains the attributes associated with facilities such as water, sewer, cable television, gas and electric service, including maintenance schedules and facilities inventory data. ·
Environmental Maps -includes topographic maps, and may also contain maps of soils, geology, vegetation, land form, slope, hydrography, and related geographic features.
Thematic maps of environmental suitability are also contained within this data type.
Environmental Tabular Data -includes environmental reports and analyses, and may contain data associated with environmental conditions, such as soil type, amounts of precipitation, degree of slope, vegetation types, etc.
Other Data -may include text data such as reports and detailed financial data, as well as other graphic data, such as detailed facility/engineering drawings, and image data.
These data types provide the broad structure for organizing geographically referenced data. The data set represents the fonri in which the data is currently captured and stored, and provides a much higher degree of data detail. However, data sets do not account for similarity of function for which different sets may be used, nor do they address the potential for data redundancy. To organize the data sets into functional groups, data categories are defined as subsets of the data types. Data categories provide a standardized grouping of data sets, based on data function, which can then be used in establishing data requirements, defining common geographic identifiers, and resolving data redundancies.
Data items represent the specific attributes of information contained within the data sets. Among these data-items, the geographic identifiers (e.g., site address, permit numbers, etc.) are the most critical to GIS design because they identify geographic locations, and enable the linking of other ::ittribute information to those locations for use in analyses and map displays. 11ese data types and categorizations provide a basic building block for the conceptual data base design effort. In the conceptual data base design, a comprehensive perspective of all department requirements must be applied to eliminate data redundancies and incorporate shared data necessary to fulfill all users' needs. A prioritization of data for automation in the shared database will also be performed to facilitate implementation planning for the City of San Marcos system. Typical data that can be shared include:
• Reference information
• Planimetry
• Topography
• Political zones/ government areas
• Administrative areas·
• Census areas
·• Streets
• Parcels
• Utilities
• Hydrography.
• Vegetation
• Wildlife
• Soils
• Land cover
• Land use
• Facilities
• Sub-surface features
• Scenario coverages
It is also important to remember the shared responsibilities among depa_rtments for creating and maintaining the data. Typically a department is the key producer of data and many other departments are users of the data. This reinforces the needs for a central GIS committee that is made up of representatives from each department that plays a role in the GIS.
An example to clarify these roles, although not meant to be comprehensive, is given in Table 3 below.
Table 3
Example of Data Providers and User
DemograQhics Street Street Parcels Zoning Hazardous
Centerlines Widths Materials
Engineering User Provider Provider Provider User User
Building User User User User User User
Planning and Provider User User. User Provider User
Zoning
Economic Provider User User User User User
'""'9velopment
blicWorks User User User User User User
rire User User User User User Provider
Department
Finance User User User User User User
Department
Data accuracy, precision, quality and scale are important to the success and usability of the GIS system. The most important thing to remember is that the accuracy of the GIS system is only as good as the least accurate data that is being used. That does not mean that you must have survey accurate data for the base map, but it does mean that if you are not using survey accurate data, you must clearly understand the ramifications of the resulting GIS analyses, maps and reports. The metadata will include the information necessary to determine both accuracy and applicability for any particular task. ·
The database design is an important part of the work for each feature or attribute information data set that is built or used by the City. Database design is beyond the scope of this report, but there are • some important issues that will be helpful as these databases are built in the future.
Feature based.data usually are in map format. Data that is in geodatabase, coverages or even shapefiles are probably going to be ready for use in the GIS. The only exception to this would be problems with projections. The other source of feature data, which is especially true for Engineering ~~d Public Works, is from CAD drawings. While GIS can import AutoCAD and MicroStation CAD JS, it is imperative that the creator ()fthe drawings use techniques so that the data will be useable.
The most extreme problem that can arise is that the CAD drawing has all of the features drawn on '-~e same layer and in the same color. The GIS could never be expected to make sense of this type of awing. There are several simple rules, which if followed, will allow the GIS to make use of the Jata and features in a CAD drawing.
Attribute based data will come from the feature data set, or external databases. These external databases can be simple ASCIT text files, dBase files, Excel spreadsheets, or larger relational databases such as SQL Server or Oracle. The conceptual design must take into account the types and number of databases. Also included in this stage of the design are the needs of the users for the data and whatever applications may need to use the data.
Where building attribute databases it is important to lay out the fields that are anticipated for the reports or maps that are to be produced from this data. The logical design must take into account the characteristics, relationships, and sources of the data. For example, assume the need for a table of storm drain information such as that shown below in Table 4:
Table4
Example of Database Fields
1911 Q50=21 ! 0.07431 i
234' Q10=37 . 0.18462 i APRIL 97'
~ l :s :rn: i~~~:;" l.l.~_:.i_~.'_:I.•
ll---"-'-'-c+-----------'--'-+-~+-----+.;..;;.._----+-=---'-'-'--+---15--+2 i-O10=37 ! 0.01 "''" 184 Q50=22 i 0.36
~ :~: ci~ :;~7 I ~::63 i l>PRIL 97 ~lfeii
-~'-'+--------,-960--+-T-S---l-----+--+---i---+----+-c-c--+-----<:il! ,,.,
If the original plan only included the needs of the engineering group then the only fields might be those shown above. These fields typically include: ID, reach name, tract, year constructed, type of structure, upstream structure type, diameter, material, length (this is the design length and not the · GIS feature length), design discharge(s), slope, and date last inspected.
This would be sufficient data for a storm drain based GIS where the user would be querying the storm drain system for capital improvement projects, or asset management.
However this would not be as useful for providing information based on street names. If for example, someone wanted a list of all the storm drains and appurtances in a particular street it could not be queried based on the street name. There is no link between the street name and the storm drain ID. .
This is why the users need to examine every possibility of the use of the data while the database -"lds are being considered. In some cases is may be simple enough, but time consuming, to go back ... d add a field to the storm drain database, but if the storm drain data needed to be added to the street database it might not be possible.
Here are the key items that have been discussed in constructing a database:
• Conceptual design
o Data
o Application~
o Users
• Logical design
o Data Characteristics
o Data Relationships
o Data Sources
• Physical design
o DBMS
So as the databases are created or obtained from other sources the GIS group at the City should review the potential use of the data by others. Table 5 shows some examples in a data versus application format. One of the processing in establishing the citywide GIS is to modify the table to reflect the actual needs and interdisciplinary uses of the data between departments.
Table 5
Application/Data Correlation
Long Range Storm School Waste Police Assessment
Planning Drains Bus· Management DisQatch
Routing
Parcels X X
Street X X X X
Network
Topography X
Land Use X X
Watersheds X X
Zoning X X
Sewers X
Water X
System
Flood Zones X X X
The next database issue has to ·deal with the data about itself. This "data about the data" is called metadata, and while every database should have metadata, few do. Metadata must include the source of the data, the date it was created, the accuracy and the projection._ Other items include creators name, and any pertinent comment that would help the user understand any limitations.
The data sources and costs are listed in Appendix A.
[\.CQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF GIS SYSTEM
The final two phases of the GIS system are the Acquisition and Development, and the Operation and Maintenance. ·
Plan
+
L----Analyze
L----i.__oe~:-ig_n _ __:----,i
I
L----Acquire and
·oevelop
L----
Operate and
Maintain
Acquisition of the GIS software will be though purchases made to ESRI. Application software will depend on the need and the best product at the· time of purchase. Hardware will be acquired from an 1roved vendor with specifications to be written by the GIS committee. 1'able 8 shows a suggested configuration for the GIS system and includes the integration of the City Clerk, s document management system.
The GIS system consists of four main parts:
• Main GIS System
• Document Management System
• Data Viewing and Query Stations
• Public Access Stations
The main GIS system has been described at length and is depicted in Table 8. It consists of the main GIS server and data repositories. Departments that will be creating the data and performing complex GIS functions will be part of this system.
The data viewing and query stations can be either Arc View seats or in some cases ArcExplorer seats.
The type of use will determine the selection of the viewing product.
Public access should be an futemet or futranet based system. The details for this system and a web interface are discussed further in the chapter about public and private web access. .1he GIS software product mix and need is outlined in Table 9. It is important to remember that there will be very few installations of the full Arc Info software. Typically a city has one Arc Info for about every forty Arc Views. This is not a hard and fast rule, but meant to provide a guideline.
The newest version of the ArcGIS products at this time is version 8.1. The city should upgrade their current Arc Info to version 8 .1. It is also suggested that the city consider up grading Arc View 3 .2 to Arc View 8.1, but only for one or two seats. Arc View 3.2 will be more than adequate for the needs for at least another year to eighteen months.
The hardware to support the GIS software is divided into two basic groups. The GIS server should have a processor running at least 750 MHz. It should have a minimum of256 MB of main memory.
The graphics card must have at least 8 MB of memory and it is suggested that it be capable of running OpenGL. Storage requirements depend upon where the data will be stored. Current thinking is that the GIS server will store all the GIS data. This will necessitate at least 40 MB of hard disk storage. It is recommended that a second drive of equal size be on the server and that the GIS data be backed up automatically to the second drive. The City's IT group will also back up the data to their server, but the need for immediate restore is important and the cost is minimal.
The computers that run Arc View or ArcExplorer do not have to be as capable. In fact, most of the engineering department computers are sufficient. The minimum requirements for these workstation are: 650 MHz processor, 128 MB of RAM, 20 MB of hard disk storage beyond any other needs, and c-ast graphics card with at least 8 MB of memory.
TABLE 9
Engineering Department
Hardware, Software, Data and Staffing Requirements
Unit Cost 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Existina Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Software Arclnfo 8.x 14000 1 $0 $0 $0 1 $14,000 $0
ArcEditor 7000 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
ArcView8.x 1500 1 $0 2 $3,000 1 $1,500 $0 $0
Spatial Analyst 2500 1 $0 2 $5,000 1 $2,500 $0 $0
3D Analyst. 2500 1 $0 2 $5,000 1 $2,500 $0 $0
ArcView3.2 1200 1 2 $2,400 $0 $0 $0 $0
ArclMS 7500 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
ArcPad 500 $0 1 $500 $0 $0 $0
Hardware GIS Server 3500 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 $3,500
Workstation 2000 1 $2,000 $0 1 $2,000 $0 $0
laptop 2800 $0 1 $2,800 $0 1 $2,800 $0
Pocket PC 600 $0 1 $600 $0 $0 $0
Plotter 4000 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 $4,000
Color Printer 800 $0 1 $800 $0 $0 $0
Scanner 5000 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Applications $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Data $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Staff GIS Manager 60000 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 $60,000
GISTech 45000 0.5 $22,500 1 $45,000 1 $45,000 1 $45,000 1 $45,000 Totals $26,900 $62,700 $53,500 $61,800 $112,500
TABLE 9
Building Department
Hardware, Software, Data and Staffing Requirements
Unit Cost 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Existino Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Software Arclnfo 8.x 14000 $0. $0 $0 $0 $0
ArcEditor 7000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
ArcViewS.x 1500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Spatial Analyst 2500 $0 1 $2,500 $0 $0 $0
3D Analyst 2500 $0 1 $2,500 $0 $0 $0
ArcView3.2 1200 $0 1 $1,200 $0 1 $1,200 $0
ArclMS 7500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
ArcPad 500 $0 $0 1 $500 $0 $0
Hardware GIS Server 3500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Workstation 2000 $0 1 $2,000 $0 $0 $0
Laptop 2800 $0 $0 $0 1 $2,800 $0
Pocket PC 600 $0 $0 1 $600 $0 $0
Plotter 4000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Color Printer 800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Scanner 5000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Applications $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Data $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Staff GIS Manager 60000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
GISTech 45000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Totals $0 $8,200 $1,100 $4,000 $0
TABLE 9
· Planning and Zoning
Hardware, Software, Data and Staffing Requirements
Unit Cost 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Existinq Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Software Arclnfo 8.x 14000 $0 1 $14,000 $0 $0 $0
ArcEditor 7000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
ArcView8.x 1500 $0 $0 $0 1 $1,500 1 $1,500
ArcView3.2 1200 1 $1,200 1 $1,200 $0 $0 $0
ArclMS 7500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
ArcPad 500 $0 1 $500 $0 $0 $0
Hardware GIS Server 3500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Workstation 2000 $0 1 $2,000 $0 1 $2,000 $0
Laptop 2800 $0 1 $2,800 $0 $0 $0
Pocket PC 600 $0 1 $600 $0 $0 $0
Plotter 4000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Color Printer 800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Scanner 5000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Applications $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Data $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Staff GISManager 60000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
GISTech 45000 $0 0.5 $22,500 0.5 $22,500 0.5 $22,500 0.5 $22,500 Totals $1,200 · $43,600 $22,500 $26,000 $24,000
TABLE9
Public Works
Hardware, Software, Data and Staffing Requirements
· Unit Cost 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Existina Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Quantity Extension Software Arclnfo 8.x 14000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
ArcEditor 7000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
ArcView8.x 1500 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 $3,000
ArcView3.2 1200 1 $1,200 1 $1,200 $0 $0 $0
ArclMS 7500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
ArcPad · 500 $0 1 $500 $0 $0 $0
Hardware GIS Server 3500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Workstation 2000 1 $2,000 1 $2,000 $0 $0 1 $2,000
Laptop 2800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pocket PC 600 $0 1 $600 $0 $0 $0
Plotter 4000 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 $4,000
Color Printer 800 $0 1 $800 $0 $0 $0
Scanner 5000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Applications $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Data $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Staff GIS Manager 60000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
GISTech 45000 $0 $0 $0 0.5 $22,500 0.5 $22,500
Totals $3,200 $5,100 $0 $22,500 $31,500
Unit Cost
Software Arclnfo 8.x 14000
ArcEditor 7000
ArcView8.x 1500
ArcView3.2 1200
ArclMS 7500
ArcPad 500
Hardware GIS Server 3500
Workstation 2000
Laptop 2800
Pocket PC 600
Plotter 4000
Color Printer 800
Scanner 5000
Applications
Data
Staff GIS Manager 60000
GISTech 45000
Totals
Totals for All Departments
Economic Development
Hardware, Software, Data and Staffing Requirements
2000
Existing
2001
Quantity Extension
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2001
$31,300
2002
Quantity
1 1
Extension
$0
$0
$1,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,800
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,300
2002
$123,900
2003
Quantity
1 1
1 Extension
$0
$0
$1,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,000
$0
$0
$0
$800
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,300
2003
$81,400
2004
Quantity Extension
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2004
$114,300
TABLE 9
2005
Quantity Extension
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
2005
$168,000
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF GIS
The proper operation of a GIS system will require the oversight of GIS committee made up of members from each department that either uses or will use the GIS system or data.
This is a standing committee that should meet regularly in the beginning and less :frequently as full time staff is in place to run the system.
Staffing needs will vary depending upon the current projects, the amount of growth and the needs from the community, staff and elected officials for access to data. Within the next year the City should consider creating a separate GIS group that is reports to one department, but works for all of the departments needing GIS services. The initial need will just be for one to two GIS technicians, but in the fifth year there will be a need for a GIS Manager.
One of the most expensive and time-consuming parts of the GIS system is to update the base map, engineering features and public works features; There are several options to getting this work completed.
• Have sufficient in-house GIS staff with database and programming skills • Use outside consultants
• Make developers and others submit their projects in GIS format The first two options are well understood. The third option is one that cities are adopting to address the cost and workload for maintaining the GIS.
In this plan the city adopts a plan and set of requirements for the submittal of drawings.
This is similar to requirements that most cities already have for supmitting CAD drawings. In fact, it is an extension of those requirements. Appendix "B" contains· an example set of requirements that the City can consider. Similar requirements are being used by Irvine Ranch Water District, the City of Seal Beach and the City of Chula Vista.
The city of Seal Beach offers the developer two options. They can submit their project in the required GIS format or they can request that the city have it done bythe city's GIS . . consultant. If they elect to have the city take care of the conversion, then they get and estimate for the cost and can approve it or re-consider doing it themselves ( or by their own consultant). In any case, the city gets the data all ready to fit into their GIS system. It still takes a little work :from the City staff to put the data into the correct coverages, themes or feature classes, but it is very minimal.
The example requirements have been written so that not only is the data-used for the GIS, but depending upon the project it can be used for hydraulic :rp.odeling of storm drain systems, pavement management or other future master planning, improvements or capital improvement projects.
Appendix "A"
Data Sources and Pricing
SANDAG GIS DATA
Coordinate System
GIS data bases use the California State Plane Coordinate System (feet), Zone VI, North American Datum 83 (NAD 83) with single precision coordinate representation.
Base Map Data
Feature -Attributes Raster Map Vector Map Meta Data
North County Landbase ✓ ✓ ✓
South County Landbase ✓ ✓ ✓
East County Landbase ✓ ✓ ✓
Entire County Landbase (Lite) ✓ ✓
Entire County Road Centerlines ✓ ✓
High Accuracy Topo - 2 foot contours
(1992)
High Accuracy Topo-5 foot contours
(1992)
General Feature_s
Feature Attributes Raster Map Vector Map Meta Data
2000 Census Tracts (TIGER} ✓ ✓
2000 Census Designated Places ✓ ✓
. (TIGER)
1990 Census Tracts ✓· ✓ ✓
Cities ✓ ✓ ✓
Major Statistical Areas ✓ ✓ ✓•
Subregional Areas ✓ ✓ ✓
Urbanized Arec! ✓ ✓ ✓
Zip Codes ✓ ✓ ✓
Digital Boundary Files and Layers
Cost
$6,000/yr
$6,000/yr
$3,000/yr
$3,000/yr
$4,000/yr
$100/grid
(4000 X
6000 feet)
$65/grid
(4000 X
6000 feet)
Cost
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Base Map Features
- Feature Attributes Raster Mao Vector Mao Meta Data Cost . - Airoort Runwavs ✓ ✓ $0 Annotation of Coverages and Layers ✓ ✓ $0
Coastline ✓ ✓ ✓ $0
County ✓ ✓ $0
Elevation Contours -40 foot, Regional ✓ ✓ $0
(bv USGS 15' Quad)
Elevation Contours -200 foot, Regional ✓ ✓ $0
Freeways ✓ ✓ ✓ $0
Lagoons ✓ ✓ ✓ $0
Lakes ✓ ✓ ✓ $0
Major Roads ✓ ✓ ✓ $0
Major Streams ✓ ✓ ✓ $0
Railroads ✓ ✓ ✓ $0
Roads -✓ ✓ ✓ $0
USGS 7 .5 Minute Quadrangles ✓ ✓ ✓ $0
Digital Boundary Files and Layers
District Boundaries ·
Feature Attributes Raster Mao Vector Mao Meta Data Cost State Assemblv ✓ ✓ ✓ $0 !
Community College ✓ ✓ ✓ $0
U.S. Congressional ✓ ✓ ✓ $0
City of San Diego Council ' ✓ ✓ ✓ $0
Elementary Schools ✓ ✓ ✓ $0
Fire Protection ✓ ✓ ✓ $0
High School ✓ ✓ ✓ $0
Judicial ✓ ✓ ✓ $0
State Senatorial ✓ ✓ ✓ $0
Sanitation Service ✓ ✓ ✓ $0
County Supervisorial ✓ ✓ ✓ $0
Water Service ✓ ✓ ✓ $0
Digital Boundary Files and Layers
Land Cover and Activity Centers
Feature
Colle2:es and Universities
Developable Land·
Edited Constraints
1995 Land Use
Existing Land Use
Government Centers
Hospitals
1995 Land Ownership
Large Private Employers
Planned Land Use
Redevelopment/Infill
Public School Sites
Site Specific
Tourist Attractions
Attributes
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Sensitive Lands / Natural Resources
Feature Attributes
AITTicultural Contract Lands • ✓
Agricultural Preserves ✓
Climate Zones ✓
FEMA FIRM Flood Plains
Hydrologic Basins and Watersheds ✓
National Wetlands Inventory. ✓
Soils Series ✓
Steep Slope Areas (25% +) ✓
1995 Vegetation (without the City of ✓
Carlsbad)
Raster Map
Raster Map
Vector Map Meta Data Cost
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
Vector Map Meta Data Cost
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
Transportation
Feature Attributes
Airoort Runwavs ✓
Freeways ✓
Planned Freeways ✓
Major Roads ✓
Planned Major Roads ✓
Railroads ✓
Rail Stations ✓
Roads ✓
Digital Boundary Files and Layers
Multiple Species Conservation Program
Feature Attributes
MSCP Boundfil'.Y ✓
MSCP Multiple Habitat Planning Area ✓
(MHPA)
MSCP Biological Core and Linkage Area ✓
(BCLA)
MSCP Habitat Evaluation Model Results ✓
r Raster data l
MSCP Gnatcatcher Habitat Evaluation ✓
Model Results r Raster data l
Raster Mao
Raster Map
✓
✓
UTILITY DATA
Feature Attributes
Vista Irrigation District -Water System ✓
Vicitas Water District-Water System ✓
Vicitas Water District -Sewer System ✓
San Diego Gas and Electic -Gas and Electric ✓
Pacific Telephone -Phone System ✓
Daniels Cablevision -Cable TV ?
Vector Mao Meta Data Cost
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
Vector Mao Meta Data Cost
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ ✓ $0
✓ $0
✓ $0
Raster Vector Meta Cost
•Mao Mao Data
✓ ✓ Contac
✓ ✓ Contac
✓ ✓ Cohtac
✓ ✓ Contac·
✓ ✓ Contact
? ? Contacl
FREE DATA
Feature Attributes Raster Vector Meta
Mao Mao Data
USGS 7.5' DLG Quad Data (SDTS Format) ✓ ✓ ✓
ht!Q://mcmcweb.er.usgs.gov/sdts/
Digital Orthorectified Imagery -10 meter ✓
(incom2lete California coverage)
htt12://www.geogra2hynetwork.com/d·ata/free.cfm
Aircraft Laser/ GPS Mapping of Coastal Topography ✓
htt12://www.geographynetwork.com/data/free.cfm
Download U.S. Census TIGER Data -http://www.geographynetwork.com/data/tiger2000 Data Content of the TIGER/Line Files
The TIGER/Line files contain data describing three major types of features:
• Line Features
1. Roads
2. Railroads
3. Hydrography
4. Transportation and Utility Lines·
• Boundary Features
1. Statistical boundaries, such as census tracts and blocks
2. Local government boundaries, such as places and counties
3. Administrative boundaries, such as congressional and school districts • Landmark Features
1. Point landmarks, such as schools and churches
2. Area landmarks, such as parks and cemeteries
3. Key geographic locations, such as apartment buildings and factories Cost
$0
$0
$0
COMMERCIAL DATA
Map Mart
Feature Attributes
Raster Ouad Sheets -250 dQi with
marg1ns
Raster Ouad Sheets -400 d:Qi
2:eoreferenced. no mannns
Vector Quad Sheets
Digital Orthophoto Quads (DOQQ)
DEM 10m Quad ✓
DEM 30m Quad ✓
Map Mart
Gemi Store
MapTech
Gecko Software
www.mapmart.com
www.gemistore.com
www.maptech.com/
www.gecko-sw.com
Raster Map
✓
✓
✓
Vector Map Meta Data Cost
$1 per
quad she
$49 per
quad she
✓ $20 per
quad for
SOTS
format for
all layers
$50 per
map B/'N
$75 per
map for
color
✓ $20 per
quad
✓ $5 per
quad in
SOTS
format
Appendix "B"
Example Requirement for Digital Data Submissions
Digital Submission Requirements
All engineers preparing improvement plans to submit to the City for plan check purposes will be required to submit a digital graphics file containing the boundary information, street centerline, curb and gutter, right-of-way, lot/parcel line, easements, domestic water, sewer, and reclaimed water facilities included in the plan. The data is to be submitted along with the final plan check materials. The digital file must contain one contiguous drawing of the entire feature -street centerline, sewer lines, pipelines, etc. The City does not require plan and profile drawings to be submitted digitally.
What data is required?
The following table indicates which features are required to be transmitted digitally and those, which are desirable but not required:
Tract/Parcel Map Information
All Tract and Parcel Map information shall be submitted in digital format. Media formats are described below.
Improvement Plans
Street Centerline
Centerline -Required
Bearings/Distance/Curve Data Annotation -Optional
Street name -Required
Curb and Gutter
Curb and gutter line -Required
Descriptive Data -Required
Bearings/Distance/Curve Data Annotation -Optional
Right-of-Way
Right of Way Lines -Required
Descriptive Data -Required
Bearings/Distance/Curve Data Annotation ~Optional
Lot/Parcel Data
Lot Lines -Required
Lot Bearings/Distances Annotation -Optional
Lot Numbers -Required
Easement Data
Easement Lines -Required
· Descriptive Data -Required
Bearings/Distances/Curve Data Annotation -Optional
Building/Structure
Building and/or Structural -Required
Descriptive Data-Required
Bearings/Distances/Curve Data Annotation -Optional .
. Domestic Water System
Domestic Water Mains -Required
Descriptive Data -Required
Bearings/Distance/Curve Data Annotation -Optional
Domestic Water Laterals -Required
Descriptive Data -Required
Bearings/Distance/Curve Data Annotation -Optional
All Associated Facilities (Valves, Fire Hydrants, Meters, etc.)-Required Descriptive Data -Required
Bearings/Distance/Curve Data Annotation -Optional
Sewer System
Sewer Mains -Required
Descriptive Data -Required
Bearings/Distance/Curve Data Annotation -Optional
Sewer Laterals-Required
Descriptive Data -Required
Bearings/Distance/Curve Data Annotation -Optional
Associated Facilities (Manholes, Cleanouts, Lift Stations, etc.) -Required Descriptive Data -Required
Bearings/Distance/Curve Data Annotation -Optional
Reclaimed Water
Reclaimed Water Mains -Required
Descriptive Data -Required
Bearings/Distance/Curve Data Annotation -Required
Reclaimed Water Laterals -Required
Descriptive Data -Required
Bearings/Distance/Curve Data Annotation -Required
Associated Facilities (Valves, Meters, etc.)-Required
Descriptive Data -Required
Bearings/Distance/Curve Data Annotation -Required
Data layering Requirements
The data will be layered as a minimum into the following features:
• Boundary Data
• Street Centerline
• Curb and Gutter Lines
• Right-of-Way Lines
• Lot/Parcel Lines
• Easement Lines
• Building/Structure Footprints
• Domestic Water Mains
• Domestic Water Service laterals
• Domestic Water Appurtenances (i.e., Valves, Fire Hydrants, Meters)* • Sewer Mains
• Sewer Laterals
• Sewer Appurtenances (i.e., Manholes, Cleanouts, Lift Stations)* • Reclaimed Water Mains
• Reclaimed Water Service Laterals
• Reclaimed Water Appurtenances (i.e., Valves, Meters)* *Facility appurtenances shall be represented as single distinct symbols or blocks, or separated into different layers.
What is the data accuracy and coordinate system?
The accuracy of data submitted in accordance with these specifications will be consistent with data converted directly'from COGO and may be used for computational purposes during the plan check and construction phase of the submitted project.
The coordinate system of data shall be the California State Plan Coordinate System, Zone 6 (Horizontal: NAD 83, Vertical: NVGD 88) in accordance with SANGI$.
File Formats and Media Requirements
Both of the following submissions are required:
CAD: Digital files shall be in DWG or DXF format from AutoCAD R14 or 2000.
GIS: Digital files shall be in ARC VIEW Shapefile in one project for integration into the City's GIS system.
Submission of files shall be on CD-ROM, or if small enough, on a single 3-1/2 diskette.
Checking of Digital Data
The digital data will be checked for the following:
• Correct layering
• Verification that annotated and calculated data are consistent • Verification that digital and hard copy plans are consistent • Verification of correct coordinate system
• Verification of a continuous pipeline shown in one drawing file. (Plan & profile digital files will not be accepted).
• Verification that digital files do not contain unresolved line types, font files, and x- references.
If the engineer or surveyor does not have the capability to submit such files, the City's staff shall create the graphics file through its outside consultant and recover the cost through additional plan check deposits.
AGENDA-ITEM
# f"?
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
2003 UPDATE
· Parks
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
PFFUpdate 2003•
· City of San Marcos
Summary of Neighborhood and Community Park Costs
1. Buena Neighborhood Park
2. Twin Oaks Valley Neighborhood Park
3. Richland Neighborhood Park
4. Poinsetta Neighborhood Park
5. Hollandia Dairy Neighborhood Park
6: Viewpoint Neighborhood Park
7. Questhaven Neighborhood Park
8. Elfin Forest Neighborhood Park
9. Walnut Grove Community Park Expansion
10. Discovery Community Park
11. Bradley Community Park Expansion
12. Aqua Hedionda Pond Community Park
13. La Moree Community Park
14. South Lake Community Park
15. Double Peak Regional Park
16. Paloma Neighborhood Park
17. Mission Neighborhood Park
18. Knob Hill Neighborhood Park
19. Jack's Pond Neighborhood Park
20. Merriam Community Park
21. Woodland Community Park
. 22. Gopher Canyon Regional Park
23. BLM Lands Regional Park
Total Parks
Total Cost Community and Neighborhood Parks
Total Acreage Community and Neighborhood Parks
Cost per Acre
$780,760
$6,603,680
$6,225,220
$9,206,710
$10,103,690
$2,337,810
$3,784,600
$8,205,430
$14,245,890
$5,785,670
$11,036,430
$3,401,021
$7,549,830
$7,126,670
$16,561,350
$6,925,520
$8,055,781
$1,157,730
$7,788,230
$19,287,401
$13,610,501
$6,630,500
$1,639,000
$178,049,426
$153,218,576
386
$396,939
Use $400,000 per acre for cost
of acquisition and development of parks
AGENDA ITEM
# I?_ . ~