Agenda — Stanton City Council, September 10, 2024 (part 2 of 2)

Sewer Rate Study 16
City of Stanton, CA
The purpose of the financial plan is to arrive at the required revenue for the utility, which serves as the basis for recommendations going forward, and the development of updated rates, if necessary. Then, once the results of the financial plan are reviewed with City staff, we will proceed with the cost-of-service analysis and development of rates, and preparation of a report.

Willdan will develop a comprehensive financial plan that considers updated forecasts for sales, operating expenses, as well as capital expenses, and provides for:
▪ Sufficient and stable revenue for operations and routine maintenance; ▪ Coverage for direct and indirect (overhead) costs, including transfers to the General Fund; ▪ Adequate debt service coverage for existing and/or proposed debt; ▪ Accumulation and maintenance of appropriate reserves; ▪ Functional cost-of-service analysis consistent with Proposition 218 and (AWWA) rate-making standards; ▪ Anticipated and routine repair and replacement of existing aging pipelines and infrastructure; and ▪ Major and minor capital projects.

This financial plan will serve as the basis for a full cost of service analysis and ultimately the development of recommendations for updated rates. The cost-of-service analysis will be conducted to ensure any new recommended rates comply with the requirements of Proposition 218, Proposition 26 and recent legal decisions.

The financial plan will be created using a highly flexible and interactive model and dashboard that will allow us to work collaboratively with the City to present and evaluate different financial scenarios, and quickly make changes in underlying assumptions based on feedback and discussions. Our goal will be to arrive at a financial plan that meets the City’s objectives, and that provides understanding and education to City staff and ultimately the Council, as they make decisions regarding the proposed rates.

Project Approach
The following project approach and scope of services is based on Willdan’s current understanding of the City of Stanton’s needs and objectives for the sewer rate study. While this approach and scope is informed by our initial research, we will begin this project by working with the City to complete this research and understanding of the City’s current financial situation and conducting
meaningful discussions to more fully understand
your objectives and priorities for this study.

Our objective is to provide Staff and the City Council with the information it needs to fully understand the utility current and projected financial condition, evaluate
options for moving forward, and make informed decisions based on this process.

The intent of the study is to independently evaluate the City’s current utility rates and develop an updated
schedule of rates that are simple, equitable, and most
importantly, structured to meet the future financial needs of the utility. The proposed rate structure must adequately fund the ongoing operating, maintenance and capital
improvement needs of the utility.

For this project it will be critical to take a deeper look at the financial performance of the previous five
years and project results forward, taking into account
capital projects and anticipated debt, to evaluate the
ability of current rates to provide sufficient revenue.

We will create a comprehensive financial plan and model that allows us to work with the City to evaluate and test alternatives and demonstrate the impact of capital and
reserve funding scenarios and their associated impacts
on overall financial performance. Div Description

GENERAL MANAGER DIVISION
2010 GENERAL MANAGER
2020 COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
2030 HUMAN RESOURCES

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
3010 ADMINISTRATIV E SERV ICES
3020 FINANCE & ACCOUNTING
3030 CUSTOMER SERV ICE
3040 OFFICE SUPPORT
3050 PURCHASING
3060 METER OPERATIONS
3070 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
5010 ENV IRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING SERV ICES ADMINISTRATION 5020 SAFETY
5110 ENGINEERING DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION SUPERV ISION
5120 CIV IL & STRUCTURAL DESIGN
5140 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
5210 OPS SUPERV ISION
5220 ENGINEERING PLANNING
5250 WATER SYSTEM OPERATIONS
5310 ENGINEERING SUPPORT SUPERV ISION
Incorporates City’s
data and account
structure creating
transparency

EXHIBIT A

Page 2 of 13 ends

Sewer Rate Study 17
City of Stanton, CA
The City wishes to undertake this study to review sewer rates from both a policy and analytical standpoint. Willdan will prepare a comprehensive ten (10) year financial plan and analysis of rate alternatives; evaluate the current rate structure; and determine whether adjustments in the rates are necessary going forward. This analysis will include development of the financial plan and cost of service analysis necessary to arrive at informed recommendations and defensible Prop 218 compliant rates. We will also identify potential challenges and issues associated with implementing new rates, and work with the City to develop strategies to address these.

Project Methodology
As described herein, and detailed in our work plan, our approach to this sewer rate study is built around three primary objectives:

Primary Objectives
Working collaboratively with the
City of Stanton to develop the
comprehensive financial plan and
model for the utility
Using the model to develop and
evaluate various rate, financial and
capital funding scenarios
Arriving at a final plan and set of
recommended rates that have a
clear and transparent rationale
and basis
We propose to conduct this process in a way in which staff and stakeholders gain understanding throughout the process of how the plan is developed, and how policy and financial decisions affect it, so that we can clearly communicate the process and results to the City Council and the community. The communication part of the process is critical in gaining acceptance and understanding of the broader community.

Our rate study analysis will include comprehensive financial management plan alternatives for the next ten fiscal years to support the proposed five-year rate plan.

As part of this analysis, Willdan will develop a comprehensive financial analysis — which incorporates the following:
▪ Revenue requirements such as operating expenses, transfers, reserve requirements; ▪ Major and minor capital expenses;
▪ Cash and debt-funded major capital expenditures, with annual debt service expenses; ▪ Adequate funding of designated reserves including operating and debt service, and other reserves as outlined in the City’s financial policies; and
▪ Functional cost breakdown consistent with Proposition 218 requirements.

The culmination of the revenue requirements analysis, which will include a capital project financing plan, and cost of service allocations, will be alternative rate plans which will provide sufficient revenue to meet the ongoing funding needs of the system, while recovering costs from customers in a manner which is fair, equitable and within reasonable customer impact parameters.

We will develop a robust 10-year pro forma financial model to demonstrate the results of various analyses and aid detailed policy and education discussions with City staff and City Council. It will serve as the basis for developing rate structures that provide for long-term financial stability, reflect levels of service demand for different customer classes, and comply with the requirements of Proposition 218.

During this project, we will utilize our Microsoft Excel-based model, with its interactive dashboard, as a comprehensive financial tool to allow planning and evaluation of variable inputs and assumptions, thereby creating a thorough analysis of revenue requirements to address the City’s goal of ensuring predictable and stable revenue. This analysis is then seamlessly integrated with the rate development component of the model to demonstrate and project various rate design alternatives, and the effects they would have on the City’s financial outlook.

The model is used in meetings, in order to efficiently cycle through rate scenarios and establish the most viable rate plans for the City. During these interactive meetings, we invite City staff to participate in scenario planning / “what-if” sessions, where we use the dashboard to demonstrate and evaluate the financial/rate impact of alternative data (CIP, operating costs, etc.) and assumptions (interest rates, customer growth, cost escalation, etc.) in real-time to focus on the most critical drivers of the analysis. This ensures the resulting rate plan alternatives are viable from a financial, operational, managerial, and political perspective.

The Financial Planning
component of the model
provides transparency, such
that users can develop a viable
financial plan and understand
the reasons for needed
revenue adjustments.

EXHIBIT A

Page 3 of 13 ends

Sewer Rate Study 18
City of Stanton, CA
To the extent revenues are not projected to be sufficient to meet requirements including operating expenses, debt service payments and coverage requirements, planned capital expenditures and targeted operating reserves, the model can be used to evaluate variable outcomes and alternatives, providing basis for meaningful discussions with elected officials and stakeholders well in advance of the actual rate increase process.

Real-Time Financial Modeling
The goal of financial forecasting is to provide clear vision regarding the potential financial outcomes of current management decisions, or just as importantly, potential decisions. Willdan’s approach helps the City staff mold the existing knowledge base into a viable financial management and capital financing plan.

Any model is only as effective as the expertise of those who develop it; our state-of-the-art financial modeling techniques allow us to incorporate our considerable experience by asking the correct questions, evaluating, and incorporating appropriate data, providing interactive consulting services, and evaluating multiple scenarios with the City in a real-time setting.

Because our interactive model will be populated with specific data from the City (i.e., division and account structure), each alternative reviewed in real-time during interactive meetings with the City can be done with a complete understanding of specific customer impacts. Further, our experience ensures that the data loaded into the model is vetted and validated, and that the baseline results from which forecasts are developed are fully understood from the beginning, so that more time is spent on evaluation of potential solutions, rather than questioning whether the underlying data and assumptions are correct.

Model Development as Part of the Consulting Process
The financial planning model will be designed with the following elements:
▪ Graphical dashboard to clearly show the results of various scenarios to the user; ▪ Easily reviewed and modified assumptions;
▪ Validated data tables generated from the City’s financial and operational information; and ▪ A powerful calculation engine.

The model will be “baselined” after an initial meeting with staff to ensure that we have the correct data and a basic understanding of the financial dynamics of your system.

We will then conduct interactive financial planning
sessions with the City staff.

After validating our data, calculation approach, and
baseline assumptions, we will explore alternative
scenarios, varying a number of assumptions and financial planning techniques including:
▪ Rate increase magnitude and timing;
▪ Alternative timing of capital projects;
▪ Alternative financing options (alternative
combinations of pay-as-you-go, revenue bond debt
and other debt, for example);
▪ Alternative growth/demand forecasts and other
“what if” analyses such as the impact of a loss of one
or more service areas or significant customers; and
▪ Effect of increases in other sources of funds.

Given any combination of cost requirements (both operating and capital), non-rate sources of funds, and forecast assumptions, the Willdan team will work with the City to develop a financial plan that:
▪ Meets specified reserve targets;
▪ Addresses identified benchmarks or key performance indicators; ▪ Fully funds capital expenditures using specified financing techniques; and ▪ Meets legal, policy and contractual requirements that are financially measurable, such as debt service coverage on revenue bonds.
0% FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 D/S Cov-Rcov 2.19 2.36 1.04 1.16 0.84 D/S Cov-Parity NA NA 1.04 NA 0.84 another dialog box for: Level Other
RATE INCR.% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
Sample Utility
Revenue Sufficiency Analysis Dashboard
Rate Revenue Increase Required

3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%
Rate Incr 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
Last
FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08
Working Capital
- 20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
Actual 94,509,622 54,544,605 21,300,439 20,421,433 14,244,837 Last Target 20,077,706 20,680,037 21,300,439 21,939,452 22,597,635 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08
3 Working Capital Target (Expressed as Months of O&M) Capital Projects -
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
CIP 45,000,000 45,000,000 85,000,000 45,000,000 45,000,000 Last FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08
Percent of CIP Spent 100%
Debt Funded Capital
-
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
CIP - - 97,831,133 - 88,750,000 Last
FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08
Yrs to Bundle Debt 2
Rate Revenue
Requirements
Financial Planning Model
Rate Design Model
0% FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 D/S Cov-Rcov 2.19 2.36 1.04 1.16 0.84 D/S Cov-Parity NA NA 1.04 NA 0.84 another dialog box for: Level Other
RATE INCR.% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%
Sample Utility
Revenue Sufficiency Analysis Dashboard
Rate Revenue Increase Required

3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

EXHIBIT A

Page 4 of 13 ends

Sewer Rate Study 19
City of Stanton, CA
Subsequent to careful development and validation of the baseline forecast, a series of alternative forecasts will be prepared illustrating various results in the following general categories:
▪ What if things turn out differently? These alternatives will demonstrate the sensitivity of the forecast to the significant assumptions used. This results in a sound understanding of areas where a conservative forecast approach is warranted;
▪ What happens when we try this? This series of alternatives focuses on different financial management approaches. For example, the use of different financing techniques such as capitalized interest, interim shortterm financing, and capital appreciation bonds may be explored; ▪ What can we do to make it better? This approach to forecasting identifies the factors that may be causing significant rate increases in a given year and explores alternatives. For example, if a large capital project in a single year is the culprit, we would work with staff and the consulting engineers to determine whether this project could be phased or delayed; and
▪ How will any adjustments affect our customers? In examining rate structure alternatives, we will demonstrate and discuss how users in various categories or classifications will be impacted. Our consultants will use our rate design model to explore the impact of various rate structures on bills for each customer class over the relevant consumption range.

Communication as Part of the Consulting Process
Willdan’s experienced professionals are accustomed to communicating with a variety of stakeholder groups, from management and staff, boards, and commissions, as well as the community. Our analytical and modeling approach will be customized to the City’s specific needs. As mentioned, the custom graphical interfaces imbedded in our models allow our consultants to easily track key performance metrics and work through alternative scenarios with the City staff and management. Features of the Excel-based analysis model include the ability to incorporate line-item data and assumptions that are then summarized in a graphic dashboard to show key financial indicators for the utility systems.

The sample dashboard below illustrates how we can summarize data, assumptions, and calculations into an easy-tounderstand graphical interface that updates with each alternative scenario evaluated. A copy of the final dashboard model will be provided to the City upon completion of the project.

EXHIBIT A

Page 5 of 13 ends

Sewer Rate Study 20
City of Stanton, CA
Rate Study Objectives
The overarching rate study objectives are outlined below.

Rate Setting Process
The graphic below summarizes the standard approach commonly employed to develop utility rates. Willdan’s ratesetting process and model has been developed through the completion of many successful studies over the course of time and continues to be the basis for developing proven, well-balanced financial plans that are supported by equitable rate structures. Willdan’s combination of consulting experience and technical expertise helps distill the complex decisions into a clear and easy-to-understand process. As there are often competing objectives, for a successful rate study it is necessary to understand not only the technical details and corresponding rates, but also the social and political corollaries that can often jeopardize the implementation of a technically sound rate structure.

Our rate experience goes beyond simply “running the numbers” by creating numerous scenarios and considering stakeholder considerations, such as customer impact (ability to pay) to ensure a complete and unimpeded rate analysis.

Each step of the three-step approach is typically performed in tandem. Although presented sequentially, the overall analysis is circular – as variables in one analysis may influence another. Thus, it is imperative to constantly review assumptions to determine if variables are fixed (i.e., debt service) or flexible (i.e., consumption or treatment) and monitor how changes in certain variables affect the overall analysis.

EXHIBIT A

Page 6 of 13 ends

Sewer Rate Study 21
City of Stanton, CA
Scope of Work
The following proposed scope of services is intended to capture the goals and objectives of the City. Willdan is confident the following will effectively meet the stated project objectives. A final scope and schedule will be determined following the selection of a consultant and based on further discussions with staff.

Willdan’s work plan will culminate in the successful development of sewer projections and rates for five years, an extended ten-year financial plan, and the education of staff and key stakeholders.

Project Initiation
Task 1.1 – Data Collection and Review
Task 1.1.1 – Data Collection. The City will be provided with an initial list of basic data needed to conduct the study.

The data request may include, but will not be limited to:
▪ Financial and operating data (budgets, audits,
financial statements, cash balances, etc.);
▪ Customer account and billing data;
▪ Related reports prepared by others
(i.e., Master Plans, UWMP);
▪ System operating data for the utility;
▪ Capital improvement programs, fixed asset
records;
▪ Bond statements, debt service schedules;
▪ Ordinances, previous rate studies, City codes; and
▪ City financial, debt and reserve policies.

Task 1.1.2 – Data Review. We propose to conduct initial data collection and review prior to the kick-off meeting to allow for a more meaningful discussion to occur. This will allow for our review of data in advance of the meeting so that we can request clarifications or follow-up information, as necessary. However, if the City’s preference is to conduct the kick-off prior to collecting data, we will accommodate that request. The data will be reviewed for completeness and to ensure a sufficient understanding of historical utility operations. The data collection and review process will be ongoing throughout the process as the need for additional information arises.

Task 1.2 – Kick-off Meeting and Planning Discussion
Task 1.2.1 – Project Kick-off. Following initial data collection and review, Willdan will conduct a kick-off meeting with City Staff. During this meeting we will discuss goals and objectives of the study, the schedule, constraints, or challenges that may be encountered, stakeholder considerations and objectives, and political concerns. Discussions may center around the following:
▪ Review of previous rate study and existing rate structure and areas where existing rates have been successful and/or specific areas of focus;
▪ Review of recent financial performance for the utility; ▪ Discussion of anticipated significant events (i.e., loss or gain of any major customers); ▪ Components to incorporate into the updated revenue requirements; such as, capital improvements, debt repayment, reserves, annual repair and replacement, ongoing maintenance, etc.; ▪ Strategy and level of effort for outreach and education; ▪ Conduct a detailed review of the data used in the baseline financial forecast; and ▪ Review and resolve (or develop a plan for resolving) data issues and questions.

For further efficiency and collaboration, the kick-off meeting will include a financial policy discussion. This will serve to address and document the City's financial policies for the utility to be studied.

Topics of discussion may include:
▪ Rate design approaches and alternatives;
▪ Rate policy objectives;
▪ City financial policies;
▪ Reserve options and target levels (operating, debt
services, rate stabilization, repair, and replacement); ▪ Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) financing
options – i.e., PAYGO vs. debt vs. grants;
▪ Customer characteristics and classifications; and
▪ Cost of service factors and Proposition 218.

EXHIBIT A

Page 7 of 13 ends

Sewer Rate Study 22
City of Stanton, CA
Sewer Rate Study
Task 2.1 – Development of Financial Model and Plan, Revenue Requirements and Rate Determinants The following sub tasks encompass the development of detailed historical customer and system analysis, creation of the comprehensive financial and cost-of-service rate model, formulation of cash flow projections of revenues and expenditures over five- and ten-year periods, and the calculation of the required revenue for the sewer utility, all of which will serve as the basis for recommendations for updated rates. The financial and rate model will provide detailed and comprehensive projections that will be used in the development of rates over the initial five-year period, and projections extended out to ten years for internal City planning.

Task 2.1.1 – Historical Billing Data Analysis. The data request document will provide instructions for the development of historical customer billing information. It is anticipated that the billing information will be provided in a format necessary to summarize the sewer system accounts and billable flows by customer class for a recent historical period for which audited revenues exist. The customers and flows provide the basis on which operating revenues are derived and are therefore the primary factors utilized in reviewing the user rates and charges. As such, the historical billing data provides an important basis for analyses that will be used to develop assumptions for projecting revenues under existing and/or proposed rates.

Task 2.1.2 – Customer and Flow Projections. The sewer system accounts, and billable flows, will be forecasted for a five-year planning period. Such projections will be developed by considering historical growth trends, peak demands, local economic conditions, potential for adding/losing major utility customers, changes in customer class usage patterns over time, and experienced judgment. The billable flow projections will be based on the projected number of utility accounts and a usage per account analysis to differentiate the historical effects of account growth and increased (decreased) average usage by customer class.

Task 2.1.3 – Projected Revenues Under Existing Rates. Projections of utility system revenues under existing rates for the five-year planning period will be developed for sewer, recognizing projected accounts, flow volumes, and usage patterns by customer class (as determined in the billing analysis under the previous tasks).

Task 2.1.4 – Projected Revenue Requirements. Revenue requirements (i.e., system expenditures) will be developed for the utility systems based on an analysis of historical, currently budgeted, and anticipated operating and capital expenditures. The revenue requirements will be projected on a fiscal year cash flow basis, considering expected operational changes, changes in staffing or operating expenditures for new facilities, system growth occurring from new development, anticipated extraordinary expenses, and allowances for inflation. The projections will include, but not be limited to, the following:
▪ Operation and maintenance expenses;
▪ Direct and indirect costs utilizing the cost allocation model currently in process for the City;
▪ Outlay for annual capital additions and replacements; ▪ Debt service payments and coverage
requirements for existing and anticipated debt;
▪ Funding of adequate reserves; and
▪ Other expenditures and transfers.

Task 2.1.5 – Projected Operating Results Based on Existing Rates. The projected revenues and revenue requirements will be summarized into a five and ten-year cash flow statement providing the projected operating results of the sewer system under the existing rates.

The cash flow statement will be used to estimate annual adjustments in utility revenues necessary to fund
operating and capital expenditure requirements, meet
existing bond covenant requirements, and maintain
prudent utility management practices. The estimated
timing and magnitude of future debt issues required, if any, to finance proposed capital improvements will also be shown. Concurrent with the development of the
projected operating results, the study will review the
general financial health of the utility operations and, as necessary, make recommendations for changes in fund
balances, reserves, and debt service coverage ratios to maintain financial integrity and a stable bond rating.

The graphic demonstrates the general rate study
methodology and major components of the rate process.

EXHIBIT A

Page 8 of 13 ends

Sewer Rate Study 23
City of Stanton, CA
Task 2.2 – Capital Plan Analysis and Integration of Sewer Master Plan Results Task 2.2.1 – Review Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Asset Replacement Schedules. The City’s existing sewer system Master Plan and five-year CIP, master plans, and asset replacement schedules will be reviewed in conjunction with conversations with City Staff. The objective of such a review is to gain an understanding of the types of projects scheduled; the timing associated with such projects, associated expenditure requirements and the sources of funding each project. Examining the impacts on the financial objectives of the sewer utility, as well as capital projects associated with rehabilitation and replacement of existing facilities, will be a key objective of not only this task but the entire project. The results of the financial plan will also help the City to prioritize projects identified within the CIP.

Task 2.2.2 – Develop Capital Needs Plan. Based on the
findings made in the previous task and the Projected
Operating Results described in Task 2.1.5, a plan will be developed to provide for the anticipated capital expenditure activities, including debt issuances, relative to the CIP. Such a plan will include consideration for the use of restricted and unrestricted funds, surplus operating reserves, capital recovery fees, and future rate adjustments. The analysis will also develop a projection of reserve fund balances and level of liquidity.

Task 2.2.3 – Capital Projects Model. The CIP will drive the future funding options and will directly impact rates.

Therefore, the rate analysis will incorporate the City’s current five-year CIP. The rate model will have the ability to run various CIP funding scenarios and quickly show the estimated impact on utility rates.

Since we are not serving as the financial/municipal advisor to the City for this project, we will rely on information relative to proposed debt or financing structures provided by the City or its designated financial/municipal advisor.

Task 2.3 – Cost-of-Service Allocations
Task 2.3.1 – Functional Cost Allocations. The analysis will allocate the Test Year revenue requirement (i.e., costs of providing service) to the various cost/rate components that constitute functional classifications of the types of service provided.

The functional cost allocations will evaluate such aspects as fixed costs, customer related costs and volumetric/usage related costs. The evaluation of allocation factors associated with applicable costs will be based on existing rate structures applied by the City, meter size, rate structures applied by other comparable utility systems in the region, common industry practice and standard rate-making principals.

Task 2.3.2 – Determination of Revenue Adequacy. Comparisons of revenues under the existing sewer rates with the allocated costs of service will be evaluated in order to determine the degree of cost recovery by the various cost components, and to identify areas that may possibly require adjustments to align the revenues from each rate component with the allocated costs.

Task 2.4 – Rate Analysis and Design
Task 2.4.1 – Evaluation of Existing Rate Structures. The existing rate structures will be further evaluated for their effectiveness in equitably recovering costs of utility service from each customer class. The City’s current rate structure will be evaluated, and recommendations will be made for potential modifications to the current rates.

As part of the rate design process, Willdan will discuss with departmental staff the current trends and philosophies in utility ratemaking. Based on these discussions, the analysis will develop and recommend a rate design and philosophy that best meets the objectives of the City. The analysis model will be developed in a dynamic manner allowing the City to compare alternative annual incremental/phasing adjustments to achieve funding goals.

Basic standards for rate design accepted by the industry are:
▪ Full Cost Recovery – rate revenue should provide sufficient income so that, when combined with other sources of funds, funding requirements for the system are covered including, all current long-term liabilities, debt obligations and future expansion-related and R&R-related capital needed to replace aging and infrastructure. ▪ Fairness and Equity – based on cost responsibility as reflected in cost-of-service allocations, in accordance with industry standards.
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Projected Unrestricted Reserves

EXHIBIT A

Page 9 of 13 ends

Sewer Rate Study 24
City of Stanton, CA
▪ Technically Defensible – apply industry proven standards and methodologies to help shield the City from potential legal challenges associated with the proposed utility rates. ▪ Administrative Efficiency – rates should be understandable to customers and efficiently administered by staff. ▪ Customer Acceptance – customers understand the rates, view them as fair, and consider them to be reasonable compared to other costs and other utilities.
▪ Public Health and Welfare – rates are structured so that essential service usage is encouraged through affordability.

Task 2.4.2 – Rate Structure Alternatives. The rate model will be developed in a dynamic manner such that the Willdan Team and City Staff will be able to analyze “what if” scenarios detailing the financial impacts under each scenario utilizing an iterative dashboard view. Baseline rate structures will be recommended as required to fund the utility system and consider annual inflationary indexed adjustments to rates as needed to maintain the utility. We will coordinate with City Staff to ensure suggested rate structures are compatible with the City’s utility billing software.

Task 2.4.3 – Projected Operating Results Based on Proposed Rates.

The proposed user rates and/or rate structures will be applied to the projected customers and flows in order to estimate the revenues to be generated from the proposed rates for the Test Year and the subsequent years of the projection period. The projected revenues will consider possible elasticity effects associated with changes in usage characteristics that may occur from revising the rate structure. In addition, similar to the process described in Task 2.1, the five-year forecast will identify annual adjustments in utility system revenues necessary to meet existing bond covenant requirements, prudent management practices, and/or sound capital financing considerations.

Task 2.4.4 – Typical Bill Comparison. Comparisons of typical utility bills under the existing and proposed rates will be developed for each customer class under various levels of usage. The selected customer class usage levels will reflect the results of the billing analysis to better demonstrate rate impacts on typical customer accounts in each class.

Task 2.4.5 – Neighboring Utility Comparison.

A comparison will be prepared to assess the difference between existing and proposed rates of the City with those of other comparable municipal utility systems.

Preparation of Reports and Proposition 218 Notices
Task 3.1 – Reports, Model and Deliverables
Task 3.1.1 – Preliminary Draft Report. A draft report will be developed to address study findings and proposed recommendations. Contents will also include assumptions relied upon for the projection of customers and usage characteristics, revenue requirements, revenues, operating results, the cost recovery profile for each class, the results of the fully allocated cost of service analyses and any proposed adjustments to the utility rates. Upon completion, an electronic PDF copy and ten copies of the draft report will be provided to staff for review. The report and presentations will also include a comparison of the City’s current and proposed sewer rates with five other public agencies.

Task 3.1.2 – Final Report. Based on comments received from staff and other participants during the presentation of the Preliminary Draft Report, the Final Report will be revised to incorporate the agreed upon changes. Upon completion, an electronic PDF copy and two (2) copies of the Final Rate Study Report will be provided to the City.

Task 3.1.3 – Rate Model. The financial rate model developed through the course of this study of the utility, including the interactive dashboard, will be provided to the City for its unrestricted use. Our model is developed using Excel and will not contain any proprietary components. We will provide guidance and education on the use of the model, including how to incorporate updated financial information and data, such as budgets, fund balances, capital plans and cost escalators, and see the results and impacts on projected future rates. To the best extent possible and feasible, given limitations in long-term projections and the ability to effectively model them, we will work with the City to evaluate which factors to incorporate into the model, to allow the ability to develop projections over an extended 30 year timeline.

Utility 1
Existing Rates
Utility 2
Utility 3
Utility 4
Proposed Rates
Utility 5
Utility 6
Utility 7
Utility 8
Utility 9
Utility 10
Utility 11
Utility 12
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
$70.00
Comparison With Other Utility Systems
6,000 Gallons Per Month
Average of Other Utilities

EXHIBIT A

Page 10 of 13 ends

Sewer Rate Study 25
City of Stanton, CA
Task 3.2 – Proposition 218 Notice Preparation and Mailing Task 3.2.1 – Proposition 218 Notices. Based on our over 25-year history with Proposition 218 compliance, we will assist with the drafting of the notices that will explain:
▪ The purpose of the rates;
▪ The reason for the increases;
▪ How the rates are structured;
▪ The date, time, and place of the public hearing; and
▪ Details on what constitutes the existence of a majority protest, as it relates to the implementation of a new/increased utility rate structure.

Task 3.2.2 – Proposition 218 Notice Processing. We will develop the materials, create a parcel database of properties subject to the new proposed rates, and coordinate the printing and mailing of the materials in conjunction with a mailing house that we typically work with on these types of projects. The additional cost for these services is estimated at $.75 per parcel and includes direct costs associated with the mailing.

Communicating Results - Presentations & Meetings
Task 4.1 – Meetings and Presentations
Task 4.1.1 – Project Kick-Off. As detailed in Task 1.2, a kick-off meeting will be scheduled with City Staff at the start of the project to discuss project requirements, finalize project scheduling/milestones and reporting requirements, and receive overall project direction. This discussion will provide the opportunity to review current utility rates, fees, charges, issues, and deficiencies with staff.

Task 4.1.2 – Project Progress Web Conferences. During the project, and prior to meetings with the City Council, team web conferences will be scheduled to present the progression of the analysis to staff in order to obtain input and feedback associated with any rate adjustments that may be presented. These web meetings will assist in the completion of rate design for the utility systems and guide the development of the draft report.

Task 4.1.3 – Rate Workshops. As requested in the RFP, Willdan will conduct a rate workshop with the City Council and City Staff. Additional workshop meetings can be added based on the additional per meeting cost outlined in this proposal.

Task 4.1.4 – Draft Financial Plan Meeting. The results of the Preliminary Financial Plan and Revenue Requirements will be presented to staff for comment, feedback, and direction.

Task 4.1.5 – Draft Study/Final Report Meetings/Public Hearing. The draft report will be reviewed with City Staff to discuss findings and recommendations, gather feedback and address questions, then presented to the City Council.

The results of the Final Report will be presented to the City Council during one (1) public City Council meeting, and then again at the Public Hearing required by Proposition 218. Willdan’s project manager will be present to address any questions or concerns raised during the public hearings.

Add-On Service/Optional - Sewer Connection Fee Study
Task 1.1 – Data Collection
The City will be provided with an initial list of basic data needed to conduct the study. The data request may include, but not be limited to, items such as financial data, customer account and billing data, reports prepared by others, capital improvement programs, fixed asset records, official bond statements, debt service schedules and master plans.

Task 1.2 – Data Review
The data will be reviewed for completeness and to ensure a sufficient understanding of historical utility operations.

The data collection and review process will be ongoing throughout the process as the need for additional information arises.

Development of Land Use Assumptions
Task 1.3 – Land Use Assumptions
Land use assumptions (LUA) and City growth projections will need to either be developed by the City using information provided by the census, county association, or a combination of historical information through the City’s building records. This information should include a ten-year projection of residential, multi-family and non-residential land use types included in the City’s General Plan.

EXHIBIT A

Page 11 of 13 ends

Sewer Rate Study 26
City of Stanton, CA
The projections will include:

1. Single family by year with specific consideration to:
a. Land use forecast will be provided by planning area or any sub regions that has been designated by the City. b. Compare and identify differences between land use assumptions and the General Plan for the projection period.

Development of Capital Improvement Plan and Review Land Use Assumptions Task 1.4 – Develop Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Growth-Related Projects Below are the activities associated with the development of the CIP incorporating the results of the above related task.

1. Upon completion of the population projections and the land use analysis, we will:
a. Discuss potential service area designations determined by City staff to be served by current and new facilities based on land use assumptions.
b. Review capital projects for a ten-year period based on population projections and land use assumptions and identify projects specifically necessary to accommodate new development.

2. Land use assumptions and City growth projections will be provided by the City and will be for the next ten years for residential, multi-family, and non-residential land use types included in the City’s most recent General Plan. If available, the projections will include:
a. Single family housing units.

3. Once requested data is provided and evaluated in previous tasks, we will meet with City staff to discuss future projects that are proposed to be funded by capacity fees; we will discuss the following:
a. Guidance within California State Statutes affecting facilities eligible for capacity fee recovery. b. Existing service level information provided in previous tasks.

Based on the review of key data, discussion with City staff and subsequent evaluations the Willdan Team will recommend the development impact fee methodology and approach as the basis for calculations.

Calculation of Capacity/Connection Fees and Report & Meeting Task 1.5 – Calculate Capacity/Connection Fees
To calculate the Capacity/Connection fees for the City, we will:

1. Review the current capacity of the system (for example gallons per capita per).

2. Identify offsets for growth-related revenue to be used toward available capacity will be taken into consideration for the calculations for the study period.

3. Develop fees by services area based on level of service standards per housing as determined in the above task.

Once preliminary fee calculations are complete, we will review the results with City staff to apply modifications to the underlying analysis and prepare recommended fee schedules.

Task 1.6 – Report and Meeting
Task 1.6.1 – Report. We will prepare and deliver for the City’s review a draft report summarizing the approach, analysis, findings and recommendations for the water and sewer Capacity Fee Study.

Based upon feedback and comments received from City Staff, the report will be updated and finalized into a final version, for presentation to the City Council. Upon completion, the final report will be provided to the City in electronic format and printed form if requested.

Task 1.6.2 – Final Report Meeting. If requested by City Staff, the study and report will be presented to the City Council. Depending upon timing and City preference, this report may be presented in conjunction with the results and report for the Sewer Rate Study.

EXHIBIT A

Page 12 of 13 ends

Sewer Rate Study 27
City of Stanton, CA
City Staff Support / Responsibilities
Willdan recommends that the City of Stanton assign a key individual as a project manager. As our analysis is developed, the City’s appointed project manager will:
▪ Coordinate responses to informational requests;
▪ Coordinate review of work products; and
▪ Identify appropriate staff members for participation in meetings and facilitate in scheduling.

We will ask for responses to initial information, follow-up requests and comments on reports within five business days or otherwise agreed upon timetable. If there are delays, the project manager will follow up with the parties involved to establish an estimated date for the delivery of information and/or feedback.

To ensure continued progression, the project manager will reconvene with the rest of the team to identify tasks that can be started while waiting for requested data.

Project Disclaimer
The City of Stanton further represents, acknowledges, and agrees that:
(i) The City uses, or may use, the services of one or more municipal advisors registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to advise it in connection with municipal financial products and the issuance of municipal securities;
(ii) The City is not looking to Willdan to provide, and City shall not otherwise request or require Willdan to provide, any advice or recommendations with respect to municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities (including any advice or recommendations with respect to the structure, timing, terms, and other similar matters concerning such financial products or issues);
(iii) The provisions of this proposal and the services to be provided hereunder as outlined in the scope of services are not intended (and shall not be construed) to constitute or include any municipal advisory services within the meaning of Section 15B of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder;
(iv) For the avoidance of doubt and without limiting the foregoing, in connection with any revenue projections, cashflow analyses, feasibility studies and/or other analyses Willdan may provide the City with respect to financial, economic or other matters relating to a prospective, new or existing issuance of municipal securities of the City, (A) any such projections, studies and analyses shall be based upon assumptions, opinions or views (including, without limitation, any assumptions related to revenue growth) established by the City, in conjunction with such of its municipal, financial, legal and other advisers as it deems appropriate; and (B) under no circumstances shall Willdan be asked to provide, nor shall it provide, any advice or recommendations or subjective assumptions, opinions or views with respect to the actual or proposed structure, terms, timing, pricing or other similar matters with respect to any municipal financial products or municipal securities issuances, including any revisions or amendments thereto; and
(v) Notwithstanding all of the foregoing, the City recognizes that interpretive guidance regarding municipal advisory activities is currently quite limited and is likely to evolve and develop during the term of the potential engagement and, to that end, the City will work with Willdan throughout the term of the potential Agreement to ensure that the Agreement and the services to be provided by Willdan hereunder, is interpreted by the parties, and if necessary amended, in a manner intended to ensure that the City is not asking Willdan to provide, and Willdan is not in fact providing or required to provide, any municipal advisory services.

EXHIBIT A

Page 13 of 13 ends

Sewer Rate Study 28
City of Stanton, CA
Project Schedules
The following outlines the estimated number of weeks to complete each task outlined in our scope of services. A specific project schedule will be developed following consultation with, and in concert with, City staff.

Sewer Rate Study
5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 3 10 17 24 31 Task 1.1 –Data Collection & Review
Task 1.2 –Kick-off Meeting & Planning Discussion
Task 2.1 –Financial Model and Plan, Revenue Requirements Task 2.2 –Capital Plan Analysis
Task 2.3 –Cost-of-Service Allocations
Task 2.4 –Rate Analysis & Design
Task 3.1 –Reports, Model & Deliverables
Task 3.2 –Proposition 218 Notice Preparation & Mailing
Task 4.1 –Meetings & Presentations 1st CC Mtg Pub Hrng - March/April '25 Sewer Rate Study
Communicating Results - Presentations & Meetings
Preparation of Reports and Proposition 218 Notices
Final Rprt for PH
City of Stanton
Sewer Rate Study
Timeline
Project Initiation
Scope of Work August September October November December January February March

EXHIBIT B

Page 1 of 2 ends

Sewer Rate Study 29
City of Stanton, CA
Add on Service/Optional Sewer Connection Fee Study
5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 Task 1.1 –Data Collection
Task 1.2 –Data Review
Task 1.3 –Land Use Assumptions
Task 1.4 –Develop Capital Improvement Plan
Task 1.5 –Calculate Capacity/Connection Fees
Task 1.6 –Report and Meeting
Capacity Fee Study
City of Stanton
Sewer Connection Fee Study
Timeline
Scope of Work August September October November December January

EXHIBIT B

Page 2 of 2 ends

Sewer Rate Study 1
City of Stanton, CA
Project Costs
Based on our work plan provided in the scope of services, we propose a total fixed fee of $39,340, this fee includes the add-on/optional Sewer Connection Fee Study. The tables below provide a breakdown of these fees by task and project team member.

Sewer Rate Study
Based on our work plan provided in the scope of services, we propose a not-to-exceed fixed fee of $27,805.

Add-On Service/Optional Sewer Connection Fee Study
Based on our work plan provided in the scope of services, we propose a not-to-exceed fixed fee of $11,535.

C. Fisher
PIC/PM
J. McGarvey
Tech Advisor/QA/QC
M. Cronan
Lead Analyst
$250 $240 $165 Hours Cost
Task 1.1 -Data Collection & Review 0.5 - 8.0 8.5 $ 1,445 Task 1.2 -Kick-off Meeting & Planning Discussion 1.0 - 2.0 3.0 580 Task 2.1 -Financial Plan, Requirements & Determinants 6.0 1.0 40.0 47.0 8,340 Task 2.2 -Capital Plan Analysis 2.0 0.5 6.0 8.5 1,610
Task 2.3 -Cost-of-Service Allocations 1.0 0.5 4.0 5.5 1,030 Task 2.4 -Rate Analysis & Design 6.0 1.0 12.0 19.0 3,720 Task 3.1 -Reports, Model & Deliverables 3.0 2.0 16.0 21.0 3,870 Task 3.2 -Proposition 218 Notice Preparation & Mailing 8.0 - 8.0 16.0 3,320 Task 4.1 -Meetings & Presentations 8.0 1.0 10.0 19.0 3,890 Total Labor Cost Proposal 35.5 6.0 106.0 147.5 $ 27,805 City of Stanton
Sewer Rate Study
Fee Proposal
Project Initiation
Reports and Presentations
Communicating Results - Presentations & Meetings
Sewer Rate Study
Scope of Work
Total
C. Fisher
PIC/PM
J. McGarvey
Tech Advisor
& QA/QC
M. Cronan
Lead Analyst
$250 $240 $165 Hours Cost
Task 1.1 - Data Collection 1.0 - 6.0 7.0 1,240
Task 1.2 - Data Review 1.0 0.5 2.0 3.5 700
Task 1.3 - Land Use Assumptions 1.0 0.5 4.0 5.5 1,030
Task 1.4 - Develop Capital Improvement Plan 1.0 1.0 6.0 8.0 1,480 Task 1.5 - Calculate Capacity/Connection Fees 2.0 2.0 24.0 28.0 4,940 Task 1.6 - Report 2.0 1.0 6.0 9.0 1,730
Task 1.6 - Final Report and Meeting 1.0 - 1.0 2.0 415
Total Labor Cost Proposal 9.0 5.0 49.0 63.0 $ 11,535
City of Stanton
Sewer Connection Fee Study
Fee Proposal
Total
Scope of Work
Report
Presentations & Meetings

EXHIBIT C

Page 1 of 2 ends

Sewer Rate Study 2
City of Stanton, CA
Proposition 218 Fees
IMPORTANT NOTE - The fixed fee does not include direct costs associated with the printing, processing, postage and mailing of Proposition 218 notices. We will bill the City for these at our cost, plus 10 percent (10%), based on actual quotes provided by our mailing house at the time the mailing materials are developed and delivered to them.

These costs are estimated at $1.00 per mailed piece.

Notes
▪ The City will be invoiced on a monthly percentage-completion basis. ▪ Invoices will include a description of services, as well as a summary of costs to date by task. ▪ Willdan will rely on the validity and accuracy of the City’s data and documentation to complete our analysis. Willdan will rely on the data as being accurate without performing an independent verification of accuracy, and that we will not be responsible for any errors that result from inaccurate data provided by the client or a third party. ▪ The City shall reimburse Willdan for any costs Willdan incurs, including without limitation, copying costs, digitizing costs, travel expenses, employee time and attorneys' fees, to respond to the legal process of any governmental agency relating to the City or relating to this project. Reimbursement shall be at Willdan's rates in effect at the time of such response.

Hourly Rates
We will perform additional tasks, outside our scope of services, as requested and authorized by the City for an additional fee. Additional services may be authorized by the City and will be billed at our then-current hourly rates. Our current hourly rates are listed below.

Willdan Hourly Rate Schedule
Position Team Member Hourly Rate
Vice President - Director Chris Fisher $250
Managing Principal Jeff McGarvey $240
Principal Consultant $210
Senior Project Manager $185
Project Manager Michael Cronan $165
Senior Project Analyst $135
Senior Analyst $125
Analyst II $110
Analyst $100

EXHIBIT C

Page 2 of 2 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1068

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STANTON, CALIFORNIA,

ESTABLISHING RATES FOR THE ANNUAL SEWER SERVICE CHARGE FOR SEWER

SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Stanton (" City") is successor agency of the Stanton County Water District under Reorganization No. 88; and
WHEREAS, the City currently operates and maintains a sewer collection system that serves the City. The network of sanitary sewers serves approximately 40, 000 residents and is comprised of 55. 4 miles of mains with approximately 550 manholes and 5, 000 sewer laterals; and
WHEREAS, the City charges fees to operate the citywide sewer collection system, and the sewer system is managed with an enterprise account. The rates customers pay may only be spent on the sewer system; and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2010 the City approved the AKM Consulting Engineers' Sewer System Financial Evaluation and Rate Study dated April 1, 2010, which created a rate structure to address the proper operation and maintenance of the City' s sewer system. A copy of the sewer rate study is on file with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on June 13, 2017 the City approved Harris & Associates' Annual Report for the Sewer Service Charge Fiscal Year 2017- 18 which proposed the revision of the rate structure for nonresidential properties to be based on the discharge of wastewater into the City' s sewer collection system utilizing the typical wastewater discharge rates as determined by Orange County Sanitation District; and
WHEREAS, the City has received a letter from AKM Consulting Engineers that affirms the assessment of the City' s sewer collection system completed by AKM in April 2010 is still valid and there maybe additional needs due to the passage of time; and WHEREAS, the maximum rates for residential parcels in each Fiscal Year for which they are proposed are less than the maximum rates approved in 2010 for Fiscal Year 2014- 15, and are not being " increased" for the purposes of Article XIII D, section 6 of the California Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the sewer charges for residential parcels are determined based on estimated discharge of wastewater into the City' s sewer system based on land use, and includes rates per dwelling unit for detached residential, multi -family residential/ condo, and mobile homes/ mobile home parks, determined as a percentage of the cost per single family residence per unit, all as more specifically set forth in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, the sewer charges for non- residential customers are calculated as a percentage of single family residences per 1, 000 square feet or unit, all as more specifically set forth in Exhibit A hereto; and
Ordinance No. 1068

Page 1 of 9 ends

ATTACHMENT B

Page 1 of 10 ends

Click here to return to the agenda.

WHEREAS, the total revenue collected for the sewer collection system under the proposed rates for Fiscal Year 2021- 22 are lower than the total revenue approved to collect in 2010 for Fiscal Year 2014- 15; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority of Section 5473 of the Health and Safety Code, the City Council of the City of Stanton elects to have such sewer charges for the forthcoming years collected on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, its general taxes; and WHEREAS, Harris & Associates has, in accordance with Section 5473 of the Health and Safety Code, prepared and filed with the City Clerk the Sewer User Fee Assessment Roll report containing a description of each parcel of real property receiving such services and facilities and the amount of charge for each parcel; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 5473. 1 of the Health and Safety Code, the City has published notice of the filing of the Sewer User Fee Assessment Roll report and of the time and place of the public hearing on the report; and
WHEREAS, the revenues derived from the proposed sewer charges will not exceed the funds required to provide the sewer services and shall be used exclusively for the provision of sewer services; and
WHEREAS, the amount of the proposed sewer charges will not exceed the proportional cost of the services attributable to each parcel upon which they are proposed for imposition; and
WHEREAS, the proposed sewer charges will not be imposed on a parcel unless such services are actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the parcel or any tenant directly liable for the payment of such sewer charges; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Constitution article XIII D, section 6 (" Article XIII D"), the City provided written notice ( the " Notice") by mail of: ( 1) the proposed increases to the rates for the sewer charges to the record owner of each parcel upon which the rate increases to the sewer charges are proposed for imposition; ( 2) the amount of the rates for the sewer charges proposed to be imposed on each parcel; ( 3) the basis upon which the rates for the sewer charges were calculated; ( 4) the reason for the rate increases to the sewer charges; and ( 5) the date time and location of a public hearing ( the " Hearing") on the proposed rate increases to the sewer service fees; and
WHEREAS, the City provided such Notice not less than forty-five days prior to the Hearing on the proposed rate increases to the sewer service fees in compliance with Article XIII D; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing was held on this day, August 8, 2017; and Ordinance No. 1068

Page 2 of 9 ends

ATTACHMENT B

Page 2 of 10 ends

WHEREAS, at the Hearing the City Council heard and considered all oral testimony, written materials, and written protests concerning the establishment and imposition of the proposed rates to the sewer charges, and at the close of the Hearing the City did not receive written protests against the establishment and imposition of the proposed rate increases to the sewer charges from a majority of the affected property owners; and WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA). The City has determined that this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA review under Public Resources Code section 21080( b)( 8) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15273 because the sewer service fees are necessary and reasonable to fund the administration, operation, maintenance, and improvements of the sewer systems and will not result in the expansion of the sewer system; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance shall supersede all other previous resolutions and ordinances that may conflict with, or be contrary to, this Ordinance with respect to the rates for sewer service fees described more particularly herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STANTON DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and the City Council so finds and determines. All protests and objections are hereby overruled by the affirmative vote of the members of the City Council voting in favor of the adoption of this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. The sewer charges established by this Ordinance are exempt from CEQA review under Public Resources Code section 21080( b)( 8) and State CEQA Guidelines section 15273 because the sewer charges are necessary and reasonable to fund the administration, operation, maintenance, and improvements of sewer system and will not result in the expansion of the sewer system. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at 7800 Katella Avenue, Stanton, California 90680. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk.

SECTION 3. RATES FOR SEWER SERVICE FEES

3. 1 The City Council has been presented with data showing the estimated reasonable costs of providing sewer service and data showing the revenue sources available to recover the costs of providing sewer service.

3. 2 The City Council reviewed the proposed rates for sewer charges at the June 13f" City Council meeting.

3. 3 The City Council introduced this Ordinance at the June 27, 2017 meeting.

3. 4 The City Council held a duly noticed Hearing on August 8, 2017, at which the City Council did not receive a protest from a majority of property owners subject to the sewer charges.

Ordinance No. 1068

Page 3 of 9 ends

ATTACHMENT B

Page 3 of 10 ends

3. 5 The City Council hereby adopts the sewer charges set forth in Exhibit A l
hereto. The City of Stanton hereby imposes and levies a sewer charges for each sanitation unit within the City of Stanton until such time as the sewer charges are otherwise revised by a subsequent ordinance of the City Council.

SECTION 4. The Annual Sewer Service Charge report, copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby confirmed.

SECTION 5. Passage of this ordinance shall constitute a levy of an annual sewer charge on each parcel connected to the City' s sanitary sewer system until such time as the rates for the sewer charge are otherwise revised by a subsequent ordinance of the City Council.

SECTION 6. Pursuant to the authority of Section 5473 of the Health and Safety Code, the City Clerk shall file the Sewer User Fee Assessment Roll with the County Auditor of the County of Orange.

SECTION 7. In the event the City cannot, or does not complete the actions required to collect the sewer service charge against a parcel for a fiscal year on the property tax roll, the City may collect such sewer charge for that year with respect to that parcel by mailing a bill to the owner of the parcel. Any sewer charge billed in this manner shall be due and payable upon presentation, but no earlier than December 1 of the fiscal year for which the sewer charge is imposed. If a sewer charge billed in this manner is not paid within thirty 30) days of the due date, then on the first day of each calendar month thereafter a late fee of two ( 2) percent of the amount of the delinquent sewer charge shall be added and become due. If any such sewer charge remains outstanding at the time the report is prepared for a subsequent fiscal year, the delinquent sewer charge ( and accrued late fees) may be included on such report and collected on the tax roll along with the charges for that fiscal year.

SECTION 8. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid, ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The Board of Directors hereby declares that it would have adopted each section irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.

SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Ordinance.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of June, 2017.

C ; L WARREN, MAYOR
Ordinance No. 1068

Page 4 of 9 ends

ATTACHMENT B

Page 4 of 10 ends

APPROVED AS TO FORM
rv,,144.eMA HEW E. RICHARDSON, CITY ATTORNEY

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.

CITY OF STANTON )
I, PATRICIA A. VAZQUEZ, City Clerk of the City of Stanton, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 1068 was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Stanton, California, held on the 27th day of June, 2017, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 8th day of August, 2017, by the following roll -call vote, to wit:

Ordinance No. 1068

Page 5 of 9 ends

Donahue, Ethans, Ramirez, Shawver,
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Warren
None
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

None
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Ordinance No. 1068

Page 5 of 9 ends

ATTACHMENT B

Page 5 of 10 ends

Exhibit A
Sewer Charges
Residential Sewer Charges
Residential Land Uses
Fiscal Year
Current 2017/ 18 2018/ 19 2019/ 20 2020/ 21 2021/ 22
Detached Single Family
Residential

62. 96 62. 96 65. 16 67. 44 69.80 72. 25
MFR/ Condo 50. 37 50. 37 52. 13 53. 96 55.84 57. 80
Mobile Home/ MHP ( Park) 31. 48 31. 48 32. 58 33. 72 34. 90 36. 12 Non -Residential Sewer Charges
The table below shows the annual Charge for non-residential parcels per 1, 000 square feet of building area as a percentage of the detached residential unit rate ( Single Family Residence or " SFR") based upon the typical wastewater discharge rates determined by the Orange County Sanitation District for parcels within the District. The annual Charge for nonresidential parcels is calculated by multiplying the applicable percentage shown in Table 2 based upon the Assessor' s Use Code times the Detached Residential Charge to determine the rate to be charged per building square footage divided by 1, 000.

Percentage of SFR Per
Use Code Description 1, 000 SF or Unit
001 Vacant Land 0%
005 Common Area 0%
006 Hold" Parcel 0%
008 Equivalent to Vacant 0%
121 Minimal or no Value 0%
122 Subsurface Parcel 0%
124 oil/ Mineral Rights 0%
125 Mineral Rights Equip 0%
126 Vacant Common Area -Imp Alloc. 0%
201 Homeowners Exemption Addtl 0%
666 Unassigned Vacant 0%
777 Septic Tank Property 0%
112 Steel Building 7%
113 Mini -Warehouse 7%
058 Nurseries ( Plants) 10%
100 Drive -In Theater 10%
044 Lumber/ Constr. Material Yard 17%
071 Parking Garage 17%
072 Paved Parking Lot 17%
110 Warehouse - Single Tenant 17%
Ordinance No. 1068

Page 6 of 9 ends

ATTACHMENT B

Page 6 of 10 ends

111 Warehouse - Multi Tenant 17%
115 Recreational Vehicle Storage 17%
116 Truck Terminal 17%
033 Church Buildings 20%
094 Department Store 23%
095 Discount Store 23%
096 Unattached Single Store 23%
097 Strip Store 23%
074 Recreational Vehicle Park 27%
036 Financial Buildings 27%
040 Health Club 29%
068 High Rise Office 30%
225 US Post Office 35%
021 Auto Dealership 41%
022 Auto Repair Shop 41%
023 Auto Service 41%
024 Used Car Lot 41%
039 Golf Course 41%
057 Motorcycle/ Small Vehicle Bldg. 41%
083 Auto Service Station 41%
084 Marine Service Station 41%
086 Combo - Svc Station/ Convenience 41%
065 Single Office Bldgs to 3 Stories 41%
066 Small Office Center 41%
067 Office Complex 41%
069 Converted Residence to Office 41%
007 Mobile Home 50%
055 Mobile Home Park 50%
107 Light Industrial - Single Tenant 50%
108 Light Industrial - Multi Tenant 50%
109 Research & Development 50%
114 Industrial Park 50%
037 Fraternal Buildings 51%
101 Unattached Theater 51%
026 Airport and Related Buildings 53%
045 Marinas 53%
088 Low Flow Center 53%
003 Two or more Residences 70%
010 Duplex Only 70%
011 Triplex Only 70%
012 04 -Units Only 70%
013 5 to 16 Units 70%
014 17 to 25 Units 70%
Ordinance No. 1068

Page 7 of 9 ends

ATTACHMENT B

Page 7 of 10 ends

015 26 to 40 Units 70%
016 41-99 Units Only 70%
017 100 or more Units 70%
018 Developed with Mix of Forms 70%
063 Low Rise Retirement Building 70%
064 High Rise Retirement Building 70%
056 Low Demand Hotel/ Motel 70%
081 Pre- Schools, Nursery or Care 82%
082 Private Schools 82%
098 Store with Offices or Living Quarter 82%
099 Store with Office Upstairs 82%
118 Governmental Use Vac/ Dev 82%
019 SFR with 1 or 2 Rental Units 85%
034 Dormitory 97%
042 Hospital 97%
043 High Demand Hotel/ Motel 97%
000 Conversion- C/ 1, Rural PC 100%
002 One Residence 100%
004 Miscellaneous Improvement 100%
085 Combo Serv. Station/ Restaurant 100%
103 Chemical Tank and Bulk Storage 100%
104 Food Processing Plant 100%
105 Cold Storage Plant 100%
106 Factory 100%
119 Public Utility 100%
120 Water Mutual or Company 100%
888 Conversion-Composite Prop. 100%
032 Cemetery & Related Bldgs. 101%
038 Funeral Home 101%
060 Nursing Home 102%
061 Convalescent Hospitals 102%
062 Converted Res. Used as Nursing 102%
028 Bowling Alleys 112%
092 Skating Rinks 112%
050 Single Medical Bldgs to 3 Stories 124%
051 Small Medical Center 124%
052 Medical Center Complex 124%
053 High Rise Medical 124%
054 Converted Residence to Medical 124%
089 Average Flow Center 139%
020 Amusement Parks 144%
035 Entertainment Center 144%
073 Recreation 144%
Ordinance No. 1068

Page 8 of 9 ends

ATTACHMENT B

Page 8 of 10 ends

030 Coin Operated Car Wash 151%
047 Supermarket 151%
048 Convenience Market 151%
224 Nightclub 200%
090 High Flow Center 226%
076 Restaurant - Low Demand 300%
077 Restaurant -Coffee Shop 600%
078 Restaurant - Dinner House 600%
079 Restaurant - Conversion from SF 600%
029 Conventional Car Wash 796%
223 Laundromat 800%
NOTE: Multiply the Table 2 Residential Unit Rate by the percentage figure above in order to determine the rate per 1, 000 square feet for the commercial or industrial user. The minimum Annual Sewer Charge any non- residential parcel which is connected to the City' s sewer' s system shall pay shall be equal to the Charge for a Detached Residential unit. No Charge shall be levied on parcels not connected to the City' s sanitary sewer collection system.

Ordinance No. 1068

Page 9 of 9 ends

ATTACHMENT B

Page 9 of 10 ends

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.

COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I, PATRICIA A. VAZQUEZ, BEING FIRST DULY SWORN, DEPOSES, AND SAYS:

AS CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF STANTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON AUGUST 10 2017 1 CAUSED TO BE POSTED AT EACH OF THE THREE FOLLOWING PUBLIC PLACES IN THE CITY OF STANTON, TO WIT:

1. 7800 KATELLA AVENUE ( STANTON CITY HALL)
2, 10440 BEACH BOULEVARD ( STANTON BRANCH POST OFFICE)

3. 11822 SANTA PAULA STREET ( STANTON COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTER) A TRUE COPY OF ORDINANCE NO. 1068:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STANTON,

CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING RATES FOR THE ANNUAL SEWER

SERVICE CHARGE FOR SEWER SERVICES

ATTACHMENT B

Page 10 of 10 ends

City of Stanton
Sewer Rate Study
Technical Proposal

ATTACHMENT C

Page 1 of 38 ends

Click here to return to the agenda.

Proposal Transmittal Form

ATTACHMENT C

Page 2 of 38 ends

T 951.587.3500 ▪ 800.755.6864 | F 951.587.3510 ▪ 888.326.6864 | 27368 Via Industria, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590 | www.willdan.com August 7, 2024
Ms. Amy Massey submitted via email: [email protected] Accounting Manager
Ms. Michelle Bannigan
Finance Director
City of Stanton
7800 Katella Avenue
Stanton, CA 90680
Re: Technical Proposal to Conduct a Sewer Rate for the City of Stanton Dear Ms. Massey & Ms. Bannigan:

Based on the request for proposal, Willdan Financial Services (“Willdan”) is pleased to submit the following proposal to conduct a Sewer Rate Study on behalf of the City of Stanton (“City”).

Willdan’s interactive approach will result in a customized Excel financial model, that the City will retain, as well as a focused and tailored analysis of the City’s current rates, revenues, capital project and operational expenditures, debt commitments, reserve funding, and other financial data. The culmination of our analysis will be a comprehensive financial management plan that develops projected system operating results for the next ten (10) fiscal years, and suggested rates for up to five (5) years. We will employ our proven interactive approach, supported with advanced financial modeling techniques, to develop a sophisticated and flexible financial model to help us guide the City through operating and financial scenarios, while evaluating the impact of policy assumptions, and performing sensitivity analysis on utility rates and financial strategies.

Our ability to focus on the financial aspects of operating publicly owned utility systems is coupled with recognized leadership in strategic planning and operations and enables us to bring unmatched value to our clients. Our team brings a set of nationally recognized qualifications and experts that sets us apart. These qualifications include:

Direct Ongoing Experience with the City of Stanton — Willdan is currently working with the City on the Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study. This Cost Allocation analysis will support transfers from the utility to the General Fund, to reflect costs incurred for indirect overhead support, and will be incorporated directly into the analysis for this proposed Rate Study.

Our team will bring the same level of professionalism and expertise the City has come to expect to this engagement, along with our knowledge of the City’s organization, systems, and the local community. Where possible, we will leverage our understanding of the City’s operations and key staff to gather information and facilitate this study in a cost effective and seamless manner, focusing less time on data gathering, and more on analysis, for a lower project cost and higher value.

Unique Approach — Our approach to the development of utility rates has been carefully honed over the years.

We will work collaboratively with City staff to carefully assess and understand the City’s unique utility system concerns and issues, clarify goals and objectives for the study, and develop a tailored approach that will best serve your needs. We do not use a “cookie-cutter” approach, but rather bring a combination of planning and financial expertise providing a thorough understanding of utility operations and management.

A key to our approach is the use of a sophisticated and dynamic model and dashboard that allows us to quickly evaluate alternatives resulting from changes in assumptions and input variables, to address different policy and financial objectives. This allows us to work collaboratively and transparently, to provide comprehensive business solutions. Our objective is to educate and inform throughout the process, not just at the completion of the project.

Recent Experience with Cities and Projects with Same Objectives as Stanton — Willdan has worked recently with numerous cities on utility rate studies with objectives that closely mirror those outlined in the City’s RFP and discussed above – analyzing the current financial plan for the utility, understanding the impact of capital projects and changing operations, and ensuring sufficient and stable funding for ongoing and projected needs.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 3 of 38 ends

Ms. Amy Massey, Accounting Manager
Ms. Michelle Bannigan, Finance Director
City of Stanton
Proposal to Conduct a Sewer Rate Study
August 7, 2024 | Page ii
We recently completed successful comprehensive studies for the Cities of Claremont, Dinuba, Farmersville, Fillmore, Lomita, Lakeport, La Palma, Arvin, Grover Beach, McFarland, the McKinleyville Community Services District, and are currently working with the Cities of Vacaville, Buellton, Hemet, Seaside, and Calexico with objectives and experience that relate closely to the goals of the City’s proposed study.

Unmatched Experience Developing and Implementing Utility Rates — Willdan is nationally recognized for its expertise in developing and implementing utility system financial planning, rate, and impact fee studies, and has extensive experience in California implementing Proposition 218 compliant rate structures.

Communicating the Results — Sound technical analysis is only one element of this process. It will be equally important to effectively communicate results and implications of the proposed rate structure to City staff, City Council, key stakeholders, and ultimately to those that will be subject to new rates.

Most of our projects incorporate significant community and/or stakeholder involvement and education efforts, and our experienced consultants are able to communicate complicated technical analysis in a manner that is easy to follow and understand.

The intuitive setup of our financial models allows Willdan to discuss and present critical information in a way that maximizes engagement and facilitates outreach. Our reports and presentations provide a solid understanding of the project and the rationale behind the development of the rates.

I, Chris Fisher, will serve as the primary contact person for this proposal; as an officer of the firm, I am authorized to negotiate and bind Willdan Financial Services. Provided in the table below is my contact information.

Willdan Financial Services
Proposal Contact
Chris Fisher
Vice President / Director
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200 | Temecula, CA 92590
Tel#: (951) 587-3500 | Email: [email protected]
Willdan maintains exceptional experience in utility cost of service and rate design and is excited about this opportunity to use our skills and expertise to serve the City of Stanton once again.

Sincerely,

WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
Chris Fisher
Vice President / Director

ATTACHMENT C

Page 4 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study iii
City of Stanton, CA
Table of Contents
Proposal Transmittal Form.............................................................................................................................i Qualifications, Relevant Experience and References .......................................................................1 Firm Profile ..............................................................................................................................................1 Background Experience.........................................................................................................................2 Staffing Capacity.....................................................................................................................................3 Financial Stability....................................................................................................................................3 Utility Rate Project Experience..............................................................................................................5 References...............................................................................................................................................6 Additional References............................................................................................................................8 Proposed Team...................................................................................................................................................9 Project Team Organization ....................................................................................................................9 Project Availability..................................................................................................................................9 Background Checks ...............................................................................................................................9 Resumes ..................................................................................................................................................9 Chris Fisher.............................................................................................................................................10 Jeffrey McGarvey....................................................................................................................................12 Michael Cronan.......................................................................................................................................14 Approach and Project Schedule............................................................................................................... 15 Project Understanding .........................................................................................................................15 Project Approach ..................................................................................................................................16 Scope of Work.......................................................................................................................................21 City Staff Support / Responsibilities...................................................................................................27 Project Disclaimer.................................................................................................................................27 Project Schedules.................................................................................................................................28 Project Management and Quality Assurance/Control Approach ....................................................30 Exceptions and Deviations......................................................................................................................... 32 Insurability.......................................................................................................................................................... 32 Project Costs............................................................................................................Under Separate Cover

ATTACHMENT C

Page 5 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 1
City of Stanton, CA
Qualifications, Relevant Experience and References
Firm Profile
Willdan Group, Inc. (WGI), was founded in 1964 as
an engineering firm working with local governments.

Today, WGI is a publicly traded company (WLDN).

WGI, through its divisions, provides professional
technical and consulting services that ensure the
quality, value and security of our nation’s
infrastructure, systems, facilities, and environment.

The firm has pursued two primary service objectives
since its inception—ensuring the success of its
clients and enhancing its communities.

A financially stable company, Willdan has
approximately 1,600 employees working in more
than 50 offices across the U.S. Our employees
include a number of nationally recognized Subject
Matter Experts for all areas related to the broadest
definition of connected communities—three of
whom are committed to contribute their expertise
throughout the duration of the City of Stanton’s
Sewer Rate Study engagement.

We have solved economic, engineering and energy
challenges for local communities and delivered
industry-leading solutions that have transformed
government and commerce. Today, Willdan is
leading our clients into a future accelerated by a
change in resources, infrastructure, technology,
regulations, and industry trends.

Willdan Financial Services
Willdan Financial Services, a California Corporation, is an operating division within Willdan Group, Inc. Willdan Financial Services, established on June 24, 1988, is a national firm and one of the largest public sector economic and financial analysis consulting firms in the United States. Since that time, we have helped over 800 public agencies successfully address a broad range of infrastructure challenges.

Our staff of 80 full-time employees support our clients by conducting year-round workshops and on-site training to assist them in keeping current with the latest developments in our areas of expertise. Willdan assists local public agencies by providing the following services:

Willdan Financial Services
Services Provided
▪ Utility rate and cost of service studies;
▪ User fee studies;
▪ Cost allocation plan studies;
▪ Real estate economic analysis;
▪ Municipal advisory services;
▪ District administration services;
▪ Property tax audits;
▪ Economic development strategic plans;
▪ Development impact fee establishment and analysis;
▪ Tax increment finance district formation and
amendment;
▪ Feasibility studies;
▪ Housing development and implementation strategies;
▪ Arbitrage and continuing disclosure services;
▪ Debt issuance support; and
▪ Long-term financial plans and cash flow modeling.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 6 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 2
City of Stanton, CA
Background Experience
For over two decades, Willdan team members have provided professional consulting services, which entail financial planning; rate and cost-of-service studies including wholesale analysis; alternative and feasibility analyses; and operational and management studies for water, reclaimed water, sewer, solid waste, and stormwater utility clients across the United States.

Willdan team members are involved with the development of the ratesetting methodologies set forth in the American Water Works Association (AWWA) M1 manual “Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges,” and the AWWA M29 manual, “Water Utility Capital Financing.” Willdan is nationally recognized for its expertise with team members frequently being called upon to speak or instruct on utility financial matters, as subject matter experts, including at the AWWA Utility Management conference.

We are also deeply familiar with the procedural and substantive requirements of Proposition 218. Willdan staff (including Mr. Fisher, proposed as the principal-in-charge for this engagement) speak regularly to California industry groups such as the California Special Districts Association (CSDA) and the California Society of Municipal Finance Offices (CSMFO). Further, we recently completed a water and wastewater study for the City of Lakeport where the same team proposed for this engagement worked closely with a leading Proposition 218 law firm in the state to update their tiered water rate structure to be compliant with the requirements of Proposition 218 and the City of San Juan Capistrano decision. We will bring this recent experience and insight to the City of Stanton.

Willdan team members are experienced in a broad range of utility planning services and therefore understand the importance of an approach that integrates elements of utility planning, engineering, and finance. Willdan team members possess considerable experience in utility rate and cost-of-service studies and have performed these services for hundreds of utilities throughout the country. Our team includes staff with public sector experience spanning 30 years, and staff on the forefront of utility ratemaking and rate-modeling. In addition, team members have held positions as finance directors, deputy city managers, and auditors, and therefore understand the financial, operational, and political realities faced by governmental staff and management; we craft solutions which are sensitive to this.

Willdan Financial Services
Utility Experience and Expertise
▪ Retail and wholesale rate studies
▪ Revenue sufficiency analyses
▪ Utility management and policy assistance
▪ Connection fee / tap fee studies
▪ Miscellaneous fee and charge studies
▪ Renewal and replacement sufficiency analyses
▪ Comprehensive alternatives analyses
▪ Capital project funding studies
▪ Interactive rate model development with dashboards
showing key performance indicators
▪ CIP financial scenario planning
▪ Rate ordinance drafting
▪ Billing system validation/rate testing
▪ Bond feasibility reports
▪ Valuation/divestiture studies
▪ Life Cycle Costs Analyses
Willdan will work with the City to identify and prioritize operational and fiscal objectives, and match these to specific rate attributes; and use this information throughout the engagement to develop a comprehensive financial plan and design utility rates that effectively meet these goals. The culmination of our analyses will be rate policies that guide the rate setting process, and a financial management plan that develops projected system operating results for the utility for the forecasted period. Willdan will employ its proven interactive approach, coupled with advanced financial modeling techniques to design rates and a financial plan that meet established goals and performance criteria.

These modeling techniques serve as a powerful decision-making tool and provide the City with genuine business solutions and recommendations as to the strategic direction of its utility.

During rate and financial planning projects we employ tools and techniques which focus on consensus building among stakeholders to ensure the team understands the future financial implications of current management decisions. Our extensive project expertise is bolstered by our unique interactive financial planning process and model.

At present Mr. Kevin Burnett, a Willdan
Principal Consultant, is involved in the
current update to the M1 manual.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 7 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 3
City of Stanton, CA
Staffing Capacity
Mr. Chris Fisher has been assigned to serve as the City’s representative; and has been selected for this role due to his extensive experience, which includes the preparation and supervision of numerous utility rate studies, as well as his experience presenting to governing bodies, stakeholders, and industry groups.

The proposed project team consists of three subject matter experts, they collectively maintain over sixty years of experience providing Financial Consulting Services.

The Financial Consulting Services group is made up of over 30 professionals who can be called upon as needed; we are confident that our team possesses the depth of experience that will successfully fulfill the desired work performance. Willdan Group Inc. is composed of over 1,600 employees, including a cadre of public finance experts. If necessary, Mr. Fisher can recruit additional, qualified individuals from our employee roster to assist with the completion of this engagement to deliver the final materials on time and within budget.

Financial Stability
To establish our financial stability, we are providing the following information. Willdan Group, Inc. (WGI) has sustained a healthy financial performance record due to the outstanding performance of our operating divisions and a strong, dependable reputation in municipal consulting.

A snapshot of WGI’s financial statistics have been provided to the left demonstrating our financial position and stability.

As a publicly traded company (WLDN), must provide public financial information as required by the SEC. Additional detailed financial statements and annual reports are included on our webpage (http://ir.willdangroup.com/)
Financial Stability
▪ In business for 60 years
▪ Approximately 1,600 employees
▪ Fiscal Year 2023 Consolidated
Contract Revenue of $510M
▪ Market capitalization of $278M
(February 2024)
▪ $50 million Line of Credit with the
ability to increase up to $60 million
It is important to note that
Mr. Fisher has been with
Willdan for 25 years, ensuring
the City of Stanton of
continuity and dedication in
staffing during the completion
of the project.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 8 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 4
City of Stanton, CA
Experience Map
A graphical representation of Willdan’s geographical client presence is depicted below of recent utility rate and financial projects completed within the last few years.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 9 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 5
City of Stanton, CA
Utility Rate Project Experience
The abbreviated table of experience below outlines projects that are similar in nature to those requested conducted from the Temecula office in the previous five years.

Willdan Financial Services
Temecula Office | Utility Related Experience
Agency Project
City of Albany, CA Sewer Rate Study
City of Arvin, CA Sewer Rate Study and Cost Allocation Plan City of Atwater, CA Solid Waste Rate Study
City of Avenal, CA Water and Sewer Rate Study
City of Blythe, CA Water and Sewer Rate Study
City of Brighton, CO Potable Water Rate Study
City of Calexico, CA Water and Sewer Rate and Connection Fee Study City of Claremont, CA Sewer Rate Study and Sanitation Rate Study City of Coachella, CA Proposition 218 Sewer Mailing
City of Delano, CA Water, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste Utility Rate Study City & County of Denver, CO Sanitary Sewer & Storm Drainage Benchmarking and Storm Drainage Impact Fee Study
City of Dinuba, CA Water, Sewer, & Solid Waste Rate Study City of Durango, CO Water and Wastewater Rate Study
City of Farmersville, CA Water and Wastewater Utility Rate Study City of Fillmore, CA Water and Sewer Rate Study
City of Flagstaff, AZ Utility Rate Analysis
City of Fruita, CO Sewer Rate Study
City of Grover Beach, CA Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Financial Plan and Utility Rate Study City of Guadalupe, CA Water and Sewer Rate Study
City of Hemet Water and Sewer Rate Study
City of Hercules, CA Wastewater Financial Plan and Connection Fee Study City of Kingman, AZ Water and Sewer Rate Study
City of La Palma, CA Water and Sewer Rate Study
City of Lakeport, CA Water and Sewer Rate Study, and Connection Fee Study City of Lomita, CA Water Rate Study
City of McFarland, CA Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste Rate Study and Cost Allocation Plan City of Norwalk, CA Water Rate Study
City of Pinole, CA Wastewater Rate and Fee Study
City of Richmond, CA Wastewater Rate Study
City of Seaside, CA Water Rate and Capacity Fee Study
City of Sebastopol, CA Water and Wastewater Fee Study
City of Soledad, CA Water Rate Study Consulting Services City of Tulare, CA Water and Wastewater Rate Study
City of Twentynine Palms, CA Sewer Treatment Facility Fair Share and Sewer Rate Analysis County of San Diego, CA Sewer Rate and Standby Charge Study McKinleyville CSD, CA Water and Wastewater Rate and Capacity Fee Study Monte Vista Water District, CA Connection Fee Study
Rainbow Municipal Water District, CA Water and Wastewater Asset Cost and Capacity Fee Study Town of Apple Valley, CA Sewer Rate and Nexus Study
Town of Gilbert, AZ Water and Sewer Rate Study

ATTACHMENT C

Page 10 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 6
City of Stanton, CA
References
Provided below are recent project descriptions, including client contact information, project team, and project hours that are similar in nature to those requested by the City. We are proud of our reputation for customer service and encourage you to contact our past clients regarding our commitment to completing these assignments within the agreed upon project budget and schedules.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 11 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 7
City of Stanton, CA

ATTACHMENT C

Page 12 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 8
City of Stanton, CA
Additional References
City of Farmersville, CA
Water and Wastewater Utility Rate Study
Willdan is currently concluding work on a comprehensive water and wastewater study for the City. The study is complete, the Prop 218 public hearing is scheduled, and notices have been mailed. Our team worked with City Staff to develop an interactive model with financial plans and projections for both utilities and prepare and present scenarios to evaluate budget and financial scenarios. We also worked with the City’s financial advisor and legal counsel to implement a rate stabilization reserve to allow more flexibility in the financial plan and mitigate rate increases. We developed capital funding scenarios and rate structure options and presented them to staff for discussion and evaluation. Once the final financial plan was approved, we completed the cost-of-service analysis and calculated new rates, prepared the rate study report and Prop 218 notice, presented the results to the City Council, and coordinated the mailing of the notice.

Willdan gathered and validated financial data for the project, including budget, fund balances, capital plans, historical financial results, debt service schedules and debt covenants, and financial policy documents. The study also included the cost-of-service analysis, as required under Prop 218, and some changes were made to the rate structure as a result.

Client Contact: Steve Huntley, Director of Finance and Administration 909 West Visalia Rd, Farmersville, CA 93223
Tel #: (559) 747-0458 | Email: [email protected] City of McFarland, CA
Cost Allocation Plan and Utility Rate Study
Willdan worked with the City of McFarland to complete a utility rate study for its water, sewer, and solid waste enterprises along with a cost allocation plan. The study included the development of a comprehensive financial plan and model, and the evaluation of alternatives for funding operations and capital projects, and for recommended rate adjustments. The City had not increased its rates for several years, including the COVID period, and was facing increased costs of operations, needs for additional staffing, and multiple capital projects. We presented numerous alternative scenarios, with adjustments and changes based on feedback from City Staff.

Willdan gathered and validated financial data for the project, including budget, historical financial results, and capital plans, evaluated adjustments to the base water, sewer, and solid waste rate structures, prepared a comprehensive financial model, and presented alternatives and scenarios to City Staff. The updated rates were successfully adopted in December 2023.

Client Contact: George Avila, Interim Public Works Director 1088 E. Kamm Avenue, Dinuba, CA 93618
Tel #: (559) 591-5924 | Email: [email protected]
City of Dinuba, CA
Water and Wastewater Utility Rate Study
Willdan worked with the City of Dinuba to complete a utility rate study for its water and wastewater enterprises. The study included the development of a comprehensive financial plan and model, and the evaluation of alternatives for rate adjustments. The City had not increased its rates for several years, including the COVID period, and was facing increased costs of operations, needs for additional staffing, and multiple capital projects. We presented numerous alternative scenarios, with adjustments and changes based on feedback from City Staff.

Willdan gathered and validated financial data for the project, including budget, historical financial results, and capital plans, evaluated adjustments to the base water and wastewater rate structures, prepared a comprehensive financial model, and presented alternatives and scenarios to City Staff. The updated rates were successfully adopted in September 2023.

Client Contact: George Avila, Interim Public Works Director 1088 E. Kamm Avenue, Dinuba, CA 93618
Tel #: (559) 591-5924 | Email: [email protected]

ATTACHMENT C

Page 13 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 9
City of Stanton, CA
Proposed Team
Our management and supervision of the project team is very simple: fill every position with experienced, capable personnel in sufficient numbers to deliver a superior product to the City, on time and on budget. With that philosophy in mind, we have selected the following professionals for this engagement. We are confident that our team possesses the depth of experience that will successfully fulfill your desired work performance.

Project Team Organization
City of Stanton
Project Team
Key Team Member Project Role Responsibility to the Engagement Chris Fisher
Vice President/Director
Principal-in-Charge /
Project Manager
▪ Project and Task oversight;
▪ Produce key elements of the analysis;
▪ Responsible for project deliverables;
▪ Model development;
▪ Stakeholder Outreach; and
▪ Meeting and presentation attendance.

Jeffrey McGarvey
Managing Principal
Quality Assurance/
Technical Advisor
▪ Quality assurance & control;
▪ Technical guidance; and
▪ Report evaluation.

Michael Cronan
Project Manager
Financial Analyst
▪ Collect, interpret, and analyze key data;
▪ Produce key elements of the analysis;
▪ Lead for model development and analysis;
▪ Report preparation; and
▪ Meeting and presentation attendance.

Project Availability
Each member of the project team currently has work in progress with other clients, the workload is at a manageable level with sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the City specific to the schedule and budget for this engagement.

We do not anticipate staffing changes during the course of the project, however, should the situation arise, any change in team members will be discussed and approved in concert with the City prior to the change being made.

Background Checks
Willdan conducts background checks upon employment, however not fingerprinting checks. Upon project award fingerprinting checks will be conducted, at Willdan’s expense, and made available to the City of Stanton.

Resumes
Resumes for Willdan’s project team are presented on the following pages.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 14 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 10
City of Stanton, CA
Chris Fisher
Principal-in-Charge/Project Manager
Mr. Chris Fisher has been selected to serve as the principal-in-charge and project manager of the City’s engagement, due to his experience managing multi-disciplinary teams. He also possesses extensive knowledge specific to Proposition 218 compliance.

Mr. Fisher is a Willdan Financial Services Vice President and Financial Consulting Services Director. With 25 years at Willdan, he has managed an array of financial consulting projects for public agencies throughout California, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, and Florida; coordinating the activities of resources within Willdan, as well as those from other firms working on these projects.

Select Relevant Experience
City of Lomita, CA — Water Rate Study: Mr. Fisher was the assigned principal-in-charge for the City’s Water Rate Study. The study included detailed capital plan analysis, reserve analysis, and live evaluation of alternatives to mitigate necessary revenue and rate adjustments with a rate sub-committee as well as the City Council.

City of Calexico, CA — Water & Sewer Utility Rate Study: Mr. Fisher served in the role of principal-in-charge of the City’s comprehensive water and sewer rate study. He led the development of the financial plan and model, and the rate analysis, and participated in the presentation of results to City Staff and the City Council. His responsibilities also included the scheduling of key meetings and deliverables, review of progress throughout the development of the project, and quality control.

City of Claremont, CA — Sewer Rate Study: Mr. Fisher was the principal-in-charge for the City’s sewer rate study. The team generated multiple alternative rate structures for the City in preparation of updating their sewer utility rates and presented them to staff for their consideration.

City of McFarland, CA - Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste Rate Study and Cost Allocation Plan: In the role of principal-in-charge, Mr. Fisher led the City’s Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste Rate Study and Cost Allocation Plan. Mr. Fisher oversaw the development of a comprehensive model and five year financial plan, required reports and documents, recommended rate updates, and presented results to the City management team and the City Council.

City of Lakeport, CA – Water and Wastewater Fee Study: Mr. Fisher led the engagement for Lakeport in the role of the principal-in-charge. The project included the completion of a comprehensive financial model, with multiple iterations and alternatives to address a situation where the City had not increased rates in several years. He led discussions with staff to outline the options and make adjustments, as necessary. He also worked closely with the City and its legal counsel to update rates and to incorporate tiers while ensuring compliance with Proposition 218 and the San Juan Capistrano Court decision.

City of Grover Beach, CA – Water and Wastewater Rate Study: In the role of principal-incharge, Mr. Fisher led the City’s utility rate study, which included the preparation of a comprehensive financial plan, along with cost-of-service analysis and development of updated rates. The financial plan prepared contained various options and scenarios for City Staff’s consideration, including shifting from a uniform water rate structure to either a two- or three-tiered structure. The City’s utilities were in relatively good health, so major increases were not recommended.

City of Sebastopol, CA – Water and Wastewater Rate Study: Mr. Fisher led the City of Sebastopol engagement in the role of the principal-in-charge. The objective of the study was to update water and wastewater rates to address capital needs for both utilities, and ensure rates provided adequate funding for ongoing operations and maintenance. Project work included development of a comprehensive financial model and preparation of rate scenarios for evaluation by staff and the City Council. Mr. Fisher and the project team presented the results to the City Council and instructed staff on the use of the model.

City of Claremont, CA — Sanitation Rate Study: Mr. Fisher was the principal-in-charge for the City’s sanitation rate study. This study included a five-year model and financial plan that included a proposed five-year schedule of adjusted rates to ensure continued revenue sufficiency and stability.

Education
Bachelor of
Science, Finance;
San Francisco
State University
Areas of Expertise
Multi-disciplinary Team
Management
Special District
Formations
Cost of Service
Studies
Proposition 218
Utility Rate Studies
Affiliations
California Society of
Municipal Finance
Officers
Municipal Management
Association of
Northern California
California Municipal
Treasurers Association
25 Years’
Experience

ATTACHMENT C

Page 15 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 11
City of Stanton, CA
City of Guadalupe, CA – Water and Sewer Utility Rate Study: Mr. Fisher served as the principal-in-charge for the City’s recent water and sewer rate study, providing technical assistance throughout the project, conducting working discussions with City Staff to evaluate financial and rate options, and coordinating the project. He oversaw the development of the comprehensive financial plan, and preparation of rate alternatives and analysis. This engagement included the development of a comprehensive financial model and updated water and sewer rates, including identification of the rates of comparable jurisdictions and a comparative rate and cost analysis.

City of Richmond, CA – Wastewater Rate Study: Mr. Fisher led the City of Richmond engagement as the principal-in-charge. The objective of the study was to prepare a comprehensive financial plan and updated wastewater rates to address funding for capital and operating needs. The effort included development of a comprehensive financial model and report, and preparation of rate scenarios, including revised scenarios to address the impacts of the COVID pandemic, for evaluation by staff and the City Council. Mr. Fisher and the project team presented the results to the City Council, whereby rate increases were approved.

McKinleyville Community Services District, CA – Water and Wastewater Capacity Fee Study: Mr. Fisher served as principal-in-charge of this project. The prior connection fees had not been updated for a number of years and were relatively low in comparison to similar agencies.

In addition, there were several new local development projects in the planning stages requiring the District to provide utility services; placing even greater demand upon existing facilities and possibly requiring expansion of existing facilities, or construction of new ones. Willdan worked with staff to compile a list of proposed capital improvements and their estimated cost and conducted an analysis of existing and proposed development within the District’s service boundaries.

Town of Apple Valley, CA — Wastewater Rate Study: Mr. Fisher oversaw a comprehensive wastewater rate study for the Town. The study encompassed the preparation of a financial plan and rate model, and a thorough review and update of the Town’s rate structure. The Town had seen significant scrutiny of its water rates, so it wanted to be sure the wastewater rates and the report were thorough and defensible. The Town uses an EDU based rate structure, which Willdan evaluated and adjusted where necessary. This engagement also included comparison of current and proposed rates, and rates of similar agencies. Mr. Fisher provided technical assistance throughout this project, including the preparation of the rate report. The analytical portion of the project is complete and pending the completion of the Proposition 218 approval process.

City of Twentynine Palms, CA — Sewer Treatment Facility Fair Share and Sewer Rate Analysis: Mr. Fisher served as the Principal-in-Charge/Project Manager on the City of Twentynine Palms’ sewer treatment facility fair share analysis. The purpose of this analysis was to develop an allocation of costs associated with the completion of a wastewater treatment plant (and other related costs) project, in the downtown area of the City, as well as the development of specialized sewer rates who will be served by the new treatment plant. We developed a model and numerous scenarios for evaluation by the City, and presented results to the City Council.

C. Fisher
Resume Continued

ATTACHMENT C

Page 16 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 12
City of Stanton, CA
Education
Bachelor of Science,
Finance, University
of Central Florida
Areas of Expertise
Alternatives Analysis
Strategic Planning
Rate Studies
Cost of Service
Studies
Revenue Bonds
Feasibility Analyses
Capital Funding
Acquisitions
Valuation Analyses
Affiliations
American Water
Works Association
The Water
Environment
Federation
The Utility
Management
Conference
The WateReuse
Foundation
32 Years’ Experience
Jeffrey McGarvey
Technical Advisor/Quality Control
Mr. Jeffrey McGarvey is a Managing Principal and Vice President in Willdan’s Financial Consulting Services group. For 32 years he has provided professional consulting services to municipal water, wastewater, solid waste, electric, and natural gas utilities throughout the country.

He possesses a broad range of municipal utility systems’ experience, including special expertise in complex alternatives analyses; utility rate analyses; utility valuations and acquisitions; regionalization and consolidation studies; debt issuance support, such as the preparation of financial feasibility analyses associated with revenue bond issuance; capital financing analyses; strategic planning; rate and regulatory assistance; and instituting financial mechanisms to provide the sufficient recovery of operating and capital costs.

Rate and Cost of Service Studies
Mr. McGarvey has extensive experience in utility rates and cost of service studies for water, wastewater, solid waste, electric and natural gas systems. This experience generally relates to performing budget analyses, customer and usage analyses, development of revenue requirements, cost of service allocations and sensitivity analyses related to the implementation of rate structures designed to promote desired usage characteristics.

Revenue Bonds, Feasibility Analyses and Capital Funding Mr. McGarvey has been involved in the preparation of capital financing plans and feasibility studies associated with the issuance of several hundred million dollars in municipal revenue bonds and bond anticipation notes (BANs). The funding proceeds have been utilized for such purposes as utility acquisitions, expansion of facilities and various other capital improvement needs. In addition, Mr. McGarvey has developed capital funding strategies utilizing various combinations of bonds, bank loans, government assistance loans (i.e., State Revolving Funds) and grants. In the role of financial feasibility consultant, Mr. McGarvey has made numerous presentations on behalf of clients to various bond insurers and rating agencies (Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch).

Business and Strategic Planning
Mr. McGarvey has experience developing complex financial and economic evaluation models for water, wastewater, solid waste, electric and natural gas systems throughout the country. Such experience generally relates to the development of business and strategic plans as well as performing structured alternatives analyses and sensitivity analyses related to the evaluation and implementation of system modifications such as service and operational changes, as well as planning for customer growth and capital expenditures.

Acquisitions and Valuation Analyses
Mr. McGarvey has been involved in numerous acquisitions and valuation analyses for utility systems. Acquisition projects generally involve financial due diligence, valuations, negotiations and financing activities associated with such transactions. Mr. McGarvey has performed valuation analyses utilizing various generally accepted methodologies including cost approach (value of the cash flows generated by the system), original cost less depreciation (book value), comparable sales (actual transactions for other systems), replacement cost new less depreciation and reproduction cost new less depreciation (value of system assets).

Select Relevant Experience
City of Grover Beach, CA – Water and Wastewater Rate Study: Mr. McGarvey was the Technical Advisor for the City Grover Beach engagement. The financial plan prepared contained various options and scenarios for City Staff’s consideration, including shifting from a uniform water rate structure to either a two- or three-tiered structure.

City of Lomita, CA — Water Rate Study: Mr. McGarvey provided quality assurance and control and technical support for the City’s Water Rate Study. The study included a development of a financial plan and model, and reports, including the adjustment of the tiered rate structure and updated cost-of-service analysis to comply with current best practices and legal guidance.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 17 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 13
City of Stanton, CA
McKinleyville Community Services District, CA – Water and Wastewater Capacity Fee Study: Mr. McGarvey provided technical support, as well as quality assurance/quality control, to this engagement. The prior connection fees had not been updated for a number of years and were relatively low in comparison to similar agencies. In addition, there were several new local development projects in the planning stages requiring the District to provide utility services; placing even greater demand upon existing facilities and possibly requiring expansion of existing facilities, or construction of new ones. Willdan worked with staff to compile a list of proposed capital improvements and their estimated cost, and conducted an analysis of existing and proposed development within the District boundaries. Finally, the team analyzed existing demand on the current utility systems and calculated remaining capacity in order to develop fair and equitable capacity fees.

City of Atwater, CA – Solid Waste Rate Study: Mr. McGarvey was the lead technical consultant for the completion of this recent study for the City. He led the development of the analysis and model, served as the solid waste technical expert, prepared study documents and presentations, and presented study results to City Staff and the City Council.

City of Claremont – Sanitation Rate Study: Mr. McGarvey was the lead technical consultant for the completion of this study for the City. He led the development of the analysis and model, served as the solid waste technical expert, prepared study documents and presentations, and presented study results to City Staff and the City Council.

City of Crescent City, CA – Water and Wastewater Rate and Capacity Fee Analysis: Willdan completed a water and wastewater rate and capacity fee analysis for the City of Crescent. The utility rates and fees calculated by Willdan will provide sufficient revenue to cover the repayment of a State Revolving Fund loan secured by the City to finance the costs of construction, ensure adequate funding for repair and periodic maintenance of the new and existing facilities, for ongoing operations, and routine maintenance. Mr. McGarvey provided technical guidance specific to the analysis of the water and wastewater financial models.

City of Flagstaff, AZ – Water, Wastewater, and Reclaimed Water Rate Study: Mr. McGarvey served as the technical advisor of the City of Flagstaff’s utility rate analysis. In the wake of six water main breaks, the City was faced with decreasing revenues and increasing capital and operational costs. The proposed rates developed by Willdan reversed the City’s trajectory of a falling operating reserve and provide the City with sufficient revenue to cover existing and future operations, maintenance, and debt service; all while being financially prudent and responsive to the concerns of the City’s Water Commission. The proposed residential inclining block rate appropriately spreads the burden of increased costs based on a comprehensive analysis of customer demands.

City of Durango, CO – Water and Wastewater Rate Study: Mr. McGarvey led the preparation of a long-term financial plan, cost of service-based rates and updated plant investment fees. The City needs to perform $50 million in improvements to the wastewater treatment plant to comply with State wastewater treatment standards and to provide available capacity for new growth. A balanced financial plan was developed incorporating rate increases and anticipated debt to fully fund requirements and minimize customer impact.

City of Brentwood, TN – Water and Sewer Rate Study and Fee Update: Mr. McGarvey served as principal-in-charge for this engagement, which included a comprehensive review of water and sewer rates as well as updating the City’s water and sewer development charges (tap-on fees).

One of the project objectives included maintaining their high bond rating, as such, the initial phase of this engagement involved assisting the City develop best management practices with regard to the financial management of the utility, including fund reserves, debt service coverage targets, and the frequency of future bond issues.

Borough of State College, PA – On-Going Solid Waste Services: Mr. McGarvey has provided the Borough with a variety of rate and financial services for their refuse collection and composting operations including the development of comprehensive rate and cost of service models and long-term financial plans.

J. McGarvey
Resume Continued

ATTACHMENT C

Page 18 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 14
City of Stanton, CA
Education
Bachelor of Arts
and Science;
University of Central
Florida
Areas of Expertise
Utility Rate Studies
User Fee Studies
Financial Forecast
Modeling
7 Years’ Experience
Michael Cronan
Financial Analyst
Mr. Michael Cronan is a project manager with seven years of experience within Willdan’s Financial Consulting Services group. His primary function is to support project managers and senior analysts with utility rate studies. He specializes in analysis for a variety of clients, including cities, water districts, and public utilities.

Select Relevant Experience
City of La Palma, CA — Water and Wastewater Utility Rate Study: Mr. Cronan was assigned to the La Palma engagement as the lead financial analyst. He worked directly with staff at the City to conduct financial analysis, which included the evaluation of alternatives for rate adjustments that incorporated different capital funding scenarios and operating budget assumptions, as well as the preparation of reports and Prop 218 documents. He was also instrumental in the development of the financial model.

City of Guadalupe, CA – Water and Wastewater Rate Study: Mr. Cronan provided analytical support for the City’s utility rate study. He was responsible for gathering and verifying data, as well as assisting with the development of the model. He also worked directly with City Staff to present results and options and develop alternatives.

City of Richmond, CA — Wastewater Rate Study: Mr. Cronan served as the project analyst and provided support for the City’s rate study. He gathered and verified data for the project manager and lead project consultant and played a significant role in the development of the customer database and financial model.

City of Lakeport, CA — Water and Sewer Rate Study: Mr. Cronan provided analytical support to the senior project team members and led the development of the financial model as the project analyst for the City’s ongoing utility rate study. He worked directly with staff at the City to evaluate financial plan alternatives, particularly for sewer where years of deferred rate increases, and a significant capital plan required careful consideration. He also led the revamp of the City’s costof-service approach, working closely with a leading Prop 218 attorney, to ensure rates were compliant with State law.

McKinleyville Community Services District, CA — Water and Sewer Utility Rate Study:

Willdan was retained to update the models, develop the CSD’s water and sewer rates and assist with the required Proposition 218 noticing process. Mr. Cronan provided analytical support to the project’s senior team and is providing the same support for the ongoing update to the previous study.

City of Claremont, CA — Sewer Rate Study: Mr. Cronan provided analytical support for the City’s sewer rate study. He gathered and verified data for the project manager and principal consultant.

City of Twentynine Palms, CA — Sewer Treatment Facility Fair Share and Sewer Rate Analysis: Mr. Cronan provided analytical support in the development of the model to support to the project’s senior team on the City of Twentynine Palms’ sewer treatment facility fair share analysis. This study also included a sewer rate study, specific to the new treatment plant and its customers.

City of Denver, CO — Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage Benchmarking and Storm Drainage Impact Fee Study: Mr. Cronan served as the lead analyst on a benchmarking study to review and compare the City’s current rate structures to those of other front range and national utilities. The intent of the study was to identify potential areas for refinement to the City’s current rate structures. Mr. Cronan also served as the lead analyst for developing and implementing first time storm drainage impact fees for the City.

GRU/Gainesville, FL — Combined Utility Rate Project: Mr. Cronan assisted senior project staff on Willdan’s recent combined utility rate project conducted for Gainesville Regional Utilities, in Gainesville, Florida and included a comprehensive revenue requirement, cost of service analysis, and rate design for their electric, water, wastewater, and natural gas utility systems.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 19 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 15
City of Stanton, CA
Approach and Project Schedule
Project Understanding
The following project approach and scope of services is based on Willdan’s current understanding of the City of Stanton’s (“City”) needs and objectives for the sewer utility rate study, our review of the most recent available audited financial statements and the Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25, and the requested services outlined within the Request for Proposals (“RFP”). While this approach and scope is informed by our initial research, we will begin this project by working with the City to enhance our understanding of the City’s current financial situation by conducting discussions regarding your objectives and priorities for this study.

Willdan understands that the City wishes to complete a financial evaluation of its Sewer Enterprise Fund and make recommendations as appropriate for adjustments to the five-year schedule of sewer rates to ensure adequate revenue to meet its financial objectives, including primarily, the implementation of the Capital Improvement Plan developed as part of the recent Sewer Master Plan. The study will evaluate current expenditures and revenues, then project them forward over a five-year period to evaluate the enterprise’s continuing ability to generate sufficient and stable revenue to meet its needs, including maintenance and operations, capital projects, repayment of debt (if any), and maintenance of appropriate reserves.

The City provides sewer collection service to approximately 40,000 residents, made up of 3,702 single-family residential dwelling units, 4,037 multi-family units, 1,388 mobile home units, 1,749 condominiums, 240.84 acres of commercial uses, and 170.37 acres of industrial uses. The City collects and conveys wastewater discharge to Orange County Sanitation District for treatment and disposal. Current sewer rates are a range of different annual fees for the various types of properties/uses.

Based on the recently available financial statements the sewer maintenance fund (fund #501) generated positive operating results for FY 2021/22 and 2022/23 and is projected to do so again for FY 2023/24. For FY 2022/23, revenues were $1.4M, compared to expenses of $848K, for a positive result of $553K. For FY 2023/24, revenues are projected to be $1.66M, compared to projected expenses of $1.15M, for a projected positive result of $509K. However, the Adopted Budget indicates a projected negative operating result for FY 2024/25 of $921K, based on revenues of $2.25, compared to expenses of $3.17M. A significant contributing factor appears to be a much larger transfer to the capital projects fund than was completed in the previous years.

Taken together, the above-mentioned factors require a comprehensive and detailed look at the utility to ensure the rates are able to generate sufficient revenue to meet operating and maintenance needs, while accounting for future capital needs, repayment of debt, and funding of appropriate reserves. Our approach and model incorporate a robust Capital Plan Analysis to ensure the utility will be best equipped to address upcoming projects and their funding over the next five years, while maintaining required debt service coverage and appropriate reserve fund balances.

We welcome this opportunity to develop a comprehensive financial and rate model, and work with City Staff to present and evaluate financial plan and rate alternatives in order to arrive at the optimal solution for the utility that best balances various objectives. Our objective is to provide Staff and the Council with the information it needs to understand sewer utility current and projected financial conditions, understand key drivers behind recommendations, evaluate options for moving forward, and make informed decisions based on this process.

The intent of this study is to independently evaluate the City’s current sewer rates, determine whether sufficient revenue is being collected for utility operations and maintenance, capital improvements, and debt repayment, and as appropriate, develop updated rates for each utility that are simple, equitable, and most importantly, structured to meet the future financial needs of the City’s utility.

We will develop a five-year financial plan, model, and schedule of recommended rates and fees, with the financial model extended out to 10 years to provide long-term visibility of financial needs. We will also work with the City to provide a model for their use that can estimate revenue and costs, as well as resulting rate increases, over a longer time horizon, to the best extent possible given limitations in these types of projections and the ability to feasibly model them.

The project will entail three primary phases. The first is the review and evaluation of the previous rate study and development of objectives, development of a comprehensive financial plan, with projections for the next five years for the purposes of recommending rate adjustments extended out to ten years to provide a longer view of potential utility needs, particularly capital projects.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 20 of 38 ends

GENERAL MANAGER DIVISION
2010 GENERAL MANAGER
2020 COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
2030 HUMAN RESOURCES

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
3010 ADMINISTRATIV E SERV ICES
3020 FINANCE & ACCOUNTING
3030 CUSTOMER SERV ICE
3040 OFFICE SUPPORT
3050 PURCHASING
3060 METER OPERATIONS
3070 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

ATTACHMENT C

Page 21 of 38 ends

Project Methodology
As described herein, and detailed in our work plan, our approach to this sewer rate study is built around three primary objectives:

Our rate study analysis will include comprehensive financial management plan alternatives for the next ten fiscal years to support the proposed five-year rate plan.

The Financial Planning
component of the model
provides transparency, such
that users can develop a viable
financial plan and understand
the reasons for needed
revenue adjustments.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 22 of 38 ends

The model will be “baselined” after an initial meeting with staff to ensure that we have the correct data and a basic understanding of the financial dynamics of your system.

We will then conduct interactive financial planning
sessions with the City staff.

3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

ATTACHMENT C

Page 23 of 38 ends

ATTACHMENT C

Page 24 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 20
City of Stanton, CA
Rate Study Objectives
The overarching rate study objectives are outlined below.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 25 of 38 ends

Willdan’s work plan will culminate in the successful development of sewer projections and rates for five years, an extended ten-year financial plan, and the education of staff and key stakeholders.

Project Initiation
Task 1.1 – Data Collection and Review
Task 1.1.1 – Data Collection. The City will be provided with an initial list of basic data needed to conduct the study.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 26 of 38 ends

The graphic demonstrates the general rate study
methodology and major components of the rate process.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 27 of 38 ends

Task 2.2.3 – Capital Projects Model. The CIP will drive the future funding options and will directly impact rates.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 28 of 38 ends

Task 2.4.3 – Projected Operating Results Based on Proposed Rates.

Task 2.4.5 – Neighboring Utility Comparison.

A comparison will be prepared to assess the difference between existing and proposed rates of the City with those of other comparable municipal utility systems.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 29 of 38 ends

Task 4.1.4 – Draft Financial Plan Meeting. The results of the Preliminary Financial Plan and Revenue Requirements will be presented to staff for comment, feedback, and direction.

Task 1.2 – Data Review
The data will be reviewed for completeness and to ensure a sufficient understanding of historical utility operations.

The data collection and review process will be ongoing throughout the process as the need for additional information arises.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 30 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 26
City of Stanton, CA
The projections will include:

Calculation of Capacity/Connection Fees and Report & Meeting Task 1.5 – Calculate Capacity/Connection Fees
To calculate the Capacity/Connection fees for the City, we will:

1. Review the current capacity of the system (for example gallons per capita per).

2. Identify offsets for growth-related revenue to be used toward available capacity will be taken into consideration for the calculations for the study period.

3. Develop fees by services area based on level of service standards per housing as determined in the above task.

Once preliminary fee calculations are complete, we will review the results with City staff to apply modifications to the underlying analysis and prepare recommended fee schedules.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 31 of 38 ends

To ensure continued progression, the project manager will reconvene with the rest of the team to identify tasks that can be started while waiting for requested data.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 32 of 38 ends

ATTACHMENT C

Page 33 of 38 ends

ATTACHMENT C

Page 34 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 30
City of Stanton, CA
Project Management and Quality Assurance/Control Approach Project Management
At Willdan, we utilize a Project Management Process/Approach that ensures projects are completed on time, within budget and most importantly yield results that match our clients’ expectations. We will document discussions leading to important policy decisions and/or the choice of critical assumptions used in constructing the analysis and model.

Following key stakeholder discussions, we will schedule a call to summarize findings and direction with City staff, to make certain that we are in agreement with stated objectives, and that feedback is incorporated as appropriate.

Through the process of providing regular updates and conducting status conference calls, potential issues will be highlighted, discussed, and resolved. Any deviances from the project timeline will be identified and plans will be developed for course corrections. If necessary, changes in approach or strategy will be discussed with City staff, to meet the needs of the City of Stanton. In doing this, we will ensure the project stays on track and evolves, based upon current thinking and outside dynamics.

Project Management
Define the
Project Plan the Project Manage the Project
Review the
Project
Communicate the
Project
▪ Identify the project
scope, set
objectives, list
potential
constraints,
document
assumptions.
▪ Define a course of
action and develop
an effective
communication
plan.
▪ Provide a forum for
applying the team’s
collective expertise
to solving difficult
analytical issues
that arise in
complex projects.
▪ Collaborate with
the project team
and client staff and
agree upon
timeline to meet the
estimated project
timeline.
▪ Assign workload
functions to
appropriately
qualified staff to
ensure milestones
are met, on time.
▪ Pre-schedule
quality control
meetings with
project team to
maintain the
progressive motion
of the project.
▪ Manage the
execution of the
project.
▪ Direct existing and
upcoming project
tasks.
▪ Control and monitor
work in progress.
▪ Provide feedback to
client and project
team.
▪ Identify and resolve
deviances from
project timeline.
▪ Review all work
product and
deliverables.
▪ Utilize structured
quality
assurance
process
involving up to
three levels of
review at the
peer level,
project manager
level.
▪ Procure
executive officer
level review.
▪ Communicate with
the client regarding
work status and
progress.
▪ Ensure client is in
receipt of regular
status updates.
▪ Schedule regular
conference calls to
touch base.
▪ Inform client of
roadblocks, work
outside of projected
scope.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 35 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 31
City of Stanton, CA
Quality Assurance / Quality Control Process
Our quality control program is incorporated as a required element of Willdan’s day-to-day activities. There are three levels of reviews incorporated for our deliverables:
1) Peer review;
2) Project Manager review; and
3) Final quality assurance
manager review.

Peer reviews involve one analyst
reviewing the work of another,
while project manager reviews are
conducted prior to delivery to the
quality assurance manager. The
quality assurance manager then
performs a final review. This
assures that our final product has
been thoroughly evaluated for
potential errors; thus, providing
quality client deliverables, and high
levels of integrity and outcomes.

The primary mission of our quality control plan is to provide staff with the technical and managerial expertise to plan, organize, implement, and control the overall quality effort, thereby ensuring the completion of a quality project within the time and budget established.

Quality Assurance Goals
Goal Lead Task
Quality Assurance /
Control Process Chris Fisher
▪ Establish a set of planned and systematic actions for maintaining a high level of quality in the professional services performed; ▪ Emphasize quality in every phase of work;
▪ Ensure efficient use of resources;
▪ Establish a consistent and uniform approach to the services performed; and
▪ Implement appropriate quality control measures for each work task of the project.

Quality Control Plan Chris Fisher/
Jeff McGarvey
▪ Contract deliverables;
▪ Specific quality control procedures;
▪ Special quality control emphasis;
▪ Budget and manpower requirements;
▪ Overall project schedule and budget; and
▪ Project documentation requirements.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 36 of 38 ends

Sewer Rate Study 32
City of Stanton, CA
Exceptions and Deviations
Willdan Financial Services will sign the agreement as presented within the City’s RFP, we are not requesting any exceptions or deviations to the sample agreement.

Insurability
Willdan Financial Services is able to meet the City’s insurance requirements. Our current certificate of insurance for the ongoing Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study is shown below. Upon contract award, a COI specific to the Sewer Rate Study will be submitted to the City.

ATTACHMENT C

Page 37 of 38 ends

www.willdan.com
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590-4856
951.587.3500 | 800.755.6864

ATTACHMENT C

Page 38 of 38 ends

City of Stanton
Sewer Rate Study
Cost Proposal

ATTACHMENT D

Page 1 of 5 ends

Click here to return to the agenda.

T 951.587.3500 ▪ 800.755.6864 | F 951.587.3510 ▪ 888.326.6864 | 27368 Via Industria, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590 | www.willdan.com August 7, 2024
Ms. Amy Massey submitted via email: [email protected] Accounting Manager
Ms. Michelle Bannigan
Finance Director
City of Stanton
7800 Katella Avenue
Stanton, CA 90680
Re: Cost Proposal to Conduct a Sewer Rate for the City of Stanton Dear Ms. Massey & Ms. Bannigan:

Willdan Financial Services (“Willdan”) is pleased to present the following cost proposal to the City of Stanton (“City”) for the Sewer Rate Study and add-on/optional Sewer Connection Fee Study.

This submission reflects our understanding of the City’s Request for Proposal (RFP).

As a Vice President of Willdan Financial Services, I am authorized to bind the firm to the terms of this proposal, as well as the subsequent agreement.

Willdan is excited about this opportunity to serve the City of Stanton. To discuss any aspect of our technical and/or cost proposal, please contact me directly at (951) 587-3528 or via e-mail at [email protected].

Sincerely,

WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES
Chris Fisher
Vice President / Director

ATTACHMENT D

Page 2 of 5 ends

Sewer Rate Study
Based on our work plan provided in the scope of services, we propose a not-to-exceed fixed fee of $27,805.

Add-On Service/Optional Sewer Connection Fee Study
Based on our work plan provided in the scope of services, we propose a not-to-exceed fixed fee of $11,535.

ATTACHMENT D

Page 3 of 5 ends

These costs are estimated at $1.00 per mailed piece.

ATTACHMENT D

Page 4 of 5 ends

www.willdan.com
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590-4856
951.587.3500 | 800.755.6864

ATTACHMENT D

Page 5 of 5 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1146

Page 1 of 12 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1146

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STANTON, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 20.540 OF THE STANTON MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO

THE STANDARDS FOR TEMPORARY USES AND SPECIAL EVENTS
WHEREAS, Government Code, Section 65800 et seq. authorizes the City of Stanton (“City”) to adopt and administer zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities as a means of implementing the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 20.540 of the Stanton Municipal Code contains the current provisions to regulate temporary uses and special events in the City; and WHEREAS, direction was given to review the Municipal Code and amend section 20.540 as needed to establish updated and appropriate regulations to govern the operations; and WHEREAS, review of Section 20.540 of the Stanton Municipal Code revealed need for clarification of language to clarify, update, and further streamline Temporary Uses and Special Events for all uses; and
WHEREAS, on July 3, 2024, the City gave public notice that the Planning Commission would conduct a public hearing to consider Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 24-02 by posting the public notice at three public places including Stanton City Hall, the Post Office, and the Stanton Community Services Center, and publishing the notice in the Orange County Register on July 8, 2024, and the Planning Commission agenda was made available through the agenda posting process; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing and considered the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony concerning amendments to Section 20.540 of the Stanton Municipal Code, provided comments on the amendments, and voted to forward the proposed ordinance to the City Council with a recommendation in favor of its adoption; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2024, the City gave public notice that the City Council would conduct a public hearing to consider Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 24-02 by posting the public notice at three public places including Stanton City Hall, the Post Office, and the Stanton Community Services Center. Additionally, the public notice was published in the Orange County Register on August 16, 2024, and the City Council agenda was made available through the agenda posting process; and
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2024, the City Council held a first reading and duly noticed public hearing and considered the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony concerning amendments to Section 20.540 of the Stanton Municipal Code, and provided comments on the amendments; and
Item: 11A
Click here to return to the agenda.

ORDINANCE NO. 1146

Page 2 of 12 ends

WHEREAS, on September 10, 2024, the City Council held a second reading and considered the staff report, recommendations by staff, and testimony taken at the first reading concerning amendments to Section 20.540 of the Stanton Municipal Code, provided comments on the amendments, and voted to approve the proposed ordinance; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites have occurred prior to the adoption of this Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STANTON, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds that all the facts, findings and conclusions set forth above in this Ordinance are true and correct.

SECTION 2: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Stanton determines that the proposed Code Amendment is exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) which applies to projects that will not have the potential for causing a significant impact on the environment. The proposed amendments introduce clarifying regulations for a use that is already permitted in the City and will not result in potential new significant impacts.

SECTION 3: In accordance with the requirements as set forth in Section 20.610.060 of the Stanton Municipal Code for Zoning Code Amendments the City Council hereby makes the following findings:

1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. The City of Stanton General Plan identifies that commercial zones and mixed-use zones are to encourage revitalization or future development in strategic areas of the city; encourage the combination of some commercial activity with other reinforcing land uses, to create economically and aesthetically pleasing projects; provide property owners the flexibility to adapt project design to market forces to encourage quality development; and, support and reinforce commercial activity with increased densities, intensities and flexibility. The amendment is consistent with the intent of these goals. The proposed amendment updates an existing code that established regulations for the operation of Temporary Uses and Special Events to assist in promoting local businesses. The proposed amendment is intended to update existing code regulations to update and address newer business models and trends not addressed by existing code regulations. The amendment is internally consistent with all other provisions of the General Plan, specifically:

Goal ED-2.2: Promote economic revitalization at key locations within the city, specifically the major arterials, Beach Boulevard and Katella Avenue, which carry commuters and other travelers through Stanton. The proposed code amendment will allow for additional flexibility and opportunity for local businesses to promote their businesses.

ORDINANCE NO. 1146

Page 3 of 12 ends

2. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. Section 20.540 of the Stanton Municipal Code has established regulations to ensure the operation of temporary uses and special events are not detrimental to surrounding properties. The proposed amendment will increase the ability for economic vitality by increasing the number of potential uses that can be to promote commercial and retail businesses throughout the City. Temporary Uses and Special Events are complimentary commercial amenities that have not caused a detriment to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare when the existing operational standards are applied. The new provisions provide similar conditions to ensure the preservation of public interest, health, safety, convenience, and welfare.

3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code. The proposed amendment provides clarifying language and provisions for uses that were previously permitted in commercial and retail areas of the City. The municipal code has established operational standards in place to deter any potentially negative impacts and the proposed amendment will allow additional commercial opportunities.

SECTION 4: Section 20.540.030.A of the Stanton Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

20.540.030. Applicability.

A. Minor short-term activities.

1. A Temporary Use Permit allows short-term activities that might not meet the normal development or use standards of the applicable zone, but may otherwise be acceptable because of their temporary nature.

2. A Special Event Permit is an annual permit authorizing special events (i.e., outdoor retail sales event associated with a permanent business) for a period of up to 3 days up to 4 times per calendar year.

SECTION 5: Section 20.540.050.J of the Stanton Municipal Code is hereby deleted as follows:

20.540.050. Allowed Temporary Uses
The following temporary uses are allowed, subject to the issuance of a Temporary Use Permit, and only when conducted in compliance with Section 20.540.090 (Conditions of Approval), below.

A. Car washes. Car washes, limited to one event each month for each sponsoring organization, not exceeding three days in length. Sponsorship shall be limited to educational, fraternal, religious, or service organizations directly engaged in civic or charitable efforts, or to tax exempt organizations in compliance with 501(c) of the Federal Internal Revenue Code.

ORDINANCE NO. 1146

Page 4 of 12 ends

B. Contractors' construction yards - off-site. The permit may be effective for up to 12 months, or the expiration of the companion Building Permit, authorizing the construction project, whichever first occurs.

C. Entertainment/leisure gatherings. Events not associated with a permanently established business and not held on premises designed to accommodate such events (e.g., auditoriums, stadiums, etc.) including the following:

1. Amusement rides, arts and crafts exhibits, auctions, carnivals, circuses, concerts, fairs, farmer's markets, festivals, flea markets, food events, outdoor entertainment/sporting events, rodeos, rummage sales, second-hand sales, and swap meets for 14 consecutive days or less, or six three-day weekends, within a 12-month period.

2. Outdoor gatherings/meetings and group activities (e.g., neighborhood festivals, etc.) for seven consecutive days or less, within a 12-month period. The 12 month limitation is per group.

D. Fireworks sales. Fireworks sales that are in compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 17.04 (Safe and Sane Fireworks).

E. On-location filming. The temporary use of a specified and approved on-location site for occasional commercial filming (e.g., commercials, movie(s), videos, etc.) on location in compliance with Government Code Section 65850.1. The Director shall find that the approval would not result in a frequency of use likely to create incompatibility between the temporary filming activity and the surrounding areas.

F. Storage during construction. Storage of equipment during construction activities for up to 12 months, or the expiration of the companion Building Permit, authorizing the construction project, whichever first occurs.

G. Temporary sales trailers.

1. A trailer may be used for temporary sales activities (e.g., model home sales, etc.) in approved development projects and with a valid Building Permit.

2. A permit for temporary sales trailer(s) may be approved for up to 12 months.

H. Temporary structures. A temporary classroom, office, or similar portable structure, including a manufactured or mobile unit, may be approved, for a maximum time period of 12 months, as an accessory use or as the first phase of a development project, in the commercial and industrial zones.

ORDINANCE NO. 1146

Page 5 of 12 ends

I. Temporary work trailers.

1. A trailer or mobile home may be used as a temporary work site for employees of a business:
a. During construction or remodeling of a permanent commercial, industrial, or mixed-use structure, when a valid Building Permit is in force; or b. Upon demonstration by the applicant that the temporary work site is a short-term necessity, while a permanent work site is being obtained.

2. A permit for temporary work trailer(s) may be approved for up to 12 months.

J. City-sponsored uses and activities. City-sponsored uses and activities not occupying a structure and occurring at regular periodic intervals (weekly, monthly, yearly, etc.).

K. Civic and philanthropic events on publicly-owned property. Events that are to be conducted on publicly-owned property and are sponsored by educational, fraternal, religious, or service organizations directly engaged in civic or charitable efforts, or by tax-exempt organizations in compliance with 501(c) of the Federal Internal Revenue Code.

L. Other similar temporary uses. Similar temporary uses that, in the opinion of the Director, are compatible with the subject zone and surrounding land uses.

M. Seasonal sales.

1. Where allowed. A temporary seasonal sales facility for the sale of Christmas trees or Halloween pumpkins is allowed adjacent to any principal, major, or primary arterial, as identified in General Plan Exhibit 5-1 (Roadway Classifications), in any zone and on all religious institution sites or school sites.

2. Time limit. Outdoor seasonal sales activities shall be limited to the following. a. Christmas tree sales facility may be open from the day after Thanksgiving through December 26th of the same calendar year.
b. A Halloween pumpkin sales facility may be open for business from October 1st through October 31st of the same calendar year.

3. Merchandise to be sold. A Christmas tree or Halloween pumpkin sales facility shall only sell items directly associated with that season.

4. Post-event clean-up. The lot shall be returned to its original state within five days after the expiration of the Temporary Use Permit. The Director may require a guarantee or security deposit to ensure that the lot is properly cleaned-up.

ORDINANCE NO. 1146

Page 6 of 12 ends

N. Shopping Arcade/Market Hall. A commercial establishment that contains any ten or more commercial uses occupying designated spaces within an enclosed or semi-enclosed structure and where no use is accessory to another principal use.

Examples of shopping arcade include food halls and market halls. Temporary Uses under these provisions are applicable to the business as a whole, not each individual business within the building.

1. Each sale shall be limited to a period of three consecutive days.

2. A maximum of two events shall be allowed each month.

3. The items to be sold are not required to be of the same type that are regularly displayed and sold at the business location.

4. The activity shall not pose a hazard to pedestrians or encroach on a required building exit.

SECTION 6: Section 20.540.060. of the Stanton Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

20.540.060. Special Event Permits.

A. Allowed special event/retail outdoor sales uses. A Special Event/Retail Outdoor Sales Permit is required for any outdoor display, including tents, and sales of merchandise associated with a permanently established business within commercial zones. Such uses are also permitted on retail properties located on Monroe Avenue within Industrial zones.

B. Allowed additional signs. Refer to Section 20.20.325 (Signs) for a list of additional temporary signs permitted during special events.

C. Special events at multi-tenant commercial centers. One tenant within a multitenant commercial center may hold a special event at one time. If the center wishes to allow more than one tenant to hold a special event at a time, or if all tenants within the same commercial center propose a center-wide special event, the Director may approve the event(s).

D. Parking lot and sidewalk sales. Parking lot and sidewalk sales shall comply with the following standards:

1. Each sale shall be limited to a period of three consecutive days.

2. A maximum of four sales shall be allowed for each business during each calendar year.

ORDINANCE NO. 1146

Page 7 of 12 ends

3. The applicant for a sidewalk sale shall obtain the written authorization of the property owner and shall provide proof of notification at least 10 days prior to the proposed sale to all other businesses on the same lot, or within the same shopping center, that a parking lot or sidewalk sale will be conducted, the times it will be conducted, and that no other sale within 30 days of the subject sale will be allowed.

4. The items to be sold are of the same type that are regularly displayed and sold at the business location.

5. The activity shall not pose a hazard to pedestrians or encroach on a required building exit.

6. Safe vehicle ingress and egress shall be provided at all times.

7. Adequate parking shall be provided and maintained during the course of the activity for both the business of the applicant and all other businesses on the same lot or within the same shopping center.

SECTION 7: Section 20.540.080.A of the Stanton Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

20.540.080. Application Filing, Processing, and Review.

A. Filing. An application for a Temporary Use Permit or a Special Event/Retail Outdoor Sales Permit shall be filed with the Department in the following manner:

1. An application for a Temporary Use Permit or a Special Event/Retail Outdoor Sales Permit shall be filed and processed in compliance with Chapter 20.500 (Permit Application Filing and Processing). The application shall include the information and materials specified in the Department handout for Temporary Use Permit or Special Event/Retail Outdoor Sales Permit applications, together with payment of the required fee in compliance with the City's Planning Fee Schedule.

2. The application shall be filed with the Department at least 30 days before the date that the proposed temporary use is scheduled to take place.

3. The application shall include the property owner's written authorization to use the property and proof of a valid Business License.

4. The application must include proof of Orange County Fire Authority approval.

ORDINANCE NO. 1146

Page 8 of 12 ends

5. For Special Event/Retail Outdoor Sales Permit applications, the applicant shall indicate the dates and duration of each special event that would be held throughout the calendar year. Special Event Permits are annual permits. These permits may be obtained up to four times in a calendar year for a fee identified in the Planning Fee Schedule.

SECTION 8: Section 20.540.090 of the Stanton Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

20.540.090. Findings and Decision.

A. Director's review. The Director shall review applications and shall record the decisions in writing with the findings on which the decisions are based.

B. Required findings. The Director (or the Commission on a referral) may approve a Temporary Use Permit or Special Event Permit application, with or without conditions, only if it first makes all of the following findings:

1. The operation of the requested temporary use at the location proposed and within the time period specified will not jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public convenience, health, safety, or general welfare;

2. The proposed parcel is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the temporary use without material detriment to the use and enjoyment of other properties located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the parcel;

3. The proposed parcel is adequately served by streets or highways having sufficient width and improvements to accommodate the kind and quantity of traffic that the temporary use will or could reasonably be expected to generate;

4. Adequate temporary parking to accommodate vehicular traffic to be generated by the temporary use will be available either on-site or at alternate locations acceptable to the Director; and
C. Special Events in compliance with Section 20.540.060.D may be approved by the Director or designee subject to appropriate conditions of approval as specified in Section 20. 540.100.

SECTION 9: Section 20.540.100.B of the Stanton Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

ORDINANCE NO. 1146

Page 9 of 12 ends

20.540.100. Conditions of Approval.

B. Appropriate conditions. Conditions of approval may include any of the following:

1. Fixed period of time.
a. For a temporary use not occupying a structure, a Temporary Use Permit shall be valid for a fixed period of time not to exceed 30 days. b. For promotional activities, a Special Event/Retail Outdoor Sales Permit shall be valid for a fixed period of time not to exceed 12 months. c. For all other temporary uses or structures, a Temporary Use Permit shall be valid for a fixed period of time not to exceed 12 months. d. Permits may be issued for a shorter period of time as determined appropriate by the Director.
e. Permits may be granted an extension of time in compliance with Section 20.540.110 (Extensions for Temporary Use Permits), below.

2. Operating hours and days. Regulation of operating hours and days, including limitation of the duration of the temporary use, as identified in Subsection 1., above;

3. The applicant must agree in writing to comply with any and all of the conditions imposed by the review authority in the approval of the Temporary Use or Special Event Permit.

4. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation. Provision for adequate temporary pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking facilities (including vehicular ingress and egress), and public transportation, if applicable;

5. Nuisance factors. Regulation of nuisance factors including prevention of glare or direct illumination on adjacent parcels, dirt, dust, gases, heat, noise, odors, smoke, trash, and vibration;

6. Dimensions and placement of temporary structures. Regulation of temporary structures and facilities, including placement, height and size, location of equipment and open spaces, including buffer areas and other yards;

7. Sanitary and medical facilities. Provision for sanitary and medical facilities, as appropriate;

8. Utilities. Requirements for placement of electrical wiring and outlets; ORDINANCE NO. 1146

Page 10 of 12 ends

9. Waste collection, recycling, and/or disposal. Provision for solid, hazardous, and toxic waste collection, recycling, and/or disposal;

10.Police/security and safety measures. Provision for police/security and safety measures, as appropriate;

11.Signs. Regulation of signs;

12.Performance bond or other security. Submission of a performance bond or other security measures, in compliance with Section 20.565.070 (Performance Guarantee) and satisfactory to the Director, to ensure that any temporary facilities or structures used will be removed from the site within a reasonable time following the event and that the property will be restored to its former condition, or better, as determined by the Director;

13.Compliance with applicable provisions. A requirement that the approval of the requested Temporary Use Permit is contingent upon compliance with applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and the successful approval of any/all required permits from any other department or governing agency; and

14.Other conditions. Other conditions that would ensure the operation of the proposed temporary use in an orderly and efficient manner, and in full compliance with the purpose of this Chapter.

SECTION 10: Section 20.540.130.B of the Stanton Municipal Code is hereby deleted as follows:

20.540.130. Post-Decision Procedures.

B. For Special Event Permits, the Special Event Permit may be amended a maximum of four times throughout the calendar year. If the special event permit requires additional amendments, a new Special Event Permit application shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director.

SECTION 11: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Stanton hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

ORDINANCE NO. 1146

Page 11 of 12 ends

SECTION 12: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause same to be posted in the three (3) designated posting places within the City of Stanton within fifteen (15) days after its passage.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September, 2024.

DAVID J. SHAWVER, MAYOR
ATTEST:

PATRICIA A. VAZQUEZ, CITY CLERK

APPROVED AS TO FORM

HONGDAO NGUYEN, CITY ATTORNEY
ORDINANCE NO. 1146

Page 12 of 12 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.

CITY OF STANTON )
I, Patricia A. Vazquez, City Clerk of the City of Stanton, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 1146 was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Stanton, California, held on the 27th day of August, 2024 and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 10th day of September, 2024, by the following roll-call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

PATRICIA A. VAZQUEZ, CITY CLERK
ORDINANCE NO. 1149
PAGE 1 OF 5
ORDINANCE NO. 1149

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STANTON AMENDING CHAPTER 10.04 OF TITLE 10 OF THE STANTON MUNICIPAL CODE TO

IMPLEMENT THE SPEED LIMITS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT ENGINEERING

AND TRAFFIC SURVEYS
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code sections 22357 and 22358 authorize the City to increase and decrease its local speed limits; and
WHEREAS, Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. recently completed an engineering and traffic survey for the City of Stanton on a number of streets throughout the City that is compliant with Vehicle Code section 627; and
WHEREAS, there were a total of 37 road segments surveyed; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer and the Orange County Sheriff’s Department have reviewed the engineering and traffic survey results and both offices recommend approval and implementation of the report’s recommendations; and WHEREAS, the City desires to establish new speed limits in the areas as determined appropriate based on the engineering and traffic study, and to confirm the prima facie speed limits for those segments as deemed appropriate by the engineering and traffic study; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the new speed limits will facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the new speed limits are safe and reasonable; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the applicable engineering and traffic surveys are on file in the offices of the City Clerk and the City Engineer and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF STANTON DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: Recitals. The above recitals are hereby found to be true and accurate and are incorporated into this Ordinance as findings of the City Council by this reference.

SECTION 2: Amendment of Chapter 10.04. Chapter 10.04 is hereby amended in the City of Stanton Municipal Code in its entirety to read as follows:

Item: 11B
Click here to return to the agenda.

ORDINANCE NO. 1149
PAGE 2 OF 5
“Chapter 10.04 STOP AND SPEED REGULATIONS
Section 10.04.010 Master plan of arterial highways.

Section 10.04.020 Through streets.

Section 10.04.030 Speed limits.

Section 10.04.035 Adjustment of speed limits.

Section 10.04.040 Other streets within the city.

Section 10.04.050 Speed limit on portion of Fulton Way.

Section 10.04.060 Truck routes.

Section 10.04.010 Master Plan of Arterial Highways.

The master plan of arterial highways, as adopted in the circulation element of the comprehensive general plan, consists of major, primary and secondary arterials as designated below:

A. Cerritos Avenue: West city limit to east city limit; B. Chapman Avenue: West city limit to east city limit;
C. Dale Street: South city limit to north city limit;
D. Katella Avenue: Knott Avenue to Magnolia Avenue;
E. Knott Avenue: South city limit to north city limit;
F. Lampson Avenue: West city limit to east city limit;
G. Orangewood Avenue: West city limit to east city limit; H. Magnolia Avenue: South city limit to north city limit; I. Western Avenue: South city limit to north city limit.

Section 10.04.020 Through Streets.

All traffic entering streets and highways designated as arterials on the master plan of arterial highways from local streets shall stop before proceeding except at signal controlled intersections.

Section 10.04.030 Speed Limits.

The City Council is authorized to adopt changes to the posted speed limits upon receiving an engineering & traffic survey, in accordance with the California manual on uniform traffic control devices and report from the City Engineer.

Section 10.04.035 Adjustment of Speed Limits.

The City Engineer shall review speed limits, make recommendations to the City Council every five (5) years, and update the speed survey as necessary.

Section 10.04.040 Other Streets Within the City.

No vehicle shall be operated on other streets within the city at a speed in excess of twenty-five miles per hour.

ORDINANCE NO. 1149
PAGE 3 OF 5
Section 10.04.050 Speed Limits.

Pursuant to the provisions of California Vehicle Code Section 22358.3, the prima facie speed limit on the following roadways are as follows:

Roadway Portion of Roadway Affected Declared Prima
Facie Speed Limit
(miles per hour)
Cerritos Avenue Knott Ave to Western Ave 40
Cerritos Avenue Western Ave to Beach Blvd. 40
Cerritos Avenue Beach Blvd. to Dale St. 40
Cerritos Avenue Dale St. to Magnolia St. 40
Cerritos Avenue Magnolia St. to Rodeo Dr. 40
Chapman Avenue Western Ave. to Beach Blvd. 40
Chapman Avenue Beach Blvd. To Dale St. 40
Chapman Avenue Dale St. to Magnolia Ave. 40
Dale Street Lola Ave. to Cerritos Ave 35
Dale Street Cerritos Ave. to Katella Ave. 40
Dale Street Katella Ave. to Orangewood Ave. 35
Dale Street Orangewood Ave. to Chapman Ave. 35
Dale Street Chapman Ave. to Barr Lane 35
Fern Avenue North City Limit to Cerritos Ave 25
Fern Avenue Cerritos Ave. to Pacific St. 25
Garden Grove
Boulevard
Beach Blvd. to Fern Ave. 40
Katella Avenue Knott Ave. to Western Ave. 45
Katella Avenue Western Ave. to Beach Blvd. 40
Katella Avenue Beach Blvd. to Dale St. 45
Katella Avenue Dale St. to Magnolia St. 45
Knott Avenue Cerritos Ave. to Katella Ave. 40
Knott Avenue Katella Ave. to Recycle Way 40
Lampson Avenue Western Ave. to Beach Blvd. 40
Lampson Avenue Beach Blvd. To Chateau 40
Magnolia Street Ball Rd. to Cerritos Ave. 40
Magnolia Street Cerritos Ave. to Katella Ave. 40
Orangewood Avenue Santa Rosalia to Beach Blvd. 35
Orangewood Avenue Beach Blvd. to Pine Tree Ln. 35
Orangewood Avenue Western Ave. to East End 25
Santa Rosalia Street Orangewood Ave. to Chapman Ave. 25 Santa Rosalia Street Chapman Ave. to Lampson Ave. 25
Syracuse Avenue Knott Ave. to Western St. 25
Village Center Drive Beach Blvd. to Garden Grove Blvd. 30 Western Avenue Palais Rd. to Cerritos Ave 40
Western Avenue Cerritos Ave. to Katella Ave. 40
Western Avenue Katella Ave. to Orangewood Ave. 40
Western Avenue Orangewood Ave. to Simmons Pl. 45
ORDINANCE NO. 1149
PAGE 4 OF 5
Section 10.04.060 Truck Routes.

A. A truck route is a street the city designated as such in this code where commercial vehicles having a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating in excess of ten thousand pounds may be operated.

B. The following streets within the city are designated as truck routes:

1. Katella Avenue—West city limit to east city limit;

2. Beach Boulevard—South city limit to north city limit;

3. Garden Grove Boulevard—East city limit to west city limit;

4. Western Avenue—South city limit to Katella Avenue;

5. Knott Street—South city limit to Katella Avenue.

C. No person shall drive, operate or park, or cause to be driven, operated or parked, in the city any commercial vehicle having a manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating in excess of ten thousand pounds except on a designated truck route.” SECTION 3: The City Council directs the City of Stanton Public Works Department to implement the speed limit recommendations contained within this ordinance in compliance with regulations promulgated by the California Department of Transportation under Vehicle Code section 21400.

SECTION 4: The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Ordinance and the above findings have been based are located in the City Clerk’s Department, 7800 Katella Avenue, Stanton, California. The City Clerk is the custodian of records.

SECTION 5: If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, such invalidity has no effect on the other provisions or applications of the ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this extent, the provisions of this resolution are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this resolution irrespective of the invalidity of any portion thereof.

SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following its adoption.

SECTION 7: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. Not later than fifteen (15) days following the passage of this Ordinance, the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, along with the names of the City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance, shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Stanton.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September, 2024.

DAVID J. SHAWVER, MAYOR
ORDINANCE NO. 1149
PAGE 5 OF 5
ATTEST:

PATRICIA A. VAZQUEZ, CITY CLERK

APPROVED AS TO FORM

HONGDAO NGUYEN, CITY ATTORNEY

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.

CITY OF STANTON )
I, Patricia A. Vazquez, City Clerk of the City of Stanton, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 1149 was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Stanton, California, held on the 27th day of August, 2024 and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 10th day of September, 2024, by the following roll-call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

PATRICIA A. VAZQUEZ, CITY CLERK

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
FOR

SPEED LIMITS

CITY OF STANTON
MARCH 2024
PREPARED FOR:

CITY OF STANTON
7800 KATELLA AVENUE
STANTON, CALIFORNIA 90680
PREPARED BY:

HARTZOG & CRABILL, INC.
17821 EAST 17TH STREET, SUITE 245
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680
(714) 731-9455

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ i Traffic Engineer's Certification ...................................................................................................... ii Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 Speed Trap ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Basic Speed Law............................................................................................................................. 4 Prima Facie Speed Limits............................................................................................................... 4 Residence District ........................................................................................................................... 5 Establishment of Speed Zones........................................................................................................ 5 Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................................. 5 Speed Zoning Methodology............................................................................................................ 6 Speed Zone Survey ......................................................................................................................... 6 Local Street Exemptions................................................................................................................. 7 Other Considerations ...................................................................................................................... 7 Radar Collection Time-Frames....................................................................................................... 7 Analysis Factors.............................................................................................................................. 8 Field Review ................................................................................................................................... 9 Accident History ............................................................................................................................. 9 Results and Recommendations..................................................................................................... 10 Locations Established as " Residence District " .............................................................. 10 Locations of "No Speed Limit Changes".......................................................................... 10 Support Explanations for "No Speed Limit Changes "..................................................... 12 Locations of "New Speed Limit Posting" ......................................................................... 12 Support Explanations for "New Speed Limit Posting"..................................................... 12 Summary of Recommendations.....................................................................................................14 Appendix A - For Each Street Segment In The Survey
Data Summary Sheet..............................................................................................................

Radar Speed Distribution Sheet.............................................................................................

Survey Field Sheet .................................................................................................................

Appendix B – Certification
Radar Gun Certification.........................................................................................................

Technician Certification......................................................................................................... i

1 CITY OF STANTON

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY FOR SPEED LIMITS
Introduction
In accordance with procedures established by the State of California, this Engineering and Traffic Survey has been developed for the City of Stanton as the basis for the establishment and enforcement of speed limits for selected streets within the City. The work provided herein was authorized by the City and was performed by the engineering consulting firm of Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. The goal of the review was two-fold. The first was to review any new roadway segments to determine if speed limit postings should be recommended. The second involved a determination as to whether changes in pre-existing conditions have occurred where older speed limits should be modified.

The requirement to perform Engineering and Traffic surveys for speed limits is based on the California Vehicle Code (CVC). CVC Section 40802 states that at least once every seven (7), or fourteen (14) years, States and local agencies should re-evaluate non-statutory speed limits on segments of their roadways. Recent changes to the CA MUTCD changed the policy and procedure for setting speed limits in California. Engineering and Traffic Surveys must be performed with the use of radar or other approved electronic devices if the use of radar is to be employed to enforce speed limits. If such a survey is not performed within seven years, or fourteen years as stated previously of the date of the preceding survey, then the new data and its use will constitute a "speed trap" (see page 2). Hence, evidence using such would not be admissible in court.

The definition of a Traffic and Engineering Survey is contained in Section 627 of the Vehicle Code and is as follows:

Engineering and Traffic survey, as used in this code, means a survey of highway and traffic conditions in accordance with methods determined by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for use by State and local authorities. An engineering and traffic survey shall include, among other requirements deemed necessary by the department, consideration of the following:
(a) Prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements. (b) Accident records.
(c) Highway, traffic and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver.

The California Vehicle code has set certain regulations regarding the posting and enforcement of speed zones. These regulations generally reflect the viewpoint that speed zoning should be based on traffic conditions and natural driver behavior and not because of an arbitrary response to a traffic event or occurrence. Therefore, it is important to have a general understanding of the "Basic Speed Law", "Prima Facie Speed Limits" and "Intermediate Speed Zones".

The California Vehicle code has set certain regulations regarding the posting and enforcement of speed zones. These regulations generally reflect the viewpoint that speed zoning should be 2 based on traffic conditions and natural driver behavior and not because of an arbitrary response to a traffic event or occurrence. Therefore, it is important to have a general understanding of a "Speed Trap", "Basic Speed Law", "Prima Facie Speed Limits" and "Intermediate Speed Zones".

Speed Trap (CVC 40802)
(a) A "speed trap" is either of the following:
(1) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the known distance. (2) A particular section of a highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within five years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects. This paragraph does not apply to a local street, road, school zone, senior zone, business activity district, or speed limit adopted under Section 22358.7 or 22358.8.
(b) (1) For the purposes of this section, a local street or road is one that is functionally classified as "local" on the “California Road Systems Maps,” that are approved by the Federal Highway Administration and maintained by the Department of Transportation. It may also be defined as a “local street or road” if it primarily provides access to abutting residential property and meets the following three conditions:
(A) Roadway width of not more than 40 feet.
(B) Not more than one-half of a mile of uninterrupted length. Interruptions shall include official traffic control signals as defined in Section 445. (C) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction.
(2) For purposes of this section, "school zone" means that area approaching a passing a school building or the grounds thereof that is contiguous to a highway and on which is posted a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign, while children are going to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. "School zone" also includes the area approaching or passing any school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children if that highway is posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign. (3) For purposes of this section, "senior zone" means that area approaching or passing a senior center building or other facility primarily used by senior citizens, or the grounds thereof that is contiguous to a highway and on which is posted a standard "SENIOR" warning sign, pursuant to Section 22352.
(4) For purposes of this section, "business activity district" means a section of highway described in subdivision (b) of Section 22358.9 in which a standard 25 mile per hour or 20 3 miles per hour speed limit sign has been posted pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of that section.
(c) (1) When all of the following criteria are met, paragraph (2) of this subdivision shall be applicable and subdivision (a) shall not be applicable:
(A) When radar is used, the arresting officer has successfully completed a radar operator course of not less than 24 hours on the use of police traffic radar, and the course was approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. (B) When laser or any other electronic device is used to measure the speed of moving objects, the arresting officer has successfully completed the training required in subparagraph (A) and an additional training course of not less than two hours approved and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. (C) (i) The prosecution proved that the arresting officer complied with subparagraphs (A) and (B) and that an engineering and traffic survey has been conducted in accordance with subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2). The prosecution proved that, prior to the officer issuing the notice to appear; the arresting officer established that the radar, laser, or other electronic device conformed to the requirements of subparagraph (D). (ii) The prosecution proved the speed of the accused was unsafe for the conditions present at the time of alleged violation unless the citation was for a violation of Section 22349, 22356, or 22406.
(D) The radar, laser, or other electronic device used to measure the speed of the accused meets or exceeds the minimal operational standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and has been calibrated within the three years prior to the date of the alleged violation by an independent certified laser or radar repair and testing or calibration facility. (2) A "speed trap" is either of the following:
(A) A particular section of a highway measured as to distance and with boundaries marked, designated, or otherwise determined in order that the speed of vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle to travel the know distance. (B) (i) A particular section of a highway or state highway with a prima facie speed limit that is provided by this code or by local ordinance under paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 22352, or established under Section 22354, 22357, 22358, or 22358.3, if that prima facie speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within one of the following time periods, prior to the date of the alleged violation, and enforcement of the speed limit involves the use of radar or any other electronic device that measures the speed of moving objects:
(I) Expect as specified in subclause (II), seven years. 4 (II) If an engineering and traffic survey was conducted more than seven years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and a registered engineer evaluates the section of the highway and determines that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred, including, but not limited to, changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume, 14 years.
(ii) This subparagraph does not apply to a local street, road, or school zone, senior zone, business activity district, or speed limit adopted under Section 22358.7 or 22358.8. (Amended by Stats. 2022, Ch. 406, Sec. 5. (AB 1938) Effective January 1, 2023) Basic Speed Law (CVC 22350)
All fifty states base their speed regulations on the Basic Speed Law. In California, CVC 22350 defines the basic speed law as:
"No Person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property." This law recognizes that driving conditions vary widely from time-to-time and place-to-place and, therefore, no set of fixed driving rules will adequately serve all conditions. The motorist will constantly adjust their driving behavior to fit the conditions encountered, and must learn to do this with a minimum of assistance from the police. The Basic Speed Law is founded on the belief that a majority of motorists are able to modify their driving behavior properly, as long as they are aware of the conditions around them.

Prima Facie Speed Limits (CVC 22352)
All other speed limits are prima facie limits which, "on the face of it", are reasonable and prudent under normal conditions. The posted speed limit recognizes the fact that any posted speed limit cannot adequately reflect the many different conditions of traffic, weather, visibility, etc., that may be found on the same highway at different times.

Certain prima facie limits are automatically established by law (CVC 22352), including a 15 mph limit in alleys, blind intersections, blind railroad crossing, and the 25 mph limit in business and residence districts. There is also a part time 25 mph limit in school zones when children are present in route to or from school. There is also a 25 mph limit when passing a senior center or other facility primarily used by senior citizens, contiguous to a street other than a state highway and posted with a standard “SENIOR” warning sign.

Business and residence districts are defined in the Vehicle Code as specific areas meeting a specified minimum density of roadside development. CVC Sections 235 and 515 define these regulations. A count of houses or active businesses facing on a highway must be made to determine whether or not a valid business or residence district exists. The law does not require posting these prima facie limits that are readily apparent. 5 Residence District (CVC 515)
A "residence district" is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district, (a) upon one side of which highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures. A residence district may be longer than one-quarter of a mile if the above ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway exists.

Establishment of Speed Zones
The reason that speed limit areas and their required postings are done is to guard reasonable drivers from the unreasonable behavior of reckless, unreliable, or otherwise dangerous drivers.

As with other similar laws, the limits identified are based on the consensus of the majority of those who drive the highway as to what speed is reasonable and safe. It is this type of information that is reflected in the analysis section of this report. Namely, posted speed limits are a reflection of that speed which most people deem to be safe as opposed to a minority of drivers who do not drive in a reasonable manner.

Speed zones are also established to advise of road conditions or hazards that may not be readily apparent to a reasonable driver. For that reason, a field review of related road/traffic variables is conducted which considers the analytical data and accident history of a particular roadway segment to determine a safe and reasonable speed limit.

Data Collection Procedures
Speed evaluation data was collected at 37 different speed survey segments on 14 different roadways in the City of Stanton. These streets and the number of segments on each are described as follows:

1. Cerritos Avenue (5) 8. Lampson Avenue (2)

2. Chapman Avenue (3) 9. Magnolia Street (2)

3. Dale Street (5) 10. Orangewood Avenue (3)

4. Fern Avenue (2) 11. Santa Rosalia Street (2-Exempt)

5. Garden Grove Boulevard (1) 12. Syracuse Avenue (1-Exempt)

6. Katella Avenue (4) 13. Village Center Drive (1)

7. Knott Avenue (2) 14. Western Avenue (4)
As described in various traffic engineering documents - including information provided by the State of California, the individual locations on which radar data collection procedures were used involved considerations for the following:
b. Stop sign or traffic signal locations;
c. Visibility issues;
d. Traffic flow at intersections, cross-traffic, major driveways, crosswalks, railroad crossings and unusual turning movements;
6 e. The influence of other traffic factors on the speed of cars: such as on street parking, roadway features, adjacent land uses, and lighting.

Speed Zoning Methodology
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA. MUTCD) specifies a “short method of determining speed limits on City and County through Highways, Arterial and Collector Roads Procedures.

Introduction - This short method of speed zoning is based on the premise that the reasonable speed limit is one that conforms to the actual behavior of the majority of motorists, and that by measuring motorist’s speeds, one will be able to select a speed limit that is both reasonable and effective. Other factors that need to be considered include, but are not limited to: the most recent two-year collision record, roadway design speed, safe stopping sight distance, super-elevation, shoulder conditions, profile conditions, intersection spacing and offsets, commercial driveway characteristics, pedestrian traffic in the roadway without sidewalks.

Speed Zone Survey
- Only one person is required for the fieldwork. Speeds can be read directly from a radar speed meter.
- A section of road should be selected with representative operating speeds. If speeds vary on a given road, additional surveys should be conducted. In this case, it may be necessary to establish additional speed zones with different speed limits. The section selected should be straight and should have no traffic signal, stop sign or intersection with a major cross street. - Speed measurements should be taken during off-peak hours on weekdays. The weather should be fair with no unusual conditions prevailing. It is important that the surveyor and his equipment be so inconspicuous as not to affect traffic speeds. For this reason, an unmarked car is recommended, with the radar speed meter located as inconspicuously as possible. It should be placed so as to be able to survey traffic in both directions, and should not make an angle greater than 15 degrees with the roadway centerline.
- The survey should have a minimum sample of 100 automobiles in each survey. This may result in excessive survey periods for low-volume roads. Under these conditions, the survey should be conducted for a minimum of two hours, but in no case should the sample for any survey contain less than 50 automobiles.
- The California MUTCD states that speed limits are established at or near the 85th percentile speed, which is defined as that speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. This speed can be selected directly from the data sheet. However, roadway conditions not readily apparent to the motorist or other roadway conditions that may impact sight distance may result in a further reduction of 5 mph in the recommended speed limit. - As a check on the validity of the proposed speed limit, an analysis should be made of the twoyear accident record for the section of roadway under consideration. If this record shows an abnormally high percentage of accidents normally associated with excessive speeds, the 7 proposed speed limit should be further reduced. This is a judgment situation, and will not usually be a factor,
- Short speed zones of less than half a mile should be avoided, except in transition areas. - Speed zone changes should be coordinated with changes in roadway conditions or roadway development.
- Speed zoning in 5 mile per hour increments should be avoided if possible. A 10-mile per hour increment is preferable.
- Speed zoning should be coordinated between adjacent jurisdictions.

Local Street Exemptions (CVC 40802)
Many streets are designated as "Local" streets per CVC 40802. These streets are exempt from the radar study. Therefore, the speed limit for these streets does not require an Engineering and Traffic Survey. The code is as follows:
"For the purpose of this section, local streets and roads shall be defined by the latest California Road System Maps as approved by the Federal Highway Administration. When these streets do not appear on the California Road System Maps, the following definition shall be used: A local street or road primarily provides access to abutting residential property and shall meet the following three conditions:

1. Roadway width of not more than 40 feet.

2. Not more than one half mile of uninterrupted length.

3. Not more than one traffic lane in each direction.

Other Considerations
Every street should be inspected for unusual traffic, roadway and roadside conditions not readily apparent to a motorist. A check should be made of the adequacy of traffic control devices, roadway alignment, width surface conditions, accident history and any unique traffic hazards that may exist. Any of these conditions may warrant the selection of a speed lower than the 85th percentile speed for speed zoning.

Radar Collection Time Frames
The hours of radar operation were restricted to off-peak periods for heavily traveled streets and to uncongested peak periods on lightly traveled streets. All surveys were conducted in fair weather.

The radar unit was mounted at the top of the front dash of an unmarked vehicle with the meterreading unit sustained inside the vehicle. The radar unit's calibration was checked periodically using a tuning fork.
8 The radar operator and assistant recorded the speed meter readings for each location on Radar Speed Survey Field Sheets included in the appendix of this report. A representative sampling of at least 50 vehicles were surveyed in each direction or a cumulative sample of 100 vehicles for both directions where possible. On low volume roads, where a total sample of 100 vehicles would result in an excessive time period, sampling was continued until a representative bellshaped frequency distribution was attained.

Analysis Factors
Several factors were used as input to our recommendations for speed limits. These include the 85th Percentile, the 10 MPH Pace and others. These are described in detail below.

1. The CRITICAL SPEED, or the 85th percentile is defined as that speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. From experience, traffic engineers have found that this is one of the most reliable factors in determining appropriate speed limits.

Hence, the accepted practice, and one that has been used in this case is to set the speed limit at or near the critical speed. This recognizes that other factors could be present where the above may not be appropriate. When this procedure is used, it not only conforms to that required by the State but it also provides a strong base for law enforcement personnel to properly enforce speed limits.

2. The 10 MPH PACE is that continuous 10 mph incremental range of speeds in which the largest number of recorded vehicles is contained. It is a measure of the dispersion of speeds within the sample surveyed. For this element, the accepted practice to the greatest extent possible is to try and keep the recommended speed limit within the 10 mph pace after considering the critical speed and any factors requiring a speed lower than the critical speed.

3. The MEDIAN (MIDDLE) SPEED, or 50th percentile speed, represents the mid-point value within the range of recorded speeds for a particular roadway location. In other words, 50% of the vehicles travel faster, and 50% travel slower than the median speeds. This value is another measure of the central tendency of the vehicle speed distribution.

4. The 15th PERCENTILE SPEED is that speed at or below which 15% of the vehicles are traveling. This value is important in determining the minimum allowable speed limit, given that the vehicles traveling below this speed tend to obstruct the flow of traffic, thereby increasing the accident potential.

5. MODAL SPEED: The modal speed is the speed, which occurs most frequently in the distribution (the most). It serves as another useful measure in verifying the correct recommendation for speed limits.

6. STANDARD DEVIATION: This is a mathematical element, which relates to measures of dispersion of data. It is used to assist in describing the center of speed distribution information around the arithmetic mean or the time mean speed. It also is used in the 9 overall review of recommended speed limits and serves to verify the level of confidence of data used in making recommendations.

7. The MEAN (AVERAGE) is the sum of the speeds of the samples divided by the number of samples.

The numerical values of the above factors are derived from the speed distribution curves calculated for each survey location. These distribution curves represent a method of graphic analysis that compares the cumulative percentage of vehicles to the speed at which the vehicles are traveling.

Field Review
In addition to the availability of the above statistical data, a significant aspect of speed limit recommendations is based on the field review. Its importance is that existing conditions may warrant a lower speed than is actually indicated by the application of survey data. Examples of the field data collected for the purposes of analyzing related roadway characteristics as they pertain to the determination of appropriate speed limits are listed below:

1. Segment length, width and alignment

2. Level of pedestrian activity

3. Traffic flow characteristics

4. Vertical and/or horizontal curves.

5. Driver sight distance constraints.

6. Adjacent residential/commercial/industrial etc. zoning.

7. Number of lanes and other channelization/striping factors

8. Frequency of intersections, driveways and on street parking;

9. Location of stop signs, traffic signals, and other regulatory traffic control devices;

10. Roadway conditions, bumps and dips;

11. Obstructions to pedestrian visibility;

12. Land use and proximity of schools;

13. Uniformity with existing speed zones to/with adjacent jurisdictions;

14. Any other unusual conditions not readily apparent to the driver.

The results of the field review of related road/traffic variables are summarized on the Engineering and Traffic Survey forms found in the Appendix of this report.

Accident History
The Engineering and Traffic Survey forms summarize the available two-year accident information for the subject streets. The accident information includes the total number of accidents within each street segment and of those accidents, the number that are speed-related.

This information was obtained from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) for the City of Stanton.

The annual accident rate figures represent the number of speed-related accidents divided by years of accident records. The evaluation of accidents is useful as a check on the accuracy of 10 recommended or existing speed limits. Should this review show a high percentage of accidents associated with excessive speeds, consideration based on professional traffic engineering judgment should be directed toward reducing the posted or recommended speed limit.

Results and Recommendations
The following Summaries: Residence District CVC 515, No Speed Limit Changes, New Speed Limit Postings, and Summary of Recommendations show the results of the radar survey for the selected 37 locations. As shown, the Summary of Recommendations chart presents the necessary analysis elements that in addition to the field review of a registered traffic engineer led to the recommendations indicated.

Locations of “Residence District”
In the 2019 City Wide Engineering & Traffic Study, three roadway segments were established under the California Vehicle Code 515, “Resident District Speed Limit.” Explanations and requirements for Resident District are on Page 5. The CVC states that prima facie roadways are not required to be posted. Therefore, the City may choose to remove existing speed signs or leave them alone. These roadway segments are listed below and are exempt from speed studies:

Santa Rosalia Street
Orangewood Ave to Chapman Ave Establish as Residence District– 25 mph Chapman Ave to Lampson Ave Establish as Residence District– 25 mph Syracuse Avenue
Knott Ave to Western St Establish as Residence District– 25 mph Locations of “No Speed Limit Changes”
The Summary indicates that 32 of the 37 segments studied are recommended for no speed limit changes. The reason centers mostly on the fact that the newly measured values of the 85th percentile and the 10 MPH pace are still within the parameters of the existing speed limits.

Additional factors such as the presence of horizontal or vertical curves reducing sight distance form the basis in some instances of our recommendation. Therefore, the current postings should remain as is. At six of these locations, only one direction of travel is posted and is listed for no change in the speed limit. Hence, the other direction should be posted for consistency. These segments noted as “install”, as well as the segments recommended for “No Change” are listed below:

Cerritos Avenue
Knott Ave to Western Ave Remain posted at 40 mph
Western Ave to Beach Bl Remain posted at 40 mph
Beach Bl to Dale St Remain posted at 40 mph
Dale St to Magnolia St Remain posted at 40 mph
Magnolia St to Rodeo Dr (ECL) Remain posted at 40 mph, Install WB Chapman Avenue
Western Ave to Beach Bl Remain posted at 40 mph
11 Beach Bl to Dale St Remain posted at 40 mph, Install EB Dale St to Magnolia Ave Remain posted at 40 mph
Dale Street
Lola Ave (NCL) to Cerritos Ave Remain posted at 35 mph
Cerritos Ave to Katella Ave Remain posted at 40 mph
Katella Ave to Orangewood Ave Remain posted at 35 mph
Orangewood Ave to Chapman Ave Remain posted at 35 mph
Fern Avenue
North City Limit to Cerritos Ave Remain posted at 25 mph Cerritos Ave to Pacific St Remain posted at 25 mph, Install NB Garden Grove Boulevard
Beach Bl to Fern Ave (ECL) Remain posted at 40 mph
Katella Avenue
Knott Ave to Western Ave Remain posted at 45 mph
Western Ave to Beach Bl Remain posted at 40 mph
Beach Bl to Dale St Remain posted at 45 mph
Dale St to Magnolia St Remain posted at 45 mph
Knott Avenue
Cerritos Ave to Katella Ave Remain posted at 40 mph
Katella Ave to Recycle Way (SCL) Remain posted at 40 mph, Install SB Lampson Avenue
Western Ave to Beach Bl Remain posted at 40 mph
Beach Bl to Chateau (ECL) Remain posted at 40 mph
Magnolia Street
Ball Rd to Cerritos Ave Remain posted at 40 mph
Cerritos Ave to Katella Ave (SCL) Remain posted at 40 mph Orangewood Avenue
Santa Rosalia to Beach Bl Remain posted at 35 mph
Beach Bl to Pine Tree Ln (ECL) Remain posted at 35 mph
Village Center Drive
Beach Bl to Garden Grove Bl Remain posted at 30 mph, Install SB Western Avenue
Palais Rd (NCL) to Cerritos Ave Remain posted at 40 mph Cerritos Ave to Katella Ave Remain posted at 40 mph
Katella Ave to Orangewood Ave Remain posted at 40 mph
Orangewood Ave to Simmons Pl (SCL) Remain posted at 45 mph, Install NB 12 Support Explanations of “No Speed Limit Changes”
The following are support explanations for roadway segments that the recommended speed limit is 5 mph or more lower than the newly measured 85th percentile speed or require the City’s attention such as installing a speed limit sign where one direction may be missing.

Dale Street
Lola Avenue (NCL) to Cerritos Avenue
This section of Dale Street is a four lane roadway. It has a 35 mph speed limit posting southbound only. Adjacent land uses are heavy residential fronting and non-fronting, STEM Academy and commercial at Cerritos Avenue. With the STEM Academy and nearby Dale Junior High School moderate pedestrian and bicycle activity was noticed in the area. The speed study resulted with an 85th percentile speed of 43.3 mph and a 10 mph pace range from 33 to 42 mph. In consideration of the safety of the school age pedestrian traffic and bicyclists in the area, it is recommended that the existing 35 mph speed limit be maintained.

Locations of "New Speed Limit Postings"
Two of the thirty-seven roadway segments are currently un-posted. Again, the newly measured values of the 85th percentile speeds, the 10 mph pace range, and the 50th percentile speeds were factors used to make these recommendations. It is noted that for each case, the recommendation to post is necessary to enhance the enforcement of the recommended safe speed limit. This segment is shown in the Summary of Recommendations beginning on page 14 and is listed follows:

Dale Street
Chapman Ave to Barr Lane Install New Posting of 35 mph
Orangewood Avenue
Western Ave to East End Install New Posting of 25 mph
Support Explanations of "New Speed Limit Postings"
Dale Street
Chapman Avenue to Barr Lane
This section of Dale Street is a two lane roadway. Currently, within the segment there is not a posted speed limit. A 35 mph speed limit and a 25 mph when children present signs are posted south of Barr Lane (out of the city limits). Field notes state that there are school crosswalks at Chapman Avenue, Lampson Avenue and Enault Street. With the newly measured 85th percentile speed of 38.6 mph and a 10 mph pace range of 29 to 38 mph, it is recommended that 35 mph speed signs be installed for this area.
13 Orangewood Avenue
Western Avenue to East End
This section of Orangewood Avenue is a two lane roadway. The adjacent land uses include multi-family residential, commercial at Western Avenue, and business-industrial complexes.

Currently, there is not a speed limit posted for this 0.12 section. With the results of the speed survey showing an 85th percentile speed of 27.2, it is recommended that a 25 mph speed limit be established and posted for this roadway.
14 CITY OF STANTON
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 2024

STREET LOCATION

EXISTING
SPEED
LIMIT

RECOMMENDED
SPEED
LIMIT
85TH

PERCENTILE
SPEED
MEDIAN
SPEED
10 MPH
PACE
RANGE

PERCENT

OF VEHICLES

IN PACE RECOMMENDATION - JUSTIFICATION

CERRITOS AVENUE
1 KNOTT AVE TO
WESTERN AVE 40 40 43.6 38.7 35-44 71.5 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE 2 WESTERN AVE TO
BEACH BL 40 40 42.9 39.5 34-43 80.7 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE 3 BEACH BL TO
DALE ST 40 /*25 40 44.0 37.8 33-42 68.8 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE 4 DALE ST TO
MAGNOLIA ST 40 /35(1)
40 42.5 38.3 33-42 74.8 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE
5 MAGNOLIA ST TO
RODEO DR (ECL) 40 EB 40 43.2 39.2 35-44 73.6 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE – POST WB

CHAPMAN AVENUE
6 WESTERN AVE TO
BEACH BL 40 / 25* 40 44.1 39.3 35-44 75.0 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE 7 BEACH BL TO
DALE ST 40 WB/*25 40 38.6 34.6 30-39 81.8 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE / POST EB 8 DALE ST TO
MAGNOLIA AVE 40 /*25 40 44.2 39.8 36-45 80.6 NO CHANGE – 85TH PERCENTILE

DALE STREET
9 LOLA AVE (NCL) TO
CERRITOS AVE 35 /*25 35 43.3 37.4 35-42 72.2 NO CHANGE – HEAVY SCHOOL AGE PEDESTRIANS 10 CERRITOS AVE TO
KATELLA AVE 40 /*25 40 44.0 39.4 36-45 78.9 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE 11 KATELLA AVE TO
ORANGEWOOD AVE 40 /*25 40 43.8 39.2 35-44 80.3 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE 12 ORANGEWOOD AVE TO
CHAPMAN AVE 35 35 39.9 35.0 30-39 74.0 NO CHANGE – 85TH PERCENTILE 13 CHAPMAN AVE TO
BARR LANE NP 35 38.6 33.9 29-38 76.5 POST 35 MPH - 85TH PERCENTILE (1) = 25 MPH WHEN CHILDREN PRESENT (City of Anaheim) WB = WESTBOUND (1) = 35 MPH SPEED LIMIT (City of Anaheim) EB = EASTBOUND NP = NOT POSTED
15 STREET LOCATION

EXISTING
SPEED
LIMIT

RECOMMENDED
SPEED
LIMIT
85TH

PERCENTILE
SPEED
MEDIAN
SPEED
10 MPH
PACE
RANGE

PERCENT

OF VEHICLES

IN PACE RECOMMENDATION - JUSTIFICATION

FERN AVENUE
14 NORTH CITY LIMIT TO
CERRITOS AVE 25 25 27.9 23.9 19-28 82.2 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE 15 CERRITOS AVE TO
PACIFIC 25 SB 25 27.8 24.3 20-29 82.1 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE / POST NB

GARDEN GROVE BOULEVARD
16 BEACH BL TO
FERN AVE (ECL) 40 40 42.9 39.5 36-45 91.3 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE

KATELLA AVENUE
17 KNOTT AVE TO
WESTERN AVE 45 45 48.0 43.5 39-48 65.4 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE 18 WESTERN AVE TO
BEACH BL 40 40 42.4 37.0 33-42 76.7 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE 19 BEACH BL TO
DALE ST 45 45 46.1 41.6 39-48 70.6 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE 20 DALE ST TO
MAGNOLIA ST 45 45 47.1 41.6 39-48 73.0 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE

KNOTT AVENUE
21 CERRITOS AVE TO
KATELLA AVE 40 40 44.0 36-44 36-45 73.3 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE 22 KATELLA AVE TO
RECYCLE WAY (SCL) 40 NB 40 42.0 36.8 33-42 69.4 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE / POST SB

LAMPSON AVENUE
23 WESTERN AVE TO
BEACH BL 40 40 43.9 39.6 36-45 79.3 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE 24 BEACH BL TO
CHATEAU (ECL) 40 40 41.9 37.0 34-43 77.4 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE *25 MPH WHEN CHILDREN PRESENT, SCHOOL ZONE
NB = NORTHBOUND SB = SOUTHBOUND NP = NOT POSTED
16 STREET LOCATION

EXISTING
SPEED
LIMIT

RECOMMENDED
SPEED
LIMIT
85TH

PERCENTILE
SPEED
MEDIAN
SPEED
10 MPH
PACE
RANGE

PERCENT

OF VEHICLES

IN PACE RECOMMENDATION - JUSTIFICATION

MAGNOLIA STREET
25 BALL RD TO
CERRITOS AVE 40 40 43.6 39.6 36-45 82.7 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE 26 CERRITOS AVE TO
KATELLA AVE (SCL) 40 /*25 40 42.1 38.8 35-44 87.2 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE

ORANGEWOOD AVENUE
27 WESTERN AVE TO
EAST END NP 25 27.2 22.9 18-27 79.1 POST 25 MPH – 85TH PERCENTILE 28 SANTA ROSALIA TO
BEACH BL 35 35 37.7 33.9 31-40 83.3 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE 29 BEACH BL TO
PINE TREE LN (ECL) 35 35 39.9 35.3 32-41 73.5 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE

SANTA ROSALIA STREET
30 ORANGEWOOD AVE TO
CHAPMAN AVE 25 25 29.8 26.1 22-31 81.9
2019, ESTABLISHED AS RESIDENCE DISTRICT - CVC 515
*** EXEMPT FROM SPEED STUDY ***
31 CHAPMAN AVE TO
LAMPSON AVE 25 25 30.8 26.9 23-32 82.5
2019, ESTABLISH AS RESIDENCE DISTRICT - CVC 515
*** EXMEPT FROM SPEED STUDY ***

SYRACUSE AVENUE
32 KNOTT AVE TO
WESTERN ST 25 WB 25 29.2 25.4 21-30 85.9
2019, ESTABLISH AS RESIDENCE DISTRICT - CVC 515
*** EXEMPT FROM SPEED STUDY***

VILLAGE CENTER DRIVE
33 BEACH BL TO
GARDEN GROVE BL 30 NB 30 33.3 29.5 26-35 87.1 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE – POST SB Note: *** EXEMPT FROM FUTURE SPEED STUDIES ***
*25 MPH WHEN CHILDREN PRESENT, SCHOOL ZONE,
NB = NORTHBOUND, SB = SOUTHBOUND WB = WESTBOUND
17 STREET LOCATION

EXISTING
SPEED
LIMIT

RECOMMENDED
SPEED
LIMIT
85TH

PERCENTILE
SPEED
MEDIAN
SPEED
10 MPH
PACE
RANGE

PERCENT

OF VEHICLES

IN PACE RECOMMENDATION - JUSTIFICATION

WESTERN AVENUE
34 PALAIS RD (NCL) TO
CERRITOS AVE 40 40 43.6 38.5 35-44 73.8 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE 35 CERRITOS AVE TO
KATELLA AVE 40 40 40.1 36.4 32-41 79.6 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE 36 KATELLA AVE TO
ORANGEWOOD AVE 40 40 44.7 39.9 36-45 79.7 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE 37 ORANGEWOOD AVE TO
SIMMONS PL (SCL) 45 SB 45 46.5 42.8 38-47 78.7 NO CHANGE - 85TH PERCENTILE – POST NB *25 MPH WHEN CHILDREN PRESENT, SCHOOL ZONE
NB = NORTHBOUND SB = SOUTHBOUND

APPENDIX A

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CERRITOS AVENUE KNOTT AVE TO WESTERN AVE
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:20 AM - 11:55 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY EAST OF BELL

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 43.6 MPH
10 MPH PACE 35 - 44 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 71.5 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 1
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 7
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 0.50 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 0.16 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - KNOTT / WESTERN

CROSSWALKS AT KNOTT / WESTERN

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / FEW

TRUCK TRAFFIC NO

ON-STREET PARKING PARTIAL (EB) - NO (WB)

OTHER ENTIRE SECTION WB RED CURB

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER 2 WAY LEFT TURN CENTERLANE
ADJACENT LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (single + multi-family) / CHURCH RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:

File: Cerritos 2024-01
The recommended 40 mph is 3.6 mph below the 85th percentile speed of 43.6 mph and meets CVC standards.

0.50 17,100

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/12/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CERRITOS AVENUE KNOTT AVE TO WESTERN AVE
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:20 AM - 11:55 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
X X X 3 1.7% 100.0%
X X 2 1.1% 98.3%
X X X X 4 2.2% 97.2%
X X X X X 5 2.8% 95.0%
45 X X X X X X X X X 9 5.0% 92.2%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 5.6% 87.2%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 7.3% 81.6%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 6.7% 74.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 8.4% 67.6%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 6.1% 59.2%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 10.1% 53.1%
X X X X X X X X X 9 5.0% 43.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 7.8% 38.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 6.7% 30.2%
35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 7.8% 23.5%
X X X X X X X X 8 4.5% 15.6%
X X X X X X X X 8 4.5% 11.2%
0 0.0% 6.7%
X X X X X 5 2.8% 6.7%
30 X X X 3 1.7% 3.9%
X X X 3 1.7% 2.2%
X 1 0.6% 0.6%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 179
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 44 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 35 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 43.6 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 12.8 % MEDIAN SPEED: 38.7 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 71.5 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 33.9 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 15.6 %
FILE: Cerritos 2024-01

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CERRITOS AVENUE KNOTT AVE TO WESTERN AVE
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:20 AM - 11:55 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 98.3%
47 X 97.2%
46 X 95.0%
45 X 92.2%
44 X 87.2% }PACE
43 X 81.6% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
42 X 74.3% }PACE
41 X 67.6% }PACE
40 X 59.2% }PACE
39 X 53.1% }PACE
38 X 43.0% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
37 X 38.0% }PACE
36 X 30.2% }PACE
35 X 23.5% }PACE
34 X 15.6%
33 X 11.2% - - - - - -15PCT
32 X 6.7%
31 X 6.7%
30 X 3.9%
29 X 2.2%
28 X 0.6%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 44 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 35 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 43.6 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 12.8 % MEDIAN SPEED: 38.7 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 71.5 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 33.9 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 15.6 %
File; Cerritos 2024-01
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CERRITOS AVENUE WESTERN AVE TO BEACH BL
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 3:15 PM - 3:45 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY EAST OF HUNTER WAY

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 42.9 MPH
10 MPH PACE 34 - 43 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 80.7 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 2
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 8
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 1.00 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 0.32 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - WESTERN / BEACH

CROSSWALKS AT WESTERN / BEACH

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / FEW

TRUCK TRAFFIC NO

ON-STREET PARKING PARTIAL
OTHER MANY AREAS OF RED CURB (EB+WB) / NO PARKING 8am-11am WED

ENTIRE SEGMENT RED CURB (WB)

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / FEW

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER 2 WAY LEFT TURN CENTERLANE w/LEFTS
ADJACENT LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (multi-family-NF) / COMMERCIAL (at Western + Beach) RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:

File: Cerritos 2024-02
The recommended 40 mph is 2.9 mph below the 85th percentile speed of 42.9 mph and meets CVC standards.

0.50 16,900

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/11/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CERRITOS AVENUE WESTERN AVE TO BEACH BL
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 3:15 PM - 3:45 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 X 1 0.6% 100.0%
X 1 0.6% 99.4%
X X X 3 1.8% 98.8%
X X X X 4 2.3% 97.1%
X X X X 4 2.3% 94.7%
45 X X X X X X X 7 4.1% 92.4%
X X X X 4 2.3% 88.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 7.0% 86.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 23 13.5% 78.9% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 21 12.3% 65.5% 40 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 7.0% 53.2%
X X X X X X X X 8 4.7% 46.2%
X X X X X X X 7 4.1% 41.5%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 10.5% 37.4%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 10.5% 26.9%
35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 7.6% 16.4%
X X X X X X 6 3.5% 8.8%
X X X X X X X 7 4.1% 5.3%
X X 2 1.2% 1.2%

0.0%
30 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 171
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 43 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 34 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 42.9 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 14.0 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.5 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 80.7 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 34.8 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 5.3 %
FILE: Cerritos 2024-02

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CERRITOS AVENUE WESTERN AVE TO BEACH BL
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 3:15 PM - 3:45 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 99.4%
48 X 98.8%
47 X 97.1%
46 X 94.7%
45 X 92.4%
44 X 88.3%
43 X 86.0% }PACE
42 X 78.9% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
41 X 65.5% }PACE
40 X 53.2% }PACE
39 X 46.2% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
38 X 41.5% }PACE
37 X 37.4% }PACE
36 X 26.9% }PACE
35 X 16.4% }PACE
34 X 8.8% }PACE- - - - - -15PCT
33 X 5.3%
32 X 1.2%
31 X 0.0%
30 X 0.0%
29 X 0.0%
28 X 0.0%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 43 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 34 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 42.9 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 14.0 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.5 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 80.7 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 34.8 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 5.3 %
File; Cerritos 2024-02
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CERRITOS AVENUE BEACH BL TO DALE ST
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:35 PM - 3:10 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY WEST OF FERN

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 44.0 MPH
10 MPH PACE 33 - 42 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 68.8 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH / *25 MPH

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - BEACH / DALE
CROSSWALKS AT BEACH / DALE (sch)
PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / YES (Heavy Peds at School)

TRUCK TRAFFIC NO
ON-STREET PARKING YES (WB) - NO STOPPING ANYTIME (EB+WB)

OTHER NO SHOULDERS (EB)

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / FEW

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER 2 WAY LEFT TURN CENTERLANE & RAISED MEDIAN ISLAND ADJACENT LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (multi-family) / COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL / SCHOOL RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:
* 25 mph When Children Present, School Zone File: Cerritos 2024-03 The recommended 40 mph is 4.0 mph below the 85th percentile speed of 41.9 mph and meets CVC standards.

0.49 15,400

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/11/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CERRITOS AVENUE BEACH BL TO DALE ST
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:35 PM - 3:10 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 X 1 0.7% 100.0%
X X X 3 2.2% 99.3%
X 1 0.7% 97.1%
X X X X 4 2.9% 96.4%
X X X 3 2.2% 93.5%
45 X X X X X X X X X 9 6.5% 91.3%
X X 2 1.4% 84.8%
X X X 3 2.2% 83.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 10.9% 81.2%
X X X X X X 6 4.3% 70.3%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 10.1% 65.9%
X X X X X X 6 4.3% 55.8%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 8.0% 51.4%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 8.0% 43.5%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 8.7% 35.5%
35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 9.4% 26.8%
X X X 3 2.2% 17.4%
X X X X 4 2.9% 15.2%
X X X X X X 6 4.3% 12.3%
X X X X X 5 3.6% 8.0%
30 X X X X X 5 3.6% 4.3%
X 1 0.7% 0.7%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 138
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 42 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 33 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 44.0 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 18.8 % MEDIAN SPEED: 37.8 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 68.8 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 32.9 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 12.3 %
FILE: Cerritos 2024-03

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CERRITOS AVENUE BEACH BL TO DALE ST
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:35 PM - 3:10 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 99.3%
48 X 97.1%
47 X 96.4%
46 X 93.5%
45 X 91.3%
44 X 84.8% - - - - - - - - -85PCT
43 X 83.3%
42 X 81.2% }PACE
41 X 70.3% }PACE
40 X 65.9% }PACE
39 X 55.8% }PACE
38 X 51.4% }PACE
37 X 43.5% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
36 X 35.5% }PACE
35 X 26.8% }PACE
34 X 17.4% }PACE
33 X 15.2% }PACE
32 X 12.3% - - - - - -15PCT
31 X 8.0%
30 X 4.3%
29 X 0.7%
28 X 0.0%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 42 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 33 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 44.0 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 18.8 % MEDIAN SPEED: 37.8 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 68.8 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 32.9 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 12.3 %
File; Cerritos 2024-03
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CERRITOS AVENUE DALE ST TO MAGNOLIA ST
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:00 PM - 2:30 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY WEST OF SHERRILL

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 42.5 MPH
10 MPH PACE 33 - 42 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 74.8 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH
35 MPH / *25 (Posted in City of Anaheim)

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 0
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 4
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 0.00 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 0.00 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - DALE / MAGNOLIA
CROSSWALKS AT DALE (sch) / MAGNOLIA

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / YES

TRUCK TRAFFIC FEW
ON-STREET PARKING YES (Heavy)

OTHER AREAS OF RED CURB
NO PARKING THURS 8am-11am

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / NO (WB) - YES / FEW (EB)

STREET LIGHTING YES

OTHER SOLID DBL YELLOW CENTERLINE
SHERRILL TO MAGNOLIA-WB (City of Anaheim)
ADJACENT LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (F) / COMMERCIAL (at Dale + Magnolia) / PARK / SCE RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:

NOTE: 35 MPH and *25 MPH School Zone POSTED SHERRILL TO MAGNOLIA (In City of Anaheim) File: Cerritos 2024-04 F = FRONTING
This section of Cerritos Avenue is a four lane roadway. The adjacent land uses are residential, commercial at Dale St and Magnolia Ave, pre-school day care, and SCE substation. This section shares jurisdiction with the City of Anaheim between Sherrill to Magnolia Street. The posted speed limit is 40 mph and in the City of Anaheim section a 35 mph speed sign is posted in the westbound direction. The speed study resulted with an 85th percentile speed of 42.5 mph and an median speed of 38.3 mph. With that, it is recommended that the existing 40 mph speed limit remain.

0.50 14,800

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/11/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CERRITOS AVENUE DALE ST TO MAGNOLIA ST
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:00 PM - 2:30 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
100.0%
X X X 3 1.9% 100.0%
X X 2 1.3% 98.1%
X X 2 1.3% 96.9%
45 X X X X X X 6 3.8% 95.6%
X X X X X X X 7 4.4% 91.8%
X X X X X X X 7 4.4% 87.4%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 7.5% 83.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 8.2% 75.5%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 9.4% 67.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 10.7% 57.9%
X X X X X X X X 8 5.0% 47.2%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 8.2% 42.1%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 6.9% 34.0%
35 X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.3% 27.0%
X X X X X X X X 8 5.0% 20.8%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 7.5% 15.7%
X X X X X 5 3.1% 8.2%
X X 2 1.3% 5.0%
30 X X X 3 1.9% 3.8%
X 1 0.6% 1.9%
0 0.0% 1.3%
X 1 0.6% 1.3%
0 0.0% 0.6%
25 X 1 0.6% 0.6%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 159
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 42 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 33 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 42.5 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 17.0 % MEDIAN SPEED: 38.3 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 74.8 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 32.9 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 8.2 %
File: Cerritos 2024-04

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CERRITOS AVENUE DALE ST TO MAGNOLIA ST
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:00 PM - 2:30 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 100.0%
47 X 98.1%
46 X 96.9%
45 X 95.6%
44 X 91.8%
43 X 87.4%
42 X 83.0% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
41 X 75.5% }PACE
40 X 67.3% }PACE
39 X 57.9% }PACE
38 X 47.2% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
37 X 42.1% }PACE
36 X 34.0% }PACE
35 X 27.0% }PACE
34 X 20.8% }PACE
33 X 15.7% }PACE
32 X 8.2% - - - - - -15PCT
31 X 5.0%
30 X 3.8%
29 X 1.9%
28 X 1.3%
27 X 1.3%
26 X 0.6%
25 X 0.6%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 42 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 33 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 42.5 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 17.0 % MEDIAN SPEED: 38.3 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 74.8 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 32.9 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 8.2 %
File; Cerritos 2024-04
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CERRITOS AVENUE MAGNOLIA ST TO RODEO DR (ECL)
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 1:10 PM - 1:45 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY WEST OF RODEO

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 43.2 MPH
10 MPH PACE 35 - 44 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 73.6 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH EB

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 1
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 4
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 0.50 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 0.44 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - MAGNOLIA

CROSSWALKS AT MAGNOLIA

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / FEW

TRUCK TRAFFIC FEW
ON-STREET PARKING YES (Heavy)
OTHER NO PARKING THURS 8am-11am

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / FEW

STREET LIGHTING YES

OTHER SOLID DBL YELLOW CENTERLINE
ADJACENT LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (single+multi family) / COMMERCIAL (at Magnolia) RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:

File: Cerritos 2019-05
The recommended 40 mph is 3.2 mph below the newlyn measured 85th percentile speed and meets CVC standard.

0.22 14,000

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/11/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CERRITOS AVENUE MAGNOLIA ST TO RODEO DR (ECL)
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 1:10 PM - 1:45 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
X X 2 1.4% 100.0%
X 1 0.7% 98.6%
X X X X 4 2.8% 97.9%
X X X X 4 2.8% 95.1%
45 X X X X X 5 3.5% 92.4%
X X X X X X X 7 4.9% 88.9%
X X X X X X X 7 4.9% 84.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 9.7% 79.2%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 9.0% 69.4%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 12.5% 60.4%
X X X X X X X X 8 5.6% 47.9%
X X X X X X X X X 9 6.3% 42.4%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 9.7% 36.1%
X X X X X X 6 4.2% 26.4%
35 X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.9% 22.2%
X X X X X X X 7 4.9% 15.3%
X X X 3 2.1% 10.4%
X X X X 4 2.8% 8.3%
X X X 3 2.1% 5.6%
30 X X X 3 2.1% 3.5%
X 1 0.7% 1.4%
0 0.0% 0.7%
X 1 0.7% 0.7%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 144
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 44 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 35 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 43.2 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 16.0 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.2 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 73.6 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 33.9 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 15.3 %
File; Cerritos 2019-05

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CERRITOS AVENUE MAGNOLIA ST TO RODEO DR (ECL)
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 1:10 PM - 1:45 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 98.6%
47 X 97.9%
46 X 95.1%
45 X 92.4%
44 X 88.9% }PACE
43 X 84.0% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
42 X 79.2% }PACE
41 X 69.4% }PACE
40 X 60.4% }PACE
39 X 47.9% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
38 X 42.4% }PACE
37 X 36.1% }PACE
36 X 26.4% }PACE
35 X 22.2% }PACE
34 X 15.3%
33 X 10.4% - - - - - -15PCT
32 X 8.3%
31 X 5.6%
30 X 3.5%
29 X 1.4%
28 X 0.7%
27 X 0.7%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 44 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 35 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 43.2 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 16.0 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.2 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 73.6 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 33.9 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 15.3 %
File; Cerritos 2019-05
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CHAPMAN AVENUE WESTERN AVE TO BEACH BL
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:10 AM - 11:40 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY EAST OF SANTA ROSALIA

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 44.1 MPH
10 MPH PACE 35 - 44 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 75.0 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH / *25 MPH

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 0
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 3
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 0.00 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 0.00 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES PER DIRECTION ( 3 LANES EB 500' Approaching Beach)

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - WESTERN / BEACH / SCHOOL

CROSSWALKS AT WESTERN / BEACH / SCHOOL XING

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / YES

TRUCK TRAFFIC NO

ON-STREET PARKING PARTIAL - AREAS OF NO STOPPING ANYTIME (WB)

OTHER PAINTED BIKE LANES

AREAS OF RED CURB

NO PARKING ANYTIME / BUS STOPS

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / FEW (EB) - YES / YES (WB)

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER 2 WAY LEFT TURN CENTERLANE / RAISED MEDIAN ISLAND (some) ADJACENT LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (NF) / COMMERCIAL (at Beach + Western) / ELEM SCH RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:
*25 MPH When Children Present, School Zone File: Chapman 2024-06 The recommended 40 mph is 4.1 mph below the 85th percentile speed of 44.1 mph and meets CVC standards.

0.48 21,900

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/12/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CHAPMAN AVENUE WESTERN AVE TO BEACH BL
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:10 AM - 11:40 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
X X 2 1.0% 100.0%
50 X X X X X 5 2.5% 99.0%
X X X 3 1.5% 96.6%
X 1 0.5% 95.1%
X X X X 4 2.0% 94.6%
X X X X X X X X 8 3.9% 92.6%
45 X X X X X X X X 8 3.9% 88.7%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 4.9% 84.8%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 8.3% 79.9%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 7.8% 71.6%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 6.9% 63.7%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 20 9.8% 56.9% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 8.8% 47.1%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 8.3% 38.2%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 7.8% 29.9%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 5.9% 22.1%
35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 6.4% 16.2%
X X X X X X 6 2.9% 9.8%
X X X X X 5 2.5% 6.9%
X X X X X 5 2.5% 4.4%
X X X 3 1.5% 2.0%
30 X 1 0.5% 0.5%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 204
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 44 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 35 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 44.1 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 15.2 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.3 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 75.0 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 34.8 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 9.8 %
File: Chapman 2024-06

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CHAPMAN AVENUE WESTERN AVE TO BEACH BL
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:10 AM - 11:40 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 99.0%
49 X 96.6%
48 X 95.1%
47 X 94.6%
46 X 92.6%
45 X 88.7%
44 X 84.8% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
43 X 79.9% }PACE
42 X 71.6% }PACE
41 X 63.7% }PACE
40 X 56.9% }PACE
39 X 47.1% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
38 X 38.2% }PACE
37 X 29.9% }PACE
36 X 22.1% }PACE
35 X 16.2% }PACE
34 X 9.8% - - - - - -15PCT
33 X 6.9%
32 X 4.4%
31 X 2.0%
30 X 0.5%
29 X 0.0%
28 X 0.0%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 44 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 35 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 44.1 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 15.2 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.3 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 75.0 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 34.8 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 9.8 %
File; Chapman 2024-06
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CHAPMAN AVENUE BEACH BL TO DALE AVE
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:45 AM - 12:15 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY EAST OF BEACH

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 38.6 MPH
10 MPH PACE 30 - 39 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 81.8 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH (WB) / *25 MPH

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 2
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 11
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 1.00 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 0.25 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES (WB) / 2-3 LANES (EB) (3 Lanes 400' e/o Beach)

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - BEACH / POLY CARP SCH / NEARING / DALE CROSSWALKS AT BEACH / POLY CARP (sch) / NEARING / DALE (sch)

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / FEW

TRUCK TRAFFIC NO

ON-STREET PARKING YES (EB) - NO STOPPING ANYTIME (WB)

OTHER NO SHOULDERS (WB) / BUS STOPS

NO PARKING WED STREET SWEEPING

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER 2 WAY LEFT TURN CENTERLANE & RAISED MEDIAN ISLAND

ADJACENT LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (NF) / COMMERCIAL / ST POLY CARP SCHOOL-CHURCH RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:
*25 MPH When Children Present, School Zone File: Chapman 2024-07 (NF) = Non-Fronting NOTE: ECL is 530 ft e/o Dale
This section of Chapman Avenue has 2-3 lanes per direction. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. The adjacent land uses are residential (non-fronting), commercial, and St Poly Carp School. Field observations include signals at Beach Bl, school, Nearing, and Dale Ave, no shoulders and no parking anytime westbound, and bus stops. The speed data results show an 85th percentile speed of 38.6 mph and a median speed of 30 tp 39 mph. With that and for consistency, it is recommended that the existing 40 mph speed limit be maintained.

0.50 21,950

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
312/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CHAPMAN AVENUE BEACH BL TO DALE AVE
DATE: 312/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:45 AM - 12:15 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
X X 2 1.1% 100.0%
45 X X 2 1.1% 98.9%
X X X 3 1.7% 97.7%
X X 2 1.1% 96.0%
X X X 3 1.7% 94.9%
X X X X X 5 2.8% 93.2%
40 X X X X X 5 2.8% 90.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 6.3% 87.5%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 8.5% 81.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 8.0% 72.7%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 10.2% 64.8%
35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 20 11.4% 54.5% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 8.0% 43.2%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 8.0% 35.2%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 9.1% 27.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 6.8% 18.2%
30 X X X X X X X X X X 10 5.7% 11.4%
X X X X X X 6 3.4% 5.7%
X X X X 4 2.3% 2.3%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 176
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 39 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 30 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 38.6 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 12.5 % MEDIAN SPEED: 34.6 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 81.8 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 30.5 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 5.7 %
File Chapman 2024-07

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CHAPMAN AVENUE BEACH BL TO DALE AVE
DATE: 312/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:45 AM - 12:15 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 100.0%
47 X 100.0%
46 X 100.0%
45 X 98.9%
44 X 97.7%
43 X 96.0%
42 X 94.9%
41 X 93.2%
40 X 90.3%
39 X 87.5% }PACE
38 X 81.3% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
37 X 72.7% }PACE
36 X 64.8% }PACE
35 X 54.5% }PACE
34 X 43.2% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
33 X 35.2% }PACE
32 X 27.3% }PACE
31 X 18.2% }PACE
30 X 11.4% }PACE- - - - - -15PCT
29 X 5.7%
28 X 2.3%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 39 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 30 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 38.6 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 12.5 % MEDIAN SPEED: 34.6 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 81.8 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 30.5 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 5.7 %
File; Chapman 2024-07
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CHAPMAN AVENUE DALE AVE TO MAGNOLIA AVE
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 12:20 PM - 1:50 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY EAST OF DALE

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 44.2 MPH
10 MPH PACE 36 - 45 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 80.6 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH / *25 MPH

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 0
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 1
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 0.00 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 0.00 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - DALE / MAGNOLIA
CROSSWALKS AT DALE (sch) / MAGNOLIA (sch)

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / YES

TRUCK TRAFFIC YES

ON-STREET PARKING YES
OTHER NO PARKING (Wed-wb & Friday eb) STREET SWEEPING

PAINTED BIKE LANES

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS FAIR

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES

STREET LIGHTING YES

OTHER BUS STOPS
ADJACENT LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (F+NF) / BUSINESS
RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:
*25 MPH When Children Present, School Zone File: Chapman 2024-08 (NF) = Non-Fronting NOTE: ECL is 530 ft e/o Dale
The recommended 40 mph is 4.2 mph below the newly measured 85th percentile speed and meets CVC standards.

0.50 21,950

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/12/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CHAPMAN AVENUE DALE AVE TO MAGNOLIA AVE
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 12:20 PM - 1:50 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
X 1 0.5% 100.0%
50 X X X X X 5 2.6% 99.5%
X X X 3 1.5% 96.9%
X X X X 4 2.0% 95.4%
X X X X X 5 2.6% 93.4%
X X X X X 5 2.6% 90.8%
45 X X X X X X X X 8 4.1% 88.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 6.1% 84.2%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 7.7% 78.1%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 8.7% 70.4%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 9.2% 61.7%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 23 11.7% 52.6% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 20 10.2% 40.8%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 20 10.2% 30.6%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 7.1% 20.4%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 5.6% 13.3%
35 X X X X X X 6 3.1% 7.7%
X X X 3 1.5% 4.6%
X X X 3 1.5% 3.1%
X X 2 1.0% 1.5%
X 1 0.5% 0.5%
30 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 196
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 45 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 36 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 44.2 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 11.7 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.8 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 80.6 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 36.2 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 7.7 %
File: Chapman 2024-08

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

CHAPMAN AVENUE DALE AVE TO MAGNOLIA AVE
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 12:20 PM - 1:50 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 99.5%
49 X 96.9%
48 X 95.4%
47 X 93.4%
46 X 90.8%
45 X 88.3% }PACE
44 X 84.2% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
43 X 78.1% }PACE
42 X 70.4% }PACE
41 X 61.7% }PACE
40 X 52.6% }PACE
39 X 40.8% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
38 X 30.6% }PACE
37 X 20.4% }PACE
36 X 13.3% }PACE- - - - - -15PCT
35 X 7.7%
34 X 4.6%
33 X 3.1%
32 X 1.5%
31 X 0.5%
30 X 0.0%
29 X 0.0%
28 X 0.0%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 45 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 36 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 44.2 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 11.7 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.8 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 80.6 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 36.2 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 7.7 %
File; Chapman 2024-08
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

DALE STREET LOLA AVE (NCL) TO CERRITOS AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 12:05 PM - 12:30 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY SOUTH OF LOLA

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 43.3 MPH
10 MPH PACE 33 - 42 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 72.2 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH SB / *25 MPH

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 1
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 8
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 0.50 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 0.29 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - CHANTICLEER / CERRITOS
CROSSWALKS AT CHANTICLEER (sch) / CERRITOS (sch)

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / YES

TRUCK TRAFFIC FEW

ON-STREET PARKING PARTIAL
OTHER NO PARKING THURS 9am-12pm

NO PARKING OVERSIZED VEHICLES

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / FEW

STREET LIGHTING YES

OTHER SOLID DBL YELLOW CENTERLANE

AREAS OF RED CURB
ADJACENT LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (F-NF heavy) / ELEM SCHOOL / COMMERCIAL (at Cerritos) RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE - POST NORTHBOUND
JUSTIFICATION:
*25 MPH When Children Present, School Zone File: Dale 2024-09 F-NF = FRONTING, NON-FRONTING
This section of Dale Street is a four lane roadway. It has a 35 mph speed limit posting southbound only. Adjacent land uses are heavy residential fronting and non-fronting, STEM Academy and commercial at Cerritos Avenue.

With the STEM Academy and nearby Dale Junior High School moderate pedestrian and bicycle activity was noticed in the area. The speed study resulted with an 85th percentile speed of 43.3 mph and a 10 mph pace range from 33 to 42 mph. In consideration of the safety of the school age pedestrian traffic and bicyclists in the area, it is recommended that the existing 35 mph speed limit be maintained.

0.37 12,850

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/11/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

DALE STREET LOLA AVE (NCL) TO CERRITOS AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 12:05 PM - 12:30 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
100.0%
X X X X 4 2.3% 100.0%
X X X X 4 2.3% 97.7%
X X X X X X X X 8 4.5% 95.5%
45 X X X X X X X 7 4.0% 90.9%
X X X X X 5 2.8% 86.9%
X X X X X 5 2.8% 84.1%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 6.3% 81.3%
X X X X X X X X X 9 5.1% 75.0%
40 X X X X X X X X X X 10 5.7% 69.9%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 8.5% 64.2%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 9.1% 55.7%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 8.5% 46.6%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 6.8% 38.1%
35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 8.5% 31.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 6.8% 22.7%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 6.8% 15.9%
X X X X X 5 2.8% 9.1%
X X X X X X 6 3.4% 6.3%
30 X X X X 4 2.3% 2.8%
X 1 0.6% 0.6%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 176
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 42 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 33 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 43.3 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 18.8 % MEDIAN SPEED: 37.4 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 72.2 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 32.9 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 9.1 %
File: Dale 2024-09

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

DALE STREET LOLA AVE (NCL) TO CERRITOS AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 12:05 PM - 12:30 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 100.0%
47 X 97.7%
46 X 95.5%
45 X 90.9%
44 X 86.9%
43 X 84.1% - - - - - - - - -85PCT
42 X 81.3% }PACE
41 X 75.0% }PACE
40 X 69.9% }PACE
39 X 64.2% }PACE
38 X 55.7% }PACE
37 X 46.6% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
36 X 38.1% }PACE
35 X 31.3% }PACE
34 X 22.7% }PACE
33 X 15.9% }PACE
32 X 9.1% - - - - - -15PCT
31 X 6.3%
30 X 2.8%
29 X 0.6%
28 X 0.0%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 42 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 33 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 43.3 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 18.8 % MEDIAN SPEED: 37.4 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 72.2 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 32.9 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 9.1 %
File; Dale 2024-09
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

DALE STREET CERRITOS AVE TO KATELLA AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:30 AM - 12:00 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY SOUTH OF STANDUSTRIAL

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 44.0 MPH
10 MPH PACE 36 - 45 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 78.9 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH / *25 MPH

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - KATELLA / CERRITOS
CROSSWALKS AT KATELLA / CERRITOS (sch)

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES FEW / FEW

TRUCK TRAFFIC FEW
ON-STREET PARKING NO STOPPING ANYTIME (NB+SB)

OTHER NO SHOULDERS

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / FEW

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER SOLID DBL YELLOW & 2 WAY LEFT TURN CENTERLANE
ADJACENT LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (mobile homes) / COMMERCIAL / SCE SUB STN / RXR RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:
*25 MPH When Children Present, School Zone File: Dale 2024-10 (NF) = Non-Fronting
The recommended 40 mph is 4.0 mph below the 85th percentile speed and meets CVC standards.

0.49 11,800

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/11/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

DALE STREET CERRITOS AVE TO KATELLA AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:30 AM - 12:00 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 X X 2 1.1% 100.0%
X X 2 1.1% 98.9%
X X X 3 1.7% 97.7%
X X X 3 1.7% 96.0%
X X X X X X X X 8 4.6% 94.3%
45 X X X X X X X X 8 4.6% 89.7%
X X X X X X 6 3.4% 85.1%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 8.0% 81.7%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 8.0% 73.7%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 9.7% 65.7%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 9.7% 56.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 8.0% 46.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 9.1% 38.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 8.6% 29.1%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 9.7% 20.6%
35 X X X X X X X X 8 4.6% 10.9%
X X X X X 5 2.9% 6.3%
X X X X X 5 2.9% 3.4%
X 1 0.6% 0.6%

0.0%
30 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 175
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 45 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 36 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 44.0 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 14.9 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.4 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 78.9 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 35.4 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 10.9 %
File: Dale 2024-10

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

DALE STREET CERRITOS AVE TO KATELLA AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:30 AM - 12:00 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 98.9%
48 X 97.7%
47 X 96.0%
46 X 94.3%
45 X 89.7% }PACE
44 X 85.1% }PACE
43 X 81.7% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
42 X 73.7% }PACE
41 X 65.7% }PACE
40 X 56.0% }PACE
39 X 46.3% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
38 X 38.3% }PACE
37 X 29.1% }PACE
36 X 20.6% }PACE
35 X 10.9% - - - - - -15PCT
34 X 6.3%
33 X 3.4%
32 X 0.6%
31 X 0.0%
30 X 0.0%
29 X 0.0%
28 X 0.0%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 45 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 36 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 44.0 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 14.9 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.4 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 78.9 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 35.4 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 10.9 %
File; Dale 2024-10
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

DALE STREET KATELLA AVE TO ORANGEWOOD AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:00 AM - 11:25 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY NEAR ALAMITOS HIGH SCHOOL

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 43.8 MPH
10 MPH PACE 35 - 44 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 80.3 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH / *25 MPH

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - KATELLA / SCHOOL / ORANGEWOOD CROSSWALKS AT KATELLA / FRONT of SCHOOL (sch) / ORANGEWOOD (sch)

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / FEW

TRUCK TRAFFIC NO
ON-STREET PARKING YES (heavy)

OTHER NO STOPPING ANYTIME (SB)

AREAS OF RED CURB

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE
HORIZONTAL CURVE SLIGHT "S" CURVE (btwn Davmor & Orangewood)

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD-FAIR

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER SOLID DBL YELLOW & 2 WAY LEFT TURN CENTERLANE
NO PKNG 10pm-6am / NO PKNG 1st-3rd Wed (Street Sweeping) ADJACENT LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (NF) / COMMERCIAL (at Katella) / CHURCH / HIGH SCH RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:
*25 MPH When Children Present, School Zone File: Dale 2024-11 (NF) = Non-Fronting
The recommended 40 mph is 3.8 mph below the 85th percentile speed and meets CVC standards.

0.49 11,000

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/11/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

DALE STREET KATELLA AVE TO ORANGEWOOD AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:00 AM - 11:25 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 X 1 0.6% 100.0%
0 0.0% 99.4%
X X X 3 1.9% 99.4%
X X X X X 5 3.2% 97.5%
X X X X X X X 7 4.5% 94.3%
45 X X X X X X 6 3.8% 89.8%
X X X X X X X 7 4.5% 86.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 7.6% 81.5%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.4% 73.9%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 8.3% 67.5%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19 12.1% 59.2% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 9.6% 47.1%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 10.8% 37.6%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 7.6% 26.8%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.4% 19.1%
35 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 7.0% 12.7%
X X X X 4 2.5% 5.7%
X X 2 1.3% 3.2%
X X X 3 1.9% 1.9%

0.0%
30 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 157
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 44 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 35 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 43.8 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 14.0 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.2 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 80.3 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 35.4 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 5.7 %
File: Dale 2024-11

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

DALE STREET KATELLA AVE TO ORANGEWOOD AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:00 AM - 11:25 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 99.4%
48 X 99.4%
47 X 97.5%
46 X 94.3%
45 X 89.8%
44 X 86.0% }PACE
43 X 81.5% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
42 X 73.9% }PACE
41 X 67.5% }PACE
40 X 59.2% }PACE
39 X 47.1% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
38 X 37.6% }PACE
37 X 26.8% }PACE
36 X 19.1% }PACE
35 X 12.7% }PACE- - - - - -15PCT
34 X 5.7%
33 X 3.2%
32 X 1.9%
31 X 0.0%
30 X 0.0%
29 X 0.0%
28 X 0.0%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 44 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 35 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 43.8 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 14.0 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.2 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 80.3 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 35.4 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 5.7 %
File; Dale 2024-11
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

DALE STREET ORANGEWOOD AVE TO CHAPMAN AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 10:25 AM - 10:55 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY SOUTH OF AUGUSTA

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 39.9 MPH
10 MPH PACE 30 - 39 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 74.0 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 0
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 0
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 0.00 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 0.00 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 1 LANE PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - ORANGEWOOD / CHAPMAN
CROSSWALKS AT ORANGEWOOD (sch) / CHAPMAN (sch)

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES FEW / FEW

TRUCK TRAFFIC NO

ON-STREET PARKING YES

OTHER NO TRUCK TRAILOR PKNG
NO PKNG 2nd-4th (Wed+Fri Street Sweeping)

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD
SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES (heavy)

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER SOLID DBL YELLOW & 2 WAY LEFT TURN CENTERLANE
NO PKNG 10pm-6am / NO PKNG 1st-3rd Wed (Street Sweeping)

ADJACENT LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (F) / BUSINESS
RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:

F = FRONTING, NF = NON-FRONTING File: Dale 2024-12
The recommended 35 mph is 4.9 mph below the 85th percentile speed and meets CVC standards.

0.49 11,000

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/11/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

DALE STREET ORANGEWOOD AVE TO CHAPMAN AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 10:25 AM - 10:55 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
X X 2 1.3% 100.0%
X X X 3 2.0% 98.7%
45 X X X X 4 2.7% 96.7%
X X 2 1.3% 94.0%
X X X 3 2.0% 92.7%
X X X 3 2.0% 90.7%
X X X X X 5 3.3% 88.7%
40 X X X X X X 6 4.0% 85.3%
X X X X X X X X X 9 6.0% 81.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 7.3% 75.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 8.0% 68.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 10.0% 60.0%
35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 11.3% 50.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 10.0% 38.7%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.7% 28.7%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.7% 22.0%
X X X X X 5 3.3% 15.3%
30 X X X X X X X 7 4.7% 12.0%
X X X 3 2.0% 7.3%
X X X 3 2.0% 5.3%
X X X 3 2.0% 3.3%
X 1 0.7% 1.3%
25 X 1 0.7% 0.7%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 150
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 39 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 30 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 39.9 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 18.7 % MEDIAN SPEED: 35.0 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 74.0 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 30.9 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 7.3 %
File: Dale 2024-12

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

DALE STREET ORANGEWOOD AVE TO CHAPMAN AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 10:25 AM - 10:55 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 100.0%
47 X 100.0%
46 X 98.7%
45 X 96.7%
44 X 94.0%
43 X 92.7%
42 X 90.7%
41 X 88.7%
40 X 85.3%
39 X 81.3% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
38 X 75.3% }PACE
37 X 68.0% }PACE
36 X 60.0% }PACE
35 X 50.0% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
34 X 38.7% }PACE
33 X 28.7% }PACE
32 X 22.0% }PACE
31 X 15.3% }PACE
30 X 12.0% }PACE- - - - - -15PCT
29 X 7.3%
28 X 5.3%
27 X 3.3%
26 X 1.3%
25 X 0.7%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 39 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 30 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 39.9 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 18.7 % MEDIAN SPEED: 35.0 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 74.0 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 30.9 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 7.3 %
File; Dale 2024-12
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

DALE STREET CHAPMAN AVE TO BARR LANE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 9:50 AM - 10:20 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY NORTH OF BARR

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 38.6 MPH
10 MPH PACE 29 - 38 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 76.5 %

POSTED SPEED LIMIT NOT POSTED

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 1 LANE PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - CHAPMAN / LAMPSON
CROSSWALKS AT CHAPMAN (sch) / LAMPSON (sch) / ENAULT (sch)

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES FEW / FEW

TRUCK TRAFFIC NO

ON-STREET PARKING YES

OTHER AREAS OF NO PARKING ANYTIME / AREAS OF RED CURB
NO PARKING MONDAYS 5am-9am

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS FAIR

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER SOLID DBL YELLOW & 2 WAY LEFT TURN & YELLOW SKIP
ADJACENT LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (F) / ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (at Lampson) / SENIOR LIVING RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE POST
JUSTIFICATION:

F = FRONTING, NF = Non-Fronting, File: Dale 2024-13
35 mph /*25 mph (School Zone) Posted In City of Garden Grove This section of Dale Street is a two lane roadway. Currently, within the segment there is not a posted speed limit.

A 35 mph speed limit and a 25 mph when children present signs are posted south of Barr Lane (out of the city limits). Field notes state that there are school crosswalks at Chapman Avenue, Lampson Avenue and Enault Street. With the newly measured 85th percentile speed of 38.6 mph and a 10 mph pace range of 29 to 38 mph, it is recommended that 35 mph speed signs be installed for this area.

0.49 11,750

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/11/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

DALE STREET CHAPMAN AVE TO BARR LANE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 9:50 AM - 10:20 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
X 1 0.7% 100.0%
45 X 1 0.7% 99.3%
X X 2 1.3% 98.7%
X 1 0.7% 97.4%
X X X 3 2.0% 96.7%
X X X X X X X 7 4.6% 94.8%
40 X X X X X 5 3.3% 90.2%
X X X X X X X 7 4.6% 86.9%
X X X X X X X 7 4.6% 82.4%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 7.8% 77.8%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 9.2% 69.9%
35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 9.8% 60.8%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 7.8% 51.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 9.8% 43.1%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 8.5% 33.3%
X X X X X X X X X 9 5.9% 24.8%
30 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 7.2% 19.0%
X X X X X X X X X 9 5.9% 11.8%
X X X X X X 6 3.9% 5.9%
X X 2 1.3% 2.0%
X 1 0.7% 0.7%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 153
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 38 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 29 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 38.6 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 17.6 % MEDIAN SPEED: 33.9 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 76.5 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 29.5 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 5.9 %
File: Dale 2024-13

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

DALE STREET CHAPMAN AVE TO BARR LANE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 9:50 AM - 10:20 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 100.0%
47 X 100.0%
46 X 100.0%
45 X 99.3%
44 X 98.7%
43 X 97.4%
42 X 96.7%
41 X 94.8%
40 X 90.2%
39 X 86.9%
38 X 82.4% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
37 X 77.8% }PACE
36 X 69.9% }PACE
35 X 60.8% }PACE
34 X 51.0% }PACE
33 X 43.1% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
32 X 33.3% }PACE
31 X 24.8% }PACE
30 X 19.0% }PACE
29 X 11.8% }PACE- - - - - -15PCT
28 X 5.9%
27 X 2.0%
26 X 0.7%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 38 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 29 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 38.6 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 17.6 % MEDIAN SPEED: 33.9 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 76.5 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 29.5 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 5.9 %
File; Dale 2024-13
HCI

CITY OF STANTON

FERN AVENUE STARR STREET (NCL) TO CERRITOS AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 1:00 PM - 1:45 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY SOUTH OF PALAIS

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 27.9 MPH
10 MPH PACE 19 - 28 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 82.2 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 1
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 3
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 0.50 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 1.61 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 1 LANE

TRAFFIC CONTROLS STOP - CERRITOS / CHANTICLEER / STARR

CROSSWALKS AT CHANTICLEER

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / FEW

TRUCK TRAFFIC NO

ON-STREET PARKING PARTIAL WITH AREAS OF HEAVY PARKING

OTHER PERMIT PARKING / AREAS OF RED CURB

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS FAIR

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES

STREET LIGHTING YES

OTHER NO STREET STRIPING
ADJACENT LAND USE SINGLE + MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (F+NF) / PARK RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:

F+NF = Fronting and non-fronting residential to the roadway File: Fern 2024-14 The recommended 25 mph speed limit is within 2.9 mph of the 85th percentile speed and meets CVC standards.

0.37 2,300

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/11/2024
HCI

CITY OF STANTON

FERN AVENUE STARR STREET (NCL) TO CERRITOS AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 1:00 PM - 1:45 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
45 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
40 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
35 100.0%
X 1 0.8% 100.0%
X X X 3 2.3% 99.2%
X X X 3 2.3% 96.9%
X X X X X 5 3.9% 94.6%
30 X X X 3 2.3% 90.7%
X X X X 4 3.1% 88.4%
X X X X X X 6 4.7% 85.3%
X X X X X X X X X 9 7.0% 80.6%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 11.6% 73.6%
25 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 10.9% 62.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 12.4% 51.2%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 10.1% 38.8%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 8.5% 28.7%
X X X X X X X X X 9 7.0% 20.2%
20 X X X X X X X X 8 6.2% 13.2%
X X X X X 5 3.9% 7.0%
X X X 3 2.3% 3.1%
X 1 0.8% 0.8%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 129
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 28 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 19 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 27.9 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 14.7 % MEDIAN SPEED: 23.9 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 82.2 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 20.3 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 3.1 %
File: Fern 2024-14

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

CITY OF STANTON

FERN AVENUE STARR STREET (NCL) TO CERRITOS AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 1:00 PM - 1:45 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 100.0%
47 X 100.0%
46 X 100.0%
45 X 100.0%
44 X 100.0%
43 X 100.0%
42 X 100.0%
41 X 100.0%
40 X 100.0%
39 X 100.0%
38 X 100.0%
37 X 100.0%
36 X 100.0%
35 X 100.0%
34 X 100.0%
33 X 99.2%
32 X 96.9%
31 X 94.6%
30 X 90.7%
29 X 88.4%
28 X 85.3% }PACE
27 X 80.6% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
26 X 73.6% }PACE
25 X 62.0% }PACE
24 X 51.2% }PACE
23 X 38.8% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
22 X 28.7% }PACE
21 X 20.2% }PACE
20 X 13.2% }PACE- - - - - -15PCT
19 X 7.0% }PACE
18 X 3.1%
17 X 0.8%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 28 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 19 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 27.9 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 14.7 % MEDIAN SPEED: 23.9 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 82.2 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 20.3 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 3.1 %
File; Fern 2024-14
HCI

CITY OF STANTON
FERN AVENUE CERRITOS AVE TO PACIFIC ST (S. Terminus)
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E. BUENDIA
TIME: 3:15 PM - 4:15 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY SOUTH OF CERRITOS

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 27.8 MPH
10 MPH PACE 20 - 29 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 82.1 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH (SB) / NOT POSTED (NB)

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 1
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 2
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 0.50 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 6.21 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 1 LANE

TRAFFIC CONTROLS STOP - CERRITOS

CROSSWALKS NONE

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES FEW / FEW

TRUCK TRAFFIC FEW
ON-STREET PARKING PERMIT PARKING (west side) / HEAVY (east side)

OTHER AREAS OF TIME/DATE RESTRICTED PARKING

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS FAIR

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES

STREET LIGHTING YES

OTHER NO STRIPING

ADJACENT LAND USE INDUSTRIAL / RESIDENTIAL (F)
RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE - POST (NB)
JUSTIFICATION:
(F) = Fronting File: Fern 2024-15
This section of Fern Avenue is a two lane roadway. A 25 mph speed sign is posted southbound only within the segment. Adjacent land uses are industrial buildings on east side and single family residential on the west side.

On-street parking is allowed with permit. The speed survey resulted with an 85th percentile speed of 27.8 mph and a 10 mph pace range of 20 to 29 mph. With that, it is recommended that a 25 mph speed limit be maintained and a speed sign be installed north of Pacific St for the northbound direction.

0.21 1,050

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/11/2024
HCI

CITY OF STANTON
FERN AVENUE CERRITOS AVE TO PACIFIC ST (S. Terminus)
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E. BUENDIA
TIME: 3:15 PM - 4:15 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
45 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
40 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
35 X 1 0.9% 100.0%
0 0.0% 99.1%
0 0.0% 99.1%
X X X 3 2.6% 99.1%
X X X 3 2.6% 96.6%
30 X X X X 4 3.4% 94.0%
X X X X X 5 4.3% 90.6%
X X X X X X X 7 6.0% 86.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 9.4% 80.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 12.0% 70.9%
25 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 13.7% 59.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 10.3% 45.3%
X X X X X X X X 8 6.8% 35.0%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 8.5% 28.2%
X X X X X X X 7 6.0% 19.7%
20 X X X X X X 6 5.1% 13.7%
X X X X 4 3.4% 8.5%
X X X X X 5 4.3% 5.1%
X 1 0.9% 0.9%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 117
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 29 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 20 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 27.8 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 9.4 % MEDIAN SPEED: 24.3 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 82.1 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 20.2 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 8.5 %
File: Fern 2024-15

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

CITY OF STANTON
FERN AVENUE CERRITOS AVE TO PACIFIC ST (S. Terminus)
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E. BUENDIA
TIME: 3:15 PM - 4:15 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 100.0%
47 X 100.0%
46 X 100.0%
45 X 100.0%
44 X 100.0%
43 X 100.0%
42 X 100.0%
41 X 100.0%
40 X 100.0%
39 X 100.0%
38 X 100.0%
37 X 100.0%
36 X 100.0%
35 X 100.0%
34 X 99.1%
33 X 99.1%
32 X 99.1%
31 X 96.6%
30 X 94.0%
29 X 90.6% }PACE
28 X 86.3% }PACE
27 X 80.3% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
26 X 70.9% }PACE
25 X 59.0% }PACE
24 X 45.3% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
23 X 35.0% }PACE
22 X 28.2% }PACE
21 X 19.7% }PACE
20 X 13.7% }PACE- - - - - -15PCT
19 X 8.5%
18 X 5.1%
17 X 0.9%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 29 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 20 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 27.8 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 9.4 % MEDIAN SPEED: 24.3 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 82.1 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 20.2 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 8.5 %
File; Fern 2024-15
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

GARDEN GROVE BOULEVARD BEACH BL TO FERN STREET (ECL)
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 9:15 AM - 9:45 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY WEST OF FERN

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 42.9 MPH
10 MPH PACE 36 - 45 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 91.3 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 0
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 6
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 0.00 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 0.00 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES (WB) - 3 LANES (EB)

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - BEACH

CROSSWALKS AT BEACH

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES FEW / FEW

TRUCK TRAFFIC YES

ON-STREET PARKING NO STOPPING ANYTIME

OTHER NO SHOULDERS

BUS STOPS

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER 2 WAY LEFT TURN CENTERLANE

ADJACENT LAND USE COMMERCIAL / BUSINESS / CHURCH
RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:

File: Garden Grove 2024-16
The recommended 40 mph is 2.9 mph below the newly measured 85th percentile speed of 42.9 mph and meets CVC standards.

0.25 25,350

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/11/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

GARDEN GROVE BOULEVARD BEACH BL TO FERN STREET (ECL)
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 9:15 AM - 9:45 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
X 1 0.6% 100.0%
X 1 0.6% 99.4%
X X X 3 1.9% 98.8%
X X 2 1.3% 96.9%
45 X X X X X X X 7 4.4% 95.6%
X X X X X X X X 8 5.0% 91.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 10.0% 86.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 8.8% 76.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 10.0% 67.5%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 22 13.8% 57.5% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 10.6% 43.8%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 21 13.1% 33.1% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 8.8% 20.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 6.9% 11.3%
35 X X X X X 5 3.1% 4.4%
X X 2 1.3% 1.3%

0.0%

0.0%
30 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 160
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 45 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 36 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 42.9 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 4.4 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.5 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 91.3 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 36.4 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 4.4 %
File: Garden Grove 2024-16

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

GARDEN GROVE BOULEVARD BEACH BL TO FERN STREET (ECL)
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 9:15 AM - 9:45 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 99.4%
47 X 98.8%
46 X 96.9%
45 X 95.6% }PACE
44 X 91.3% }PACE
43 X 86.3% }PACE
42 X 76.3% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
41 X 67.5% }PACE
40 X 57.5% }PACE
39 X 43.8% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
38 X 33.1% }PACE
37 X 20.0% }PACE
36 X 11.3% }PACE- - - - - -15PCT
35 X 4.4%
34 X 1.3%
33 X 0.0%
32 X 0.0%
31 X 0.0%
30 X 0.0%
29 X 0.0%
28 X 0.0%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 45 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 36 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 42.9 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 4.4 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.5 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 91.3 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 36.4 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 4.4 %
File; Garden Grove 2024-16
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

KATELLA AVENUE KNOTT AVE TO WESTERN AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 10:00 AM - 10:40 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY EAST OF KNOTT

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 48.0 MPH
10 MPH PACE 39 - 48 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 65.4 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 45 MPH

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 0
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 12
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 0.00 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 0.00 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 3 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - KNOTT / WESTERN

CROSSWALKS AT KNOTT / WESTERN

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / FEW
TRUCK TRAFFIC YES (Many)

ON-STREET PARKING PARTIAL

OTHER AREAS OF NO STOPPING ANYTIME

AREAS OF RED CURB
NO PARKING FRIDAY 9am-12pm

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE
HORIZONTAL CURVE SLIGHT CURVE (at Bradford Pl)

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS POOR

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES

STREET LIGHTING YES

OTHER RAISED MEDIAN ISLAND

BUS STOPS
ADJACENT LAND USE COMMERCIAL / RESIDENTIAL (Mullti Fam) / MOBILE HOMES / MOTEL RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 45 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:

File: Katella 2024-17
The recommended 45 mph is 3.0 mph below the 85th percentile speed of 48.0 mph and meets CVC standards.

0.52 28,400

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/11/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

KATELLA AVENUE KNOTT AVE TO WESTERN AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 10:00 AM - 10:40 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 X 1 0.6% 100.0%
X 1 0.6% 99.4%
0 0.0% 98.9%
X 1 0.6% 98.9%
X X 2 1.1% 98.3%
55 X 1 0.6% 97.2%
X X 2 1.1% 96.6%
X X X 3 1.7% 95.5%
X X 2 1.1% 93.9%
X X X 3 1.7% 92.7%
50 X X X X X 5 2.8% 91.1%
X X X X X X 6 3.4% 88.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 8.4% 84.9%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 6.1% 76.5%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 6.1% 70.4%
45 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 20 11.2% 64.2% X X X X X X X X X X X 11 6.1% 53.1%
X X X X 4 2.2% 46.9%
X X X X X X X 7 3.9% 44.7%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 6.1% 40.8%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 9.5% 34.6%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 5.6% 25.1%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 6.1% 19.6%
X X X X X X X 7 3.9% 13.4%
X X X X 4 2.2% 9.5%
35 X X X X 4 2.2% 7.3%
X X X 3 1.7% 5.0%
X 1 0.6% 3.4%
X 1 0.6% 2.8%
X X 2 1.1% 2.2%
30 X X 2 1.1% 1.1%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 179
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 48 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 39 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 48.0 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 15.1 % MEDIAN SPEED: 43.5 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 65.4 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 37.3 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 19.6 %
File: Katella 2024-17

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

KATELLA AVENUE KNOTT AVE TO WESTERN AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 10:00 AM - 10:40 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 99.4%
58 X 98.9%
57 X 98.9%
56 X 98.3%
55 X 97.2%
54 X 96.6%
53 X 95.5%
52 X 93.9%
51 X 92.7%
50 X 91.1%
49 X 88.3%
48 X 84.9% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
47 X 76.5% }PACE
46 X 70.4% }PACE
45 X 64.2% }PACE
44 X 53.1% }PACE
43 X 46.9% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
42 X 44.7% }PACE
41 X 40.8% }PACE
40 X 34.6% }PACE
39 X 25.1% }PACE
38 X 19.6%
37 X 13.4% - - - - - -15PCT
36 X 9.5%
35 X 7.3%
34 X 5.0%
33 X 3.4%
32 X 2.8%
31 X 2.2%
30 X 1.1%
29 X 0.0%
28 X 0.0%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 48 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 39 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 48.0 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 15.1 % MEDIAN SPEED: 43.5 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 65.4 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 37.3 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 19.6 %
File; Katella 2024-17
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

KATELLA AVENUE WESTERN AVE TO BEACH BL
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 10:50 AM - 11:30 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY WEST OF CEDAR

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 42.4 MPH
10 MPH PACE 33 - 42 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 76.7 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 0
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 11
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 0.00 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 0.00 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 3 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - BEACH / ROSE / CEDAR / WESTERN

CROSSWALKS AT - BEACH / ROSE / CEDAR / WESTERN

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / YES
TRUCK TRAFFIC YES (Many)

ON-STREET PARKING NO STOPPING ANYTIME

OTHER NO SHOULDERS

BUS STOPS / MANY AREAS OF RED CURB

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES

STREET LIGHTING YES

OTHER RAISED MEDIAN ISLAND

MANY CROSS-STREETS BTWN DALE & BEACH
ADJACENT LAND USE COMMERCIAL / BUSINESS / CITY HALL / RESIDENTIAL (NF) / RxR XING RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:

File: Katella 2024-18
The recommended 40 mph speed limit is 2.4 mph below the newly measured 85th percentile speed and meets CVC standards.

0.49 28,900

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/11/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

KATELLA AVENUE WESTERN AVE TO BEACH BL
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 10:50 AM - 11:30 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 X 1 0.6% 100.0%
X 1 0.6% 99.4%
X 1 0.6% 98.9%
X X X X X X X 7 3.9% 98.3%
X X 2 1.1% 94.4%
45 X X X X X X X 7 3.9% 93.3%
X X X X X 5 2.8% 89.4%
X X X X X 5 2.8% 86.7%
X X X X X X X X 8 4.4% 83.9%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 6.7% 79.4%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 8.9% 72.8%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 7.2% 63.9%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 6.7% 56.7%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 22 12.2% 50.0% X X X X X X X X X X 10 5.6% 37.8%
35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19 10.6% 32.2% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 9.4% 21.7%
X X X X X X X X X 9 5.0% 12.2%
X X 2 1.1% 7.2%
X X X 3 1.7% 6.1%
30 X X X X 4 2.2% 4.4%
X X 2 1.1% 2.2%
0 0.0% 1.1%
X 1 0.6% 1.1%
0 0.0% 0.6%
25 X 1 0.6% 0.6%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 180
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 42 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 33 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 42.4 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 16.1 % MEDIAN SPEED: 37.0 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 76.7 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 33.3 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 7.2 %
File: Katella 2024-18

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

KATELLA AVENUE WESTERN AVE TO BEACH BL
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 10:50 AM - 11:30 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 99.4%
48 X 98.9%
47 X 98.3%
46 X 94.4%
45 X 93.3%
44 X 89.4%
43 X 86.7%
42 X 83.9% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
41 X 79.4% }PACE
40 X 72.8% }PACE
39 X 63.9% }PACE
38 X 56.7% }PACE
37 X 50.0% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
36 X 37.8% }PACE
35 X 32.2% }PACE
34 X 21.7% }PACE
33 X 12.2% }PACE- - - - - -15PCT
32 X 7.2%
31 X 6.1%
30 X 4.4%
29 X 2.2%
28 X 1.1%
27 X 1.1%
26 X 0.6%
25 X 0.6%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 42 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 33 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 42.4 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 16.1 % MEDIAN SPEED: 37.0 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 76.7 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 33.3 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 7.2 %
File; Katella 2024-18
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

KATELLA AVENUE BEACH BL TO DALE ST
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:40 AM - 12:20 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY NORTH OF BOATMAN

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 46.1 MPH
10 MPH PACE 39 - 48 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 70.6 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 45 MPH

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 2
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 4
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 1.00 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 0.20 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 3 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - DALE / BEACH

CROSSWALKS AT DALE / BEACH

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / FEW
TRUCK TRAFFIC YES (Many)

ON-STREET PARKING NO STOPPING ANYTIME

OTHER NO SHOULDERS

BUS STOPS / MANY AREAS OF RED CURB

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE SLIGHT UP-DOWN GRADE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS FAIR

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER 2 WAY LEFT TURN CENTERLANE / PAINTED ISLAND

ADJACENT LAND USE COMMERCIAL / BUSINESS
RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 45 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:

File: Katella 2024-19
The recommended 45 mph is 1.1 mph below the 85th percentile speed of 46.1 mph and meets CVC standards.

0.49 27,900

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/11/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

KATELLA AVENUE BEACH BL TO DALE ST
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:40 AM - 12:20 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
X X 2 1.3% 100.0%
X X 2 1.3% 98.8%
50 X X X 3 1.9% 97.5%
X X X 3 1.9% 95.6%
X X X X X X X X 8 5.0% 93.8%
X X X X X X X 7 4.4% 88.8%
X X X X X X X 7 4.4% 84.4%
45 X X X X X X X X 8 5.0% 80.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19 11.9% 75.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 9.4% 63.1%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 9.4% 53.8%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 7.5% 44.4%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 10.6% 36.9%
X X X X X 5 3.1% 26.3%
X X X 3 1.9% 23.1%
X X X X X X X 7 4.4% 21.3%
X X X X X X X X 8 5.0% 16.9%
35 X X X X X X X X 8 5.0% 11.9%
X X 2 1.3% 6.9%
X X X 3 1.9% 5.6%
X X X 3 1.9% 3.8%
X 1 0.6% 1.9%
30 X 1 0.6% 1.3%
X 1 0.6% 0.6%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 160
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 48 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 39 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 46.1 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 6.3 % MEDIAN SPEED: 41.6 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 70.6 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 35.6 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 23.1 %
File: Katella 2024-19

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

KATELLA AVENUE BEACH BL TO DALE ST
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:40 AM - 12:20 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 98.8%
50 X 97.5%
49 X 95.6%
48 X 93.8% }PACE
47 X 88.8% }PACE
46 X 84.4% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
45 X 80.0% }PACE
44 X 75.0% }PACE
43 X 63.1% }PACE
42 X 53.8% }PACE
41 X 44.4% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
40 X 36.9% }PACE
39 X 26.3% }PACE
38 X 23.1%
37 X 21.3%
36 X 16.9%
35 X 11.9% - - - - - -15PCT
34 X 6.9%
33 X 5.6%
32 X 3.8%
31 X 1.9%
30 X 1.3%
29 X 0.6%
28 X 0.0%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 48 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 39 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 46.1 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 6.3 % MEDIAN SPEED: 41.6 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 70.6 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 35.6 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 23.1 %
File; Katella 2024-19
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

KATELLA AVENUE DALE ST TO MAGNOLIA ST
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 12:25 PM - 1:05 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY WEST OF MAC

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 47.1 MPH
10 MPH PACE 39 - 48 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 73.0 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 45 MPH

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 0
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 10
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 0.00 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 0.00 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 3 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - DALE / MAGNOLIA

CROSSWALKS AT DALE / MAGNOLIA

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / YES

TRUCK TRAFFIC YES

ON-STREET PARKING NO STOPPING ANYTIME

OTHER NO SHOULDERS

BUS STOPS

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS POOR

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES

STREET LIGHTING YES

OTHER RAISED MEDIAN ISLAND

ADJACENT LAND USE COMMERCIAL / BUSINESS / RESIDENTIAL (NF) RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 45 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:
(NF) = NON-FRONTING File: Katella 2024-20
The recommended 45 mph speed limit is 2.1 mph below the newly measured 85th percentile speed and meets CVC standards.

0.49 27,200

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/11/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

KATELLA AVENUE DALE ST TO MAGNOLIA ST
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 12:25 PM - 1:05 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 X X X X 4 2.7% 100.0%
X X X X X X X 7 4.7% 97.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 8.1% 92.6%
X X X X X X X X 8 5.4% 84.5%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.8% 79.1%
45 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 7.4% 72.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 7.4% 64.9%
X X X X X X X 7 4.7% 57.4%
X X X X X X X X X 9 6.1% 52.7%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 7.4% 46.6%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19 12.8% 39.2% X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.8% 26.4%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.8% 19.6%
X X X X X 5 3.4% 12.8%
X X X X X X X X 8 5.4% 9.5%
35 X X 2 1.4% 4.1%
X 1 0.7% 2.7%
X X 2 1.4% 2.0%
0 0.0% 0.7%
X 1 0.7% 0.7%
30 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 148
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 48 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 39 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 47.1 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 7.4 % MEDIAN SPEED: 41.6 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 73.0 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 37.3 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 19.6 %
File: Katella 2024-20

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

KATELLA AVENUE DALE ST TO MAGNOLIA ST
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 12:25 PM - 1:05 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 97.3%
48 X 92.6% }PACE
47 X 84.5% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
46 X 79.1% }PACE
45 X 72.3% }PACE
44 X 64.9% }PACE
43 X 57.4% }PACE
42 X 52.7% }PACE
41 X 46.6% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
40 X 39.2% }PACE
39 X 26.4% }PACE
38 X 19.6%
37 X 12.8% - - - - - -15PCT
36 X 9.5%
35 X 4.1%
34 X 2.7%
33 X 2.0%
32 X 0.7%
31 X 0.7%
30 X 0.0%
29 X 0.0%
28 X 0.0%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 48 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 39 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 47.1 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 7.4 % MEDIAN SPEED: 41.6 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 73.0 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 37.3 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 19.6 %
File; Katella 2024-20
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

KNOTT AVENUE CERITOS AVE TO KATELLA AVE
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 12:00 PM - 12:30 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY NORTH OF KENMORE

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 44.0 MPH
10 MPH PACE 35 - 44 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 73.3 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - CERRITOS / KATELLA

CROSSWALKS AT CERRITOS / KATELLA

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / YES

TRUCK TRAFFIC YES

ON-STREET PARKING PERMITTED (NB) / NO PARKING ANYTIME (SB)

OTHER AREAS OF RED CURB
NO PARKING FRIDAY 11am-2pm / BIKE LANE (SB)

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE
HORIZONTAL CURVE SLIGHT-GRADUAL "S" CURVE (Katella to Kermore)

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS PARTIAL / NO (SB) - YES / FEW (NB)

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER 2 WAY LEFT TURN CENTERLANE

BUS STOPS
ADJACENT LAND USE COMMERCIAL / RESIDENTIAL (single+multi family) RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:

NOTE: NCL is 530 ft n/o Cerritos Ave, 40 mph posted n/o Cerritos File: Knott 2024-21 The recommended 40 mph is 4.0 mph below the newly measured 85th percentile speed of 44.0 mph and meets CVC standards.

0.48 26,250

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/12/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

KNOTT AVENUE CERITOS AVE TO KATELLA AVE
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 12:00 PM - 12:30 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 X X X 3 1.6% 100.0%
X X X X X 5 2.6% 98.4%
X X 2 1.0% 95.8%
X X X X 4 2.1% 94.8%
X X X X X X X 7 3.7% 92.7%
45 X X X X X X X X 8 4.2% 89.0%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 5.2% 84.8%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 6.8% 79.6%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 8.4% 72.8%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 9.4% 64.4%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 8.4% 55.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 21 11.0% 46.6% X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 6.8% 35.6%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 6.3% 28.8%
X X X X X X 6 3.1% 22.5%
35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 7.9% 19.4%
X X X X X X X 7 3.7% 11.5%
X X X X 4 2.1% 7.9%
X X X X X 5 2.6% 5.8%
X X X X 4 2.1% 3.1%
30 X 1 0.5% 1.0%
X 1 0.5% 0.5%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 191
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 44 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 35 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 44.0 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 15.2 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.4 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 73.3 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 34.4 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 11.5 %

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

KNOTT AVENUE CERITOS AVE TO KATELLA AVE
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 12:00 PM - 12:30 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 98.4%
48 X 95.8%
47 X 94.8%
46 X 92.7%
45 X 89.0%
44 X 84.8% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
43 X 79.6% }PACE
42 X 72.8% }PACE
41 X 64.4% }PACE
40 X 55.0% }PACE
39 X 46.6% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
38 X 35.6% }PACE
37 X 28.8% }PACE
36 X 22.5% }PACE
35 X 19.4% }PACE
34 X 11.5% - - - - - -15PCT
33 X 7.9%
32 X 5.8%
31 X 3.1%
30 X 1.0%
29 X 0.5%
28 X 0.0%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 44 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 35 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 44.0 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 15.2 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.4 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 73.3 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 34.4 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 11.5 %
File; Knott 2024-21
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

KNOTT AVENUE KATELLA AVE TO RECYCLE WAY (SCL)
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 12:35 PM - 1:15 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY NORTH OF RECYCLE WAY

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 42.0 MPH
10 MPH PACE 33 - 42 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 69.4 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH NB

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - KATELLA / RECYCLE WAY

CROSSWALKS AT KATELLA / RECYCLE WAY

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / YES
TRUCK TRAFFIC YES (Many)

ON-STREET PARKING NO STOPPING ANYTIME (SB) - PARTIAL / NO PARKING ANYTIME (NB) OTHER VEHICLE BACK UP NB AT KATELLA at PEAK HOURS
TRUCK ROUTE / BUS STOPS / NO PARKING FRIDAY 11am-2pm

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS FAIR

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / FEW

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER 2 WAY LEFT TURN CENTERLANE
LEGEND "KEEP CLEAR" (at Fulton) / DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION

SHORT DISTANCE BTWN INTERSECTION SURVEYED ON GREEN LIGHTS ONLY ADJACENT LAND USE COMMERCIAL / BUSINESS / RESIDENTIAL (multi family) RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE - POST SOUTHBOUND
JUSTIFICATION:

File: Knott 2024-22
The recommended 40 mph is 2.0 mph below the 85th percentile speed of 42.0 mph and meets CVC standards.

Field notes state that there is a 40 speed sign posted northbound, areas of "No Stopping Anytime" and "No Parking Anytime", bus stops, vehicles back up northbound at Katella Avenue approach and this roadway is a truck route. For enforcement, it is recommended that a 40 mph speed sign be posted for the southbound direction.

0.23 31,600

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/12/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

KNOTT AVENUE KATELLA AVE TO RECYCLE WAY (SCL)
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 12:35 PM - 1:15 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 X 1 0.6% 100.0%
X 1 0.6% 99.4%
X X 2 1.3% 98.8%
X X X 3 1.9% 97.5%
X X 2 1.3% 95.6%
45 X X X X 4 2.5% 94.4%
X X X 3 1.9% 91.9%
X X X X X X X X 8 5.0% 90.0%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.3% 85.0%
X X X X X X 6 3.8% 78.8%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 10.0% 75.0%
X X X X X X X 7 4.4% 65.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 9.4% 60.6%
X X X X X X X X X 9 5.6% 51.3%
X X X X X X X X 8 5.0% 45.6%
35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 8.8% 40.6%
X X X X X X X X X 9 5.6% 31.9%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 10.6% 26.3%
X X X X X X X 7 4.4% 15.6%
X X X X X 5 3.1% 11.3%
30 X X X X X X 6 3.8% 8.1%
X X X 3 1.9% 4.4%
X X 2 1.3% 2.5%
X 1 0.6% 1.3%
X 1 0.6% 0.6%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 160
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 42 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 33 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 42.0 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 15.0 % MEDIAN SPEED: 36.8 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 69.4 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 31.9 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 15.6 %
File: Knott 2024-22

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

KNOTT AVENUE KATELLA AVE TO RECYCLE WAY (SCL)
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 12:35 PM - 1:15 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 99.4%
48 X 98.8%
47 X 97.5%
46 X 95.6%
45 X 94.4%
44 X 91.9%
43 X 90.0%
42 X 85.0% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
41 X 78.8% }PACE
40 X 75.0% }PACE
39 X 65.0% }PACE
38 X 60.6% }PACE
37 X 51.3% }PACE
36 X 45.6% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
35 X 40.6% }PACE
34 X 31.9% }PACE
33 X 26.3% }PACE
32 X 15.6%
31 X 11.3% - - - - - -15PCT
30 X 8.1%
29 X 4.4%
28 X 2.5%
27 X 1.3%
26 X 0.6%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 42 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 33 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 42.0 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 15.0 % MEDIAN SPEED: 36.8 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 69.4 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 31.9 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 15.6 %
File; Knott 2024-22
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

LAMPSON AVENUE WESTERN AVE (WCL) TO BEACH BL
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 10:30 AM - 11:00 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY EAST OF CAMUS

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 43.9 MPH
10 MPH PACE 36 - 45 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 79.3 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 1
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 5
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 0.50 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 0.30 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - BEACH / WESTERN

CROSSWALKS AT BEACH / WESTERN

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / FEW

TRUCK TRAFFIC YES

ON-STREET PARKING PARTIAL

OTHER AREAS OF NO PARKING ANYTIME

NO PARKING TUES, STREET SWEEPING

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER 2 WAY LEFT TURN & SOLID DBL YELLOW CENTERLINE
ADJACENT LAND USE INDUSTRIAL / COMMERCIAL / BUSINESS / RES (multi family) / RxR XING RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:

Notes: Industrial on east-side of Beach Bl File: Lampson 2024-23 The recommended 40 mph is 3.9 mph below the 85th percentile speed of 43.9 mph and meets CVC standards.

0.34 13,350

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/12/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

LAMPSON AVENUE WESTERN AVE (WCL) TO BEACH BL
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 10:30 AM - 11:00 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 X X 2 1.2% 100.0%
X 1 0.6% 98.8%
X X X 3 1.8% 98.2%
X X X 3 1.8% 96.3%
X X X X X X X X 8 4.9% 94.5%
45 X X X X X X X 7 4.3% 89.6%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.1% 85.4%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.1% 79.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 9.1% 73.2%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 9.1% 64.0%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 20 12.2% 54.9% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 11.0% 42.7%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 9.8% 31.7%
X X X X X X X X X 9 5.5% 22.0%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.1% 16.5%
35 X X X X X 5 3.0% 10.4%
X X X 3 1.8% 7.3%
X X X 3 1.8% 5.5%
X X 2 1.2% 3.7%
X X 2 1.2% 2.4%
30 X 1 0.6% 1.2%
X 1 0.6% 0.6%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 164
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 45 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 36 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 43.9 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 10.4 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.6 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 79.3 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 35.8 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 10.4 %
File: Lampson 2024-23

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

LAMPSON AVENUE WESTERN AVE (WCL) TO BEACH BL
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 10:30 AM - 11:00 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 98.8%
48 X 98.2%
47 X 96.3%
46 X 94.5%
45 X 89.6% }PACE
44 X 85.4% }PACE
43 X 79.3% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
42 X 73.2% }PACE
41 X 64.0% }PACE
40 X 54.9% }PACE
39 X 42.7% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
38 X 31.7% }PACE
37 X 22.0% }PACE
36 X 16.5% }PACE
35 X 10.4% - - - - - -15PCT
34 X 7.3%
33 X 5.5%
32 X 3.7%
31 X 2.4%
30 X 1.2%
29 X 0.6%
28 X 0.0%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 45 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 36 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 43.9 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 10.4 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.6 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 79.3 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 35.8 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 10.4 %
File; Lampson 2024-23
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

LAMPSON AVENUE BEACH BL TO CHATEAU (ECL)
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 10:00 AM - 10:25 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY WEST OF CHETEAU

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 41.9 MPH
10 MPH PACE 34 - 43 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 77.4 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 1 LANE PER DIRECTION ( 2 Lanes 200' at Beach)

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - BEACH

CROSSWALKS AT BEACH

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / YES

TRUCK TRAFFIC YES

ON-STREET PARKING YES

OTHER AREAS OF RED CURB / AREAS OF NO PARKING ANYTIME

PAINTED BIKE LANES

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS FAIR

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER PAINTED MEDIAN ISLAND / SINGLE DASHED / 2 WAY LEFT ADJACENT LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (multi family) / COMMERCIAL (at Beach) RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:

Note: Elementary School e/o Chateau, in Garden Grove File: Lampson 2024-24 The recommended 40 mph is 1.9 mph below the 85th percentile speed of 41.9 mph and meets CVC standards.

0.15 27,700

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/12/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

LAMPSON AVENUE BEACH BL TO CHATEAU (ECL)
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 10:00 AM - 10:25 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
X 1 0.7% 100.0%
X 1 0.7% 99.3%
45 X X X X 4 2.7% 98.6%
X X X X X 5 3.4% 95.9%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.8% 92.5%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 7.5% 85.6%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.8% 78.1%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 7.5% 71.2%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.8% 63.7%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.8% 56.8%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 9.6% 50.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 9.6% 40.4%
35 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 8.2% 30.8%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 7.5% 22.6%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.8% 15.1%
X X X X X X X X 8 5.5% 8.2%
X X 2 1.4% 2.7%
30 X X 2 1.4% 1.4%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 146
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 43 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 34 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 41.9 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 14.4 % MEDIAN SPEED: 37.0 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 77.4 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 33.0 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 15.1 %
File: Lampson 2024-24

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

LAMPSON AVENUE BEACH BL TO CHATEAU (ECL)
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 10:00 AM - 10:25 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 100.0%
47 X 100.0%
46 X 99.3%
45 X 98.6%
44 X 95.9%
43 X 92.5% }PACE
42 X 85.6% }PACE
41 X 78.1% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
40 X 71.2% }PACE
39 X 63.7% }PACE
38 X 56.8% }PACE
37 X 50.0% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
36 X 40.4% }PACE
35 X 30.8% }PACE
34 X 22.6% }PACE
33 X 15.1%
32 X 8.2% - - - - - -15PCT
31 X 2.7%
30 X 1.4%
29 X 0.0%
28 X 0.0%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 43 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 34 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 41.9 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 14.4 % MEDIAN SPEED: 37.0 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 77.4 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 33.0 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 15.1 %
File; Lampson 2024-24
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

MAGNOLIA STREET BALL ROAD TO CERRITOS AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 1:55 PM - 2:30 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY NORTH OF CERRITOS

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 43.6 MPH
10 MPH PACE 36 - 45 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 82.7 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 2
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 3
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 1.00 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 0.28 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - WINSTON / CERRITOS / BALL
CROSSWALKS AT WINSTON (sch) / CERRITOS / BALL

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / YES

TRUCK TRAFFIC YES

ON-STREET PARKING YES

OTHER AREAS OF NO PARKING ANYTIME

AREAS OF RED CURB

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS POOR

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER 2 WAY LEFT TURN CENTERLANE

BUS STOPS
ADJACENT LAND USE COMMERCAIL / RESIDENTIAL (F+NF) / BUSINESS RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:

F+NF = FRONTING AND NON-FRONTING File: Magnolia 2024-25 The recommended 40 mph is 3.6 mph below the 85th percentile speed of 43.6 mph and meets CVC standards.

0.37 26,300

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/11/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

MAGNOLIA STREET BALL ROAD TO CERRITOS AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 1:55 PM - 2:30 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
X 1 0.5% 100.0%
X X 2 0.9% 99.5%
50 X X 2 0.9% 98.6%
X X X 3 1.4% 97.7%
X X 2 0.9% 96.3%
X X X X 4 1.9% 95.3%
X X X X X 5 2.3% 93.5%
45 X X X X X X X X 8 3.7% 91.1%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 6.1% 87.4%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 7.0% 81.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19 8.9% 74.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 24 11.2% 65.4% 40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 24 11.2% 54.2% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 23 10.7% 43.0% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 22 10.3% 32.2% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 7.5% 22.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 6.1% 14.5%
35 X X X X X X X 7 3.3% 8.4%
X X X X X 5 2.3% 5.1%
X X X X 4 1.9% 2.8%
X X 2 0.9% 0.9%

0.0%
30 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 214
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 45 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 36 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 43.6 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 8.9 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.6 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 82.7 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 36.1 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 8.4 %
File: Magnolia 2024-25

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

MAGNOLIA STREET BALL ROAD TO CERRITOS AVE
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 1:55 PM - 2:30 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 99.5%
50 X 98.6%
49 X 97.7%
48 X 96.3%
47 X 95.3%
46 X 93.5%
45 X 91.1% }PACE
44 X 87.4% }PACE
43 X 81.3% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
42 X 74.3% }PACE
41 X 65.4% }PACE
40 X 54.2% }PACE
39 X 43.0% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
38 X 32.2% }PACE
37 X 22.0% }PACE
36 X 14.5% }PACE- - - - - -15PCT
35 X 8.4%
34 X 5.1%
33 X 2.8%
32 X 0.9%
31 X 0.0%
30 X 0.0%
29 X 0.0%
28 X 0.0%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 45 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 36 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 43.6 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 8.9 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.6 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 82.7 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 36.1 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 8.4 %
File; Magnolia 2024-25
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

MAGNOLIA STREET CERRITOS AVE TO KATELLA AVE (SCL)
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:40 PM - 3:10 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY NORTH OF PACIFIC

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 42.1 MPH
10 MPH PACE 35 - 44 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 87.2 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH (NB) / *25 MPH

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 5
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 14
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 2.50 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 0.54 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - CERRITOS / PACIFIC / KATELLA / PED XING CROSSWALKS AT CERRITOS / PACIFIC (sch) / KATELLA / PED XING (sch)

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / FEW

TRUCK TRAFFIC YES

ON-STREET PARKING YES
OTHER NO PARKING THURSDAY 8am-11am

BUS STOPS

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER 2 WAY LEFT TURN CENTERLANE & RAISED MEDIAN ISLAND

ADJACENT LAND USE COMMERCIAL / RESIDENTIAL (NF) / ELEM SCHOOL / RXR / BUSINESS RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:

F+NF_ = FRONTING AND NON-FRONTING File: Magnolia 2024-26 The recommended 40 mph is 2.1 mph below the 85th percentile speed of 42.1 mph and meets CVC standards.

0.49 25,800

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/11/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

MAGNOLIA STREET CERRITOS AVE TO KATELLA AVE (SCL)
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:40 PM - 3:10 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
X 1 0.6% 100.0%
X X 2 1.1% 99.4%
X X X 3 1.7% 98.3%
X X X 3 1.7% 96.7%
45 X X X X 4 2.2% 95.0%
X X X X X X 6 3.3% 92.8%
X X X X X X X X X 9 5.0% 89.4%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 7.8% 84.4%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 20 11.1% 76.7%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 23 12.8% 65.6% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 21 11.7% 52.8% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 20 11.1% 41.1%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19 10.6% 30.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 8.3% 19.4%
35 X X X X X X X X X X 10 5.6% 11.1%
X X X X X X 6 3.3% 5.6%
X X X 3 1.7% 2.2%
X 1 0.6% 0.6%

0.0%
30 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 180
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 44 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 35 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 42.1 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 10.6 % MEDIAN SPEED: 38.8 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 87.2 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 35.5 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 5.6 %
File: Magnolia 2024-26

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

MAGNOLIA STREET CERRITOS AVE TO KATELLA AVE (SCL)
DATE: 3/11/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:40 PM - 3:10 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 99.4%
47 X 98.3%
46 X 96.7%
45 X 95.0%
44 X 92.8% }PACE
43 X 89.4% }PACE
42 X 84.4% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
41 X 76.7% }PACE
40 X 65.6% }PACE
39 X 52.8% }PACE
38 X 41.1% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
37 X 30.0% }PACE
36 X 19.4% }PACE
35 X 11.1% }PACE- - - - - -15PCT
34 X 5.6%
33 X 2.2%
32 X 0.6%
31 X 0.0%
30 X 0.0%
29 X 0.0%
28 X 0.0%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 44 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 35 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 42.1 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 10.6 % MEDIAN SPEED: 38.8 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 87.2 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 35.5 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 5.6 %
File; Magnolia 2024-26
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

ORANGEWOOD AVENUE WESTERN AVE TO EAST END
DATE: 3/15/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:45 AM - 12:55 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY EAST OF WESTERN

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 27.2 MPH
10 MPH PACE 18 - 27 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 79.1 %

POSTED SPEED LIMIT NOT POSTED

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 1 LANE PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - WESTERN

CROSSWALKS AT WESTERN

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / YES

TRUCK TRAFFIC FEW

ON-STREET PARKING YES
OTHER NO PARKING TUES 8am-11am

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD - FAIR

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER 2 WAY LEFT TURN CENTERLANE
ADJACENT LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (NF-Multi family) / COMMERCIAL / BUSINESS-INDUSTRIAL RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE POST
JUSTIFICATION:

File: Orangewood 2024-27
This section of Orangewood Avenue is a two lane roadway. The adjacent land uses include multi-family residential, commercial at Western Avenue, and business-industrial complexes. Currently, there is not a speed limit posted for this 0.12 section. With the results of the speed survey showing an 85th percentile speed of 27.2, it is recommended that a 25 mph speed limit be established and posted for this roadway.

0.12 2,850

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/15/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

ORANGEWOOD AVENUE WESTERN AVE TO EAST END
DATE: 3/15/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:45 AM - 12:55 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
45 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
40 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
35 100.0%
X 1 0.9% 100.0%
X 1 0.9% 99.1%
X X 2 1.7% 98.3%
X X 2 1.7% 96.5%
30 X X X 3 2.6% 94.8%
X X X X 4 3.5% 92.2%
X X X X X 5 4.3% 88.7%
X X X X X X X 7 6.1% 84.3%
X X X X X X X X 8 7.0% 78.3%
25 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 11.3% 71.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 9.6% 60.0%
X X X X X X X X X 9 7.8% 50.4%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 8.7% 42.6%
X X X X X X X X X 9 7.8% 33.9%
20 X X X X X X X X X 9 7.8% 26.1%
X X X X X X X X 8 7.0% 18.3%
X X X X X X X 7 6.1% 11.3%
X X X X X 5 4.3% 5.2%
X 1 0.9% 0.9%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 115
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 27 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 18 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 27.2 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 15.7 % MEDIAN SPEED: 22.9 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 79.1 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 18.5 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 5.2 %
File: Orangewood 2024-27

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

ORANGEWOOD AVENUE WESTERN AVE TO EAST END
DATE: 3/15/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:45 AM - 12:55 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 100.0%
47 X 100.0%
46 X 100.0%
45 X 100.0%
44 X 100.0%
43 X 100.0%
42 X 100.0%
41 X 100.0%
40 X 100.0%
39 X 100.0%
38 X 100.0%
37 X 100.0%
36 X 100.0%
35 X 100.0%
34 X 100.0%
33 X 99.1%
32 X 98.3%
31 X 96.5%
30 X 94.8%
29 X 92.2%
28 X 88.7%
27 X 84.3% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
26 X 78.3% }PACE
25 X 71.3% }PACE
24 X 60.0% }PACE
23 X 50.4% }PACE
22 X 42.6% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
21 X 33.9% }PACE
20 X 26.1% }PACE
19 X 18.3% }PACE
18 X 11.3% }PACE- - - - - -15PCT
17 X 5.2%
16 X 0.9%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 27 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 18 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 27.2 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 15.7 % MEDIAN SPEED: 22.9 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 79.1 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 18.5 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 5.2 %
File; Orangewood 2024-27
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

ORANGEWOOD AVENUE SANTA ROSALIA ST TO BEACH BL
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:35 PM - 3:05 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY WEST OF BEACH

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 37.7 MPH
10 MPH PACE 31 - 40 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 83.3 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 1-2 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - BEACH, STOP - SANTA ROSALIA

CROSSWALKS AT BEACH / SANTA ROSALIA

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES FEW / FEW

TRUCK TRAFFIC NO

ON-STREET PARKING YES
OTHER NO PARKING TUES 8am-11am

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / NO

STREET LIGHTING YES

OTHER SOLID DBL YELLOW CENTERLINE
ADJACENT LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (no driveways)
RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:

File: Orangewood 2024-28
The recommended 35 mph is 2.7 mph below the newly measured 85th percentile speed and meets CVC standards.

0.30 2,850

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/12/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

ORANGEWOOD AVENUE SANTA ROSALIA ST TO BEACH BL
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:35 PM - 3:05 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
X 1 0.7% 100.0%
45 0 0.0% 99.3%
0 0.0% 99.3%
0 0.0% 99.3%
X X 2 1.4% 99.3%
X X X X 4 2.9% 97.8%
40 X X X X X X X 7 5.1% 94.9%
X X X X 4 2.9% 89.9%
X X X X X X X X 8 5.8% 87.0%
X X X X X X X X X 9 6.5% 81.2%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 10.1% 74.6%
35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19 13.8% 64.5% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 12.3% 50.7%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 11.6% 38.4%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 8.0% 26.8%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 7.2% 18.8%
30 X X X X X X X 7 5.1% 11.6%
X X X 3 2.2% 6.5%
X X X X X 5 3.6% 4.3%
X 1 0.7% 0.7%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 138
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 40 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 31 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 37.7 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 10.1 % MEDIAN SPEED: 33.9 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 83.3 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 30.5 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 11.6 %
File: Orangewood 2024-28

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

ORANGEWOOD AVENUE SANTA ROSALIA ST TO BEACH BL
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:35 PM - 3:05 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 100.0%
47 X 100.0%
46 X 100.0%
45 X 99.3%
44 X 99.3%
43 X 99.3%
42 X 99.3%
41 X 97.8%
40 X 94.9% }PACE
39 X 89.9% }PACE
38 X 87.0% }PACE
37 X 81.2% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
36 X 74.6% }PACE
35 X 64.5% }PACE
34 X 50.7% }PACE
33 X 38.4% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
32 X 26.8% }PACE
31 X 18.8% }PACE
30 X 11.6% - - - - - -15PCT
29 X 6.5%
28 X 4.3%
27 X 0.7%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 40 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 31 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 37.7 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 10.1 % MEDIAN SPEED: 33.9 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 83.3 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 30.5 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 11.6 %
File; Orangewood 2024-28
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

ORANGEWOOD AVENUE BEACH BL TO PINE TREE LN (ECL)
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:00 PM - 2:30 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY WEST OF JANE WAY

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 39.9 MPH
10 MPH PACE 32 - 41 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 73.5 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 2
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 6
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 1.00 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 1.30 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 1-2 LANES (1 Lane EB Jane to Pinetree)

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - BEACH

CROSSWALKS AT BEACH

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / FEW

TRUCK TRAFFIC NO
ON-STREET PARKING YES (Heavy-SB)

OTHER AREAS OF RED CURB

SCHOOL BUSES IN AREA

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / FEW

STREET LIGHTING YES

OTHER SOLID DBL YELLOW CENTERLINE

NO PARKING THURS STREET SWEEPING
ADJACENT LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (multi-family)
RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 35 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:

Note: Posted 40 mph wb near Dale - out of city limit File: Orangewood 2024-29 The recommended 35 mph is 4.9 mph below the 85th percentile speed of 39.9 mph and meets CVC standards.

0.28 7,500

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/12/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

ORANGEWOOD AVENUE BEACH BL TO PINE TREE LN (ECL)
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:00 PM - 2:30 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
X X 2 1.4% 100.0%
45 X X 2 1.4% 98.6%
X X X 3 2.0% 97.3%
X X X X 4 2.7% 95.2%
X X X X X 5 3.4% 92.5%
X X X X X 5 3.4% 89.1%
40 X X X X X X X X X 9 6.1% 85.7%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 8.2% 79.6%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.8% 71.4%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 8.8% 64.6%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 8.8% 55.8%
35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 10.9% 46.9%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 8.2% 36.1%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.8% 27.9%
X X X X X X X X 8 5.4% 21.1%
X X X X X 5 3.4% 15.6%
30 X X X X X X X X 8 5.4% 12.2%
X X X 3 2.0% 6.8%
X X X X 4 2.7% 4.8%
X 1 0.7% 2.0%
X X 2 1.4% 1.4%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 147
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 41 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 32 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 39.9 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 14.3 % MEDIAN SPEED: 35.3 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 73.5 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 30.8 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 15.6 %
File: Orangewood 2024-29

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

ORANGEWOOD AVENUE BEACH BL TO PINE TREE LN (ECL)
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:00 PM - 2:30 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 100.0%
47 X 100.0%
46 X 100.0%
45 X 98.6%
44 X 97.3%
43 X 95.2%
42 X 92.5%
41 X 89.1% }PACE
40 X 85.7% }PACE
39 X 79.6% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
38 X 71.4% }PACE
37 X 64.6% }PACE
36 X 55.8% }PACE
35 X 46.9% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
34 X 36.1% }PACE
33 X 27.9% }PACE
32 X 21.1% }PACE
31 X 15.6%
30 X 12.2% - - - - - -15PCT
29 X 6.8%
28 X 4.8%
27 X 2.0%
26 X 1.4%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 41 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 32 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 39.9 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 14.3 % MEDIAN SPEED: 35.3 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 73.5 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 30.8 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 15.6 %
File; Orangewood 2024-29
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

SANTA ROSALIA STREET ORANGEWOOD AVE TO CHAPMAN AVE
DATE: 2/26/2019 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 3:15 PM - 4:30 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY SOUTH OF SANTA CRUZ

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 29.8 MPH
10 MPH PACE 22 - 31 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 81.9 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH (SB)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 1 LANE PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS STOP - ORANGEWOOD / CHAPMAN

CROSSWALKS NONE

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES FEW / NO

TRUCK TRAFFIC NO
ON-STREET PARKING YES (heavy)
OTHER

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD
SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES (heavy)

STREET LIGHTING YES

OTHER SINGLE DASHED CENTERLINE

DIP S/O YORKSHIRE & ST GERTRUDE

Field observations include single family dwellings with heavy direct driveways. The need to retain the CVC defined lower speed is based on (1), 21 single-family dwellings on the west-side of roadway between a 0.25 section Orangewood Ave to Santa Catalina, and, (2) 21 single-family dwellings on the west-side of roadway between a 0.25 section Santa Catalina and Chapman Ave, and (3) numerous direct access driveways in a 0.25 section and, (3) characteristics of area is solely residential nature. This segment meets the requirement for the CVC 515 "Resident District". Therefore with all these factors, it is recommended that the City establish this segment of Santa Rosalia Street a Resident District". This segment does not require continued speed surveys.

0.49 2,900

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
2/26/2019
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

SANTA ROSALIA STREET ORANGEWOOD AVE TO CHAPMAN AVE
DATE: 2/26/2019 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 3:15 PM - 4:30 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
45 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
40 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
35 100.0%
X X X 3 2.4% 100.0%
X X 2 1.6% 97.6%
X X X X X X 6 4.7% 96.1%
X X X X X X X 7 5.5% 91.3%
30 X X X X X X 6 4.7% 85.8%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 9.4% 81.1%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 8.7% 71.7%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 14.2% 63.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 11.8% 48.8%
25 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 10.2% 37.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 9.4% 26.8%
X X X 3 2.4% 17.3%
X X X X X X X 7 5.5% 15.0%
X X X X 4 3.1% 9.4%
20 X X X X X X 6 4.7% 6.3%
X X 2 1.6% 1.6%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 127
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 31 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 22 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 29.8 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 8.7 % MEDIAN SPEED: 26.1 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 81.9 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 22.0 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 9.4 %
File: Santa Rosalia 2019 (2024) - 30

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

SANTA ROSALIA STREET ORANGEWOOD AVE TO CHAPMAN AVE
DATE: 2/26/2019 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 3:15 PM - 4:30 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 100.0%
47 X 100.0%
46 X 100.0%
45 X 100.0%
44 X 100.0%
43 X 100.0%
42 X 100.0%
41 X 100.0%
40 X 100.0%
39 X 100.0%
38 X 100.0%
37 X 100.0%
36 X 100.0%
35 X 100.0%
34 X 100.0%
33 X 97.6%
32 X 96.1%
31 X 91.3% }PACE
30 X 85.8% }PACE
29 X 81.1% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
28 X 71.7% }PACE
27 X 63.0% }PACE
26 X 48.8% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
25 X 37.0% }PACE
24 X 26.8% }PACE
23 X 17.3% }PACE
22 X 15.0% }PACE- - - - - -15PCT
21 X 9.4%
20 X 6.3%
19 X 1.6%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 31 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 22 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 29.8 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 8.7 % MEDIAN SPEED: 26.1 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 81.9 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 22.0 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 9.4 %
File; Santa Rosalia 2019 (2024) - 30
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

SANTA ROSALIA STREET CHAPMAN AVE TO LAMPSON AVE
DATE: 2/12/2019 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 3:30 PM - 5:00 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY NORTH OF BELGRAVE

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 30.8 MPH
10 MPH PACE 23 - 32 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 82.5 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 1 LANE PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS STOP - CHAPMAN / LAMPSON / BENTLY

CROSSWALKS NONE

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES FEW / NO

TRUCK TRAFFIC NO
ON-STREET PARKING YES (heavy)

OTHER AREAS OF PERMIT PARKING

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS FAIR
SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES (heavy)

STREET LIGHTING YES

OTHER SINGLE DASHED CENTERLINE

ADJACENT LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (F)
RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH
SPEED LIMIT CHANGE 2019, RESIDENCE DISTRICT - CVC 515 (EXEMPT FROM SPEED STUDY) JUSTIFICATION:
(F) = Fronting (driveways). File: Santa Rosalia 2019-2024-31 This section of Santa Rosalia Street is a two lane roadway. It is posted at a 25 mph. The adjacent land use is solely residential. The need to retain the CVC defined lower speed is based on (1), 20 single-family dwellings on the west-side of roadway between a 0.25 section Chapman Ave to Bentley Ave, and, (2) 32 single-family dwellings between a 0.24 section Bentley Ave to Lampson Ave and (3) numerous (52) direct access driveways along this

0.49 segment and, (3) characteristics of area is solely residential nature. This segment meets the requirement for the CVC 515 "Resident District". Therefore with all these factors, it is recommended that the City establish this segment of Santa Rosalia Street a Resident District". This segment does not require continued speed surveys.

0.49 1,400

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
2/12/2019
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

SANTA ROSALIA STREET CHAPMAN AVE TO LAMPSON AVE
DATE: 2/12/2019 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 3:30 PM - 5:00 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 80
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 32 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 23 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 30.8 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 10.0 % MEDIAN SPEED: 26.9 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 82.5 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 23.1 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 7.5 %
File: Santa Rosalia 2019-2024-31

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

SANTA ROSALIA STREET CHAPMAN AVE TO LAMPSON AVE
DATE: 2/12/2019 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 3:30 PM - 5:00 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 100.0%
47 X 100.0%
46 X 100.0%
45 X 100.0%
44 X 100.0%
43 X 100.0%
42 X 100.0%
41 X 100.0%
40 X 100.0%
39 X 100.0%
38 X 100.0%
37 X 100.0%
36 X 100.0%
35 X 98.8%
34 X 95.0%
33 X 92.5%
32 X 90.0% }PACE
31 X 86.3% }PACE
30 X 80.0% - - - - - - - - 85PCT }PACE
29 X 76.3% }PACE
28 X 63.8% }PACE
27 X 51.3% }PACE
26 X 42.5% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
25 X 35.0% }PACE
24 X 22.5% }PACE
23 X 13.8% }PACE- - - - - -15PCT
22 X 7.5%
21 X 5.0%
20 X 3.8%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 32 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 23 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 30.8 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 10.0 % MEDIAN SPEED: 26.9 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 82.5 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 23.1 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 7.5 %
File; Santa Rosalia 2019-2024-31
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

SYRACUSE AVENUE KNOTT AVE TO WESTERN AVE
DATE: 2/25/2019 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY WEST OF BOCK

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 29.2 MPH
10 MPH PACE 21 - 30 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 85.9 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH WB

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 1 LANE PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS STOP - KNOTT / WESTERN

CROSSWALKS NONE

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES FEW / NO

TRUCK TRAFFIC NO

ON-STREET PARKING YES

OTHER PERMIT PARKING

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE
HORIZONTAL CURVE GRADUAL "CURVES

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD
SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES (heavy south-side)

STREET LIGHTING YES

OTHER NO STRIPING ON ROADWAY

ADJACENT LAND USE RESIDENTIAL (F)
RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH
SPEED LIMIT CHANGE 2019, RESIDENCE DISTRICT - CVC 515 (EXEMPT FROM SPEED STUDY) JUSTIFICATION:
(F) = Fronting (driveways). File: Syracuse 2019-2024-32 This section of Syracuse Avenue is a two lane roadway. It is posted at a 25 mph. The adjacent land use is solely residential. The need to retain the CVC defined lower speed is based on (1), 22 single-family dwellings on the southside of roadway on 0.28 section between Knott Ave and Lowden St, and, (2) 16 single-family dwellings between a

0.23 section of Lowden St to Western Ave, and (3) numerous direct access driveways along this 0.51 segment and, (3) the characteristic and nature of the area is solely residential nature. This segment meets the requirement for the CVC 515 "Resident District". Therefore with all these factors, it is recommended that the City establish this segment of Syracuse Avenue a Resident District". This segment does not require continued speed surveys.

0.51 600

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
2/25/2019
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

SYRACUSE AVENUE KNOTT AVE TO WESTERN AVE
DATE: 2/25/2019 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
45 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
40 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
X 1 1.1% 100.0%
35 0 0.0% 98.9%
X X 2 2.2% 98.9%
0 0.0% 96.7%
X X X 3 3.3% 96.7%
X X X 3 3.3% 93.5%
30 X X X X X X 6 6.5% 90.2%
X X X X X 5 5.4% 83.7%
X X X X X X X X 8 8.7% 78.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 12.0% 69.6%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 12.0% 57.6%
25 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 14.1% 45.7%
X X X X X X X X X 9 9.8% 31.5%
X X X X X X X X 8 8.7% 21.7%
X X X 3 3.3% 13.0%
X X X X X 5 5.4% 9.8%
20 X 1 1.1% 4.3%
X 1 1.1% 3.3%
X 1 1.1% 2.2%
0 0.0% 1.1%
X 1 1.1% 1.1%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 92
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 30 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 21 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 29.2 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 9.8 % MEDIAN SPEED: 25.4 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 85.9 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 22.2 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 4.3 %
File:Syracuse 2019-2024-32

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

SYRACUSE AVENUE KNOTT AVE TO WESTERN AVE
DATE: 2/25/2019 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 100.0%
47 X 100.0%
46 X 100.0%
45 X 100.0%
44 X 100.0%
43 X 100.0%
42 X 100.0%
41 X 100.0%
40 X 100.0%
39 X 100.0%
38 X 100.0%
37 X 100.0%
36 X 100.0%
35 X 98.9%
34 X 98.9%
33 X 96.7%
32 X 96.7%
31 X 93.5%
30 X 90.2% }PACE
29 X 83.7% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
28 X 78.3% }PACE
27 X 69.6% }PACE
26 X 57.6% }PACE
25 X 45.7% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
24 X 31.5% }PACE
23 X 21.7% }PACE
22 X 13.0% }PACE- - - - - -15PCT
21 X 9.8% }PACE
20 X 4.3%
19 X 3.3%
18 X 2.2%
17 X 1.1%
16 X 1.1%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 30 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 21 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 29.2 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 9.8 % MEDIAN SPEED: 25.4 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 85.9 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 22.2 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 4.3 %
File; Syracuse 2019-2024-32
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

VILLAGE CENTER DRIVE BEACH BL TO GARDEN GROVE BL
DATE: 3/15/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:30 PM - 3:20 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY SOUTH OF BEACH BL

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 33.3 MPH
10 MPH PACE 26 - 35 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 87.1 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 30 MPH NB

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 1 LANE PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - BEACH / GARDEN GROVE

CROSSWALKS AT BEACH / GARDEN GROVE / PARK GLEN

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / NO

TRUCK TRAFFIC NO

ON-STREET PARKING PARTIAL
OTHER NO SHOULDERS (Areas of)
AREAS OF RED CURB / NO PARKING, 11am-7pm (Street Sweeping)

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE
HORIZONTAL CURVE MODERATE TO SHARP "C" CURVE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS FAIR

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / FEW

STREET LIGHTING YES

OTHER RAISED MEDIAN ISLAND
ADJACENT LAND USE COMMERCIAL / RESIDENTIAL (multi-family) / RODEO 39 (Rear side of) RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 30 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE - POST SB
JUSTIFICATION:

File: Village Center 2024-33
The recommended 30 mph is 3.3 mph of the 85th percentile speed of 33.3 mph and meets CVC standards. For enforcement, it is recommended a 30 mph speed sign be installed southbound.

0.33 2,800

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/15/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

VILLAGE CENTER DRIVE BEACH BL TO GARDEN GROVE BL
DATE: 3/15/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:30 PM - 3:20 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
45 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
40 X X 2 1.4% 100.0%
0 0.0% 98.6%
X X X 3 2.0% 98.6%
X X 2 1.4% 96.6%
X X X 3 2.0% 95.2%
35 X X X X X 5 3.4% 93.2%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.8% 89.8%
X X X X X X X X X 9 6.1% 83.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 10.2% 76.9%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 11.6% 66.7%
30 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 10.2% 55.1%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19 12.9% 44.9%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 11.6% 32.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 7.5% 20.4%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.8% 12.9%
25 X X X X X 5 3.4% 6.1%
X X 2 1.4% 2.7%
X X 2 1.4% 1.4%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 147
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 35 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 26 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 33.3 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 10.2 % MEDIAN SPEED: 29.5 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 87.1 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 26.3 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 6.1 %
File: Village Center 2024-33

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

VILLAGE CENTER DRIVE BEACH BL TO GARDEN GROVE BL
DATE: 3/15/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:30 PM - 3:20 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 100.0%
47 X 100.0%
46 X 100.0%
45 X 100.0%
44 X 100.0%
43 X 100.0%
42 X 100.0%
41 X 100.0%
40 X 100.0%
39 X 98.6%
38 X 98.6%
37 X 96.6%
36 X 95.2%
35 X 93.2% }PACE
34 X 89.8% }PACE
33 X 83.0% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
32 X 76.9% }PACE
31 X 66.7% }PACE
30 X 55.1% }PACE
29 X 44.9% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
28 X 32.0% }PACE
27 X 20.4% }PACE
26 X 12.9% }PACE- - - - - -15PCT
25 X 6.1%
24 X 2.7%
23 X 1.4%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 35 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 26 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 33.3 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 10.2 % MEDIAN SPEED: 29.5 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 87.1 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 26.3 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 6.1 %
File; Village Center 2024-33
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

WESTERN AVENUE PALAIS RD (NCL) TO CERRITOS AVE
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 1:25 PM - 2:00 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY SOUTH OF PALAIS

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 43.6 MPH
10 MPH PACE 35 - 44 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 73.8 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - CERRITOS

CROSSWALKS AT CERRITOS

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / FEW

TRUCK TRAFFIC FEW
ON-STREET PARKING YES w/AREAS OF NO STOPPING ANYTIME
OTHER NO PARKING WED 11am-2pm

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS GOOD

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES

STREET LIGHTING YES

OTHER SOLID DBL YELLOW CENTERLINE
ADJACENT LAND USE COMMERCIAL (at Cerritos) / RESIDENTIAL (F) RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:

File: Western 2024-34
The recommended 40 mph is 3.6 mph of the newly measured 85th percentile speed and meets CVC standards.

0.25 18,800

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/12/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

WESTERN AVENUE PALAIS RD (NCL) TO CERRITOS AVE
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 1:25 PM - 2:00 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
X X X X X 5 3.1% 100.0%
X X X X X 5 3.1% 96.9%
45 X X X X X X X X X X X 11 6.9% 93.8%
X X X X X X X 7 4.4% 86.9%
X X X X 4 2.5% 82.5%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 10.0% 80.0%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.3% 70.0%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 8.1% 63.8%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 10.6% 55.6%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 10.0% 45.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X 11 6.9% 35.0%
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 7.5% 28.1%
35 X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 7.5% 20.6%
X X X X 4 2.5% 13.1%
X X X X 4 2.5% 10.6%
X X X 3 1.9% 8.1%
X X X 3 1.9% 6.3%
30 X X 2 1.3% 4.4%
X 1 0.6% 3.1%
X 1 0.6% 2.5%
X 1 0.6% 1.9%
X 1 0.6% 1.3%
25 X 1 0.6% 0.6%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 160
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 44 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 35 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 43.6 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 13.1 % MEDIAN SPEED: 38.5 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 73.8 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 34.3 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 13.1 %
File: Western 2024-34

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

WESTERN AVENUE PALAIS RD (NCL) TO CERRITOS AVE
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 1:25 PM - 2:00 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 100.0%
47 X 100.0%
46 X 96.9%
45 X 93.8%
44 X 86.9% }PACE
43 X 82.5% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
42 X 80.0% }PACE
41 X 70.0% }PACE
40 X 63.8% }PACE
39 X 55.6% }PACE
38 X 45.0% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
37 X 35.0% }PACE
36 X 28.1% }PACE
35 X 20.6% }PACE
34 X 13.1% - - - - - -15PCT
33 X 10.6%
32 X 8.1%
31 X 6.3%
30 X 4.4%
29 X 3.1%
28 X 2.5%
27 X 1.9%
26 X 1.3%
25 X 0.6%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 44 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 35 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 43.6 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 13.1 % MEDIAN SPEED: 38.5 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 73.8 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 34.3 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 13.1 %
File; Western 2024-34
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

WESTERN AVENUE CERRITOS AVE TO KATELLA AVE
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:05 PM - 2:35 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY SOUTH OF RAMBLEWOOD

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 40.1 MPH
10 MPH PACE 32 - 41 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 79.6 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

ACCIDENT HISTORY
NO. OF MONTHS OBSERVED 24
SPEED-RELATED ACCIDENTS 1
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 9
ANNUAL ACCIDENT RATE 0.50 ACCIDENTS PER YEAR (SPEED RELATED ONLY) ACC./MILLION VEH. MILES 0.14 ACCIDENTS PER MVM (SPEED RELATED ONLY)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - CERRITOS / THUNDERBIRD-CENTRAL / KATELLA

CROSSWALKS AT CERRITOS / THUNDERBIRD-CENTRAL / KATELLA

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES YES / YES

TRUCK TRAFFIC YES

ON-STREET PARKING PARTIAL

OTHER AREAS OF NO PARKING ANYTIME
BIKE LANES (Narrow)

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS POOR

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / YES

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER SOLID DBL YELLOW & 2 WAY LEFT TURN CENTERLANE
ADJACENT LAND USE COMMERCIAL / RESIDENTIAL (F+NF) / CENTRAL PARK / RXR RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:
(F+ NF) = Fronting and Non-Fronting (driveways to roadway) File: Western 2024-35 The recommended 40 mph is 0.1 mph of the newly measured 85th percentile speed of 40.1 mph and meets CVC standards.

0.49 19,500

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/12/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

WESTERN AVENUE CERRITOS AVE TO KATELLA AVE
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:05 PM - 2:35 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
45 X X 2 1.4% 100.0%
X X 2 1.4% 98.6%
X X X X X X X X 8 5.4% 97.3%
X X X 3 2.0% 91.8%
X X X X X X X X 8 5.4% 89.8%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 9.5% 84.4%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 12.2% 74.8%
X X X X X X X X X 9 6.1% 62.6%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 10.9% 56.5%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 11.6% 45.6%
35 X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.8% 34.0%
X X X X X X X X X X 10 6.8% 27.2%
X X X X X X X 7 4.8% 20.4%
X X X X X X X X 8 5.4% 15.6%
X X X X X X X 7 4.8% 10.2%
30 X X X 3 2.0% 5.4%
X 1 0.7% 3.4%
0 0.0% 2.7%
X X 2 1.4% 2.7%
X 1 0.7% 1.4%
25 X 1 0.7% 0.7%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 147
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 41 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 32 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 40.1 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 10.2 % MEDIAN SPEED: 36.4 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 79.6 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 31.9 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 10.2 %

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

WESTERN AVENUE CERRITOS AVE TO KATELLA AVE
DATE: 3/12/2024 SURVEY BY: C.BUENDIA
TIME: 2:05 PM - 2:35 PM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 100.0%
49 X 100.0%
48 X 100.0%
47 X 100.0%
46 X 100.0%
45 X 100.0%
44 X 98.6%
43 X 97.3%
42 X 91.8%
41 X 89.8% }PACE
40 X 84.4% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
39 X 74.8% }PACE
38 X 62.6% }PACE
37 X 56.5% }PACE
36 X 45.6% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
35 X 34.0% }PACE
34 X 27.2% }PACE
33 X 20.4% }PACE
32 X 15.6% }PACE
31 X 10.2% - - - - - -15PCT
30 X 5.4%
29 X 3.4%
28 X 2.7%
27 X 2.7%
26 X 1.4%
25 X 0.7%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 41 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 32 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 40.1 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 10.2 % MEDIAN SPEED: 36.4 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 79.6 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 31.9 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 10.2 %
File; Western 2024-35
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

WESTERN AVENUE KATELLA AVE TO ORANGEWOOD AVE
DATE: 3/15/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:15 AM - 11:40 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY SOUTH OF RUTLEDGE

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 44.7 MPH
10 MPH PACE 36 - 45 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 79.7 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - KATELLA / ORANGEWOOD

CROSSWALKS AT KATELLA / ORANGEWOOD

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES FEW / YES

TRUCK TRAFFIC YES

ON-STREET PARKING NO STOPPING ANYTIME

OTHER NO SHOULDERS

PAINTED BIKE LANES

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE
HORIZONTAL CURVE SLIGHT "S" CURVE (s/o Katella)

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS POOR

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS PARTIAL / YES (SB) - YES / YES (NB)

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER 2 WAY LEFT TURN CENTERLANE

ADJACENT LAND USE COMMERCIAL / BUSINESS / INDUSTRIAL / RESIDENTIAL (NF) RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 40 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE
JUSTIFICATION:
(NF) = Non-Fronting (driveways to roadway) File: Western 2024-36 The recommended 40 mph is 4.7 mph of the 85th percentile speed and meets CVC standards.

0.49 21,550

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/15/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

WESTERN AVENUE KATELLA AVE TO ORANGEWOOD AVE
DATE: 3/15/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:15 AM - 11:40 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
X X 2 1.0% 100.0%
50 X X 2 1.0% 99.0%
X X X X 4 2.1% 97.9%
X X X X 4 2.1% 95.8%
X X X X X X 6 3.1% 93.8%
X X X X X X X X 8 4.2% 90.6%
45 X X X X X X X X 8 4.2% 86.5%
X X X X X X X X X 9 4.7% 82.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 7.8% 77.6%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 6.8% 69.8%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 23 12.0% 63.0% 40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 24 12.5% 51.0% X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19 9.9% 38.5%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 8.3% 28.6%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 6.8% 20.3%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X 13 6.8% 13.5%
35 X X X X X X X 7 3.6% 6.8%
X X X X 4 2.1% 3.1%
X X 2 1.0% 1.0%

0.0%

0.0%
30 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 192
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 45 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 36 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 44.7 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 13.5 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.9 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 79.7 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 36.2 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 6.8 %
File: Western 2024-36

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

WESTERN AVENUE KATELLA AVE TO ORANGEWOOD AVE
DATE: 3/15/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 11:15 AM - 11:40 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 100.0%
50 X 99.0%
49 X 97.9%
48 X 95.8%
47 X 93.8%
46 X 90.6%
45 X 86.5% }PACE
44 X 82.3% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
43 X 77.6% }PACE
42 X 69.8% }PACE
41 X 63.0% }PACE
40 X 51.0% }PACE
39 X 38.5% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
38 X 28.6% }PACE
37 X 20.3% }PACE
36 X 13.5% }PACE- - - - - -15PCT
35 X 6.8%
34 X 3.1%
33 X 1.0%
32 X 0.0%
31 X 0.0%
30 X 0.0%
29 X 0.0%
28 X 0.0%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 45 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 36 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 44.7 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 13.5 % MEDIAN SPEED: 39.9 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 79.7 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 36.2 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 6.8 %
File; Western 2024-36
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

WESTERN AVENUE ORANGEWOOD AVE TO SIMMONS PL (SCL)
DATE: 3/15/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 10:45 AM - 11:10 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

PREVAILING SPEED DATA

LOCATION OF SURVEY SOUTH OF ORANGEWOOD

DATE OF SURVEY
85th PERCENTILE 46.5 MPH
10 MPH PACE 38 - 47 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE 78.7 %
POSTED SPEED LIMIT 45 MPH (SB)

TRAFFIC FACTORS

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
LANE CONFIGURATION 2 LANES PER DIRECTION

TRAFFIC CONTROLS SIGNAL - ORANGEWOOD

CROSSWALKS AT ORANGEWOOD

PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLES FEW / YES
TRUCK TRAFFIC YES (heavy)

ON-STREET PARKING NO STOPPING ANYTIME

OTHER NO SHOULDERS

BIKE LANES

ROADWAY FACTORS

LENGTH OF SEGMENT (MILES)

VERTICAL CURVE NONE

HORIZONTAL CURVE NONE

LATERAL VISIBILITY GOOD

ROAD CONDITIONS POOR

SIDEWALKS/DRIVEWAYS YES / FEW

STREET LIGHTING YES
OTHER 2 WAY LEFT TURN CENTERLANE

ADJACENT LAND USE BUSINESS / INDUSTRIAL
RECOMMENDED SPEED LIMIT 45 MPH

SPEED LIMIT CHANGE NO CHANGE - POST NB
JUSTIFICATION:

File: Western 2024-37
The recommended 45 mph is 1.5 mph of the 85th percentile speed and meets CVC standards.

0.26 20,000

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
3/15/2024
HCI

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

WESTERN AVENUE ORANGEWOOD AVE TO SIMMONS PL (SCL)
DATE: 3/15/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 10:45 AM - 11:10 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK
NUMBER OF VEHICLES CUM.

SPEED 5 10 15 20 25 VEH. PCT. PCT.
60 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
55 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
X 1 0.5% 100.0%
X X 2 1.1% 99.5%
50 X X X X X 5 2.7% 98.4%
X X X X X 5 2.7% 95.7%
X X X X X X X X 8 4.3% 93.1%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 8.0% 88.8%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 21 11.2% 80.9% 45 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 9.0% 69.7%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 8.5% 60.6%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 9.0% 52.1%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16 8.5% 43.1%
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 7.4% 34.6%
40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 7.4% 27.1%
X X X X X X X X X 9 4.8% 19.7%
X X X X X X X X X 9 4.8% 14.9%
X X X X X X X 7 3.7% 10.1%
X X X X X 5 2.7% 6.4%
35 X X X X 4 2.1% 3.7%
X 1 0.5% 1.6%
X 1 0.5% 1.1%
X 1 0.5% 0.5%

0.0%
30 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
25 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
20 0.0%

0.0%

0.0%
15 0.0%
TOTAL VEHICLES 188
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 47 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 38 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 46.5 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 11.2 % MEDIAN SPEED: 42.8 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 78.7 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 38.0 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 10.1 %

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET
HCI

RADAR SPEED DISTRIBUTION SHEET

C I T Y OF S T A N T O N

WESTERN AVENUE ORANGEWOOD AVE TO SIMMONS PL (SCL)
DATE: 3/15/2024 SURVEY BY: E.BUENDIA
TIME: 10:45 AM - 11:10 AM CHECKED BY: JERRY STOCK

CUMMULATIVE PERCENT
SPEED 20 40 60 80 100
60 X 100.0%
59 X 100.0%
58 X 100.0%
57 X 100.0%
56 X 100.0%
55 X 100.0%
54 X 100.0%
53 X 100.0%
52 X 100.0%
51 X 99.5%
50 X 98.4%
49 X 95.7%
48 X 93.1%
47 X 88.8% }PACE
46 X 80.9% - - - - - - - - -85PCT }PACE
45 X 69.7% }PACE
44 X 60.6% }PACE
43 X 52.1% }PACE
42 X 43.1% }PACE- - - - - -MEAN
41 X 34.6% }PACE
40 X 27.1% }PACE
39 X 19.7% }PACE
38 X 14.9% }PACE- - - - - -15PCT
37 X 10.1%
36 X 6.4%
35 X 3.7%
34 X 1.6%
33 X 1.1%
32 X 0.5%
31 X 0.0%
30 X 0.0%
29 X 0.0%
28 X 0.0%
27 X 0.0%
26 X 0.0%
25 X 0.0%
24 X 0.0%
23 X 0.0%
22 X 0.0%
21 X 0.0%
20 X 0.0%
19 X 0.0%
18 X 0.0%
17 X 0.0%
16 X 0.0%
15 X 0.0%
UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 47 MPH
LOWER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE: 38 MPH 85th PERCENTILE SPEED: 46.5 MPH PERCENT OVER PACE: 11.2 % MEDIAN SPEED: 42.8 MPH
PERCENT IN PACE: 78.7 % 15th PERCENTILE SPEED: 38.0 MPH PERCENT UNDER PACE: 10.1 %
File; Western 2024-37
HCI

APPENDIX B

1 CITY OF STANTON

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
DATE: September 10, 2024
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE REDESIGN OF THE CITY’S OFFICIAL LOGO,

BRANDING AND MESSAGING
REPORT IN BRIEF:

This report seeks City Council approval for the finalized design elements of Stanton's branding and messaging project. These elements include a comprehensive logo system, City motto, communications plan and wayfinding sign guidelines.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council declare this project to be categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15378(b)(5) (Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Approve the finalized logo system, motto, communications plan and wayfinding sign guidelines, authorizing staff to proceed with implementation.

BACKGROUND:

At the City Council meeting of September 28, 2021, Council directed the formation of an ad hoc committee comprised of Council Member Warren and Council Member Taylor to guide staff’s efforts to revitalize the City's brand, including the redesign of the City's logo and motto.

The Council allocated $100,000 in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to support the City's Rebrand & Implementation Project on September 13, 2022, which was later reallocated to the General Fund. Subsequently, on May 9, 2023, the City awarded a contract to HUB for the comprehensive redesign of the City's logo, branding, and messaging.

Item: 11C
Click here to return to the agenda.
2 The scope of work included the following deliverables:
• Brand Assets: Finalized logo designs and template materials. • City Logo (in various colorways)
o Accompanying logos for City departments
o Document templates (letterhead, forms, etc.)
• City Seal (in various colorways)
• City Tagline
• Style Guide: A comprehensive document illustrating the graphic standards and rules for use of the City logos, colors and typography along with design mockups for key materials and guidance for brand applications.
• Wayfinding Signs
• Inventory of current signs
• Design for signs throughout City to match Style Guide • Strategic Communications Plan: A plan to guide Stanton’s communication and community engagement efforts over the next three years. This plan will include a key messaging platform.

Public Information Office (PIO) staff and the City Council ad hoc committee have worked with HUB to complete the following phases:
• Phase 1: Research & Brand Strategy
• Phase 2: Brand Messaging Development
• Phase 3: Development of Visual Brand
• Phase 4: Brand Guidelines & Training
• Phase 5: Brand Roll Out
Through stakeholder engagement, including a public workshop and a series of committee meetings, HUB developed a variety of versions of the logo, motto, and other branding elements. The City Council reviewed and selected a logo and color system on December 12, 2023, and subsequently approved a new City motto and seal on March 12, 2024.

ANALYSIS/JUSTIFICATION:

After working with the ad hoc committee to finalize visuals and deliverables, staff are presenting the complete branding and messaging project to the City Council for approval. The finalized design will serve as a roadmap for usage and implementation, with staff delineating any undefined aspects in the provided guidelines. PIO staff and the PIO committee are currently drafting an implementation plan, with a scheduled introduction of the new brand system to the community targeted for January 2025. 3 The finalized design includes the following elements which can be found in Attachments A-C:
• Brand Assets: This includes the City logo and seal, and their approved variations.
• Brand Templates: This includes style-guide approved template documents for staff, including: applications, forms, letterhead, memos and slideshows. • Brand Guidelines: This will act as our style guide and direct staff in the proper use and implementation of brand assets and templates.
• Communication Guidelines: A strategic plan to ensure consistent messaging across all platforms.
• Wayfinding Sign Guidelines: Design guidelines for signage throughout the City, ensuring visual consistency and ease of navigation.

Staff recommends the approval of the new brand system and accompanying assets and thanks the ad hoc committee for their dedication to creating a cohesive visual environment for our community.

FISCAL IMPACT:

On May 9, 2023, the Council approved a professional services agreement with HUB Ltd. for a not to exceed amount of $85,000.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

None.

LEGAL REVIEW:

None.

STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVE:

Obj. No. 6: Maintain and promote a responsive, high quality and transparent government.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Public notice for this item was made through the regular agenda process. 4 Prepared by: Ashley Cain, Community Services Manager
Reviewed by: Zenia Bobadilla, Community Services Director Fiscal Impact Reviewed by: Michelle Bannigan, Finance Director Approved by: Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager
Attachments:

A. Brand Guidelines
B. Communications Guidelines
C. Wayfinding Guidelines
Brand Guidelines / Version 01 / July 2024
Brand
Guidelines

CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES
Attachment: A
Click here to return to the agenda.

What are Brand Guidelines?
CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES2
What are
Brand Guidelines?
A brand is more than just a logo. It’s an all
encompassing system that works together to
convey an overall vision. Consistency is the
backbone of an authentic, trustworthy, and
recognizable brand. This means consistency
in visuals, collateral and all things Stanton.

This is where brand guidelines come in. In short,
brand guidelines are a set of rules explaining how
to represent your brand across channels and assets,
helping your work build credibility and recognition.

This document outlines the composition, design,
and general look-and-feel for your brand.

City of Stanton Brand Elements & Usage
CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 3
Brand
Elements & Usage

CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES
4 Logo Marks
Wordmark
This is your main text-based logo, and the
primary logo almost of your brand lockups
are centered around. The script typographic
treatment was inspired by vines or roots,
alluding to the city’s interconnectedness,
resilience and commitment to growth.

It is full of personality and style, and can be used
in most contexts—great for straightforward uses
and for maximum brand recognizability and
communication. Prioritize using this wordmark
and its associated lockups wherever possible,
keeping readability and sizing in mind.

For more information about logo
readability and sizing, refer to page 19.

CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 5
Primary Lockup
Your brand wordmark, with the additional context
of city and state location. This lockup may be
used in almost any branded context for maximum
brand recognizability and communication, but
also more specifically in contexts where viewers
from out of state may not be as familiar with the
city’s location.

Logo Marks
CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 6
Drop-S Primary Lockup
This is a variation of your Primary Lockup, with
the capital “S” dropped for stylization. This and
the Primary Lockup may be used interchangeably.

Logo Marks
CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 7
City & Date Lockup
One of two city-centric lockups, this one includes
the year the city was established to call forward
the history and foundation of the city. Including
the sunburst symbol anchors the lockup, giving it
a stamped, badge-like energy. This lockup may
be used in almost all contexts, but works best for
official city documents, communications, and
so forth.

Logo Marks
CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 8
City-Only Lockup
The second of two city-centric lockups, this one is
a simplified version speaking to the city descriptor
specifically. This one may be used in contexts
where there may not be enough space allotted
for the full city and date lockup, or if readability
starts to get lost with the full lockup.

Logo Marks
CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 9
Tagline Lockups
This logo lockup allow Stanton’s city motto to take
center stage. This lockup is arguably the most
community-focused in the brand toolkit, and should
be used when the priority is to communicate Stanton’s
personality, mission, and vision to a broad audience.

For more specific guidance on how to communicate
Stanton’s personality and tone, please refer to the
Stanton Communication Guidelines document.

Logo Marks
CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 10
Logo Marks
Brand Symbol
The sunburst symbol speaks to Stanton’s
location in sunny Orange County, and acts
as the solar counterpart to the wordmark’s
organic, root-like structure. Just as a plant
needs the sun to grow, this sunburst alludes to
Stanton’s optimism and the forward-thinking
attitude required to blossom into a flourishing
community residents are excited to be a part of.

This symbol may be used in contexts or at sizes
where the primary wordmark is illegible or too
large for the space, like social media icons,
favicons, and patterns or graphic elements.

Think of this mark like a piece of visual
shorthand for the brand—but only use it in
contexts where the brand or brand name is
otherwise clearly evident or recognized.

CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 11
Horizontal Symbol Lockup
This logo acts as a simplified alternative to the
primary lockups, while allowing our sunburst
symbol to play a more prominent role.

This logo may be used in contexts where city or
location details are not necessary.

Logo Marks
CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 12
Vertical Symbol Lockup
This logo acts as a simplified alternative to the
primary lockups, while allowing our sunburst
symbol to take center stage.

This logo may be used in contexts where city or
location details are not necessary.

Logo Marks
CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 13
Logo Marks
Simplified Script Lockup
This lockup allows for maximum readability of
the “Stanton” city name, while maintaining the
personality of the brand’s script typography. This
lockup may be used in cases where readability is
prioritized, but at sizes where the “City of” script
loses legibility, default to the simplified lockup on
the next page.

CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 14
Simplified Lockup
For maximum readability and simplicity, use this
pared down all-caps sans-serif logo lockup.

At very small sizes, use this logo only. For more
guidance on logo sizing, refer to page 19.

Logo Marks
CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 15
Stanton City Seal
The city seal speak specifically to the community’s
goals of forward progress, interconnectedness,
and community. The outer containing shape
incorporates a subtle “S,” signifying the
interconnectedness of the community, while
the rising sun and railroad tracks communicate
optimism, forward momentum, and connection to
fellow Southern Californian communities, as well
as Stanton’s own history.

Logo Marks
CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 16
City Department
Lockup Guidelines
To differentiate from the main brand, department
lockups use the sunburst symbol reversed out of a
circle, coordinated with their department-specific
color selection and the sans-serif brand logotype.

To the right are a few examples of how
department lockups can be constructed. For
specific guidelines and sizing reference for
constructing these lockups, refer to the next
page.

Logo Marks
CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 17
City Department
Lockup Guidelines
Use these sizing and placement guidelines when
constructing department lockups.
100%
HEIGHT

SANS-SERIF LOGOTYPE

ABRIL DISPLAY ITALIC
(~55% HEIGHT OF LOGOTYPE)
~65%
HEIGHT
Logo Marks
CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 18
City Department
Lockup Guidelines
Department lockups can be composed as
left-aligned or centered, so long as the main
typographic text block is centered with the
sunburst symbol — either horizontally or vertically.

Logo Marks
19 Logo Sizing
The script of the primary wordmark and
the secondary typography of main brand
lockups begin to lose readability at very
small sizes. To account for this, at .5” tall,
only the simplified lockup may be used.

For sizes smaller than .25” tall, only the
simplified sans-serif logotype may be used.

1.25” 1” .75” .5” .25”
.1”
Logo Usage

CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES

CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES
Logo Usage
Do not rearrange or resize typographic
logo elements or words.

Do not stretch, squash, or otherwise warp the logo.

Do not use off-brand colors (other than black
and white when absolutely necessary).

Do not place the logo on a busy background image.

Do not jeopardize readability by placing
photography or patterns inside the logo.

Do not use gradients to colorize the logo. Logos
may only be rendered in solid, flat brand colors.

Logo Usage
20 CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES
Logo Clear Space
For sufficient clear space and breathing room to
optimize logo readability, use the width of the “S”
character of the brand wordmark to measure
an adequate border around all logo marks and
lockups.

Logo Usage
21 CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 22
Brand Colors
Brand Color Palette
The brand color palette incorporates organic
tones inspired by the jacaranda flower, the bird
of paradise, and Southern California sunshine,
calling forward an overall feeling of greenery and
growth.

While the colors in this palette were designed
to work in harmony, there are some pairing
guidelines that should be taken into consideration
when using this palette. Refer to the next section
for key reccomendations and regulations for
color accessibility.

CMYK 77/69/00/00
HEX #5160AB
PMS 2125C
CMYK 66/52/00/00
HEX #6478BA
PMS 2123C
CMYK 04/68/100/00
HEX #EA7324
PMS 1505C
CMYK 03/42/77/00
HEX #F2A151
PMS 1365C
CMYK 84/43/66/31
HEX #265D52
PMS 3292C
CMYK 79/30/64/12
HEX #38806B
PMS 7473C
CMYK 04/05/32/00
HEX #F3EBDB
PMS 9224C
CMYK 29/05/32/00
HEX #B7D3B9
PMS 4162C
CMYK 82/73/48/43
HEX #303649
PMS 4280C
CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 23
Color Usage
Color Accessibility
In official city communications and documents,
it’s a best practice to use clearly legible and
accessible color pairings, especially when small
type sizes are involved. The following pages
include guidance on specific color pairings
(foreground objects and backgrounds) that are
safe to use in specific contexts.

If ever unsure about which color pairings
to use at certain type sizes, you can test your
HEX Code values here to check legibility:
https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/
CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 24
Color Usage
Safe Color Usage
When designing with accessibility in mind,
sufficient contrast is key. This is why most official
documents and communications use black text on
a white background. However, when using brand
colors to design things that are more stylized or
specific to the Stanton brand, you may use color
pairings that have been verified for accessibility.

The color pairings to the right have been
tested and are 100% safe to use at various
type sizes using the brand color HEX Codes.

Keep these pairings in mind for text-heavy
applications, like the city website, official email
communications, and PowerPoint presentations.

CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 25
Color Usage
Conditional Color Usage
This set of color pairings have been tested for
accessibility, and pass at large type sizes, yet fail
for smaller type sizes and body copy applications.

With this in mind, you may use these colors under
certain conditions, like large-scale headers
and display type, as well as various shape fills,
patterns, color overlays and any other nontypographic uses.

If ever unsure of accessibility, refer back to the
website provided on page 21, or default to the
color pairings on page 22.

CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 26
Color Usage
Limited Color Usage
This set of color pairings have been tested for
accessibility, and fail at almost all type sizes and
body copy applications.

However, the same principle still applies as with
the previous color set, in that these pairings may
be used in various shape fills, patterns, color
overlays and any other non-typographic uses, but
these colors must never be used for typographic
applications meant to convey important and
legible information.

Exceptions may be made for watermarks or
abstracted typographic design elements meant
for stylization purposes, where legibility is not
necessarily the goal. Use discretion in these cases.

CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 27
Color Usage
Off-Limits Color Usage
This set of color pairings have been tested for
accessibility, and fail at every type size and body
copy application.

When paired, the similarity in value causes these
colors to “vibrate,” or cause an uncomfortable
amount of color tension in both typographic
and abstracted graphic use cases. Avoid using
these color pairings in any context, and do not
ever use these colors to convey information or
communication information through type.

OUTFIT BLACK LOOKS GREAT UP HERE
Outfit Semibold makes
a great header.

Outfit Light works well for body copy. Satraeque qui corarit adhus, per hae intem atilnes ignostr opublia retorurberis publici ventes Ad culles? Ex sentiam acerficaet L. Ves cernihi ntimiusv, Catussimei senis; intiliciis perit. Nequon se nimium et? Qui tem paterdis. Opie con Itam haceporteris hos, nihiliam dii pressid efecon reniu elus bonsu ia omnimmo musquam probusci publica eticaesceps, consus si terfir us fac vignonlostout rebes et C. Satus antum Romaion suloc, Ti.

Use Outfit Regular paired with Abril Display
Italic for highlights and dynamic pull quotes.

Typography
This brand typography system uses Outfit and Abril
Display font families.

Outfit can be found here.

Abril Display can be found both here and here.

If for any reason these brand fonts are unavailable,
system font families such as Arial and Helvetica
may be used in place of Outfit, and Georgia Italic
may be used in place of Abril Display.

Brand Typography
CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 28
CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 29
The “S” Curve
This abstracted element utilizes the shape
language of the “S” from the primary logotype
for visual flair in layouts, compositions, and
illustrative work. The curving and looping lines
speak to the city’s ever-evolving nature and
evoke an organic optimism. Refer to the next
few pages for specific use cases.

Brand Visuals

CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES
The “S” Curve:

Containing Shape
The logotype’s “S” Curve can be used as a
versatile containing shape that serves as
an organic counterpart to the rigidity of
rectangular frames. When strategically
employed, this curve can add dynamism into
compositions, and visually communicate
growth, evolution, and adaptability.

For compositions like these, try to use the actual
curved shape of the “S” from the logotype as
much as possible to maintain shape consistency.

Brand Visuals
30 CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES
Brand Visuals
The “S” Curve:

Illustrations
In an abstract way, these illustrated lines
take inspiration from the script of the brand’s
logotype, with organic vine-like loops flowing
through the frame. This communicates how the
spirit of Stanton permeates the community, while
adding energy and movement to layouts and
photography. Using solid, bold color portrays
Stanton as a lively, active city while the looping
shape language calls back to organic plant life
that is ever growing and changing.

These illustrations can evoke the calligraphic
script of the logotype without referencing the
shapes directly. Use discretion in these cases to
ensure that the illustrations support the subject of
focus without getting too distracting or busy.
31 What are Brand Guidelines?
CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 32
City of Stanton Example Brand Applications

CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES
Brand
Applications

CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES
Example Brand Applications
Signage Concepts. For more specific wayfinding guidance, please refer to the Stanton Wayfinding Guidelines document. 33 CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES
Example Brand Applications
Signage Concepts. For more specific wayfinding guidance, please refer to the Stanton Wayfinding Guidelines document. 34 CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES
Example Brand Applications
Tote Bag Merchandise Concept
35 CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES
Example Brand Applications
Coffee Mug, Uniform Jacket Concepts
36 CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES
Example Brand Applications
T-Shirt, Pins Merchandise Concepts
37 CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES
Example Brand Applications
Email Signature, Letterhead Concepts
38 CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES
Example Brand Applications
Signage and Utility Truck Concepts. For more specific wayfinding guidance, please refer to the Stanton Wayfinding 39 What are Brand Guidelines?
CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES 40
Brand Guidelines / Version 01 / July 2024
Thank you!

CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES
Communication Guidelines / Version 01 / March 2024
Communication
Guidelines

CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES
Attachment: B
Click here to return to the agenda.

Messaging Overview
2 Messaging
Overview

CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES
CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 3
Messaging Overview: Who / What / How
How do you communicate who you
are, what you do, and how you do it
in a way that’s clear and engaging?
CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 4
Messaging Overview: Who
Overcoming negative stigma - make it irrelevant by reinforcing the identity of Stanton as espoused in the brand.

This is who you are.

What kind of service or
organization are you?
CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 5
Messaging Overview: Who
Overcoming negative stigma - make it irrelevant by reinforcing the identity of Stanton as espoused in the brand.

This is who you are.

What kind of service or
organization are you?
A team that communicates with:
• community leaders
• business leaders
• residents
• electeds & employees
CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 6
Messaging Overview: Who
A team that communicates with:
• community leaders
• business leaders
• residents
• electeds & employees
That conveys:
• information
• requirements
Overcoming negative stigma - make it irrelevant by reinforcing • actions/events/opportunities the identity of Stanton as espoused in the brand.

This is who you are.

What kind of service or
organization are you?
CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 7
Messaging Overview: What
Reinforce the idea that city government is an
efficient, approachable, and valuable brand.

This is what you do.

This is the outcome,
this is your service.

CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 8
Messaging Overview: What
Reinforce the idea that city government is an
efficient, approachable, and valuable brand.

This is what you do.

This is the outcome,
this is your service. Convey:
• clear, informative content
CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 9
Messaging Overview: What
Reinforce the idea that city government is an
efficient, approachable, and valuable brand.

This is what you do.

This is the outcome,
this is your service. Convey:
• clear, informative content
That:
• engages
• informs
• inspires
CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 10
Messaging Overview: How
These are your tools,
your craft, your offering —
this is how you do it.

Clarify how things get done,
and how people can be involved.

CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 11
Messaging Overview: How
These are your tools,
your craft, your offering —
this is how you do it.

Key messaging:
• Use and re-enforce
key messaging
• Adopt a cohesive tone of voice
Clarify how things get done,
and how people can be involved.

CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 12
Messaging Overview: How
Clarify how things get done,
and how people can be involved.

These are your tools,
your craft, your offering —
this is how you do it.

Key messaging:
• Use and re-enforce
key messaging
• Adopt a cohesive tone of voice
Well branded templates that:
• have well structured hierarchy
• are visually appealing
• reinforce messaging
• are easy to use and share
CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 13
Messaging Overview: Messaging Goals
If we follow this plan, the city can leverage its
brand and voice to elevate its communications.

CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 14
Messaging Overview: Messaging Goals
If we follow this plan, the city can leverage its
brand and voice to elevate its communications.
• Connected - diversity,
community pride, convenience
• Authentic - diversity,
community, history
• Convenient - proximity,
easy, casual
• Established - rooted,
purposeful, respected
• Forward-thinking -
development, innovation
ESTABLISH OUR COMMUNITY AS:

CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 15
Messaging Overview: Messaging Goals
If we follow this plan, the city can leverage its
brand and voice to elevate its communications.
• Connected - diversity,
community pride, convenience
• Authentic - diversity,
community, history
• Convenient - proximity,
easy, casual
• Established - rooted,
purposeful, respected
• Forward-thinking -
development, innovation
• Rooted in community
ESTABLISH OUR COMMUNITY AS: THAT EMBODIES THE TAGLINE OF:

CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 16
Messaging Overview: Messaging Goals
If we follow this plan, the city can leverage its
brand and voice to elevate its communications.
• Connected - diversity,
community pride, convenience
• Authentic - diversity,
community, history
• Convenient - proximity,
easy, casual
• Established - rooted,
purposeful, respected
• Forward-thinking -
development, innovation
• Greater community engagement
• Clarity of vision
• A scalable approach to content
development and sharing
• Rooted in community
ESTABLISH OUR COMMUNITY AS: THAT EMBODIES THE TAGLINE OF: ACHIEVING:

CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 17
Messaging Overview: Brand Attributes
Use your messaging to emphasize your brand attributes,
bringing them to the front of your communications.

CONNECTED
Fostering a diverse
community filled with
pride, and offering up all
that is needed with a level
of ease and convenience.

CONVENIENT
Our location is one of our
best assets, the proximity
of what you want and
need makes life easy
and keeps it casual.

AUTHENTIC
True to our diverse
community we celebrate
our history, or present and
our future. We build and
maintain a strong sense of
community and belonging.

FORWARD-THINKING
The city is growing and
developing. It is a hub
for innovation and
opportunity, welcoming
ideas and entrepreneurs.

ESTABLISHED
A city with deep roots,
Stanton was built with
purpose. It is and will be
respected for what it is
and all that it has to offer.

CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 18
Messaging Overview: Tone of Voice
When writing and speaking for the city:

Proud
Conversational
Informative
Authentic
Forward-looking
Focused
Accessible
Playful
Brazen
Casual
Dry
Precious
Vague
Exclusive
Basic
Irreverant
VOICE IS: VOICE IS NOT:

What are Brand Guidelines?
CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 19
Messaging in Action
Messaging
in Action

CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES
Let’s break it all down, put it back together again, and reach our messaging goals.

CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 20
Messaging in Action: Tone of Voice
Principles of good communication:

Be accurate and informative.

Be trusted, reliable, and sought-after.

Be proactive.

Be responsible.

Use the right channels and the right form for the message.

Be timely.

Infuse communication with Stanton’s
brand message and attributes.

CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 21
Messaging in Action: Key Questions
Questions to
answer for every
communication: WHAT IS THE

INTENT OF THE
COMMUNICATION?

WHAT DO I WANT
THEM TO DO?

WHERE WILL I

ENGAGE THEM
(CHANNELS)?

WHAT FORM WILL

COMMUNICATION
TAKE?

WHO IS/ARE

MY PRIMARY
AUDIENCES?
CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 22
Messaging in Action: Best Practices

TOGETHER
Using terminology that points to a
community of people. Avoid othering.

CLARITY
In what is being done, how it’s accomplished
and the roles and responsibilities involved.

INCLUSIVE
Be clear about who is supported and
the importance of inclusiveness.

REAL PEOPLE
Use imagery of people and places
that are actually in this community.

FUTURE FORWARD
A tone and voice that moves
conversation forward.

DEFINE
Don’t assume that everyone knows
the terminology. Sometimes plain/
common language is the best.

DIRECT & CONFIDENT
Be definitive, speak with conviction.

SOUNDBITES
Use messaging and visuals that are
immediate, quick and informative.

CALL-TO-ACTION
Don’t just provide information, don’t
just provide passive support, outline
measurable action whenever possible.

CONSISTENT
Both language and visuals should
be recognizable as components
within one system.

Communication best practices:

CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 23
Messaging in Action: Structure & Intent
Every communication has at least one intent
and may have as many as three. These include:

INFORM Share details about a specific subject. Think of this as an FYI. The goal is knowledge sharing, not necessarily encouraging a particular action or emotion.

INSTRUCT Tell an audience to do something. This may be imperative as in an emergency (seek shelter now!) or suggestive (encouraging a behavior change to achieve a larger goal).

TELL A STORY
Share engaging narratives that emphasize brand attributes or achievements of the City of Stanton. Stories are great ways to invoke specific emotions and build a sense of loyalty, connection, and belonging.

Ask yourself which of these intents is most important for your communication. It may involve a combination of them. For example, you may lead with a story that evokes a certain emotion, and then instruct a reader to act in a way that plays off or reinforces that emotion.

CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 24
Messaging in Action: Diverting Criticism
In the event that the city must respond to, address,
or counter criticism, it is important that you:

IDENTIFY

AGREEMENTS
It is important to identify points of agreement, whenever possible. This can diffuse a tense situation and allow for a dialog on points of disagreement.

CLARIFY Request clarification, or further expansion. This indicates and desire to understand the issue at hand and validate the concerns/criticisms prior to countering/addressing issues. `

MOVE ON
Clearly address the criticism - once. Outline the city’s response clearly and concisely, and move on. Future engagement, if necessary should direct people to the initial response and move conversation forward in the direction that the city wants to move in.

Instead of focusing on the source of any criticism, focus on the audience - who is following the conversation/criticism, why are they interested, and how do you best inform and engage with them. Focusing on the source ignores the greater opportunity.

CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 25
Messaging in Action: Audience Tailoring
What is Audience Tailoring?
Given the wide variety of audiences that the city communicates with, it will be necessary to adjust your messaging to reach specific audiences. Subtle changes to the tone, complexity and call to actions that are used can increase engagement. In the subsequent pages we look at the different audiences Stanton engages with, outlining ways to tailor your messages to maximize impact.

CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 26
Messaging in Action: Audience Tailoring

CONCISE COMPREHENSIVE

CASUAL FORMAL

APPROACHABLE AUTHOR ITAT IVE

INSTRUCTIONAL EXPLANATORY

TRENDY TIMELESS

FIXED FLUID

EXPERIENTIAL INFORMAT IVE

CONVERSAT IONAL DIRECT
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

BUSINESS COMMUNITY
CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 27
Messaging in Action: Audience Tailoring
Audiences
Residents
Community Organizations
Visitors
Neighbors
Developers
Businesses
Other Cities / Governments
Volunteers
Employees
Representatives

EXTERNAL INTERNAL
CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 28
Messaging in Action: Audience Tailoring
Audiences
Residents
Community Organizations
Visitors
Neighbors
Developers
Businesses
Other Cities / Governments
Volunteers
Employees
Representatives Business

EXTERNAL INTERNAL
Community
CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 29
Messaging in Action: Audience Tailoring
Motivations VISITORS NEIGHBORS GOVERNMENTS CITY REPRESENTATIVES Destination Pass-Through Connected Unaware Invested Affiliates Leaders Service Characteristics
Interested
Comparing
One-track
Unaware
Impressionable
Perceptive
Committed
Open
Busy/occupied
Connected
Expectant
Occupied
Self-absorbed
Motivated
Committed
Connected
Focused
Modest
Motivation
A visit exceeding
expectations
Memorability
Moving through is
easy and pleasant
Invitation to be
included
Ability to
contribute and
gain something
Something that
catches their
attention (out of
the normal)
Our connection is
valuable
They are a role
model
They are doing
something that we
need to study,
emulate, or be a
part of
This expresses my
goals and vision
This helps me
connect to others
and lead
This will make my job
easier
I feel valued as part of
the city
Motivations RESIDENTS DEVELOPERS BUSINESSES COMMUNITY ORGS Long-term New in town Community Profit Local Franchise Local Regional Characteristics
Committed
Entitled
Curious
Expectant
Eager
Accommodating
Open
Transactional
Opportunistic
Devoted Contingent
Devoted
Passionate
Contributing
Less connected
Motivation
Assurance that
change is about
progress
Their voice is
heard
There is a place for
them here
Long-term stability
and space to grow
Their investment is
viable and needed
Will it be
inexpensive and
easy to move
forward
I’m part of
community life
I’m respected as
an investor
Ease and profit
Will the business
fit into the larger
landscape
Connection to
people and place
Seen as valuable
to the community
Support to achieve its
goals
CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 30
Messaging in Action: Audience Tailoring
Motivations

GOVERNMENTS CITY REPRESENTATIVES
Invested Affiliates Leaders Service
Characteristics
Connected
Expectant
Occupied
Self-absorbed
Motivated
Committed
Connected
Focused
Modest
Motivation
Our connection is valuable
They are a role model
They are doing something that
we need to study, emulate, or be
a part of
This expresses my goals and
vision
This helps me connect to others
and lead
This will make my job easier
I feel valued as part of the city
What are Brand Guidelines?
CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 31
Messaging Pillars
Messaging
Pillars

CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES
CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 32
Messaging Pillars: Messaging Approach
Our communications should be outcome-focused, leading with progress, impacts, and results. The first read should, when possible, create an emotional response. The goal is to provide context; pair information with impact, seek to both inform and inspire.

Impactful headlines and statements are supported by an expression of what actions and outcomes need to be communicated —the city’s process and holistic approach to bringing about change.

To ensure we do this, it is recommended that the city follow a communication content hierarchy based upon:

ENGAGE

ATTRACT

CONNECT
Catch their attention.

Keep their attention with high level, impactful content.

Explain how Stanton works for and with the community,
businesses and governmental partners/organizations.

Provide details. Help them understand and therefore
care more deeply.

WHAT - Communications that promote
curiosity, empathy, and dialogue
WHY - to bring about equitable change,
increase public awareness, and enhance
community wellbeing
WHERE - Across all owned, paid and
earned media. Consistently representing the
city, its programming, and topics of interest.

Let the following guide the way
you communicate with your
different audiences. It will help
you evaluate the content you
share, the photographs you
take, and the stories you tell.

MESSAGING APPROACH

CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES
Messaging Pillars: Writing Studies
With its central location, welcoming community and neighborhood feel, Stanton is the definition of close-knit. Stanton has a small town vibe but the ease of a big city.

With retail, shopping, and dining Stanton offers a close-knit community with a wide variety of amenities for young and old. In Stanton, what you need is never far away.

Stanton is known as a supportive, happy and relaxed community with a wide variety of city-led activities, resources and public parks. Stanton is all about enjoying the simple things in a community where you feel right at home.

SHORT FORMS
A forward-thinking city full of surprises, Stanton is a place people are proud to call home. With a rich history of perseverance and diversity, Stanton is welcoming to newcomers, new ideas, and new opportunities. With its small-town feel and well loved community parks and programs, residents and businesses have the su pport and resources they need to thrive.

ESSENTIAL - What the city is doing/providing is
essential to the community and its well-being
SATISFIED - Residents and visitors should feel that they got what they need/want with ease
CHARMED - Provide an element of the unexpected and
intriguing to add a bit of charm
RESPECTED - The city’s respect for its residents,
businesses and visitors should be clearly communicated
BELONGING - The city should always present as
inclusive and equitable to all community members
VALUED - The city values the thoughts, opinions and
contributions of its community.

CONFIDENT - The city is confident in its approach and
ability to provide for its community.

When writing for the city, use the AP Style,
and strive to elicit the following emotions:

ABOUT STANTON IN 80 WORDS OR LESS
Messaging Pillars
Topics by Audience MOTIVATIONS/CONCERNS IMPRESSIONS/FEELINGS KEY MESSAGES

HOMELESS
Residents
- invested in community's success
- recognizing an issue they are incapable of addressing themselves
- feel Stanton’s reputation is at risk
-committed to bring about change/held accountable
- be informed about efforts under way
- to feel heard and listened to
- respect and advocate for our work
- the City is providing insight into the issues and obstacles, and will work with us to craft solutions/programming
- the issue is a priority for the city
- the City is open to new ways to address issues
- Stanton cares.
- We understand the impact of homelessness
is felt by all in our community.
- All opinions and concerns matter when tackling
an issue as complex as homelessness
- In order to thrive, we must find ways to address
Businesses challenges and leverage our strengths.
- acknowledgement of the issue
- action orriented communications
- looking for new ways to tackle the issue
- committed to bringing about change
HUMAN

TRAFFICKING
Residents
- validating an out of date reputation of the City
- can’t reach potential until issue is addressed
- seen as a fixable problem that isn’t a priority
- progress is being made
- this is a difficult problem to solve
- things are getting better
- This is a coordinated effort with law enforcement, and victim advocates to bring about an end to the sex trade in our city. - Our approach centers respect, understanding and services Businesses
- not on my block
- left dealing with it without city’s support
- indicative of a larger problem
- progress is being made
- this is a difficult problem to solve
- things are getting better
- the city is a partner in addressing the issue and the impact it is having on my business
- The city is part of a larger effort to eradicate illegal human trafficking. This means looking at the issue from every angle and exploring all the options.
- A coordinated effort is needed. There is no simple fix. - Fighting the root causes to a visible problem takes time, money and a committment to doing what is right.

DIVERSITY
Residents - important to retain our diversity
- gentrification - the city values its diverse population - the city supports all its residents and gives voice to them - despite the change we are seeing, Stanton will remain a diverse city
- Neighborhoods are always changing and demographics
continually evolve.
-Instead of fighting change, fight for equitable change. - Diversity benefits every individual and every aspect of of our community.

Community
Organizations
- recongition for important role
- representation, a voice
GROWTH
Residents
- don’t want to be priced out of the city
- don’t want the city to change too much
- excited to see positive development, more amenities
- the city is executing on a plan
- growth is good, bringing new opportunities and local jobs - the city is monitoring growth, increased costs of living, etc - We are committed to giving residents the chance to have a voice in the future of Stanton.
- Our growth is planned and designed for the people of our community.

Businesses
- eager to see more opportunities
- want more street/foot traffic
- careful growth, don’t price us out
- be informed about our work
- get involved (learn more, donate, be an advocate)
- Our city can capitalize on opportunity to bring about strategic growth that benefits all.
- Our plan promotes equal, fair and integrated growth.

Messaging Pillars
THEME: ATTRACT ENGAGE CONNECT

HOMELESSNESS
- Here to Help
- Safe and Stable Housing For All
- Housing Justice for Stanton
- A Community That Cares
- Our community thrives when everyone has good, safe housing options.
- We are focusing on our shared values - and our desire to be a strong, healthy community
- We value the perspectives and lived experiences of others - Housing justice is about building the future our community deserves
- We need to work together to define and defend the programs that will move all of our community forward.
- The move towards justice and equity starts at home. Housing options designed to provide a decent place for our community members to come home to strengthens our neighborhoods and fights the trend of displacement.
- We value curiosity, empathy, and dialogue on this matter. We need civil engagement in order to create an environment where meaningful change can occur.
-We want to hear the concerns and questions, and maintain an environment where all feel welcomed to engaged in the solutions.

This is how we move beyond the concerns and on to the meaningful change .

HUMAN

TRAFFICKING
- Judgement-free support and solutions
- Seeking Constructive Change
- Change through Empathy
- Tackling a solvable problem
- Stanton is commited to understanding and addressing the challenging life circumstances that fuel the sex trade industry. - We must collaborate to advocate, empower and enforce change for those that see no other options than prostitution
- Taking an empowerment approach - engaging with respect, understanding and dignity
- Poverty, homelessness, lack of job skills, substance above, and mental health issues are complex issues that need coordinated solutions and services to bring safety to our streets. -Prostitution is a symptom of social issues, address the issues to solve the problem.

DIVERSITY
- A source of strength within our community
- We value each other
- Heightening awareness and bridging differences
- Our diversity guides us
- Nurturing a strong sense of connection
- celebrating a community where people from diverse backgrounds and experiences live, work, play and create together
- The Stanton community is as broad as it is deep. We value each other, our pasts, our presents and our shared futures.
- Stanton stands with its community. We see and celebrate diversity, and work to provide a welcoming community to all.
- Exploring cultural differences, celebrating our unique and shared truths brings communities together.
- Stanton sees diversity and inclusion as the acknowledgement, sensitivity to, and celebration of people of different races, ethnicities, social and economic statuses, national origins, sexual orientation, gender identity and physical abilities.
- We ask that you listen to experiences that differ from your own; Enable greater understanding, even in the midst of profound disagreement; Promote nuanced thinking; Make informed decisions; and together we can define a vision for an equitable and inclusive community.

GROWTH
- Open for Business
- Responsible Growth, Unlimited Prosperity
- Achieving Smart Growth
- YOUR needs are OUR focus
- Stanton needs economic growth for our residents. Growth brings jobs and enhances quality of life. Smart growth is finding the best way to do that sustainably.
- Staton is committed and passionate about about where we want to take our city.
- Our city is dynamic, a constant work in progress. As our community changes, so must our services We know there is always room for improvement, and we are constantly seeking out ideas and opportunities that will make what we have even better.
- We see our business community as our client, and we are here to make our clients successful in all that they do.

What are Brand Guidelines?
CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 36
Plan of Accomplishment
Plan of
Accomplishment

CITY OF STANTON BRAND GUIDELINES
CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 37
Plan of Accomplishment: Phase 1 / Year 1
With a new brand and messaging system approved and ready to go, the communications team can focus on roll-out strategy, early brand adoption and the start of brand awareness.

From there the team can look at codifying best practices and educating staff, volunteers and partners in the tools and guidelines for communicating with the city’s different audiences. ▢ Updating Website
▢ All staff meeting on new brand &
communications plan
▢ Template resources roll-out
▢ Updating forms, reports and frequently
used documents with new brand
▢ Talking points for use by team members
and programs - understanding and
presenting your services and offerings and
the impacts they have on the community
▢ Create branded swag for staff, partners, etc.
▢ Create a plan for signage and wayfinding.

Outline costs and put together
proposal for review and approval
▢ Create/update approach to
newsletters, blogs, other informal
modes of communication to align
with communication plan.

SHORT-TERM MEDIUM-TERM LONG-TERM
What are Brand Guidelines?
CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES 38
Communication Guidelines / Version 01 / March 2024
Thank you!

CITY OF STANTON COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES
C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 1 Wayfinding Guidelines / Version 01 / July 2024

C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES Wayfinding
Guidelines
Attachment: C
Click here to return to the agenda.

C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 2 Wayfinding Goals

C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES Wayfinding
Goals
C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 3 Wayfinding Goals
Good wayfinding
achieves several goals.

Make it easier for
someone to understand
where they are and how
to get somewhere.

Improve or enhance
the usage of an area.

Reinforce the
identity of a place.

C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 3 C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 4 Wayfinding Goals
Good wayfinding can change
how someone thinks and feels.

WHAT I THINK WHAT I FEEL
I know where I am.

I know that I am here (Stanton) as opposed to there
(eg. Cyprus, Garden Grove, Anaheim, etc.)
I know where to go.

I know what exists (what is there).

I feel grounded.

I know what here is all about
(Brand Attributes)
I feel guided.

I feel informed.

C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 5 Signage Types
Signage Types

C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 6 Gateway &
Welcome Signs
These mark the entry to the city. These signs have minimal information and work as a symbolic marker of a boundary.

Signage Types
C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 7 Signage Types
Directional Signs:

Street Signs
Directional signs guide which way to go to arrive at a destination. These include both median and standard street signs, which can be pole-mounted or mounted above an intersection.

Directional Signs:

Directional Pointers
These may list several landmarks or areas of interest
and show the proper direction of travel to reach the area.

C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 8 Signage Types
Informational Signs
Provide details about location (such as a map with “you are here” marked) or points of interest (such as an interpretive sign).

Identifying Signs
Designate landmarks, services, gathering spaces, etc.

C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 9 Best Practices
Best Practices

C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 10 Wayfinding Goals
Signage needs to be read quickly.

The type of user and the speed of travel
all affect the best design for signage.

Here are some key design concepts to consider.

C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 10 C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 11 Best Practices
Simplicity
Maintain legibility and brand cohesion. Since
signage needs to be identified and read quickly,
keep the design elements simple and clean is a
priority. At the same time, we want the encounter
with the sign to reinforce the larger City of
Stanton brand. Finding a balance between
simplicity and brand identification is a primary
goal for good signage design.

Materiality
When choosing materials for signage, consider:

What exists that may be repurposed
What will hold up for a long period of time
What works with the brand
What’s easy to install
What’s easy to maintain
Contrast & Color
When creating signage, consider how far
away someone will be when they need to, first,
recognize there is wayfinding they should consult,
and second begin to read the sign to comprehend
what it says before they either pass the sign or
need to make a decision based on the information
they read on the sign:
500 feet away - letters no less than 12” tall
100 feet away - letters 3” tall may be legible,
but 10” tall letters are ideal
50 feet away - ideal to have letters 6” tall
Also consider light sources and the direction
of the sign when placing it. If the sign is facing
east, it may be difficult to read in the afternoon
when westward sun shines in the same direction
someone needs to look in order to read the sign.

Use approved color combos for legibility and ADA
accessibility (see Brand Guidelines pages 23-27).

Size
Maintain legibility and proper scale for the location
and the type of user. Consider who may need to
read the sign and how fast they are traveling:

Vehicles - consider placement that accounts for
distance and speed
Cyclists - consider placement that doesn’t require
the cyclist to move position or swerve from the path
Pedestrians - consider placement within eye level
C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 12 Best Practices
Signage
Inventory
C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 12 C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 13 Best Practices
Gateway

EXISTING

PROPOSED
Directional
Informational
Identifying
C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 14

SIGNAGE DESIGNS
Gateway &
Welcome Signs
Newly constructed design and subtrate
Signage Inventory
C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 15

SIGNAGE DESIGNS
Street Signs
Median Street Signs
Signage Inventory
C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 16 Signage Inventory

SIGNAGE DESIGNS
Street Signs
Pole-Mounted Street Signs
C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 17 Signage Inventory

SIGNAGE DESIGNS
Street Signs
Intersection street signs
C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 18

SIGNAGE DESIGNS
Directional Pointers
Intersection street signs
Signage Inventory
C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 19

SIGNAGE DESIGNS
Directional Pointers
Intersection street signs
Signage Inventory
C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 20

SIGNAGE DESIGNS
Identifying Signs
Intersection street signs
Signage Inventory
C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 21

SIGNAGE DESIGNS
Identifying Signs
Intersection street signs
Signage Inventory
C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 22

SIGNAGE DESIGNS
Monumental Signs
Intersection street signs
Signage Inventory
C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES 23 Wayfinding Guidelines / Version 01 / July 2024

C I TY O F STAN TO N WAYF I N D I N G G U I D E L I N ES Thank you!
1 CITY OF STANTON

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
DATE: September 10, 2024
SUBJECT: 2024 ANNUAL LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONFERENCE

APPOINTMENT OF VOTING DELEGATE AND VOTING DELEGATE

ALTERNATE
REPORT IN BRIEF:

The League of California Cities (Cal Cities) Annual Conference and Expo is scheduled for October 16 – 18, 2024 in Long Beach, California. The League's Annual Business Meeting is scheduled to be held on October 18, 2024. At this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on proposed bylaws and resolutions that establish League policy. In order to vote at the Annual Conference/Annual Business Meeting, the City Council must designate a voting delegate and/or voting delegate alternate whom will determine the City’s position on each proposed bylaw and/or resolution.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. City Council find that this item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5)(Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment); and

2. Per the City Council-approved Mayor’s Appointments of Council Members as Representatives to Various Agencies listing, designate Mayor David J. Shawver as the voting delegate and select either Council Member Gary Taylor or Council Member Hong Alyce Van as the voting delegate alternate to serve as the City’s representatives at the 2024 League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo in Long Beach, California; and

3. Direct the voting delegate and voting delegate alternate to review and determine the City’s position on each proposed bylaw amendment and/or proposed petitioned resolutions, so that the voting delegates can represent the City’s position at the 2024 Annual League of California Cities Business meeting.

Item: 12A
Click here to return to the agenda.
2 FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact related to this item.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

This item is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15378(b)(5)(Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment).

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Through the regular agenda process.

STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVE ADDRESSED:

Obj. No. 6: Maintain and promote a responsive, high quality and transparent government.

Prepared by: Patricia A. Vazquez, City Clerk
Approved by: Hannah Shin-Heydorn, City Manager
Attachments:

A. Cal Cities 2024 Resolution Packet
2023-2024

CAL CITIES OFFICERS
President
Daniel T. Parra
Mayor
Fowler
First Vice President
Lynne Kennedy
Mayor Pro Tem,
Rancho Cucamonga
Second Vice President
Gabe Quinto
Council Member,
El Cerrito
Immediate Past President
Ali Sajjad Taj
Mayor Pro Tem,
Artesia
Executive Director
and CEO
Carolyn M. Coleman
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org August 28, 2024
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Managers, and City Clerks RE: Cal Cities 2024 Resolution Packet
Sixty days before the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Cal Cities members may submit resolutions on issues of importance to cities. This year, Cal Cities received one resolution by the Aug. 17 deadline.

The attached packet contains the proposed resolution, supporting letters from city officials, and an analysis of the resolution by Cal Cities. The packet includes detailed information on the resolution process.

We encourage each city council to consider the resolution and determine a city position so your voting delegate can represent your city’s position on the resolution.

Voting Delegates: City councils must appoint a voting delegate to vote during the General Assembly. Each city may also appoint up to two alternate delegates. If your city has not already done so, please appoint your voting delegate by Sept. 25. The voting delegate packet contains more information.

The Cal Cities 2024 General Assembly will be held Oct. 18 at 8:30 a.m. in the Long Beach Convention Center during the Annual Conference and Expo.

For questions about resolutions, voting delegates, or the General Assembly, please contact Zach Seals.

Attachment: A
Click here to return to the agenda.
2024
Resolutions
Packet
2024 Resolutions Packet
Information on 2024 Resolutions Process
Consideration by Policy Committee (pre-conference)
Per the Cal Cities bylaws, the Cal Cities President has referred the submitted resolution to the Governance, Transparency, and Labor Relations Policy Committee. The committee will meet on Oct. 3 at 10 a.m. via Zoom to review the resolution and make a recommendation that will be sent to the Resolutions Committee. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Register for the meeting here.

A list of recommendations the policy committee may make during its meeting are on page three of this packet.

Consideration by Resolutions Committee (during conference) On Oct. 17 at 1:30 p.m. the Resolutions Committee will meet to review the resolution and the recommendation of the policy committee.

The Resolutions Committee consists of one representative from each of Cal Cities caucuses, departments, divisions, and policy committees, as well as up to ten additional appointments made by the Cal Cities President. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Refer to the onsite conference program for the location.

A list of recommendations the Resolutions Committee may make during its meeting are on page three of this packet.

Consideration by the General Assembly (during conference) The General Assembly will convene on Oct. 18 at 8:30 a.m. to consider any qualified resolutions. To vote during the General Assembly, voting delegates must have checked-in at the voting delegate booth.

Conference attendees will receive materials for the General Assembly on the evening of Oct. 17. For more information on voting and discussion procedures during the General Assembly, see page four of this packet.

Petitioned Resolutions (during conference)
The petitioned resolution is an alternate method to introduce policy proposals during the annual conference. To initiate a petitioned resolution, voting delegates from 10% of member cities must sign the petition. The resolution and signatures are due at least 24 hours before the beginning of the General Assembly. Voting delegates who have checked-in at the voting delegate booth can receive more information on petitioned resolutions at the booth onsite. 1 Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.

How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.

The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.

The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.

Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.

Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.

Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.

Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.

The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.

Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.

Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.

During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.

Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.

For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.

General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f). 2 2024 Resolutions Packet
Policy Committee and Resolutions Committee Actions
The submitted resolution will be heard by the policy committee to which it was assigned, and the Resolutions Committee. The below table shows what recommendations these bodies may make on the resolution.

Policy Committee Actions Resolutions Committee Actions
Approve Approve
Disapprove* Disapprove*
No Action No Action
Amend and approve Amend and approve
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Approve as amended
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Approve with additional
amendment(s)
Additional amendments and refer to
appropriate policy committee for
further study*
*If a resolution is disapproved or referred for further study by all policy committees to which it is assigned and the Resolutions Committee, it will not proceed to the General Assembly. 3 2024 Resolutions Packet
General Assembly Voting and Discussion Procedures
Discussion Procedures:

Discussion procedures during the General Assembly are guided by two calendars:
the Consent Calendar and the Regular Calendar. As seen below, resolutions are calendared by the recommendations they receive from policy committees and the Resolutions Committee.

For General Resolutions:

Policy Committee
Recommendation
Resolutions Committee
Recommendation Calendar
Approve Approve Consent Calendar
Approve Disapprove or refer Regular Calendar
Disapprove or refer Approve Regular Calendar
Disapprove or refer Disapprove or refer Does not proceed to General Assembly
For Petitioned Resolutions:

Policy Committee
Recommendation Resolutions Committee Action Calendar
N/A
Approve Regular Calendar
Disapprove or Refer Regular Calendar
Disqualified Does not proceed to General
Assembly
Items on the Consent Calendar will be presented as one motion during the General Assembly from the Resolutions Committee chair. Unless an item on the Consent Calendar is set aside by the majority of the General Assembly, a vote will be taken on the whole calendar. It an item is set aside, it will be opened for discussion, followed by a vote.

Items on the Regular Calendar will be presented individually by the Resolutions Committee chair. After a recommendation is presented by the Resolutions Committee chair, the resolution will be opened for discussion by the General Assembly. A vote will take place following discussion.

Voting Procedures:

Per Cal Cities Bylaws Article XII, Sec. 2, all votes will be conducted by voice vote first. If the presiding official cannot determine the outcome a vote will be taken by an alternative method, typically a raise of voting cards by voting delegates. A roll call vote may be called for by delegates of ten percent or more of the General Assembly.
4 2024 Resolutions Packet
2024 Resolution

1. Resolution on Fair and Equal Treatment of All Governmental Officials at All Levels submitted by City of Glendora
• Letters of concurrence submitted by:
i. April A. Verlato, Mayor, City of Arcadia
ii. Robert Gonzales, Mayor, City of Azusa
iii. Tim Hepburn, Mayor, City of La Verne
iv. Bill Uphoff, Mayor, City of Lomita
v. John M. Cruikshank, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes • Referred to Governance, Transparency, and Labor Relations Policy Committee
• Policy Committee Recommendation:
• Resolutions Committee Recommendation:
5 2024 Resolutions Packet
Resolution No. 1: Fair and Equal
Treatment of All Governmental
Officials at All Levels submitted by
City of Glendora
6 2024 Resolutions Packet

1. A RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF

CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING FOR THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LAWS THAT ENSURE THAT “WHAT APPLIES TO ONE, APPLIES TO ALL” IN THE

FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT OF ALL GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS AT ALL

LEVELS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Source: City of Glendora
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials
City Officials: April A. Verlato, Mayor, City of Arcadia; Robert Gonzales, Mayor, City of Azusa; Tim Hepburn, Mayor, City of La Verne; Bill Uphoff, Mayor, City of Lomita; John M. Cruikshank, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Referred to: Governance, Transparency and Labor Relations Policy Committee
WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the League of California Cities objects to the practice of the California Legislature of imposing rules limiting authority or regulating the conduct of local municipal officials that do not also apply to elected officials of the State of California; and WHEREAS, examples of such rules or regulations that apply to local city elected officials that do not otherwise apply to the elected officials of the State of California include, but are not limited to:

California’s open meeting rules, codified in the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code, Chapter 9, §§ 54950 et seq., which purport to “declare[] that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly,” but which limits its application to “local agencies,” but not including elected officials of the State of California; Creating “one-off” exemptions, in the form of Senate Bill No. 174, from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) which purportedly requires all government agencies to consider the environmental consequences of their actions before approving plans and policies or committing to a course of action on a project in order to demolish and then rebuild State offices for the Governor and other State officials; 7 2024 Resolutions Packet
Adopting rules, in the form of Senate Bill No. 1439, amending the Political Reform Act (the “Act”), by removing the exception for local elected officers from contribution limits requiring disqualification on development project decisions,” but not including elected officials of the State of California;
Adopting rules, in the form of Assembly Bill No. 571, that apply to city and county candidates for local elected office, but not to candidates for state-wide office, including, but not limited to: prohibiting the making a contribution over the AB 571 limit to another candidate in jurisdictions subject to the AB 571; requiring a candidate that has qualified as a committee to establish a separate controlled committee and campaign bank account for each specific office; prohibiting a candidate from redesignating a committee for one election for another election.

WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the League of California Cities now calls upon the Governor and the California Legislature to adopt a policy, practice, and procedure requiring, in their legislative activities, that “what applies to one applies to all.”
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED at the League General Assembly, assembled at the League Annual Conference on October 18, 2024 in Long Beach, California, that the League calls upon the Governor of the State of California and the elected members of the California Legislature, including all members of the Senate and Assembly to adopt the following policy:
“The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not sign into law, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.” 8 2024 Resolutions Packet
Resolution No. 1: Letters of
Concurrence
9 July 10, 2024
The City Council of Glendora
is proposing the following resolution for consideration at the California League of Cities annual conference
on
October 18, 2024
Proposed Resolution: (“To ensure fairness and equal treatment for all government officials in California”)
“The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not approve, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.”
The following five city council members are in concurrence with their letters of support (attached):
✓ Mayor John Cruikshank, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
✓ Mayor Bill Uphoff, City of Lomita
✓ Mayor Robert Gonzales, City of Azusa
✓ Mayor April Verlato, City of Arcadia
✓ Mayor Tim Hepburn, City of La Verne
Please confirm receipt of this request.

Sincerely,
Michael Allawos
Council Member
City of Glendora
10 11
12 13
14 15
2024 Resolutions Packet
Resolution No. 1: Staff Analysis
16 League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1 Staff: Johnnie Pina, Legislative Affairs, Lobbyist
Committee: Governance, Transparency, and Labor Relations Summary:

This Resolution states that the League of California Cities shall call upon the Governor of the State of California and the elected members of the California Legislature, including all members of the Senate and Assembly to adopt the following policy:
“The California State Legislature shall not enact, and the Governor shall not sign into law, any law or regulation that applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate. This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.”
Background:

This resolution states that examples of the California Legislature imposing rules limiting authority or regulating the conduct of local municipal officials that do not also apply to elected officials of the State of California include, but are not limited to:
• California’s open meeting rules, codified in the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code, Chapter 9, §§ 54950 et seq.;
• “One-off” exemptions, in the form of Senate Bill No. 174, from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”);
• Rules, in the form of Senate Bill No. 1439, amending the Political Reform Act (the “Act”); and
• Rules, in the form of Assembly Bill No. 571, that apply to city and county candidates for local elected office, but not to candidates for state-wide office.

Ralph M. Brown Act
The California Attorney General’s (AG) Office defines The Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act) as what governs meetings conducted by local legislative bodies, such as boards of supervisors, city councils and school boards. The AG’s office states the Act represents the Legislature’s determination of how the balance should be struck between public access to meetings of multi-member public bodies on the one hand and the need for confidential candor, debate, and information gathering on the other.

The Ralph M. Brown Act governs local agencies, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act covers all state boards and commissions, and Government code 17 9027 governs the state Legislature. The California Constitution also mandates open meetings for state agencies, boards, and commissions. Specifically, the Constitution requires that each local agency comply with the Brown Act (Article I, section 3(b)(7)): and that the proceedings of each house of the Legislature be open and public (with exceptions for employment matters; matters affecting security; confer with legal counsel; and to meet as a caucus (Article IV, section 7).

Although fairly detailed requirements apply to state agencies and other state bodies, they do not apply to the Legislature. The Legislature has Constitutional authority to adopt rules for its proceedings that are consistent with the requirement that the proceedings of each house and the committees be open and public.

Another notable difference between the Legislature and a city council is the ability for Legislators to have a caucus to discuss a bill, express how they will vote, and to count votes. This is not allowed under the Brown Act. One other difference is that the laws governing teleconferencing for members of the state Legislature is far less flexible than it is for local bodies. However, state agencies have more flexibility than locals in that regard.

California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
The Resolution cites the Legislature's action in exempting from CEQA the reconstruction of the State Capitol Annex building. The State Legislature enacted the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 1970, establishing it as a public disclosure law for the environmental review of discretionary projects and a process for mitigating or avoiding potential environmental impacts.

SB 174 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 74, Statutes of 2024 was signed into law July 2, 2024. This bill exempts the work performed under the State Capitol Building Annex Act of 2016 from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In this example the Legislature exempted themselves as not being considered a “public agency,” “state agency,” or “lead agency” under CEQA. A lead agency under CEQA is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project that is subject to CEQA.

Over the years, the Legislature has also created many CEQA exceptions and exemptions for local projects involving local agencies as well.

The Political Reform Act (PRA) - Senate Bill No. 1439
SB 1439 (Glazer) Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 848, Statutes of 2022 amends section 84308 and is aimed at preventing "pay-to-play" practices, in part by prohibiting parties, participants, and their respective agents in a 18 proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use from contributing more than $250 to an officer of an agency during a 12 month period. When the Levine Act was first enacted in 1982, Section 84308 applied to appointed members of boards and commissions who were running for elective office. SB 1439 expended this law to now apply to local elected officials. Since it is focused on permits and licenses, it now applies to State agencies and local agencies that approve permits and licenses. Section 84308 does not apply to the Legislature or the Courts. It is important to note that unlike local governments, neither issue permits and licenses.

The Political Reform Act (PRA) - Assembly Bill No. 571
AB 571 (Mullin) Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 556, Statutes of 2019 established default campaign contribution limits for county and city office at the same level as the limit on contributions from individuals to candidates for Senate and Assembly, effective January 1, 2021. This bill permitted a county or city to establish its own contribution limits, which would prevail over these default limits.

The Resolution cites AB 571 as an example of treating cities differently than the State. The Fair Political Practices Commission clarifies in their AB 571 fact sheet that under AB 571 a city may elect to have "no" contribution limit in which case the state contribution limit will not apply as a default for that jurisdiction. A city or county can set contribution limits higher than the default state limit, AB 571 sets a default in line with contributions Assembly Members and Senators if a city or county is silent on contribution limits.

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown.

Existing Cal Cities Policy:

Mission Statement
To expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.

We Believe:
• Local self-governance is the cornerstone of democracy. • In the involvement of all stakeholders in establishing goals and in solving problems.
• In conducting the business of government with transparency, openness, respect, and civility. The spirit of honest public service is what builds communities.
• Open decision-making that is of the highest ethical standards honors the public trust.
• The vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local autonomy. The active participation of all city officials increases Cal Cities’ effectiveness.
19 • Partnerships and collaborations are essential elements of focused advocacy and lobbying.
• Ethical and well-informed city officials are essential for responsive, visionary leadership and effective and efficient city operations.

Comments:

Additional Examples
The Legislature has passed and the Governor has signed many laws that apply to local governments and do not apply to the state or the state Legislature. This year AB 2561(McKinnor) was introduced, which requires local governments to present in a public meeting a detailed report about their vacancy rates and detailed information about their hiring practices. This is an attempt to address public sector vacancy rates. This bill does not apply to the state in a time when they are also dealing with high vacancy rates.

Additionally, there were several bills that aim to amend the Levine Act, which now applies to local elected officials, to make changes to SB 1439, referenced previously in the analysis. None of the bills would amend the law to be applicable to Assembly Members or Senators.

AB 817 (Pacheco), co-sponsored by Cal Cities tried to bring parity to the Brown Act by making the teleconference rules for state advisory bodies the same for local advisory bodies but the Legislature struck the bill down.

Applying to elected officials or to the legislative body? Legislature or the State? The resolution also states, “… applies solely to elected officials of California cities and counties, unless such law or regulation also applies equally to members of the California State Assembly and Senate.”
This portion of the resolve clause is specifically speaking to local elected officials and State Assembly Members and Senators. However, many of the “where as” clauses are in reference to laws that apply to cities, the state and the Legislature as government agencies and not specifically to the elected officials on the governing bodies. For example, the Brown Act applies rules to the Legislative body and not the individual council member. Additionally, the city council as a whole is the lead agency under CEQA and not the individual council members.

Inherent Powers of the Legislative Branch
The resolution also states, “This prohibition shall not apply to laws or regulations affecting the inherent powers of the legislative branch under the California Constitution.”
It is unclear what inherent powers of the legislate branch under the California Constitution means in this context. The legislative branch does have the power 20 of preemption over cities and can state that a change in law is a matter of state wide concern. This allows the legislative branch to apply new laws or amend existing laws to apply to general law and charter cities. It seems like the last sentence of the resolve clause could negate the rest of the resolve clause if not clarified.

Support:

The following letters of concurrence were received:

April A. Verlato, Mayor, City of Arcadia
Robert Gonzales, Mayor, City of Azusa
Tim Hepburn, Mayor, City of La Verne
Bill Uphoff, Mayor, City of Lomita
John M. Cruikshank, Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
21

Stanton City CouncilSeptember 10, 2024

Stanton City Council
September 10, 2024