Banning City Council
February 24, 2026

• Are there recommended changes to the TUMF based on the findings? If so, what is the potential impact to the TUMF collection and home owners? Yes, it is recommended that smaller homes pay a fee based on home size. The appropriate fee should be evaluated by the TUMF fee consultant to determine the potential impact to fee collected compared to the current fee expectation. Smaller homes paying less could potentially make home ownership less expensive overall compared to larger homes.

Data Collection
This section describes the data that were used to evaluate the trip generation. Specifically, the identification and selection of study areas, method for obtaining and results of the travel activity, and collection of residential characteristics.

Study Area Selection
To determine the home characteristics that might influence trip generation, representative residential neighborhoods in each of the TUMF zones were identified. The criteria used for selecting neighborhoods included the following:
• Residential land use could be isolated from other uses • Minimal cut through traffic
• As close to Census Blocks or Block Groups as possible to obtain demographic information • Minimal construction activity that would change the number of units • Diverse home size, household income
Based on local knowledge, aerial photos, Census geography, and home information from Zillow, WRCOG staff identified a preliminary list of potential study locations in each TUMF zone. Through discussions and review of each location, Fehr & Peers narrowed down the list of study locations to 23 neighborhoods, shown on Figure 1.

Travel Activity
StreetLight Data from smart phones were collected at 23 residential neighborhoods shown on Figure 1 were collected for trips that started or ended within each neighborhood. This method excluded trips that cut through the neighborhood. To avoid holidays, vacations, and to reflect travel when school is in session, data from March 1st through April 30th and September 1st through October 31st for all weekdays in 2019 were collected to represent the average vehicle trips per day for all homes within each study area.

Since StreetLight Data are based on location-based services (LBS) derived from cellular phone applications, 48-hour traffic counts were conducted at eight of the 23 study area locations as a point of comparison. The eight representative count locations were selected to have at least one 635
Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG November 16, 2022

location in each TUMF zone, minimize the number of roadways accessing the land use, and to allow the most accurate representation of trips associated with the residential homes without capturing cut through traffic. The eight locations where 48-hour counts were collected are shown on Figure 2.

As shown on Figure 3, the 48-hour traffic count variation from day to day and the StreetLight Data average are very similar, giving confidence that the StreetLight Data for all study areas would be representative.

Residential Characteristics
The number of homes and characteristics for the homes within each study area were obtained from multiple sources, as summarized in Table 1. To identify outliers and the range of values for each variable that would be used to estimate the trip generation, plots of each study location by TUMF zone were developed and are summarized below with reference to the appropriate figure. • Figure 4 – Median Square Footage: good distribution across study areas and within each TUMF zone
• Figure 5 – Average Persons per Household: good distribution across study areas and within each TUMF zone
• Figure 6 – Average Children per Household: good distribution across study areas and within each TUMF zone, including one study area that has very high children per household and another study area that has very low children per household • Figure 7 – Average Workers per Household: good distribution across study areas and within each TUMF zone
• Figure 8 – Median Cost per Square Foot: good distribution across study areas and within each TUMF zone
Based on the review of each variable, the range across the study areas and within each TUMF zone are appropriate for use in the trip generation analysis.

Trip Generation Results
The StreetLight Data daily vehicle trips were used to visually display the relationship of each home characteristic for each study area and within each TUMF zone. The appropriate figure number and conclusion for the relationship are listed below.
• Figure 9 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Median Square Footage: slight increase in vehicle trips as median square footage increases
• Figure 10 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Average Persons per Household: slight increase in vehicle trips as total number of people per household increases 636
Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG November 16, 2022

• Figure 11 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Average Children per Household: slight increase in vehicle trips as average number of children per household increases • Figure 12 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Average Workers per Household: slight increase in vehicle trips as average number of workers per household increases • Figure 13 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Median Cost per Square Foot: no clear relationship between average number of workers and trip generation
In addition to visual representations of the data, statistical analysis was performed to obtain the correlation between the variables to daily vehicle trips and to determine the regression equations.

Figure 16 – Correlation Matrix for All Variables: the correlation values in the green box for average and median home size of 0.7 indicate a strong positive correlation and mean as home size increases the number of trips increase. The correlation value of 0.7 results in an R-square of

0.49, meaning nearly half of the increase in trip generation is related to home size.

Based on Figures 10 and 11, the relationship between trip generation appeared to be linear, with the relationship possibly changing around 2,500 square feet. The linear regression analysis of average home size was performed for all home sizes, homes 2,500 square feet or smaller, and homes larger than 2,500 square feet. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 2. The results show for home sizes of 2,500 square feet or less, the influence of the home size (represented by the coefficient) is nearly double that when all home sizes are included in the regression. The nearly zero coefficient and very high constant for the regression of home sizes above 2.500 square feet indicate that the trip generation is nearly constant for homes above 2,500 square feet.

Recommendations and Next Steps
Although home characteristics other than square footage have a slight increase in trip generation, the ability to forecast or control all of the characteristics other than home square footage is very difficult. Based on the results of trip generation and discussions with WRCOG regarding the feasible size of homes being constructed in the region, WRCOG will work with the TUMF fee consultant to identify and recommend appropriate fee adjustments based on square footage. 637
BLM
Cleveland NF
San Jacinto
Wildlife
Area

ANAHEIM

BANNING

BEAUMONT

CALIMESA

CANYON LAKE
CHINO
CHINO
HILLS
CORONA

EASTVALE
HEMET
IRVINE

JURUPA VALLEY

LAGUNA HILLS

LAGUNA NIGUEL

LAKE ELSINORE LAKE FOREST

MENIFEE

MISSION
VIEJO

MORENO VALLEY

MURRIETA
NORCO

ONTARIO
PERRIS

RANCHO SANTA

MARGARITA

RIVERSIDE

SAN JACINTO

WILDOMAR

YORBA LINDA
·243
·241
·91
·71
·83
·74
·60
·79
&%215
"!5
"!10
"!15
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
21 22
23 20
StreetLight Data Collection Locations
Study Location by TUMF Zone
Central
Hemet/San Jacinto
Northwest
Pass
Southwest
City Boundaries
Figure 1
638
BLM
Cleveland NF
San Jacinto
Wildlife
Area

ANAHEIM

BANNING

BEAUMONT

CALIMESA

CANYON LAKE
CHINO
CHINO
HILLS
CORONA

EASTVALE
HEMET
IRVINE

JURUPA VALLEY

LAGUNA HILLS

LAGUNA NIGUEL

LAKE ELSINORE LAKE FOREST

MENIFEE

MISSION
VIEJO

MORENO VALLEY

MURRIETA
NORCO

ONTARIO
PERRIS

RANCHO SANTA

MARGARITA

RIVERSIDE

SAN JACINTO

WILDOMAR

YORBA LINDA
·243
·241
·91
·71
·83
·74
·60
·79
&%215
"!5
"!10
"!15
1 6
11 14
15 18
23 20
Traffic Count Data Collection Locations
Study Location by TUMF Zone
Central
Hemet/San Jacinto
Northwest
Pass
Southwest
City Boundaries
Figure 2
639
Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG November 16, 2022

Figure 3 – Comparison of Individual Traffic Counts and StreetLight Data Average Note: Red and green are the two days of manual count collection and blue are the StreetLight Data average. The BG number corresponds to the number on Figure 2.

Figure 4 – Median Square Footage
640
Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG November 16, 2022

Figure 5 – Average Persons per Household
Figure 6 – Average Children per Household
641
Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG November 16, 2022

Figure 7 – Average Workers per Household
Figure 8 – Median Cost per Square Foot
642
Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG November 16, 2022

Figure 9 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Median Square Footage Figure 10 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Average Persons per Household 643
Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG November 16, 2022

Figure 11 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Average Children per Household Figure 12 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Average Workers per Household 644
Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG November 16, 2022

Figure 13 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Median Cost per Square Foot Figure 14 – Correlation Matrix for All Variables
645
Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG November 16, 2022

Table 1: Residential Home Data and Sources
Value Source
Median Home Size Zillow
Average Home Rooms Zillow
Average Household Population ACS 5 year and 1 year
Average Number of Children ACS 5 year and 1 year
Average Number of Workers ACS 5 year and 1 year
TUMF Zone WRCOG
Average Household Income ACS 5 year and 1 year
Table 2: Daily Total Vehicle Trip Regression Equation Summary Home Size Variable Coefficient Constant R-Squared
All home sizes
Median Home Size (KSF) 2.26 4.22 0.507
Homes 2.5 KSF or smaller
Median Home Size (KSF) 4.11 1.22 0.553
Homes over 2.5 KSF
Median Home Size (KSF) -0.3 11.57 0.007
Notes: KSF= Thousand Square Feet
Regression Equations
All home sizes.

Daily total vehicle trips = 2.26 * Median Home Size in Thousand Square Feet + 4.22 Homes l 2.50 thousand square feet or less.

Daily total vehicle trips = 4.11 * Median Home Size in Thousand Square Feet + 1.22 Homes more than 2.50 thousand square feet.

Daily total vehicle trips = -0.3 * Median Home Size in Thousand Square Feet + 11.57 646
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 EXHIBIT K-3
Multi-Family Residential Counts and Trip Generation Memorandum Fehr & Peers, May 12, 2023
647
3750 University Avenue | Suite 225 | Riverside, CA 92501 | (951) 274-4800 | Fax (951) 684-4324 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: May 12, 2023
To: Christopher Gray - WRCOG
Chris Tzeng – WRCOG
From: Jason D. Pack, P.E.

Delia Votsch, P.E.

Raymond Poss
Subject: DRAFT TUMF Multifamily Residential Counts and Trip Generation Task Order No. 2022-65-1400-004-007
OC23-0955
This memorandum summarizes the goals, data collection and analyses, key findings, and recommendations regarding the evaluation of multifamily development characteristics and trip generation. This memo is intended to inform the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) guidelines on the relationship between multifamily trip generation, number of bedrooms per dwelling unit, and average size of dwelling unit.

Key Findings
Questions answered through the data analyses and findings are listed below.  Are the size of the dwelling unit or number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit key predictors of residential multifamily trip generation? No, the size of dwelling unit nor the number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit are key predicters of trip generation.  Are there other characteristics that have a higher predictive relationship than the number of dwelling units? No, the number of dwelling units has the highest predictive relationship.
 Are there recommended changes to the TUMF program or fee calculations based on the findings? If so, what is the potential impact to the TUMF collection process and to developers? No, it is not recommended that TUMF be updated from basing multifamily development fees on number of dwelling units. 648
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 12, 2023

Background
Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) provides local roadway funding in part through collection of fees through the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program as part of new developments. These fees vary based on the level of impact the new development will have on traffic as determined by the characteristics of the development. The impact fee for multifamily residential developments is currently determined by the number of dwelling units (DUs).

As required by new state legislature (AB-602), agencies are required to account for the size of the dwelling unit when developing impact fees. As such, Fehr & Peers was contracted to evaluate the relationship between trips generated by multifamily apartment complexes to determine if attributes other than number of dwelling units, including number bedrooms per dwelling unit and average size of dwelling unit, significantly affect trip generation.

Data Collection
This section describes the data used to evaluate multifamily trip generation, including the selection of locations and methods for collecting trip data, apartment characteristics, and regional Census data.

Study Selection Area
To evaluate the effect of dwelling unit size and number of dwelling unit bedrooms on multifamily trip generation, the following criteria were used to select the apartment complexes within Western Riverside County:
 Minimum of one complex per TUMF Zone (five zones total)  Complexes not within a Transit Priority Area (TPA)
 Complexes not near a college or university
Through discussions and review of each location with WRCOG, Fehr & Peers narrowed the study locations to 12 multifamily apartment complexes as shown on Figure 1.

Travel Activity
Trips were observed at each of the 12 complexes by collecting vehicle counts during typical weekdays at each driveway over a three-day period. Trip observations for each complex were averaged over the three-day period and summarized below in Table 1 for Daily, AM Peak Period, and PM Peak Period counts. Raw data counts taken over the three-day period can be found Appendix A.
649
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
WRCOG TUMF Multifamily Trip Generation Study Sites
!
Study Locations
TUMF Zone Boundary
Figure 1
650
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 12, 2023

Table 1: Multifamily Complex Trip Observations
Study
Site # Location Name
Daily Trips AM Peak PM Peak
Trips % In % Out Trip
Rate In % Out % Trip Rate In % Out %
1 Oakwood
Apartments 2,089 50% 50% 168 40% 60% 170 56% 44%
2 Springbrook Park
Apartments 841 50% 50% 68 34% 66% 69 58% 42%
3 Vista Springs
Apartments 1,117 49% 51% 106 36% 64% 82 55% 45%
4 Vesada
Apartment
Homes
1,625 50% 50% 126 35% 65% 126 62% 38%
5 Morning Ridge
Apartments 1,130 51% 49% 88 30% 70% 102 59% 41%
6 Stonegate
Apartments 952 56% 44% 67 42% 58% 81 64% 36%
7 River's Edge
Apartment
Homes
1,045 50% 50% 93 34% 66% 91 57% 43%
8 Mayberry Colony
Apartments 616 50% 50% 49 39% 61% 54 52% 48%
9 Summit Ridge
Apartments 777 50% 50% 67 39% 61% 57 54% 46%
10 Riverdale
Apartments 737 50% 50% 65 32% 68% 67 57% 43%
11 Parkridge
Meadows
Apartments
744 50% 50% 58 34% 66% 54 63% 37%
12 Hunt Club
Apartments 1,422 51% 49% 143 36% 64% 106 60% 40%
Source: Fehr & Peers (2023)
651
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 12, 2023

Residential Characteristics
Apartment characteristics, listed below, were obtained from a variety of sources, including conversations with apartment leasing agents, property webpages, Census data, Zillow.com, and the Assessor’s Office of Riverside County web page.
 Number of dwelling units
 Number of apartment styles (i.e., number of one-bedroom units, two-bedroom units, etc.)  Average size (square footage) of dwelling units
 Average number of bedrooms per dwelling unit
 Median monthly household income by Census Tract
 Average number of persons per household by Census Tract  Proximity to nearest public school
The average size of each dwelling unit was calculated by dividing the total size of all combined dwelling units by the total number of dwelling units. Similarly, the average number of bedrooms per dwelling unit were calculated by dividing the total number of bedrooms by the number of dwelling units. These apartment characteristics are shown below in Table 2. Specific information related to each apartment complex are provided in Appendix B. 652
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 12, 2023

Table 2: Apartment Characteristics
Study
Site # Location Name # of DUs
Average
Size of DU
(Sq. Ft.)
Average
Number of
Bedrooms
Median
Monthly
Household
Income
(Dollars)
Average #
of Persons
per
Household
Proximity
to
Nearest
School
(Mi)
1 Oakwood
Apartments 241 1,040 3.0 $65,240 3.92 0.2
2 Springbrook Park
Apartments 112 955 2.0 $77,148 3.6 0.5
3 Vista Springs
Apartments 212 822 1.5 $74,333 3.3 0.7
4 Vesada Apartment
Homes 261 938 1.7 $79,199 4.53 1.1
5 Morning Ridge
Apartments 200 850 1.6 $63,279 2.73 0.6
6 Stonegate
Apartments 160 802 1.5 $68,250 3.14 0.7
7 River's Edge
Apartment Homes 184 918 1.5 $78,222 3.74 0.4
8 Mayberry Colony
Apartments 89 896 1.6 $51,653 3.71 0.7
9 Summit Ridge
Apartments 80 529 2.5 $43,100 3.47 0.3
10 Riverdale
Apartments 96 1,015 2.6 $87,532 4.33 0.3
11 Parkridge
Meadows
Apartments
88 771 2.0 $74,886 3.53 0.1
12 Hunt Club
Apartments 203 962 2.0 $58,200 4.5 0.8
Sources: Fehr & Peers (2023), U.S. Census Bureau 5-Year American Community Survey (2016-2021), Zillow.com (2023), Riverside County Assessor (2023)
653
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 12, 2023

Trip Generation Analysis
Using the data described above, a statistical analysis, including a regression and correlation assessment, was performed to evaluate if a statistically significant relationship exists between multifamily trip generation and the following variables to determine if an update to the development fee calculation was justified.
 Number of dwelling units
 Average size of dwelling units
 Average number of bedrooms per dwelling unit
 Median monthly income
 Average number of persons per household
 Proximity to nearest public school
Correlation Analysis
A correlation analysis was also performed to determine if a one-to-one relationship exists between daily trip generation and an apartment characteristic listed above. Figure 2, below, shows the results of the correlation analysis, with darker green cells representing a stronger, positive correlation.

The correlation analysis indicates that daily trip generation has a strong, positive correlation with the number of dwelling units and a moderate, positive correlation with average size of dwelling unit. All other variables are indicated to have a weak or very weak positive correlation with trip generation.
654
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 12, 2023

Figure 2: Trip Generation Correlation Matrix

Total
Vehicles
# of
DUs
Average #
of
Bedrooms
per DU
Average
DU Size
(Sq. Ft.)
Median
Monthly
Income
Average
Household
Size
Proximity
to
Nearest
School
Total
Vehicles 1.00 0.87 0.29 0.46 0.06 0.34 0.21
# of DUs 0.87 1.00 -0.17 0.43 0.20 0.18 0.51
Average #
of
Bedrooms
per DU

0.29 -0.17 1.00 0.13 -0.09 0.36 -0.60
Average
DU Size
(Sq. Ft.)

0.46 0.43 0.13 1.00 0.55 0.51 0.16
Median
Monthly
Income

0.06 0.20 -0.09 0.55 1.00 0.25 -0.02
Average
Household
Size

0.34 0.18 0.36 0.51 0.25 1.00 0.21
Proximity
to Nearest
School

0.21 0.51 -0.60 0.16 -0.02 0.21 1.00
Source: Fehr & Peers (2023)
Regression Analysis
An ordinary least squares regression at a 95% confidence interval was performed on the above variables against daily trip generation to screen out variables that yielded statistically insignificant results. The results of the first regression are shown in Table 3. 655
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 12, 2023

Table 3: Regression Results
Variable P-Value1 Statistically Significant
Number of dwelling units <0.05 Yes
Average size (square footage) of
dwelling units
>0.05 No
Average number of bedrooms per
dwelling unit
<0.05 Yes
Median monthly household
income
>0.05 No
Average number of persons per
household
>0.05 No
Proximity to nearest public school >0.05 No
Source: Fehr & Peers (2023)

1. P-Values < 0.05 are considered statistically significant. P-Values > 0.05 are considered statistically insignificant.

A subsequent regression was run with the least statistically significant (highest P-value) variable removed. This process was repeated until all remaining variables yielded statistically significant Pvalues (less than 0.05), resulting in the number of dwelling units and average size of dwelling unit as the remaining variables. The P-Values for these variables are shown below in Table 4.

Table 4: Filtered Regression Results
Variable P-Value1 Statistically Significant
Number of dwelling units 4.8x10-07 Yes
Average size (square footage) of
dwelling units

0.0002 Yes
Source: Fehr & Peers (2023)

1. P-Values < 0.05 are considered statistically significant. P-Values > 0.05 are considered statistically insignificant.

The regression analysis indicates that number of dwelling units and average size of dwelling unit are statistically significant predictors of multifamily trip generation.

To validate these results, a forward stepwise regression was also completed. A forward stepwise regression is completed by beginning with no variables in the model, and then adding them one at a time based on which has the smallest p-value when tested one at a time. This isolates any possible relationships between the variables and further helps confirm if the vehicle trip rate has a statistically valid correlation to the variables tested. 656
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 12, 2023

Table 5: Forward Stepwise Regression Results
Variable Relationship Rank1 P-Value2 Statistically
Significant
Average size (square footage) of dwelling units 4 0.377 Yes Average number of bedrooms per dwelling unit 1 0.0008 No Median monthly household income 3 0.249 Yes
Average number of persons per household 5 0.509 Yes
Proximity to nearest public school 2 0.0239 No
Source: Fehr & Peers (2023)

1. Relationship rank indicates which variable has the strongest correlation with daily vehicle trip rate.

2. P-Values < 0.05 are considered statistically significant. P-Values > 0.05 are considered statistically insignificant.

As noted in Table 5, the variables with the strongest relationship to daily vehicle trip rate (number of bedrooms and distance to nearest school) are not statistically significant.

Trip Generation Results
In both the regression and correlation analyses, the number of dwelling units was found to be the strongest predictor of daily trip generation. All other variables had positive but weaker correlations to daily trip generation, and none were found to be statistically significant predictors of multifamily daily trip generation under both regression analyses.

Table 6: Summary of Trip Generation Results
Variable Overall Relationship
Ranking1
Statistically Significant
Filtered Regression Forward Regression
Number of Dwelling Units 1 Yes Yes
Average number of bedrooms
per dwelling unit 2 Yes No
Proximity to nearest public school 3 No No
Average size (square footage) of
dwelling units 4 No Yes
Average number of persons per
household 5 No Yes
Median monthly household
income 6 No Yes
Source: Fehr & Peers (2023)

1. Overall relationship rank indicates which variable has the strongest relationship with daily vehicle trip rate under the correlation and forward stepwise regression analyses. 657
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 12, 2023

Recommendations and Next Steps
The results of this statistical analysis indicate that the best predictor of trip generation for multifamily apartment complexes in Western Riverside County is the number of dwelling units (the current basis for development fee calculation). Although other variables showed a positive correlation with trip generation, none yielded as strong a relationship. Based on this statistical analysis, it is not recommended that these other variables be incorporated into the TUMF program.
658
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 2, 2023

Appendix A: Three-Day Trip
Observations
659
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS79 Southern Dwy east of Perris.

AM PM
TIME 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL Time 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL
0:00 10000 1 12:00 10000 1
0:15 00000 0 12:15 00000 0
0:30 10000 1 12:30 10100 2
0:45 00000 0 12:45 01000 1
1:00 10000 1 13:00 00000 0
1:15 00000 0 13:15 00000 0
1:30 10000 1 13:30 00000 0
1:45 00000 0 13:45 20000 2
2:00 00000 0 14:00 00000 0
2:15 00000 0 14:15 00000 0
2:30 00000 0 14:30 00000 0
2:45 00000 0 14:45 00000 0
3:00 00000 0 15:00 10000 1
3:15 00000 0 15:15 02000 2
3:30 10000 1 15:30 22000 4
3:45 00000 0 15:45 20000 2
4:00 00000 0 16:00 10000 1
4:15 00000 0 16:15 20000 2
4:30 00000 0 16:30 10000 1
4:45 00000 0 16:45 00000 0
5:00 00000 0 17:00 20000 2
5:15 10000 1 17:15 00000 0
5:30 00000 0 17:30 10000 1
5:45 00000 0 17:45 10000 1
6:00 10000 1 18:00 00000 0
6:15 00000 0 18:15 20000 2
6:30 00000 0 18:30 10000 1
6:45 00000 0 18:45 00000 0
7:00 10000 1 19:00 31000 4
7:15 03000 3 19:15 00000 0
7:30 00000 0 19:30 00000 0
7:45 00000 0 19:45 10000 1
8:00 00000 0 20:00 00000 0
8:15 00000 0 20:15 10000 1
8:30 00000 0 20:30 00000 0
8:45 00000 0 20:45 00000 0
9:00 00000 0 21:00 00000 0
9:15 20000 2 21:15 10000 1
9:30 21000 3 21:30 10000 1
9:45 00000 0 21:45 00000 0
10:00 11000 2 22:00 10000 1
10:15 00000 0 22:15 00000 0
10:30 00000 0 22:30 10000 1
10:45 10000 1 22:45 00000 0
11:00 10000 1 23:00 00000 0
11:15 10000 1 23:15 00000 0
11:30 00000 0 23:30 00000 0
11:45 10000 1 23:45 00000 0
TOTAL 17 5 0 0 0 22 TOTAL 29 6 1 0 0 36
AM PEAK HOUR 9:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 7 AM PEAK VOLUME 9
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 46 11 1 0 0 58
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 79.3% 19.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 1 3 0 0 0 4
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 5 0 0 0 0 5
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 1 - Oakwood Apartments
660
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS79 Southern Dwy east of Perris.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 10000 1 12:00 10000 1
0:15 00000 0 12:15 00000 0
0:30 10000 1 12:30 10100 2
0:45 00000 0 12:45 00000 0
1:00 10000 1 13:00 01000 1
1:15 00000 0 13:15 00000 0
1:30 10000 1 13:30 00000 0
1:45 00000 0 13:45 20000 2
2:00 00000 0 14:00 00000 0
2:15 00000 0 14:15 00000 0
2:30 00000 0 14:30 00000 0
2:45 00000 0 14:45 00000 0
3:00 00000 0 15:00 10000 1
3:15 00000 0 15:15 02000 2
3:30 00000 0 15:30 11000 2
3:45 10000 1 15:45 31000 4
4:00 00000 0 16:00 10000 1
4:15 00000 0 16:15 30000 3
4:30 00000 0 16:30 10000 1
4:45 00000 0 16:45 00000 0
5:00 10000 1 17:00 20000 2
5:15 10000 1 17:15 00000 0
5:30 00000 0 17:30 10000 1
5:45 00000 0 17:45 10000 1
6:00 10000 1 18:00 10000 1
6:15 00000 0 18:15 10000 1
6:30 00000 0 18:30 30000 3
6:45 00000 0 18:45 00000 0
7:00 10000 1 19:00 21000 3
7:15 03000 3 19:15 10000 1
7:30 00000 0 19:30 00000 0
7:45 00000 0 19:45 10000 1
8:00 00000 0 20:00 00000 0
8:15 00000 0 20:15 10000 1
8:30 00000 0 20:30 00000 0
8:45 00000 0 20:45 00000 0
9:00 00000 0 21:00 00000 0
9:15 20000 2 21:15 10000 1
9:30 21000 3 21:30 00000 0
9:45 00000 0 21:45 10000 1
10:00 11000 2 22:00 10000 1
10:15 00000 0 22:15 00000 0
10:30 00000 0 22:30 10000 1
10:45 20000 2 22:45 00000 0
11:00 10000 1 23:00 00000 0
11:15 00000 0 23:15 00000 0
11:30 10000 1 23:30 00000 0
11:45 10000 1 23:45 00000 0
TOTAL 19 5 0 0 0 24 TOTAL 32 6 1 0 0 39
AM PEAK HOUR 9:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 7 AM PEAK VOLUME 10
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 51 11 1 0 0 63
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 81.0% 17.5% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 1 3 0 0 0 4
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 6 0 0 0 0 6
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 1 - Oakwood Apartments
661
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS80 Northern Dwy east of Perris.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 90000 9 12:00 35 0 0 0 0 35
0:15 60000 6 12:15 42 1 0 0 0 43
0:30 20 0 0 0 0 20 12:30 36 1 1 0 0 38
0:45 12 0 0 0 0 12 12:45 58 0 0 0 0 58
1:00 16 0 0 0 0 16 13:00 44 0 0 0 0 44
1:15 50000 5 13:15 39 1 0 0 0 40
1:30 50000 5 13:30 38 0 0 0 0 38
1:45 70000 7 13:45 55 0 0 0 0 55
2:00 70000 7 14:00 44 0 0 0 0 44
2:15 20000 2 14:15 65 0 0 0 0 65
2:30 20000 2 14:30 51 0 0 0 0 51
2:45 40000 4 14:45 63 0 0 0 0 63
3:00 10000 1 15:00 53 0 0 0 0 53
3:15 20000 2 15:15 64 2 0 0 0 66
3:30 50000 5 15:30 66 2 0 0 0 68
3:45 00000 0 15:45 75 1 0 0 0 76
4:00 60000 6 16:00 73 0 0 0 0 73
4:15 90000 9 16:15 67 0 0 0 0 67
4:30 10000 1 16:30 62 0 0 0 0 62
4:45 20000 2 16:45 80 0 0 0 0 80
5:00 80000 8 17:00 48 2 0 0 0 50
5:15 70000 7 17:15 68 0 0 0 0 68
5:30 50000 5 17:30 53 0 0 0 0 53
5:45 11 0 0 0 0 11 17:45 60 0 0 0 0 60
6:00 90000 9 18:00 79 0 0 0 0 79
6:15 11 0 0 0 0 11 18:15 70 0 0 0 0 70
6:30 80000 8 18:30 60 0 0 0 0 60
6:45 13 0 0 0 0 13 18:45 54 0 0 0 0 54
7:00 10 0 0 0 0 10 19:00 53 0 0 0 0 53
7:15 29 0 0 0 0 29 19:15 43 0 0 0 0 43
7:30 48 0 0 0 0 48 19:30 38 0 0 0 0 38
7:45 70 0 0 0 0 70 19:45 35 0 0 0 0 35
8:00 52 0 0 0 0 52 20:00 48 0 0 0 0 48
8:15 27 0 0 0 0 27 20:15 38 0 0 0 0 38
8:30 52 0 0 0 0 52 20:30 38 0 0 0 0 38
8:45 36 0 1 0 0 37 20:45 32 0 0 0 0 32
9:00 21 1 0 0 0 22 21:00 47 0 0 0 0 47
9:15 19 1 0 0 0 20 21:15 36 0 0 0 0 36
9:30 22 0 0 0 0 22 21:30 35 0 0 0 0 35
9:45 29 1 0 0 0 30 21:45 25 0 0 0 0 25
10:00 28 1 0 0 0 29 22:00 35 0 0 0 0 35
10:15 24 0 0 0 0 24 22:15 24 0 0 0 0 24
10:30 24 0 0 0 0 24 22:30 23 0 0 0 0 23
10:45 35 0 0 0 0 35 22:45 21 0 0 0 0 21
11:00 31 0 0 0 0 31 23:00 16 0 0 0 0 16
11:15 16 0 0 0 0 16 23:15 30 0 0 0 0 30
11:30 20 0 0 0 0 20 23:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
11:45 29 3 0 0 0 32 23:45 17 0 0 0 0 17
TOTAL 815 7 1 0 0 823 TOTAL 2,246 10 1 0 0 2,257
AM PEAK HOUR 7:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 201 AM PEAK VOLUME 284
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 3,061 17 2 0 0 3,080
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 201 0 0 0 0 201
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 282 0 0 0 0 282
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 1 - Oakwood Apartments
662
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS80 Northern Dwy east of Perris.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 51000 6 12:00 59 1 0 0 0 60
0:15 80000 8 12:15 38 2 0 0 0 40
0:30 70000 7 12:30 34 0 0 0 0 34
0:45 70000 7 12:45 32 1 0 0 0 33
1:00 51000 6 13:00 40 0 0 0 0 40
1:15 60000 6 13:15 47 0 1 0 0 48
1:30 30000 3 13:30 51 1 0 0 0 52
1:45 50000 5 13:45 46 0 0 0 0 46
2:00 30000 3 14:00 60 0 0 0 0 60
2:15 20000 2 14:15 49 0 0 0 0 49
2:30 10000 1 14:30 52 0 0 0 0 52
2:45 30000 3 14:45 48 0 0 0 0 48
3:00 20000 2 15:00 57 0 0 0 0 57
3:15 40000 4 15:15 56 0 0 0 0 56
3:30 50000 5 15:30 61 1 0 0 0 62
3:45 10 0 0 0 0 10 15:45 37 0 0 0 0 37
4:00 14 0 0 0 0 14 16:00 71 0 0 0 0 71
4:15 17 0 0 0 0 17 16:15 39 0 0 0 0 39
4:30 20 0 0 0 0 20 16:30 53 1 0 0 0 54
4:45 11 0 0 0 0 11 16:45 53 0 0 0 0 53
5:00 15 0 0 0 0 15 17:00 63 0 0 0 0 63
5:15 19 0 0 0 0 19 17:15 46 1 0 0 0 47
5:30 21 0 0 0 0 21 17:30 48 0 0 0 0 48
5:45 23 0 0 0 0 23 17:45 42 0 0 0 0 42
6:00 28 0 0 0 0 28 18:00 48 0 0 0 0 48
6:15 29 0 0 0 0 29 18:15 57 0 0 0 0 57
6:30 27 0 0 0 0 27 18:30 30 0 0 0 0 30
6:45 38 0 0 0 0 38 18:45 33 0 0 0 0 33
7:00 48 0 0 0 0 48 19:00 41 0 0 0 0 41
7:15 79 0 0 0 0 79 19:15 20 0 0 0 0 20
7:30 82 0 0 0 0 82 19:30 32 1 0 0 0 33
7:45 78 0 0 0 0 78 19:45 33 0 0 0 0 33
8:00 57 0 0 0 0 57 20:00 33 0 0 0 0 33
8:15 61 0 0 0 0 61 20:15 31 0 0 0 0 31
8:30 36 1 0 0 0 37 20:30 32 1 0 0 0 33
8:45 34 0 0 0 0 34 20:45 35 0 0 0 0 35
9:00 27 0 0 0 0 27 21:00 29 0 0 0 0 29
9:15 33 0 0 0 0 33 21:15 24 0 0 0 0 24
9:30 27 2 1 0 0 30 21:30 28 0 0 0 0 28
9:45 44 1 0 0 0 45 21:45 24 0 0 0 0 24
10:00 28 1 0 0 0 29 22:00 19 0 0 0 0 19
10:15 39 1 0 0 0 40 22:15 14 0 0 0 0 14
10:30 27 2 0 0 0 29 22:30 16 0 0 0 0 16
10:45 32 0 0 0 0 32 22:45 16 0 0 0 0 16
11:00 36 0 0 0 0 36 23:00 16 0 0 0 0 16
11:15 37 0 0 0 0 37 23:15 19 0 0 0 0 19
11:30 26 0 0 0 0 26 23:30 80000 8
11:45 39 1 0 0 0 40 23:45 13 0 0 0 0 13
TOTAL 1,208 11 1 0 0 1,220 TOTAL 1,833 10 1 0 0 1,844
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 296 AM PEAK VOLUME 226
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 3,041 21 2 0 0 3,064
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.2% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 296 0 0 0 0 296
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 216 1 0 0 0 217
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 1 - Oakwood Apartments
663
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS75 Eastern Dwy south of Orange.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 20000 2 12:00 60000 6
0:15 10000 1 12:15 60000 6
0:30 10000 1 12:30 40000 4
0:45 20000 2 12:45 71000 8
1:00 10000 1 13:00 70000 7
1:15 10000 1 13:15 70000 7
1:30 10000 1 13:30 80000 8
1:45 10000 1 13:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
2:00 00000 0 14:00 80000 8
2:15 30000 3 14:15 61000 7
2:30 00000 0 14:30 17 1 0 0 0 18
2:45 00000 0 14:45 80000 8
3:00 00000 0 15:00 11 0 0 0 0 11
3:15 10000 1 15:15 50000 5
3:30 10000 1 15:30 16 0 0 0 0 16
3:45 30000 3 15:45 22 0 0 0 0 22
4:00 00000 0 16:00 10 0 0 0 0 10
4:15 10000 1 16:15 92000 11
4:30 30000 3 16:30 14 0 0 0 0 14
4:45 20000 2 16:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
5:00 10000 1 17:00 10 0 0 0 0 10
5:15 00000 0 17:15 12 0 0 0 0 12
5:30 20000 2 17:30 17 0 0 0 0 17
5:45 30000 3 17:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
6:00 40000 4 18:00 50000 5
6:15 13000 4 18:15 70000 7
6:30 00000 0 18:30 15 0 0 0 0 15
6:45 21000 3 18:45 13 0 0 0 0 13
7:00 42000 6 19:00 80000 8
7:15 43000 7 19:15 90000 9
7:30 40000 4 19:30 90000 9
7:45 50000 5 19:45 80000 8
8:00 50000 5 20:00 60000 6
8:15 11 0 0 0 0 11 20:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
8:30 70000 7 20:30 40000 4
8:45 60000 6 20:45 70000 7
9:00 40000 4 21:00 40000 4
9:15 40000 4 21:15 20000 2
9:30 10000 1 21:30 60000 6
9:45 21000 3 21:45 80000 8
10:00 10000 1 22:00 30000 3
10:15 61000 7 22:15 50000 5
10:30 80000 8 22:30 50000 5
10:45 10000 1 22:45 30000 3
11:00 41000 5 23:00 10000 1
11:15 20100 3 23:15 50000 5
11:30 20000 2 23:30 00000 0
11:45 10 1 1 0 0 12 23:45 00000 0
TOTAL 128 13 2 0 0 143 TOTAL 385 5 0 0 0 390
AM PEAK HOUR 8:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 29 AM PEAK VOLUME 59
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 513 18 2 0 0 533
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 96.2% 3.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 29 0 0 0 0 29
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 50 0 0 0 0 50
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 2 - Springbrook Park Apartments
664
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS75 Eastern Dwy south of Orange.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 10000 1 12:00 81000 9
0:15 00000 0 12:15 60000 6
0:30 00000 0 12:30 62100 9
0:45 20000 2 12:45 40000 4
1:00 00000 0 13:00 50000 5
1:15 00000 0 13:15 60000 6
1:30 00000 0 13:30 30000 3
1:45 00000 0 13:45 80000 8
2:00 00000 0 14:00 12 0 0 0 0 12
2:15 30000 3 14:15 90000 9
2:30 20000 2 14:30 90000 9
2:45 50000 5 14:45 80000 8
3:00 00000 0 15:00 60000 6
3:15 40000 4 15:15 70000 7
3:30 60000 6 15:30 90000 9
3:45 10000 1 15:45 30000 3
4:00 30000 3 16:00 15 0 0 0 0 15
4:15 10000 1 16:15 11 0 0 0 0 11
4:30 50000 5 16:30 15 0 0 0 0 15
4:45 70000 7 16:45 90000 9
5:00 40000 4 17:00 50000 5
5:15 70000 7 17:15 11 0 0 0 0 11
5:30 30000 3 17:30 60000 6
5:45 60000 6 17:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
6:00 50000 5 18:00 50000 5
6:15 90000 9 18:15 90000 9
6:30 60000 6 18:30 50000 5
6:45 70000 7 18:45 60000 6
7:00 50000 5 19:00 10 0 0 0 0 10
7:15 12 0 0 0 0 12 19:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
7:30 19 0 1 0 0 20 19:30 50000 5
7:45 19 0 0 0 0 19 19:45 50000 5
8:00 70000 7 20:00 50000 5
8:15 90000 9 20:15 20000 2
8:30 40100 5 20:30 50000 5
8:45 90000 9 20:45 30000 3
9:00 30000 3 21:00 50000 5
9:15 60000 6 21:15 20000 2
9:30 40000 4 21:30 90000 9
9:45 10000 1 21:45 50000 5
10:00 50000 5 22:00 10000 1
10:15 80000 8 22:15 30000 3
10:30 40000 4 22:30 50000 5
10:45 30000 3 22:45 60000 6
11:00 11 1 0 0 0 12 23:00 30000 3
11:15 60000 6 23:15 00000 0
11:30 41000 5 23:30 40000 4
11:45 80000 8 23:45 20000 2
TOTAL 234 2 2 0 0 238 TOTAL 306 3 1 0 0 310
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 4:00 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 58 AM PEAK VOLUME 50
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 540 5 3 0 0 548
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.5% 0.9% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 57 0 1 0 0 58
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 50 0 0 0 0 50
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 2 - Springbrook Park Apartments
665
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS76 Western Dwy south of Orange.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 20000 2 12:00 71000 8
0:15 30000 3 12:15 11 0 0 0 0 11
0:30 10000 1 12:30 12 2 1 0 0 15
0:45 30000 3 12:45 60000 6
1:00 00000 0 13:00 13 0 0 0 0 13
1:15 10000 1 13:15 11 1 0 0 0 12
1:30 00000 0 13:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
1:45 10000 1 13:45 90000 9
2:00 10000 1 14:00 13 0 0 0 0 13
2:15 00000 0 14:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
2:30 00000 0 14:30 13 0 0 0 0 13
2:45 40000 4 14:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
3:00 00000 0 15:00 12 0 0 0 0 12
3:15 10000 1 15:15 13 0 0 0 0 13
3:30 00000 0 15:30 16 0 0 0 0 16
3:45 00000 0 15:45 15 0 0 0 0 15
4:00 00000 0 16:00 13 1 0 0 0 14
4:15 00000 0 16:15 14 0 0 0 0 14
4:30 20000 2 16:30 13 0 0 0 0 13
4:45 10000 1 16:45 14 0 0 0 0 14
5:00 10000 1 17:00 16 0 0 0 0 16
5:15 50000 5 17:15 13 0 0 0 0 13
5:30 40000 4 17:30 24 0 0 0 0 24
5:45 20000 2 17:45 17 0 0 0 0 17
6:00 50000 5 18:00 20 0 0 0 0 20
6:15 50000 5 18:15 15 0 0 0 0 15
6:30 20000 2 18:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
6:45 10000 1 18:45 90000 9
7:00 20000 2 19:00 18 0 0 0 0 18
7:15 20100 3 19:15 13 0 0 0 0 13
7:30 70000 7 19:30 80000 8
7:45 15 0 0 0 0 15 19:45 70000 7
8:00 90000 9 20:00 11 0 0 0 0 11
8:15 60100 7 20:15 11 0 0 0 0 11
8:30 10 0 0 0 0 10 20:30 70000 7
8:45 80000 8 20:45 90000 9
9:00 10 0 0 0 0 10 21:00 14 0 0 0 0 14
9:15 70000 7 21:15 11 0 0 0 0 11
9:30 31000 4 21:30 70000 7
9:45 30000 3 21:45 15 0 0 0 0 15
10:00 10 1 0 0 0 11 22:00 50000 5
10:15 30000 3 22:15 70000 7
10:30 80000 8 22:30 40000 4
10:45 70000 7 22:45 50000 5
11:00 30000 3 23:00 40000 4
11:15 70000 7 23:15 30000 3
11:30 21000 3 23:30 70000 7
11:45 70000 7 23:45 60000 6
TOTAL 174 3 2 0 0 179 TOTAL 531 5 1 0 0 537
AM PEAK HOUR 7:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 5:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 41 AM PEAK VOLUME 76
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 705 8 3 0 0 716
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.5% 1.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 40 0 1 0 0 41
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 70 0 0 0 0 70
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 2 - Springbrook Park Apartments
666
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS76 Western Dwy south of Orange.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 00000 0 12:00 60100 7
0:15 10000 1 12:15 90000 9
0:30 00000 0 12:30 90000 9
0:45 10000 1 12:45 40000 4
1:00 00000 0 13:00 61000 7
1:15 00000 0 13:15 11 1 0 0 0 12
1:30 10000 1 13:30 20 0 0 0 0 20
1:45 00000 0 13:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
2:00 10000 1 14:00 13 0 0 0 0 13
2:15 10000 1 14:15 11 0 0 0 0 11
2:30 00000 0 14:30 11 2 0 0 0 13
2:45 00000 0 14:45 90000 9
3:00 00000 0 15:00 21 0 0 0 0 21
3:15 10000 1 15:15 11 0 0 0 0 11
3:30 60000 6 15:30 90000 9
3:45 90000 9 15:45 90000 9
4:00 40000 4 16:00 91000 10
4:15 80000 8 16:15 81000 9
4:30 50000 5 16:30 81000 9
4:45 60000 6 16:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
5:00 50000 5 17:00 30000 3
5:15 60000 6 17:15 90000 9
5:30 60000 6 17:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
5:45 60000 6 17:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
6:00 70000 7 18:00 15 0 0 0 0 15
6:15 53000 8 18:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
6:30 13 0 0 0 0 13 18:30 90000 9
6:45 20000 2 18:45 90000 9
7:00 73000 10 19:00 40000 4
7:15 17 3 0 0 0 20 19:15 90000 9
7:30 18 0 0 0 0 18 19:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
7:45 24 0 0 0 0 24 19:45 40000 4
8:00 16 0 0 0 0 16 20:00 70000 7
8:15 12 0 0 0 0 12 20:15 40000 4
8:30 17 0 0 0 0 17 20:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
8:45 14 0 0 0 0 14 20:45 50000 5
9:00 80000 8 21:00 60000 6
9:15 90000 9 21:15 70000 7
9:30 10 1 0 0 0 11 21:30 30000 3
9:45 11000 2 21:45 40000 4
10:00 13 0 0 0 0 13 22:00 11 0 0 0 0 11
10:15 12 2 0 0 0 14 22:15 20000 2
10:30 90000 9 22:30 50000 5
10:45 60000 6 22:45 00000 0
11:00 11 0 0 0 0 11 23:00 30000 3
11:15 30000 3 23:15 30000 3
11:30 50100 6 23:30 30000 3
11:45 81000 9 23:45 10000 1
TOTAL 314 14 1 0 0 329 TOTAL 384 7 1 0 0 392
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 1:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 78 AM PEAK VOLUME 56
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 698 21 2 0 0 721
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 96.8% 2.9% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 75 3 0 0 0 78
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 35 3 0 0 0 38
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 2 - Springbrook Park Apartments
667
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS77 Dwy east of Clark
AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 40000 4 12:00 13 0 0 0 0 13
0:15 30000 3 12:15 30000 3
0:30 10000 1 12:30 80000 8
0:45 50000 5 12:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
1:00 30000 3 13:00 80000 8
1:15 10000 1 13:15 12 0 0 0 0 12
1:30 00000 0 13:30 12 0 0 0 0 12
1:45 10000 1 13:45 60000 6
2:00 00000 0 14:00 12 0 1 0 0 13
2:15 10000 1 14:15 14 0 0 0 0 14
2:30 00000 0 14:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
2:45 10000 1 14:45 40000 4
3:00 00000 0 15:00 60000 6
3:15 00000 0 15:15 11 0 0 0 0 11
3:30 00000 0 15:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
3:45 10000 1 15:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
4:00 00000 0 16:00 50000 5
4:15 20000 2 16:15 16 0 0 0 0 16
4:30 20000 2 16:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
4:45 40000 4 16:45 13 0 0 0 0 13
5:00 40000 4 17:00 14 0 0 0 0 14
5:15 20000 2 17:15 16 0 0 0 0 16
5:30 10000 1 17:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
5:45 10000 1 17:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
6:00 00000 0 18:00 80000 8
6:15 10000 1 18:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
6:30 00000 0 18:30 16 0 0 0 0 16
6:45 10000 1 18:45 90000 9
7:00 20000 2 19:00 80000 8
7:15 10 0 0 0 0 10 19:15 17 0 0 0 0 17
7:30 18 0 0 0 0 18 19:30 13 0 0 0 0 13
7:45 16 0 0 0 0 16 19:45 40000 4
8:00 10 0 0 0 0 10 20:00 16 0 0 0 0 16
8:15 10 0 0 0 0 10 20:15 50000 5
8:30 60000 6 20:30 13 0 0 0 0 13
8:45 70000 7 20:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
9:00 50000 5 21:00 90000 9
9:15 60000 6 21:15 11 0 0 0 0 11
9:30 50000 5 21:30 50000 5
9:45 40000 4 21:45 80000 8
10:00 60000 6 22:00 80000 8
10:15 41000 5 22:15 20000 2
10:30 31000 4 22:30 10000 1
10:45 10000 1 22:45 60000 6
11:00 20000 2 23:00 40000 4
11:15 30000 3 23:15 20000 2
11:30 40000 4 23:30 00000 0
11:45 80000 8 23:45 40000 4
TOTAL 169 2 0 0 0 171 TOTAL 438 0 1 0 0 439
AM PEAK HOUR 7:30 AM AM PEAK HOUR 4:45 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 54 AM PEAK VOLUME 53
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 607 2 1 0 0 610
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 54 0 0 0 0 54
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 53 0 0 0 0 53
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 3 - Vista Springs Apartments
668
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS77 Dwy east of Clark
AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 10000 1 12:00 10 0 0 0 0 10
0:15 20000 2 12:15 13 0 0 0 0 13
0:30 10000 1 12:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
0:45 20000 2 12:45 10 1 0 0 0 11
1:00 10000 1 13:00 11 0 0 0 0 11
1:15 10000 1 13:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
1:30 30000 3 13:30 16 0 1 0 0 17
1:45 00000 0 13:45 19 0 0 0 0 19
2:00 00000 0 14:00 18 0 0 0 0 18
2:15 00000 0 14:15 19 0 0 0 0 19
2:30 10000 1 14:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
2:45 00000 0 14:45 16 0 0 0 0 16
3:00 10000 1 15:00 12 0 0 0 0 12
3:15 30000 3 15:15 13 0 0 0 0 13
3:30 60000 6 15:30 13 0 0 0 0 13
3:45 10000 1 15:45 90000 9
4:00 50000 5 16:00 80000 8
4:15 11 0 0 0 0 11 16:15 11 0 0 0 0 11
4:30 40000 4 16:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
4:45 20000 2 16:45 80000 8
5:00 50000 5 17:00 13 0 0 0 0 13
5:15 80000 8 17:15 11 0 0 0 0 11
5:30 40000 4 17:30 80000 8
5:45 40000 4 17:45 40000 4
6:00 10 0 0 0 0 10 18:00 60000 6
6:15 80000 8 18:15 70000 7
6:30 14 0 0 0 0 14 18:30 15 0 0 0 0 15
6:45 80000 8 18:45 19 1 0 0 0 20
7:00 23 0 0 0 0 23 19:00 70000 7
7:15 26 0 0 0 0 26 19:15 40000 4
7:30 27 0 0 0 0 27 19:30 70000 7
7:45 31 0 0 0 0 31 19:45 50000 5
8:00 31 0 0 0 0 31 20:00 60000 6
8:15 21 0 0 0 0 21 20:15 30000 3
8:30 15 0 0 0 0 15 20:30 20000 2
8:45 12 0 0 0 0 12 20:45 90000 9
9:00 90000 9 21:00 50000 5
9:15 11 0 0 0 0 11 21:15 70000 7
9:30 80000 8 21:30 90000 9
9:45 12 0 0 0 0 12 21:45 70000 7
10:00 13 1 0 0 0 14 22:00 60000 6
10:15 41000 5 22:15 40000 4
10:30 80000 8 22:30 50000 5
10:45 61000 7 22:45 00000 0
11:00 80000 8 23:00 10000 1
11:15 61000 7 23:15 20000 2
11:30 90000 9 23:30 00000 0
11:45 12 0 0 0 0 12 23:45 00000 0
TOTAL 398 4 0 0 0 402 TOTAL 418 2 1 0 0 421
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 1:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 115 AM PEAK VOLUME 73
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 816 6 1 0 0 823
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.1% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 115 0 0 0 0 115
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 42 0 0 0 0 42
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 3 - Vista Springs Apartments
669
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS78 Dwy north of Box Springs AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 80000 8 12:00 90000 9
0:15 50000 5 12:15 15 0 0 0 0 15
0:30 10000 1 12:30 17 1 1 0 0 19
0:45 30000 3 12:45 12 1 0 0 0 13
1:00 10000 1 13:00 14 0 0 0 0 14
1:15 50000 5 13:15 16 0 1 0 0 17
1:30 20000 2 13:30 91000 10
1:45 40000 4 13:45 80000 8
2:00 30000 3 14:00 20 0 0 0 0 20
2:15 30000 3 14:15 22 0 0 0 0 22
2:30 20000 2 14:30 20 0 0 0 0 20
2:45 00000 0 14:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
3:00 00000 0 15:00 15 0 0 0 0 15
3:15 10000 1 15:15 29 0 0 0 0 29
3:30 00000 0 15:30 27 0 0 0 0 27
3:45 00000 0 15:45 13 0 0 0 0 13
4:00 30000 3 16:00 19 0 0 0 0 19
4:15 20000 2 16:15 21 0 0 0 0 21
4:30 10000 1 16:30 26 0 0 0 0 26
4:45 20000 2 16:45 13 0 0 0 0 13
5:00 20000 2 17:00 23 0 0 0 0 23
5:15 20000 2 17:15 21 0 0 0 0 21
5:30 10000 1 17:30 13 0 0 0 0 13
5:45 30000 3 17:45 17 0 0 0 0 17
6:00 30000 3 18:00 19 0 0 0 0 19
6:15 00000 0 18:15 20 0 0 0 0 20
6:30 60000 6 18:30 16 0 0 0 0 16
6:45 60000 6 18:45 13 1 0 0 0 14
7:00 70000 7 19:00 23 0 0 0 0 23
7:15 50000 5 19:15 16 0 0 0 0 16
7:30 60000 6 19:30 19 0 0 0 0 19
7:45 14 0 0 0 0 14 19:45 34 0 0 0 0 34
8:00 16 0 0 0 0 16 20:00 15 0 0 0 0 15
8:15 10 0 0 0 0 10 20:15 20 0 0 0 0 20
8:30 20 0 0 0 0 20 20:30 17 0 0 0 0 17
8:45 14 0 0 0 0 14 20:45 21 0 0 0 0 21
9:00 80000 8 21:00 16 0 0 0 0 16
9:15 50000 5 21:15 13 0 0 0 0 13
9:30 80000 8 21:30 70000 7
9:45 12 1 0 0 0 13 21:45 70000 7
10:00 12 0 0 0 0 12 22:00 11 0 0 0 0 11
10:15 10 2 0 0 0 12 22:15 30000 3
10:30 10 2 0 0 0 12 22:30 12 0 0 0 0 12
10:45 80000 8 22:45 50000 5
11:00 13 0 0 0 0 13 23:00 70000 7
11:15 13 1 0 0 0 14 23:15 60000 6
11:30 13 1 0 0 0 14 23:30 80000 8
11:45 12 0 0 0 0 12 23:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
TOTAL 285 7 0 0 0 292 TOTAL 748 4 2 0 0 754
AM PEAK HOUR 8:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 7:00 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 60 AM PEAK VOLUME 92
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 1,033 11 2 0 0 1,046
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.8% 1.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 60 0 0 0 0 60
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 83 0 0 0 0 83
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 3 - Vista Springs Apartments
670
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS78 Dwy north of Box Springs AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 70000 7 12:00 14 0 0 0 0 14
0:15 80000 8 12:15 18 0 0 0 0 18
0:30 10000 1 12:30 90000 9
0:45 00000 0 12:45 17 0 0 0 0 17
1:00 00000 0 13:00 14 1 0 0 0 15
1:15 20000 2 13:15 80000 8
1:30 40000 4 13:30 81100 10
1:45 00000 0 13:45 13 0 0 0 0 13
2:00 60000 6 14:00 12 0 0 0 0 12
2:15 10000 1 14:15 90000 9
2:30 10000 1 14:30 11 0 1 0 0 12
2:45 20000 2 14:45 20 0 0 0 0 20
3:00 00000 0 15:00 60000 6
3:15 10000 1 15:15 20 0 0 0 0 20
3:30 10000 1 15:30 90000 9
3:45 00000 0 15:45 13 0 0 0 0 13
4:00 40000 4 16:00 16 0 0 0 0 16
4:15 11 0 0 0 0 11 16:15 18 0 0 0 0 18
4:30 14 0 0 0 0 14 16:30 16 0 0 0 0 16
4:45 30000 3 16:45 19 0 0 0 0 19
5:00 40000 4 17:00 14 0 0 0 0 14
5:15 50000 5 17:15 16 0 0 0 0 16
5:30 50000 5 17:30 18 0 0 0 0 18
5:45 14 0 0 0 0 14 17:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
6:00 80000 8 18:00 50000 5
6:15 11 0 0 0 0 11 18:15 90000 9
6:30 11 0 0 0 0 11 18:30 18 0 0 0 0 18
6:45 90000 9 18:45 90000 9
7:00 29 0 0 0 0 29 19:00 60000 6
7:15 17 0 0 0 0 17 19:15 16 0 0 0 0 16
7:30 12 0 0 0 0 12 19:30 20000 2
7:45 30 0 0 0 0 30 19:45 90000 9
8:00 16 0 0 0 0 16 20:00 40000 4
8:15 90000 9 20:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
8:30 11 0 0 0 0 11 20:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
8:45 15 0 0 0 0 15 20:45 40000 4
9:00 70000 7 21:00 80000 8
9:15 11 0 0 0 0 11 21:15 70000 7
9:30 12 0 0 0 0 12 21:30 30000 3
9:45 14 0 0 0 0 14 21:45 20000 2
10:00 17 0 0 0 0 17 22:00 20000 2
10:15 90000 9 22:15 10000 1
10:30 14 2 0 0 0 16 22:30 30000 3
10:45 81000 9 22:45 40000 4
11:00 70000 7 23:00 10000 1
11:15 80000 8 23:15 20000 2
11:30 90000 9 23:30 00000 0
11:45 10 1 0 0 0 11 23:45 10000 1
TOTAL 398 4 0 0 0 402 TOTAL 466 2 2 0 0 470
AM PEAK HOUR 7:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 4:00 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 88 AM PEAK VOLUME 69
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 864 6 2 0 0 872
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.1% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 88 0 0 0 0 88
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 69 0 0 0 0 69
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 3 - Vista Springs Apartments
671
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS73 Southern Dwy east of Country Village.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 00000 0 12:00 00000 0
0:15 00000 0 12:15 00000 0
0:30 00000 0 12:30 00000 0
0:45 00000 0 12:45 00000 0
1:00 00000 0 13:00 00000 0
1:15 00000 0 13:15 00000 0
1:30 00000 0 13:30 00000 0
1:45 00000 0 13:45 00000 0
2:00 00000 0 14:00 00000 0
2:15 00000 0 14:15 00000 0
2:30 00000 0 14:30 00000 0
2:45 00000 0 14:45 00000 0
3:00 00000 0 15:00 00000 0
3:15 00000 0 15:15 00000 0
3:30 00000 0 15:30 00000 0
3:45 00000 0 15:45 00000 0
4:00 00000 0 16:00 00000 0
4:15 00000 0 16:15 00000 0
4:30 00000 0 16:30 00000 0
4:45 00000 0 16:45 00000 0
5:00 00000 0 17:00 00000 0
5:15 00000 0 17:15 00000 0
5:30 00000 0 17:30 00000 0
5:45 00000 0 17:45 00000 0
6:00 00000 0 18:00 00000 0
6:15 00000 0 18:15 00000 0
6:30 00000 0 18:30 00000 0
6:45 00000 0 18:45 00000 0
7:00 00000 0 19:00 00000 0
7:15 00000 0 19:15 00000 0
7:30 00000 0 19:30 00000 0
7:45 00000 0 19:45 00000 0
8:00 00000 0 20:00 00000 0
8:15 00000 0 20:15 00000 0
8:30 00000 0 20:30 00000 0
8:45 00000 0 20:45 00000 0
9:00 00000 0 21:00 00000 0
9:15 00000 0 21:15 00000 0
9:30 00000 0 21:30 00000 0
9:45 00000 0 21:45 00000 0
10:00 00000 0 22:00 00000 0
10:15 00000 0 22:15 00000 0
10:30 00000 0 22:30 00000 0
10:45 00000 0 22:45 00000 0
11:00 00000 0 23:00 00000 0
11:15 00000 0 23:15 00000 0
11:30 00000 0 23:30 00000 0
11:45 00000 0 23:45 00000 0
TOTAL 000000 TOTAL 000000
AM PEAK HOUR 11:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 11:45 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 0 AM PEAK VOLUME 0
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 000000
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 0 0 0 0 0 0
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 0 0 0 0 0 0
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 4 - Vesada Aparment Homes
672
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS73 Southern Dwy east of Country Village.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 10000 1 12:00 10000 1
0:15 00000 0 12:15 30000 3
0:30 10000 1 12:30 20000 2
0:45 10000 1 12:45 30000 3
1:00 00000 0 13:00 00000 0
1:15 10000 1 13:15 00000 0
1:30 00000 0 13:30 60000 6
1:45 00000 0 13:45 00000 0
2:00 00000 0 14:00 20000 2
2:15 00000 0 14:15 50000 5
2:30 00000 0 14:30 41000 5
2:45 00000 0 14:45 10000 1
3:00 00000 0 15:00 20000 2
3:15 40000 4 15:15 10000 1
3:30 50000 5 15:30 10000 1
3:45 10000 1 15:45 00000 0
4:00 30000 3 16:00 10000 1
4:15 00000 0 16:15 50000 5
4:30 10000 1 16:30 10000 1
4:45 20000 2 16:45 00000 0
5:00 00000 0 17:00 10000 1
5:15 30000 3 17:15 20000 2
5:30 10000 1 17:30 00000 0
5:45 20000 2 17:45 20000 2
6:00 30000 3 18:00 10000 1
6:15 10000 1 18:15 10000 1
6:30 30000 3 18:30 10000 1
6:45 10000 1 18:45 10000 1
7:00 30000 3 19:00 30000 3
7:15 10000 1 19:15 00000 0
7:30 20000 2 19:30 30000 3
7:45 30000 3 19:45 10000 1
8:00 30000 3 20:00 10000 1
8:15 10000 1 20:15 00000 0
8:30 00000 0 20:30 20000 2
8:45 00000 0 20:45 20000 2
9:00 20000 2 21:00 20000 2
9:15 30000 3 21:15 30000 3
9:30 10000 1 21:30 40000 4
9:45 40000 4 21:45 00000 0
10:00 30000 3 22:00 30000 3
10:15 00000 0 22:15 20000 2
10:30 20000 2 22:30 20000 2
10:45 10000 1 22:45 10000 1
11:00 20000 2 23:00 10000 1
11:15 10000 1 23:15 10000 1
11:30 00000 0 23:30 00000 0
11:45 30000 3 23:45 00000 0
TOTAL 69 0 0 0 0 69 TOTAL 78 1 0 0 0 79
AM PEAK HOUR 3:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 2:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 13 AM PEAK VOLUME 13
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 147 1 0 0 0 148
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 9 0 0 0 0 9
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 7 0 0 0 0 7
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 4 - Vesada Aparment Homes
673
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS74 Northern Dwy east of Country Village.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 50000 5 12:00 33 0 0 0 0 33
0:15 10 0 0 0 0 10 12:15 33 1 0 0 0 34
0:30 50000 5 12:30 36 1 0 0 0 37
0:45 40000 4 12:45 37 0 1 0 0 38
1:00 70000 7 13:00 34 0 0 0 0 34
1:15 60000 6 13:15 36 0 0 0 0 36
1:30 10000 1 13:30 32 0 0 0 0 32
1:45 50000 5 13:45 34 2 0 0 0 36
2:00 60000 6 14:00 33 0 0 0 0 33
2:15 30000 3 14:15 26 2 0 0 0 28
2:30 10000 1 14:30 34 0 0 0 0 34
2:45 50000 5 14:45 39 0 0 0 0 39
3:00 20000 2 15:00 49 0 0 0 0 49
3:15 20000 2 15:15 39 0 0 0 0 39
3:30 70000 7 15:30 26 0 0 0 0 26
3:45 80000 8 15:45 65 0 0 0 0 65
4:00 30000 3 16:00 49 0 0 0 0 49
4:15 60000 6 16:15 59 1 0 0 0 60
4:30 40000 4 16:30 74 0 0 0 0 74
4:45 70000 7 16:45 52 0 0 0 0 52
5:00 60000 6 17:00 47 0 0 0 0 47
5:15 60000 6 17:15 51 0 0 0 0 51
5:30 30000 3 17:30 50 0 0 0 0 50
5:45 70000 7 17:45 55 0 0 0 0 55
6:00 50000 5 18:00 60 0 0 0 0 60
6:15 15 0 0 0 0 15 18:15 52 0 0 0 0 52
6:30 13 0 0 0 0 13 18:30 44 0 0 0 0 44
6:45 11 0 0 0 0 11 18:45 51 2 0 0 0 53
7:00 19 0 0 0 0 19 19:00 42 0 0 0 0 42
7:15 16 0 0 0 0 16 19:15 26 0 0 0 0 26
7:30 14 0 0 0 0 14 19:30 46 0 0 0 0 46
7:45 34 0 0 0 0 34 19:45 42 0 0 0 0 42
8:00 30 0 0 0 0 30 20:00 44 0 0 0 0 44
8:15 39 0 0 0 0 39 20:15 35 0 0 0 0 35
8:30 28 0 0 0 0 28 20:30 29 0 0 0 0 29
8:45 27 0 0 0 0 27 20:45 33 0 0 0 0 33
9:00 22 0 0 0 0 22 21:00 31 0 0 0 0 31
9:15 21 0 0 0 0 21 21:15 27 0 0 0 0 27
9:30 20 2 0 0 0 22 21:30 27 0 0 0 0 27
9:45 24 2 0 0 0 26 21:45 27 0 0 0 0 27
10:00 19 1 0 0 0 20 22:00 22 0 0 0 0 22
10:15 17 1 0 0 0 18 22:15 24 0 0 0 0 24
10:30 21 0 0 0 0 21 22:30 21 0 0 0 0 21
10:45 12 0 0 0 0 12 22:45 22 0 0 0 0 22
11:00 31 0 1 0 0 32 23:00 12 0 0 0 0 12
11:15 28 0 0 0 0 28 23:15 11 0 0 0 0 11
11:30 21 1 0 0 0 22 23:30 90000 9
11:45 23 2 0 0 0 25 23:45 70000 7
TOTAL 629 9 1 0 0 639 TOTAL 1,767 9100 1,777
AM PEAK HOUR 7:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:45 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 131 AM PEAK VOLUME 248
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 2,396 18 2 0 0 2,416
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.2% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 131 0 0 0 0 131
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 234 1 0 0 0 235
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 4 - Vesada Aparment Homes
674
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS74 Northern Dwy east of Country Village.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 20000 2 12:00 27 2 0 0 0 29
0:15 40000 4 12:15 33 0 0 0 0 33
0:30 20000 2 12:30 34 2 0 0 0 36
0:45 30000 3 12:45 28 1 0 0 0 29
1:00 20000 2 13:00 29 0 1 0 0 30
1:15 30000 3 13:15 44 0 0 0 0 44
1:30 50000 5 13:30 38 1 0 0 0 39
1:45 30000 3 13:45 29 1 0 0 0 30
2:00 20000 2 14:00 24 2 0 0 0 26
2:15 50000 5 14:15 22 0 0 0 0 22
2:30 10000 1 14:30 25 1 0 0 0 26
2:45 20000 2 14:45 35 0 0 0 0 35
3:00 50000 5 15:00 31 0 0 0 0 31
3:15 40000 4 15:15 21 0 0 0 0 21
3:30 16 0 0 0 0 16 15:30 29 0 0 0 0 29
3:45 60000 6 15:45 29 0 0 0 0 29
4:00 17 0 0 0 0 17 16:00 26 0 0 0 0 26
4:15 60000 6 16:15 29 0 0 0 0 29
4:30 17 0 0 0 0 17 16:30 29 1 0 0 0 30
4:45 20 2 0 0 0 22 16:45 31 0 0 0 0 31
5:00 19 1 0 0 0 20 17:00 30 0 0 0 0 30
5:15 14 0 0 0 0 14 17:15 34 0 0 0 0 34
5:30 14 0 0 0 0 14 17:30 38 0 0 0 0 38
5:45 17 0 0 0 0 17 17:45 36 0 0 0 0 36
6:00 18 0 0 0 0 18 18:00 37 0 0 0 0 37
6:15 38 0 0 0 0 38 18:15 41 0 0 0 0 41
6:30 34 0 0 0 0 34 18:30 31 0 0 0 0 31
6:45 46 0 0 0 0 46 18:45 21 0 0 0 0 21
7:00 46 0 0 0 0 46 19:00 31 0 0 0 0 31
7:15 82 0 0 0 0 82 19:15 24 0 0 0 0 24
7:30 56 0 0 0 0 56 19:30 40 1 0 0 0 41
7:45 52 0 0 0 0 52 19:45 32 0 0 0 0 32
8:00 48 0 0 0 0 48 20:00 30 0 0 0 0 30
8:15 59 1 0 0 0 60 20:15 17 0 0 0 0 17
8:30 26 0 0 0 0 26 20:30 17 0 0 0 0 17
8:45 32 1 0 0 0 33 20:45 19 0 0 0 0 19
9:00 27 0 0 0 0 27 21:00 15 0 0 0 0 15
9:15 26 0 0 0 0 26 21:15 14 0 0 0 0 14
9:30 31 1 0 0 0 32 21:30 12 0 0 0 0 12
9:45 36 0 0 0 0 36 21:45 19 0 0 0 0 19
10:00 28 0 0 0 0 28 22:00 13 0 0 0 0 13
10:15 32 1 0 0 0 33 22:15 15 0 0 0 0 15
10:30 32 0 0 0 0 32 22:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
10:45 23 0 0 0 0 23 22:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
11:00 29 0 0 0 0 29 23:00 50000 5
11:15 25 0 0 0 0 25 23:15 70000 7
11:30 32 0 1 0 0 33 23:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
11:45 33 2 0 0 0 35 23:45 30000 3
TOTAL 1,080 9100 1,090 TOTAL 1,205 12 1 0 0 1,218
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 5:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 238 AM PEAK VOLUME 152
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 2,285 21 2 0 0 2,308
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.0% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 238 0 0 0 0 238
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 138 0 0 0 0 138
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 4 - Vesada Aparment Homes
675
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS84 Northern Dwy east of Milky Way.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 40000 4 12:00 90000 9
0:15 10000 1 12:15 30000 3
0:30 10000 1 12:30 40000 4
0:45 00000 0 12:45 90000 9
1:00 10000 1 13:00 40000 4
1:15 00000 0 13:15 51000 6
1:30 10000 1 13:30 90000 9
1:45 00000 0 13:45 80000 8
2:00 00000 0 14:00 80000 8
2:15 00000 0 14:15 71000 8
2:30 00000 0 14:30 12 0 0 0 0 12
2:45 00000 0 14:45 13 0 0 0 0 13
3:00 10000 1 15:00 70000 7
3:15 10000 1 15:15 70000 7
3:30 00000 0 15:30 90000 9
3:45 00000 0 15:45 18 0 0 0 0 18
4:00 10000 1 16:00 60000 6
4:15 10000 1 16:15 18 0 0 0 0 18
4:30 00000 0 16:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
4:45 00000 0 16:45 15 0 0 0 0 15
5:00 00000 0 17:00 80000 8
5:15 20000 2 17:15 12 0 0 0 0 12
5:30 00000 0 17:30 60000 6
5:45 10000 1 17:45 15 0 0 0 0 15
6:00 00000 0 18:00 60000 6
6:15 10000 1 18:15 80000 8
6:30 20000 2 18:30 60000 6
6:45 20000 2 18:45 80000 8
7:00 10000 1 19:00 60000 6
7:15 30000 3 19:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
7:30 50000 5 19:30 80000 8
7:45 50010 6 19:45 60000 6
8:00 80000 8 20:00 90000 9
8:15 41000 5 20:15 12 0 0 0 0 12
8:30 40000 4 20:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
8:45 70000 7 20:45 80000 8
9:00 30000 3 21:00 80000 8
9:15 10000 1 21:15 80000 8
9:30 30000 3 21:30 20000 2
9:45 40000 4 21:45 70000 7
10:00 20000 2 22:00 40000 4
10:15 40000 4 22:15 20000 2
10:30 30000 3 22:30 40000 4
10:45 40000 4 22:45 40000 4
11:00 20000 2 23:00 40000 4
11:15 80000 8 23:15 10000 1
11:30 50000 5 23:30 20000 2
11:45 50000 5 23:45 10000 1
TOTAL 101 1 0 1 0 103 TOTAL 367 2 0 0 0 369
AM PEAK HOUR 8:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:45 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 24 AM PEAK VOLUME 53
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 468 3 0 1 0 472
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 23 1 0 0 0 24
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 52 0 0 0 0 52
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 5 - Morning Ridge Apartments
676
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS84 Northern Dwy east of Milky Way.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 20000 2 12:00 60000 6
0:15 00000 0 12:15 11 1 0 0 0 12
0:30 00000 0 12:30 30000 3
0:45 20000 2 12:45 10 1 0 0 0 11
1:00 00000 0 13:00 70000 7
1:15 30000 3 13:15 90000 9
1:30 10000 1 13:30 42000 6
1:45 00000 0 13:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
2:00 00000 0 14:00 70000 7
2:15 10000 1 14:15 80000 8
2:30 00000 0 14:30 13 0 0 0 0 13
2:45 00000 0 14:45 81000 9
3:00 10000 1 15:00 70000 7
3:15 20000 2 15:15 60000 6
3:30 30000 3 15:30 12 0 0 0 0 12
3:45 10000 1 15:45 50000 5
4:00 00000 0 16:00 19 0 0 0 0 19
4:15 30000 3 16:15 60000 6
4:30 30000 3 16:30 40000 4
4:45 20000 2 16:45 90000 9
5:00 20000 2 17:00 40000 4
5:15 30000 3 17:15 51000 6
5:30 10 0 0 0 0 10 17:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
5:45 90000 9 17:45 15 0 0 0 0 15
6:00 30000 3 18:00 10 0 0 0 0 10
6:15 12 0 0 0 0 12 18:15 50000 5
6:30 12 0 0 0 0 12 18:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
6:45 50000 5 18:45 70000 7
7:00 10 0 0 0 0 10 19:00 30000 3
7:15 19 0 0 0 0 19 19:15 20000 2
7:30 13 0 0 0 0 13 19:30 50000 5
7:45 17 0 0 0 0 17 19:45 30000 3
8:00 13 0 0 0 0 13 20:00 70000 7
8:15 15 0 0 0 0 15 20:15 40000 4
8:30 14 0 0 0 0 14 20:30 40000 4
8:45 80000 8 20:45 20000 2
9:00 90000 9 21:00 50000 5
9:15 70000 7 21:15 30000 3
9:30 41000 5 21:30 20000 2
9:45 10 1 0 0 0 11 21:45 40000 4
10:00 70000 7 22:00 00000 0
10:15 40000 4 22:15 20000 2
10:30 10 1 0 0 0 11 22:30 00000 0
10:45 30000 3 22:45 10000 1
11:00 51000 6 23:00 10000 1
11:15 90000 9 23:15 10000 1
11:30 50000 5 23:30 10000 1
11:45 12 0 0 0 0 12 23:45 00000 0
TOTAL 274 4 0 0 0 278 TOTAL 282 6 0 0 0 288
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 5:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 62 AM PEAK VOLUME 42
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 556 10 0 0 0 566
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.2% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 62 0 0 0 0 62
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 38 0 0 0 0 38
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 5 - Morning Ridge Apartments
677
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS85 Middle Dwy east of Milky Way.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 30000 3 12:00 10 0 0 0 0 10
0:15 30000 3 12:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
0:30 00000 0 12:30 14 0 0 0 0 14
0:45 00000 0 12:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
1:00 00000 0 13:00 12 1 0 0 0 13
1:15 20000 2 13:15 12 1 0 0 0 13
1:30 60000 6 13:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
1:45 00000 0 13:45 80000 8
2:00 20000 2 14:00 11 1 0 0 0 12
2:15 10000 1 14:15 60000 6
2:30 00000 0 14:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
2:45 10000 1 14:45 13 0 0 0 0 13
3:00 00000 0 15:00 15 0 0 0 0 15
3:15 00000 0 15:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
3:30 00000 0 15:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
3:45 00000 0 15:45 18 0 0 0 0 18
4:00 00000 0 16:00 18 0 0 0 0 18
4:15 10000 1 16:15 19 0 0 0 0 19
4:30 00000 0 16:30 20 0 0 0 0 20
4:45 10000 1 16:45 18 1 0 0 0 19
5:00 10000 1 17:00 20 0 0 0 0 20
5:15 00000 0 17:15 19 0 0 0 0 19
5:30 10000 1 17:30 19 0 0 0 0 19
5:45 00000 0 17:45 17 0 0 0 0 17
6:00 20000 2 18:00 11 0 0 0 0 11
6:15 20000 2 18:15 30 0 0 0 0 30
6:30 40000 4 18:30 15 0 0 0 0 15
6:45 20000 2 18:45 18 0 0 0 0 18
7:00 30000 3 19:00 23 3 0 0 0 26
7:15 30000 3 19:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
7:30 90000 9 19:30 19 0 0 0 0 19
7:45 90000 9 19:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
8:00 50000 5 20:00 11 0 0 0 0 11
8:15 13 0 0 0 0 13 20:15 60000 6
8:30 40000 4 20:30 90000 9
8:45 90000 9 20:45 60000 6
9:00 20000 2 21:00 70000 7
9:15 30000 3 21:15 40000 4
9:30 90000 9 21:30 80000 8
9:45 70000 7 21:45 20000 2
10:00 50000 5 22:00 40000 4
10:15 30000 3 22:15 10000 1
10:30 60000 6 22:30 10000 1
10:45 80000 8 22:45 60000 6
11:00 60000 6 23:00 70000 7
11:15 13 0 0 0 0 13 23:15 10000 1
11:30 11 1 0 0 0 12 23:30 40000 4
11:45 70000 7 23:45 00000 0
TOTAL 167 1 0 0 0 168 TOTAL 545 7 0 0 0 552
AM PEAK HOUR 10:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 6:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 39 AM PEAK VOLUME 89
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 712 8 0 0 0 720
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.9% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 31 0 0 0 0 31
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 75 1 0 0 0 76
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 5 - Morning Ridge Apartments
678
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS85 Middle Dwy east of Milky Way.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 00000 0 12:00 70000 7
0:15 30000 3 12:15 50000 5
0:30 00000 0 12:30 15 0 0 0 0 15
0:45 10000 1 12:45 14 0 0 0 0 14
1:00 00000 0 13:00 61000 7
1:15 10000 1 13:15 92000 11
1:30 10000 1 13:30 80000 8
1:45 00000 0 13:45 61000 7
2:00 00000 0 14:00 90000 9
2:15 00000 0 14:15 10 1 0 0 0 11
2:30 30000 3 14:30 80000 8
2:45 10000 1 14:45 12 2 0 0 0 14
3:00 00000 0 15:00 80000 8
3:15 00000 0 15:15 50000 5
3:30 50000 5 15:30 80000 8
3:45 00000 0 15:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
4:00 00000 0 16:00 16 1 0 0 0 17
4:15 00000 0 16:15 11 0 0 0 0 11
4:30 52000 7 16:30 70000 7
4:45 30000 3 16:45 90000 9
5:00 10000 1 17:00 11 0 0 0 0 11
5:15 90000 9 17:15 12 0 0 0 0 12
5:30 82000 10 17:30 12 0 0 0 0 12
5:45 72000 9 17:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
6:00 60000 6 18:00 90000 9
6:15 12 0 0 0 0 12 18:15 50000 5
6:30 70000 7 18:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
6:45 80000 8 18:45 80000 8
7:00 60000 6 19:00 50000 5
7:15 80000 8 19:15 80000 8
7:30 27 3 0 0 0 30 19:30 80000 8
7:45 17 0 0 0 0 17 19:45 70000 7
8:00 25 0 0 0 0 25 20:00 50000 5
8:15 13 0 0 0 0 13 20:15 60000 6
8:30 19 0 0 0 0 19 20:30 40000 4
8:45 12 0 0 0 0 12 20:45 30000 3
9:00 30000 3 21:00 60000 6
9:15 60000 6 21:15 20000 2
9:30 90000 9 21:30 30000 3
9:45 11 0 0 0 0 11 21:45 30000 3
10:00 50000 5 22:00 20000 2
10:15 80000 8 22:15 10000 1
10:30 70000 7 22:30 50000 5
10:45 80000 8 22:45 20000 2
11:00 80000 8 23:00 40000 4
11:15 80000 8 23:15 30000 3
11:30 50000 5 23:30 00000 0
11:45 90000 9 23:45 10000 1
TOTAL 295 9 0 0 0 304 TOTAL 342 8 0 0 0 350
AM PEAK HOUR 7:30 AM AM PEAK HOUR 5:00 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 85 AM PEAK VOLUME 47
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 637 17 0 0 0 654
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 97.4% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 82 3 0 0 0 85
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 47 0 0 0 0 47
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 5 - Morning Ridge Apartments
679
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS86 Southern Dwy east of Milky Way.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 10000 1 12:00 40000 4
0:15 00000 0 12:15 50000 5
0:30 20000 2 12:30 71000 8
0:45 00000 0 12:45 71000 8
1:00 10000 1 13:00 40000 4
1:15 20000 2 13:15 40000 4
1:30 10000 1 13:30 92000 11
1:45 10000 1 13:45 13 1 0 0 0 14
2:00 00000 0 14:00 11 0 0 0 0 11
2:15 00000 0 14:15 71000 8
2:30 00000 0 14:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
2:45 00000 0 14:45 11 2 0 0 0 13
3:00 10000 1 15:00 70000 7
3:15 10000 1 15:15 12 1 0 0 0 13
3:30 00000 0 15:30 80000 8
3:45 00000 0 15:45 90000 9
4:00 10000 1 16:00 50000 5
4:15 00000 0 16:15 70000 7
4:30 00000 0 16:30 16 0 0 0 0 16
4:45 00000 0 16:45 14 0 0 0 0 14
5:00 20000 2 17:00 10 0 0 0 0 10
5:15 00000 0 17:15 91000 10
5:30 20000 2 17:30 10 1 0 0 0 11
5:45 00000 0 17:45 90000 9
6:00 20000 2 18:00 11 0 0 0 0 11
6:15 20000 2 18:15 16 0 0 0 0 16
6:30 20000 2 18:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
6:45 10000 1 18:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
7:00 50000 5 19:00 90000 9
7:15 40000 4 19:15 16 0 0 0 0 16
7:30 13000 4 19:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
7:45 50000 5 19:45 80000 8
8:00 70000 7 20:00 12 0 0 0 0 12
8:15 20000 2 20:15 16 0 0 0 0 16
8:30 90000 9 20:30 40000 4
8:45 50000 5 20:45 40000 4
9:00 50000 5 21:00 90000 9
9:15 40000 4 21:15 80000 8
9:30 60000 6 21:30 70000 7
9:45 31000 4 21:45 40000 4
10:00 30000 3 22:00 50000 5
10:15 40000 4 22:15 60000 6
10:30 40000 4 22:30 70000 7
10:45 21000 3 22:45 40000 4
11:00 50000 5 23:00 10000 1
11:15 20000 2 23:15 30000 3
11:30 90000 9 23:30 40000 4
11:45 20000 2 23:45 30000 3
TOTAL 109 5 0 0 0 114 TOTAL 398 11 0 0 0 409
AM PEAK HOUR 8:30 AM AM PEAK HOUR 4:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 23 AM PEAK VOLUME 50
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 507 16 0 0 0 523
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 96.9% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 23 0 0 0 0 23
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 49 1 0 0 0 50
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 5 - Morning Ridge Apartments
680
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS86 Southern Dwy east of Milky Way.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 10000 1 12:00 40000 4
0:15 00000 0 12:15 60000 6
0:30 10000 1 12:30 70000 7
0:45 00000 0 12:45 40000 4
1:00 20000 2 13:00 40000 4
1:15 00000 0 13:15 50000 5
1:30 30000 3 13:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
1:45 00000 0 13:45 41000 5
2:00 00000 0 14:00 14 0 0 0 0 14
2:15 00000 0 14:15 51000 6
2:30 00000 0 14:30 15 0 0 0 0 15
2:45 00000 0 14:45 60000 6
3:00 00000 0 15:00 50000 5
3:15 00000 0 15:15 60000 6
3:30 10000 1 15:30 10000 1
3:45 00000 0 15:45 50000 5
4:00 20000 2 16:00 60000 6
4:15 20000 2 16:15 60000 6
4:30 90000 9 16:30 90000 9
4:45 30000 3 16:45 13 0 0 0 0 13
5:00 60000 6 17:00 10 0 0 0 0 10
5:15 90000 9 17:15 90000 9
5:30 80000 8 17:30 40000 4
5:45 50000 5 17:45 70000 7
6:00 80000 8 18:00 80000 8
6:15 70000 7 18:15 40000 4
6:30 80000 8 18:30 40000 4
6:45 30000 3 18:45 50000 5
7:00 40000 4 19:00 50000 5
7:15 50000 5 19:15 70000 7
7:30 12 0 0 0 0 12 19:30 40000 4
7:45 90000 9 19:45 30000 3
8:00 70000 7 20:00 40000 4
8:15 70010 8 20:15 30000 3
8:30 15 0 0 0 0 15 20:30 40000 4
8:45 40000 4 20:45 40000 4
9:00 30000 3 21:00 20000 2
9:15 60000 6 21:15 70000 7
9:30 80000 8 21:30 20000 2
9:45 60000 6 21:45 40000 4
10:00 70000 7 22:00 00000 0
10:15 40000 4 22:15 40000 4
10:30 50000 5 22:30 10000 1
10:45 20000 2 22:45 10000 1
11:00 10 0 0 0 0 10 23:00 10000 1
11:15 40000 4 23:15 20000 2
11:30 50000 5 23:30 00000 0
11:45 70000 7 23:45 20000 2
TOTAL 208 0 0 1 0 209 TOTAL 247 2 0 0 0 249
AM PEAK HOUR 7:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 4:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 39 AM PEAK VOLUME 41
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 455 2 0 1 0 458
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 38 0 0 1 0 39
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 41 0 0 0 0 41
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 5 - Morning Ridge Apartments
681
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS71 Northern dwy west of Doolittle AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 00000 0 12:00 12 0 0 0 0 12
0:15 20000 2 12:15 90000 9
0:30 20000 2 12:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
0:45 30000 3 12:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
1:00 10000 1 13:00 50000 5
1:15 50000 5 13:15 70000 7
1:30 20000 2 13:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
1:45 30000 3 13:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
2:00 10000 1 14:00 16 0 0 0 0 16
2:15 10000 1 14:15 14 0 0 0 0 14
2:30 00000 0 14:30 23 0 0 0 0 23
2:45 00000 0 14:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
3:00 30000 3 15:00 17 0 0 0 0 17
3:15 30000 3 15:15 18 0 0 0 0 18
3:30 10000 1 15:30 14 0 0 0 0 14
3:45 11000 2 15:45 16 0 0 0 0 16
4:00 10000 1 16:00 17 0 0 0 0 17
4:15 00000 0 16:15 16 0 0 0 0 16
4:30 10000 1 16:30 17 0 0 0 0 17
4:45 60000 6 16:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
5:00 30000 3 17:00 16 0 0 0 0 16
5:15 60000 6 17:15 22 0 0 0 0 22
5:30 00000 0 17:30 17 0 0 0 0 17
5:45 10000 1 17:45 17 0 0 0 0 17
6:00 20000 2 18:00 20 0 0 0 0 20
6:15 10000 1 18:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
6:30 20000 2 18:30 15 0 0 0 0 15
6:45 30000 3 18:45 15 0 0 0 0 15
7:00 30000 3 19:00 60000 6
7:15 40000 4 19:15 61000 7
7:30 40000 4 19:30 16 0 0 0 0 16
7:45 90000 9 19:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
8:00 13 0 0 0 0 13 20:00 80000 8
8:15 70000 7 20:15 13 0 0 0 0 13
8:30 12 1 0 0 0 13 20:30 15 0 0 0 0 15
8:45 13 0 0 0 0 13 20:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
9:00 50000 5 21:00 14 0 0 0 0 14
9:15 30000 3 21:15 90000 9
9:30 40000 4 21:30 12 0 0 0 0 12
9:45 71000 8 21:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
10:00 20000 2 22:00 80000 8
10:15 50000 5 22:15 40000 4
10:30 60000 6 22:30 50000 5
10:45 70000 7 22:45 30000 3
11:00 81000 9 23:00 70000 7
11:15 10000 1 23:15 50000 5
11:30 50000 5 23:30 50000 5
11:45 11 0 0 0 0 11 23:45 20000 2
TOTAL 183 4 0 0 0 187 TOTAL 570 1 0 0 0 571
AM PEAK HOUR 8:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 5:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 46 AM PEAK VOLUME 76
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 753 5 0 0 0 758
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 45 1 0 0 0 46
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 72 0 0 0 0 72
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 6 - Stonegate Apartments
682
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS71 Northern dwy west of Doolittle AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 00000 0 12:00 90000 9
0:15 00000 0 12:15 13 0 0 0 0 13
0:30 00000 0 12:30 13 1 0 0 0 14
0:45 20000 2 12:45 17 0 0 0 0 17
1:00 00000 0 13:00 60000 6
1:15 20000 2 13:15 12 0 0 0 0 12
1:30 10000 1 13:30 14 1 0 0 0 15
1:45 10000 1 13:45 20 0 0 0 0 20
2:00 00000 0 14:00 12 0 0 0 0 12
2:15 30000 3 14:15 80000 8
2:30 10000 1 14:30 13 0 0 0 0 13
2:45 00000 0 14:45 61000 7
3:00 00000 0 15:00 13 0 0 0 0 13
3:15 60000 6 15:15 12 0 0 0 0 12
3:30 50000 5 15:30 13 0 0 0 0 13
3:45 60000 6 15:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
4:00 50000 5 16:00 12 0 0 0 0 12
4:15 40000 4 16:15 90000 9
4:30 60000 6 16:30 60000 6
4:45 40000 4 16:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
5:00 60000 6 17:00 80000 8
5:15 70000 7 17:15 13 0 0 0 0 13
5:30 11 0 0 0 0 11 17:30 14 0 0 0 0 14
5:45 12 0 0 0 0 12 17:45 80000 8
6:00 10000 1 18:00 11 0 0 0 0 11
6:15 70000 7 18:15 90000 9
6:30 12 0 0 0 0 12 18:30 50000 5
6:45 17 0 0 0 0 17 18:45 70000 7
7:00 80000 8 19:00 80000 8
7:15 16 0 0 0 0 16 19:15 90000 9
7:30 21 0 0 0 0 21 19:30 60000 6
7:45 18 0 0 0 0 18 19:45 80000 8
8:00 13 0 0 0 0 13 20:00 60000 6
8:15 50000 5 20:15 11 0 0 0 0 11
8:30 70000 7 20:30 70000 7
8:45 80000 8 20:45 60000 6
9:00 10 0 1 0 0 11 21:00 40000 4
9:15 14 0 0 0 0 14 21:15 40000 4
9:30 71000 8 21:30 31000 4
9:45 70000 7 21:45 51000 6
10:00 71000 8 22:00 40000 4
10:15 51000 6 22:15 20000 2
10:30 51000 6 22:30 30000 3
10:45 10 2 0 0 0 12 22:45 00000 0
11:00 51000 6 23:00 60000 6
11:15 40000 4 23:15 00000 0
11:30 71000 8 23:30 20000 2
11:45 13 0 0 0 0 13 23:45 10000 1
TOTAL 309 8 1 0 0 318 TOTAL 401 5 0 0 0 406
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 1:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 68 AM PEAK VOLUME 59
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 710 13 1 0 0 724
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.1% 1.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 68 0 0 0 0 68
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 47 0 0 0 0 47
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 6 - Stonegate Apartments
683
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS72 Southern dwy west of Doolittle AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 20000 2 12:00 19 1 0 0 0 20
0:15 10000 1 12:15 16 1 0 0 0 17
0:30 20000 2 12:30 16 0 0 0 0 16
0:45 20000 2 12:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
1:00 20000 2 13:00 12 0 0 0 0 12
1:15 10000 1 13:15 18 0 0 0 0 18
1:30 00000 0 13:30 13 1 0 0 0 14
1:45 00000 0 13:45 50000 5
2:00 20000 2 14:00 18 0 0 0 0 18
2:15 10000 1 14:15 13 0 0 0 0 13
2:30 00000 0 14:30 15 0 0 0 0 15
2:45 00000 0 14:45 17 1 0 0 0 18
3:00 00000 0 15:00 21 0 0 0 0 21
3:15 20000 2 15:15 19 2 0 0 0 21
3:30 00000 0 15:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
3:45 10000 1 15:45 19 1 0 0 0 20
4:00 10000 1 16:00 24 0 0 0 0 24
4:15 00000 0 16:15 13 0 0 0 0 13
4:30 00000 0 16:30 90000 9
4:45 00000 0 16:45 18 0 0 0 0 18
5:00 10000 1 17:00 24 0 0 0 0 24
5:15 10000 1 17:15 15 0 0 0 0 15
5:30 20000 2 17:30 21 0 0 0 0 21
5:45 10000 1 17:45 23 0 0 0 0 23
6:00 00000 0 18:00 12 0 0 0 0 12
6:15 40000 4 18:15 13 0 0 0 0 13
6:30 30000 3 18:30 12 0 0 0 0 12
6:45 30000 3 18:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
7:00 40000 4 19:00 13 0 0 0 0 13
7:15 42000 6 19:15 21 0 0 0 0 21
7:30 61000 7 19:30 50000 5
7:45 40000 4 19:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
8:00 13 0 0 0 0 13 20:00 13 1 0 0 0 14
8:15 11 0 0 0 0 11 20:15 12 0 0 0 0 12
8:30 10 0 1 0 0 11 20:30 17 0 0 0 0 17
8:45 60000 6 20:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
9:00 10 0 0 0 0 10 21:00 11 0 0 0 0 11
9:15 13 0 0 0 0 13 21:15 81000 9
9:30 10 1 0 0 0 11 21:30 10000 1
9:45 70000 7 21:45 90000 9
10:00 50100 6 22:00 40000 4
10:15 10 2 0 0 0 12 22:15 20000 2
10:30 21 1 0 0 0 22 22:30 50000 5
10:45 71000 8 22:45 50000 5
11:00 14 0 0 0 0 14 23:00 30000 3
11:15 10 2 0 0 0 12 23:15 20000 2
11:30 18 1 0 0 0 19 23:30 40000 4
11:45 10 0 0 0 0 10 23:45 10000 1
TOTAL 225 11 2 0 0 238 TOTAL 594 9 0 0 0 603
AM PEAK HOUR 10:30 AM AM PEAK HOUR 5:00 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 56 AM PEAK VOLUME 83
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 819 20 2 0 0 841
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 97.4% 2.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 38 0 1 0 0 39
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 83 0 0 0 0 83
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 6 - Stonegate Apartments
684
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS72 Southern dwy west of Doolittle AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 00000 0 12:00 14 0 0 0 0 14
0:15 10000 1 12:15 30000 3
0:30 20000 2 12:30 50000 5
0:45 20000 2 12:45 16 0 0 0 0 16
1:00 00000 0 13:00 40000 4
1:15 20000 2 13:15 80000 8
1:30 00000 0 13:30 60000 6
1:45 10000 1 13:45 11 1 0 0 0 12
2:00 20000 2 14:00 50000 5
2:15 10000 1 14:15 60000 6
2:30 00000 0 14:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
2:45 00000 0 14:45 60000 6
3:00 00000 0 15:00 60000 6
3:15 00000 0 15:15 30000 3
3:30 30000 3 15:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
3:45 30000 3 15:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
4:00 61000 7 16:00 12 0 0 0 0 12
4:15 20000 2 16:15 80000 8
4:30 20000 2 16:30 80000 8
4:45 20000 2 16:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
5:00 00000 0 17:00 70000 7
5:15 50000 5 17:15 80000 8
5:30 70000 7 17:30 80000 8
5:45 50000 5 17:45 60000 6
6:00 50000 5 18:00 80000 8
6:15 40000 4 18:15 90000 9
6:30 12 0 0 0 0 12 18:30 60000 6
6:45 40000 4 18:45 60000 6
7:00 50000 5 19:00 40000 4
7:15 60000 6 19:15 90000 9
7:30 11 0 0 0 0 11 19:30 80000 8
7:45 18 0 0 0 0 18 19:45 40000 4
8:00 80000 8 20:00 30000 3
8:15 11 0 0 0 0 11 20:15 50000 5
8:30 11 0 0 0 0 11 20:30 50000 5
8:45 10000 1 20:45 20000 2
9:00 40000 4 21:00 30000 3
9:15 90000 9 21:15 20000 2
9:30 80000 8 21:30 50000 5
9:45 80000 8 21:45 40000 4
10:00 30000 3 22:00 30000 3
10:15 10 0 0 0 0 10 22:15 30000 3
10:30 90000 9 22:30 20000 2
10:45 90000 9 22:45 40000 4
11:00 70000 7 23:00 20000 2
11:15 10 0 0 0 0 10 23:15 20000 2
11:30 80000 8 23:30 30000 3
11:45 80000 8 23:45 00000 0
TOTAL 235 1 0 0 0 236 TOTAL 296 1 0 0 0 297
AM PEAK HOUR 7:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 48 AM PEAK VOLUME 42
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 531 2 0 0 0 533
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 48 0 0 0 0 48
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 40 0 0 0 0 40
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 6 - Stonegate Apartments
685
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS82 Dwy east of Elm.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 00000 0 12:00 00000 0
0:15 00000 0 12:15 00000 0
0:30 00000 0 12:30 00000 0
0:45 00000 0 12:45 00000 0
1:00 00000 0 13:00 00000 0
1:15 00000 0 13:15 00000 0
1:30 00000 0 13:30 00000 0
1:45 00000 0 13:45 00000 0
2:00 00000 0 14:00 00000 0
2:15 00000 0 14:15 00000 0
2:30 00000 0 14:30 00000 0
2:45 00000 0 14:45 00000 0
3:00 00000 0 15:00 00000 0
3:15 00000 0 15:15 00000 0
3:30 00000 0 15:30 00000 0
3:45 00000 0 15:45 00000 0
4:00 00000 0 16:00 00000 0
4:15 00000 0 16:15 00000 0
4:30 00000 0 16:30 00000 0
4:45 00000 0 16:45 00000 0
5:00 00000 0 17:00 00000 0
5:15 00000 0 17:15 00000 0
5:30 00000 0 17:30 00000 0
5:45 00000 0 17:45 00000 0
6:00 00000 0 18:00 00000 0
6:15 00000 0 18:15 00000 0
6:30 00000 0 18:30 00000 0
6:45 00000 0 18:45 00000 0
7:00 00000 0 19:00 00000 0
7:15 00000 0 19:15 00000 0
7:30 00000 0 19:30 00000 0
7:45 00000 0 19:45 00000 0
8:00 00000 0 20:00 00000 0
8:15 00000 0 20:15 00000 0
8:30 10000 1 20:30 00000 0
8:45 00000 0 20:45 00000 0
9:00 00000 0 21:00 00000 0
9:15 00000 0 21:15 00000 0
9:30 00000 0 21:30 00000 0
9:45 00000 0 21:45 00000 0
10:00 00000 0 22:00 00000 0
10:15 00000 0 22:15 00000 0
10:30 00000 0 22:30 00000 0
10:45 00000 0 22:45 00000 0
11:00 00000 0 23:00 00000 0
11:15 10000 1 23:15 00000 0
11:30 00000 0 23:30 00000 0
11:45 00000 0 23:45 00000 0
TOTAL 200002 TOTAL 000000
AM PEAK HOUR 11:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 11:45 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 1 AM PEAK VOLUME 0
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 200002
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 1 0 0 0 0 1
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 0 0 0 0 0 0
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 7 - River's Edge Apartment Homes
686
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS82 Dwy east of Elm.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 00000 0 12:00 00000 0
0:15 00000 0 12:15 21000 3
0:30 00000 0 12:30 20000 2
0:45 00000 0 12:45 10000 1
1:00 00000 0 13:00 00000 0
1:15 00000 0 13:15 10000 1
1:30 00000 0 13:30 10000 1
1:45 00000 0 13:45 40000 4
2:00 00000 0 14:00 10000 1
2:15 10000 1 14:15 40000 4
2:30 00000 0 14:30 00000 0
2:45 10000 1 14:45 11000 2
3:00 00000 0 15:00 30000 3
3:15 00000 0 15:15 30010 4
3:30 00000 0 15:30 20000 2
3:45 00000 0 15:45 20000 2
4:00 00000 0 16:00 30000 3
4:15 00000 0 16:15 30000 3
4:30 00000 0 16:30 11000 2
4:45 00000 0 16:45 20000 2
5:00 00000 0 17:00 00000 0
5:15 00000 0 17:15 00000 0
5:30 00000 0 17:30 20000 2
5:45 20000 2 17:45 00000 0
6:00 10000 1 18:00 30000 3
6:15 00000 0 18:15 00000 0
6:30 00000 0 18:30 10000 1
6:45 00000 0 18:45 20000 2
7:00 00000 0 19:00 30000 3
7:15 10000 1 19:15 10000 1
7:30 20000 2 19:30 10000 1
7:45 70000 7 19:45 10000 1
8:00 50000 5 20:00 00000 0
8:15 10000 1 20:15 10000 1
8:30 40000 4 20:30 20000 2
8:45 10000 1 20:45 20000 2
9:00 40000 4 21:00 10000 1
9:15 10000 1 21:15 10000 1
9:30 20000 2 21:30 00000 0
9:45 00000 0 21:45 40000 4
10:00 00000 0 22:00 10000 1
10:15 10000 1 22:15 00000 0
10:30 10000 1 22:30 10000 1
10:45 00000 0 22:45 00000 0
11:00 00000 0 23:00 00000 0
11:15 11000 2 23:15 00000 0
11:30 20000 2 23:30 20000 2
11:45 01000 1 23:45 00000 0
TOTAL 38 2 0 0 0 40 TOTAL 65 3 0 1 0 69
AM PEAK HOUR 7:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 17 AM PEAK VOLUME 11
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 103 5 0 1 0 109
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 94.5% 4.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 17 0 0 0 0 17
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 9 1 0 0 0 10
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 7 - River's Edge Apartment Homes
687
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS83 Dwy south of Lakeshore.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 30000 3 12:00 23 3 0 0 0 26
0:15 20000 2 12:15 17 2 0 0 0 19
0:30 40000 4 12:30 22 0 0 0 0 22
0:45 30000 3 12:45 15 0 0 0 0 15
1:00 20000 2 13:00 17 0 0 0 0 17
1:15 20000 2 13:15 17 2 0 0 0 19
1:30 00000 0 13:30 15 0 0 0 0 15
1:45 30000 3 13:45 36 0 0 0 0 36
2:00 20000 2 14:00 29 0 0 0 0 29
2:15 20000 2 14:15 25 2 0 0 0 27
2:30 30000 3 14:30 13 2 0 0 0 15
2:45 50000 5 14:45 32 1 0 1 0 34
3:00 20000 2 15:00 27 0 0 0 0 27
3:15 00000 0 15:15 19 0 0 0 0 19
3:30 10000 1 15:30 25 1 0 0 0 26
3:45 10000 1 15:45 43 0 0 0 0 43
4:00 20000 2 16:00 36 0 0 0 0 36
4:15 10000 1 16:15 23 1 0 0 0 24
4:30 20000 2 16:30 41 0 0 0 0 41
4:45 21000 3 16:45 35 0 0 0 0 35
5:00 30000 3 17:00 42 2 0 0 0 44
5:15 30000 3 17:15 35 0 0 0 0 35
5:30 20000 2 17:30 32 0 0 0 0 32
5:45 70000 7 17:45 27 0 0 0 0 27
6:00 60000 6 18:00 45 0 0 0 0 45
6:15 60000 6 18:15 40 0 0 0 0 40
6:30 30000 3 18:30 35 1 0 0 0 36
6:45 10000 1 18:45 30 0 0 0 0 30
7:00 81000 9 19:00 32 0 0 0 0 32
7:15 41000 5 19:15 29 0 0 0 0 29
7:30 21 0 0 0 0 21 19:30 23 0 0 0 0 23
7:45 28 0 0 0 0 28 19:45 27 0 0 0 0 27
8:00 17 0 0 0 0 17 20:00 37 1 0 0 0 38
8:15 28 0 0 0 0 28 20:15 18 0 0 0 0 18
8:30 11 0 0 0 0 11 20:30 20 0 0 0 0 20
8:45 14 1 0 0 0 15 20:45 20 0 0 0 0 20
9:00 13 0 0 0 0 13 21:00 31 0 0 0 0 31
9:15 15 1 0 0 0 16 21:15 14 0 0 0 0 14
9:30 12 2 0 0 0 14 21:30 17 0 0 0 0 17
9:45 14 1 0 0 0 15 21:45 15 0 0 0 0 15
10:00 15 3 0 0 0 18 22:00 14 0 0 0 0 14
10:15 15 1 0 0 0 16 22:15 90000 9
10:30 10 2 0 0 0 12 22:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
10:45 10 1 0 0 0 11 22:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
11:00 12 2 0 0 0 14 23:00 60000 6
11:15 12 0 0 0 0 12 23:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
11:30 22 0 0 0 0 22 23:30 50000 5
11:45 26 0 0 0 0 26 23:45 70000 7
TOTAL 380 17 0 0 0 397 TOTAL 1,151 18 0 1 0 1,170
AM PEAK HOUR 7:30 AM AM PEAK HOUR 4:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 94 AM PEAK VOLUME 155
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 1,531 35 0 1 0 1,567
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 97.7% 2.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 94 0 0 0 0 94
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 153 2 0 0 0 155
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 7 - River's Edge Apartment Homes
688
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS83 Dwy south of Lakeshore.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 70000 7 12:00 21 0 0 0 0 21
0:15 10000 1 12:15 15 0 0 0 0 15
0:30 10000 1 12:30 20 1 0 0 0 21
0:45 00000 0 12:45 14 1 0 0 0 15
1:00 10000 1 13:00 15 0 0 0 0 15
1:15 30000 3 13:15 16 0 0 0 0 16
1:30 20000 2 13:30 22 1 0 0 0 23
1:45 20000 2 13:45 24 1 0 0 0 25
2:00 20000 2 14:00 23 0 0 0 0 23
2:15 00000 0 14:15 15 0 0 0 0 15
2:30 00000 0 14:30 25 1 0 0 0 26
2:45 10000 1 14:45 26 1 0 0 0 27
3:00 20000 2 15:00 18 1 0 0 0 19
3:15 50000 5 15:15 31 0 0 0 0 31
3:30 30000 3 15:30 23 0 0 0 0 23
3:45 60000 6 15:45 31 1 0 0 0 32
4:00 30000 3 16:00 15 0 0 0 0 15
4:15 90000 9 16:15 23 0 0 0 0 23
4:30 90000 9 16:30 25 0 0 0 0 25
4:45 17 0 0 0 0 17 16:45 27 0 0 0 0 27
5:00 70000 7 17:00 32 0 0 0 0 32
5:15 13 0 0 0 0 13 17:15 25 0 0 0 0 25
5:30 15 1 0 0 0 16 17:30 18 0 0 0 0 18
5:45 13 0 0 0 0 13 17:45 20 0 0 0 0 20
6:00 12 1 0 0 0 13 18:00 18 0 0 0 0 18
6:15 19 0 0 0 0 19 18:15 24 0 0 0 0 24
6:30 23 0 0 0 0 23 18:30 25 1 0 0 0 26
6:45 16 1 0 0 0 17 18:45 16 0 0 0 0 16
7:00 13 2 0 0 0 15 19:00 90000 9
7:15 35 0 0 0 0 35 19:15 11 0 0 0 0 11
7:30 55 0 0 0 0 55 19:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
7:45 40 0 0 0 0 40 19:45 15 0 0 0 0 15
8:00 35 0 0 0 0 35 20:00 90000 9
8:15 20 0 0 0 0 20 20:15 13 0 0 0 0 13
8:30 17 0 0 0 0 17 20:30 15 1 0 0 0 16
8:45 18 0 0 0 0 18 20:45 13 0 0 0 0 13
9:00 21 0 0 0 0 21 21:00 12 0 0 0 0 12
9:15 28 0 0 0 0 28 21:15 70000 7
9:30 24 1 0 0 0 25 21:30 61000 7
9:45 13 0 0 0 0 13 21:45 70000 7
10:00 21 2 0 0 0 23 22:00 70000 7
10:15 26 3 0 0 0 29 22:15 60000 6
10:30 16 2 0 0 0 18 22:30 50000 5
10:45 16 3 0 0 0 19 22:45 70000 7
11:00 15 0 0 0 0 15 23:00 60000 6
11:15 14 1 0 0 0 15 23:15 30000 3
11:30 21 0 0 0 0 21 23:30 40000 4
11:45 16 1 0 0 0 17 23:45 20000 2
TOTAL 656 18 0 0 0 674 TOTAL 775 11 0 0 0 786
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 4:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 165 AM PEAK VOLUME 109
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 1,431 29 0 0 0 1,460
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 165 0 0 0 0 165
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 109 0 0 0 0 109
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 7 - River's Edge Apartment Homes
689
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS90 Western Dwy south of Mayberry.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 10000 1 12:00 30000 3
0:15 10000 1 12:15 12 0 0 0 0 12
0:30 20000 2 12:30 60000 6
0:45 00000 0 12:45 30000 3
1:00 10000 1 13:00 10000 1
1:15 30000 3 13:15 10 0 0 1 0 11
1:30 00000 0 13:30 90000 9
1:45 10000 1 13:45 60000 6
2:00 00000 0 14:00 10 0 0 0 0 10
2:15 30000 3 14:15 80000 8
2:30 20000 2 14:30 12 0 0 0 0 12
2:45 00000 0 14:45 18 0 0 0 0 18
3:00 40000 4 15:00 13 0 0 0 0 13
3:15 10000 1 15:15 70000 7
3:30 30000 3 15:30 17 1 0 0 0 18
3:45 10000 1 15:45 17 0 0 0 0 17
4:00 00000 0 16:00 60000 6
4:15 00000 0 16:15 80000 8
4:30 00000 0 16:30 90000 9
4:45 20000 2 16:45 15 0 0 0 0 15
5:00 00000 0 17:00 90000 9
5:15 20000 2 17:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
5:30 00000 0 17:30 14 0 0 0 0 14
5:45 00000 0 17:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
6:00 30000 3 18:00 81000 9
6:15 50000 5 18:15 12 0 0 0 0 12
6:30 60000 6 18:30 90000 9
6:45 00000 0 18:45 81000 9
7:00 20000 2 19:00 40000 4
7:15 50000 5 19:15 90000 9
7:30 12 0 0 0 0 12 19:30 80000 8
7:45 30000 3 19:45 70000 7
8:00 40000 4 20:00 80000 8
8:15 70000 7 20:15 20000 2
8:30 11 0 0 0 0 11 20:30 90000 9
8:45 10000 1 20:45 50000 5
9:00 50000 5 21:00 70000 7
9:15 30000 3 21:15 30000 3
9:30 20000 2 21:30 10000 1
9:45 40000 4 21:45 20000 2
10:00 50000 5 22:00 20000 2
10:15 22000 4 22:15 20000 2
10:30 50000 5 22:30 30000 3
10:45 30000 3 22:45 40000 4
11:00 50000 5 23:00 30000 3
11:15 60000 6 23:15 50000 5
11:30 60000 6 23:30 40000 4
11:45 30000 3 23:45 10000 1
TOTAL 135 2 0 0 0 137 TOTAL 360 3 0 1 0 364
AM PEAK HOUR 7:30 AM AM PEAK HOUR 2:45 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 26 AM PEAK VOLUME 56
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 495 5 0 1 0 501
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.8% 1.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 26 0 0 0 0 26
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 44 0 0 0 0 44
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 8 - Mayberry Colony Apartments
690
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS90 Western Dwy south of Mayberry.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 00000 0 12:00 11 0 0 0 0 11
0:15 10000 1 12:15 11 0 0 0 0 11
0:30 00000 0 12:30 90000 9
0:45 10000 1 12:45 80000 8
1:00 00000 0 13:00 60000 6
1:15 10000 1 13:15 60000 6
1:30 00000 0 13:30 30000 3
1:45 20000 2 13:45 70000 7
2:00 00000 0 14:00 12 0 0 0 0 12
2:15 00000 0 14:15 14 0 0 0 0 14
2:30 00000 0 14:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
2:45 30000 3 14:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
3:00 20000 2 15:00 10 0 0 0 0 10
3:15 50000 5 15:15 90000 9
3:30 50000 5 15:30 80000 8
3:45 40000 4 15:45 70000 7
4:00 00000 0 16:00 11 0 0 0 0 11
4:15 50000 5 16:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
4:30 70000 7 16:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
4:45 30000 3 16:45 80000 8
5:00 80000 8 17:00 16 0 0 0 0 16
5:15 00000 0 17:15 13 1 0 0 0 14
5:30 20000 2 17:30 12 0 0 0 0 12
5:45 60000 6 17:45 13 0 0 0 0 13
6:00 40000 4 18:00 11 0 0 0 0 11
6:15 30000 3 18:15 50000 5
6:30 90000 9 18:30 70000 7
6:45 80000 8 18:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
7:00 70000 7 19:00 80000 8
7:15 21 0 0 0 0 21 19:15 50000 5
7:30 40000 4 19:30 70000 7
7:45 70000 7 19:45 60000 6
8:00 21 0 0 0 0 21 20:00 50000 5
8:15 10 0 0 0 0 10 20:15 70000 7
8:30 80010 9 20:30 60000 6
8:45 70000 7 20:45 30000 3
9:00 90000 9 21:00 10000 1
9:15 50000 5 21:15 50000 5
9:30 30000 3 21:30 30000 3
9:45 20000 2 21:45 50000 5
10:00 91000 10 22:00 10000 1
10:15 43000 7 22:15 10000 1
10:30 21000 3 22:30 00000 0
10:45 90000 9 22:45 20000 2
11:00 11 0 0 0 0 11 23:00 20000 2
11:15 20000 2 23:15 40000 4
11:30 50000 5 23:30 50000 5
11:45 80000 8 23:45 20000 2
TOTAL 233 5 0 1 0 239 TOTAL 348 1 0 0 0 349
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 5:00 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 53 AM PEAK VOLUME 55
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 581 6 0 1 0 588
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.8% 1.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 53 0 0 0 0 53
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 54 1 0 0 0 55
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 8 - Mayberry Colony Apartments
691
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS91 Eastern Dwy south of Mayberry.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 30000 3 12:00 80000 8
0:15 30000 3 12:15 80000 8
0:30 10000 1 12:30 30000 3
0:45 10000 1 12:45 50000 5
1:00 00000 0 13:00 70000 7
1:15 40000 4 13:15 40000 4
1:30 00000 0 13:30 70000 7
1:45 10000 1 13:45 20000 2
2:00 10000 1 14:00 90000 9
2:15 10000 1 14:15 14 0 0 0 0 14
2:30 00000 0 14:30 14 0 0 0 0 14
2:45 10000 1 14:45 80000 8
3:00 00000 0 15:00 20000 2
3:15 00000 0 15:15 10000 1
3:30 30000 3 15:30 30000 3
3:45 00000 0 15:45 30000 3
4:00 00000 0 16:00 90000 9
4:15 10000 1 16:15 90000 9
4:30 10000 1 16:30 70000 7
4:45 00000 0 16:45 13 0 0 0 0 13
5:00 00000 0 17:00 81000 9
5:15 00000 0 17:15 12 0 0 0 0 12
5:30 30000 3 17:30 70000 7
5:45 30000 3 17:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
6:00 00000 0 18:00 14 0 0 0 0 14
6:15 00000 0 18:15 60000 6
6:30 20000 2 18:30 30000 3
6:45 00000 0 18:45 13 0 0 0 0 13
7:00 12 0 0 0 0 12 19:00 14 0 0 0 0 14
7:15 70000 7 19:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
7:30 40000 4 19:30 20000 2
7:45 80000 8 19:45 80000 8
8:00 30000 3 20:00 30000 3
8:15 60000 6 20:15 40000 4
8:30 60010 7 20:30 40000 4
8:45 70000 7 20:45 70000 7
9:00 50000 5 21:00 20000 2
9:15 30000 3 21:15 30000 3
9:30 50000 5 21:30 30000 3
9:45 32000 5 21:45 30000 3
10:00 20000 2 22:00 20000 2
10:15 32000 5 22:15 20000 2
10:30 50000 5 22:30 60000 6
10:45 40000 4 22:45 20000 2
11:00 20000 2 23:00 10000 1
11:15 30000 3 23:15 10000 1
11:30 70000 7 23:30 30000 3
11:45 30000 3 23:45 20000 2
TOTAL 127 4 0 1 0 132 TOTAL 292 1 0 0 0 293
AM PEAK HOUR 7:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 2:00 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 31 AM PEAK VOLUME 45
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 419 5 0 1 0 425
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.6% 1.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 31 0 0 0 0 31
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 40 1 0 0 0 41
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 8 - Mayberry Colony Apartments
692
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS91 Eastern Dwy south of Mayberry.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 00000 0 12:00 70000 7
0:15 00000 0 12:15 50000 5
0:30 10000 1 12:30 30000 3
0:45 00000 0 12:45 30000 3
1:00 00000 0 13:00 40000 4
1:15 00000 0 13:15 90000 9
1:30 10000 1 13:30 40010 5
1:45 00000 0 13:45 50000 5
2:00 00000 0 14:00 11 0 0 0 0 11
2:15 00000 0 14:15 80000 8
2:30 20000 2 14:30 20000 2
2:45 10000 1 14:45 40000 4
3:00 10000 1 15:00 70000 7
3:15 00000 0 15:15 50000 5
3:30 00000 0 15:30 71000 8
3:45 00000 0 15:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
4:00 10000 1 16:00 50000 5
4:15 10000 1 16:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
4:30 10000 1 16:30 70000 7
4:45 30000 3 16:45 30000 3
5:00 10000 1 17:00 20000 2
5:15 30000 3 17:15 40000 4
5:30 30000 3 17:30 50000 5
5:45 70000 7 17:45 70000 7
6:00 20000 2 18:00 30000 3
6:15 20000 2 18:15 40000 4
6:30 30000 3 18:30 30000 3
6:45 90000 9 18:45 50000 5
7:00 11 0 0 0 0 11 19:00 20000 2
7:15 90000 9 19:15 40000 4
7:30 10 0 0 0 0 10 19:30 00000 0
7:45 60000 6 19:45 00000 0
8:00 10000 1 20:00 20000 2
8:15 30000 3 20:15 20000 2
8:30 11 0 0 0 0 11 20:30 20000 2
8:45 13 0 0 0 0 13 20:45 10000 1
9:00 20000 2 21:00 10000 1
9:15 20000 2 21:15 10000 1
9:30 40000 4 21:30 00000 0
9:45 40000 4 21:45 00000 0
10:00 10000 1 22:00 20000 2
10:15 71000 8 22:15 20000 2
10:30 50000 5 22:30 10000 1
10:45 50000 5 22:45 40000 4
11:00 10000 1 23:00 20000 2
11:15 30000 3 23:15 00000 0
11:30 40000 4 23:30 20000 2
11:45 30000 3 23:45 00000 0
TOTAL 147 1 0 0 0 148 TOTAL 181 1 0 1 0 183
AM PEAK HOUR 6:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 39 AM PEAK VOLUME 34
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 328 2 0 1 0 331
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.1% 0.6% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 36 0 0 0 0 36
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 25 0 0 0 0 25
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 8 - Mayberry Colony Apartments
693
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS92 DWY west of Hathaway.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 10000 1 12:00 90000 9
0:15 10000 1 12:15 60100 7
0:30 20000 2 12:30 70000 7
0:45 20000 2 12:45 50000 5
1:00 20000 2 13:00 40000 4
1:15 10000 1 13:15 30000 3
1:30 00000 0 13:30 80000 8
1:45 00000 0 13:45 71000 8
2:00 10000 1 14:00 10 1 0 0 0 11
2:15 00000 0 14:15 50000 5
2:30 00000 0 14:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
2:45 00000 0 14:45 40000 4
3:00 10000 1 15:00 50000 5
3:15 10000 1 15:15 60000 6
3:30 00000 0 15:30 13 0 0 0 0 13
3:45 10000 1 15:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
4:00 00000 0 16:00 13 0 0 0 0 13
4:15 10000 1 16:15 70000 7
4:30 30000 3 16:30 90000 9
4:45 20000 2 16:45 30000 3
5:00 00000 0 17:00 70000 7
5:15 10000 1 17:15 80000 8
5:30 10000 1 17:30 70000 7
5:45 10000 1 17:45 70000 7
6:00 00000 0 18:00 80000 8
6:15 10100 2 18:15 50000 5
6:30 10000 1 18:30 90000 9
6:45 20000 2 18:45 70000 7
7:00 30000 3 19:00 41000 5
7:15 20000 2 19:15 70000 7
7:30 20000 2 19:30 90000 9
7:45 40000 4 19:45 60000 6
8:00 50000 5 20:00 10 0 0 0 0 10
8:15 70000 7 20:15 70000 7
8:30 30000 3 20:30 60000 6
8:45 70000 7 20:45 40000 4
9:00 20000 2 21:00 80000 8
9:15 40000 4 21:15 50000 5
9:30 40000 4 21:30 50000 5
9:45 31000 4 21:45 50000 5
10:00 70000 7 22:00 40000 4
10:15 20000 2 22:15 12 0 0 0 0 12
10:30 20000 2 22:30 40000 4
10:45 30000 3 22:45 50000 5
11:00 10000 1 23:00 40000 4
11:15 70000 7 23:15 10000 1
11:30 41000 5 23:30 10000 1
11:45 30000 3 23:45 00000 0
TOTAL 101 2 1 0 0 104 TOTAL 312 3 1 0 0 316
AM PEAK HOUR 8:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 22 AM PEAK VOLUME 45
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 413 5 2 0 0 420
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.3% 1.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 22 0 0 0 0 22
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 32 0 0 0 0 32
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 9 - Summit Ridge Apartments
694
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS92 DWY west of Hathaway.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 00000 0 12:00 30100 4
0:15 00000 0 12:15 90000 9
0:30 10000 1 12:30 90000 9
0:45 00000 0 12:45 30000 3
1:00 00000 0 13:00 60000 6
1:15 00000 0 13:15 31000 4
1:30 00000 0 13:30 90000 9
1:45 00000 0 13:45 30000 3
2:00 00000 0 14:00 81000 9
2:15 10000 1 14:15 70000 7
2:30 10000 1 14:30 90000 9
2:45 00000 0 14:45 10000 1
3:00 00000 0 15:00 60000 6
3:15 10000 1 15:15 80000 8
3:30 30000 3 15:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
3:45 00000 0 15:45 91000 10
4:00 20000 2 16:00 80000 8
4:15 00000 0 16:15 40000 4
4:30 10000 1 16:30 60000 6
4:45 00000 0 16:45 20000 2
5:00 20000 2 17:00 41000 5
5:15 10000 1 17:15 80000 8
5:30 20000 2 17:30 90000 9
5:45 10 0 0 0 0 10 17:45 60000 6
6:00 20000 2 18:00 30000 3
6:15 70000 7 18:15 50000 5
6:30 00000 0 18:30 40000 4
6:45 40100 5 18:45 30000 3
7:00 30000 3 19:00 50000 5
7:15 40000 4 19:15 41000 5
7:30 30000 3 19:30 40000 4
7:45 80000 8 19:45 20000 2
8:00 90000 9 20:00 50000 5
8:15 90000 9 20:15 30000 3
8:30 30000 3 20:30 20000 2
8:45 80000 8 20:45 20000 2
9:00 80000 8 21:00 40000 4
9:15 40000 4 21:15 10000 1
9:30 70000 7 21:30 50000 5
9:45 10000 1 21:45 50000 5
10:00 40000 4 22:00 30000 3
10:15 30000 3 22:15 10000 1
10:30 20000 2 22:30 10000 1
10:45 20000 2 22:45 40000 4
11:00 50000 5 23:00 00000 0
11:15 40000 4 23:15 10000 1
11:30 30000 3 23:30 00000 0
11:45 60000 6 23:45 20000 2
TOTAL 134 0 1 0 0 135 TOTAL 219 5 1 0 0 225
AM PEAK HOUR 8:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 29 AM PEAK VOLUME 36
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 353 5 2 0 0 360
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.1% 1.4% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 29 0 0 0 0 29
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 27 1 0 0 0 28
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 9 - Summit Ridge Apartments
695
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS93 DWY north of George.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 20000 2 12:00 12 0 1 0 0 13
0:15 20000 2 12:15 10 1 0 0 0 11
0:30 00000 0 12:30 90000 9
0:45 00000 0 12:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
1:00 10000 1 13:00 21 0 0 0 0 21
1:15 10000 1 13:15 10 1 0 0 0 11
1:30 00000 0 13:30 80000 8
1:45 00000 0 13:45 13 0 0 0 0 13
2:00 30000 3 14:00 13 0 0 0 0 13
2:15 11000 2 14:15 80000 8
2:30 10000 1 14:30 18 0 0 0 0 18
2:45 00000 0 14:45 90000 9
3:00 20000 2 15:00 90000 9
3:15 10000 1 15:15 24 0 0 0 0 24
3:30 00000 0 15:30 19 1 0 0 0 20
3:45 00000 0 15:45 19 0 0 0 0 19
4:00 10000 1 16:00 13 0 0 0 0 13
4:15 00000 0 16:15 80000 8
4:30 00000 0 16:30 22 0 0 0 0 22
4:45 00000 0 16:45 13 0 0 0 0 13
5:00 30000 3 17:00 15 1 0 0 0 16
5:15 40000 4 17:15 12 0 0 0 0 12
5:30 00000 0 17:30 15 0 0 0 0 15
5:45 10000 1 17:45 18 0 0 0 0 18
6:00 30000 3 18:00 23 0 0 0 0 23
6:15 30000 3 18:15 12 0 0 0 0 12
6:30 20000 2 18:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
6:45 20000 2 18:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
7:00 10000 1 19:00 16 0 0 0 0 16
7:15 60000 6 19:15 13 0 0 0 0 13
7:30 15 0 0 0 0 15 19:30 70000 7
7:45 70000 7 19:45 70000 7
8:00 11 0 0 0 0 11 20:00 14 0 0 0 0 14
8:15 13 0 0 0 0 13 20:15 70000 7
8:30 16 0 0 0 0 16 20:30 80000 8
8:45 15 0 0 0 0 15 20:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
9:00 10 0 0 0 0 10 21:00 10 0 0 0 0 10
9:15 80000 8 21:15 60000 6
9:30 12 0 0 0 0 12 21:30 20000 2
9:45 50000 5 21:45 60000 6
10:00 40000 4 22:00 70000 7
10:15 50000 5 22:15 50000 5
10:30 20000 2 22:30 20000 2
10:45 17 0 0 0 0 17 22:45 50000 5
11:00 50000 5 23:00 90000 9
11:15 11 1 0 0 0 12 23:15 10000 1
11:30 12 0 0 0 0 12 23:30 10000 1
11:45 50000 5 23:45 40000 4
TOTAL 213 2 0 0 0 215 TOTAL 527 4 1 0 0 532
AM PEAK HOUR 8:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 55 AM PEAK VOLUME 76
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 740 6 1 0 0 747
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.1% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 55 0 0 0 0 55
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 62 1 0 0 0 63
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 9 - Summit Ridge Apartments
696
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS93 DWY north of George.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 10000 1 12:00 90000 9
0:15 10000 1 12:15 12 0 0 0 0 12
0:30 00000 0 12:30 12 1 1 0 0 14
0:45 30000 3 12:45 20 0 0 0 0 20
1:00 00000 0 13:00 16 0 0 0 0 16
1:15 00000 0 13:15 14 0 0 0 0 14
1:30 00000 0 13:30 17 0 0 0 0 17
1:45 00000 0 13:45 91000 10
2:00 10000 1 14:00 18 0 0 0 0 18
2:15 10000 1 14:15 11 0 0 0 0 11
2:30 11000 2 14:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
2:45 10000 1 14:45 14 0 0 0 0 14
3:00 00000 0 15:00 19 0 0 0 0 19
3:15 00000 0 15:15 15 0 0 0 0 15
3:30 00000 0 15:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
3:45 00000 0 15:45 90000 9
4:00 00000 0 16:00 17 0 0 0 0 17
4:15 10000 1 16:15 90000 9
4:30 30000 3 16:30 80000 8
4:45 10000 1 16:45 13 0 0 0 0 13
5:00 50000 5 17:00 50000 5
5:15 10000 1 17:15 20 0 0 0 0 20
5:30 60000 6 17:30 13 0 0 0 0 13
5:45 20000 2 17:45 13 0 0 0 0 13
6:00 40000 4 18:00 12 0 0 0 0 12
6:15 60000 6 18:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
6:30 60000 6 18:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
6:45 70000 7 18:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
7:00 90000 9 19:00 10 0 0 0 0 10
7:15 18 0 0 0 0 18 19:15 50000 5
7:30 20 0 0 0 0 20 19:30 80000 8
7:45 31 0 0 0 0 31 19:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
8:00 25 0 0 0 0 25 20:00 70000 7
8:15 16 0 0 0 0 16 20:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
8:30 15 0 0 0 0 15 20:30 90000 9
8:45 14 0 0 0 0 14 20:45 70000 7
9:00 10 0 0 0 0 10 21:00 50000 5
9:15 15 0 0 0 0 15 21:15 40000 4
9:30 11 0 0 0 0 11 21:30 60000 6
9:45 90000 9 21:45 20000 2
10:00 91000 10 22:00 50000 5
10:15 10 0 0 0 0 10 22:15 40000 4
10:30 70000 7 22:30 40000 4
10:45 12 0 0 0 0 12 22:45 30000 3
11:00 11 0 0 0 0 11 23:00 60000 6
11:15 81000 9 23:15 00000 0
11:30 90000 9 23:30 00000 0
11:45 19 1 0 0 0 20 23:45 30000 3
TOTAL 329 4 0 0 0 333 TOTAL 468 2 1 0 0 471
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 12:45 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 94 AM PEAK VOLUME 67
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 797 6 1 0 0 804
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.1% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 94 0 0 0 0 94
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 51 0 0 0 0 51
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 9 - Summit Ridge Apartments
697
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS87 Dwy north of Thornton.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 00000 0 12:00 30000 3
0:15 00000 0 12:15 21000 3
0:30 30000 3 12:30 31000 4
0:45 20000 2 12:45 20000 2
1:00 10000 1 13:00 30000 3
1:15 00000 0 13:15 40000 4
1:30 00000 0 13:30 30000 3
1:45 00000 0 13:45 30000 3
2:00 00000 0 14:00 50000 5
2:15 00000 0 14:15 80000 8
2:30 00000 0 14:30 60000 6
2:45 20000 2 14:45 20000 2
3:00 10000 1 15:00 50000 5
3:15 00000 0 15:15 50000 5
3:30 00000 0 15:30 90000 9
3:45 00000 0 15:45 30000 3
4:00 00000 0 16:00 90000 9
4:15 00000 0 16:15 90000 9
4:30 00000 0 16:30 50000 5
4:45 20000 2 16:45 70000 7
5:00 00000 0 17:00 60000 6
5:15 00000 0 17:15 20000 2
5:30 10000 1 17:30 90000 9
5:45 00000 0 17:45 90000 9
6:00 00000 0 18:00 12 0 0 0 0 12
6:15 00000 0 18:15 50000 5
6:30 10000 1 18:30 90000 9
6:45 30000 3 18:45 50000 5
7:00 10000 1 19:00 50000 5
7:15 10 0 0 0 0 10 19:15 30000 3
7:30 20000 2 19:30 80000 8
7:45 10000 1 19:45 30000 3
8:00 30000 3 20:00 70000 7
8:15 40000 4 20:15 50000 5
8:30 50000 5 20:30 80000 8
8:45 21000 3 20:45 20000 2
9:00 10 0 0 0 0 10 21:00 10000 1
9:15 10000 1 21:15 30000 3
9:30 30000 3 21:30 20000 2
9:45 70000 7 21:45 20000 2
10:00 20000 2 22:00 70000 7
10:15 00000 0 22:15 30000 3
10:30 10000 1 22:30 10000 1
10:45 41000 5 22:45 30000 3
11:00 50000 5 23:00 10000 1
11:15 30000 3 23:15 50000 5
11:30 41000 5 23:30 10000 1
11:45 50000 5 23:45 10000 1
TOTAL 89 3 0 0 0 92 TOTAL 224 2 0 0 0 226
AM PEAK HOUR 8:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 5:45 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 22 AM PEAK VOLUME 35
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 313 5 0 0 0 318
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.4% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 16 0 0 0 0 16
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 30 0 0 0 0 30
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 10 - Riverdale Apartments
698
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS87 Dwy north of Thornton.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 00000 0 12:00 30000 3
0:15 00000 0 12:15 60000 6
0:30 20000 2 12:30 01000 1
0:45 10000 1 12:45 50000 5
1:00 10000 1 13:00 30000 3
1:15 00000 0 13:15 50000 5
1:30 10000 1 13:30 10000 1
1:45 10000 1 13:45 50000 5
2:00 00000 0 14:00 50000 5
2:15 00000 0 14:15 60000 6
2:30 00000 0 14:30 70000 7
2:45 10000 1 14:45 40000 4
3:00 00000 0 15:00 60000 6
3:15 00000 0 15:15 20000 2
3:30 10000 1 15:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
3:45 00000 0 15:45 30000 3
4:00 10000 1 16:00 50000 5
4:15 10000 1 16:15 12 0 0 0 0 12
4:30 00000 0 16:30 50000 5
4:45 00000 0 16:45 70000 7
5:00 10000 1 17:00 50000 5
5:15 00000 0 17:15 60000 6
5:30 10000 1 17:30 10000 1
5:45 10000 1 17:45 40000 4
6:00 10000 1 18:00 70000 7
6:15 30000 3 18:15 70000 7
6:30 60000 6 18:30 70000 7
6:45 30000 3 18:45 40000 4
7:00 13 0 0 0 0 13 19:00 50000 5
7:15 14 0 0 0 0 14 19:15 20000 2
7:30 30000 3 19:30 40000 4
7:45 70000 7 19:45 40000 4
8:00 60000 6 20:00 50000 5
8:15 30000 3 20:15 40000 4
8:30 11 0 0 0 0 11 20:30 40000 4
8:45 51000 6 20:45 10000 1
9:00 60000 6 21:00 20000 2
9:15 10000 1 21:15 00000 0
9:30 40000 4 21:30 20000 2
9:45 60000 6 21:45 00000 0
10:00 40000 4 22:00 50000 5
10:15 00000 0 22:15 30000 3
10:30 20000 2 22:30 10000 1
10:45 10000 1 22:45 30000 3
11:00 30000 3 23:00 10000 1
11:15 40000 4 23:15 50000 5
11:30 50000 5 23:30 10000 1
11:45 41000 5 23:45 00000 0
TOTAL 128 2 0 0 0 130 TOTAL 194 1 0 0 0 195
AM PEAK HOUR 7:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 37 AM PEAK VOLUME 31
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 322 3 0 0 0 325
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.1% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 37 0 0 0 0 37
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 29 0 0 0 0 29
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 10 - Riverdale Apartments
699
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS88 Southern Dwy east of Cawston.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 10000 1 12:00 60000 6
0:15 20000 2 12:15 12 0 0 0 0 12
0:30 30000 3 12:30 90000 9
0:45 10000 1 12:45 30000 3
1:00 10000 1 13:00 40000 4
1:15 20000 2 13:15 13 0 0 0 0 13
1:30 00000 0 13:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
1:45 30000 3 13:45 30000 3
2:00 00000 0 14:00 40000 4
2:15 10000 1 14:15 11 0 0 0 0 11
2:30 00000 0 14:30 80000 8
2:45 10000 1 14:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
3:00 00000 0 15:00 14 0 0 0 0 14
3:15 10000 1 15:15 60000 6
3:30 00000 0 15:30 90000 9
3:45 00000 0 15:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
4:00 00000 0 16:00 70000 7
4:15 00000 0 16:15 13 0 0 0 0 13
4:30 10000 1 16:30 60000 6
4:45 00000 0 16:45 16 0 0 0 0 16
5:00 50000 5 17:00 16 0 0 0 0 16
5:15 20000 2 17:15 70000 7
5:30 30000 3 17:30 13 0 0 0 0 13
5:45 20000 2 17:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
6:00 10000 1 18:00 60000 6
6:15 00000 0 18:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
6:30 30000 3 18:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
6:45 40000 4 18:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
7:00 12 0 0 0 0 12 19:00 10 0 0 0 0 10
7:15 11 0 0 0 0 11 19:15 70000 7
7:30 10 0 0 0 0 10 19:30 80000 8
7:45 50000 5 19:45 40000 4
8:00 60000 6 20:00 40000 4
8:15 20000 2 20:15 30000 3
8:30 90000 9 20:30 40000 4
8:45 90000 9 20:45 20000 2
9:00 30000 3 21:00 40000 4
9:15 30000 3 21:15 60000 6
9:30 40000 4 21:30 60000 6
9:45 20000 2 21:45 20000 2
10:00 30000 3 22:00 40000 4
10:15 20000 2 22:15 50000 5
10:30 51000 6 22:30 50000 5
10:45 40000 4 22:45 30000 3
11:00 60000 6 23:00 00000 0
11:15 50000 5 23:15 10000 1
11:30 60000 6 23:30 10000 1
11:45 11000 2 23:45 10000 1
TOTAL 145 2 0 0 0 147 TOTAL 340 0 0 0 0 340
AM PEAK HOUR 7:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 4:45 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 38 AM PEAK VOLUME 52
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 485 2 0 0 0 487
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 38 0 0 0 0 38
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 52 0 0 0 0 52
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 10 - Riverdale Apartments
700
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS88 Southern Dwy east of Cawston.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 10000 1 12:00 40000 4
0:15 10000 1 12:15 80000 8
0:30 20000 2 12:30 72000 9
0:45 20000 2 12:45 70000 7
1:00 00000 0 13:00 80000 8
1:15 10000 1 13:15 90000 9
1:30 00000 0 13:30 13 0 0 0 0 13
1:45 00000 0 13:45 70000 7
2:00 00000 0 14:00 14 0 0 0 0 14
2:15 00000 0 14:15 13 0 0 0 0 13
2:30 00000 0 14:30 40000 4
2:45 00000 0 14:45 60000 6
3:00 00000 0 15:00 60000 6
3:15 00000 0 15:15 80000 8
3:30 00000 0 15:30 90000 9
3:45 30000 3 15:45 11 0 0 0 0 11
4:00 10000 1 16:00 80000 8
4:15 10000 1 16:15 60000 6
4:30 00000 0 16:30 40000 4
4:45 00000 0 16:45 70000 7
5:00 20000 2 17:00 12 0 0 0 0 12
5:15 10000 1 17:15 60000 6
5:30 20000 2 17:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
5:45 10000 1 17:45 60000 6
6:00 60000 6 18:00 30000 3
6:15 30000 3 18:15 30000 3
6:30 30000 3 18:30 80000 8
6:45 14 0 0 0 0 14 18:45 80000 8
7:00 20 0 0 0 0 20 19:00 40000 4
7:15 18 0 0 0 0 18 19:15 40000 4
7:30 26 0 0 0 0 26 19:30 40000 4
7:45 11 0 0 0 0 11 19:45 30000 3
8:00 60000 6 20:00 50000 5
8:15 50000 5 20:15 50000 5
8:30 80000 8 20:30 50000 5
8:45 80000 8 20:45 30000 3
9:00 50000 5 21:00 50000 5
9:15 20000 2 21:15 50000 5
9:30 50000 5 21:30 40000 4
9:45 60000 6 21:45 20000 2
10:00 50000 5 22:00 10000 1
10:15 00000 0 22:15 20000 2
10:30 30000 3 22:30 40000 4
10:45 71000 8 22:45 10000 1
11:00 81000 9 23:00 00000 0
11:15 50000 5 23:15 70000 7
11:30 40000 4 23:30 10000 1
11:45 51000 6 23:45 10000 1
TOTAL 201 3 0 0 0 204 TOTAL 282 2 0 0 0 284
AM PEAK HOUR 6:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 1:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 78 AM PEAK VOLUME 47
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 483 5 0 0 0 488
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 75 0 0 0 0 75
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 36 0 0 0 0 36
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 10 - Riverdale Apartments
701
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS89 Northern Dwy east of Cawston.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 20000 2 12:00 40000 4
0:15 00000 0 12:15 30000 3
0:30 00000 0 12:30 30000 3
0:45 10000 1 12:45 10000 1
1:00 00000 0 13:00 50000 5
1:15 00000 0 13:15 10000 1
1:30 10000 1 13:30 40000 4
1:45 00000 0 13:45 40000 4
2:00 10000 1 14:00 71000 8
2:15 00000 0 14:15 50000 5
2:30 00000 0 14:30 40000 4
2:45 00000 0 14:45 40000 4
3:00 00000 0 15:00 40000 4
3:15 00000 0 15:15 50100 6
3:30 00000 0 15:30 30000 3
3:45 00000 0 15:45 20000 2
4:00 20000 2 16:00 70000 7
4:15 50000 5 16:15 60000 6
4:30 00000 0 16:30 80000 8
4:45 00000 0 16:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
5:00 00000 0 17:00 80000 8
5:15 00000 0 17:15 40000 4
5:30 00000 0 17:30 30000 3
5:45 10000 1 17:45 40000 4
6:00 10000 1 18:00 50000 5
6:15 20000 2 18:15 60000 6
6:30 10000 1 18:30 80000 8
6:45 00000 0 18:45 40000 4
7:00 20000 2 19:00 50000 5
7:15 10000 1 19:15 40000 4
7:30 50000 5 19:30 40000 4
7:45 20000 2 19:45 50000 5
8:00 00000 0 20:00 30000 3
8:15 10000 1 20:15 70000 7
8:30 30000 3 20:30 40000 4
8:45 50000 5 20:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
9:00 51000 6 21:00 40000 4
9:15 30000 3 21:15 50000 5
9:30 10000 1 21:30 40000 4
9:45 50000 5 21:45 60000 6
10:00 30000 3 22:00 20000 2
10:15 20000 2 22:15 40000 4
10:30 20000 2 22:30 30000 3
10:45 40000 4 22:45 30000 3
11:00 50000 5 23:00 60000 6
11:15 10000 1 23:15 70000 7
11:30 30000 3 23:30 60000 6
11:45 31000 4 23:45 50000 5
TOTAL 73 2 0 0 0 75 TOTAL 231 1 1 0 0 233
AM PEAK HOUR 8:30 AM AM PEAK HOUR 4:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 17 AM PEAK VOLUME 32
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 304 3 1 0 0 308
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.7% 1.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 10 0 0 0 0 10
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 32 0 0 0 0 32
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 10 - Riverdale Apartments
702
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS89 Northern Dwy east of Cawston.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 00000 0 12:00 60000 6
0:15 00000 0 12:15 90000 9
0:30 30000 3 12:30 60000 6
0:45 10000 1 12:45 40000 4
1:00 00000 0 13:00 50000 5
1:15 00000 0 13:15 40000 4
1:30 00000 0 13:30 50000 5
1:45 00000 0 13:45 40000 4
2:00 00000 0 14:00 30000 3
2:15 00000 0 14:15 80000 8
2:30 00000 0 14:30 60000 6
2:45 20000 2 14:45 50000 5
3:00 10000 1 15:00 60000 6
3:15 00000 0 15:15 90000 9
3:30 30000 3 15:30 50100 6
3:45 00000 0 15:45 70000 7
4:00 00000 0 16:00 20000 2
4:15 40000 4 16:15 60000 6
4:30 00000 0 16:30 60000 6
4:45 10000 1 16:45 50000 5
5:00 00000 0 17:00 60000 6
5:15 00000 0 17:15 30000 3
5:30 20000 2 17:30 40000 4
5:45 20000 2 17:45 30000 3
6:00 50000 5 18:00 60000 6
6:15 30000 3 18:15 50000 5
6:30 20000 2 18:30 30000 3
6:45 50000 5 18:45 30000 3
7:00 70000 7 19:00 60000 6
7:15 70000 7 19:15 20000 2
7:30 50000 5 19:30 20000 2
7:45 20000 2 19:45 30000 3
8:00 40000 4 20:00 30000 3
8:15 30000 3 20:15 10000 1
8:30 60000 6 20:30 10000 1
8:45 40000 4 20:45 20000 2
9:00 20000 2 21:00 10000 1
9:15 20000 2 21:15 50000 5
9:30 30000 3 21:30 20000 2
9:45 80000 8 21:45 20000 2
10:00 10000 1 22:00 10000 1
10:15 30000 3 22:15 10000 1
10:30 20000 2 22:30 30000 3
10:45 30000 3 22:45 20000 2
11:00 20000 2 23:00 10000 1
11:15 20000 2 23:15 00000 0
11:30 30000 3 23:30 10000 1
11:45 11000 2 23:45 00000 0
TOTAL 104 1 0 0 0 105 TOTAL 183 0 1 0 0 184
AM PEAK HOUR 6:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:00 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 24 AM PEAK VOLUME 28
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 287 1 1 0 0 289
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 21 0 0 0 0 21
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 23 0 0 0 0 23
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 10 - Riverdale Apartments
703
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS70 Dwy east of E Parkridge.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 20000 2 12:00 90000 9
0:15 20000 2 12:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
0:30 80000 8 12:30 16 0 0 0 0 16
0:45 20000 2 12:45 13 1 0 0 0 14
1:00 20000 2 13:00 20 2 0 0 0 22
1:15 20000 2 13:15 10 2 0 0 0 12
1:30 10000 1 13:30 18 1 0 0 0 19
1:45 10000 1 13:45 18 0 0 0 0 18
2:00 10000 1 14:00 19 2 0 0 0 21
2:15 10000 1 14:15 21 1 0 0 0 22
2:30 10000 1 14:30 37 1 0 0 0 38
2:45 10000 1 14:45 32 0 0 0 0 32
3:00 40000 4 15:00 15 0 0 0 0 15
3:15 50000 5 15:15 22 2 0 0 0 24
3:30 10000 1 15:30 20 0 0 0 0 20
3:45 40000 4 15:45 17 0 0 0 0 17
4:00 70000 7 16:00 26 3 0 0 0 29
4:15 00000 0 16:15 21 0 0 0 0 21
4:30 20000 2 16:30 26 0 0 0 0 26
4:45 40000 4 16:45 25 0 0 0 0 25
5:00 30000 3 17:00 23 0 0 0 0 23
5:15 50000 5 17:15 25 0 0 0 0 25
5:30 10000 1 17:30 19 0 0 0 0 19
5:45 50000 5 17:45 30 0 0 0 0 30
6:00 40000 4 18:00 13 0 0 0 0 13
6:15 60000 6 18:15 28 1 0 0 0 29
6:30 32000 5 18:30 14 1 0 0 0 15
6:45 81000 9 18:45 26 0 0 0 0 26
7:00 62000 8 19:00 18 0 0 0 0 18
7:15 73000 10 19:15 90000 9
7:30 20 0 1 0 0 21 19:30 18 0 0 0 0 18
7:45 11 0 0 0 0 11 19:45 20 0 0 0 0 20
8:00 11 0 1 0 0 12 20:00 14 0 0 0 0 14
8:15 15 1 0 0 0 16 20:15 70000 7
8:30 11 1 0 0 0 12 20:30 18 0 0 0 0 18
8:45 82000 10 20:45 14 0 0 0 0 14
9:00 11 0 0 0 0 11 21:00 90000 9
9:15 50000 5 21:15 15 0 0 0 0 15
9:30 92000 11 21:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
9:45 80000 8 21:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
10:00 13 0 0 0 0 13 22:00 11 0 0 0 0 11
10:15 31000 4 22:15 60000 6
10:30 91000 10 22:30 12 0 0 0 0 12
10:45 15 0 0 0 0 15 22:45 50000 5
11:00 10 0 0 0 0 10 23:00 70000 7
11:15 71000 8 23:15 30000 3
11:30 11 0 0 0 0 11 23:30 60000 6
11:45 80000 8 23:45 20000 2
TOTAL 284 17 2 0 0 303 TOTAL 790 17 0 0 0 807
AM PEAK HOUR 7:30 AM AM PEAK HOUR 2:00 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 60 AM PEAK VOLUME 113
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 1,074 34 2 0 0 1,110
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 96.8% 3.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 57 1 2 0 0 60
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 98 3 0 0 0 101
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 11 - Parkridge Meadows Apartments
704
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS70 Dwy east of E Parkridge.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 20000 2 12:00 80000 8
0:15 30000 3 12:15 12 1 0 0 0 13
0:30 40000 4 12:30 12 0 0 0 0 12
0:45 30000 3 12:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
1:00 20000 2 13:00 16 2 0 0 0 18
1:15 10000 1 13:15 15 2 0 0 0 17
1:30 10000 1 13:30 14 0 0 0 0 14
1:45 00000 0 13:45 18 0 0 0 0 18
2:00 00000 0 14:00 16 3 0 0 0 19
2:15 00000 0 14:15 20 2 0 0 0 22
2:30 10000 1 14:30 17 0 0 0 0 17
2:45 00000 0 14:45 14 0 0 0 0 14
3:00 10000 1 15:00 16 1 0 0 0 17
3:15 00000 0 15:15 29 2 0 0 0 31
3:30 10000 1 15:30 24 0 0 0 0 24
3:45 20000 2 15:45 21 0 0 0 0 21
4:00 10 0 0 0 0 10 16:00 15 3 0 0 0 18
4:15 14 0 0 0 0 14 16:15 17 0 0 0 0 17
4:30 16 0 0 0 0 16 16:30 12 0 0 0 0 12
4:45 11 0 0 0 0 11 16:45 90000 9
5:00 60000 6 17:00 18 0 0 0 0 18
5:15 19 0 0 0 0 19 17:15 15 0 0 0 0 15
5:30 13 0 0 0 0 13 17:30 15 0 0 0 0 15
5:45 16 0 0 0 0 16 17:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
6:00 10 0 0 0 0 10 18:00 11 0 0 0 0 11
6:15 11 0 0 0 0 11 18:15 12 0 0 0 0 12
6:30 18 0 0 0 0 18 18:30 15 3 0 0 0 18
6:45 28 3 0 0 0 31 18:45 12 0 0 0 0 12
7:00 12 1 0 0 0 13 19:00 14 1 0 0 0 15
7:15 35 4 0 0 0 39 19:15 11 0 0 0 0 11
7:30 26 0 0 0 0 26 19:30 13 0 0 0 0 13
7:45 26 0 1 0 0 27 19:45 70000 7
8:00 23 0 0 0 0 23 20:00 16 0 0 0 0 16
8:15 10 0 1 0 0 11 20:15 10 0 0 0 0 10
8:30 14 1 0 0 0 15 20:30 19 0 0 0 0 19
8:45 20 3 0 0 0 23 20:45 70000 7
9:00 15 0 0 0 0 15 21:00 70000 7
9:15 16 0 0 0 0 16 21:15 40000 4
9:30 91000 10 21:30 60000 6
9:45 16 1 0 0 0 17 21:45 60000 6
10:00 10 0 0 0 0 10 22:00 10000 1
10:15 17 0 0 0 0 17 22:15 40000 4
10:30 81000 9 22:30 70000 7
10:45 17 0 0 0 0 17 22:45 30000 3
11:00 10 0 0 0 0 10 23:00 80000 8
11:15 50000 5 23:15 00000 0
11:30 12 1 0 0 0 13 23:30 30000 3
11:45 17 0 0 0 0 17 23:45 10000 1
TOTAL 511 16 2 0 0 529 TOTAL 572 20 0 0 0 592
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 115 AM PEAK VOLUME 94
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 1,083 36 2 0 0 1,121
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 96.6% 3.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 110 4 1 0 0 115
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 60 0 0 0 0 60
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 11 - Parkridge Meadows Apartments
705
A021323
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS81 Dwy west of Goetz.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 11 0 0 0 0 11 12:00 29 1 0 0 0 30
0:15 70000 7 12:15 34 0 0 0 0 34
0:30 90000 9 12:30 28 0 0 0 0 28
0:45 60000 6 12:45 32 1 0 0 0 33
1:00 30000 3 13:00 20 2 0 0 0 22
1:15 60000 6 13:15 40 2 0 0 0 42
1:30 30000 3 13:30 37 0 0 0 0 37
1:45 70000 7 13:45 29 0 0 0 0 29
2:00 20000 2 14:00 28 0 0 0 0 28
2:15 50000 5 14:15 48 1 0 0 0 49
2:30 50000 5 14:30 45 0 0 0 0 45
2:45 80000 8 14:45 33 1 0 0 0 34
3:00 50000 5 15:00 33 1 0 0 0 34
3:15 20000 2 15:15 51 0 0 0 0 51
3:30 20000 2 15:30 48 0 1 0 0 49
3:45 80000 8 15:45 62 0 0 0 0 62
4:00 00000 0 16:00 56 1 0 0 0 57
4:15 30000 3 16:15 42 0 0 0 0 42
4:30 10000 1 16:30 49 0 0 0 0 49
4:45 10 0 0 0 0 10 16:45 39 0 0 0 0 39
5:00 50000 5 17:00 59 0 0 0 0 59
5:15 80000 8 17:15 43 0 0 0 0 43
5:30 60000 6 17:30 40 0 0 0 0 40
5:45 50000 5 17:45 50 1 0 0 0 51
6:00 60000 6 18:00 38 1 0 0 0 39
6:15 30000 3 18:15 33 0 0 0 0 33
6:30 80000 8 18:30 44 0 0 0 0 44
6:45 90000 9 18:45 35 1 0 0 0 36
7:00 90000 9 19:00 33 0 0 0 0 33
7:15 14 0 0 0 0 14 19:15 29 0 0 0 0 29
7:30 15 0 0 0 0 15 19:30 27 0 0 0 0 27
7:45 34 0 0 0 0 34 19:45 20 1 0 0 0 21
8:00 44 1 0 0 0 45 20:00 29 0 0 0 0 29
8:15 47 2 1 0 0 50 20:15 25 0 0 0 0 25
8:30 23 0 0 0 0 23 20:30 33 0 0 0 0 33
8:45 37 0 0 0 0 37 20:45 29 0 0 0 0 29
9:00 14 0 0 0 0 14 21:00 29 0 0 0 0 29
9:15 13 0 0 0 0 13 21:15 21 0 0 0 0 21
9:30 16 0 0 0 0 16 21:30 32 0 0 0 0 32
9:45 10 1 0 0 0 11 21:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
10:00 11 1 0 0 0 12 22:00 15 0 0 0 0 15
10:15 16 2 0 0 0 18 22:15 18 0 0 0 0 18
10:30 19 0 0 0 0 19 22:30 21 0 0 0 0 21
10:45 20 0 0 0 0 20 22:45 19 0 0 0 0 19
11:00 14 1 1 0 0 16 23:00 11 0 0 0 0 11
11:15 20 0 0 0 0 20 23:15 21 0 0 0 0 21
11:30 17 0 0 0 0 17 23:30 10 0 0 0 0 10
11:45 19 0 0 0 0 19 23:45 14 0 0 0 0 14
TOTAL 565 8 2 0 0 575 TOTAL 1,571 14 1 0 0 1,586
AM PEAK HOUR 8:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 155 AM PEAK VOLUME 219
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 2,136 22 3 0 0 2,161
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.8% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 151 3 1 0 0 155
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 192 1 0 0 0 193
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS
IN IN

AM PEAK
Study Site 12 - Hunt Club Apartments
706
A13123
DATE: CITY: WRCOG
JOB #: SC3826 LOCATION: CLASS81 Dwy west of Goetz.

AM PM
TIME 12345 TOTAL Time 12345 TOTAL
0:00 50000 5 12:00 27 1 0 0 0 28
0:15 40000 4 12:15 17 0 0 0 0 17
0:30 60000 6 12:30 42 1 0 0 0 43
0:45 10000 1 12:45 29 1 0 0 0 30
1:00 20000 2 13:00 31 2 0 0 0 33
1:15 50000 5 13:15 24 0 0 0 0 24
1:30 40000 4 13:30 39 3 0 0 0 42
1:45 10000 1 13:45 40 1 0 0 0 41
2:00 20000 2 14:00 53 0 0 0 0 53
2:15 40000 4 14:15 38 0 0 0 0 38
2:30 20000 2 14:30 32 0 0 0 0 32
2:45 40000 4 14:45 25 0 0 0 0 25
3:00 40000 4 15:00 38 1 0 0 0 39
3:15 80000 8 15:15 39 1 0 0 0 40
3:30 12 0 0 0 0 12 15:30 38 0 1 0 0 39
3:45 15 0 0 0 0 15 15:45 39 0 0 0 0 39
4:00 13 0 0 0 0 13 16:00 28 0 0 0 0 28
4:15 11 0 0 0 0 11 16:15 32 1 0 0 0 33
4:30 23 0 0 0 0 23 16:30 33 0 0 0 0 33
4:45 17 0 0 0 0 17 16:45 23 0 0 0 0 23
5:00 10 0 0 0 0 10 17:00 28 0 0 0 0 28
5:15 18 0 0 0 0 18 17:15 39 0 0 0 0 39
5:30 21 0 0 0 0 21 17:30 31 0 0 0 0 31
5:45 28 0 0 0 0 28 17:45 27 0 0 0 0 27
6:00 14 0 0 0 0 14 18:00 17 0 0 0 0 17
6:15 25 1 0 0 0 26 18:15 24 0 0 0 0 24
6:30 37 0 0 0 0 37 18:30 19 0 0 0 0 19
6:45 30 0 0 0 0 30 18:45 24 0 0 0 0 24
7:00 47 1 0 0 0 48 19:00 20 1 0 0 0 21
7:15 65 0 0 0 0 65 19:15 17 0 0 0 0 17
7:30 72 0 0 0 0 72 19:30 13 0 0 0 0 13
7:45 87 0 0 0 0 87 19:45 17 0 0 0 0 17
8:00 53 0 0 0 0 53 20:00 10 0 0 0 0 10
8:15 30 1 0 0 0 31 20:15 18 2 0 0 0 20
8:30 16 2 1 0 0 19 20:30 18 0 0 0 0 18
8:45 17 0 0 0 0 17 20:45 16 0 0 0 0 16
9:00 30 0 0 0 0 30 21:00 90000 9
9:15 14 0 0 0 0 14 21:15 80000 8
9:30 23 0 0 0 0 23 21:30 16 0 0 0 0 16
9:45 20 0 0 0 0 20 21:45 80000 8
10:00 25 1 0 0 0 26 22:00 50000 5
10:15 27 0 0 0 0 27 22:15 40000 4
10:30 17 1 0 0 0 18 22:30 11 0 0 0 0 11
10:45 31 0 0 0 0 31 22:45 10 0 0 0 0 10
11:00 24 0 0 0 0 24 23:00 70000 7
11:15 25 1 0 0 0 26 23:15 60000 6
11:30 22 0 0 0 0 22 23:30 20000 2
11:45 16 0 1 0 0 17 23:45 10000 1
TOTAL 987 8 2 0 0 997 TOTAL 1,092 15 1 0 0 1,108
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 1:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 277 AM PEAK VOLUME 174
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 2,079 23 3 0 0 2,105
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.8% 1.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 277 0 0 0 0 277
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 125 0 0 0 0 125
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS

PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 [email protected]

THREE DAYS

OUT OUT

AM PEAK
Study Site 12 - Hunt Club Apartments
707
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 2, 2023

Appendix B: Apartment
Characteristics
708
Appendix B: Apartment Characteristics
Studio
One
Bedroom
Two
Bedrooms
Three
Bedrooms
Four
Bedrooms
Total # of
DUs
Total # of
Bedrooms
Average #
Bedrooms
per DU
Studio
One
Bedroom
Two
Bedrooms
Three
Bedrooms
Four
Bedrooms
Average
Size of
Unit per
Complex
Sum of
Area of All
Dus
Average
Square
Footage
per DU
(Sq. Ft.)
1 Central Zone Oakwood Apartments
15170 Perris Blvd,
Moreno Valley, CA
92551
+1 951-243-0800 N/A - - 80 93 68 241 711 3.0 - - 832 1,042 1,282 1,052 250,642 1040.01 2 Northwest Zone Springbrook Park
Apartments
1066 Orange St,
Riverside, CA 92501 +1 951-682-9774 N/A - 40 32 40 - 112 224 2.0 - 800 967 1,100 - 956 106,944 954.86 3 Central Zone Vista Springs
Apartments
21550 Box Springs Rd,
Moreno Valley, CA
92557
+1 951-276-0334 N/A - 108 104 - - 212 316 1.5 - 690 960 - - 825 174,360 822.45 4 Northwest Zone Vesada Apartment
Homes
3390 Country Village
Road, Riverside, CA
92509
+1 951-462-2198 california.weidner.com 18 72 153 18 - 261 450 1.7 629 782 1,021 1,168 - 900 244,863 938.17 5 Southwest Zone Morning Ridge
Apartments
30660 Milky Way Dr,
Temecula, CA 92592 +1 951-699-0886 morningridgeapts.com - 74 126 - - 200 326 1.6 680 950 - - 815 170,020 850.10 6 Northwest Zone Stonegate Apartments 6506 Doolittle Ave, Riverside, CA 92503 (951) 351-9445 stonegateriverside.com 1 79 80 - - 160 240 1.5 300 705 905 - - 637 128,395 802.47 7 Southwest Zone River's Edge Apartment
Homes
2088 E Lakeshore Dr,
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
+1 951-678-8553 riversedgeapartmentlivi
ng.com
- 96 88 - - 184 272 1.5 - 762 1,089 - - 926 168,984 918.39 8 Hemet/San Jacinto
Zone
Mayberry Colony
Apartments
40389 Mayberry Ave #
A1, Hemet, CA 92544
+1 951-929-3380 www.mayberrycolony.co
m - 34 55 - - 89 144 1.6 - 790 962 - - 876 79,770 896.29 9 Pass Zone Summit Ridge
Apartments
555 N Hathaway St #
1101, Banning, CA
92220
+1 951-849-3001 www.summitridgebanni
ng.com - - 40 40 - 80 200 2.5 - 850 1,058 - - 954 42,320 529.00 10 Hemet/San Jacinto
Zone Riverdale Apartments 1250 S Cawston Ave, Hemet, CA 92545 +1 951-766-5672 www.rentriverdaleapts.c
om - - 36 60 - 96 252 2.6 - - 984 1,033 - 1,009 97,404 1014.63 11 Northwest Zone Parkridge Meadows
Apartments
219 E Parkridge Ave,
Corona, CA 92879 +1 951-736-8681 www.allenproperties.net - - 87 1 - 88 177 2.0 - - 780 - - 780 67,860 771.14 12 Central Zone Hunt Club Apartments 1355 S Perris Blvd, Perris, CA 92570
+1 951-657-0228 www.huntclubperris.co
m - - 203 - - 203 406 2.0 - - 962 - - 962 195,286 962.00 Name Study Site
#
TUMF Zone Address Phone # Apartment Website
# of Apartment Style Apartment Size (Sq. Ft.)
&---------------- 709
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 2, 2023

Appendix C: Correlation Plots
710
Appendix C: Correlation Plots
Daily Trip Generation by # of Dwelling Units in Complex Daily Trip Generation by Average Size of Dwelling Unit Daily Trip Generation by Average # of Bedrooms Per Dwelling Unit
AM Peak Trip Generation by # of Dwelling Units in Complex PM Peak Trip Generation by # of Dwelling Units in Complex AM Peak Trip Generation by Average # of Bedrooms Per
Dwelling Unit
PM Peak Trip Generation by Average # of Bedrooms Per Dwelling Unit
AM Peak Trip Generation by Average Size of Dwelling Unit PM Peak Trip Generation by Average Size of Dwelling Unit y = 249.92x + 601.26
R² = 0.0813
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Daily Trips Generated (Veh)
Average # of Bedrooms per DU
Average # of Bedrooms per DU
y = 20.854x + 50.612
R² = 0.0758
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
AM Peak Trips Generated (Veh)
Average # of Bedrooms per DU
Average # of Bedrooms per DU
y = 19.26x + 50.489
R² = 0.0769
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
PM Peak Trips Generated (Veh)
Average # of Bedrooms per DU
Average # of Bedrooms per DU
y = 1.4463x ‐ 174.18
R² = 0.2107
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Daily Trips Generated (Veh)
Average DU Size (Sq. Ft.)
Average DU Size (Sq. Ft.)
y = 0.1258x ‐ 18.538
R² = 0.2131
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
AM Peak Trips Generated (Veh)
Average DU Size (Sq. Ft.)
Average DU Size (Sq. Ft.)
y = 0.1319x ‐ 27.14
R² = 0.2789
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
PM Peak Trips Generated (Veh)
Average DU Size (Sq. Ft.)
Average DU Size (Sq. Ft.)
y = 5.7897x + 162
R² = 0.7617
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Daily Trips Generated (Veh)
Total # of Dwelling Units
Total # of Dwelling Units
y = 0.4893x + 12.967
R² = 0.7277
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
AM Peak Trips Generated (Veh)
Total # of Dwelling Units
Total # of Dwelling Units
y = 0.4552x + 15.198
R² = 0.7495
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
PM Peak Trips Generated (Veh)
Total # of Dwelling Units
Total # of Dwelling Units
•
• +
,.'v 4-;'~:-';• + +
t
+
t
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
•
• 1 .. ! ... •·····;·························· +
: .. • + +
•
. • . .............. .
~ ... •·········!··········· . : .. • t
•
•
;..~·········~·············~·········
• •
• • •
,-
+
t
t
t
t
t
+
t
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
t
+
t
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
t •
•
t t
•
•
'. ---:·::<:"
711
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 L-1
Appendix L - Non-Residential Fee Calculation
The non-residential fee was calculated by multiplying the estimated Regional System of Highways and Arterials improvements cost attributable to new development (Section

4.0) by the proportion of all regional trips that are generated by non-residential land uses (Section 5.3), and dividing this number by the projected increase in non-residential land use between 2018 and 2045 (Table 2.3, Section 2.0) and the proportional share of new employees in each sector.

In preparation for the fee calculation, SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS employment data by sector was first converted to land use as square feet of gross floor area (SF GFA). Nonresidential employee to gross floor area conversion factors were derived from four sources. These sources are:
 Cordoba Corporation/Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. (PBQD), Land Use Density Conversion Factors For The Long-Range Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, August 20, 1990. Table 8.  Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Orange County Subarea Modeling Guidelines Manual, June 2001. Appendix C.
 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Employment Density Study, October 31, 2001, Table IIB
 County of Riverside, General Plan, As Amended December 15, 2015, Appendix E:

Socioeconomic Build-Out Projections Assumptions & Methodology, Table E-5

The employment conversion factors developed for use in the calculation of the nonresidential fee are tabulated in Exhibits L-1 through L-4. The relevant sections of these respective publications are included in this Appendix as Exhibits L-5 through L-8.

To account for the difference in trip generation rates between the various employment sectors, the non-residential fee value for each sector was normalized by multiplying by the respective median trip generation rate for the range of associated land use types as published in the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition, 2021. The respective fee values are presented in Section 6.2. The table detailing the calculation of the non-residential fee (and residential fee) is included in Appendix K as Exhibit K-1.
712
EXHIBIT L-1 Employment Conversion Factors
Employment Sector Employees Gross Floor Area (TSF) Conversion Rate (Employees/TSF)
Land Use Category
(2)
Minimum Range
Conversion Rate
(Employees/TSF)
Land Use Category
(3)
SF per Employee
based on Average
Employees per Acre
and Average FAR
(Riverside County)
Employees/TSF Land Use Category (4) SF per Employee Employees/TSF TUMF Median
Employment
Conversion Factors
(Employees/TSF)
6,379 5,117 1.25 R&D/LI/BP 2.50 R&D/Flex Space 867 Light Industrial 1030 11,603 6,103 1.90 Heavy Industry 2.00 Light Manufacturing 1548 Heavy Industry 1500 8,624 3,962 2.18 Warehouse 1.00 Warehouse 1195
5,559 3,038 1.83
954 411 2.32
6,120 4,140 1.48
119 279 0.43
1,023 917 1.12

1.65 Median 2.00 Median 1195.0 0.84 Median 1265.0 0.79
34,821 20,125 1.73 Regional Retail 268 Commercial Retail 500 3,452 1,590 2.17 Other Retail/Service 629
1,080 453 2.38
12,978 17,023 0.76

1.95 Median 448.5 2.23 Median 500.0 2.00
7,738 1,095 7.07 Office 3.00 Low-Rise Office 481 Commercial Office 300 3,945 548 7.20 Medical/PO/Bank 3.50 Hotel/Motel 3476 Business Park 600 5,470 1,529 3.58 Hospital 2.50
6,680 1,966 3.40 Restaurant 3.00
8,900 3,886 2.29
9,006 3,201 2.81
23,345 4,061 5.75

3.58 Median 3.00 Median 1978.5 0.51 Median 450.0 2.22
Government/Civic 3.00 Government Offices 208
Library 1.50
Median 2.25 Median 208.0 4.81
Notes:

3.53 General Offices

2.61 (3) SCAG, Employment Density Study, October 31, 2001, Table IIB Service
(2) OCTA, Orange County Subarea Model Guidelines Manual, June 2001. Appendix C. (1) Cordoba Corporation/PBQD, Land Use Density Conversion Factors For Long Range Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, August 20, 1990. Table 8. - TUMF Median Employment Conversion Factor is the median of (1) through (4) Conversion Rates - OCTA Typical Employment Conversion Factors for Commercial excluded as it potentially covers uses in both Retail and Service categories; Hotel/Motel, Schools, Golf Course, Developed Park, Park and Agricultural were excluded as they are calculated from units other than TSF.

Government/Public Sector
Professional Services
Medical Services
Median
(4) County of Riverside, General Plan, As Amended December 15, 2015, Appendix E: Socioeconomic Build-Out Projections Assumptions & Methodology, Table E-5 Retail

1.25 2.00
Equipment Rental
Retail Trade
Median
Personnal, Rental and Repair
General Commercial
Light Manufacturing
Manufacturing, Small Module
Wholesale, Trade Industry
- Business by Land Use Categories Wholesale Trade Commercial and Automotive Repair were excluded as there is inconsistencies between the Land Use Density Conversion Factors For Long Range Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties categorization, and the NAICS Major Group categorization.

Business by Land Use Category (1)
Industrial High Tech/Research
Median
Heavy Manufacturing
General Manufacturing
Warehousing
General Industry
Financial/Insurance/Real Estate
Small Office
Restaurant
Business Services
713
EXHIBIT L-2 Population and Employment Estimates
Sector 2018 2045 Change Employee Conversion
Factor / TSF Change in SF of GFA
Population 1,905,440 2,533,876 628,436
Households
Single-Family 397,407 564,898 167,491
Multi-Family 157,166 247,501 90,335
Totals 554,573 812,399 257,826
Employees
Industrial 169,334 245,915 76,581 1.25 61,489,565
Retail 73,814 86,929 13,115 2.00 6,557,500
Service 308,703 482,958 174,255 2.61 66,735,957
Government/Public Sector 18,569 30,640 12,071 3.53 3,420,665 Totals 570,420 846,442 276,022 138,203,688
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS; RivCOM
714
EXHIBIT L-3 Trip Generation Rate Comparison
Non-Residential
Employee Growth SF Growth
ITE Median PM
Peak Hour Trips
Per Employee
ITE Median PM Peak
Hour Trips per TSF
Trip Growth
(SFGrowth *
ITEMedian)
Calculated PM
Peak Hour Trips per
Employee
Weighted Median
PM Peak Hour Trips
Per Employee
Median Share PM
Peak Period Pass By
Trips (Retail and
Service Uses)
Adjusted PM Peak
Hour Trips Per
Employee
Industrial 76,581 61,489,565 0.7 0.6 36,894 0.5 0.6 0.6 Retail 13,115 6,557,500 3.3 5.0 32,788 2.5 2.9 37% 1.8
Service 174,255 66,735,957 2.2 5.7 380,395 2.2 2.2 44% 1.2 Government/Public Sector 12,071 3,420,665 3.3 3.2 10,946 0.9 2.1 2.1 276,022 138,203,688 461,022
715
EXHIBIT L-4 Representative ITE Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates

RESIDENTIAL
PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Category ITE Reference Trip Ends per DU Trip Ends per Residents Single Family Residential
Single Family Detached Housing 210 0.99 0.28
Multi Family
Single-Family Attached Housing 215 0.61 0.44
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit 220 0.57 0.27 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit 221 0.39 0.23 Multifamily Housing (High-Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit 222 0.40 Affordable Housing - Income Limits 223 0.50 0.14
Average 0.49 0.27
Median 0.50 0.25

NON-RESIDENTIAL
PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour PM Peak Period
Land Use Category ITE Reference Trip Ends per TSF* Trip Ends per Employee*Pass by Trips** Industrial
Intermodal Truck Terminal 30 1.89 0.72
General Light Industry 110 0.80 0.69
Industrial Park 130 0.40 0.42
Manufacturing 140 0.80 0.40
Warehousing 150 0.23 0.68
High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage 154 0.17
High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Non-Sort 155 0.27 High-Cube Parcel Hib Warehouse 156 0.71
Average 0.66 0.58
Median 0.56 0.68
Retail
Building Materials and Lumber 812 2.65 3.30
Free-Standing Discount Superstore 813 4.39 1.75 29%
Variety Store 814 7.42 12.65 34%
Free-Standing Discount Store 815 5.42 2.36 20%
Hardware/Paint Store 816 1.10 3.77 26%
Nursery (Garden Center) 817 8.37 2.55
Nursery (Wholesale) 818 5.01 0.59
Shopping Center 820 4.09 1.91
Shopping Center (150K to 300K) 820 29%
Shopping Center (300K to 900 K) 820 19%
Shopping Plaza with Supermarket 821 9.72
Shopping Plaza without Supermarket 821 5.40 1.80
Shopping Plaza 821 40%
Strip Retail Plaza 822 13.24 10.15
Factory Outlet Center 823 1.94
Automobile Sales (New) 840 2.65 1.10
Automobile Sales (Used) 841 4.92 2.27
Automobile Parts Sales 843 5.88 4.27 43%
Tire Store 848 3.72 3.05 25%
Supermarket 850 9.19 3.37 24%
Convenience Store 851 53.51 34.33
Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps 853
Discount Supermarket 854
Discount Club 857 4.62 3.49 34%
Sporting Goods Superstore 861 2.58 0.93
Home Improvement Superstore 862 3.21 42%
Electronics Superstore 863 4.48 40%
Pet Supply Superstore 866 2.19
Book Superstore 868 14.00
Department Store 875 2.81
Apparel Store 876 4.20
Pharmacy/Drugstore without Drive Through Window 880 8.62 53% Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive Through Window 881 11.23 7.79 49% Marijuana Dispensary 882 24.57
Furniture Store 890 0.70 1.01 53%
Liquor Store 899 17.00 5.98
Gasoline/Service Station 944 28.39 57%
Convenience Store/Gas Station (none) 945 21.31
Convenience Store/Gas Station (9 - 15 vehicle fueling positions) 945 56.38 75% Average 9.54 6.87 38%
Median 4.97 3.30 37%
Service
Data Center 160 0.13
Specialty Trade Contractor 180 2.18 0.80
Movie Theatre 445 14.06 9.56
Health/Fitness Club 492 3.92
Day Care Center 565 11.82 4.66 44%
Hospital 610 0.98 0.33
Nursing Home 620 0.82 0.45
Clinic 630 4.22 2.49
Animal Hospital/Veterinary Clinic 640 3.83 2.26
Free Standing Emergency Room 650 2.24
Small Office Building 712 3.15 1.90
Medical-Dentist Office Building (Stand-Alone) 720 4.79 1.26 Medical-Dentist Office Building (Within/Near Hospital Campus) 720 3.78 1.03 Walk-in Bank 911 26.40 6.18
Drive-in Bank 912 20.92 4.36 35%
Hair Salon 918 1.94
Copy, Print and Express Ship Store 920 12.30 6.63
Fast Casual Restaurant 930 18.57
Fine Dining Restaurant 931 8.28 1.79 44%
High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 16.35 3.66 43%
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through 934 50.94 5.45 55% Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through No Seating 935 31% Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive Through 937 43.65
Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive Through No Seating 938 98% Quick Lube Vehicle Shop 941 9.42 2.17
Automobile Care Center 942 3.51 1.43
Automobile Parts and Service Center 943 2.61 1.80
Wine Tasting Room 970 6.60
Brewery Tap Room 971 10.93
Drinking Place 975 15.53
Average 10.85 3.06 50%
Median 5.70 2.17 44%
Government/Public Sector
Recreational Community Center 495 2.53 2.71
Elementary School 520 4.60
Middle/Junior High School 522 4.83
High School 525 3.32
School District Office 528 2.37 0.84
Private School (K-8) 530 5.72
Private School (K-12) 532 2.82
Private High School 534 2.49
Charter Elementary School 536 10.64
Charter School (K-12) 538 10.66
Junior/Community College 540 1.63
University/College 550 0.81
Adult Detention Facility 571 0.94 0.51
Library 590 8.53 6.81
Government Office Building 730 3.19 0.91
State Motor Vehicles Department 731 7.68 4.27
Post Office 732 15.11 3.29
Average 5.76 3.93
Median 3.19 3.29
Notes:
* - Average weekday PM peak hour of generator trip end data derived from ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), September 2021 ** - Average weekday PM peak pass-by trip rates derived from ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), September 2021 716
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 EXHIBIT L-5
Land Use Density Conversion Factors for the Long-Range Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, Table 8
Cordoba Corporation/Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. (PBQD), August 20, 1990.
717
718
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 EXHIBIT L-6
Orange County Subarea Modeling Guidelines Manual, Appendix C Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
June 2001
719
720
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 EXHIBIT L-7
Employment Density Study, Table IIB
Southern California, October 31, 2001
721
THE NATELSON COMPANY, INC.

Summary Report - Page 4
Employment Density Study
Table II-A
Derivation of Square Feet per Employee Based on:
--MEDIAN EMPLOYEES PER ACRE
--MEDIAN FAR
Land Use Category
Los
Angeles Orange Riverside
San
Bernardino Ventura Imperial Region
Regional Retail -- 2,322 165 1,392 990 -- 1,023
Other Retail/Svc. 730 450 1,148 432 412 796 585
Low-Rise Office 471 352 598 1,014 659 415 466
High-Rise Office 377 235 -- -- -- -- 300
Hotel/Motel 1,179 -- 5,273 1,747 -- 808 1,804
R & D/Flex Space 1,717 511 1,121 1,833 277 -- 527
Light Manufacturing 1,214 786 2,221 1,538 202 2,230 924 Heavy Manufacuring -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Warehouse 1,518 1,350 819 2,111 149 3,257 1,225
Government Offices 2,182 408 1,475 851 120 407 672
Table II-B
Derivation of Square Feet per Employee Based on:
--AVERAGE EMPLOYEES PER ACRE
--AVERAGE FAR
Land Use Category
Los
Angeles Orange Riverside
San
Bernardino Ventura Imperial Region
Regional Retail -- 704 268 1,009 1,165 -- 857
Other Retail/Svc. 424 325 629 124 271 255 344
Low-Rise Office 319 287 481 697 389 632 288
High-Rise Office 440 218 -- -- -- -- 311
Hotel/Motel -- -- 3,476 2,544 -- 311 1,152
R & D/Flex Space 1,796 466 867 834 269 -- 344
Light Manufacturing 829 558 1,548 705 189 994 439
Heavy Manufacuring -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Warehouse 1,518 979 581 1,195 131 450 814
Government Offices 1,442 206 208 188 94 322 261
Notes:
"--" = Data not available.

Square Feet per Employee
Square Feet per Employee

722
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024 EXHIBIT L-8
General Plan, As Amended December 15, 2015.

Appendix E: Socioeconomic Build-Out Projections Assumptions & Methodology, Table E-5
County of Riverside, 2015
723
County of Riverside General Plan
Socioeconomic Build-out Assumptions and Methodology
Appendix E-1 Page 3
December 8, 2015 County of Riverside General Plan
Table E-3: Net Parcel Acre Factors
Land Use Designation Net Parcel Area
Commercial Retail (CR) 0.75
Commercial Tourist (CT) 0.75
Commercial Office (CO) 0.75
Light Industrial (LI) 0.80
Heavy Industrial (HI) 0.75
Business Park (BP) 0.75
Net Parcel Square Feet: To convert net acres to net square feet, net acres are multiplied by 43,560 feet per acre.

For example, 50 net acres of Commercial Office (66.66 gross acres) equals 2,178,000 net square feet.

Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Floor Area Ratio, or FAR, indicates the ratio of gross building square footage permitted on a parcel to net square footage of the parcel. FAR's for Commercial, Industrial and Business Park land uses are identified, in Table E-4, below. See General Plan Glossary for full definition of FAR.

Table E-4: Development FAR Factors
Land Use Designation
FAR
Minimum Probable* Maximum
Commercial Retail (CR) 0.20 0.23 0.35
Commercial Tourist (CT) 0.20 0.25 0.35
Commercial Office (CO) 0.25 0.35 1.00
Light Industrial (LI) 0.25 0.38 0.60
Heavy Industrial (HI) 0.15 0.40 0.50
Business Park (BP) 0.25 0.30 0.60
*Factor used for theoretical planning estimates.

Building Square Footage: Building square footage for the land use designations listed in the table above are calculated by multiplying the Net Square Feet of each land use designation by the corresponding FAR. For instance, 20,000 square feet of Commercial Retail with an FAR of 0.23 would yield 4,600 square feet of building space.

Square Feet (SF)/Employee Factor: This factor indicates the number of employees typically associated with a given amount of square feet of building space per employee. It is used to estimate the number of jobs resulting for a given land use designation. These factors for the commercial land use designations are listed in Table E-5 below.

Table E-5: Commercial Employment Factors
Land Use Designation SF/Employee
Commercial Retail (CR)* 500
Commercial Tourist (CT) 500
Commercial Office (CO) 300
Light Industrial (LI) 1,030
Heavy Industrial (HI) 1,500
Business Park (BP) 600
*It is assumed that CR designated lands will build out at 40% CR and 60% MDR.

Employment: Employment for commercial, industrial, and business park land uses is calculated by dividing the total number of building square feet by the SF/Employee factor. For example, 300,000 square feet of commercial office building space would yield 1,000 employees.
724
Resolution No. 2026-35

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-35

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING

AMENDING THE APPLICABLE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION

FEE (TUMF) APPLICABLE TO ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF

BANNING AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA WHEREAS, the City of Banning (“City”) is a member agency of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (“WRCOG”), a joint powers agency comprised of the County of Riverside and eighteen cities located in Western Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the member agencies of WRCOG recognized that there was insufficient funding to address the impacts of new development on the regional system of highways and arterials in Western Riverside County (the “Regional System”); and WHEREAS, in order to address this shortfall, the member agencies formulated a plan whereby a transportation mitigation fee would be assessed on new development and would be used to fund the necessary improvements for the Regional System; and WHEREAS, WRCOG, with the assistance of TUMF Participating Jurisdictions, prepared an updated nexus study entitled “Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study: 2024 Update” (“2024 Nexus Study”) pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act), for the purpose of updating the fees; and WHEREAS, in September 2024, the WRCOG Executive Committee reviewed the 2024 Nexus Study and TUMF Program and recommended TUMF Participating Jurisdictions amend their applicable TUMF ordinances to reflect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction in order to update the TUMF Program; and
WHEREAS, consistent with its previous findings made in the adoption of Ordinance No. 1607, the City Council has been informed and advised, and hereby finds, that if the capacity of the Regional System is not enlarged and unless development contributes to the cost of improving the Regional System, the result will be substantial traffic congestion in all parts of Western Riverside County, with unacceptable Levels of Service. Furthermore, the failure to mitigate growing traffic impacts on the Regional System will substantially impair the ability of public safety services (police and fire) to respond and, thus, adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, continuation of a TUMF Program is essential; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the use of the TUMF and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the transportation improvements that are necessary for the safety, health, and welfare of the residential and non-residential users of the development in which the TUMF will be levied; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the need for the improvements to the Regional System and the type of development projects on which the TUMF is imposed because it will be necessary for the residential and non-residential users of such projects to have access to the Regional system.

Such development will benefit from the Regional System improvements and the burden of such developments will be mitigated in part by payment of the TUMF; and 725
Resolution No. 2026-35

WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the cost estimates set forth in the new 2024 Nexus Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Regional System improvements and the facilities that compromise the Regional System, and that the amount of the TUMF expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total fair share cost to such development; and
WHEREAS, the fees collected pursuant to the TUMF Ordinance shall be used to help pay for the design, planning, construction of and real property acquisition for the Regional System improvements and its facilities as identified in the 2024 Nexus Study. The need for the improvements and facilities is related to new development because such development results in additional traffic and creates the demand for the improvements; WHEREAS, by notice duly given and published, the City Council set the time and place for a public hearing on the 2024 Nexus Study and the fees proposed thereunder and at least ten (10) days prior to this hearing, the City Council made the 2024 Nexus Study available to the public; and
WHEREAS, at the time and place set for the hearing, the City Council duly considered data and information provided by the public relative to the cost of the improvements and facilities for which the fees are proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.76.030(C) of the Banning Municipal Code authorizes periodic review and adjustment to the applicable TUMF in accordance with any adjustments made by the WRCOG Executive Committee; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.67.030(C)(1) of the Banning Municipal Code implements an annual automatic construction cost index (“CCI”) adjustment to the TUMF; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Resolution is to implement the initial automatic CCI adjustment as provided for in Ordinance 1621; and
WHEREAS, further CCI increases shall be automatically implemented pursuant to Section

15.67.030(C)(1) of the Banning Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the automatic CCI adjustment implemented by this Resolution is inflationary only and does not modify the underlying fee nexus, land use assumptions, improvement program, or proportionality findings previously adopted by the City; and WHEREAS, the fees collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to finance the public facilities described or identified in the Nexus Study; and WHEREAS, the levying of TUMF has been reviewed by the City Council and staff in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines and it has been determined that the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings. The recitals set forth above are hereby adopted as findings in support of this Resolution. In addition, the City Council re-adopts the findings contained in 726
Resolution No. 2026-35

Ordinance No. 1621 in support of the adjusted TUMF contained herein.

SECTION 2. TUMF Schedule. In accordance with Section 15.76.030(C) of the Banning Municipal Code, there is hereby adopted the following fee schedule implementing the initial CCI adjustment for the TUMF which replaces the fee schedule set forth in Sections 2 and 3 of Resolution No. __ in its entirety as of [DATE], shall go into effect upon the Effective Date set forth in Section 4, below:

A. There is hereby adopted the following TUMF schedule:
(1) $12,705 per single family residential unit 1,800 square feet or less (2) $14,292 per single family residential unit between 1,801 and 2,300 square feet (3) $15,881 per single family residential unit between 2,301 and 2,700 square feet (4) $19,851 per single family residential unit greater than 2,700 square feet (5) $8,021 per multi-family residential unit
(6) $2.39 per square foot of an industrial project
(7) $7.92 per square foot of a retail commercial project (8) $5.02 per square foot of a service commercial project (9) $2.51 per square foot of a service Class A and B Office SECTION 3. CEQA Findings. The City Council hereby finds that in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3).

SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become on July 1, 2026.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this24th day of February 2026.

Richard Royce, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

John Pinkney, City Attorney
Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy & Pinkney, LLP
727
Resolution No. 2026-35

CERTIFICATION:

I, Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2026-35 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 24th day of February, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning, California
728

CITY OF BANNING

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 1621 – RESOLUTION NO. 2026-35

TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEES (TUMP) UPDATE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Banning, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of February 24, 2026. The City Council meeting begins at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA 92220. To observe the live meeting through your personal computer or smart phone enter the following link: https://banninglive.viebit.com or view on the Banning Government Channel on Cable Television.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider Ordinance No. 1621 and Resolution No. 2026-35, an amendment by the City of Banning to Chapter 15.76, amending the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program and to establish Construction Cost Index adjustments to the TUMF program, applicable to all developments in the City of Banning.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed ordinance and resolution for the levying of TUMF program fees has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines and has been determined that the adoption of the ordinance and resolution are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) as they are not a “project” as defined in the CEQA Guidelines.

REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The proposed text amendment and related documents are available for public review by contacting the Community Development Department during normal business hours (Monday – Friday, 8:00am to 5:00pm) by telephone at (951) 922-3125.

COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing:
• You may provide oral comments at the in-person hearing. Agendas are available at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting online: https://banningca.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=1 • Written comments may be submitted to the City Council by email at [email protected] or letter to the address below. Transmittal prior to the start of the meeting is required. Any correspondence received during or after the meeting will be distributed to the City Council as soon as practicable and retained for the official record.

City Clerk’s Office
PO Box 998
99 E. Ramsey St
Banning, CA 92220
Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior, to the public hearing (Government Code Section 65009[b][2]).

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at 951-822-3125. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting Will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, por favor llame a la Ciudad de Banning y puede hablar con Sandra Calderon, teléfono (951) 922-3125.

BY ORDER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA.

Mark Staples Dated: February 9, 2026
Planning Manager Publish: February 13, 2026
729

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Record Gazette
218 N. Murray St., Banning, CA 92220
Proof of Publication
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
PHN CC Meeting 2-24-2026 TUMF
___________________________________________________
State of California          )
County of Riverside   )  SS.

I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of Record Gazette, a newspaper published in the English language in the City of Banning, County of Riverside, and adjudicated a newspaper of
general circulation as defined by the laws of the state of California by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, under the date October 14, 1966, Case No. 54737.

That the notice, of which the annexed is a copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:

Feb 13, 2026
Executed on: ____________________
At City of Banning, California
I ceritfy (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
___________________________________________________
Signature
PHN CC Meeting 2-24-2026 TUMF | Page 1 of 1
February 13, 2026
730

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Art Vela, Interim City Manager
PREPARED BY: Nate Smith, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer MEETING DATE: February 24, 2026
SUBJECT: Consider Resolution 2026-24, Making a Finding of Exemption Under CEQA, Approving the Development Impact Fee Study (DIF) Dated January 2026, and Adopting New and Amended Development Impact Fees, and Introducing Ordinance 1616 Amending Chapter 15.68 - Development Impact Fees of the Banning Municipal Code, Including Sections 15.68.040, 15.68.010, 15.68.020, 15.68.030, 15.68.040, 15.68.050,

15.68.060, 15.68.070, and Adding Section 15.68.080 Electric Facilities Development Impact Fees
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Determine this action is exempt under CEQA
2) Adopt Resolution 2026-24
3) Waive further reading, and introduce as read by title only, Ordinance 1616 BACKGROUND:

City Council approved Resolution 2024-92 on June 11th, 2024 that approved a professional services agreement with Matrix Consulting Group LTD for the Comprehensive User Fee and Impact Fee Study.

This study would provide an update to both the User Fees assessed by the City of Banning for services provided to the public, as well as updates to the Development Impact Fee (DIF) program. The work was split into the Comprehensive User Fees, which were adopted by City Council on November 12 with Resolution 2025-156, and the Development Impact Fee Update, which is the subject of this public hearing.

The previous development impact fees were adopted with Resolution 2019-112 on September 10, 2019 in accordance with Banning Municipal Code, which was modified with Ordinance 1551 adopted September 24, 2019. The development impact fees have been at the rates set with Resolution 2019-112 since that time.

DIFs are commonly imposed by local agencies on new developments as a precondition in the development application process. Revenues realized from DIF programs serve the primary purpose of funding the cost for public facilities necessary for mitigating the impacts of development projects and assure that new developments pay for their share of costs associated with growth. Data is used from various sources from the state, region, and City to determine growth patterns and expected development. This information is provided in greater detail in the draft DIF report. DIFs are regulated by Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, with recent legislation of AB1600, which requires a reasonable relationship (“nexus”) between the collection of fees and the development within the City’s jurisdiction. AB602 has additional requirements that requires the adoption of a nexus study prior to 731
adoption of the fees, that fees be proportional, and that nexus studies must be updated every 8 years.

Greater detail on the legal authority and requirements are provided in the DIF Report.

The City currently imposes DIF on Fire, General Facilities, Parks, Police, Traffic, Wastewater, and Water.

A new DIF category is proposed for Electric services. The City Council adopted a Cost of Service and Rate Study for the Electric Utility in September 2025 (NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC) that included a capital component to the study. This report assessed the study to determine if it met the requirements set by the State to implement a DIF and determined that it does. The DIF Study identified that there is a discrepancy between the current DIF and the DIF that is necessary to implement the capital plans that are included with this study. As such, the DIF is proposed to be increased to the maximum justifiable amount for each development category. There are a couple of cases where the DIF is proposed to decrease slightly based on the new study. DIF is assessed on all new development.

The proposed DIF is located in Exhibit A of Resolution 2026-24.

This DIF study identifies the maximum justifiable fee that can be charged to the 5 development categories (Single Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential, General Commercial, Office, Industrial) for each DIF service (Electric, Fire, General Facilities, Parks, Police, Traffic, Wastewater, Water). The City Council has the authority to adopt the rates as presented, or make reductions to the rates proposed in the study. In no case, can the City Council adopt rates greater than what is presented in the DIF study.

If a reduced rate is desired, that means that the service area collecting the DIF would require some form of subsidy to fund the capital and equipment cost components to 100%. This could be through other City funds, state funds, federal funds, grants, etc., or deferment of improvements contemplated in the DIF. These are policy decisions to be made by the City Council.

The current DIF ordinance does allow for the adjustment on DIF on an annual basis based on CPI-U for the Riverside/San Bernardino/Ontario region, however, the DIF has not been adjusted since its adoption in 2019. Moving forward, City Staff will apply the appropriate adjustment in the DIF effective July 1 of each year, starting on July 1, 2027.

JUSTIFICATION:

The DIF Study prepared by Matrix Consulting contains the maximum justifiable DAF for each of the DIF categories (Electric, Fire, General Facilities, Parks, Police, Traffic, Wastewater, Water). The California Housing and Community Development Department outlines three typical methodologies for calculating impact fees: The existing inventory method, the planned facility method, and the system plan method (a hybrid of existing plan planned methods). This analysis used the mode widely accepted and recognized 'system plan method' to calculate the fees. Detail of this methodology is included in the attached DIF Study.

AB602 requires that the City's DIF be evaluated every 8 years. The last update in the City of Banning was 2019, and this action would be consistent with the statutory requirements.

A public workshop was held on January 17, 2026 to introduce the topic for City Council. This was an information item only, no official action was taken.

A second City Council discussion item occurred on February 10, 2026 to review rates and provide an analysis on the comparison to our neighbor. After this meeting, City staff conferred with Matrix Consulting to review comments recieved prior to the discussion item. This was an information item only, no official action was taken.

A public hearing notice was published on Friday, February 13, 2026 in the Record Gazette.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The update to the City's DIF program will provide the necessary revenue to fund the capital project 732
described in the DIF studies in order to mitigate the impacts of new development and keep the City's level of service for electric facilities, fire protection, general facilities, parks, police, traffic, wastewater, and water systems at a satisfactory level.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Approve as recommended

2. Provide alternate direction to staff

3. Continue discussion to the March 10, 2026 City Council Meeting

4. Do not approve as reccomended
BUDGETED?:

No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:

No
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2026-24 - DIF Update.pdf

2. Resolution 2026-24 Exhibit A - 2026 DIF Schedule.pdf

3. Resolution 2026-24 Exhibit B - DIF Study Final Report.pdf

4. ORD NO 1616.pdf

5. ORD NO 1616 Exhibit A - Chapter 15.68 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (Redline).pdf

6. 2019 Current DIF Table.pdf

7. 2026 DIF Comparison.pdf

8. 2026_0210 BIA Comment Letter.pdf

9. 2026_0218 BIA DIF Response Letter.pdf

10. PHN ORD 1616.pdf

11. PHN Affidavit - DIF.pdf
733
Resolution 2026-24

RESOLUTION 2026-24

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA, MAKING

A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF) STUDY DATED FEBRUARY 2026, AND ADOPTING NEW AND AMENDED

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
WHEREAS, On September 24, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1551 establishing Chapter 15.68 “Development Impact Fees” of the Banning Municipal Code. Chapter

15.68 provides that Development Impact Fees shall be paid in an amount established by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Matrix Consulting Group has prepared the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study dated February 2026; and
WHEREAS, the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study (“Study”) identifies capital infrastructure, equipment, and other physical needs necessary to accommodate build out of the community under the City’s General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Study describes the benefit and impact areas on which development impact fees are to be imposed and collected, describing the reasonable relationship between the development impact fees and the various types of new development, analyzing the need for new public facilities and improvements which will be necessitated by new development, setting forth a methodology for determining the relationship between new development, the needed public facilities, and the estimated cost of those improvements, and otherwise satisfying the requirements of the law, and Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. (the “Mitigation Fee Act”), with regard to the imposition and collection of development impact fees; and WHEREAS, the Study evaluates project development growth in the City through the year 2040 for electric, fire, general facilities, parks, police, traffic, wastewater, and water based on the City’s General Plan, adopted specific plans, and other development approvals, and provides the basis for calculating and adopting impact fees in the following categories: Electric, Fire, General Facilities, Parks, Police, Traffic, Wastewater, and Water; and WHEREAS, the analysis of facilities and improvement costs contained in the Study, taken together with the methodology established by the Study, demonstrate the specific costs associated with providing adequate public facilities commensurate with project levels of new development in the City; and
WHEREAS, the Study provides the documentation, detail, and other information required by the Mitigation Fee Act as the basis for the adopting and imposition of the development impact fees for electric, fire, general facilities, parks, police, traffic, wastewater, and water, and describes the benefit and impact area on which the development impact fees are to be imposed, lists the specific public improvements to be financed through the imposition and collection of the development impact fees, describes the estimated costs of providing the improvements and facilities, describes the reasonable relationship between the development impact fees and the various types of new development, and otherwise satisfies the requirements of the law with regard to the imposition and collection of development impact fees; and 734
Resolution 2026-24

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, the City Council finds that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for park land and parks improvements and residential development that does not involve the subdivision of land for which a corresponding fee is charged because future residential development will increase the City’s population and will require additional park space and improvements to adequately serve the athletic and recreational needs of these new residents; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, the City Council finds that there is a reasonable relationship between the development and improvement of parks and residential development that does not involve the subdivision of land for which the fee is imposed, because the additional parks and improvement will improve and expand the City’s park system and thus reduce the risk that the City’s increasing population will overuse or overcrowd the City’s parks; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, the City Council finds that the proposed fees for traffic impact fee does not duplicate fees collected under the Western Riverside County Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Ordinance because the items listed in the Study only include costs for transportation improvements at intersections, and other costs, that are not included in TUMF, but would require improvements due to background growth and new development in the City; and
WHEREAS, the facts and evidence presented to the City Council have established that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for new facilities or improvements and the impacts of new development for which a corresponding fee is charged, and also that there is a reasonable relationship between the fees and the use and the type of development for which the fee is imposed; and
WHEREAS, the City has compiled with the notice and hearing requirements of state law and the Mitigation Fee Act prior to adopting the Resolution, and a notice of public hearing on the development impact fees was mailed as required by law to any interested party who filed a written request with the City Clerk for mailed notice of a new meeting on new or increased fees; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at the February 10, 2026 Regular City Council meeting, at which time further testimony was presented and the public hearing was closed; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the record of these proceedings, including the Study, the City’s General Plan, ordinances and resolutions, the staff report, written correspondence received by the City, and the testimony received at the hearing prior to the adoption of this Resolution, held on February 10, 2026, contains substantial evidence to support the imposition and collection of the development impact fees established herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the development impact fees established therein and finds that the fees will mitigate some of the impacts associated with additional capital and infrastructure needs necessitated by new residential and non-residential development in the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Banning hereby finds, resolves, and determines as follows:
735
Resolution 2026-24

SECTION 1: ADOPTION AND INCORPORATION OF RECITALS
The findings and recitals set forth above the true and correct and are incorporated herein.

SECTION 2: ADOPTION OF THE STUDY
The City Council hereby approved the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study prepared by Matrix Consulting Group dated February 2026, and the findings contained therein. The City Council further adopts the methodology set forth in the Study for calculating and collecting the development impact fees adopted herein. A copy of the Study shall be on file with the City Clerk and available during regular City business hours for public inspection.

SECTION 3: ADOPTION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
The City Council hereby approve and adopts the development impact fees for electric, fire, general facilities, parks, police, traffic, wastewater, and water in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 4: METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATION, ADJUSTMENT, AND COLLECTION OF

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
The development impact fees established in Exhibit A are hereby adopted, and shall be calculated, adjusted, and collected in accordance with City ordinances and the Study. The amount of the development impact fees may be adjusted annually for inflation of July 1st of each calendar year by the percentage change in the Construction Cost Index as published in the Engineering News-Record (or successor publication).

SECTION 5: IMPOSITION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
The development impact fees established herein shall be due and payable in accordance with Government Code Section 66007, upon the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.

SECTION 6: EFFECTIVE DATE OF NEW DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES The development impact fees for fire, general facilities, parks, police, traffic, wastewater, and water established by Section 4 of this Resolution shall be effective on the thirtieth (30th) day following the adoption of this Resolution.

The development impact fee for electric established by Section 4 of this Resolution shall be effective on the later of the thirtieth (30th) day following the adoption of this resolution or the thirtieth (30th) following the adoption of Ordinance 1616, whichever is later.

SECTION 7: EXCEPTIONS
The development impact fees established herein shall not include fees established and collected pursuant to Chapter 15.72 (“Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan”) and Chapter 15.76 (“Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program”) of the Municipal Code.

SECTION 8: APPEAL OF FEE IMPOSITION
736
Resolution 2026-24

Any applicant who is subject to payment of the development impact fees established herein may file an appeal in accordance with Chapter 15.68 of the Municipal Code, as that chapter may be amended from time to time.

SECTION 9: REPEAL OR PRIOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION 2019-112 AND CONFLICTING RESOLUTIONS
Any and all provisions of Resolution No. 2019-112 and any other prior resolutions of the City Council establishing or modifying development impact fees in the categories established in the Study and set forth in Exhibit A, which duplicate or conflict with the provisions of the Resolution and Exhibit A, are hereby repealed and replaced with the fees set forth in Exhibit A and the terms and conditions established by this Resolution upon the effective date of the new development impact fees as provided in Section 6 of this Resolution.

SECTION 10: ENVIRONMENTAL EXEMPTION
The adoption of the Study and the development impact fees specified in this Resolution was reviewed in accordance with the criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA guidelines. The City Council finds the adoption of the Study and the development impact fees in this Resolution is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15378(b)(4), as the action relates to the creation of government funding mechanisms or other governmental fiscal activities, which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.

The City Council finds the adoption of the Study and the development impact fees in this Resolution is statutorily exempt from CEQA under section 15273(a)(4) to the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges by public agencies which the public agency finds are for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital project, necessary to maintain service within existing service areas. The capital projects described in the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study will maintain the level of service currently provided by the City’s existing electric, fire, general facilities, parks, traffic, wastewater, and water facilities by ensuring that the impacts of new development will not negatively impact existing service levels within existing service areas.

SECTION 11: SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution or any part hereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 12: CERTIFICATION
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions. 737
Resolution 2026-24

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of February 2026.

Richard Royce, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

John Pinkney, City Attorney
Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy & Pinkney,
LLC
738
Resolution 2026-24

CERTIFICATION:

I, Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2026-24, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 24th day of February 2026 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning, California
739
Resolution 2026-24

Exhibit A
Schedule of Development Impact Fees
Effective 30 Days After Adoption
Adopted on February 24, 2026, and Effective on March 26, 2026 Fire, General Facilities, Parks, Police, Traffic, Wastewater, and Water Development Impact Fees
Adopted on February 24, 2026 and Effective on April 9, 2026 Electric Development Impact Fee
740
Resolution 2026-24

Exhibit B
Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study dated February 2026 by Matrix Consulting Group 741
City of Banning, Ca
2026 Development Impact Fee Schedule
Maximum Justifiable Fee per Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study dated January 2026 by Matrix Consulting Group Residential Uses (Fees assessed on a PER SQUARE FOOT basis) Single Family $ 0.99 $ 1.21 $ 1.23 $ 3.80 $ 0.90 $ 1.19 $ 3.25 3/4" $ 6,094 Multi-Family $ 0.93 $ 2.11 $ 2.13 $ 6.59 $ 1.57 $ 1.00 $ 2.20 1" $ 10,156 1-1/2" $ 20,312
2" $ 32,500
Non-Residential Uses (Fees assessed on a PER SQUARE FOOT basis) 3" $ 60,937 Commercial $ 2.36 $ 0.65 $ 0.47 $ 0.48 $ 10.06 $ 2.29 4" $ 101,562 Office $ 2.21 $ 0.85 $ 0.62 $ 0.63 $ 3.29 $ 0.80 6" $ 203,123 Industrial $ 1.27 $ 0.32 $ 0.23 $ 0.23 $ 1.60 $ 0.87 8" $ 568,745 Resolution 2026-24, Effective March 26, 2026 (Police, Fire Protection, Parkland and Parks, General Facilities, Wastewater, Traffic, Water) Resolution 2026-24, Effective April 9, 2026 (Electric)
Water Facilities Traffic Impact
Fees
Electric Impact
Land Use Fee
Police Facilities Fire Protection
Facilities
Parkland and
Parks
General City
Facilities
Wastewater
Facilities
742

BANNING, CA

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (DIF)
STUDY
FEBRUARY 2026
743
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
LEGAL FRAMEWORK 8
PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT 10
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE 13
ELECTRIC IMPACT FEE 14
FIRE IMPACT FEE 18
GENERAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE 24
PARKS IMPACT FEE 30
POLICE IMPACT FEE 35
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE 40
WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE 45
WATER IMPACT FEE 51
APPENDIX A – ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE COST 57
APPENDIX B – FIRE INFRASTRUCTURE COST 58
APPENDIX C – GENERAL FACILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE COST 59
APPENDIX D – PARKS INFRASTRUCTURE COST 60
APPENDIX E – POLICE INFRASTRUCTURE COST 61
APPENDIX F – TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE COST 62
APPENDIX G – WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE COST 63
APPENDIX H – WATER INFRASTRUCTURE COST 65

TABLE OF CONTENTS
744

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 1
The report, which follows, presents the results of the Development Impact Fee Study conducted by Matrix Consulting Group for the City of Banning.

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF WORK
The City of Banning retained Matrix Consulting Group to update existing impact fees to ensure compliance with the state’s nexus requirements and to explore the development of new impact fees.

Within the state of California, impact fees are governed by the Mitigation Fee Act (AB1600) (Gov. Code §66000 et seq.) and AB602, which require demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the development activity and the proposed benefit. The City’s last comprehensive impact fee update was in 2019; as such, the City is reevaluating the nexus for these impact fees to ensure they remain appropriate and reflect completed and new projects. The results of this study will allow the City to ensure that future development has a nexus with its proportionate impact on City infrastructure and to update the fee amounts to better reflect those impacts.

GENERAL PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The California Housing and Community Development Department outlines three typical methodologies for calculating impact fees: the existing inventory method, the planned facility method, and the system plan method (a hybrid of the existing and planned methods). For this analysis, the project team used the more widely accepted and recognized ‘system plan method’ to calculate the fees.

The ‘system plan method’ utilizes the concept of a ‘service level standard’. This standard is based on the recognition of the jurisdiction's existing service-level standards for its service users (i.e., residents, employees, students, etc.). As new development and growth in the community occur, there is potential for the service level standard to decline if appropriate measures are not taken to maintain it. Therefore, the ‘service level standard’ calculates the impact of each individual on the City’s infrastructure and applies it to future individuals and growth. If the service population increases, there would be a corresponding impact on infrastructure, thereby creating a nexus for the collection of impact fees.

However, if there is no increased population or use of those services, impact fees would not be justifiable or applicable.

For the purposes of calculating impact fees, the project team reviewed a variety of data elements from the state, regional organizations, county, and City staff. The following points highlight the data reviewed through the course of this analysis:
• Ordinances and Codes: The project team reviewed the City’s ordinances and municipal code to ensure that there was the legal authority to assess and increase current impact fees.

INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
745

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 2
• General Plan, Facilities Assessment, Department Master Plans, and CIP Plans: Data was reviewed from a variety of City-specific documents regarding the potential growth in the community, the goals for the City and the departments, as well as future capital projects. • Growth and Projection Data: Population, household, dwelling unit, and employment information for current and future years was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, the California Department of Finance, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), American Water Works Association (AWWA) and internal City General Plan projection documents. • Service Level Standards: Information on police facilities, fire equipment, transportation projects, storm drain projects, and park needs was collected, reviewed, and applied to calculate future impacts. • Revenues and Expenses: Revenue collected from impact fees was reviewed to ensure compliance with reporting practices and to calculate an administrative overhead percentage. Expense information was reviewed for infrastructure costs and overhead to support impact fees.

These components were used to develop and update the City's impact fees.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS
During this analysis, the project team evaluated impact fees based on projected population impacts for 2025-2040. Based on the results, the maximum justifiable impact fees were calculated for the following infrastructure: Electric, Fire, General Facilities, Parks, Police, Traffic, Wastewater, and Water.

As outlined in the Mitigation Fee Act, proportional costs associated with future infrastructure impacts, along with administrative overhead, were used to calculate the full cost of the impact fees presented. It is important to note that AB602 states that residential (single-family and multi-family) should be calculated based upon proportional square footage, rather than per dwelling unit. To comply with this regulation, all residential fees were converted to a per-square-foot calculation. The following subsections show the results of the updated impact fees calculated for the City.

ELECTRIC IMPACT FEE
The City recently completed a Cost of Service and Rate Study for its electric operations (September 2025, NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC). One mechanism to maintain the service standard outlined in the NewGen study is for the City to explore the feasibility of implementing an impact fee for its electrical utility infrastructure. Through this analysis, the project team calculated the full cost to be as follows:

Table 1: Proposed Electric Impact Fee
Category Full Cost
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Single Family $0.99
Multi-Family $0.93
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $2.36
746

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 3
Category Full Cost
Office $2.21
Industrial $1.27
The full cost fee calculated through this study represents the maximum fee that the City can charge, inclusive of an allowable administrative fee outlined in the Mitigation Fee Act.

FIRE IMPACT FEE
The City of Banning administers a Fire impact fee to ensure that new development contributes its proportional share of costs to offset the demand placed on fire facilities, vehicles, and equipment required to support growth. The following table compares the City’s current impact fee to the full cost calculated through this analysis, the difference, and the current level of cost recovery.

Table 2: Current vs. Full Cost – Fire Impact Fee
Category Current Fee Full Cost Difference Current Cost
Recovery %
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.1
Single Family $0.39 $1.21 ($0.82) 32%
Multi-Family $0.61 $2.11 ($1.50) 29%
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $0.49 $0.65 ($0.16) 75%
Office $0.63 $0.85 ($0.22) 74%
Industrial $0.24 $0.32 ($0.08) 76%
All fire impact fees show an under-recovery, ranging from a low of $0.08 per square foot for industrial projects to a high of $1.50 per square foot for multi-family residential development. The full cost fee calculated in this study represents the maximum fee the City can charge and includes the administrative fee allowable under the Mitigation Fee Act.

GENERAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE
The City of Banning administers a General Facilities impact fee to ensure that new development contributes its proportional share of costs to offset the demand placed on public facilities (i.e., City Hall, corporation yard, etc.), city vehicles, and equipment required to support growth. The following table compares the City’s current impact fee to the full cost calculated through this analysis, the difference, and the current level of cost recovery.
1 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
747

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 4
Table 3: Current vs. Full Cost – General Facilities Fee Category Current Fee Full Cost Difference Current Cost
Recovery %
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.2
Single Family $0.27 $1.23 ($0.95) 22%
Multi-Family $0.43 $2.13 ($1.70) 20%
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $0.49 $0.47 $0.02 103%
Office $0.64 $0.62 $0.02 103%
Industrial $0.24 $0.23 $0.01 104%
Residential fees under-recover, while non-residential fees slightly over-recover on a square footage basis.

Like other impact fees, the full cost fee calculated through this study represents the maximum fee that the City can charge, inclusive of all allowable administrative costs outlined in the Mitigation Fee Act.

PARKS IMPACT FEE
The City of Banning administers a Parks impact fee to ensure that new development contributes its proportional share of costs to offset the acquisition of new land and the demand placed on park infrastructure required to support growth. The following table compares the City’s current impact fee to the full cost calculated through this analysis, the difference, and the current level of cost recovery.

Table 4: Current vs. Full Cost – Parks Impact Fee
Category Current Fee Full Cost Difference Current Cost
Recovery %
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.3
Single Family $2.02 $3.80 ($1.78) 53%
Multi-Family $3.14 $6.59 ($3.45) 48%
The City under-recovers for both of its residential park-specific impact fees. The full cost fee calculated through this study represents the maximum fee that the City can charge and is inclusive of the administrative fee allowable under the Mitigation Fee Act.

POLICE IMPACT FEE
The City of Banning administers a Police impact fee to ensure that new development contributes its proportional share of costs to offset the demand placed on police facilities, vehicles, and equipment 2 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
3 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
748

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 5
required to support growth. The following table compares the City’s current impact fee to the full cost calculated through this analysis, the difference, and the current level of cost recovery.

Table 5: Current vs. Full Cost – Police Impact Fee
Category Current Fee Full Cost Difference Current Cost
Recovery %
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.4
Single Family $0.63 $0.90 ($0.27) 70%
Multi-Family $0.98 $1.57 ($0.59) 63%
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $0.35 $0.48 ($0.13) 72%
Office $0.46 $0.63 ($0.17) 73%
Industrial $0.17 $0.23 ($0.06) 72%
All police impact fees show an under-recovery, ranging from a low of $0.06 per square foot for industrial projects to a high of $0.59 per square foot for multi-family residential development. As with other impact fees, the full cost fee calculated through this study represents the maximum justifiable fee that the City can charge and is inclusive of the administrative fee allowable under the Mitigation Fee Act.

TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
The City of Banning administers a Traffic impact fee to ensure that new development contributes its proportional share of costs to offset the restoration and expansion of the City’s transportation infrastructure required to support growth. The city’s prior traffic impact fee analysis had a separate impact fee for each potential land use in the City. For streamlining and consistency with the other impact fees, the categories were condensed. As such, the impact fees cannot be compared, and the following table only shows the full cost of the traffic impact fee.

Table 6: Current vs. Full Cost – Traffic Impact Fee
Category Full Cost
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Single Family $1.19
Multi-Family $1.00
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $10.06
Office $3.29
Industrial $1.60
4 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
749

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 6
In an effort to streamline the administration of the City’s traffic-specific impact fees, it was proposed to reclassify the land-use categories. The full cost includes administrative costs and represents the maximum amount the City can charge to recover for transportation-related impacts.

WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE
The City of Banning administers a Wastewater impact fee to ensure that new development contributes its proportional share of costs to offset the restoration and expansion of the City’s wastewater infrastructure (including gravity mains, force mains, lift stations, wastewater treatment plant, etc.) required to support growth. The following table compares the City’s current impact fee to the full cost calculated through this analysis, the difference, and the current level of cost recovery.

Table 7: Current vs. Full Cost – Wastewater Impact Fee
Category Current Fee Full Cost Difference Current Cost
Recovery %
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.5
Single Family $2.66 $3.25 ($0.59) 82%
Multi-Family $5.06 $2.20 $2.86 230%
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial Varies $4.49 N/A N/A
Office Varies $1.57 N/A N/A
Industrial Varies $1.71 N/A N/A
The single-family wastewater impact fee under-recovers, while the multi-family rate over-recovers. This rightsizing is primarily due to converting the fee from per-dwelling-unit to per-square-foot, in alignment with recent legislation. Currently, the City charges its non-residential rates based on the various development types. Going forward, it was proposed to reclassify non-residential fees into three categories to provide consistent land-use-based rates. The full cost fee calculated in this study represents the maximum fee the City can charge and includes the administrative fee allowable under the Mitigation Fee Act.

WATER IMPACT FEE
The City of Banning administers a Water impact fee to ensure that new development contributes its proportional share of costs to offset the restoration and expansion of the City’s water infrastructure (including pipelines, wells, valves, pump stations, etc.) required to support growth. The following table compares the City’s current impact fee to the full cost calculated through this analysis, the difference, and the current level of cost recovery.
5 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
750

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 7
Table 8: Current vs. Full Cost – Water Impact Fee
Meter Size Current Fee Full Cost Difference Current Cost Recovery % 3/4” $5,847 $6,094 ($247) 96%
1” $9,744 $10,156 ($412) 96%
1-1/2” $19,488 $20,312 ($824) 96%
2” $31,181 $32,500 ($1,319) 96%
3” $58,464 $60,937 ($2,473) 96%
4” $97,441 $101,562 ($4,121) 96%
6” N/A $203,123 N/A N/A
8” N/A $568,745 N/A N/A
The City under-recovers for water impact fees. The full cost fee calculated in this study represents the maximum fee the City can charge and includes the administrative fee allowable under the Mitigation Fee Act.

SUMMARY
Through this analysis, all of the City’s impact fees have been reviewed and, in general, show underrecoveries. The only fees that the City will need to reduce are related to General Public Facilities nonresidential properties, and Wastewater multi-family development. Overall, this report details the calculations for each impact fee and validates the nexus between the full cost identified and the proportionate impact of new development.

The updated and proposed impact fees calculated through this study represent the maximum justifiable costs associated with the proportionate share and impact of new development within Banning. It is up to City staff, management, and Council to use the information in this report to determine whether new development should bear the full cost or whether the City should subsidize it.

The City does not currently increase its impact fees annually. Due to changes in construction/infrastructure costs, it is best practice to increase these fees annually. The most appropriate factor for annual increases is the Construction Cost Index (CCI). This is considered a best practice and ensures that increases in construction costs are included in the impact fees, and a proportionate share is passed onto new development.

The annual increase is not meant to be an infinite increase in fees. Per the Mitigation Fee Act and Assembly Bill 602 the nexus for the impact fees should be reevaluated every eight years to ensure that there is still an appropriate correlation between the current fee being charged and proposed development within the City.
751

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 8
Impact Fees are a mechanism for new development to pay for their proportionate share of impact upon City owned facilities and infrastructure. The following subsections discuss the State’s requirements for impact fees and the City’s legal authority for assessing these fees.

STATE LEGAL AUTHORITY – AB1600
Development Impact Fees in California are governed by the Mitigation Fee Act6, which includes AB1600 and AB602. At a high level, AB1600 specifies that there needs to be a reasonable relationship, or “nexus,” between the collection of fees and the new residential and non-residential development within a City’s service area. It states that revenue can only be used to expand current facilities or purchase new facilities, infrastructure, and equipment. It also states that the revenue generated cannot be used to fund staffing, maintenance, or other operational costs.

To establish a nexus between new development and the need for new facilities or infrastructure, the legislation requires that certain criteria be met. The following points highlight each of the required criteria:
• Purpose of Fee: Outline specific types of facilities, infrastructure, equipment, and projects for which the impact fee will be utilized.
• Impact Relationship: In order to establish an impact relationship there needs to be a clear and reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility or infrastructure and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed.
• Proportionality: The proportionality requirement states that the impact fee established must be directly related to the proportionate impact of the type of development project. • Benefit Relationship: The benefit relationship requires that the use of the impact fee revenue and the type of development project upon which it is imposed is reasonable. • Use of Fee Revenue: The revenue collected from the impact fees can only be used to fund the identified facility expansions, infrastructure improvements, or to purchase new equipment.

For each of the impact fees evaluated through this study, the individual chapter will discuss how the fee is able to meet the nexus criteria identified, as well as its compliance with the “Sheets v. El Dorado County” findings of “roughly proportionate” to the impacts of the project. 6 CA Govt Code § 66001

LEGAL FRAMEWORK
752

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 9
STATE LEGAL AUTHORITY – AB602
In January of 2022, Assembly Bill 602 (AB602) went into effect. This Bill is applicable to all impact fees adopted / implemented January 1, 2022, or later. The bill has three main criteria:
• Prior to the adoption of new impact fees, a nexus study needs be adopted. • The nexus study needs to identify existing service levels, the new service level, and an explanation of why the new service level is appropriate.
• A fee levied on housing development must be proportionate to the square footage of proposed units unless findings are established on why square footage is not the appropriate metric. This ensures larger residential projects pay a higher portion of fees than smaller residential (i.e. ADU) projects. • If the nexus study supports the increase of existing fees, the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee must be reviewed and the amount of fees collected under the original fee. • Large jurisdictions must adopt a capital improvement plan with the nexus study.

Along with these criteria, some other key provisions of the bill include:
• Impact fees must be posted online – along with the nexus analysis. • All impact fees must be collected by the time of final inspection or certificate of occupancy issuance, whichever occurs later7.
• Impact fees nexus studies must be updated every eight years.

Under directive from AB602, the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development created templates for a nexus study and residential feasibility analysis. These resources establish a litmus test for cities to gauge their compliance.

This report will serve as the City’s nexus analysis for its existing impact fees and will ensure that all criteria per AB602 are met and clearly outlined.

CITY LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR IMPACT FEES
The City of Banning has the legal authority to impose impact fees as outlined in the municipal code (Chapter 15.68). The municipal code outlines the components that make up each impact fee, the types of projects exempt from paying the fee, how and when the fee is collected, and how impact fee funds are to be used. The City’s most recent impact fee resolutions were adopted in 2019 (Ord. No. 1551, § 8, 9-24- 19). This resolution provided a list of all current impact fees based upon a prior 2019 Nexus Analysis study, with updated fee amounts. To implement the Electric Impact Fee, the City would require an update to its ordinance and resolution.
7 Section 65940.1.(3)
753

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 10
The projected increase in the jurisdiction's population (both residential and non-residential) is the primary criterion for determining the projected impact of new development on a jurisdiction. These population projections serve as the basis for impact fee calculations. To calculate the projected growth and development, as well as density requirements, the project team reviewed the following sources of data:
• State of California Department of Finance: Data from the Department of Finance were used for 2025 estimates of the total residential population within the City. • Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG): This data was utilized to inform growth projections for 2040.
• Employment Development Department Report: The most recent report information was utilized to inform employment projections.
• General Plan, Facilities Plans, Regional Plans, and City Projections: General Plan and facilities master plan information was used to estimate future dwelling units, square-footage growth, employment, and facility needs.
• US Census Bureau: The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) information was used to calculate residential densities.

Information from these sources was used to calculate the projected population increase and the resulting population densities. The following subsections discuss the population projections calculated and the population densities used to calculate the impact fees.

POPULATION PROJECTIONS
The basis for impact fees is predicated on sufficient population growth that results in a meaningful impact on City Infrastructure. The following table shows by category, the 2025 estimates, the 2040 estimates, and the overall projected increase:

Table 9: Population Projections
Category 2025 Estimates 2040 Estimates8 Total Projected Increase Residential 31,9499 37,600 5,651
Non-Residential 11,40010 14,200 2,800
Overall, the residential population is projected to grow by roughly 5,700 residents over the next 15 years, while the non-residential population is expected to grow by 2,800 employees. 8 The 2040 estimates come SCAG Jurisdictional Forecast. 9 The residential estimate comes from the California Department of Finance Table E-5 2025 10 The non-residential estimate comes from 2023 Average Annual EDD Labor Report

PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
754

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 11
The numbers noted in the table served as the basis for all proportionate impact calculations throughout this study, with non-residential information used for calculations associated with non-residential projected growth.

POPULATION DENSITIES
In addition to the population projection information, the other data set consistently used in the calculations is the density for residential and non-residential categories. The following subsections discuss the population density assumptions used to calculate all impact fees in this report.

RESIDENTIAL POPULATION DENSITY
Currently, Banning categorizes residential population into two categories: single-family and multi-family, both of which are administered based on the number of dwelling units. Due to changes in the regulations, residential density per unit cannot be used as the basis for impact fee calculation.

Therefore, the project team used existing information to generate density based on square footage per resident (similar to non-residential densities).

The project team used US Census data to calculate the residential density factors. The total number of people in per unit type (single-family or multi-family) was divided by the total number of units, resulting in an average persons per unit. The following graphic shows the calculation for single-family11 and multifamily12:

Table 10: Single Family Per Unit Calculation
25,563 # of ppl in units = 2.79 people per unit
9,155 # of units
Table 11: Multi-Family Per Unit Calculation
2,375 # of ppl in units = 2.55 people per unit
931 # of units
To convert people per unit to a square footage per resident calculation, the calculated value was divided by the average square footage of a residential unit, resulting in an average square footage per person.

The calculated value was then multiplied by 1,000, providing the average number of people per 1,000 square feet. The following graphic shows this calculation for single-family and multi-family:

Table 12: Single Family Avg. Sq. Ft. Per Person Calculation

2.79 people per unit X 1,000 sq. ft. = 1.47 ppl per 1,000 sq. ft. 1,90013 average sq. ft. per unit 11 The single-family data comes from the US Census data table B25033. 12 The multi-family data comes from the US Census data table B25032. 13 Based on discussions with City staff it was determined that 1,900 sq. ft. is fairly representative of the size of the typical single-family dwelling in Banning.
755

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 12
Table 13: Multi-Family Avg. Sq. Ft. Per Person Calculation

2.55 people per unit X 1,000 sq. ft. = 2.55 ppl per 1,000 sq. ft. 1,00014 avg. sq. ft. per unit The people per 1,000 square feet, or household density factor for single-family, is 1.47, and for multifamily, it is 2.55. The density factor is then divided by the cost-per-capita calculation to derive the base impact fee.

NON-RESIDENTIAL POPULATION DENSITY
Similar to the residential density calculation, a non-residential development calculation was performed for the City. The City uses three main non-residential categories: Commercial, Office, and Industrial. The project team used City staff values for the non-residential density. The City utilized the same density factors as utilized in the 2019 nexus analysis. The following table shows the density associated with each non-residential category type:

Table 14: Non-Residential Population Densities
Category Density (employees per 1,000 sq. ft.)
Commercial 2.39
Office 3.12
Industrial 1.16
The density (square footage per employee) is multiplied by the cost per capita calculation to derive the base impact fee.

The following chapters use the assumptions in this section to estimate the proportional impact of new development on the City’s existing and proposed infrastructure. 14 Based on discussions with City staff it was determined that 1,000 sq. ft. is fairly representative of the size of the typical multi-family dwelling in Banning.
756

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 13
In accordance with regulations outlined in the Mitigation Fee Act, a citywide administrative fee was calculated for use in this analysis.

The project team took the four-year average15 of actual revenue for each impact fee fund and divided the revenue by the citywide overhead cost calculated in the City’s most recent cost allocation plan16. The results were then averaged to produce a city-specific administrative fee. The following table shows the calculation:

Table 15: Administrative Fee Calculation
Funds
4 Yr. Avg. of
Actual Revenue CAP OH Administrative %17
410 Fire $1,169,479 $186 0.00%
430 General Facilities $454,039 $25,065 5.00%
451 Parks $165,285 $14,044 8.00%
400 Police $331,553 $185 0.00%
420 Traffic $2,201,371 $699 0.00%
681 Wastewater $8,578,218 $3,256 0.00%
661 Water $3,197,641 $131,436 4.00%
Average Administrative % 2.00%
Based on the average administrative expenses incurred across the funds, the calculated citywide administrative fee is 2%. This accounts for the support provided by City staff in the monitoring and reporting of impact fee funds and is added to the individual calculated impact fees, resulting in a maximum justifiable impact fee.
15 The following fiscal years were averaged: FY21-22, FY22-23, FY23-24, and FY24-25. 16 Based on FY24 information.
17 The administrative percentage shows rounded values, which is why it shows 0.00% for certain funds.

ADMINISTRATIVE FEE
757

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 14
The City recently completed a cost-of-service and rate study for its electric operations (September 2025, NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC). One method to support the service standards outlined in the NewGen study is to evaluate the feasibility of establishing an impact fee for electrical utility infrastructure. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions and standards utilized, cost assumptions and components, impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of fire impact fees.

GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
The purpose of an electric impact fee is to recover the proportionate costs associated with the increased demand placed on the electrical infrastructure by new development, which in turn necessitates the enhancement, expansion, or replacement of existing infrastructure. Electric impacts are measured in average annual kilowatt-hours per square foot (kWh/sq. ft.). For purposes of this analysis, the project team used the California Energy Commission findings for residential18 and non-residential19 land use types.

Once the average annual kilowatt-hours per square foot for each land use category are established, the single-family rate of 4.00 kWh/sq. ft. is used as the baseline equivalent dwelling unit (EDU), assigned a value of 1.0020. All other land use types are then expressed as a proportion of this baseline by dividing their respective rates by the single-family residential benchmark. This proportional conversion ensures that each land use type contributes its fair share of capital costs based on relative electrical demand.

The following table shows these conversions.

Table 16: EDU Factor Calculation
Category Avg. Annual kWh
/ 1,000 Sq. Ft. SFR - Baseline EDU Factor
Residential
Single Family 4,000 4,000 1.00
Multi-Family 3,745 4,000 0.94
Non-Residential
Commercial 9,500 4,000 2.38
Office 8,900 4,000 2.23
Industrial 5,100 4,000 1.28
18 2019 California Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS) 19 2022 California Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS): Final Report 20 SFR is used as the EDU baseline strictly for normalization purposes; it does not imply a greater impact, only a consistent reference unit for flow comparison.

ELECTRIC IMPACT FEE
758

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 15
The above EDU factors are then multiplied by the difference in dwelling units per land use type from 2025 to 2040. These calculations are shown in the table below:

Table 17: Projected Total Number of EDUs Calculation
Category 2025
KSF 21
2040
KSF 22 Difference EDU Factor
Weighted
2025 DU / KSF
Weighted
2040 DU / KSF
Weighted
Difference
Residential
Single Family 19,426 28,073 8,647 1.00 19,426 28,073 8,647 Multi-Family 2,381 16,728 14,347 0.94 2,229 15,661 13,432 Total 21,807 44,801 22,994 21,655 43,734 22,079
Non-Residential
Commercial 1,204 2,993 1,789 2.38 2,859 7,108 4,249
Office 2,234 1,895 (339) 2.23 4,970 4,216 (753)
Industrial 1,340 977 (363) 1.28 1,708 1,246 (462)
Total 4,777 5,865 1,088 9,537 12,570 3,033
Total Number of KSF 31,192 56,304 25,112
The total projected growth of thousand square feet from 2025 to 2040 is roughly 25,122. This value is divided by the total cost to be apportioned (as outlined in the following section), resulting in the cost per EDU, which serves as the basis for calculating the electric impact fee.

COST COMPONENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Based on the projected increase in EDUs, an impact nexus exists for the department’s infrastructure needs. The planning horizon for the Electric impact fee is 15 years (2025 to 2040). Over this period, the department will need to replace and upgrade infrastructure to maintain its existing level of service. The impact fee calculation applies the system plan method to determine the proportional share attributable to new development. Since future development will benefit from these facilities and equipment, an appropriate portion of the upgrade cost should be allocated to new growth. The following table presents the total projected infrastructure costs, net of existing fund balances, by cost category.

Table 18: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost – Electric Total Electric CIP Cost23 $24,475,000
Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost $24,475,000
No fund balance is removed as this is a new fee. Over the next 15 years, the City will require approximately $24.5 million to meet the needs of the City’s existing and future population. The total projected net infrastructure cost is then divided by the weighted growth in EDU, resulting in a cost per EDU. The calculation is shown below:
21 Based on Department of Finance and EDD Current projections. 22 Based on Banning’s General Plan.
23 A detailed accounting of the CIP costs is included in Appendix A of this report. 759

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 16
Table 19: Electric Cost Per EDU Calculation
$24,475,000 Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost
= $975 Cost / EDU 25,112 Weighted Growth in EDU
The $975 per EDU cost illustrates the amount the City should invest in electrical infrastructure per dwelling unit.

IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
As the previous section calculated, the total cost per EDU is $1,219. This is the cost regardless of residential or non-residential development. This value is then multiplied by the EDU factor, resulting in the Electric impact fee. The following table shows this calculation:

Table 20: Electric Impact Fee Calculation
Category Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor Impact Fee
Residential: Per KSF
Single Family $975 1.00 $975
Multi-Family $975 0.94 $912
Non-Residential: Per KSF
Commercial $975 2.38 $2,315
Office $975 2.23 $2,169
Industrial $975 1.28 $1,243
The cost per unit for residential single-family development is $975, multi-family is $912, and nonresidential development varies from a low of $1,243 per 1,000 square feet for industrial properties to a high of $2,315 per 1,000 square feet for commercial development. The 2% administrative fee is applied to the impact fee. The following table shows this calculation.

Table 21: Electric Impact Fee Calculation – Including Administrative Fee Category Impact
Fee Admin % Impact Fee + Admin Fee Per KSF
Impact Fee + Admin
Fee per Sq. Ft.

Residential
Single Family $975 2% $994 $0.99
Multi-Family $912 2% $931 $0.93
Non-Residential
Commercial $2,315 2% $2,361 $2.36
Office $2,169 2% $2,212 $2.21
Industrial $1,243 2% $1,267 $1.27
The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the proportionate impact of future development.
760

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 17

NEXUS CRITERIA
As discussed in the legal framework section, for an impact fee to be implemented, it must meet all five nexus criteria established by the Mitigation Fee Act. The following table outlines each criterion point and how the proposed Electric Impact fee meets the criteria.

Table 22: Impact Fee Nexus Criteria – Electric
Criteria Meet
Purpose Of Fee
The purpose of this fee would be to upgrade existing electric infrastructure necessary to maintain services levels and enhance or replace electric-specific equipment.

Use of Fee Revenue
Revenue associated with this impact fee would be housed in a specific electric impact fee fund to help ensure that funds are appropriately accounted for and used to meet the electric infrastructure needs of the City’s growth.

Benefit Relationship
The use of the impact fee revenue would be to expand, upgrade, or replace existing electric infrastructure and equipment to accommodate increased usage proportional to grow. New residents and employees receive benefits associated with a reliable electrical system.

Impact Relationship
New development contributes additional pull on the electrical grid.

Therefore, the cost associated with adding additional equipment or expanding facilities to accommodate additional wear would be borne by new residents or employees.

Proportionality
The proposed impact fee is calculated based upon proportionality of projected growth with the greatest impact by residential areas, followed by commercial areas. The fees are calculated on a per square foot basis for both residential and commercial properties as the concept is that the larger the space, the greater the population that occupies that space and therefore the greater the impact on the City’s infrastructure.

Capital Improvement Plan A capital improvement plan has been adopted to update the City’s electric infrastructure and is presented as an appendix.

Level of Service
The proposed impact fees are based on the existing level of service as they are based on the current standard of the electric infrastructure servicing both existing and future population. Future population / growth is calculated based on their proportional need for the facilities, vehicles and equipment.

Original Nexus Analysis There was no prior nexus analysis so this would serve as the basis of the nexus analysis.

As the table demonstrates, the City meets all five criteria necessary to charge an electric development impact fee, as well as the three additional criteria associated with AB602. Additionally, the electric impact fee has an essential nexus to the City’s land use interest of ensuring that there is adequate electric infrastructure to serve the new development, and the fee has been calculated to be roughly proportionate to the development’s impact on the City’s electric infrastructure.

COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions. Of the surveyed jurisdictions, none assess an electric-specific impact fee. 761

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 18
The City currently administers a fire impact fee to recover the proportionate costs of fire infrastructure required to serve new development. The Fire Department provides services to both residential and nonresidential populations, and future growth will increase demand for fire-specific infrastructure. To ensure service levels are maintained as the City continues to grow, the current fire impact fee cost components and assumptions were updated through this analysis. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions and standards utilized, cost assumptions and components, impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of fire impact fees.

GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
The Fire Department serves both residential and non-residential populations (employees). Future development would require expanded Fire stations and purchasing additional vehicles and equipment.

Since the Fire Department's primary goal is to provide fire prevention and suppression services within the City, its services benefit both existing and future development. To determine the proportional share of existing and future development, the project team calculated the City’s future service population. In addition, since an employee working within the city does not have the same tendency to use fire services as a resident, their impact was weighted less. The weighting for employees was based on the acreage within the City zoned for non-residential use. Based on zoning, non-residential acreage accounts for 33% of the City of Banning; therefore, the non-residential population was weighted at 33%. The following table shows the current population for each category, the proportionate weight factor, and the weighted population:

Table 23: Weighted Population Calculation
Category 2025
Population
Weight
Factor
Weighted 2025
Population
Residential 31,949 100% 31,949
Non-Residential 11,400 33% 3,754
Total 43,349 35,703
The total weighted 2025 population is roughly 36,000. This value is then divided by the total cost to be apportioned, as outlined in the following section, resulting in a weighted cost per capita.

COST COMPONENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Based on projected increases in residential and non-residential populations, an impact nexus exists for the department’s infrastructure needs. The planning horizon for the Fire impact fee is 15 years (2025 to 2040). Over this period, the department will need to replace and upgrade infrastructure to maintain its existing level of service. The impact fee calculation applies the system plan method to determine the proportional share attributable to new development. Since future development will benefit from these

FIRE IMPACT FEE
762

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 19
facilities and equipment, an appropriate portion of the upgrade cost should be allocated to new growth.

The following table presents the total projected infrastructure costs, net of existing fund balances, by cost category.

Table 24: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost - Fire
Total Fire Facility Cost24 $27,244,568
Total Fire Equipment & Vehicle Cost25 $3,448,421
Total Projected Infrastructure Cost $30,692,989
Current Fund Balance26 ($1,789,387)
Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost $28,903,602
Over the next 15 years, the Fire Department will require approximately $29 million to meet the needs of the City’s existing and future population.

IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
As the previous section calculated, the total infrastructure needs for the Fire Department are approximately $30 million. This cost is then divided by the total weighted service population as shown in Table 23, resulting in the cost per capita. The figure below shows this calculation.

Table 25: Cost Per Capita Calculation
$28,903,602 Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost
= $810 Cost per Capita 35,703 Weighted 2025 Population
The $810 per capita cost illustrates the amount the City should invest in fire infrastructure per person.

Again, since the non-residential population does not have the same need for fire services, the 33% weighting (based on City zoning) is applied to cost per capita for residents versus non-residential users.

Table 26: Weighted Cost Per Capita
Category Cost / Capita Weight
Factor
Weighted Cost
Per Capita
Residential $810 100% $810
Non-Residential $810 33% $267
While the residential cost per capita remains at $810, the non-residential cost per capita reduces to $267.

The weighted cost per capita is then multiplied by the density factors, which have been calculated per 1,000 sq. ft. for all categories and outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter, resulting in the Fire impact fee by category. The following table shows this calculation. 24 A detailed accounting of the facility costs is included in Appendix B of this report. 25 A detailed accounting of the equipment costs is included in Appendix B of this report. 26 Represents the fund balance at the end of FY24-25.
763

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 20
Table 27: Fire Impact Fee Calculation
Category Cost Per
Capita Density Impact Fee
Residential: Per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Single Family $810 1.47 $1,190
Multi-Family $810 2.55 $2,065
Non-Residential: Per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $267 2.39 $637
Office $267 3.12 $832
Industrial $267 1.16 $309
The cost per 1,000 square feet for residential single-family development is $1,190, multi-family is $2,065, and non-residential development varies from a low of $309 per 1,000 square feet for industrial properties to a high of $637 per 1,000 square feet for offices. The 2% administrative fee is applied to the impact fee.

The following table shows this calculation.

Table 28: Fire Impact Fee Calculation – Including Administrative Fee Category Impact
Fee Admin %
Impact Fee +
Admin Fee Per
1,000 Sq. Ft.

Impact Fee +
Admin Fee
per Sq. Ft.

Residential
Single Family $1,190 2% $1,214 $1.21
Multi-Family $2,065 2% $2,106 $2.11
Non-Residential
Commercial $637 2% $650 $0.65
Office $832 2% $848 $0.85
Industrial $309 2% $315 $0.32
The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the proportionate impact of future development. The following table compares the City’s current Fire impact fee to the full cost impact fees, and the associated per unit difference:

Table 29: Current vs. Full Cost – Fire Impact Fee
Category Current
Impact Fee27
Full Cost
Impact Fee Difference
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Single Family $0.39 $1.21 ($0.82)
Multi-Family $0.61 $2.11 ($1.50)
27 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
764

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 21
Category Current
Impact Fee27
Full Cost
Impact Fee Difference
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $0.49 $0.65 ($0.16)
Office $0.63 $0.85 ($0.22)
Industrial $0.24 $0.32 ($0.08)
All impact fees show an under-recovery, ranging from a low of $0.08 per square foot for industrial to a high of $1.50 per square foot for multi-family developments.

NEXUS CRITERIA
As discussed in the legal framework section, for an impact fee to be implemented, it must meet all five nexus criteria established by the Mitigation Fee Act. The following table outlines each criterion point and how the proposed Fire Impact fee meets the criteria.

Table 30: Impact Fee Nexus Criteria – Fire
Criteria Meet
Purpose Of Fee
The purpose of this fee is to upgrade existing Fire stations, cover costs of new stations necessary to maintain services levels, and enhance or replace fire-specific vehicles and equipment.

Use of Fee Revenue
Revenue associated with this impact fee is housed in a specific fire impact fee fund to help ensure that funds are appropriately accounted for and used to meet the fire infrastructure needs of the City’s growth.

Benefit Relationship
The use of the impact fee revenue would be to rehabilitate existing fire stations and equipment to accommodate to allow for the most efficient response for service. New residents and employees receive benefits associated with more efficient response times and enhanced equipment.

Impact Relationship
The addition of new residents and employees would have an impact on the ability of the fire services to respond adequately and in an efficient manner. Therefore, the cost associated with adding additional equipment or expanding facilities to accommodate additional staff to allow for responses would be borne by new residents or employees.

Proportionality
The proposed impact fee is calculated based upon proportionality of projected growth with the greatest impact by residential areas, followed by commercial areas. The fees are calculated on a per square foot basis for both residential and commercial properties as the concept is that the larger the space, the greater the population that occupies that space and therefore the greater the impact on the City’s infrastructure.

Capital Improvement Plan A capital improvement plan has been adopted to update the City’s fire facilities and is presented as an appendix.

Level of Service
The proposed impact fees are based on the existing level of service as they are based on the current standard of the fire infrastructure servicing both existing and future population. Future population / growth is calculated based on their proportional need for the facilities, vehicles and equipment.
765

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 22
Criteria Meet
Original Nexus Analysis
The original nexus analysis developed by the City was based on information from 2019, and the City has not increased fees since then.

Since the original analysis, costs have significantly increased, and as the fund balance reflects, the City has insufficient funding to meet the needs for future development.

As the table demonstrates, the City meets all five criteria necessary to continue charging the fire development impact fee, as well as the three additional criteria associated with AB602. Additionally, the fire impact fee has an essential nexus to the City’s land use interest of ensuring that there is adequate fire infrastructure to serve the new development, and the fee has been calculated to be roughly proportionate to the development’s impact on the City’s fire facilities, as it does not exceed the City’s cost of providing fire services to new development.

COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions that charge a Fire Impact Fee. The following table compares the City’s current fee and full cost to other jurisdictions in the region:

Table 31: Comparative Survey – Fire Impact Fee
Residential Non-Residential (Per Sq. Ft.)
Jurisdiction Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Office Industrial Banning - Current $0.39 per sq.
ft
$0.61 per sq.
ft $0.49 $0.63 $0.24
Banning - Full Cost $1.21 per sq.
ft.
$2.11 per sq.
ft. $0.65 $0.85 $0.32
Beaumont $0.35 per sq.
ft.
$0.35 per sq.
ft. $0.36 $0.48 $0.17
Colton $870 per unit $662 per unit $0.21 $0.36 $0.08
Desert Springs
$441 Detached
Dwelling
$453 Attached
Dwelling
$441 Detached
Dwelling
$453 Attached
Dwelling
$0.12 $0.12 $0.09
Palm Desert $709 Low
Density
$306 Medium
Density
$182 High
Density
$0.22 $0.21 $0.21
Redlands $0.45 per sq.
ft.
$0.45 per sq.
ft. $0.17 $2.08 $2.46
Yucaipa $0.63 per sq.
ft.
$0.63 per sq.
ft. $0.52 $0.52 $0.39
Of the surveyed jurisdictions, Palm Springs and Riverside do not assess a Fire-specific impact fee. Palm Springs does have a Canyon area-specific fire protection impact fee, assessed at $460 per acre for 766

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 23
single-family residential development and $1,875 per acre for commercial or multi-family development.

However, since it is not a city-wide impact fee, it was not included in the comparison.

The City’s current residential Fire impact fees are on the lower end when compared to surrounding jurisdictions that also charge per square foot; only Beaumont is lower. Both the single-family and multifamily residential calculated full costs are higher than all other jurisdictions.

With the exception of Redlands’ office and industrial fees and Yucaipa’s commercial and industrial fees, Banning’s current and calculated full cost non-residential fees are higher than those of the surveyed jurisdictions.
767

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 24
The City currently administers a general facilities impact fee to recover the proportionate costs City Hall and other governmental infrastructure that is not covered through other impact fees (i.e. Police, Fire, Parks, Traffic, etc.). To ensure service levels are maintained as the City continues to grow, the current general facilities impact fee cost components and assumptions were updated through this analysis. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions and standards utilized, cost assumptions and components, impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of general facilities impact fees.

GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
City facilities are accessed by both residential and non-residential populations (employees). Future development would require expanded public facilities and the purchase of additional vehicles and equipment. Since these facilities house City staff who provide public services, they benefit both existing and future development. To determine the proportional share of existing and future development, the project team calculated the City’s future service population. In addition, since an employee working within the city does not have the same tendency to use general facilities as a resident, their impact was weighted less. Non-residential access was based on a standard 40-hour work week, reflecting the typical period during which non-residents are present in the City. Based on hours per week, the non-residential population was weighted at 24%. The following table shows the current population for each category, the proportionate weight factor, and the weighted population:

Table 32: Weighted Population Calculation
Category 2025
Population
Weight
Factor
Weighted 2025
Population
Residential 31,949 100% 31,949
Non-Residential 11,400 24% 2,714
Total 43,349 34,663
The total weighted 2025 population is roughly 35,000. This value is then divided by the total cost to be apportioned, as outlined in the following section, resulting in a weighted cost per capita.

COST COMPONENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Based on projected increases in residential and non-residential populations, an impact nexus exists for the department’s infrastructure needs. The planning horizon for the General Facilities impact fee is 15 years (2025 to 2040). Over this period, the department will need to replace and upgrade infrastructure to maintain its existing level of service. The impact fee calculation applies the system plan method to determine the proportional share attributable to new development. Since future development will benefit from these facilities and equipment, an appropriate portion of the upgrade cost should be allocated to

GENERAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE
768

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 25
new growth. The following table presents the total projected infrastructure costs, net of existing fund balances, by cost category.

Table 33: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost - General Facilities Total General Facilities Cost28 $28,727,200
Total General Facilities Equipment & Vehicle Cost29 $320,900 Total Projected Infrastructure Cost $29,048,100
Current Fund Balance30 ($706546)
Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost $28,341,551
Over the next 15 years, the General Facilities will require approximately $28 million to meet the needs of the City’s existing and future population.

IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
As calculated in the previous section, the total infrastructure needs for General Facilities are approximately $28 million. This cost is then divided by the total weighted service population as shown in Table 32, resulting in the cost per capita. The figure below shows this calculation.

Table 34: Cost Per Capita Calculation
$28,341,551 Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost
= $818 Cost per Capita 34,663 Weighted 2025 Population
The $818 per capita cost illustrates the amount the City should invest in infrastructure per person. Again, since the non-residential population does not require the same access, the 24% weighting (based on a 40-hour work week) is applied to the cost per capita for residents versus non-residential users.

Table 35: Weighted Cost Per Capita
Category Cost / Capita Weight
Factor
Weighted Cost
Per Capita
Residential $818 100% $818
Non-Residential $818 24% $195
While the residential cost per capita remains at $818, the non-residential cost per capita reduces to $195.

The weighted cost per capita is then multiplied by the density factors outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter, resulting in the General Facilities impact fee by category. The following table shows this calculation.
28 A detailed accounting of the facility costs is included in Appendix C of this report. 29 A detailed accounting of the equipment costs is included in Appendix C of this report. 30 Represents the fund balance at the end of FY24-25.
769

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 26
Table 36: General Facilities Impact Fee Calculation
Category Cost Per
Capita Density Impact Fee
Residential: Per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Single Family $818 1.47 $1,202
Multi-Family $818 2.55 $2,086
Non-Residential: Per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $195 2.39 $465
Office $195 3.12 $607
Industrial $195 1.16 $226
The cost per 1,000 square feet for residential single-family development is $1,202, multi-family is $2,086, and non-residential development varies from a low of $226 per 1,000 square feet for industrial properties to a high of $607 per 1,000 square feet for offices. The 2% administrative fee is applied to the impact fee.

The following table shows this calculation.

Table 37: General Facilities Impact Fee Calculation – Including Administrative Fee Category Impact
Fee Admin %
Impact Fee +
Admin Fee Per
1,000 Sq. Ft.

Impact Fee +
Admin Fee
per Sq. Ft.

Residential
Single Family $1,202 2% $1,226 $1.23
Multi-Family $2,086 2% $2,127 $2.13
Non-Residential
Commercial $465 2% $475 $0.47
Office $607 2% $620 $0.62
Industrial $226 2% $230 $0.23
The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the proportionate impact of future development. The following table compares the City’s current General Facilities impact fee to the full cost impact fees, and the associated per unit difference:
770

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 27
Table 38: Current vs. Full Cost – General Facilities Impact Fee Category Current
Impact Fee
Full Cost
Impact Fee Difference
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Single Family $0.2731 $1.23 ($0.95)
Multi-Family $0.4332 $2.13 ($1.70)
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $0.49 $0.47 $0.02
Office $0.64 $0.62 $0.02
Industrial $0.24 $0.23 $0.01
All residential impact fees show an under-recovery, ranging from a low of $0.95 per square foot for single-family to a high of $1.70 per square foot for multi-family developments. Non-residential impact fees show minimal overages of $0.01 to $0.02 per square foot.

NEXUS CRITERIA
As discussed in the legal framework section, for an impact fee to be implemented, it must meet all five nexus criteria established by the Mitigation Fee Act. The following table outlines each criterion point and how the proposed General Facilities Impact fee meets the criteria.

Table 39: Impact Fee Nexus Criteria – General Facilities Criteria Meet
Purpose Of Fee
The purpose of the fee is to upgrade existing City Hall, Public Works Facilities, and other miscellaneous City equipment and facilities overseen by the Public Works Department.

Use of Fee Revenue
Revenue associated with this impact fee is housed in a specific general facilities impact fee fund to help ensure that funds are appropriately accounted for and used to meet the general facilities infrastructure needs of the City’s growth.

Benefit Relationship
The use of the impact fee revenue would be to rehabilitate existing facilities and equipment to maintain level of service and serve new development. New residents and employees receive benefits from improved access to infrastructure.

Impact Relationship
The addition of new residents and employees would have an impact on the ability of the City to meet all the needs. Therefore, the cost associated with adding additional equipment or expanding facilities to accommodate additional staff to allow for appropriate handling of the new growth would be borne by new residents or employees. 31 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
32 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
771

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 28
Criteria Meet
Proportionality
The proposed impact fee is calculated based upon proportionality of projected growth with the greatest impact by residential areas, followed by commercial areas. The fees are calculated on a per square foot basis for both residential and commercial properties as the concept is that the larger the space, the greater the population that occupies that space and therefore the greater the impact on the City’s infrastructure.

Capital Improvement Plan
As part of this impact fee analysis, a capital improvement plan has been adopted to update the City’s general public facilities and is presented as an appendix.

Level of Service
The proposed impact fees are based on the existing level of service as they are based on the current standard of infrastructure servicing both existing and future population. Future population / growth is calculated based on their proportional need for the facilities.

Original Nexus Analysis
The original nexus analysis developed by the City was based on information from 2019, and the City has not increased fees since then.

Since the original analysis, costs have significantly increased, and as the fund balance reflects, the City has insufficient funding to meet the needs for future development.

As the table demonstrates, the City meets all five criteria necessary to continue charging the general facilities development impact fee, as well as the three additional criteria associated with AB602.

Additionally, the general facilities impact fee has an essential nexus to the City’s land use interest of ensuring that there is adequate infrastructure to serve the new development, and the fee has been calculated to be roughly proportionate to the development’s impact on the City’s general facilities as it does not exceed the City’s cost of providing services to new development.

COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions that charge a General Facilities Impact Fee. The following table compares the City’s current fee and full cost to other jurisdictions in the region:

Table 40: Comparative Survey – General Facilities Impact Fee Residential Non-Residential (Per Sq. Ft.)
Jurisdiction Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Office Industrial Banning - Current $0.27 per sq.
ft
$0.43 per sq.
ft $0.49 $0.64 $0.24
Banning - Full Cost $1.23 per sq.
ft.
$2.13 per sq.
ft. $0.47 $0.62 $0.23
Beaumont $0.25 per sq.
ft.
$0.25 per sq.
ft. $0.15 $0.18 $0.06
772

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 29
Residential Non-Residential (Per Sq. Ft.)
Jurisdiction Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Office Industrial Colton $180 per unit $137 per unit $0.04 $0.08 $0.02
Desert Springs
$529 Detached
Dwelling
$543 Attached
Dwelling
$529 Detached
Dwelling
$543 Attached
Dwelling
$0.14 $0.14 $0.11
Redlands $0.71 per sq.
ft.
$0.71 per sq.
ft. $0.26 $3.30 $3.90
Yucaipa $1.23 per sq.
ft.
$1.22 per sq.
ft. $0.26 $0.26 $0.74
Of the surveyed jurisdictions, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Riverside do not assess a General Facilities-specific impact fee. The City’s current residential General Facilities impact fees are lower than those of surrounding jurisdictions that also charge per-square-foot fees. Yucaipa’s single-family rate is aligned with the City’s calculated full cost, but significantly lower than the City’s multi-family rate.

With the exception of Redlands’ office and industrial fees and Yucaipa’s industrial fees, Banning’s current and calculated full cost non-residential fees are higher than those of the surveyed jurisdictions. 773

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 30
The City currently imposes a parks impact fee, which helps acquire new land and supports enhancements to existing park facilities. Park services primarily benefit the residential population, and future growth will increase demand for park-specific infrastructure. To ensure service levels are maintained as the City continues to grow, the current park impact fee cost components and assumptions were updated through this analysis. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions and standards utilized, cost assumptions and components, impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of parks impact fees.

GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
Park services primarily serve Banning's residents; as such non-residential people where not factored into the Parks impact fee calculations. Future development would require expanded park facilities, enhanced equipment, and the acquisition of new parkland.

The City’s current standard is 2.19 acres per 1,000 residents, based on the existing parks available in the City’s Park Master Plan and the current residential population. In order for the City to maintain this existing level of service and standard as the residential population increases, the City will need to acquire additional park acreage. The following table shows the proportionate number of acres needed to account for new residential growth:

Table 41: Proposed New Acres Needed based on Acreage Standard Category Amount
Current Acreage Standard – per resident 0.00226
Projected Residential Growth 5,651
Total # of Acres Required to Maintain Standard 12.37
Based upon the standard of 0.00226 acres per resident and growth of 5,651 residents, the City will need to acquire an additional 12.37 acres to retain this standard.

COST COMPONENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Based on projected increases in residential population, an impact nexus exists for the department’s infrastructure needs. The planning horizon for the Parks impact fee is 15 years (2025 to 2040). Over this period, the department will need to replace and upgrade infrastructure to maintain its existing level of service. The impact fee calculation applies the system plan method to determine the proportional share attributable to new development. Since future development will benefit from these facilities and equipment, an appropriate portion of the upgrade cost should be allocated to new growth. The following table presents the total projected infrastructure costs, net of existing fund balances, by cost category.

PARKS IMPACT FEE
774

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 31
Table 42: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost - Parks
Total Parks Facilities Cost33 $17,414,800
Total Parks Anticipated Projects Cost34 $2,658,200
Total Parks Equipment & Vehicle Cost35 $385,925
Total Projected Infrastructure Cost $20,458,925
Current Fund Balance36 ($29,288)
Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost $20,429,637
Over the next 15 years, the Parks will require approximately $20 million to meet the needs of the City’s existing and future population.

In addition to the $20 million in infrastructure costs, the other cost component to be considered is the parkland cost per resident. The parkland cost per resident is calculated by multiplying the cost to develop a single acre37 by the number of acres needed to maintain the parkland standard. This is calculated at $10,697,966. This cost is then divided by the anticipated growth to calculate the cost per resident. The following figure shows this calculation.

Table 43: Cost of Parkland Development Per Resident Calculation $10,697,966 Cost to Acquire / Develop Parkland
= $1,839 Cost per Capita 5,651 Growth in Population Between 2025 and 2040 The $1,893 per resident covers the cost of acquiring and developing parkland to maintain the City’s parkland standard.

Lastly, as outlined in the prior section, a citywide administrative fee of 2% was calculated to cover City staff support for monitoring and reporting impact fee funds.

IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
As calculated in the previous section, the total infrastructure needs for Parks are approximately $20 million. This cost is then divided by the total service population calculated in the Projected Growth and Development chapter. The figure below shows this calculation.

Table 44: Cost Per Capita Calculation
$20,429,637 Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost
= $639 Cost per Capita 31,949 2025 Population
33 A detailed accounting of the capital improvement costs is included in Appendix D of this report. 34 A detailed accounting of the facility costs is included in Appendix D of this report. 35 A detailed accounting of the equipment costs is included in Appendix D of this report. 36 Represents the fund balance at the end of FY24-25.
37 To remain consistent with prior assumptions land acquisitions cost was taken from the prior DIF study and a CCI inflation factor was added. 775

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 32
The $639 per capita cost is added to the parkland cost per resident ($1,893), equaling a total residential cost per capita rate of $2,533. This value illustrates the amount the City should invest in Parks infrastructure per person.

The total cost per capita is then multiplied by the density factors outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter, resulting in the Parks impact fee by category. The following table shows this calculation.

Table 45: Parks Impact Fee Calculation
Category Cost Per
Capita Density Impact Fee
Residential: Per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Single Family $2,533 1.47 $3,722
Multi-Family $2,533 2.55 $6,461
The cost per 1,000 square feet for residential single-family development is $3,722, and for multi-family is $6,461. The 2% administrative fee is applied to the impact fee. The following table shows this calculation.

Table 46: Parks Impact Fee Calculation – Including Administrative Fee Category Impact
Fee Admin %
Impact Fee +
Admin Fee Per
1,000 Sq. Ft.

Impact Fee +
Admin Fee
per Sq. Ft.

Residential
Single Family $3,722 2% $3,796 $3.80
Multi-Family $6,461 2% $6,590 $6.59
The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the proportionate impact of future development. The following table compares the City’s current Parks impact fee to the full cost impact fees, and the associated per unit difference:

Table 47: Current vs. Full Cost – Parks Impact Fee
Category Current
Impact Fee38
Full Cost
Impact Fee Difference
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Single Family $2.02 $3.80 ($1.78)
Multi-Family $3.14 $6.59 ($3.45)
38 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
776

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 33
All impact fees show an under-recovery, ranging from a low of $1.78 per square foot for single-family to a high of $3.45 per square foot for multi-family developments.

NEXUS CRITERIA
As discussed in the legal framework section, in order for an impact fee to be implemented, it must meet all five of the nexus criteria as established per the Mitigation Fee Act. The following table outlines each criterion point and how the proposed Parks Impact fee meets the criteria.

Table 48: Impact Fee Nexus Criteria – Parks
As the table demonstrates, the City meets all five criteria necessary to continue charging the parks development impact fee, as well as the three additional criteria associated with AB602. Additionally, the park impact fee has an essential nexus to the City’s land use interest of ensuring that there is adequate park infrastructure to serve the new development, and the fee has been calculated to be roughly Criteria Meet
Purpose Of Fee The purpose of this fee would be to fund the acquisition of new parkland, the development of new parks and recreation facilities and improving existing parks equipment.

Use of Fee Revenue Revenue associated with this impact fee is housed in a specific park impact fee fund to help ensure that funds are appropriately accounted for and used to meet the ark infrastructure needs of the City’s growth.

Benefit Relationship The use of the impact fee revenue would be to develop new facilities or expand or improve existing facilities, which would be directly proportional to the increased wear and tear and use of parks and recreation facilities as there is new residential growth in the City. The increase in residential population is related proportionally to the square footage of development as larger properties result in more population.

Impact Relationship Based upon the current and proposed parks and recreation facility needs in the City, the addition of new residents would require the need for new and expanded facilities.

Proportionality The proposed impact fee is calculated based upon proportionality of projected growth with the greatest impact by residential areas. The fees are calculated on a per square foot basis for residential properties as the concept is that the larger the space, the greater the population that occupies that space and therefore the greater the impact on the City’s infrastructure.

Capital Improvement Plan A capital improvement plan has been adopted to update the City’s park facilities and is presented as an appendix.

Level of Service
The proposed impact fees are based on the existing level of service as they are based on the current standard of the parks facilities servicing both existing and future population. Future population / growth is calculated based on their proportional need for the facilities.

Original Nexus Analysis
The original nexus analysis developed by the City was based on information from 2019, and the City has not increased fees since then. Since the original analysis, costs have significantly increased, and as the fund balance reflects, the City has insufficient funding to meet the needs for future development.
777

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 34
proportionate to the development’s impact on the City’s park infrastructure, as it does not exceed the City’s cost of providing services to new development.

COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions that charge a Parks Impact Fee. The following table compares the City’s current fee and full cost to other jurisdictions in the region:

Table 49: Comparative Survey – Parks Impact Fee
Residential
Jurisdiction Single Family Multi-Family
Banning - Current $2.02 per sq. ft $3.80 per sq. ft
Banning - Full
Cost $3.14 per sq. ft. $6.59 per sq. ft.

Beaumont $0.78 per sq. ft. $0.78 per sq. ft.

Colton $5,714 per unit $4,351 per unit
Desert Springs $1,675 Detached Dwelling
$1,722 Attached Dwelling
$1,675 Detached Dwelling
$1,722 Attached Dwelling
Redlands $1.18 per sq. ft. $1.18 per sq. ft.

Riverside
$4,646 SFR Detached
$4,065 SFR Attached - Duplex
$2,615 Residential Condo
$3,653 MFR - Triplex or Quadplex
$3,045 MFR ADU/Apt/Senior Apt
Yucaipa $1.67 per sq. ft. $1.67 per sq. ft.

Of the surveyed jurisdictions, Palm Desert and Palm Springs do not assess a Parks-specific impact fee.

The City’s current and calculated full cost Parks impact fees for single-family development are higher than those of surrounding jurisdictions that also charge per-square-foot fees. The City’s Multi-family rates are significantly higher than surrounding jurisdictions. It is important to tone that it is common to see these types of fees subsidized and occasionally jurisdictions may exclude the parkland acquisition component when assessing these fees.
778

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 35
The City currently administers a police impact fee to recover the proportionate costs of fire infrastructure required to serve new development. The Police Department provides services to both residential and non-residential populations, and future growth will increase demand for fire-specific infrastructure. To ensure service levels are maintained as the City continues to grow, the current police impact fee cost components and assumptions were updated through this analysis. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions and standards utilized, cost assumptions and components, impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of police impact fees.

GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
The Police Department serves both residential and non-residential populations (employees). Future development would require expanded Police stations and the purchase of additional vehicles and equipment. Since the primary goal of the Police Department is to provide law enforcement and safety services within the City, its services benefit both existing and future development. To determine the proportional share of existing and future development, the project team calculated the City’s future service population. In addition, since an employee working within the city does not have the same tendency to use fire services as a resident, their impact was weighted less. The weighting for employees was based on the acreage within the City zoned for non-residential use. Based on zoning, non-residential acreage accounts for 33% of the City of Banning; therefore, the non-residential population was weighted at 33%. The following table shows the current population for each category, the proportionate weight factor, and the weighted population:

Table 50: Weighted Population Calculation
Category 2025
Population
Weight
Factor
Weighted 2025
Population
Residential 31,949 100% 31,949
Non-Residential 11,400 33% 3,754
Total 43,349 35,703
The total weighted 2025 population is roughly 36,000. This value is then divided by the total cost to be apportioned, as outlined in the following section, resulting in a weighted cost per capita.

COST COMPONENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Based on projected increases in residential and non-residential populations, an impact nexus exists for the department’s infrastructure needs. The planning horizon for the Police impact fee is 15 years (2025 to 2040). Over this period, the department will need to replace and upgrade infrastructure to maintain its existing level of service. The impact fee calculation applies the system plan method to determine the proportional share attributable to new development. Since future development will benefit from these facilities and equipment, an appropriate portion of the upgrade cost should be allocated to new growth.

POLICE IMPACT FEE
779

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 36
The following table presents the total projected infrastructure costs, net of existing fund balances, by cost category.

Table 51: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost - Police
Total Police Facility Cost39 $18,614,423
Total Police Equipment & Vehicle Cost40 $3,756,500
Total Projected Infrastructure Cost $22,370,923
Current Fund Balance41 ($860,409)
Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost $21,510,514
Over the next 15 years, the Police Department will require approximately $21.5 million to meet the needs of the City’s existing and future population.

IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
As the previous section calculated, the total infrastructure needs for the Police Department are approximately $21.5 million. This cost is then divided by the total weighted service population as shown in Table 50, resulting in the cost per capita. The figure below shows this calculation.

Table 52: Cost Per Capita Calculation
$21,510,514 Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost
= $602 Cost per Capita 35,703 Weighted 2025 Population
The $602 per capita cost illustrates the amount the City should invest in police infrastructure per person.

Again, since the non-residential population does not have the same need for police services, the 33% weighting (based on City zoning) is applied to cost per capita for residents versus non-residential users.

Table 53: Weighted Cost Per Capita
Category Cost / Capita Weight
Factor
Weighted Cost
Per Capita
Residential $602 100% $602
Non-Residential $602 33% $198
While the residential cost per capita remains at $602, the non-residential cost per capita reduces to $198.

The weighted cost per capita is then multiplied by the density factors outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter, resulting in the Police impact fee by category. The following table shows this calculation.
39 A detailed accounting of the facility costs is included in Appendix E of this report. 40 A detailed accounting of the equipment costs is included in Appendix E of this report. 41 Represents the fund balance at the end of FY24-25.
780

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 37
Table 54: Police Impact Fee Calculation
Category Cost Per
Capita Density Impact Fee
Residential: Per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Single Family $602 1.47 $885
Multi-Family $602 2.55 $1,537
Non-Residential: Per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial $198 2.39 $474
Office $198 3.12 $619
Industrial $198 1.16 $230
The cost per 1,000 square feet for residential single-family development is $885, multi-family is $1,537, and non-residential development varies from a low of $230 per 1,000 square feet for industrial properties to a high of $619 per 1,000 square feet for offices. The 2% administrative fee is applied to the impact fee.

The following table shows this calculation.

Table 55: Police Impact Fee Calculation – Including Administrative Fee Category Impact
Fee Admin %
Impact Fee +
Admin Fee Per
1,000 Sq. Ft.

Impact Fee +
Admin Fee
per Sq. Ft.

Residential
Single Family $885 2% $903 $0.90
Multi-Family $1,537 2% $1,568 $1.57
Non-Residential
Commercial $474 2% $484 $0.48
Office $619 2% $631 $0.63
Industrial $230 2% $235 $0.23
The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the proportionate impact of future development. The following table compares the City’s current Police impact fee to the full cost impact fees and the associated per-unit difference:

Table 56: Current vs. Full Cost – Police Impact Fee
Category Current
Impact Fee
Full Cost
Impact Fee Difference
Residential: Per Sq. Ft. 42
Single Family $0.63 $0.90 ($0.27)
Multi-Family $0.98 $1.57 ($0.59)
42 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
781

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 38
Category Current
Impact Fee
Full Cost
Impact Fee Difference
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $0.35 $0.48 ($0.13)
Office $0.46 $0.63 ($0.17)
Industrial $0.17 $0.23 ($0.06)
All impact fees show an under-recovery, ranging from a low of $0.06 per square foot for industrial to a high of $0.59 per square foot for multi-family developments.

NEXUS CRITERIA
As discussed in the legal framework section, for an impact fee to be implemented, it must meet all five nexus criteria established by the Mitigation Fee Act. The following table outlines each criterion point and how the proposed Police Impact fee meets the criteria.

Table 57: Impact Fee Nexus Criteria – Police
Criteria Meet
Purpose Of Fee
The purpose of this fee is to upgrade existing Police stations, cover costs of new stations necessary to maintain services levels, and enhance or replace police-specific vehicles and equipment.

Use of Fee Revenue
Revenue associated with this impact fee is housed in a specific police impact fee fund to help ensure that funds are appropriately accounted for and used to meet the police infrastructure needs of the City’s growth.

Benefit Relationship
The use of the impact fee revenue would be to rehabilitate existing police stations and equipment to accommodate to allow for the most efficient response for service. New residents and employees receive benefits associated with more efficient response times and enhanced equipment.

Impact Relationship
The addition of new residents and employees would have an impact on the ability of the police services to respond adequately and in an efficient manner. Therefore, the cost associated with adding additional equipment or expanding facilities to accommodate additional staff to allow for responses would be borne by new residents or employees.

Proportionality
The proposed impact fee is calculated based upon proportionality of projected growth with the greatest impact by residential areas, followed by commercial areas. The fees are calculated on a per square foot basis for both residential and commercial properties as the concept is that the larger the space, the greater the population that occupies that space and therefore the greater the impact on the City’s infrastructure.

Capital Improvement Plan A capital improvement plan has been adopted to update the City’s police facilities and is presented as an appendix.

Level of Service
The proposed impact fees are based on the existing level of service as they are based on the current standard of the fire infrastructure servicing both existing and future population. Future population / growth is calculated based on their proportional need for the facilities, vehicles and equipment.
782

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 39
Criteria Meet
Original Nexus Analysis
The original nexus analysis developed by the City was based on information from 2019, and the City has not increased fees since then.

Since the original analysis, costs have significantly increased, and as the fund balance reflects, the City has insufficient funding to meet the needs for future development.

As the table demonstrates, the City meets all five criteria necessary to continue charging the police development impact fee, as well as the three additional criteria associated with AB602. Additionally, the police impact fee has an essential nexus to the City’s land use interest of ensuring that there is adequate police infrastructure to serve the new development, and the fee has been calculated to be roughly proportionate to the development’s impact on the City’s police facilities, as it does not exceed the City’s cost of providing fire services to new development.

COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions that charge a Police Impact Fee. The following table compares the City’s current fee and full cost to other jurisdictions in the region:

Table 58: Comparative Survey – Police Impact Fee
Residential Commercial (Per Sq. Ft.)
Jurisdiction Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Office Industrial Banning - Current $0.63 per sq.
ft
$0.98 per sq.
ft $0.35 $0.46 $0.17
Banning - Full Cost $0.90 per sq.
ft.
$1.57 per sq.
ft. $0.48 $0.63 $0.23
Beaumont $0.53 per sq.
ft.
$0.53 per sq.
ft. $0.27 $0.36 $0.12
Colton $1,134 per
unit $863 per unit $0.28 $0.4 $0.10
Desert Springs
$427 Detached
Dwelling
$439 Attached
Dwelling
$427 Detached
Dwelling
$439 Attached
Dwelling
$0.11 $0.11 $0.09
Redlands $0.52 per sq.
ft.
$0.52 per sq.
ft. $0.19 $2.40 $2.84
Of the surveyed jurisdictions, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Riverside, and Yucaipa do not assess a policespecific impact fee. The City’s current and calculated full-cost residential fees are higher than those of all other jurisdictions that assess fees based on square footage.

With the exception of Redlands’ office and industrial fees, Banning’s current and calculated full cost commercial fees are higher than those of the surveyed jurisdictions. 783

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 40
The City currently administers a traffic impact fee to recover the proportionate costs of traffic infrastructure required to serve new development. To ensure service levels are maintained as the City continues to grow, the current traffic impact fee cost components and assumptions were updated through this analysis. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions and standards utilized, cost assumptions and components, impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of traffic impact fees.

GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
The purpose of a Traffic impact fee is to recover the proportionate costs of transportation improvements required to serve new development, including roadway capacity, signalization, intersection upgrades, and various pathways. Transportation demand projections are based on standardized trip generation rates, which measure the number of trips produced by residents, employees, and visitors accessing homes, jobs, services, and commercial destinations. These rates differ by land-use type and reflect each use’s relative impact on the transportation network. Applying differentiated trip factors ensures that development contributes its proportional share toward the transportation improvements needed to support growth. Trip generation assumptions used in this analysis are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, an industry-standard source. The trip rates are then multiplied by the change in dwelling units per land-use type from 2025 to 2040. These calculations are shown in the table below:

Table 59: Projected Total Number of Trips Calculation
Category 2025 DU
/ KSF 43
2040 DU
/ KSF 44 Difference Trip Rate
Weighted
2025 DU / KSF
Weighted
2040 DU / KSF
Weighted
Difference
Residential
Single Family 10,224 14,775 4,551 0.99 10,122 14,627 4,505 Multi-Family 2,381 16,728 14,347 0.44 1,042 7,319 6,277 Total 12,605 31,503 18,898 12,163 21,946 10,782
Non-Residential
Commercial 1,204 2,993 1,789 4.40 5,297 13,169 7,872
Office 2,234 1,895 (339) 1.44 3,216 2,729 (487)
Industrial 1,340 977 (363) 0.70 938 684 (254)
Total 4,777 5,865 1,088 6.54 9,451 16,582 7,131
Total Number of Trips 20,615 38,528 17,913
43 Based on Banning’s General Plan.
44 Based on Banning’s General Plan.

TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
784

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 41
The total projected number of trips increasing from 2025 to 2040 is roughly 18,000. This value is divided by the total cost to be apportioned (as outlined in the following section), resulting in the cost per trip, which serves as the basis for calculating the wastewater impact fee.

COST COMPONENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Based on the projected increase in trips, an impact nexus exists for the department’s infrastructure needs. The planning horizon for the Traffic impact fee is 15 years (2025 to 2040). Over this period, the department will need to replace and upgrade infrastructure to maintain its existing level of service. The impact fee calculation applies the system plan method to determine the proportional share attributable to new development. Since future development will benefit from these facilities and equipment, an appropriate portion of the upgrade cost should be allocated to new growth. The following table presents the total projected infrastructure costs, net of existing fund balances, by cost category.

Table 60: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost - Traffic Total Traffic CIP Cost45 $89,069,875
Total Projected Infrastructure Cost $89,069,875
Current Fund Balance46 ($2,723,594)
Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost $86,346,281
Over the next 15 years, the City will require approximately $86 million to meet the needs of the City’s existing and future population.

The total projected net infrastructure cost is then divided by the weighted total number of trips, resulting in a cost per trip. The calculation is shown below:

Table 61: Traffic Cost Per Trip Calculation
$86,346,281 Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost
= $2,241 Cost / Trip 38,528 # of 2040 Total Trips
The $2,241 per-trip cost illustrates the amount the City should invest in transportation infrastructure per dwelling unit or KSF.

IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
As the previous section calculated, the total cost per trip is $2,241. This is the cost regardless of residential or non-residential development. This value is then multiplied by the trip rate, resulting in the Traffic impact fee. The following table shows this calculation:
45 A detailed accounting of the capital improvement costs is included in Appendix F of this report. 46 Represents the fund balance at the end of FY24-25.
785

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 42
Table 62: Traffic Impact Fee Calculation
Category Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor Impact Fee
Residential: Per DWU
Single Family $2,241 0.99 $2,219
Multi-Family $2,241 0.44 $981
Non-Residential: Per KSF
Commercial $2,241 4.40 $9,861
Office $2,241 1.44 $3,227
Industrial $2,241 0.70 $1,569
The cost per dwelling unit for residential single-family development is $2,219, multi-family is $981, and non-residential development varies from a low of $1,569 per 1,000 square feet for industrial properties to a high of $9,861 per 1,000 square feet for commercial development. The 2% administrative fee is applied to the impact fee. The following table shows this calculation.

Table 63: Traffic Impact Fee Calculation – Including Administrative Fee Category Impact
Fee Admin %
Impact Fee +
Admin Fee Per
DWU or KSF
Impact Fee +
Admin Fee
per Sq. Ft.

Residential
Single Family $2,219 2% $2,263 $1.1947
Multi-Family $981 2% $1,000 $1.0048
Non-Residential
Commercial $9,861 2% $10,058 $10.06
Office $3,227 2% $3,292 $3.29
Industrial $1,569 2% $1,600 $1.60
The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the proportionate impact of future development. The City’s current traffic impact fees were calculated for every possible type of land use that could exist at a super granular level. To be consistent with other impact fees, the City is proposing to streamline the traffic impact fee to be based on the more general land use type. Therefore, the values in the table above reflect the maximum justifiable traffic impact fee.

NEXUS CRITERIA
As discussed in the legal framework section, in order for an impact fee to be implemented, it must meet all five of the nexus criteria as established per the Mitigation Fee Act. The following table outlines each criterion point and how the proposed Traffic Impact fee meets the criteria. 47 The average square footage of a SFR unit (1,900 sq. ft.) in Banning was used to convert from DU to square footage. 48 The average square footage of a MFR unit (1,000 sq. ft.) in Banning was used to convert from DU to square footage. 786

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 43
Table 64: Impact Fee Nexus Criteria – Traffic
As the table demonstrates, the City meets all five criteria necessary to continue charging the traffic development impact fee, as well as the three additional criteria associated with AB602. Additionally, the traffic impact fee has an essential nexus to the City’s land use interest of ensuring that there is adequate traffic infrastructure to serve the new development, and the fee has been calculated to be roughly proportionate to the development’s impact on the City’s transportation systems, as it does not exceed the City’s cost of providing transportation services to new development.

COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions that charge a Traffic Impact Fee. The following table compares the City’s current fee and full cost to other jurisdictions in the region:

Criteria Meet
Purpose Of Fee The purpose of the fee is to upgrade existing transportation measures or fund the construction of new transportation measures based upon the projected increase in development within the City.

Use of Fee Revenue Revenue associated with this impact fee is housed in a specific traffic impact fee fund to help ensure that funds are appropriately accounted for and used to meet the traffic infrastructure needs of the City’s growth.

Benefit Relationship The use of the impact fee revenue would be to enhance, upgrade, or expand existing and future transportation infrastructure. New residents and employees receive benefit from these transportation project improvements. The residential and commercial service population increase is directly applicable to square footage per development.

Impact Relationship The addition of new residents and employees would have an impact on the ability of the city’s existing transportation system to the increase in need. Therefore, the cost associated with adding additional or improving existing transportation infrastructure would be proportionately borne by new residents or employees.

Proportionality The proposed impact fee is calculated based upon proportionality of projected growth with the greatest impact by residential areas, followed by commercial areas. The fees are calculated on a per square foot basis for both residential and commercial properties as the concept is that the larger the space, the greater the population that occupies that space and therefore the greater the impact on the City’s infrastructure.

Capital Improvement Plan A capital improvement plan has been adopted to update the City’s fire facilities and is presented as an appendix.

Level of Service
The proposed impact fees are based on the existing level of service as they are based on the trips servicing both existing and future population.

Future population / growth is calculated based on their proportional need for the infrastructure.

Original Nexus Analysis
The original nexus analysis developed by the City was based on information from 2019, and the City has not increased fees since then.

Since the original analysis, costs have significantly increased, and as the fund balance reflects, the City has insufficient funding to meet the needs for future development.
787

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 44
Table 65: Comparative Survey – Traffic
Residential Commercial (per sq. ft.)
Jurisdiction Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Office Industrial Banning - Current Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies
Banning - Full Cost $1.19 per
sq. ft.
$1.00 per
sq. ft. $10.06 $3.29 $1.60
Beaumont $1.66 per
sq. ft.
$1.66 per
sq. ft. $10.70 $6.02
$2.82 -
$0.5449
Colton $1,623 per
DWU
$1,236 per
DWU $0.40 $0.68 $0.15
Redlands $1.40 per
sq. ft.
$1.40 per
sq. ft. $7.15 $4.31 $2.73
Riverside $525 per DWU $420 per DWU N/A N/A N/A
Yucaipa $4.88 per
sq. ft.
$4.88 per
sq. ft. $4.12 $4.12 $4.71
Of the surveyed jurisdictions, Desert Springs and Palm Springs do not assess a traffic-specific impact fee. Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) administers Palm Desert’s traffic impact fee.

Since it is a regional fee rather than a Palm Desert-specific fee, it was excluded from this comparison.

The City’s calculated full-cost residential fees are lower than those of all other jurisdictions that assess fees based on square footage.

Beaumont’s non-residential fees are higher than Banning’s calculated full cost. With the exception of commercial rates, Redlands and Yucaipa’s fees generally align with Banning’s, while Colton’s rates are the lowest of the surveyed jurisdictions.
49 Colton’s industrial fees range based on the type of industrial development. 788

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 45
The City currently administers a wastewater impact fee to recover the proportionate costs of wastewater infrastructure required to serve new development. These wastewater systems serve both residential and non-residential populations, and future growth will increase demand for wastewater-specific infrastructure. To ensure service levels are maintained as the City continues to grow, the current wastewater impact fee cost components and assumptions were updated through this analysis. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions and standards utilized, cost assumptions and components, impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of wastewater impact fees.

GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
The purpose of a wastewater impact fee is to recover the proportionate costs associated with the increased demand placed on the wastewater system by new development, which in turn necessitates the enhancement, expansion, or replacement of existing infrastructure. Wastewater impacts are measured through flow generation in gallons per day per acre (GPD/A). Flow estimates are then converted using standardized density factors to determine average daily flow per 1,000 square feet (KSF). This conversion establishes a consistent baseline for comparing flow impacts across land uses and allocating costs proportionally to new development. The following table shows this calculation.

Table 66: Average Flow Generation per KSF by Land Use Type Category Flow Generation
(GPD / A) Density50 Average Flow Generation/ DU or KSF
Residential
Single Family 1,020 5.00 204.00
Multi-Family 800 11.00 72.73
Non-Residential
Commercial 1,150 15.25 75.41
Office 1,150 43.56 26.40
Industrial 750 26.14 28.69
Once average flow generation per DU or KSF is established for each land use category, the single-family residential flow rate of 204 gallons per day per dwelling unit is used as the baseline equivalent dwelling unit (EDU), assigned a value of 1.0051. All other land use types are then expressed as a proportion of this baseline by dividing their respective flow generation rates by the single-family residential benchmark. 50 Densities align with values represented in the General Plan and other City documents. 51 SFR is used as the EDU baseline strictly for normalization purposes; it does not imply a greater impact, only a consistent reference unit for flow comparison.

WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE
789

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 46
This proportional conversion ensures that each land use type contributes its fair share of capital costs based on relative wastewater demand. The following table shows these conversions.

Table 67: EDU Factor Calculation
Category
Average Flow
Generation / DU or
KSF
SFR - Baseline EDU Factor
Residential
Single Family 204.00 204.00 1.00
Multi-Family 72.73 204.00 0.36
Non-Residential
Commercial 75.41 204.00 0.37
Office 26.40 204.00 0.13
Industrial 28.69 204.00 0.14
The above EDU factors are then multiplied by the difference in dwelling units per land use type from 2025 to 2040. These calculations are shown in the table below:

Table 68: Projected Total Number of EDUs Calculation
Category 2025 DU
/ KSF 52
2040 DU
/ KSF 53 Difference EDU Factor
Weighted
2025 DU / KSF
Weighted
2040 DU / KSF
Weighted
Difference
Residential
Single Family 10,224 14,775 4,551 1.00 10,224 14,775 4,551 Multi-Family 2,381 16,728 14,347 0.36 849 5,964 5,115
Total 12,605 31,503 18,898 11,073 20,739 9,666
Non-Residential
Commercial 1,204 2,993 1,789 0.37 445 1,106 661
Office 2,234 1,895 (339) 0.13 289 245 (44)
Industrial 1,340 977 (363) 0.14 188 137 (51)
Total 4,777 5,865 1,088 923 1,489 567
Total Number of EDUs 11,995 22,228 10,232
The total projected growth of dwelling units from 2025 to 2040 is roughly 10,000. This value is divided by the total cost to be apportioned (as outlined in the following section), resulting in the cost per EDU, which serves as the basis for calculating the wastewater impact fee.

COST COMPONENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Based on the projected increase in EDUs, an impact nexus exists for the department’s infrastructure needs. The planning horizon for the Wastewater impact fee is 15 years (2025 to 2040). Over this period, 52 Based on Banning’s General Plan.
53 Based on Banning’s General Plan.
790

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 47
the department will need to replace and upgrade infrastructure to maintain its existing level of service.

The impact fee calculation applies the system plan method to determine the proportional share attributable to new development. Since future development will benefit from these facilities and equipment, an appropriate portion of the upgrade cost should be allocated to new growth. The following table presents the total projected infrastructure costs, net of existing fund balances, by cost category.

Table 69: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost - Wastewater Total Wastewater CIP Cost Allocated to New Development at Buildout54 $132,753,401 % of Total Population in 2040 Compared to Build-out 55%55 Total Wastewater CIP Cost Allocated to 2040 Development $73,014,371 Total Projected Infrastructure Cost $73,014,371
Current Fund Balance56 ($10,976,585)
Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost $62,037,786
Over the next 15 years, the City will require approximately $62 million to meet the needs of the City’s existing and future population.

The total projected net infrastructure cost is then divided by the weighted growth in EDU, resulting in a cost per EDU. The calculation is shown below:

Table 70: Wastewater Cost Per EDU Calculation
$62,037,786 Total Projected New Development Cost
= $6,063 cost / EDU 10,232 Weighted Growth in EDU
The $6,063 per EDU cost illustrates the amount the City should invest in wastewater infrastructure per dwelling unit.

IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
As calculated in the previous section, the total cost per EDU is $6,063. This is the cost, regardless of whether the development is residential or non-residential. This value is then multiplied by the EDU factor to calculate the Wastewater impact fee. The following table shows this calculation:

Table 71: Wastewater Impact Fee Calculation
Category Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor Impact Fee
Residential: Per DWU
Single Family $6,063 1.00 $6,063
54 A detailed accounting of the capital improvement costs is included in Appendix G of this report. It is important to note that 55 The 2010 Parks Master Plan estimates a build-out population of the City to be 67,787. By 2040, the City is expected to be at 37,600, which is only 55% of the build out population.
56 Represents the fund balance at the end of FY24-25.
791

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 48
Category Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor Impact Fee
Multi-Family $6,063 0.36 $2,161
Non-Residential: Per KSF
Commercial $6,063 0.37 $2,241
Office $6,063 0.13 $785
Industrial $6,063 0.14 $853
The cost per EDU for residential single-family development is $6,603, multi-family is $2,161, and nonresidential development ranges from a low of $785 per 1,000 square feet for office properties to a high of $2,241 per 1,000 square feet for commercial development. The 2% administrative fee is applied to the impact fee. The following table shows this calculation.

Table 72: Wastewater Impact Fee Calculation – Including Administrative Fee Category Impact
Fee Admin %
Impact Fee +
Admin Fee Per
DWU or KSF
Impact Fee +
Admin Fee
per Sq. Ft.

Residential
Single Family $6,063 2% $6,184 $3.2557
Multi-Family $2,161 2% $2,205 $2.2058
Non-Residential
Commercial $2,241 2% $2,286 $2.29
Office $785 2% $800 $0.80
Industrial $853 2% $870 $0.87
The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the proportionate impact of future development. The following table compares the City’s current Wastewater impact fee to the full cost impact fees and the associated per-unit difference:

Table 73: Current vs. Full Cost – Wastewater Impact Fee Category Current
Impact Fee59
Full Cost
Impact Fee Difference
Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Single Family $2.66 $3.25 ($0.59)
Multi-Family $5.06 $2.20 $2.86
Non-Residential: Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial Varies $2.29 N/A
57 The average square footage of a SFR unit (1,900 sq. ft.) in Banning was used to convert from DU to square footage. 58 The average square footage of a MFR unit (1,000 sq. ft.) in Banning was used to convert from DU to square footage. 59 Currently, Banning charges their residential impacts fees based on per dwelling unit. Due to changes in regulations (as outlined in the Legal Framework chapter) residential impact fees must now be calculated based on square footage (similar to the commercial impact fees). To ensure a proper comparison the current fee was converted into a square footage fee utilizing the data outlined in the Projected Growth and Development chapter.
792

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 49
Category Current
Impact Fee59
Full Cost
Impact Fee Difference
Office Varies $0.80 N/A
Industrial Varies $0.87 N/A
The single-family rate shows an under-recovery of $0.59 per square foot, while the multi-family rate shows an overage of $2.86 per square foot. Currently, the City calculates a different impact fee each time, depending on the non-residential development. To streamline fee administration, it was proposed to reclassify fees into three categories: commercial, office, and industrial.

NEXUS CRITERIA
As discussed in the legal framework section, for an impact fee to be implemented, it must meet all five nexus criteria established by the Mitigation Fee Act. The following table outlines each criterion point and how the proposed Wastewater Impact fee meets the criteria.

Table 74: Impact Fee Nexus Criteria – Wastewater
Criteria Meet
Purpose Of Fee
The purpose of this fee is to upgrade existing wastewater systems necessary to maintain services levels and enhance or replace wastewater-specific vehicles and equipment.

Use of Fee Revenue
Revenue associated with this impact fee is housed in a specific wastewater impact fee fund to help ensure that funds are appropriately accounted for and used to meet the wastewater infrastructure needs of the City’s growth.

Benefit Relationship
The use of the impact fee revenue would be to expand, upgrade, or replace existing wastewater systems and equipment to accommodate increased usage proportional to grow. New residents and employees receive benefits associated safe and reliable wastewater systems.

Impact Relationship
New development contributes additional wastewater flow to the City’s collection and treatment system. Therefore, the cost associated with adding additional equipment or expanding facilities to accommodate additional wear would be borne by new residents or employees.

Proportionality
The proposed impact fee is calculated based upon proportionality of projected growth with the greatest impact by residential areas, followed by commercial areas. The fees are calculated on a per square foot basis for both residential and commercial properties as the concept is that the larger the space, the greater the population that occupies that space and therefore the greater the impact on the City’s infrastructure.

Capital Improvement Plan A capital improvement plan has been adopted to update the City’s wastewater infrastructure and is presented as an appendix.

Level of Service
The proposed impact fees are based on the existing level of service as they are based on the current standard of the wastewater infrastructure servicing both existing and future population. Future population / growth is calculated based on their proportional need for the facilities, vehicles and equipment.
793

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 50
Criteria Meet
Original Nexus Analysis
The original nexus analysis developed by the City was based on information from 2019, and the City has not increased fees since then.

Since the original analysis, costs have significantly increased, and as the fund balance reflects, the City has insufficient funding to meet the needs for future development.

As the table demonstrates, the City meets all five criteria necessary to continue charging the wastewater development impact fee, as well as the three additional criteria associated with AB602. Additionally, the wastewater impact fee has an essential nexus to the City’s land use interest of ensuring that there is adequate wastewater infrastructure to serve the new development, and the fee has been calculated to be roughly proportionate to the development’s impact on the City’s wastewater systems, as it does not exceed the City’s cost of providing wastewater services to new development.

COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions that charge a Wastewater impact fee. The following table compares the City’s current fee and full cost to other surveyed jurisdictions in the region:

Table 75: Comparative Survey – Wastewater
Residential Non-Residential (Per Sq. Ft.)
Jurisdiction Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Office Industrial Banning - Current $2.66 per
sq. ft
$5.06 per
sq. ft Varies Varies Varies
Banning - Full Cost $3.25 per
sq. ft.
$2.86 per
sq. ft. $2.29 $0.80 $0.87
Beaumont $0.54 per
sq. ft.
$0.54 per
sq. ft. $0.25 $0.39 $0.38
Palm Springs $1,006 per
EDU
$1,006 per
EDU
$100 per
fixture unit
$100 per
fixture unit
$100 per
fixture unit
Redlands $0.27 per
sq. ft.
$0.27 per
sq. ft. $0.45 $0.45 $0.48
Of the surveyed jurisdictions, Desert Springs, Palm Desert, Riverside, and Yucaipa do not assess a wastewater-specific impact fee.

The City of Colton does assess a combined water & wastewater fee based on meter size. Residential fees are $2,968 for a 3/4-inch meter and $4,956 for a 1-inch meter. Non-residential fees range from a low of $2,968 for a 3/4-inch meter to a high of $333,893 for a 12-inch meter.

The City’s current and calculated full-cost residential fees are higher than those of all other jurisdictions that assess fees based on square footage. The City’s full cost or commercial fees are much higher than those of the other surveyed jurisdictions. It is important to note that this only reflects the adopted impact fees and does not reflect that many jurisdictions have not reviewed or updated their impact fees in many years.
794

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 51
The City currently administers a water impact fee to recover the proportionate costs of water infrastructure required to serve new development. These water systems serve both residential and nonresidential populations, and future growth will increase demand for water-specific infrastructure. To ensure service levels are maintained as the City continues to grow, the current water impact fee cost components and assumptions were updated through this analysis. The following subsections discuss the growth assumptions and standards utilized, cost assumptions and components, impact fee calculation, ability to meet the nexus criteria, and a comparative survey of water impact fees.

GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS
The purpose of a water impact fee is to recover the proportionate costs associated with the increased demand placed on the water system by new development, which in turn necessitates the enhancement, expansion, or replacement of existing infrastructure. Water impacts are measured through flow generation60 in gallons per day per acre (GPD/A). Flow estimates are then converted using standardized density factors to determine average daily flow per 1,000 square feet (KSF). This conversion establishes a consistent baseline for comparing flow impacts across land uses and allocating costs proportionally to new development. The following table shows this calculation.

Table 76: Average Flow Generation per KSF by Land Use Type Category Flow Generation
(GPD / A) Density61 Average Flow Generation / DU or KSF Residential
Single Family 2,300 5.00 460.00
Multi-Family 1,553 11.00 141.14
Non-Residential
Commercial 5,300 15.25 347.54
Office 5,300 43.56 121.67
Industrial 1,700 26.14 65.03
Once average flow generation per DU or KSF is established for each land use category, the single-family residential flow rate of 460 gallons per day per KSF is used as the baseline equivalent dwelling unit (EDU), assigned a value of 1.0062. All other land use types are then expressed as a proportion of this baseline by dividing their respective flow generation rates by the single-family residential benchmark. 60 Flow generation is a term that translates to water demands. 61 Densities align with values represented in the General Plan and other City documents. 62 SFR is used as the EDU baseline strictly for normalization purposes; it does not imply a greater impact, only a consistent reference unit for flow comparison.

WATER IMPACT FEE
795

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 52
This proportional conversion ensures that each land use type contributes its fair share of capital costs based on relative water demand. The following table shows these conversions.

Table 77: EDU Factor Calculation
Category Average Flow
Generation / KSF SFR - Baseline EDU Factor
Residential
Single Family 460.00 460.00 1.00
Multi-Family 141.14 460.00 0.31
Non-Residential
Commercial 347.54 460.00 0.76
Office 121.67 460.00 0.26
Industrial 65.03 460.00 0.14
The above EDU factors are then multiplied by the difference in dwelling units per land use type from 2025 to 2040. These calculations are shown in the table below:

Table 78: Projected Total Number of Trips Calculation
Category 2025 DU
/ KSF 63
2040 DU
/ KSF 64 Difference EDU Factor
Weighted
2025 DU / KSF
Weighted
2040 DU / KSF
Weighted
Difference
Residential
Single Family 10,224 14,775 4,551 1.00 10,224 14,775 4,551 Multi-Family 2,381 16,728 14,347 0.31 731 5,132 4,402
Total 12,605 31,503 18,898 10,955 19,907 8,953
Non-Residential
Commercial 1,204 2,993 1,789 0.76 910 2,261 1,352
Office 2,234 1,895 (339) 0.26 591 501 (90)
Industrial 1,340 977 (363) 0.14 189 138 (51)
Total 4,777 5,865 1,088 1,690 2,901 1,211
Total Number of EDUs 12,644 22,808 10,164
The total projected growth of equivalent growth factors from 2025 to 2040 is roughly 10,000. This value is divided by the total cost to be apportioned (as outlined in the following section), resulting in the cost per EDU, which serves as the basis for calculating the water impact fee.

COST COMPONENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Based on the projected increase in EDUs, an impact nexus exists for the department’s infrastructure needs. The planning horizon for the Water impact fee is 15 years (2025 to 2040). Over this period, the department will need to replace and upgrade infrastructure to maintain its existing level of service. The 63 Based on Banning’s General Plan.
64 Based on Banning’s General Plan.
796

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 53
impact fee calculation applies the system plan method to determine the proportional share attributable to new development. Since future development will benefit from these facilities and equipment, an appropriate portion of the upgrade cost should be allocated to new growth. The following table presents the total projected infrastructure costs, net of existing fund balances, by cost category.

Table 79: Total Projected Infrastructure Cost - Water
Total Water CIP Cost Attributed to New Development at Buildout65 $190,324,683 % of Total Population in 2040 Compared to Build-out 55%66 Total Water CIP Cost Allocated to 2040 Development $104,678,576 Total Projected Infrastructure Cost $104,678,576
Current Fund Balance67 ($3,477,270)
Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost $101,201,305
Over the next 15 years, the City will require approximately $101 million to meet the needs of the City’s future population.

The total projected infrastructure cost is then divided by the weighted growth in EDU, resulting in a cost per EDU. The calculation is shown below:

Table 80: Water Cost Per EDU Calculation
$101,201,305 Total Projected Net Infrastructure Cost
= $9,957 cost / EDU 10,164 Weighted Growth in EDU
The $9,957 per EDU cost illustrates the amount the City should invest in water infrastructure per dwelling unit.

IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
As the previous section calculated, the total cost per EDU is $9,957. Water impact fees are typically administered based on the size of the water meter. This cost per EDU is then multiplied by a standard water meter equivalency factor68, resulting in the Water impact fee. The following table shows this calculation:

Table 81: Water Impact Fee Calculation
Meter Size Cost Per EDU Water Meter Equivalency Factor Impact Fee 3/4" $9,957 0.60 $5,974
1” $9,957 1.00 $9,957
1-1/2” $9,957 2.00 $19,914
65 A detailed accounting of the capital improvement costs is included in Appendix H of this report. 66 The 2010 Parks Master Plan estimates a build-out population of the City to be 67,787. By 2040, the City is expected to be at 37,600, which is only 55% of the build out population.
67 Represents the fund balance at the end of FY24-25.
68 American Water Works Association (AWWA) water meter equivalency factors – M1 Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges 7th Edition. 797

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 54
Meter Size Cost Per EDU Water Meter Equivalency Factor Impact Fee 2” $9,957 3.20 $31,862
3” $9,957 6.00 $59,742
4” $9,957 10.00 $99,570
6” $9,957 20.00 $199,141
8” $9,957 56.00 $557,593
The cost per meter size ranges from $5,974 for a 3/4-inch meter to $557,593 for an 8-inch meter. The 2% administrative fee is applied to the impact fee. The following table shows this calculation.

Table 82: Water Impact Fee Calculation – Including Administrative Fee Meter Size Impact Fee Admin % Impact Fee +
Admin Fee
3/4" $5,974 2% $6,094
1” $9,957 2% $10,156
1-1/2” $19,914 2% $20,312
2” $31,862 2% $32,500
3” $59,742 2% $60,937
4” $99,570 2% $101,562
6” $199,141 2% $203,123
8” $557,593 2% $568,745
The addition of the administrative fee captures the full cost associated with the proportionate impact of future development. The following table compares the City’s current water impact fee to the full cost impact fees and the associated per-unit difference:

Table 83: Current vs. Full Cost – Water Impact Fee
Meter Size Current
Impact Fee
Full Cost
Impact Fee Difference
3/4" $5,847 $6,094 ($247)
1” $9,744 $10,156 ($412)
1-1/2” $19,488 $20,312 ($824)
2” $31,181 $32,500 ($1,319)
3” $58,464 $60,937 ($2,473)
4” $97,441 $101,562 ($4,121)
6” N/A $203,123 N/A
8” N/A $568,745 N/A
Currently, the City does not charge fees for 6-inch or 8-inch meters; therefore, no comparison is available.

All remaining water impact fees are under-recovered, ranging from $247 to $4,121. 798

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 55

NEXUS CRITERIA
As discussed in the legal framework section, for an impact fee to be implemented, it must meet all five nexus criteria established by the Mitigation Fee Act. The following table outlines each criterion point and how the proposed Water Impact fee meets the criteria.

Table 84: Impact Fee Nexus Criteria – Water
Criteria Meet
Purpose Of Fee
The purpose of this fee is to upgrade existing water systems necessary to maintain services levels and enhance or replace water -specific vehicles and equipment.

Use of Fee Revenue
Revenue associated with this impact fee is housed in a specific water impact fee fund to help ensure that funds are appropriately accounted for and used to meet the water infrastructure needs of the City’s growth.

Benefit Relationship
The use of the impact fee revenue would be to expand, upgrade, or replace existing water systems and equipment to accommodate increased usage proportional to grow. New residents and employees receive benefits associated with reliable water systems.

Impact Relationship
New development contributes additional water distribution through the City’s water tanks, mains, and facilities. Therefore, the cost associated with adding additional equipment or expanding facilities to accommodate additional impacts to the system would be borne by new residents or employees.

Proportionality
The proposed impact fee is calculated based upon proportionality of projected growth with the greatest impact by residential areas, followed by commercial areas. The fees are calculated on a meter size basis for both residential and commercial properties as the concept is that the larger the meter size, the greater the population that accesses that system and therefore the greater the impact on the City’s infrastructure.

Capital Improvement Plan A capital improvement plan has been adopted to update the City’s water infrastructure and is presented as an appendix.

Level of Service
The proposed impact fees are based on the existing level of service as they are based on the current standard of the water infrastructure servicing both existing and future population. Future population / growth is calculated based on their proportional need for the facilities, vehicles and equipment.

Original Nexus Analysis
The original nexus analysis developed by the City was based on information from 2019, and the City has not increased fees since then.

Since the original analysis, costs have significantly increased, and as the fund balance reflects, the City has insufficient funding to meet the needs for future development.

As the table demonstrates, the City meets all five criteria necessary to continue charging the water development impact fee, as well as the three additional criteria associated with AB602. Additionally, the water impact fee has an essential nexus to the City’s land use interest of ensuring that there is adequate water infrastructure to serve the new development, and the fee has been calculated to be roughly proportionate to the development’s impact on the City’s water systems, as it does not exceed the City’s cost of providing water services to new development.
799

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 56

COMPARATIVE SURVEY
As part of this impact fee analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of surrounding jurisdictions that charge a Water impact fee. Of the surveyed jurisdictions, Beaumont, Desert Springs, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Riverside, and Yucaipa do not assess a water-specific impact fee.

The City of Redland does assess a water impact fee; however, it’s based on land use type. Residential fees are $2.37 per square foot, while non-residential fees range from $190 per 1,000 square feet for Warehousing – Standard and High Cube to $3,139 for Institutional and Health Care.

The City of Colton’s impact fees are a combined water & wastewater fee based on meter size. Its rates are lower than Banning’s current and full-cost calculations. 800

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 57
The following table provides information on capital improvement costs related to Electric. All information was provided and confirmed by the City of Banning’s Public Works Department staff.

Project Name Total CIP Cost
Allocated to
Existing
Development
Allocated to
New
Development
Capital Maintenance Projects
Underground Conversion Livingston to Hargrave
(Backbone/Fiber loop at Ramsey/Livingston/Alola) $150,000 $150,000 $0 Underground Conductor Replacement Barbour St
E/O Hathaway $275,000 $275,000 $0
Underground Conductor Replacement at
Mockingbird Lane and Hillside Dr $750,000 $750,000 $0
Underground Conductor Replacement at Westward
Ave from 4th St to 8th St $625,000 $625,000 $0
Fiber Extension to Stagecoach Substation (UG and
OH) $360,000 $360,000 $0
Midway Substation Upgrades (breaker replacement
and SCADA-ready upgrades and future full
replacement) $6,125,000 $6,125,000 $0

34.5 kV/12.47 kV (Cir 77)/fiber UG and OH
Extension to Sunset Ave $2,000,000 $1,200,000 $800,000
SoCalGas Reimbursement for Feeder Circuits to
Cottonwood Ave $0 $0 $0
Underground Conductor Replacement at Vista
Serena Ave $350,000 $175,000 $175,000
Fire Mitigation Tier 2/3 High Threat Area (Various) $450,000 $450,000 $0 Mias Canyon Line Hardening $2,100,000 $2,100,000 $0

34.5 kV/12.47 kV/fiber Underground Circuits
Hathaway St from Williams St to Hoffer St $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0

34.5 kV/12.47 kV/fiber Underground Circuits
Hathaway St from Lincoln St to John St $150,000 $150,000 $0 Install Two (2) Engineered baseplate pole at Sunset
and Lincoln $850,000 $850,000 $0
Install Reclosers on 34.5 kV and 12.47 kV system $250,000 $250,000 $0 Robertson's Ready Mix Circuit Reroute $425,000 $425,000 $0 Sun Lakes Blvd Extension - Electric Relocation $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $0 SCE WDAT Upfront Capital Costs $500,000 $0 $500,000
Electrical Substation Projects
Ivy Substation (15 MVA) (FY 2022) $5,585,429 $5,585,429 $0 Stagecoach Substation (10MVA) (FY 2023) $4,192,813 $4,192,813 $0 San Gorgonio Substation (20 MVA) (FY 2024) $6,275,426 $6,275,426 $0 Smith Creek Substation (40 MVA) (FY TBD) $14,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 Banning Substation Upgrade (WDAT) (FY 27-28) $16,000,000 $0 $16,000,000 Total CIP Costs $41,843,168 $40,368,168 $24,475,000
APPENDIX A – ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE
COST
801

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 58
The following tables provide information on facility and equipment costs related to Fire. All information was provided and confirmed by the City of Banning’s Fire Department staff.

Category
Quantity
(sq. ft.)
Cost /
Sq. Ft. Total Cost
Facilities Inventory
Fire Station (89) No.1 - 172 N Murray Street 6,000 $620 $3,722,885 Fire Station No. 20 - 1550 E 6th Street - $620 $0
Fire Station - 5261 W. Wilson 9,190 $620 $5,702,218
Fire Services/ Fire Chief - 3900 W Wilson Street 4,544 $620 $2,819,465 New Fire Station (located south of the freeway) $15,000,000 Total Facility Cost $27,244,568
Category Count Purchase Cost Total Value
Equipment Inventory
2022 Smeal Custom Multi Funct. Engine 1 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 2016 Smeal Custom Multi Funct. Engine 1 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 2025 Ford Escape Fire Marshal Vehicle 1 $23,405 $23,405 2020 Range SC Ford Inspector Vehicle 1 $25,017 $25,017
Total Equipment Cost $3,448,421
APPENDIX B – FIRE INFRASTRUCTURE COST
802

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 59
The following tables provide information on facility and equipment costs related to General Facilities. All information was provided and confirmed by the City of Banning’s Public Works Department staff.

Category
Quantity
(sq. ft.)
Cost /
Sq. Ft. Total Cost
Facilities Inventory
City Hall - 99 E Ramsey St 21,500 $400 $8,600,000
Animal Shelter - 2242 E Charles St 5,143 $400 $2,057,200 Corporation Yard - 176 E Lincoln St 6,400 $400 $2,560,000 Corporation Yard - Warehouse 26,200 $400 $10,480,000
Corporation Yard - Fleet Garage 9,242 $400 $3,696,800
Chamber of Commerce Bld 58 E. Ramsey 3,333 $400 $1,333,200 Total Facility Cost $28,727,200
Category Count Purchase Cost Total Value
Equipment Inventory
Ford F-250 w/ equipment rack and tool boxes (2) 2 $55,000 $94,800 F-550 Super Duty Aerial Boom Lift 1 $128,000
John Deere Ride of Mower 1 $15,500
John Deere Flair Mower 1 $12,300
Miller Tow Behind Welder 1 $66,300
14' Utility Trailer 1 $4,000
Total Equipment Cost $320,900
APPENDIX C – GENERAL FACILITIES

INFRASTRUCTURE COST
803

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 60
The following tables provide information on capital improvement, facilities, and equipment costs related to Parks. All information was provided and confirmed by the City of Banning’s Public Works and Parks Department staff.

Category Total Value
Park Improvements
Roosevelt Williams Park $556,200
Budgeted in FY 2026
Replacement Playground - Repplier Park $150,000
Replacement Playground - Sylvan Park $150,000
Enclosed Skidsteer with bucket & Auger $70,000
Irrigation System replacement& Fencing project - Non-potable Lions Park $1,012,000 Budget for FY 2027
Sylvan Restroom demo and Replacement $450,000
Lion's Park Playground replacement $200,000
Ray Pak - Commercial Pool Heaters (Two) $70,000
Total Improvement Cost $2,658,200
Category
Quantity
(sq. ft.)
Cost /
Sq. Ft. Total Value
Facilities Inventory
Community Center / Gym - 769 N San Gorgonio Ave 12,046 $400 $4,818,400 Senior Center - 769 N San Gorgonio Ave 6,029 $400 $2,411,600 Aquatics Center - 749 N San Gorgonio Ave 5,697 $400 $2,278,800 Lions Park Concessions Building 1,350 $400 $540,000
Roosevelt Williams Park Recreation Center 2,215 $400 $886,000 Repplier Park Amphitheatre Bldg - 769 N. San Gorgonio 3,200 $400 $1,280,000 Dysart Park Offices 2,200 $400 $880,000
Armory 10,800 $400 $4,320,000
Total Facility Cost $17,414,800
Category Count
Purchase
Cost Total Value
Equipment Inventory
Black Widow Arena Groomer 1 $12,200 $12,200
MDF 440 Drinking Fountains - 10 10 $34,550 $345,500
200 Gal Tow Behind Commercial Sprayer 1 $13,900 $13,900 Alkota Trailer Mounted Pressure Washer 1 $14,325 $14,325 Total Equipment Cost 385,925
APPENDIX D – PARKS INFRASTRUCTURE COST
804

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 61
The following tables provide information on facilities and equipment costs related to Police. All information was provided and confirmed by the City of Banning’s Police Department staff.

Category Quantity (sq. ft.)
Cost /
Sq. Ft. Total Cost
Facilities Inventory
125 E. Ramsey Street - PD Station 30,000 $620 $18,614,423 Total Facility Cost $18,614,423
Category Count
Purchase
Cost Total Value
Equipment Inventory
Motorola APX NEXT radios (50) 50 $500,000
Getac BC02 Body Worn Cameras (40) 40 $28,000
Unit 52 2006 Ford E350 Motorhome (Mobile Command Center) 1 $200,000 $300,000 Unit 15 1992 Ford F700 Armored Vehicle 1 $10,000 $250,000 Unit 25 2003 Ford E350 Box Van (Evidence Van) 1 $10,000 $75,000 Unit 26 2004 Ford F250 4x4 1 $60,000 $67,500
Unit 80 2021 Ford F250 (ACO Truck) 1 $60,000 $67,500
Unit 81 2015 Ford F350 (ACO Truck) 1 $30,000 $67,500
Unit 02 2023 HDK Forester 4 Golf Cart 1 $9,000 $14,000
1996 E-Z Go Golf Cart (x2) 2 $2,500 $28,000
2015 Ford Fusion (x2) 2 $8,000 $54,000
2018 Ford Fusion (x2) 2 $15,000 $54,000
Unit 16 2006 Ford Expedition 1 $8,000 $66,000
Unit 46 2017 Ford Taurus 1 $10,000 $32,000
2024 Ford Explorer Admin Units (x2) 2 $88,000
Unit 47 2024 Chevrolet Silverado Admin 1 $58,595 $48,500 2020 (1) & 2023 Chevrolet Tahoe (13) (14 total units) 14 $882,000 Unit 13 2020 Kia Sorento 1 $20,000 $37,000
Unit 21 2024 Chevrolet Blazer 1 $52,116 $40,000
Unit 23 2025 Chevrolet Traverse 1 $51,919 $43,500
2024 Ford F150 (x3) 3 $202,500
2017 & 2020 Ford Explorer Police Interceptor(x10) 10 $560,000 Unit 39 2015 Ford Taurus 1 $25,000 $32,000
2018 Ford Taurus (x3) 3 $96,000
BMW R1200RTP Motorcycles (x3) 3 $4,500 $78,000
Unit 40 2024 Ford Escape 1 $34,000
Mobile Speed Trailer 1 $11,500
Total Equipment Cost $3,756,500
APPENDIX E – POLICE INFRASTRUCTURE COST
805

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 62
The following table provides information on capital improvement costs related to Traffic. All information was provided and confirmed by the City of Banning’s Public Works Department staff.

Project Name 2025 Total Cost
Int: 1 Highland Springs Avenue/16th Street-Cougar Way $2,490,094 Int: 2 Highland Springs Avenue/F Street $1,649,243
Int: 6 Highland Springs Avenue/Ramsey Street $699,012
Int: 9 Highland Springs Avenue/Sun Lakes Boulevard $728,38069 Int: 10 Highland Springs Avenue/Potrero Boulevard $182,35070 Int: 12 Highland Home Road/Beaumont Road-G Street $3,538,969 Int: 13 Highland Home Road/F Street $3,101,067
Int: 14 Highland Home Road/D Street $2,681,517
Int: 16 Highland Home Road/Ramsey Street $492,344
Int: 17 Highland Home Road/Sun Lakes Boulevard–Westward Avenue $795,48671 Int: 18 Sunset Avenue/Wilson Street $2,944,786
Int: 19 Sunset Avenue/Ramsey Street $1,380,051
Int: 20 Sunset Avenue/I-10 Westbound Ramps $232,561
Int: 21 Sunset Avenue/I-10 Eastbound Ramps $788,042
Int: 24 Sunrise Avenue/Wilson Street $685,430
Int: 25 16th St/Wilson Street $884,790
Int: 26 8th St/Wilson Street $890,596
Int: 27 8th St/Ramsey Street $336,151
Int: 28 8th St/I-10 Westbound Ramps $867,984
Int: 29 8th St/I-10 Eastbound Ramps $1,809,944
Int: 30 8th Street/Lincoln Street $3,582,893
Int: 31 4th St/Wilson Street $364,699
Int: 32 San Gorgonio Avenue/Wilson Street $1,012,843
Int: 33 Hargrave Street/Ramsey Street $2,362,201
Int: 34 Hargrave Street/I-10 Westbound Ramps $1,056,125 Int: 35 Hargrave Street/I-10 Eastbound Ramps $1,163,566 Int: 36 Hargrave Street/Lincoln Street $3,112,154
I-10/Highland Springs Avenue Interchange $49,236,594
Total Improvement Cost $89,069,875
69 Approximately 10% of this project has already been completed, as such this cost has been discounted by 10%. 70 Approximately 50% of this project has already been completed, as such this cost has been discounted by 50%. 71 Approximately 75% of this project has already been completed, as such this cost has been discounted by 75%.

APPENDIX F – TRAFFIC INFRASTRUCTURE
COST
806

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 63
The following table provides information on capital improvement costs related to Wastewater. All information was provided and confirmed by the City of Banning’s Public Works Department staff.

Project Name
Total CIP
Cost72
Allocated to
Existing
Development73
Allocated to New
Development at
Buildout74
Gravity Mains
WWGM-1 Gravity Main along Williams Street $434,722 $434,722 $0 WWGM-2 Northern Segment of Gravity Main
along Hathaway Street $459,521 $459,521 $0
WWGM-3A Casing Under I-10 $665,212 $665,212 $0
WWGM-3B Gravity Main along Hathaway Street $1,522,984 $1,522,984 $0 WWGM-4 Gravity Main along Ramsey Street $459,521 $459,521 $0 WWGM-5 Gravity Main along Charles Street $688,552 $688,552 $0 WWGM-6 Gravity Main along Livingston Street $459,521 $459,521 $0 WWGM-7 Gravity Main along Fourth Street $229,031 $229,031 $0 WWGM-8 Gravity Main along Charles Street $688,552 $495,991 $192,561 WWGM-9 Gravity Main along Porter Street $465,356 $186,726 $278,630 WWGM-10 Gravity Main along Porter Street $3,838,095 $1,150,991 $2,687,104 WWGM-11 Gravity Main, Porter Street to WWTP $2,248,006 $697,305 $1,550,701 WWGM-12 Gravity Main south of Charles Street
to WWTP $344,276 $131,292 $212,984
WWGM-13 Gravity Main along Wilson Street $211,526 $175,056 $36,470 New Service Related Improvements
Gravity Mains
WWGM-15 Butterfield-Loma Linda Offsite Trunk $1,269,154 $0 $1,269,154 WWGM-16 Westward Lift Station Bypass $1,088,263 $468,274 $619,989 WWGM-17 RSG Main Trunk $9,593,050 $0 $9,593,050
WWGM-18 Gravity Main along Wilson Street $846,102 $0 $846,102 WWGM-19 Gravity Main for RMG $634,577 $0 $634,577
WWGM-20 Gravity Main along Lincoln Street $42,305 $0 $42,305 WWGM-21 Gravity Main along Cottonwood
Road $1,692,205 $0 $1,692,205
WWGM-22 Gravity Main along Fountain Street $2,326,782 $0 $2,326,782 WWGM-23 Gravity Main along Longhorn Road $8,462,483 $0 $8,462,483 WWGM-24 Gravity Main along Bobcat Road $3,215,189 $0 $3,215,189 WWGM-25 Gravity Main along Sunset Avenue $11,256,079 $0 $11,256,079 WWGM-26 Gravity Main along Westward
Avenue $1,269,154 $0 $1,269,154
WWGM-27 Gravity Main along Mias Canyon
Road and Bluff Street $5,289,599 $0 $5,289,599
72 Represents the estimated CIP costs at 2025 prices.
73 Represents the costs already identified to existing development, so that it is not factored into future development allocations. 74 Represents the costs of projects assigned / associated with new development.

APPENDIX G – WASTEWATER

INFRASTRUCTURE COST
807

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 64
Project Name
Total CIP
Cost72
Allocated to
Existing
Development73
Allocated to New
Development at
Buildout74
WWGM-28 Gravity Main along Florida Street $634,577 $0 $634,577 WWGM-29 Gravity Main along Almond and
Blanchard Street $634,577 $0 $634,577
WWGM-30 Casing for Gravity Main Crossing I10 $1,245,813 $0 $1,245,813 WWGM-31 Gravity Main along Lincoln Street $1,269,154 $0 $1,269,154 WWGM-32 Gravity Main along Ramsey Street $634,577 $0 $634,577 Force Mains
WWFM-2 Force Main along Westward Avenue $1,692,205 $0 $1,692,205 WWFM-3 Force Main along Porter Street $1,903,730 $0 $1,903,730 WWFM-4 Force Main along Roadrunner Trail $423,051 $0 $423,051 WWFM-5 Force Main Creek Crossing $423,051 $0 $423,051
Lift Stations
WWLS-2 Distribution Center Lift Station $3,787,038 $0 $3,787,038 WWLS-3 Business Park Lift Station $2,131,303 $0 $2,131,303 WWLS-4 Porter Street Lift Station $1,569,666 $0 $1,569,666 WWLS-5 Roadrunner Trail Lift Station $1,787,027 $0 $1,787,027 WWLS-6 Bluff Street Lift Station $1,859,966 $0 $1,859,966 Rehabilitation and Replacement Projects
Gravity Mains
WWRR-1 Annual Sewer Replacement $4,784,855 $4,784,855 $0 Lift Stations
WWRR-2 Caltrans Lift Station Site
Improvements $215,902 $58,352 $157,550
WWRR-3 Westward Lift Station Site
Improvements $125,457 $125,457 $0
Treatment Plant Related Improvements
WWTP-1 Digestor Cleaning $218,820 $218,820 $0
WWTP-2 Heat Exchanger Repairs $87,528 $87,528 $0
WWTP-3 Boiler Gas Control Valves $116,704 $116,704 $0
WWTP-4 Digestor Gas Pipeline $43,764 $43,764 $0
WWTP-5 WWTP Upgrade $75,000,000 $13,875,000 $61,125,000 Total Costs $170,288,578 $27,535,177 $132,753,401
808

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 65
The following table provides information on capital improvement costs related to Water. All information was provided and confirmed by the City of Banning’s Public Works Department staff.

Project Name
Total CIP
Cost75
Allocated to
Existing
Development
76 Allocated to
New
Development
at Buildout77
Potable Water Facilities
Pipelines
PWP-1 New Transmission Main for Proposed Lower
Main Well C-9 $603,942 $0 $603,942
PWP-2 New Transmission Main for Upper Main
Reservoir 1 (RSG) $7,466,124 $5,897,917 $1,568,207
PWP-4 New Transmission Main for Proposed
Development in Main Zone (RSG $12,090,511 $0 $12,090,511 PWP-6 New Transmission Main from Mountain
Booster PS to Existing Mounta $2,115,256 $0 $2,115,256
PWP-7 New Transmission Main for Proposed
Development in Mountain North $2,720,657 $0 $2,720,657
PWP-8 New Transmission Main for Proposed Upper
Main Well C-10 $603,942 $0 $603,942
PWP-9 New Transmission Main for Mountain North
Reservoir 1 & PS (Butterfie $5,893,541 $2,828,608 $3,064,933 PWP-10 New Transmission Main for Upper Main
Reservoir 2 $574,766 $0 $574,766
PWP-11 New Transmission Main for Proposed
Development in Upper Butterfield (Zone1) $603,942 $0 $603,942 PWP-12 New Transmission Main for Proposed
Upper Butterfield Reservoir (Butte (Zone 1) $2,720,657 $0 $2,720,657 PWP-13 Water Canyon Pipe Phase 2 (City's Existing
CIP) $4,741,091 $4,741,091 $0
PWP-14 New Transmission Main for Proposed
Upper Main Well C-10 $1,209,343 $0 $1,209,343
PWP-15 New Transmission Main for Proposed
Foothill West Well C-8 $603,942 $0 $603,942
PWP-16 New Transmission Main for Proposed
Upper Main Well C-12 $603,942 $0 $603,942
PWP-17 New Transmission Main for Foothill West
Reservior 2 $4,533,942 $0 $4,533,942
PWP-18 New Transmission Main for Upper Main
Reservoir 3 $6,045,256 $0 $6,045,256
PWP-20 New Transmission Main for (Lorna) Loma
Linda Reservoir 1 & PS $4,533,942 $0 $4,533,942
Booster Pump Stations
PWPU-1.a Upgrade Existing Mountain Booster
Pump Station $3,282,294 $3,282,294 $0
75 Represents the estimated CIP costs at 2025 prices.
76 Represents the costs already identified to existing development, so that it is not factored into future development allocations. 77 Represents the costs of projects assigned / associated with new development.

APPENDIX H – WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
COST
809

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 66
Project Name
Total CIP
Cost75
Allocated to
Existing
Development
76 Allocated to
New
Development
at Buildout77
PWPU-1.b Demolish Existing Mountain Booster
Pump Station $242,160 $242,160 $0
PWPU-2 New Foothill West Pump Station $4,500,000 $0 $4,500,000 PWPU-3 New Mountain 2 Booster Pump Station $2,340,000 $1,123,200 $1,216,800 PWPU-5 Add VFD to Well C-5 $0 $0 $0
PWPU-6 New Upper Butterfield Zone Pump
Station (Zone 1) $4,000,000 $0 $4,000,000
PWPU-7 New Loma Linda Pump Station $4,500,000 $0 $4,500,000 Storage
PWS-1 Proposed Upper Main Reservoir 1 $19,343,651 $15,280,901 $4,062,750 PWS-3 Proposed Mountain North Reservoir 1 $8,160,512 $3,916,870 $4,243,641 PWS-4 Proposed Upper Main Reservoir 2 $19,343,651 $0 $19,343,651 PWS-5 Proposed Upper Butterfield Reservoir (Zone
1) $5,439,855 $0 $5,439,855
PWS-6 Proposed Foothill West Reservoir 2 $8,160,512 $0 $8,160,512 PWS-7 Proposed Upper Main Reservoir 3 $38,083,360 $0 $38,083,360 PWS-9 Proposed Loma (Lorna) Linda Reservoir 1 $5,439,855 $0 $5,439,855 Wells
PWW-1 Proposed Main Zone Well C-9 $4,992,004 $0 $4,992,004 PWW-2 Convert Well M-7 to Supply the Upper Main
Pressure Zone $278,630 $0 $278,630
PWW-3 Convert Well M-'12 to Supply the Upper
Main Pressure Zone $278,630 $0 $278,630
PWW-4 Proposed Upper Main Well C-10 $6,202,806 $0 $6,202,806 PWW-5 Proposed Upper Main Well C-11 $6,201,347 $0 $6,201,347 PWW-7 Proposed Upper Main Well C-12 $6,201,347 $0 $6,201,347 Valves
PWV-2 New Pressure Reducing Valve for Rancho
San Gorgonio $497,450 $0 $497,450
PWV-3 Foothill West to Upper Main Zone Pressure
Reducing Station $993,441 $0 $993,441
PWV-4 C2 PRVs'l& 2 $993,441 $0 $993,441
PWRZ-1 New Pressure Reducing Valves for ReZoning $4,994,922 $4,994,922 $0 Wateryard
Wateryard $5,403,822 $2,437,796 $2,966,026
Recycled Water Facilities
Pipelines
RWP‐3 Banning High School Lateral $750,000 $0 $750,000
RWP‐4 Rancho San Gorgonio Lateral $301,971 $0 $301,971
RWP‐5 Neighborhood Park Lateral $211,526 $0 $211,526
RWP‐6 Dysart Park Lateral $1,480,679 $0 $1,480,679
RWP‐7 Five Bridges Development Lateral $290,301 $0 $290,301 RWP‐9 Five Bridges Basin Pipeline $2,393,886 $1,076,592 $1,317,294 RWP‐10 WWTP Basin Pipeline $797,962 $358,864 $439,098
810

BANNING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY REPORT
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 67
Project Name
Total CIP
Cost75
Allocated to
Existing
Development
76 Allocated to
New
Development
at Buildout77
Valves
RWV‐1 BCVWD Co-Owned Wells and Interconnect
Buildings (2) $8,000,000 $0 $8,000,000
Other
RWO‐1 Five Bridges Site Improvements $4,659,398 $4,659,398 $0 RWO‐2 WWTP Basin Site Improvements $599,566 $599,566 $0 RWO‐3 Hydrogeological Study $218,820 $218,820 $0
RWO‐4 Monitoring Wells and Lysimeters $4,353,051 $4,353,051 $0 RWO‐5 404 Permitting $291,759 $291,759 $0
RWO‐6 Recycled Water Master Plan Update $194,020 $194,020 $0 Title 22 Improvements $4,741,091 $0 $4,741,091
Total Costs $246,822,511 $56,497,829 $190,324,683
811
ORDINANCE NO. 1616

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BANNING, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.68 -

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES OF THE BANNING MUNICIPAL
CODE, INCLUDING SECTIONS 15.68.010, 15.68.020, 15.68.030,

15.68.040, 15.68.050, 15.68.060, 15.68.070, AND ADDING
SECTION 15.68.080 ELECTRIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT

IMPACT FEES
WHEREAS, On September 24, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1551 establishing Chapter 15.68 “Development Impact Fees” of the Banning Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Chapter 15.68 provides that Development Impact Fees shall be pain in am amount established by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Matrix Consulting Group has prepared a Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study dated February 2026 in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code Section 66000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted by Resolution updated Development Impact Fees including the addition of a new Electric Facility Development Impact Fee NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Banning does hereby ordain as follows:

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

SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council finds that the actions contemplated by the Ordinance are not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15378(b)(4), as the action relates to the creation of government funding mechanisms or other governmental fiscal activities, which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. The action is statutorily exempt from CEQA under section 15273(a)(4) to the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges by public agencies which the public agency finds are for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital project, necessary to maintain service within existing service areas. The capital projects described in the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study will maintain the level of service currently provided by the City’s existing electric, fire, general facilities, parks, traffic, wastewater, and water facilities by ensuring that the impacts of new development will not negatively impact existing service levels within existing service areas.

SECTION 3. Findings. The City Council hereby finds and determines the following in connection with the adoption of this ordinance:

All other prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance, the approval of the Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study prepared by Matrix Consulting Group dated February 2026, the proposed new Electric Impact Fee, the updated Fire, General Facilities, Parks, Traffic, Wastewater, and Water Impact Fees, as specified by the Mitigation Fee Act (Cal. Gov. Code section 66000 et seq.) and all other applicable laws have been satisfied.
812
SECTION 4. Approval. The City Council hereby approves Ordinance 1616 amending Chapter

15.68 “Development Impact Fees” as set forth in Exhibit A. Exhibit A is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 5. Effective Date and Publication. The Mayor shall sign, and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same or a summary thereof to be published within 15 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36933.

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36937.

SECTION 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid or unconstitutional by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, or words of this Ordinance, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed, and the balance of the Ordinance enforced.

SECTION 7. Prosecution of Prior Ordinances. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution of any violation of any City ordinance or provision of the City of Banning Municipal Code, committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof.

INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Banning, California, held on the 24th day of February, 2026, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Banning, California, held on the 10th day of March, 2026.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
813
_______________________
Richard Royce, Mayor
City of Banning
Attest:
______________________
Sandra Calderon, Deputy Administrative City Clerk
City of Banning
Approved as to form:
_________________________
John Pinkney, City Attorney
Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy & Pinkney, LLP
814
Exhibit A