Redding City Council
February 15, 2022

6.0 The Need for Additional Resources and Resource Options The development of the load forecast allows a comparison of capacity requirements with existing and additional near-term resources. The result will highlight the adequacy of existing and nearterm additional resources and their ability to meet energy needs and comply with RE requirements during the 2018-2037 planning period; this determination will be done for a scenario that contemplates continued operation of existing resources to meet future requirements.

Sufficient existing and near-term capacity resources exist to meet its projected peak demand and planning reserve requirements over the study period. However, additional RE resources will be necessary to meet RPS requirements and added RE resources will promote further GHG emission reductions. The need for additional renewable resources established in this section leads to the development of several Scenarios that are modeled and presented from an economic cost and RE perspective in Section 8.

6.1 EXISTING SYSTEM CAPACITY BALANCE
Capacity balance is shown in Figure 6-1 for the Existing System Scenario. This Scenario assumes no additions to the system are added through 2037 and reflects the expiration of the Big Horn wind purchase after 2031.

The figure indicates sufficient generation capacity exists to meet capacity needs throughout the planning horizon; the excess generation capacity ranges from a high of 38 MW to 10 MW during the 2018-2037 planning period. (Section 8 will present a similar capacity balance for the preferred plan; the figure is a simplified summary of the CRAT table included in Appendix A for the preferred option.)
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan The Need for Additional Resources and Resource Options 6-2 Figure 6-1 Capacity Sufficiency for the “Existing System” Scenario, 2018-2037 0 50
100
150
200
250
300
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 Capacity (MW)
Year

CAPACITY

EXISTING SYSTEM
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6
Western Whiskeytown Big Horn Peak Load Planning Reserve Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side The Need for Additional Resources and Resource Options 6-3

6.2 EXISTING SYSTEM SCENARIO ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND RENEWABLE

ENERGY LEVELS
Figure 6-1 provides additional information about the adequacy of the Existing System Scenario.

Table 6-1 indicates the total generation from resources, purchases, and sales that occur under the Existing System Scenario. As seen in Figure 6-2, the Station’s 1x1 and 2x1 natural-gas fueled combined cycle units are most active in the power market over the planning period, and market purchases account for a significant amount of COR’s energy requirements.

Figure 6-3 indicates the ability to meet its RE targets if no additional RE resources are added. In the figure, a year in which a shortfall in RE occurs is displayed by the stacked bar chart not meeting the red line.

As indicated in Figure 6-3, if no additional RE resources are added, RE targets starting in 2019, would not be met and the shortfall would continue through 2037. The shortfall would become increasingly severe, such that in 2030, only a 30 percent RE contribution would be received as compared to the 50 percent requirement. For the remainder of the 2037 study period, the shortage would dramatically increase once the Big Horn wind PPA expiries in 2031. Looking at the REC outlook, it is clear that the Existing System Scenario results in a deficiency of REC.

Figure 6-3 is very significant because it shows that, while the Existing System can meet capacity requirements and energy needs, it is not acceptable in that it does not comply with the obligations necessary to meet the targeted RE levels.

Figure 6-4 lists data pertaining to the GHG emissions under the Existing System Scenario. These emissions are compared to the proposed CARB limits under the low and high targets proposed by CARB staff in July 2018. The 2030 targets proposed are between 57,000 (low target) and 101,000 (high target) of MTCO2e. Figure 6-4 indicates that under the Existing System Scenario, 2030 emissions are projected to be105,408 MTCO2e; this is in excess of the low and high targets proposed by CARB staff. This means that, from an environment and GHG (and RE) perspective, the Existing System Scenario is not a viable plan.

Based on the shortcomings of the Existing System Scenario, several additional Scenarios were developed and evaluated as part of this IRP process. The objective was to balance resource adequacy, economics, stakeholder input, and meet obligations for RE and GHG reductions. These scenarios are presented in Section 8.

Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan The Need for Additional Resources and Resource Options
6-4
Table 6-1 Existing System Energy Sufficiency
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side The Need for Additional Resources and Resource Options 6-5 Figure 6-2 Energy Balance for the Existing System, Scenario G 0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 Energy (MWh)
Year

LOAD AND RESOURCES

EXISTING SYSTEM
Western Whiskeytown Big Horn Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3
Unit 5 Unit 6 1x1 2x1 Net Market REU Load
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side The Need for Additional Resources and Resource Options 6-6 Figure 6-3 REC Adequacy in Existing System Scenario
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 RPS Requirement (RECs)
Year

RENEWABLE OUTLOOK

EXISTING SYSTEM
Big Horn Western Small Whiskeytown Banked RPS RECs Required Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side The Need for Additional Resources and Resource Options
6-7
Figure 6-4 Existing System Scenario Projected GHG Emissions 0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Emissions (MMTCO2e)
Year

GREENHOUSE GAS

EXISTING SYSTEM
Total Emissions Goal
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side The Need for Additional Resources and Resource Options 6-8

6.3 SUPPLY SIDE RESOURCE TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CHARACTERISTICS In consideration of the objective of achieving low electric costs, long-term reliability, and fuel diversity to lower risk of dependence on a single source, a list of multiple resource options were developed to evaluate as candidates to serve future resource needs. All incremental options considered in the analysis were RE solar or wind resources. These options are discussed further in this section.

6.3.1 Renewable Energy
To obtain indicative RE PPA pricing, several locations were selected for modeling, with alternative price and performance estimates developed for each location. In total, five different modeling profiles were developed for different solar projects representing potential project sizes that could be located within each region. The projects are described in Table 6-2 and were sized to reflect sample projects of differing proportions.

The solar projects in Table 6-2 were assumed to consist of single axis tracking systems (SAT). SAT systems tend to have better output in the late afternoons when generation is often the most valuable. The solar production for each location was modeled with SAM’s Detailed PV modeling module and used weather data representing each location. The inverter loading ratio (ratio of module capacity to inverter capacity) was assumed to be 1.3. Typical SAT systems have inverts of

1.25 to 1.30 today and are optimized for project location. The capacity factor was calculated based on the AC project capacity. Additionally, the long-term degradation of the systems was assumed to be 0.7 percent per year.

It is noted that, independent of, and prior to the IRP process, analysis indicated that the addition of a 10 MW PV PPA in the 2021 timeframe would be beneficial. The project is being pursued through the NCPA. While the exact cost and performance will be determined through competitive bidding, the Site 1 project in Table 6-2 is considered to be proxy for the project. The Project is currently in Phase Two (out of three) in development and this phase includes all pre-construction engineering, design, and environmental review tasks. On June 5, 2018, the Council approved the Phase Two activities that include the following actions:
(1) Authorize participation in Phase Two of NCPA Solar Project 1 including, approving the Second Phase Agreement, the Power Management and Administrative Services Agreement, and the Amended and Restated Facilities Agreement; (2) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute the agreements and any associated amendments and administer the project;
(3) Adopt Resolution approving the 34th Amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 2017-057 transferring needed funds for phase two. 13 Due to the relatively advanced stage of this project, all scenarios developed in Section 8 of this IRP incorporate the 10 MW PV project in 2021, with the exception of the Existing System Scenario. The economic analysis in Section 8 will demonstrate that the addition of the project not only contributes to achieving RE and GHG targets, but the project is cost-effective when compared to the Existing System Scenario. For this reason, the addition of the Solar Project in 2021 (and not the

13 City of Redding Report to the City Council, 4.5(a)—Authorization to Participate in Phase Two of NCPA Solar Project 1, Daniel Beans, Director of Electric Utility,
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan The Need for Additional Resources and Resource Options 6-9 Existing System Scenario) is considered to be the Base Case Scenario, and additional scenarios are developed around this near-term addition to meet RPS requirements and to evaluate the economics of additional resource options.

Table 6-2 Solar Systems and Modeled Performance

SITE LOCATION

PROJECT

CAPACITY
[MWAC]
MODULE

CAPACITY
[MWDC)

CAPACITY
FACTOR
(DC)

CAPACITY
FACTOR
(AC)

DEGRADATION
(ANNUAL %)
1 North CA 10 13 21.5% 27.9% 0.7%
2 OR/CA 100 130 20.8% 27.0% 0.7%
3 Arizona 100 130 25.5% 33.1% 0.7%
4 Central Valley 20 26 23.5% 30.6% 0.7%
5 Central Valley 100 130 22.9% 29.8% 0.7%
Source: Black & Veatch
Two wind projects were also evaluated as developments within possible future planning Scenarios.

The wind project assumptions are shown in Table 6-3. Wind projects now tend to be 100 MW or more, so it was not realistic to model smaller wind farms. It was assumed, however, that COR could purchase less than the full output of a large wind farm.

Wind capacity factors were derived from analysis performed for various geographic energy zones as part of the California Public Utility Commission’s (CPUC) Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Calculator effort, to which Black & Veatch contributed. No degradation was assumed for wind farms.

The location of the solar and wind projects used in this RFP is shown in Figure 6-5. The location impacts the project capacity factor, capital cost, and transmission cost.

Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan The Need for Additional Resources and Resource Options 6-10 Table 6-3 Wind Systems and Modeled Performance

SITE LOCATION

PROJECT

CAPACITY
[MWAC]

CAPACITY

FACTOR (AC)

DEGRADATION
(ANNUAL %)
6 North CA 100 30.0% 0.0%
7 Arizona 200 30.0% 0.0%
Source: Black & Veatch
Figure 6-5 Location of Renewable Resource Project Candidate Units in the IRP Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan The Need for Additional Resources and Resource Options 6-11

6.3.1.1 Cost Assumptions
RE project costs vary depending on system size, year installed, and location costs. The capital costs provided represents an all-in installed cost, or total capital expenditures (CAPEX), including EPC14, owner's costs, developer fees, interconnection, financing fees, and construction interest. This total cost is used as the capital cost when calculating the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) generation. As part of the CAPEX, Black & Veatch also assumed that interconnection costs for solar and wind would vary by size, as shown in Table 6-4 and Table 6-5. Actual interconnection cost will be highly site specific. The total operating expenses, including O&M, property taxes, equipment replacement, and other administrative costs assumed in the analysis are generic and do not attempt to capture locational differences across the various project’s sites.

Table 6-4 2020 Cost Assumptions for Solar SAT Systems (Nominal$)

SITE LOCATION

PROJECT

CAPACITY
[MWAC]
INTERCONNECTION
COST
($M)

CAPITAL
COST
[$/KWAC]

CAPITAL
COST
[$/KWDC]
FIXED
O&M
COSTS
[$/KWAC]
FIXED
O&M
ESCALATION
(ANNUAL)
1 North CA 10 $0.5 $1,770 $1,362 $26 2.5%
2 OR/CA 100 $5 $1,440 $1,108 $26 2.5%
3 Arizona 100 $5 $1,380 $1,062 $26 2.5%
4 Central Valley 20 $1 $1,730 $1,331 $26 2.5%
5 Central Valley 100 $5 $1,580 $1,215 $26 2.5%
Source: Black & Veatch
Table 6-5 2020 Cost Assumptions for Wind Systems (Nominal$)

SITE LOCATION

PROJECT

CAPACITY
[MWAC]

CAPITAL COST
[$/KWAC]

FIXED O&M
COSTS
[$/KWAC]

FIXED O&M

ESCALATION
(ANNUAL)
6 North CA 100 $1,700 $35 2.5%
7 Arizona 200 $1,550 $35 2.5%
Source: Black & Veatch

14 EPC stands for “engineer, procure, and construct”. Additional trade tariffs were imposed on imported solar cells in January of 2018, resulting in increases in module costs. However, the new tariffs are set to decline over the next four years, and module costs are expected to continue to fall. Thus, module costs are assumed to be similar to 2017 levels by 2020.

Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan The Need for Additional Resources and Resource Options 6-12 To determine the estimated cost of 2030 projects, it was assumed that capital costs would decline 1 percent per year in real terms for wind and solar technologies amid an inflationary environment of 2.5 percent per year. The escalated technology costs for 2030 are shown in Table 6-6 and Table 6-7 below.

Table 6-6 2030 Cost Assumptions for Solar SAT Systems (Nominal$)

SITE LOCATION

PROJECT

CAPACITY
[MWAC]
INTERCONNECTION
COST
($M)

CAPITAL
COST
[$/KWAC]

CAPITAL
COST
[$/KWDC]
FIXED
O&M
COSTS
[$/KWAC]

FIXED O&M

ESCALATION
(ANNUAL)
1 North CA 10 $0.64 $2,049 $1,576 $33 2.5%
2 OR/CA 100 $6.4 $1,667 $1,282 $33 2.5%
3 Arizona 100 $6.4 $1,598 $1,229 $33 2.5%
4 Central Valley 20 $1.28 $2,003 $1,541 $33 2.5%
5 Central Valley 100 $6.4 $1,829 $1,407 $33 2.5%
Source: Black & Veatch
Table 6-7 2030 Cost Assumptions for Wind Systems (Nominal$)

SITE LOCATION

PROJECT

CAPACITY
[MWAC]

CAPITAL
COST
[$/KWAC]

FIXED O&M
COSTS
[$/KWAC]

FIXED O&M

ESCALATION
(ANNUAL)
6 North CA 100 $1,968 $45 2.5%
7 Arizona 200 $1,794 $45 2.5%
Source: Black & Veatch

6.3.1.2 Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)
To model the LCOE of each of the representative projects, Black & Veatch assumed a third-party independent power producer (IPP) structure where PPA pricing is based on the LCOE. A number of financial incentives were incorporated into the modeling, as discussed below. As a tax exempt entity, COR cannot directly use the investment tax credit, however, by contracting with an IPP under a PPA, COR can share in the tax credit through the PPA pricing.

Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan The Need for Additional Resources and Resource Options 6-13

6.3.1.3 Financial Assumptions
The 2018 Tax Reform bill changed the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent while still allowing state income taxes to be tax deductible, resulting in the composite income taxes for California, Arizona, and Oregon as shown below.

Table 6-8 Assumed Federal and State Income Tax Rates

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA OREGON
Federal Income Tax 21% 21% 21%
State Income Tax 8.84% 6.97% 7.70%
Composite Income Tax 28.0% 26.5% 27.1%
Source: Black & Veatch

6.3.1.4 Tax Credits
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed in December 2015, extended the investment tax credits (ITC) that apply to solar technologies and wind. Wind project owners can opt for the ITC in lieu of the production tax credit (PTC), which was also extended, but wind typically benefits more from PTC at better wind sites. The credits do decline over time, as shown in Table 6-9. The availability of tax credits shapes the strategy of purchasing wind and solar from private developers through a PPA instead of self-building since COR is a tax exempt.
 ITC is a credit taken as a percentage against the capital cost of a RE system. The capital cost basis allowed is defined by the IRS. If the project owner opts for the ITC, the depreciation basis will need to be reduced by 50 percent of the ITC (e.g., 30 percent ITC, therefore => Depreciation Basis would be 85 percent of the capital cost)  PTC is an inflation-adjusted per-kilowatt-hour (kWh) tax credit for electricity generated by qualified energy resources and sold by the taxpayer to an unrelated person during the taxable year. The duration of the credit is 10 years after the date the facility is placed in service.

For 2020, solar projects can receive a 30 percent ITC against the total capital cost of their project, if the project “begins construction” by the end of 2019. For this analysis, it was assumed that the solar projects begin construction in 2019 and come on-line in 2020 to take advantage of the 30 percent ITC. Otherwise the incentive drops to 26 percent in 2020. By 2030, the ITC drops to 10 percent.

While wind project owners can select between the ITC and the PTC, the drop in the benefits of the ITC occur sooner, so by 2020, there are no incentives available for wind, unless construction started in 2019. In this case, it was assumed that construction starts in 2019 and wind owners take advantage of the PTC at a rate of $9 per MWh, escalated at inflation for the first 10 years of the project. By 2030, wind does not receive any production tax credits, as displayed in Table 6-9.

Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan The Need for Additional Resources and Resource Options 6-14 Table 6-9 Tax Credit Assumptions

TECHNOLOGY
(CONSTRUCTION
START)
12/31/19 12/31/20 12/31/21 12/31/22 FUTURE
YEARS
Solar PV 30% 26% 22% 10% 10%
Large Wind
(Estimated PTC per
MWh)
$9 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Source: Black & Veatch

6.3.1.5 Accelerated Depreciation
Historically, solar and wind projects have been able to utilize a 5-year accelerated depreciation schedule (MACRS) that helped improve project economics. The 2018 Tax Reform bill now allows RE projects to take 100 percent tax depreciation on the total cost of the project in year 1. Industry experts believe, while quite generous, few investors would be able to take full advantage of this new depreciation schedule, so the modeling in the analysis assumed a 5-year MACRS schedule, where approximately 90 percent of the total capital cost would be depreciable.

6.3.1.6 Cost of Capital
IPPs have multiple methods of funding RE projects. For modeling purposes, it was assumed that the debt/equity structure for both solar and wind projects would be as shown Table 6-10. In recent years, the cost of capital for RE projects has dropped substantially in terms of lower interest rates on debt as well as lower equity return requirements by investors. The debt term was modeled for 20 years, while the life of the project was 25 years in the analysis performed.

Table 6-10 Cost of Capital Assumptions for Solar and Wind

FINANCIAL FACTOR SOLAR WIND
Debt Percentage 50 60
Debt Interest Rate (percent) 4.5% 4.5%
Debt term (Years) 20 20
Economic life (Years) 25 25
Cost of equity (after tax) (percent) 10% 10%
Source: Black & Veatch

6.3.1.7 Levelized Cost of Energy
The LCOE for the renewable projects with commercial on-line dates in 2020 and 2030 resulting from the input assumptions and analysis are shown in the tables below. As displayed in Table 6-11, Table 6-12, and Table 6-13, the LCOE represents what is assumed to be a fixed price, 25-year PPA.

Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan The Need for Additional Resources and Resource Options 6-15 Renewable Energy Projects LCOE (Nominal$) 2020 COD
Table 6-11 Renewable Energy Projects LCOE (Nominal$) 2020 COD SITE
TECHNOLOGY LOCATION

PROJECT

CAPACITY
[MWAC]

CAPACITY
FACTOR
(AC)

CAPITAL
COST
[$/KWAC]
ITC OR
PTC

NOMINAL
LCOE
RESULT
($/MWH)
1 Solar SAT North CA 10 27.9% $1,770 30% $53
2 Solar SAT OR/CA 100 27.0% $1,440 30% $48
3 Solar SAT Arizona 100 33.1% $1,380 30% $38
4 Solar SAT Central Valley 1 20 30.6% $1,730 30% $48
5 Solar SAT Central Valley 2 100 29.8% $1,580 30% $46
6 Wind North CA 100 30.0% $1,700 $9/MWh $60
7 Wind Arizona 200 30.0% $1,550 $9/MWh $56
Source: Black & Veatch
Table 6-12 Renewable Energy Projects LCOE (Nominal$) 2030 COD SITE
TECHNOLOGY LOCATION

PROJECT

CAPACITY
[MWAC]

CAPACITY
FACTOR
(AC)

CAPITAL
COST
[$/KWAC]
ITC OR
PTC

NOMINAL
LCOE
($/MWH)
1 Solar SAT North CA 10 27.9% $2,049 10% $85
2 Solar SAT OR/CA 100 27.0% $1,667 10% $75
3 Solar SAT Arizona 100 33.1% $1,598 10% $59
4 Solar SAT Central Valley 1 20 30.6% $2,003 10% $76
5 Solar SAT Central Valley 2 100 29.8% $1,829 10% $73
6 Wind North CA 100 33.1% $1,968 $0 $75
7 Wind Arizona 200 33.1% $1,794 $0 $70
Source: Black & Veatch
Since the ITC and PTC vary year by year, the following table shows the year by year LCOE for projects that come on-line for that year, assuming construction start dates of the previous year.

Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan The Need for Additional Resources and Resource Options 6-16 Table 6-13 Project Nominal LCOE 2020 to 2030
YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Solar SAT Solar SAT Solar SAT Solar SAT Solar SAT Wind Wind North CA OR/CA Arizona
Central
Valley
Central
Valley North CA Arizona
2020 $53 $48 $38 $48 $46 $60 $56
2021 $58 $52 $41 $52 $50 $70 $65
2022 $65 $57 $45 $58 $55 $70 $66
2023 $75 $66 $52 $67 $65 $71 $66
2024 $77 $67 $53 $69 $66 $71 $67
2025 $78 $69 $54 $70 $67 $72 $67
2026 $79 $70 $55 $71 $68 $72 $68
2027 $81 $71 $56 $72 $69 $73 $68
2028 $82 $72 $57 $73 $70 $73 $69
2029 $83 $73 $58 $75 $71 $74 $69
2030 $85 $75 $59 $76 $73 $75 $70
Source: Black & Veatch
Note: The above cost only includes energy; transmission is not included

6.4 ENERGY EFFICIENCY

6.4.1 Building Standards
California has continually increased the energy efficiency of new construction and appliances since the Warren Alquist Act (Act) of 1974. These efficiency standards (Title 24) have since been updated to mandate Zero Net Energy (ZNE) residential new construction starting in 2020. ZNE homes require energy efficiency that will be achieved through implementing a high efficiency envelope (insulation, windows, etc.), and efficient Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) units. The remaining energy consumption must be offset by distributed generation, predominantly rooftop solar generation, sized so that the annual building consumption (excluding natural gas) is approximately equal to building’s electricity generation. Effective in 2030, all new commercial construction will also be required to meet the ZNE standard. In addition, the Act requires that fifty percent of existing commercial buildings be retrofitted to ZNE by 2030 and fifty percent of new major renovations of state buildings be ZNE compliant by 2025. The increased energy efficiency standards will contribute to a lack of load growth in future years.

Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan The Need for Additional Resources and Resource Options 6-17

6.5 ENERGY STORAGE
As explained in Section 5.5, COR has been heavily involved in the TES market for years and has invested more than $6 million in TES technologies.

Technology changes have led to increasing interest in the use of batteries in the energy market.

Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS), which can be independent systems not linked to EVs, can be useful in a broad variety of grid-beneficial applications including use as a capacity resource, for load shifting, and frequency and voltage support.

The CEC has recommended that POU’s consider the role of storage in addressing over-generation of RE when solar energy production exceeds local demand. In California, this can occur particularly during the daytime peak solar production periods. If the excess RE is used to charge a BESS system, the stored energy can be used during the evening ramping period and allowing utilities to avoid GHG emissions that would otherwise be produced if the energy demand was met by conventional thermal resources.

A major benefit of BESS is the ability to provide multiple services in one location to meet the needs of the grid. BESS can be configured to respond to grid needs in less than a second, thereby providing the capability for a faster response time than conventional generation resources. Some of the concepts being considered for BESS applications include:
 Load Shifting: In load shifting applications, BESS are charged with lower priced energy which can help mitigate curtailment of excess renewable generation—when renewable generation exceeds demand—and the stored energy used at a later time, such as during evening ramping periods.
 Peaking Supply: The power output capacity of BESS can be used to meet capacity resource adequacy requirements and replace conventional peaking capacity to provide short-term power needs during periods of peak demand.
 Frequency Regulation and Voltage Support: BESS can be used to mitigate load and generation imbalances and maintain grid frequency and voltage needed for grid stability.  Spinning Reserve: BESS can be utilized to provide energy needs within 10 minutes, as an alternative to conventional generation that must be kept online and synchronized to the grid in anticipation of a need.
 Firming of Intermittent Resources: BESS can be used to “firm” energy production of a variable energy resource—such as solar or wind generation—and provide a more predictable energy profile to the grid.
 Transmission Upgrade Deferral: BESS may offer a way to defer or avoid transmission upgrades.

BESS applications are often selected for primary use in either a power or energy application. Power applications tend to be of shorter duration (approximately 15 minutes to one hour) with operational profiles involving frequent rapid responses or cycles. Energy applications generally require longer duration (approximately 1 hour or more).

Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan The Need for Additional Resources and Resource Options 6-18

6.5.1 Performance and Cost Assumptions for Energy Storage Because lithium ion batteries are widely accepted as a proven technology for BESS applications, a lithium ion battery was chosen as the technology for this analysis. Table 6-14 highlights the BESS performance parameters used in the IRP analysis.

Table 6-14 Representative Performance Parameters for Lithium Ion Battery Systems

PARAMETER LI-ION
Facility Capacity Power Rating, MW 5
Discharge Duration at Rated Capacity, hours 4
Facility Energy Rating, MWh1 20
Round-Trip Efficiency, percent 85%
Estimated life, cycles ~5,000
Installed Levelized Capital Cost, $/kW-yr2 $533
Fixed O&M Costs, $/kW-yr $20
Variable O&M Costs, $/kWh (charge or discharge) $0.001 to 0.005 Notes:

1. The rating is based on installed project size.

2. Battery cost scales with MWh, whereas balance of plant and PCS costs tend to scale with power (MW). Because of this, installed costs tend to have a wide array of values.

Source: Black & Veatch
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Modeling Assumptions, Tools, and Methodology 7-1

7.0 Modeling Assumptions, Tools, and Methodology

7.1 MODELING ASSUMPTIONS

7.1.1 Load forecasts
The load forecast used for the IRP analysis was presented in Table 4-3 of Section 4.0.

7.1.2 Natural Gas and Average Market Prices
For the purposes of economic analysis, a projection of natural gas fuel prices and power energy prices were required (see Figure 7-1, Figure 7-2, and Figure 7-3). The methods used to produce these prices by Ascend Analytics Curve Developer and PowerSimm software suite are described in Section 7.2 below.

Spot market prices for gas and power are simulated in the PowerSimm construct. Table 7-1 demonstrates the average annual simulated spot gas and power prices (mean, 5th, and 95th percentiles of the simulations) delivered to PG&E City Gate and NP-15 respectively. These prices drive model given that COR dispatches their own units, or transacts with these markets, to find the most economic electricity supply.

Table 7-1 Natural Gas and Market Energy Prices Assumed in the IRP YEAR

SPOT NATURAL GAS PG&E CG
$

AVG ANNUAL POWER MARKET
ENERGY PRICE* $

AVG CARBON ALLOWANCE
PRICE $
5% MEAN 95% 5% MEAN 95% 5% MEAN 95%
2018 2.72 2.91 3.13 35.96 40.38 45.61 14.84 14.99 15.16 2019 2.34 2.82 3.38 25.37 38.50 55.91 15.02 15.59 16.17 2020 2.28 2.80 3.39 26.25 41.36 64.10 15.25 16.23 17.31 2021 2.27 2.87 3.67 25.25 45.05 70.64 15.70 17.06 18.60 2022 2.18 2.96 3.86 26.17 47.75 74.57 17.65 18.86 20.23 2023 2.27 3.05 3.90 29.02 49.74 74.64 18.98 20.27 21.75 2024 2.12 3.16 4.34 30.93 51.59 81.67 20.40 21.79 23.38 2025 2.26 3.25 4.61 30.83 53.87 83.02 21.93 23.43 25.14 2026 2.27 3.34 4.71 31.66 55.76 86.98 23.57 25.18 27.02 2027 2.04 3.42 5.27 35.24 57.73 91.15 25.34 27.07 29.05 2028 1.98 3.51 5.59 35.17 59.78 93.66 27.24 29.10 31.23 2029 2.25 3.59 5.55 38.30 61.94 90.38 29.29 31.29 33.57 2030 1.91 3.68 5.77 37.64 64.21 100.48 31.48 33.63 36.08 2031 1.89 3.81 6.83 36.04 66.57 117.45 33.84 36.15 38.79 2032 2.02 3.90 6.83 38.81 69.07 115.55 36.38 38.87 41.70 Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Modeling Assumptions, Tools, and Methodology 7-2
YEAR

SPOT NATURAL GAS PG&E CG
$

AVG ANNUAL POWER MARKET
ENERGY PRICE* $

AVG CARBON ALLOWANCE
PRICE $
5% MEAN 95% 5% MEAN 95% 5% MEAN 95%
2033 2.05 4.00 6.52 42.49 71.69 111.11 39.11 41.78 44.83 2034 1.95 4.10 7.03 39.63 74.41 121.38 42.04 44.91 48.19 2035 2.04 4.20 8.55 44.99 77.31 123.11 45.20 48.28 51.80 2036 2.04 4.31 8.24 48.73 80.34 123.41 48.59 51.90 55.69 2037 1.95 4.41 7.76 51.97 83.56 126.09 52.23 55.80 59.87 *The Average Market Energy Price data in the last three columns are average annual hourly values.

Source: Black & Veatch
Figure 7-1 Power Forward Price
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
20182019202020212022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037 Price ($/MWh)
Year
POWER

FORWARD PRICE
POWER | P5 POWER | MEAN POWER | P95
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Modeling Assumptions, Tools, and Methodology 7-3
Figure 7-2 Gas Forward Price
Figure 7-3 Carbon Allowance Forward Price
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
$8
$9
20182019202020212022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037 Price ($/dth)
Year
GAS

FORWARD PRICE
GAS | P5 GAS | MEAN GAS | P95
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
20182019202020212022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037 Price ($/allowance)
Year

CARBON ALLOWANCE

FORWARD PRICE
CARBON ALLOWANCE | P5 CARBON ALLOWANCE | MEAN CARBON ALLOWANCE | P95 Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Modeling Assumptions, Tools, and Methodology 7-4
As reported in Table 7-1, these prices are annual equivalents or averages for the stated year. When performing the economic analysis of this report, the actual analysis prices used were hourly, on/offpeak, daily, or monthly as was appropriate and included the natural gas market, electric power market (NP15, COB), and California Carbon Allowance (CCA) market.

7.1.3 Discount Rate
The analysis utilized a 2.5 percent discount rate. This discount rate was applied to future costs and revenues to determine estimated future net costs of serving load on a net present value basis.

7.2 ASCEND ANALYTICS PLANNING SUITE – TOOLS FOR MODERN RESOURCE

PLANNING
The Ascend Analytics Planning Suite is a set of software programs consisting of Curve Developer (CurveDev) market harvesting and modeling, PowerSimm Planner (PowerSimm) production cost model for system operations simulation, among other tools. The suite is designed, maintained, and supported by Ascend Analytics and was used for the IRP.

7.2.1 CurveDev and PowerSimm – Tools for Market Prices
Forecasting market prices by CurveDev begins by harvesting forward price quotes from the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE). This is done for markets available at PG&E City Gate, California Carbon Allowance, NP15, and MidC. As there are no ICE quotes for COB, this value is derived from historical relationships to the NP15 and MidC price. Beyond the time horizon covered by the harvested broker quotes to the end of the study period, a 2.5% annual increase is used for gas and energy prices and 7.5% for carbon prices. Together, the broker harvest and post processing represents a single price curve for each market and are summarized annually in Table 7-1.

Studies in this report use harvested data as of June 25, 2018. PowerSimm will pull in the latest price curve from CurveDev up until this date, and use this as the mean for all simulated prices. For stochastic studies, PowerSimm also pulls in the 90 business days prior to the June 25th harvest date of the study when simulating prices. The 90 days of data is used to calculate the correlations between markets and dates, as well as the volatility of each market. This information is then used to simulate a distribution of prices that matches the historical correlations and volatilities, while still scaling the mean to the most recent price curve. These prices were rolled-up to produce the annual data as presented in Table 7-1.

Additional information on CurveDev and PowerSimm’s methods and capabilities can be found in Appendix D.

7.2.2 CurveDev and PowerSimm – Tools for Modern Resource Planning Combined, CurveDev and PowerSimm tools form a platform for modern resource planning, in an era of increasing uncertainty in electricity supply driven by the deployment of variable renewable generation. The uncertainty in electric supply brings with it risk that will affect the cost and viability of potential projects needed to meet state-mandated renewable portfolio standards. Not only does PowerSimm provide the appropriate mean cost estimates under multiple correlated scenarios, but is also able to monetize (assess an equivalent cost of) the risk. This assessment, known as the “risk premium”, can be equated to an insurance premium used to protect against uncertainty that could be caused by weather, market prices of gas or power, and variability of nondispatchable resources. While PowerSimm can report an abundance of useful output data, for Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Modeling Assumptions, Tools, and Methodology 7-5
economic assessments of potential candidate plans, it is sufficient to compare the system annual mean cost and the annual risk premium together.

Additional information on CurveDev and PowerSimm’s method and capabilities can be found in Appendix D.

Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Evaluation and Results 8-1

8.0 Evaluation and Results
In this section, the economic analysis performed for the system is described. In general, the analysis is aimed at minimizing system costs—a sentiment that was of utmost importance to Stakeholders—while also meeting the several targets that have arisen under the state RPS and environmental policies described in Section 2, including the following goals:
 Low cost and reliability
 50 percent renewable energy by 2030 and meet intermediate goals per SB 350  Increased energy efficiency per SB 350
 2030 GHG within the July 2018 CARB staff recommended targets (low of 57,000 MTCO2e and high of 101,000 MTCO2e per SB 350)
Based upon past experience and Stakeholder input, an important target has been identified:
selecting a resource planning scenario that reasonably balances multiple types of RE resources.

Specifically, to achieve a balance in PV and wind resources over the planning horizon is vital as a balanced portfolio may reduce risks associated with over-reliance on a single technology. Portfolio diversity protects customers from contingencies such as market fuel and power prices, fuel and power availability, as well as changes to the load and resources. Also, a balanced wind and solar PV energy generation combination is deemed to be a better fit to hourly system energy demand profile than a plan heavily weighted toward either wind or solar. A balanced wind and solar PV energy generation profile is also considered prudent for a number of other reasons.

As one example, just as there is a reluctance to develop additional hydroelectric renewable resources because of concerns about possible adverse impacts on fish and other wildlife, some industry stakeholders and several COR Stakeholders have expressed concerns about over reliance on wind generation due to the possible impact on avian populations. Thus, in addition to the above bulleted items, staff developed and ranked Scenarios with the objective of achieving a balance between wind and PV RE generation.

8.1 ECONOMIC EVALUATION FRAMEWORK
The aim of the economic analysis is to meet these requirements while minimizing the long-term present worth cost of incremental power to customers. This cost is commonly called the cumulative present worth cost (CPWC) of a Scenario. The CPWC includes “incremental” costs, which refers to the power supply costs incurred directly or indirectly through interaction with the market and power producers during the 2018-2037 evaluation period. Incremental costs do not include existing fixed costs or common costs such as general and administrative costs, as these are considered sunk costs or costs common to all future Scenarios. However, the capital costs associated with new resources are included as are variable costs incurred (directly or indirectly) in a resource plan.

Due to reliance upon interaction with the power market, it is important that an economic analysis projecting future power costs model interaction with the market and project the costs and revenues associated with purchases from, or sales into, the market. A plan that relies heavily on assumed market purchases may incur risks associated with future power energy market prices increasing at a rate higher than assumed in the analysis. Therefore, to reduce the risk of higher retail rates associated with unexpected increases in future power energy market prices, plans with lower Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Evaluation and Results 8-2
market purchases are preferable to plans with higher market purchases, all other factors being equal. Details about the modeling approach used to derive the CPWC are included in Section 8.2.

8.2 SCENARIO ANALYSIS
In the IRP, the CPWCs of several competing Scenarios were determined. A Scenario included one or more of seven potential solar and wind projects, first developed in Section 7, having the specifications summarized in Table 8-1. The selection of projects listed in Table 8-1 was based on the understanding from Section 6 that additional renewable resources will be required.

A total of eight Scenarios were evaluated through detailed modeling; these consisted of the Existing System Scenario (identified as Scenario G), plus seven Scenarios that involved adding RE resources.

The various Scenarios evaluated are displayed in Table 8-2, which also lists the specific projects from comprising each Scenario.

Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Evaluation and Results 8-3
Table 8-1 RPS Project Definitions
PROJECT 1 PROJECT 2 PROJECT 3 PROJECT 4 PROJECT 5 PROJECT 6 PROJECT 7 Name Local PV
w/Bat
NorCal/OR
PV
AZ PV CV PV 1 CV PV 2 NorCal/
OR Wind
AZ Wind
Location Local OR/NorCal Arizona Central
Valley
Central
Valley
OR/
NorCal
Arizona
Type PV PV PV PV PV Wind Wind
Capacity (MW) 10 100 100 20 100 100 200
Scalable No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
AC Capacity
Factor (%)

27.9% 27.0% 33.1% 30.6% 29.8% 30.0% 30.0%
Annual Energy
(MWh)
24,440 236,520 289,956 53,611 261,048 262,800 525,600
Annual
Degradation (%)

0.70% 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% 0.00% 0.00%
Energy Storage?
(Yes/No/Maybe)
Yes Not
included
Not
included
Not
included
Not
included
Not
included
Not
included
ES Capacity (MW) 2.50 Not
included
Not
included
Not
included
Not
included
Not
included
Not
included
ES Duration (Hrs) 4 Not
included
Not
included
Not
included
Not
included
Not
included
Not
included
Transmission
Requirements
None To COTP,
WAPA
To CAISO,
WAPA
NP26,
WAPA
To CAISO,
WAPA
To COTP,
WAPA
To CAISO,
WAPA
LMP Market
Location (To
Value)
NP15 NP15 Palo Verde ZP26 SP15 NP15 Palo Verde
Transmission &
VERBS Costs
(2018-$/kW/mo)
$0.000 $2.258 $3.137 $0.000 $0.000 $2.258 $3.137
Transmission
Costs (2018-
$/MWh)
$0.000 $0.000 $11.221 $11.221 $11.221 $0.000 $11.221
Transmission
Escalation Rate

5.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 5.00% 4.00%
Source: Black & Veatch
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Evaluation and Results 8-4
Table 8-2 IRP Scenario and Projects

SCENARIO
NAME
PROJECT 1:

PV
PROJECT 2:

PV
PROJECT 3:

PV
PROJECT 4:

PV
PROJECT 5:

PV
PROJECT 6:

WIND
PROJECT 7:

WIND
A) Base Case MW: 10
Start: 2021
MWh/yr:
24,440
LCOE: $58
B) Balanced
Mix
MW: 10
Start: 2021
MWh/yr:
24,440
LCOE: $58
MW: 30
Start: 2028
MWh/yr:
86,987
LCOE: $57
MW: 20
Start: 2026
MWh/yr:
53,611
LCOE: $71
MW: 70
Start: 2032
MWh/yr:
183,960
LCOE: $76
C) Balanced
Mix-Alternate
MW: 10
Start: 2021
MWh/yr:
24,440
LCOE: $58
MW: 30
Start: 2029
MWh/yr:
70,956
LCOE: $73
MW: 25
Start: 2026
MWh/yr:
65,262
LCOE: $68
MW: 70
Start: 2032
MWh/yr:
183,960
LCOE: $72
D) Heavy
Wind
MW: 10
Start: 2021
MWh/yr:
24,440
LCOE: $58
MW: 85
Start: 2026
MWh/yr:
223,380
LCOE: $68
E) Heavy
Wind –
Alternate
MW: 10
Start: 2021
MWh/yr:
24,440
LCOE: $58
MW: 85
Start: 2026
MWh/yr:
223,380
LCOE: $72
F) Heavy
Solar
MW: 10
Start: 2021
MWh/yr:
24,440
LCOE: $58
MW: 90
Start: 2026
MWh/yr:
212,868
LCOE: $70
G) Existing
System
H) Optimized
Balanced Mix
MW: 10
Start: 2021
MWh/yr:
24,440
LCOE: $58
MW: 60
Start: 2026
MWh/yr:
156,629
LCOE: $68
MW: 65
Start: 2034
MWh/yr:
170,820
LCOE: $77
Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) figures at stated at the plant bus bar and do not include transmission costs.

Source: Black & Veatch
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Evaluation and Results 8-5

8.3 CONSOLIDATED RESULTS
The consolidated CPWC results for the Scenarios evaluated are shown in Table 8-3. To facilitate interpretation, the results are presented as a “heat map” in which the best Scenario in any category is highlighted in dark green; Scenarios considered favorable but not the best in a category are shaded light green; Scenarios that are significantly less favorable than the best in a category are shaded light yellow, followed by rose colored and red colored shades signifying increasingly significant and unfavorable results compared to the best Scenario result in the category.

The Base Case Scenario in which 10 MW of local solar is added in 2021 is listed first in Table 8-3.

This Scenario is important as it reflects the addition of the currently-planned Solar Project that is in the second phase of development (see Section 7). There are two key conclusions related to the Base Case Scenario.

First, by comparing the Base Case with the Existing System Scenario (Scenario G) CPWC, it is clear that the Base Case has a lower CPWC. This helps to illustrate why adding the Solar Project (from Table 8-1) provides benefit from a cost perspective and also by adding RE benefits over Scenario G.

This comparison explains the reason for identifying the Solar Project as the next resource addition and why this is considered to be the Base Case rather than the Existing System Scenario.

A second, very important conclusion about the Base Case Scenario is that, even though it achieves a higher RE percentage than Scenario G, it nevertheless falls short of meeting the 2030 RE target of 50 percent. In fact, it achieves only 33 percent RE level in 2030 and also for the 2018-2030 period.

Moreover, the Base Case Scenario is still very heavily reliant on wind energy (71 percent of all RE) even with the addition of the Solar Project in 2021. Due to these results, the Base Case is understood to contain the next project to be undertaken, but it is not considered to be the final mix of resources over the planning horizon. The need for additional renewable resources on the system beyond the 2021 solar addition led to the development of the remaining Scenarios in Table 8-3. All of these, with the exception of Scenario G, involved the 2021 Solar Project, but also included additional RE resources after 2021.

Scenario H is the only plan identified in Table 8-3 as having green or light green shading in all categories. Based on the overarching objective to balance economics, reliability, portfolio diversity, and environmental targets, Scenario H is considered to be the best overall plan in the 2019 IRP.

The Plan is within 2.8 percent of the least cost plan; it achieves a 54 percent RE mix in 2030; it achieves all intermediate RE milestones (in some years, the plan relies on banked RECs); and has a reasonably balanced mix of RE contributions—53 percent from wind and 36 percent from solar.

In terms of lowest CPWC, Scenario D may appear on its surface to be the best plan as it is both costeffective and at 65 percent RE, it exceeds the mandated 2030 RE levels. However, this plan falls short in its lack of resource diversity—the plan is very heavily reliant on wind energy (84 percent of all RE) and contains little solar energy (6 percent). As a result, this plan receives low marks for its inability to achieve a balanced RE portfolio. This assessment is reflective of the preference that several Stakeholders expressed for solar energy and is consistent with the emphasis on a balanced RE portfolio.

Scenario C also achieves a very high percentage of RE in 2030 (65 percent) but is not economic and also suffers from a high reliance on wind energy. Scenario F is economically competitive and achieves 59 percent RE contribution, but the scenario is over-reliant on wind energy resources.

Scenario E reaches the best overall balance of RE production, with 42 percent coming from wind energy and 47 percent coming from solar energy projects. This plan also achieves all RE milestones Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Evaluation and Results 8-6
and reaches 61 percent in 2030. Nevertheless, the drawback of Scenario E is one of economics, as it achieves the favorable RE characteristics at a cost that is 6.5 percent higher than the least cost Scenario D.

In least cost planning studies, it is common to consider a CPWC difference between two plans to be in the 1.5 percent to 2.5 percent range. The uncertainties involved in the SB 350 IRPs arguably increases this range, and a CPWC difference of 2.0 percent to 3.0 percent can reasonably be considered within the margin of error. As a result, it can be concluded that the RE benefits of Scenario E are obtained at a significantly higher cost than the plan having the lowest CPWC (Scenario D). The issue, therefore, is whether a plan could be developed that better balanced cost and environmental benefits. The plan meeting these aims is the preferred plan, Scenario H.

Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Evaluation and Results 8-7
Table 8-3 Heat Diagram of Scenario CPWC and RE Results
CPWC Summary 2030
Renew- Intermediate Avg. RE Achieving RE Balance
CPWC
CPWC
% able, % of Milestones 2018-2030 RE from RE from RE from Description ($1,000) Higher Retail Sales for RE Met? Wind Solar Hydro Base Case Base Case (with local solar only) 583,833 3.3% 32.8% No 32.8% 71% 11% 18% Scenario A Balanced Mix of Wind/Solar 575,766 1.9% 51.8% Yes 38.5% 59% 30% 11% Scenario B Bal. Mix of Wind/Solar – Alt. Projects 602,421 6.6% 51.3% Yes 37.9% 60% 29% 11% Scenario C Wind Heavy 642,176 13.7% 64.9% Yes 45.4% 84% 6% 10% Scenario D Wind Heavy - Alternate Projects 564,925 0.0% 64.9% Yes 45.5% 84% 6% 10% Scenario E Solar Heavy 601,558 6.5% 61.3% Yes 44.2% 42% 47% 11% Scenario F Early Wind Balanced Mix 566,191 0.2% 59.3% Yes 41.1% 81% 8% 11% Scenario G Existing System without Local Solar 601,957 6.6% 29.6% No 30.4% 81% 0% 19% Scenario H Optimized Balanced Mix 580,966 2.8% 53.9% Yes 41.2% 53% 36% 11% *Optimal results are shown in green, unfavorable results in red ** Intermediate Milestones are: 33% by 2020; 40% by 2024; 45% by 2027; 50% by 2030. ***Intermediate Milestones are considered met with the use of banked renewable energy credits Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Evaluation and Results 8-8

8.4 DETAILED RESULTS OF THE PREFERRED EXPANSION PLAN

8.4.1 Capacity and Energy Adequacy of Scenario H
Capacity balance for the preferred Scenario H expansion plan is shown in Figure 8-1. This figure is organized in the same manner as was done for the Existing System Scenario in Section 6.

As seen at the top of Figure 8-1 and Figure 8-2, existing sufficient resources and generation capacity are expected to meet energy needs throughout the planning horizon under Scenario H. The excess generation capacity ranges from 18 MW in 2018 to 43 MW in 2034 the planning period, once the RE projects are stated in terms of their firm capacity.

Table 8-4, Figure 8-1, and Figure 8-2 reflect the addition of three renewable projects, the 2021 Solar Project (rated at 10 MW of which 3.5 MW is firm), a second solar project in 2026 having a firm output of 21 MW, and a 2034 wind project having a firm output of 7 MW. The information in this table is simplified but reflects the comprehensive CRAT table included in Appendix A.

Table 8-4 and Figure 8-2 shows how the energy requirements will be met under Scenario H. Under the recommended plan, the 1x1 and 2x1 combined cycle projects are the only two generating units producing a significant amount of energy at the Station, while all RE projects are actively producing energy consumed by customers or sold into the market. Due to this market interaction, net sales are projected into the market starting in 2026 and for several of the subsequent years in planning period. It is seen in the table that the final two RE projects coming on-line in 2026 and 2034 are important contributors to the energy balance as soon as they go into commercial operation.

Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Evaluation and Results 8-9
Figure 8-1 Capacity Balance in the Preferred Expansion Plan, Scenario H 0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 Capacity (MW)
Year

CAPACITY

SCENARIO H
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5
Unit 6 Western Whiskeytown Big Horn Local PV
CV PV NorCal Wind REU Peak Load Planning Reserve
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Evaluation and Results 8-10
Figure 8-2 Loads and Resources Balance in the Preferred Expansion Plan, Scenario H -200000
0 200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 Energy (MWh)
Year

LOAD AND RESOURCES

SCENARIO H
Western Whiskeytown Big Horn Unit 1 Unit 2
Unit 3 Unit 5 Unit 6 1x1 2x1
Local PV CV PV NorCal Wind Net Market REU Load
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Evaluation and Results
8-11
Table 8-4 Energy Balance in the Preferred Expansion Plan, Scenario H Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Evaluation and Results 8-12

8.4.2 Renewable Energy and GHG Emissions of Scenario H
The addition of three RE projects in the recommended expansion plan, Scenario H, results in the ability to meet the RPS requirements. This is shown in Figure 8-3 that reports the RE outlook during the 2018 through 2037 planning period.

As seen in the figure, Scenario H remains at or above the goal in all years with the allowances of banking RECs. Importantly, the figure shows that Scenario H maintains a positive REC balance over the entire planning period, meaning that, on the whole, the plan exceeds the cumulative RE credits during the planning horizon and never goes into a cumulative REC deficit in any year during the 2018-2037 planning horizon.

Figure 8-4 shows a projection of the GHG emissions in the form of MTCO2e during the planning horizon for the preferred expansion plan, Scenario H. Under this plan, there would be 99,335 MTCO2e in 2030. This level of emissions is below the high target of 101,000 in the CARB staff recommendations for the COR (although it is above the 57,000 MTCO2e set as the lower end of the targeted range).

8.4.3 The Detailed CPWC Sheet for Scenario H
Table 8-3 presented the CPWC of all Scenarios. The CPWC shown for Scenario H was $580,966,000.

In Table 8-8, the derivation of the Scenario H CPWC is shown by year and by the components that contribute to the CPWC of all plans.

At the top of Table 8-5, information about the addition of new renewable projects is listed. The project list for Scenario H includes the 10 MW local PV project added in 2021, the 60 MW PV project in 2026, and the 65 MW wind project added in 2034 (all MW ratings are maximum plant output ratings, reductions are made to arrive at the firm ratings used in the capacity balance). The first year production and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) is also listed in this portion of the table.

Below the input section in Table 8-5 are the yearly cost and revenue components that comprise the annual costs. The categories include supply costs related to self-generation plus power purchase costs (from PPAs and the spot market) and wholesale sales revenue earned from sales into the market. The Total System Cost listed as a column heading includes the net cost once supply costs and wholesale sales are taken into account. Thus, in 2018, the Total System Cost is $35.5 million.

Over time, the Total System Costs for each year trend upward, although there are years in which significant market revenues results in a decrease from the previous year (see for example, the year 2031). In the final year of the planning horizon, the 2037 Total System Cost is projected to be $47.1 million.

To derive the CPWC of Scenario H, the Total System Cost for each year is discounted to 2018 at the assumed 2.5 percent discount rate and summed. By the end of the planning horizon, the CPWC of Scenario H is $580.966 million as seen in the bottom of the CPWC column in Table 8-5 and as also reported in Table 8-3.

8.4.4 Additional Discussion of Merits, Scenario H
Section 8.3 explained the development of the competing Scenarios considered and the rationale for selecting Scenario H as the preferred option. Some additional discussion of the Scenario H merits is provided in this section.

While the CEC Guidelines only require the future planning studies to extend to 2030, consideration of additional years beyond 2030 were encouraged. A 20-year plan that has the benefit of Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Evaluation and Results 8-13
measuring the relative merits of various Scenarios beyond the next 12 years until 2030. While the 2037 difference in CPWC between Scenario H and the least cost option, Scenario D from Table 8-3, is 2.8 percent, at the 2030 mark, the difference is only 2.1 percent and well within the range of uncertainty (while there is no definitive rule, in this analysis, CPWC results within no more than 2 to 3 percent are considered to be insignificant differences between plans). Thus, the CPWC results should be interpreted as showing that, while Scenario D is lower in absolute CPWC, the difference with Scenario H is on the margin of insignificance and while the CPWC is an important factor in plan selection, additional non-economic factors play a vital role in the selection of the preferred Scenario.

Scenario H is quite flexible in that, following the first resource addition in 2021 (common to all plans), projects are layered in over a 20-year period, with the next project expected to be operational in 2026, which brings the following benefits:
 The period between resource additions allows the continued assessment of industry events and system developments in order to adjust the specifics of Scenario H if conditions warrant;
 It provides the ability to increase or decrease the size of the selected RE projects as necessary;
 With the pliability this plan offers, staff can better match resources to comply with any future applicable in-state versus out-of-state requirements, such as those of the California Independent System Operator (CAISO); and
 The plan provides the ability to delay or accelerate the in-service date of the project based on a number of factors such as future legislation and market conditions Scenario D, however, offers less flexibility in that, beyond the 2021 solar addition that is also added in Scenario H, the plan consists of only one 85 MW wind addition in 2026. While economical to add this large wind project, the plan results in an unbalanced mix of solar and wind generation as indicated by the 84 percent wind and 6 percent solar mix of RE for Scenario D as indicated in Table 8-3. It is important to achieve a balance in PV and wind resources over the planning horizon, since a balanced portfolio may reduce risks associated with over-reliance on a single technology. Also, a balanced wind and solar PV energy generation combination is deemed to be a better fit to the hourly system energy demand profile than a plan heavily weighted toward either wind or solar.

As noted earlier, due to reliance upon interaction with the power market, this analysis considers future interactions and estimates the costs and revenues associated with purchases from, or sales into, the market. A plan that relies heavily on assumed market purchases or sales may incur risks associated with future power energy market prices increasing at a rate higher than assumed in the analysis if more heavily reliant on market purchases, or risks associated with future power energy market prices being lower than assumed in the analysis if more heavily reliant on market sales.

Therefore, to reduce the risk of higher retail rates associated with unexpected increases or decreases in future power energy market prices, plans with lower exposure to market volatility are preferable to plans with higher market purchases or sales, assuming others factors are equal.

Scenario H is also better than Scenario D with regards to the heavy reliance on wind and the end effects of meeting future RE targets. Scenario D fails to meet the RPS requirements just beyond the planning horizon, ultimately requiring the procurement of an additional renewable project prior to the end of the planning window. For example, Scenario D relies on banked RECs during the last three years of the planning period and additional renewable resources would be required to Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Evaluation and Results 8-14
maintain RPS compliance after 2039. In contrast, Scenario H is above 50 percent in each of the final four years (2034-2037) and meets ongoing RPS requirements in 2038 and beyond.

In summary, Scenario H is expected to have a slightly higher cost than Scenario D, however, it carries less exposure to extreme market conditions, brings less regulatory risk, provides better hourly production, and exhibits more resource diversity, thus meeting portfolio objectives.

Figure 8-3 Renewable Energy and REC Adequacy in the Preferred Expansion Plan, Scenario H 0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
RPS Requirement (RECs)
Year

RENEWABLE OUTLOOK

SCENARIO H
Big Horn Western Small Whiskeytown Local PV
CV PV NorCal Wind Using Banked RPS RECs Required
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Evaluation and Results 8-15
Figure 8-4 GHG Emissions in the Preferred Expansion Plan, Scenario H Figure 8-5 Renewable Outlook
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Emissions (MMTCO2e)
Year

REDDING POWER

GREENHOUSE GAS OUTLOOK

SCENARIO H
Total Emissions Goal
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 RPS Requirement (%)
Year

RENEWABLE OUTLOOK
Requirement Preferred Plan Base Case
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Evaluation and Results
8-16
Table 8-5 Detailed CPWC Results for the Preferred Expansion Plan, Scenario H Desc: Optimized Balanced Mix
Size (MW) First Year
Local PV w/Bat 10 2021 24,440 $ 58.00
CPW Discount Rate: 2.5% NorCal/OR PV
Base Year for CPW $: 2018 AZ PV
Westland PV
CV PV 60 2026 156,629 $ 68.00
NorCal/OR Wind 65 2034 170,820 $ 77.08
AZ Wind
Cumulative
System REU Risk and Total REU Wind Generation Total Present Present Transmitted Cost of Sup- Generation Hydro Wind Import Purchase + Generation Sales Sales Export System Worth Worth Year Energy ply Energy Costs Costs Costs Costs Production Revenue Revenue Revenue Revenue Cost Cost Cost GWh ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 2018 767.535 25,503 10,251 4,973 12,239 7,936 60,901 10,561 7,379 5,272 2,178 35,512 35,512 35,512 2019 767.119 24,411 7,054 6,525 12,239 8,909 59,138 7,217 8,523 5,026 1,883 36,488 35,598 71,110 2020 766.632 26,082 8,398 6,788 12,265 8,673 62,206 8,875 9,086 5,478 2,705 36,061 34,324 105,434 2021 763.013 28,227 10,298 7,061 13,507 8,030 67,124 11,286 9,724 7,253 4,425 34,436 31,978 137,411 2022 761.992 29,596 12,496 7,346 13,498 8,286 71,222 14,816 10,247 7,604 7,017 31,538 28,572 165,983 2023 762.510 30,646 13,419 7,642 13,489 9,480 74,676 15,817 10,539 7,855 7,337 33,128 29,281 195,264 2024 767.096 31,690 13,842 7,950 13,509 9,710 76,701 17,128 10,674 8,089 7,981 32,830 28,309 223,573 2025 768.249 32,901 14,180 8,270 13,472 10,713 79,536 18,771 11,150 8,355 8,818 32,442 27,293 250,866 2026 770.535 33,848 13,665 8,603 26,418 9,654 92,188 19,234 11,303 15,315 13,789 32,548 26,714 277,579 2027 773.399 34,785 13,915 8,950 26,414 9,581 93,645 20,329 11,582 15,641 14,364 31,730 25,407 302,986 2028 778.734 35,897 14,153 9,310 26,472 12,050 97,882 19,612 11,838 16,005 13,603 36,824 28,767 331,753 2029 780.769 36,894 15,090 9,685 26,414 12,365 100,449 20,050 12,247 16,360 13,720 38,071 29,015 360,769 2030 782.358 37,897 15,478 10,075 26,420 13,522 103,391 21,901 12,145 16,705 15,001 37,640 27,987 388,756 2031 784.084 38,917 13,482 10,481 23,663 11,895 98,438 24,517 13,203 15,689 16,398 28,631 20,770 409,525 2032 788.191 40,085 15,846 10,903 14,235 17,429 98,499 24,411 13,222 9,172 10,779 40,915 28,957 438,482 2033 789.134 41,143 16,279 11,343 14,217 18,957 101,938 24,413 13,239 9,391 10,512 44,383 30,645 469,127 2034 792.330 42,320 13,158 11,799 32,393 14,010 113,681 24,901 14,097 18,991 18,089 37,603 25,330 494,457 2035 796.280 43,553 14,871 12,275 32,599 15,947 119,245 25,844 13,811 19,435 18,401 41,753 27,440 521,897 2036 802.497 44,988 14,220 12,769 32,885 17,108 121,970 24,429 14,301 19,911 17,188 46,141 29,584 551,481 2037 804.309 46,245 14,388 13,284 33,046 17,601 124,564 24,909 14,822 20,304 17,392 47,136 29,485 580,966 NPV: 549,144 207,150 143,615 320,874 186,047 1,406,830 290,366 181,805 187,835 165,858 580,966 580,966 580,966 Supply Cost Wholesale Sales
COR V11 Scenario H Mean Results
Portfolio
1st Yr Energy
(MWh)
LCOE
($/MWh)
Economic and Financial Parameters
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Evaluation and Results 8-17

8.5 SENSITIVITY CASES
As discussed previously in Section 8, the PowerSimm Resources Planning Suite, developed by Ascend Analytics, was used to evaluate alternative resource additions to the portfolio that satisfy RPS requirements. PowerSimm employs a probabilistic approach in which the modeling results for a single Scenario include a range of possible outcomes based on agitations of input variables subject to uncertainty and for which correlated probability distributions are generated for the input. This method results in more than single deterministic output variables, but probability distributions on all the key output variables. This means that multiple, single variable sensitivity runs are not needed to understand the impact of uncertainty in one or more key input variables. For example, regarding fuel prices, the CPWC results reported in Figure 7-2 are based on random expected draws of fuel prices, correlated with random expected draws of other input variable, resulting in a 95 percent to 5 percent probability distribution range on the output variables. This means that fuel prices selected in the random expected draws are within a band expected to include the maximum fuel price 95 percent of the time and the low fuel price is not expected to go below the low fuel price more than 5 percent of the time. The results reported in this section are based on the mean results of all runs resulting from multiple draws on the stochastic input variables and simulated by the model.

8.6 RETAIL RATES AND THE PREFERRED EXPANSION PLAN
Forecasts project power portfolio costs to increase by approximately $20 million (nominal) from 2018-2037, or 2.25 percent annually (less than 1 percent when adjusted for inflation). Of this $20 million, approximately $15 million is due to the following power purchases related to environmental compliance:
 60 MW share of Central Valley Solar beginning in 2026; despite the utility owning lower cost thermal generation, additional resources are required to meet state mandates.  65 MW share of Northern California/Oregon Wind beginning in 2034 despite the utility owning lower cost thermal generation, additional resources are required to meet state mandates.

Due to forecasted retail sales in 2038 being within 3 percent of 2018 retail sales (energy efficiency measures reducing base load growth), a $20 million increase in annual power portfolio costs represents an increase from today’s rates of approximately 15 percent, or less than 1 percent annually (this is less than CPI). Due to the expected limited impact on rates from power supply costs over the forecast period, a separate report or study was not conducted. Any future update to COR’s IRP will continue to appropriately evaluate rate impacts related to power supply costs. While Power Supply is a significant portion of the utility’s budget (see Figure 8-6), it is not the only driver for rate changes. Other factors not included in this study such as debt service, personnel costs, maintaining the distribution system, and increasing reserves to manage financial risk associated with intermittent resources, will have significant impacts on the revenue requirement. In addition, while the 2018 Carr Fire had a substantial impact on the community, the COR had adequate reserves to fund infrastructure restoration efforts (zero rate impact). Figure 8-7 shows the projected portfolio cost of Scenario H and the level of retail sales through 2037.

Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Evaluation and Results 8-18
Figure 8-6 Budget Categories by type in Fiscal Year 2019 Figure 8-7 Cost of the Preferred Expansion Plan, Scenario H 23%
40%
22%
6%
9%
Current Budget
Personnel
Power Supply
Operations and
Maintenance
Capital
Debt Service
0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
20182019202020212022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037 Energy (MWh)
Nominal $ (Millions)
Year

TOTAL PORTFOLIO COSTS AND RETAIL SALES
Portfolio Cost $ (Millions) Retail Sales (MWh)
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Evaluation and Results 8-19

8.7 THE PREFERRED PLAN IN CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE CONDITIONS AND RISKS
A number of factors could emerge in the energy industry, or in the economy, that could impose new conditions or risks not contemplated in this SB 350-based analysis. Some of these factors include new legislation and regulations that impact utility operation and could include the following:
 SB 100 (The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2017) – SB 100 further modifies RPS requirements from 50 percent by 2030 (set by SB 350) to 60 percent, and creates the policy of planning to meet all of the state’s retail electricity supply with a mix of RPSeligible and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2045, thereby achieving a 100 percent clean energy supply.

On September 10, 2018, SB 100 was signed into law. COR anticipated that SB 100 would likely be signed by the Governor and as such, has begun some preliminary analysis on the potential impacts this law may have on RPS requirements into the planning horizon. The additional analyses, including detailed system modeling, is required to adequately evaluate all the potential impacts of the newly increased RPS obligations.

SB 100 accelerates the RPS obligations for retail sellers, including POUs as follows:
• 40 percent to 44 percent by 2024;
• 45 percent to 52 percent by 2027; and
• 50 percent to 60 percent by 2030.

The Bill also states that achieving this policy shall not increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and shall not involve resource shuffling. SB 100 also requires the CPUC, CEC, the CARB, and other state agencies to incorporate this policy into their regulations and decisions.

For the last several years, COR’s approach to RPS requirements (changes/increases in those requirements) has been to evaluate resources into the future to ensure compliance obligations are fully met. SB 100 carries with it a new level of RPS requirements of over 50 percent by 2030 which presents a more complex balancing of the power supply mix than what COR has considered in the past. SB 100 becomes effective in January 2019 and with that, regular updates to the modeling that supports the power supply strategy will continue and will fully integrate the requirements of SB 100 within that process in 2019 and beyond.
 AB 813 (Electric Regionalization) – The bill would open the door for the CAISO to expand its membership to include other balancing authorities across the 14 western states. This regionalization bill would require approval from the state before any California transmission owner, retail seller, or local publicly-owned utility joins a multistate regional transmission system organization. Bill proponents believe regionalization would reduce rates and costs, ensure consistent reporting and tracking of RE targets and achievements, and reduce transmission rates. Opponents believe that the bill would harm the independence of state policy including the progress made in California toward its RE standards, which are generally more aggressive than in other states.

Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Evaluation and Results 8-20
 SB 1110 (Safeguarding Public Utility Ratepayers from Bond Debt authored by Senator Bradford) – This bill protects COR from construction debt of power plants built in the early 2000’s in response to the energy crisis. In the early 2000’s—when many California cities were struggling with how to serve their communities with electricity and experiencing brown outs—Council, with decisive action, approved the speedy construction and operation of the state-of-the-art low emission, gas-fired generation that COR now owns. This action brought safety in delivering electricity, increased reliability, and an enhancement to the local economy with approximately 25 full-time positions earning favorable wages.

With construction of these safe, efficient, and reliable power generating facilities, debt was incurred. Currently, bond indebtedness is approximately $106 million dollars; which is scheduled to be paid in full by 2030.

SB 1110 was signed into law on September 20, 2018, providing protection of resource investments as our state traverses the path of 100 percent RE mandates by the 2040’s, and would allow the continued operation of these reliable and efficient facilities at a level that would allow us to finish paying for our assets without causing financial harm to our community.

Each of these laws or regulations could impact the decision process, as could economic growth that is significantly higher or lower than anticipated in this IRP. In anticipation of possible changes in future conditions and risks, the IRP has been developed such that it affords flexibility, balance, and margin. The recommended plan does not require an immediate commitment to projects needed well into the planning horizon. In fact, following the 2021 planned addition of the 10 MW Solar Project, incremental RPS resources are not projected to be added until sometime after 2023. The renewable projects under consideration can be developed in a relatively short time; as a result, COR can confirm that future developments identified in this IRP remain beneficial prior to making a firm commitment to these projects.

The recommended Scenario H is balanced in that it mixes solar and wind RE resources better than other Scenarios considered. This is important because, while the economic analysis did incorporate a probability analysis of possible production profiles for these two technologies, there are also nonquantifiable risks that suggest a balanced RE portfolio may help to mitigate future uncertainties.

This could include, for example, the possibility of opposition to a renewable technology in the future, that new incentives, taxes, or operational charges (such as integration costs) could materialize and favor one technology over the other. By planning for a balanced portfolio, Scenario H is a way to protect against unforeseen developments that could favor wind over solar, or vice versa.

Finally, the recommended Scenario H provides margin in the sense that, as seen in Figure 8-3, the plan will produce more than the minimum RE required to meet the existing RPS targets. This margin provides a risk reduction benefit should SB 100, or another law or regulation, require a more aggressive pursuit of RE.

Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Evaluation and Results 8-21

8.8 THE PREFERRED PLAN WITH CONSIDERATION OF LOCALIZED AIR

POLLUTANTS AND DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
COR is not aware of any officially designated disadvantaged communities in its service territory.

Nevertheless, there are many areas served that are considered low income. To help serve the needs of low-income groups, the following strategies are utilized to maximize education and participation of low-income customers in the Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program (LIEEP) program.

Program policies are specifically designed to facilitate coordination with the PG&E Energy Savings Assistance Program and with the California Department of Community Services and Development’s (CSD) Weatherization Program. For example, CSD measure feasibility guidelines and installation standards have been adopted, and adopted PG&E ESA and CSD program participation as a categorical qualifier for the LIEEP Program. This seamless integration minimizes duplicative efforts, maximizes return on program marketing efforts, and delivers maximum benefits to our income-qualified customers.

The local non-profit weatherization provider who implements the PG&E ESA Program and CSD programs in Shasta County, also handles implementation of LIEEP.

COR partners with multiple mission driven, non-profit organizations to market the suite of resources available to income qualified customers including weatherization, a rate discount program, and an emergency bill assistance program.

Continuation of these programs, or similar programs and efforts, is anticipated to continue as a means to educate and assist low-income customers in the future. The preferred Scenario H is deemed to be in the interest of low-income customers, and all other customers, in that it achieves a balance between affordability (having a CPWC less than 3 percent higher than the lowest cost Scenario) and environmental benefits (meeting 2030 RPS requirements and within the GHG limits recommended by CARB staff).

Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Evaluation and Results 8-22
Figure 8-8 Cal Enviro Disadvantaged Communities Map
This figure was created by CalEnviro. For more details, visit https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen. 15 15 Red represents the most disadvantaged communities while green represents the non-disadvantaged communities.

Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Conclusions and Recommended Expansion Plan 9-1

9.0 Conclusions and Recommended Expansion Plan
This Report discussed the development of the IRP and presented the results. The IRP was developed to benefit and create value for customers and to deliver exceptional services through the strength and dedication of its employees. This overriding objective is achieved by providing reliable and safe service at low (cost-conscious) rates, while complying with environmental mandates and objectives.

The development of the IRP took over one year and was the result of collaborative efforts by COR staff, Black & Veatch, Itron, Ascend Analytics, and Stakeholders. Customers had important input and played a vital role in the planning process. As a result, the recommended Scenario is considered to be a plan that balances many different views and perspectives, and is also a robust plan that will provide low costs, flexibility, environmental compliance, and manageable risks over the 2018-2037 planning period. This Report is designed to be a guiding document, not a procurement plan.

The recommended Scenario is identified in this report as Scenario H. This plan features the addition of the 10 MW (maximum rating, not firm) local Solar Project in 2021, followed by an additional 60 MW of solar capacity in 2026, and a 65 MW wind facility in 2034. This plan is low cost—within 2.8 percent of the lowest overall plan on a cumulative basis but within 2.1 percent through 2030; it allows the flexibility to adjust the size and timings of the 2026 and 2034 resource additions as conditions warrant; it is compliant with the targets for RE (50 percent in 2030 and all intermediate targets), 2030 GHG emissions proposed in the summer of 2018 by CARB; and the plan assumes continued investment in energy efficiency and demand reduction programs.

All of these objectives are met while also providing a reliable power plan that meets the planning reserve requirements. The details of Scenario H are presented in the discussion and accompanying tables and figures in Section 8. The four tables required in the CEC Guidelines are provided in Appendix A. These tables support the conclusion that Scenario H is a viable plan that meets the POU objectives and requirements for an IRP.

This IRP will be updated as conditions warrant, most likely every two to three years but, in any case, no longer than the five year limit established in the CEC Guidelines. Given the relatively short lead time for RE resources and the dynamics of the power sector, future IRP updates will be able to adjust to changing conditions as needed and will help ensure that the resource plan continues to serve the needs of its valued customers.

Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Appendix A A-1
Appendix A. CEC Standardized Tables for the Adopted
Resource Scenario
The CEC Guidelines require four standardized tables to be part of the IRP Filing. The standardized tables presented in this Appendix for the recommended Scenario H are as follows:
 Administrative Information: Summary of contact information for persons who prepared standardized tables
 Capacity Resource Accounting Table (CRAT): Annual peak capacity demand in each year and the contribution of each energy resource (capacity) in the POU’s portfolio to meet that demand.
 Energy Balance Table (EBT): Annual total energy demand and annual estimates for energy supply from various resources.
 RPS Procurement Table (RPT): A detailed summary of a POU resource plan to meet the RPS requirements.
 GHG Emissions Accounting Table (GEAT): Annual GHG emissions associated with each resource in the POU’s portfolio to demonstrate.
16 16 Page A-4
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan Appendix A
A-2
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix A
A-3
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix A
A-4
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix A
A-5
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix A
A-6
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix B
B-1
Appendix B. Stakeholder Feedback Form Results
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix B
B-2
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix C C-1
Appendix C. Intermittency Analysis
Black & Veatch completed a stochastic analysis of COR’s load and generation to estimate the 95 percent confidence interval of the deviation of actual hourly load less generation (Net Load) compared to scheduled hourly Net Load. In the analysis, Black & Veatch also included a case where a 10 MW fixed tilt Solar Project (Solar Project) was included in COR’s Net Load.

The stochastic analysis was completed utilizing Palisade Corporation’s @RISK software; @Risk is a Microsoft Excel add-in which completes stochastic analyses similar to Crystal Ball. The 95 percent confidence intervals with and without the Solar Project were compared to assess if the addition of the Solar Project significantly increased the confidence interval. The key data and assumptions used in the analysis are summarized below.
 Five minute load and generation data for 2014 through 2017 was utilized for the analysis  The analysis was completed on a monthly basis to consider seasonality of load and generation
 Five minute load data was assumed to follow a normal distribution utilizing the historical mean and standard deviation for 2014 through 2017
 Five minute generation data was assumed to follow a log normal distribution utilizing the historical mean and standard deviation for 2014 through 2017  The generation from the Solar Project from 2014 through 2017 was estimated using US Climate Reference Network (CRN) data for a site located 20 miles NW of Redding Airport applied in a NREL Solar Advisor Model (SAM) simulation of a 10 MW fixed tilt Solar Project  Scheduled load and generation for each five minute period was assumed to be the historical mean for 2014 through 2017
 Actual load and generation in each five minute period was estimated stochastically using the distributions defined
 Deviation from schedule on a five minute basis was calculated as the difference between the actual Net Load and scheduled Net Load; actual Net Load greater than scheduled yielded a positive value, actual load less than scheduled yielded a negative value  The hourly deviation from schedule was calculated as the average of the five minute values  The stochastic analysis estimated 95 percent confidence intervals for hourly load deviation and hourly load less generation for each month
Further information on the development of the generation data for the Solar Project is included in Attachment A.

Figure C-1 and Figure C-2 below illustrate typical 5 minute input distributions for the COR load and generation; the January 7 a.m. three minute load and generation input distributions without the additional of the generation from the Solar Project have been included.

Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix C
C-2
Figure C-1 January 7a.m. Stochastic Load Distribution
Figure C-2 January 7a.m. Stochastic Generation Distribution Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix C C-1
Figure C-3 and Figure C-4 illustrate representative 95 percent confidence intervals for the actual versus scheduled Net Load; the 95 percent confidence interval for January 7 a.m. Net Load has been included.

Figure C-3 January 7 a.m. Load less Generation Deviation from Schedule In comparing the stochastic Net Load deviation from schedule with and without the addition of the Solar Project, in general Black & Veatch found that there was very limited difference between the 95% confidence intervals for each case. Figure C-4 compares the 95% confidence intervals for Net Load with and with and without inclusion of the Solar Project in July; this month was selected as it is a period of high solar generation where it would be expected that the addition of solar would have more influence on the Net Load deviation from schedule.

Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix C C-2
Figure C-4 July Net Load Deviation with and without Solar Project Generation It can be seen that across the day there is very limited difference between the 95% confidence intervals for Net Load with and with and without inclusion of the Solar Project. Very similar results were seen in the other months of the year; charts for each month are included in Attachment B.

Black & Veatch suggests that a next step could be to schedule a call to discuss the results above and any further analysis which COR would like to complete. Some further analysis which could be completed could include:
 Estimating the impact of increasing solar capacity (e.g. in 10 MW increments) to the results above.
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Net Load Deviation from Schedule
(MW)
No Solar 5% No Solar 95% Solar 5% Solar 95%
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix C C-3
Attachment A: Solar Project Generation Data

INTRODUCTION
Black & Veatch developed a representative historical solar energy production profile for a 10 MW PV plant located in Redding, CA. The historical production was simulated at a sub-hourly level with 5-min time steps for the period of 2014-2017.

SOLAR RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
The historical ground solar resource data accessed in this study is from the US Climate Reference Network (CRN) site located near Redding, CA. The CRN station location is located 20 miles NW of Redding Airport (representative project location) at an elevation of approximately 1440 feet. The US CRN sites measure high quality observations of several meteorological parameters including solar radiation, ambient temperature, wind speed, precipitation etc., at 5-minute intervals. The measured data has been processed for any errors and the quality controlled data was used for the purposes of this study.

USCRN DATA OBSERVATION AND CORRECTIONS
Due to the high elevation of the Redding USCRN location, measured data obtained was reviewed to ensure its compatibility for robust solar energy simulation use. To assess the suitability of solar irradiance data from the CRN location, Black & Veatch compared long term satellite based GHI irradiance for Redding Airport site against the GHI obtained from US CRN site. Long-term trends appeared to be very similar at both these locations. Based on our review of the Redding CRN data the following trends were observed,
 A slightly lower GHI was observed at the CRN site due to more frequent cloud formation associated with closer proximity to the Klamath Mountain range.  There appeared to be sensor shading due to the Klamath Mountains to the west of the station location and can be noticed on a clear day during late summer afternoons.

Therefore, any drop in the simulated production during late afternoon can be attributed to this shading effect in the input irradiance profile and should be taken into consideration when comparing late afternoon PV energy production with coincidental system load data.

This dataset from the CRN site was selected as a representative solar resource dataset due to overall high quality, high temporal resolution and proximity of the location of interest. Additionally, to represent the temperature profile accurately at the airport location an altitude temperature correction of +1.5˚C has been applied to the Redding CRN air temperature data to correct for the altitude difference between the Redding CRN and airport site (approximately 1000 ft. altitude difference). No corrections have been applied to the CRN irradiance or wind speed data.

SOLAR PV PRODUCTION MODELING
Black & Veatch used NREL System Advisor Model to simulate the energy production of a 10 MW Solar Project. The system design information assumed during this simulation process is shown in the table below. All the system DC and AC loss assumptions were selected such that it represents a 10 MW ground mount utility-scale project.

Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix C C-4
System Type and Location Fixed-Tilt – Redding, CA
System DC Capacity (kWac) 10,000
DC/AC Ratio 1.3
Mounting Type Fixed – Tilt 30˚ facing south
Ground-Coverage Ratio 33%
Module Type Crystalline – Silicon (335 W)
Inverter Type Central Inverters 2000 kW
Based on the analysis, Black & Veatch infers the following:
 The output energy production appears to capture the solar resource variability at the subhourly level.  The output energy production profile does not capture the spatial variability across the entire PV array, and therefore assumes generation to be a point source. This variability however tends to smoothen out as the PV array size increases.  Due to high temporal resolution of the input temperature profile, high frequency production variation is noticed around solar noon during certain clear sky days. This variation however has very less magnitude and in fact cannot be noticed during the days when project is clipping. This high frequency spikes in production can also be seen in actual production data at sub-hourly level, but this effect is dampened to uneven spatial temperature distribution across the array and data averaging at the meter.

Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix C C-5
Attachment B: Stochastic Model Results
The stochastic model results comparing the 95% confidence intervals for Net Load with and with and without inclusion of the Solar Project for each month are summarized in the figures below.

Figure C-5 January Net Load Deviation with and without Solar Project Generation Figure C-6 February Net Load Deviation with and without Solar Project Generation -10.00
-8.00
-6.00
-4.00
-2.00

0.00 2.00

4.00 6.00

8.00 10.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Net Load Deviation from Schedule
(MW)
No Solar 5% No Solar 95% Solar 5% Solar 95%
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Net Load Deviation from Schedule
(MW)
No Solar 5% No Solar 95% Solar 5% Solar 95%
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix C C-6
Figure C-7 March Net Load Deviation with and without Solar Project Generation Figure C-8 April Net Load Deviation with and without Solar Project Generation -15.00
-10.00
-5.00

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Net Load Deviation from Schedule
(MW)
No Solar 5% No Solar 95% Solar 5% Solar 95%
-8.00
-6.00
-4.00
-2.00

0.00 2.00

4.00 6.00

8.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Net Load Deviation from Schedule
(MW)
No Solar 5% No Solar 95% Solar 5% Solar 95%
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix C C-7
Figure C-9 May Net Load Deviation with and without Solar Project Generation Figure C-10 June Net Load Deviation with and without Solar Project Generation -20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Net Load Deviation from Schedule
(MW)
No Solar 5% No Solar 95% Solar 5% Solar 95%
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00

0.00 10.00

20.00 30.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Net Load Deviation from Schedule
(MW)
No Solar 5% No Solar 95% Solar 5% Solar 95%
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix C C-8
Figure C-11 July Net Load Deviation with and without Solar Project Generation Figure C-12 August Net Load Deviation with and without Solar Project Generation -20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Net Load Deviation from Schedule
(MW)
No Solar 5% No Solar 95% Solar 5% Solar 95%
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Net Load Deviation from Schedule
(MW)
No Solar 5% No Solar 95% Solar 5% Solar 95%
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix C C-9
Figure C-13 September Net Load Deviation with and without Solar Project Generation Figure C-14 October Net Load Deviation with and without Solar Project Generation -25.00
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00

20.00 25.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Net Load Deviation from Schedule
(MW)
No Solar 5% No Solar 95% Solar 5% Solar 95%
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Net Load Deviation from Schedule
(MW)
No Solar 5% No Solar 95% Solar 5% Solar 95%
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix C C-10
Figure C-15 November Net Load Deviation with and without Solar Project Generation Figure C-16 December Net Load Deviation with and without Solar Project Generation -15.00
-10.00
-5.00

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Net Load Deviation from Schedule
(MW)
No Solar 5% No Solar 95% Solar 5% Solar 95%
-8.00
-6.00
-4.00
-2.00

0.00 2.00

4.00 6.00

8.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Net Load Deviation from Schedule
(MW)
No Solar 5% No Solar 95% Solar 5% Solar 95%
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix D D-1
Appendix D. Ascend Analytics Methodology

FORWARD PRICING
PowerSimm simultaneously simulates multiple strips of forward curves into the future where parameters for the stochastic processes and the covariate factors are estimated from historic data.

PowerSimm builds a system of simultaneous equations that captures the stochastic component of each individual forward contract and the covariate relationship between neighboring contract months, other commodities, and other factors (such as interest rates and exchange rates). The state-space modeling framework satisfies the criteria for developing a Cash Flow at Risk solution by producing simulations of prices that are realistic, benchmark well to historic data, and produce a payoff of cash flows consistent with market option quotes at multiple strike prices. The consistency of simulated prices with market expectations remains the principal benchmark criteria for forward market simulations.

Forward contracts may have institutionally determined and specified drift terms. The drift term is a percent change from the current forward price to the final evolved forward price. For example, a forward contract with a current price of $50 and a drift of 10% would have a final evolved price of $55.

As a base simulation assumption, PowerSimm creates convergence between the initial forward price and the final forward price. This is the equivalent of a zero drift term. Even with a very limited number of assumptions the convergence criteria of F0=FT will be satisfied.

The process flow for forward price simulation is shown in Figure D-1.

Figure D-1 Forward Price Simulation Process
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix D D-2
Input Data
PowerSimm requires a history of forward price quotes for each delivery month to simulate market prices into the future. A minimum of 30 transaction dates for each delivery date is required for forward curve simulation.

PowerSimm has the ability to weight the historic data used in the parameter estimation process to give more weight to more recent events or reduce the impact of outlier events. The default historic weighting formula for forward market data used for parameter estimation follows a linearly declining function. It provides a weight of 1095 for the most recent observation, 1094 for the second most recent, and so on, until it reaches a value of 365 (which corresponds to three years).

All historic quotes older than three years old receive a value of 365. Thus, yesterday’s quote receives three times the weight in the parameter estimation process as a value that is three years old.

Output Data
Output from the forward price simulation consists of fully evolved forward prices for each forward curve, simulation repetition, and delivery date in the study. The mean forward price for each delivery date is scaled to match the most recent available market forward curve data as of the run time of the study.

SPOT ELECTRIC PRICES
Methodology
The application of the fundamental drivers of electricity has influence on the daily and hourly formation of prices.

Regional electricity prices are primarily a function of daily gas prices and daily reserve margins as shown in Figure D-9. Each variable explains about 50% of the variability in prices and jointly they explain about 90% of the variability. The split regression of Figure D-9 contains a relatively modest amount of noise in the electricity price of +/- $5/MWh when reserves are greater than 15%. When daily reserves are less than 6 percent, the unexplained noise “switches” to a higher regime and captures uncertainty in prices of +/- $40/MWh. High electricity prices can also be caused by spikes in daily gas prices. The spikes in daily gas price carry a direct linear relationship to electricity prices. The joint relationship between high gas prices and low reserve margins follows from regional analysis.

Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix D D-3
Figure D-2 Joint relationship of daily reserve margins and gas prices to electric prices Simulation of spot electricity prices includes three key components:

1. Simulation of the uncertainty in the parameter estimates and the covariate relationship of uncertainty in the parameter estimate;

2. Simulation of the exogenous variable through a series of simultaneous vector autoregressive equations;

3. Simulation of residual error.

Variables describing the supply stack, such as the percentage of gas fired generation were determined to be statistically insignificant and were removed from the model.

The simulated values for price are conditional upon the path-dependent weather and load simulations. The mean or median of the realized daily on-peak and off-peak spot prices are bucketed into monthly time steps and scaled so that the mean is equal to the monthly forward price.

Spot electric prices are typically simulated once a week, as new utility and system load values become available. The job management system oversees the appropriate execution of the simulations by way of the Process Flow Editor in the PowerSimm UI.

Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix D D-4
Process Flow
The process flow for simulation of electric market prices is shown in Figure D-3. The triangles on the left of the figure represent the historic data from which relationships between fundamental variables and electricity prices are determined. The linked simulations of each predictive variable are shown in the rectangular boxes to the right of the triangular inputs. Explanatory variables are linked to electricity prices through a structural state space model.

Figure D-3 PriceSimm Process Overview Diagram
Input
The input data consists of the following:
• Historic hourly load data
• Historic hourly or daily hydro generation
• Daily gas prices
• Transmission imports and exports (optional)
• Daily reserve margins (optional)
• Supply stack characteristics (optional)
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix D D-5
Weighting of Input Data
The default function for the weighting of historic spot market data used for parameter estimation is flat weighting (all historical data is weighted equally). Alternatively, the historical spot prices can be weighted according to a linearly declining function. This weighting system provides an initial weight for the most recent input spot prices of 730 and 729 for the two-day-old prices. The weights decline daily under the same pattern for two years until they reach a value of 365. All historic quotes older than two years receive a value of 365. Thus, yesterday’s quote receives twice the weight in the parameter estimation process as a value that is two years old. Users can adjust the default weighting formula through the UI
Output
The hourly spot price simulation produces daily on-peak and off-peak electric prices and hourly spot electric prices. The prices that are output are scaled to the final evolved forward prices from the corresponding forward price simulation module. More specifically, the average monthly spot price by peak period will be equal to the market forward price as of the scheduled run time of the study in which the forward price simulation was run.

SPOT GAS PRICES
Design Definition
Developing accurate spot gas price simulations is critical for determining the cost of service, risks, and hedging strategies. A simulation approach is advantageous where a specified number of likely events (realizations) can be used in conjunction with exogenous system shocks such as extreme weather events. The combination of market electric prices and spot gas prices is critical to accurately capturing the cost of generation and driving dispatch of generation assets. For each portfolio in PowerSimm, there will be only one central gas delivery point. The other points will be treated as basis points from the delivery point. In most cases, this construct will lead to Henry Hub as the central gas delivery point.

Operational Business Process and Schedule
The generation of new spot prices is run approximately once every month or quarter as new utility and system hydro data becomes available. The Job Management system oversees the appropriate execution of the simulations and provides users with summary statistics based on the last updated input data.

Process Flow
The process flow for gas price simulation is shown below in Figure D-4.

Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix D D-6
Figure D-4 Spot Gas Price Process Flow
Input Data
Estimation of the parameters to simulated spot gas prices utilizes input of historical gas spot prices, weather, and daily on-peak and off-peak electric prices. The simulated weather is input into the model on a simulation basis.

Output Data
The output data is identical to the daily historic input dataset except that it includes the requested number of spot price simulations for the requested simulation length. This dataset also includes the simulation date and time update along with a link table to describe the parameters used to run the simulation.

Weighting of Data
The historic spot market data used for parameter estimation follows a linearly declining function.

The weighting system for market data provides an initial weight for the most recent input spot prices of 730 and 729 for the two-day-old prices. The weights decline daily under the same pattern for three years until they reach a value of 365. All historic quotes older than two years receive a value of 365. Thus, yesterday’s quote receives twice the weight in the parameter estimation process as a value that is two years old. Users can adjust the default weighting formula to their own weighting function through the UI.

Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix D D-7
Reporting Requirement
SimEngine produces daily spot gas price simulations over the forecast horizon. The summary statistics can be viewed in the standard output reports, which focus on the mean, 5th, and 95th percentile simulation results.

LMP & BASIS PRICE SIMULATION
Design Definition
LMP hourly prices and spot gas basis prices share the same simulation structure. Prices are measured in terms of the difference from a central hub. By treating LMP prices as basis prices, we focus on capturing the uncertainty in basis prices between the delivery point and the hub price while maintaining the same correlation between nodal points and the central hub. Simulation of basis addresses market conditions where historic data exists to support estimation of time series relationships. For markets with historic data, it is important to preserve the time series relationships between structural variables such as system load and spot prices.

Operational Business Process and Schedule
Approximately once every month or quarter, generation of new basis prices is run as new utility and system hydro data becomes available. The job management system oversees the appropriate execution of the simulations to provide users with summary statistics based on the last updated input data.

Process Flow
The process flow for spot basis price simulation is shown below in Figure D-5.

Figure D-5 Spot Basis Price Process Flow
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix D D-8
Input Data
Simulation of spot gas prices requires input of historical gas spot prices and daily on-peak and offpeak electric prices.

Output Data
The output data is identical to the daily historic input dataset except that it includes the requested number of basis simulations for the requested simulation length. This dataset also includes the simulation date and time update along with a link table to describe the parameters used to run the simulation.

Methodology
Gas Basis and Daily Electric Prices
Daily gas prices are linked to daily electric on-peak and off-peak prices through the residual error structure.

Hourly Electric Basis
The simulation of hourly electric basis prices follows the following time series model structure where each hour has its own equation.

Hour1 = Lag1(Hour24) + OffPeakPrice + OnPeakPrice + DayOfWeek + MA1 + error Hour2 = Hour1 + OffPeakPrice + OnPeakPrice + DayOfWeek + MA1 + error Hour3 = Hour2 + OffPeakPrice + OnPeakPrice + DayOfWeek + MA1 + error Hour4 = Hour3 + OffPeakPrice + OnPeakPrice + DayOfWeek + MA1 + error Hour5 = Hour4 + OffPeakPrice + OnPeakPrice + DayOfWeek + MA1 + error Hour24 = Hour23 + OffPeakPrice + OnPeakPrice + DayOfWeek + MA1 + errorand similarly for OffPeakPrice.

Hour1 + Hour2 + Hour3 + Hour4 + Hour5 + Hour6 + Hour23 + Hour24 = OffPeakPrice The series of equations for hourly spot prices are estimated with different parameters for each month to capture seasonal effects.

Weighting of Data
The default weighting of historic spot market data used for parameter estimation follows a linearly declining function. The default weighting system for market data provides an initial weight for the most recent input spot prices of 730 and 729 for the two-day-old prices. The weights decline daily under the same pattern for three years until they reach a value of 365. All historic quotes older than two years receive a value of 365. Thus, yesterday’s quote receives twice the weight in the parameter estimation process as a value that is two years old. Users can adjust the default weighting formula to their own weighting function through the UI.

Reporting Requirement
SimEngine produces basis price simulations over the forecast horizon. The summary statistics can be viewed in the standard output reports, which focus on the mean, 5th, and 95th percentile simulation results.

Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix D D-9
POWERSIMM PLANNER – SIMULATION TO CAPTURE MEANINGFUL

UNCERTAINTY
PowerSimm is a dispatch optimization and production cost tool. The tool is comprised of two major elements, the Sim Engine and Dispatch Optimization, that work together to systematically bridge the physical and financial dimensions of electricity provision. PowerSimm uses a simulation-based approach to perform decision analysis for portfolio risk management and considers the volatility in important variables such as load, fuel price, power price, weather, renewable generation, load and system constraints, and outages.

Figure D-6 PowerSimm's Sim Engine captures "Meaningful Uncertainty" in weather, load, renewables, and prices
The simulation of uncertainty with respect to weather is becoming ever more critical because weather conditions can be thought of as a new vital parameter in California’s emerging highrenewables system. To capture the changing market dynamics with renewables, PowerSimm simulates weather conditions to capture the effect on renewable output and its effect on energy price formation. This is part of the process of characterizing meaningful uncertainty by considering realistic paths of weather that, in turn, drives renewable production, market prices, and net utility loads.

PowerSimm is a stochastic construct model and each expansion plan simulation actually includes 100 or more simulations that allow all possible future states specified through (appropriately correlated) model inputs and forecasts to be considered probabilistically. Figure D-7 demonstrates the value of PowerSimm’s stochastic approach. The orange line represents the result of a single deterministic (non-probabilistic) run that would have been calculated based on single values for model inputs such as load and market price. Conversely, using the probabilistic approach, PowerSimm models multiple possible outcomes stochastically, as represented by the blue bar plots in Figure D-7, and characterizes a full distribution of possible outcomes of portfolio cost. This enables the determination of the most likely cost (black bar in the figure representing the mean results) associated with the input variables and forecasts. PowerSimm can make resource Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix D D-10
decisions based not only on the mean of the distribution, but also by risk considerations informed by the 5th and 95th percentiles. Therefore, the model can solve for the optimal resource portfolio that strikes the best balance between cost and risk.

Using the probabilistic approach, the modeling results for a single run produce a range of possible outcomes for variables subject to uncertainty and for which a probability profile is entered. This means that multiple, single variable sensitivity runs need not be performed to understand the impact of uncertainty in one or more variables. For the simulations, a single cost result was generated for each of the Scenarios evaluated, and no additional sensitivity analyses were performed as is typically done in deterministic modeling approaches.

Figure D-7 The Value of Stochastic Analysis in Resource Planning Using Risk Premium for Resource Decision Making
PowerSimm also identifies the risk associated with each energy portfolio option, quantifying this as the “risk premium.” Since different energy portfolios have different simulated cost distributions, the risk premium will be larger for wider cost distributions, or riskier portfolios, and smaller for narrower cost distributions, or less risky portfolios. Ascend then adds the risk premium variable to the expected value to put all energy portfolio options on the same playing field. The factors that drive risk in total portfolio cost include fuel price risk, carbon price risk, and other influential inputs that face uncertainty.

The risk premium is defined as the probability-weighted average of costs above the median, and this concept is illustrated below in Figure D-8:

Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix D D-11
Figure D-8 Risk Premium is an Economic Concept Measuring how Prone a Portfolio is to Higher than Expected Costs
PowerSimm planner monetizes risk through applying an actuarial option approach where the value of risk (the risk premium) is calculated as the integral of the cost distribution from the mean to the upper tail of costs, reflecting the downside risk to ratepayers. The underlying cost distribution follows from production cost modeling determined through input simulations of market fuel prices and weather->load->renewables. These underlying simulations are developed to satisfy a long set of validation criteria to ensure “meaningful” uncertainty is reflected in the final distribution of costs.

Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix E E-1
Appendix E. RPS Compliance and Enforcement Document
Procedure No:

RPS-001
Version:
3 Approval
Date:
06/05/18 RPS Policies &
Effective Date: June 5, 2018 Procedures
Document Owner: Nick Zettel

REDDING ELECTRIC UTILITY
Resources Division
RPS-001 Renewables Portfolio
Standard Procurement and
Enforcement Plan
Reviewed By:

Nick Zettel (Electric Manager – Resources), Bill Hughes (Electric Manager – Resources), Dan Beans (Electric Utility Director) Adopted By: Redding City Council
Date: June 5, 2018
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix E E-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction......................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Utility Code ................................................................................................ 3

2. RPS Procurement Plan ...................................................................................... 3

2.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Compliance Periods and Procurement Targets ......................................... 4

2.3 Portfolio Content Categories...................................................................... 5 A. PCC1: (RPS Enforcement Regulations 3203(a)) ........................... 5 B. PCC2: (RPS Enforcement Regulations Section 3203(b)) .............. 6 C. PCC3: (RPS Enforcement Regulations section 3203(c)) ............... 7 D. PCC0: (RPS Enforcement Regulations section 3204(a)(2))........... 7

2.4 Redding’s Plan for RPS Compliance ......................................................... 8

2.4.1 Existing Eligible Renewable Resources .......................................... 8

2.4.2 Procurement Plan for Future Renewable Resources...................... 8

3. RPS Enforcement Program ............................................................................... 9

3.1 Enforcement Policy.................................................................................... 9

3.2 Optional Compliance Measures............................................................... 10 A. Excess Procurement:.................................................................... 10 B. Delay of Timely Compliance: ........................................................ 10 C. Cost Limitations for Expenditures:................................................. 10 D. Portfolio Balance Requirement Reduction: ................................... 11

4. Review and Updating Requirements .............................................................. 11

5. Review and Revision History .......................................................................... 12 Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix E E-3

1. Introduction
Senate Bill 2 in the First Extraordinary Session (SBX1-2)17 defines the California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) and imposes minimum renewable energy procurement targets for all retail sellers and publicly-owned utilities (POUs), including the City of Redding (Redding).

SBX1-2 authorized the California Energy Commission (CEC) to develop procedures for enforcement of the RPS for POUs. As part of that enforcement authority, the CEC adopted “Enforcement Procedures for the Renewables Portfolio Standard for Local, Publicly-Owned Electric Utilities” (RPS Enforcement Regulations).18 This document describes Redding’s RPS Procurement and Enforcement Plan, as required by the Public Utility Code, which must be approved by Redding’s City Council.

1.1 Utility Code
REU must comply with many state laws that govern certain aspects of utility operations. These include the following code sections, which relate to California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard:
 Renewable Portfolio Standard requirement Public Utilities Code (PUC) § 399.30(a)(1)  Compliance Period and Procurement Targets PUC § 399.30(b) and (c)  Portfolio Content Categories PUC § 399.16(b) and (c)
 RPS POU Compliance PUC § 399.30(n)
 Optional Compliance Measures PUC § 399.30(d)

2. RPS Procurement Plan

2.1 Purpose
The purpose of the RPS Procurement Plan is to identify the policies and procedures for Redding to meet the RPS requirements and any future adopted state-defined renewable goals.

The most recent adoption, SB350, mandates that 50 percent of retail sales must be created by eligible renewable energy sources by 2030. SB350 also requires Redding to produce an Integrated Resource Plan that will guide the Procurement Plan.

17 SBX1-2 (Simitian, Stats. 2011, Ch. 1) was signed by California’s Governor on April 12, 2011, and made significant revisions to Public Utilities Code §s 399.11-399.32, the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. Various provisions of § 399.11, et seq., were subsequently modified.
18 The CEC adopted the RPS Enforcement Regulations on June 12, 2013, in Order No. 13-0612-5.

Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix E E-4

2.2 Compliance Periods and Procurement Targets
Compliance periods are multiyear, required targets. Although Compliance Periods 1 and 2 have passed, they are included below for reference:

A. Compliance Period 1
(1) During Compliance Period 1, January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2013, Redding shall procure, at a minimum, renewable energy resources equivalent to an average of 20 percent of retail sales over the three (3) years of the compliance period.

Expressed as:

10.0 EP 2011 + EP 2012 + EP 2013 ≥ .20 (RS 2011 + RS 2012 + RS 2013) Where:

RS X = total retail sales made by POU for the specified year X.

EP X = electricity products procured for the specified year X; this may include excess procurement and historic carryover that the POU has chosen to apply to the compliance period containing year X.

B. Compliance Period 2
(1) For Compliance Period 2, January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2016, Redding shall procure renewable energy resources to meet or exceed the sum of 20 percent of retail sales for each of 2014 and 2015, and 25 percent of retail sales for 2016.

Expressed as:

11.0 EP 2014 + EP 2015 + EP 2016 ≥ 0.20(RS 2014) + 0.20 (RS 2015) +

0.25 (RS 2016)
C. Compliance Period 3
(1) For Compliance Period 3, January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2020, Redding shall procure renewable energy resources to meet or exceed 33 percent of retail sales by 2020. During the intervening years of Compliance Period 3, Redding shall increase procurement to reflect an imputed compliance obligation.

Expressed as:
(EP 2017 + EP 2018 + EP 2019 + EP 2020)
≥ 0.27 (RS 2017) + 0.29 (RS 2018) + 0.31 (RS 2019) + 0.33 (RS 2020) D. Compliance Periods beyond 2020
(1) Compliance periods beyond 2020 are not formally established; however, SB350 requires a 50 percent renewable standard by 2030.

The following table summarizes the annual “soft” targets, but compliance is determined over the entire compliance period using the formulas above.

Compliance Period 3
… 2017 2018 2019 2020 …2030
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix E E-5
… 27% 29% 31% 33% 50%
Table 1: RPS Renewable Requirement

2.3 Portfolio Content Categories
In addition to meeting the renewable energy procurement target, the RPS established Portfolio Content Categories (PCC) that outline the eligible renewable energy resource products that must be procured to ensure compliance with minimum and maximum values as summarized in Table 2.

A. PCC1: (RPS Enforcement Regulations 3203(a))
(1) PCC1 electricity products must be bundled at the time of procurement to be classified as PCC1, and the POU may not resell the underlying electricity from the electricity product back to the eligible renewable energy resource from which the electricity product was procured. The electricity products must be generated by an eligible renewable energy resource that is interconnected to a transmission network within the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) service territory. For purposes of this section 3203, the first point of interconnection to the WECC transmission grid is the substation, or other facility, where generation tie lines interconnect from the eligible renewable energy resource to the network transmission grid.
(a) Electricity products must be generated by an eligible renewable energy resource that has its first point of interconnection within the metered boundaries of a California balancing authority area.
(b) Electricity products must be generated by an eligible renewable energy resource that has its first point of interconnection to an electricity distribution system used to serve end-users within the metered boundaries of a California balancing authority area. For purposes of this section 3203, the first point of interconnection to an electricity distribution system is within the service area boundaries of a utility distribution company.
(c) Electricity products from the eligible renewable energy resource with a first point of interconnection outside the metered boundaries of a California balancing authority area must be scheduled into a California balancing authority area without substituting electricity from another source. For purposes of this section 3203, electricity generated by the eligible renewable energy resource must be scheduled into a California balancing authority area on an hourly or sub-hourly basis. The POU’s governing board, or other authority as delegated by the POU governing board, must have approved an agreement before the electricity is generated to schedule the electricity from the eligible renewable energy resource into the California balancing authority area on an hourly or sub- hourly basis. If there is a difference between the amount of electricity generated within an hour and the amount of electricity scheduled into a California balancing authority area within that same hour, only the lesser of the two amounts shall be classified as PCC1.

Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix E E-6
(d) Electricity products must be subject to an agreement between a California balancing authority area and the balancing authority in which the eligible renewable energy resource is located and executed before the product is generated to dynamically transfer electricity from the eligible renewable energy resource into the California balancing authority area.
(3) Electricity products originally qualifying in PCC1 that do not meet the criteria of section 3203 (a)(2)(A) and are resold – (D) shall not be counted in PCC1.

B. PCC2: (RPS Enforcement Regulations Section 3203(b))
(1) PCC2 electricity products must be generated by an eligible renewable energy resource that is interconnected to a transmission network within the WECC service territory, and the electricity must be matched with incremental electricity that is scheduled into a California balancing authority area.
(2) PCC2 electricity products must be bundled when procured and must meet all of the following criteria:
(a) The first point of interconnection to the WECC transmission grid for both the eligible renewable energy resource and the resource providing the incremental electricity must be located outside the metered boundaries of a California balancing authority area.
(b) The incremental electricity used to match the electricity from the eligible renewable energy resource must be incremental to the POU. For purposes of this section 3203, “incremental electricity” means electricity that is generated by a resource located outside the metered boundaries of a California balancing authority area; prior to the date of contract or ownership agreement, electricity is not in the portfolio of the POU claiming the electricity products for RPS compliance from eligible renewable energy resources with which the incremental electricity is being matched; is executed by the POU, or other authority, as delegated by the POU governing board.
(c) The governing board, or other authority as delegated by the governing board, executes the contract or ownership agreement for the incremental electricity at the same time or after the contract or ownership agreement for the electricity products from the eligible renewable energy resource is executed. (d) The incremental electricity must be scheduled into the California balancing authority area within the same calendar year as the electricity from the eligible renewable energy resource is generated.
(e) The electricity from the eligible renewable energy resource must be available to be procured by the POU and may not be sold back to that resource.

C. PCC3: (RPS Enforcement Regulations section 3203(c))
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix E E-7
All unbundled renewable energy credits and other electricity products procured from eligible renewable energy resources located within the WECC transmission grid that do not meet the requirements of either PCC1 or PCC2 fall within PCC3.

D. PCC0: (RPS Enforcement Regulations section 3204(a)(2)) (1) Any contract or ownership agreement originally executed prior to June 1, 2010, shall count in full toward the procurement requirements if all of the following conditions are met:
(a) The renewable energy resource met the Commission’s RPS eligibility requirements that were in effect when the original procurement or ownership agreement was executed.
(b) Any contract amendments or modifications occurring after June 1, 2010, do not increase the nameplate capacity, expected quantities of annual generation, or substitute a different renewable energy resource.
(c) If contract amendments or modifications after June 1, 2010, increase nameplate capacity or expected quantities of annual generation, increase the term of the contract, or substitute a different eligible renewable energy resource, only the MWhs or resources procured prior to June 1, 2010, shall count in full toward the RPS procurement targets. The remaining procurement must be classified into PCC1, 2, or 3, and follow the portfolio balance requirements in accordance with RPS Enforcement Regulations section 3204 (c).
(d) The duration of the contract may be extended if the original contract specified a procurement commitment of fifteen (15) years or more.

Compliance Period 1
2011-2013
Compliance Period 2
2014-2016
Compliance Period 3
2017-2020
PCC1 (Minimum) 50% 65% 75%
PCC2 (No Direct Restriction) n/a n/a n/a
PCC3 (Maximum) 25% 15% 10%
PCC0 Is not subject to portfolio balancing requirements Beyond 2020 is to be determined
Table 2: RPS Balancing Requirement

2.4 Redding’s Plan for RPS Compliance

2.4.1 Existing Eligible Renewable Resources
Redding currently has the following renewable energy resources under contract and/or ownership that meet the RPS eligibility requirements:

Wind
Big Horn Wind Project (PCC0) - In 2006, Redding entered into a 20-year contract with possible 5-year extension for wind energy through the M-S-R Public Power Agency by participation in the Big Horn Wind Project. Redding has contracted for 70 MW of capacity that yields approximately 180,000 MWh of eligible renewable energy annually.

Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix E E-8
Hydro (<30MW)
Whiskeytown Hydro (PCC0) - In the mid-1980s, Redding invested in small hydrogeneration at Whiskeytown Dam. The Whiskeytown Project has a capacity of approximately 3 MW and yields roughly 26,000 MWh of eligible renewable energy annually.

WAPA Small Hydro Program (PCC0) - Redding participates in WAPA’s Small Hydro Program; this contributes approximately 6,000 MWh of eligible renewable energy to Redding annually.

2.4.2 Procurement Plan for Future Renewable Resources
In order to meet the RPS mandates, Redding plans to preserve its existing PCC0 resources, carry forward excess procurement from one compliance period to the next, and look for valuable opportunities to diversify and expand its RPS portfolio while protecting Redding’s customers from excessive rate increases that could jeopardize economic growth and viability within the City. The Integrated Resource Plan will be the guiding document and tool for choosing the optimal plan.

3. RPS Enforcement Program

3.1 Enforcement Policy
In compliance with the requirement for the governing board of a POU to adopt a program for enforcement of the legislation prior to January 1, 2012, the Redding City Council passed Resolution 2011-197 “Resolution of the City Council of the City of Redding to Revise the Renewable Portfolio Standard for the City of Redding’s Electric System” on December 20, 2011. Resolution 2011-197 adopted the following RPS targets:

A. An average of 20 percent in 2011 through 2013;
B. 25 percent by 2016; and
C. 33 percent by 2020 and thereafter.

Resolution 2011-197 also adopted the following Enforcement Policies:

A. Redding will make a reasonable effort in the context of Good Utility Practice to be in compliance with the requirements of SBX1-2.

B. Redding will report annually to the City Council on its status of compliance with SBX1-2.

C. Redding will notify the City Council of any potential for lack of compliance with the requirements of SBX1-2 that may be considered for a notice of violation and penalty imposition.

D. Redding will provide an explanation and analysis to the City Council on such potential for Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix E E-9
lack of compliance with SBX1-2, as well as a plan of corrective action and timeframe for returning the City to compliant status.

E. At such time, the City Council will direct staff on its recommended course of action.

Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix E E-10

3.2 Optional Compliance Measures
Specific optimal compliance measures are permitted, and are adopted, by Redding and the City Council. Redding adopts the following optional compliance measures, which may be utilized in the event that factors beyond reasonable control interfere with its ability to meet the procurement requirements set forth in Public Utilities Code §399.30 and § 3206 of the RPS Regulations.

A. Excess Procurement:

Redding shall be allowed to apply Excess Procurement from one compliance period to subsequent compliance periods using the criteria outlined in § 3206(a)(1) of the RPS Enforcement Regulations beginning on January 1, 2011, and shall be calculated as set forth in RPS Enforcement Regulations § 3206(a)(1)(D).

B. Delay of Timely Compliance:

Enforcement of timely compliance shall be waived if Redding demonstrates that any of the conditions defined in RPS Enforcement Regulations § 3206(a)(2) are beyond the control of Redding, and Redding would have met its RPS procurement requirements but for the cause of delay.

C. Cost Limitations for Expenditures:

Redding establishes a Cost Limitation on the procurement expenditures for all eligible renewable energy resources used to comply with the RPS, consistent with RPS Enforcement Regulations § 3206(a)(3).

The Cost Limitation applied to each RPS procurement expenditure will consider the following:
(1) Incorporating the annual RPS expenditure into Redding’s current portfolio should not require rate increases of more than 1.5 percent per year at any time during the life of the considered RPS procurement.
(2) The per-kilowatt-hour cost of the considered RPS procurement expenditure should not exceed, nor be projected to exceed, 75 percent of Redding’s current per-kilowatthour retail residential energy charge. (3) When estimating the considered RPS procurement expenditure, the following costs will also be included:
(a) The costs associated with firming and shaping, and/or storage, as needed for intermittent resources; and
(b) The costs associated with delivery of the renewable energy.

In the event that procurement expenditures exceed the adopted Cost Limitation, Redding shall re-evaluate its RPS Procurement Plan to ensure that other options are not available that would otherwise allow Redding to meet its RPS procurement requirement. Such review Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix E E-11
will include a re-evaluation of current procurement commitments, planned procurements, long-term commitments, and the availability of alternative resources in other portfolio content categories.

D. Portfolio Balance Requirement Reduction:

Redding shall be allowed to reduce the portfolio balance requirement for Procurement Content Category 119 for a specific compliance period if conditions beyond the control of Redding occur that warrant a delay in timely compliance (as adopted under § 2.2 (B) of the RPS Enforcement Program) as defined in § 3206(a)(4) of the RPS Enforcement Regulations.

If Redding uses this reduction measure, Redding will update its RPS Procurement Plan with the adjusted information and submit such updated plan to the CEC.

4. Review and UpdatingRequirements (RPS Enforcement Regulations §3205(a)) Redding is required to complete an Integrated Resource Plan that will guide the Procurement plan.

A. Redding will provide the following notice regarding new or updated renewable energy resources procurement plans:
(1) Redding shall post notice in accordance with Chapter 9 (commencing with §54950) of Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code, whenever the City Council will deliberate in public on the RPS Procurement Plan.
(2) Along with the posting of the notice of a public meeting to consider the RPS Procurement Plan, Redding shall notify the CEC of the date, time, and location of the public meeting to consider the RPS Procurement Plan. This requirement is satisfied if Redding provides the CEC with the uniform resource locator (URL) that directly links to the notice for the public meeting. Alternatively, an e‐mail with information on the public meeting in Portable Document Format (PDF) may also be provided to the CEC.

19 Procurement Content Category 1 is defined in § 3203 (a) of the RPS Enforcement Regulations.

Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix E E-12
(3) Redding will notify the CEC if any URL provided by Redding no longer contains the correct link, and Redding will send the CEC a corrected URL that links to the information, or a PDF containing the information, as soon as it becomes available. (4) If Redding distributes information to its City Council related to its renewable energy resources procurement status, or future procurement or enforcement programs for the City Council’s consideration at a public meeting, Redding shall make all relevant information available to the public at the same time it is distributed to City Council, and shall provide an electronic copy of that information to the CEC for posting on the CEC’s website. (a) This requirement is satisfied if Redding provides the URL that directly links to the documents or information regarding other manners of access to the documents to the CEC. Alternatively, an e‐mail with the information in PDF may also be provided to the CEC.
(b) Redding will notify the CEC if any URL provided no longer contains the correct link, and Redding will send the CEC a corrected URL that links to the information, or a PDF containing the information, as soon as it becomes available.

5. Review and Revision History
Revision
Number
Revision
Date
Summary of Changes
1 10/15/2013 Original version adopted by City Council Date:

October 15, 2013
2 10/07/2014 Annual update: Removed Lewiston and added Colusa 3 06/05/18 Combined Procurement and Enforcement plan.

Included SB350 updates, removed Colusa biomass
project, and rearranged information for a more clear,
concise document.

J:\14_RESOURCES\01_PROCEDURES AND FILINGS\PROCEDURES\RPS-001 RPS PROCUREMENT AND ENFORCEMENT PLAN Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix F F-1
Appendix F. Energy Storage Compliance Plan
Procedure No:

ESCP - 02
Version:

Draft 1
Approval Date:

September
19, 2017 Energy Storage
Compliance Plan
(ESCP) Effective Date: October 1, 2017
Document Owner: Lowell Watros

REDDING ELECTRIC UTILITY
Energy Services Division
ESCP-02 Energy Storage Compliance
Plan (AB 2514 & AB 2227– Public
Utilities Code Sections 2835-2839)
Reviewed By: Lowell Watros (Resource Planner – Enterprise Services), Nick Zettel (Manager – Enterprise Services), Dan Beans (Interim Electric Utility Director)
Adopted By: Redding City Council
Date: September 19, 2017
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix F F-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction/Background ...............................................................................................................3

2. Energy Storage Procurement Plan.................................................................................................4

2.1 Plan Overview.......................................................................................................................4

2.2 Compliance Periods..............................................................................................................4

2.3 Definitions of Energy Storage Technologies.......................................................................4

3. ESCP Review Requirements............................................................................................................5 Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix F F-3
Introduction/Background
Redding Electric Utility (REU) started analyzing energy storage technologies in 2004. In 2005, REU installed its first thermal energy storage (TES) devices within its service territory (a chiller-based TES system at Redding Municipal Airport and a direct expansion TES system at the Redding Fire Department).

Subsequent to REU’s continued pursuit of cost-effective TES installations throughout the Utility’s service territory, Assembly Bill (AB) 2514 (Energy Storage Bill) was introduced to the California Legislature by Assembly woman Skinner in 2010. This bill passed and was signed into law (Public Utilities Code Section 2835-2839) by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger September 29, 2010.

This energy storage law requires the governing board (City Council) of a local, publicly- owned electric utility by March 1, 2012, to open a proceeding to determine appropriate targets, if any, for the utility to procure viable and cost-effective energy storage systems and, by October 1, 2014, to adopt an energy storage system procurement target, if determined to be appropriate, to be achieved by the utility by December 31, 2016. The law includes a second target to be achieved by December 31, 2020. The law further specifies:

Section 2836 - As part of this proceeding, the governing board may consider a variety of possible policies to encourage the cost-effective deployment of energy storage systems, including refinement of existing procurement methods to properly value energy storage systems.  The governing board shall adopt the procurement targets if determined to be appropriate pursuant to paragraph (1) by October 1, 2014.  The governing board shall reevaluate the determinations made pursuant to this subdivision not less than once every three years (in September 2017 and September 2020).

Section 2836.4 - An energy storage system may be used to meet the resource adequacy requirements established by a local, publicly-owned electric utility pursuant to Section 9620 if it meets applicable standards.

Section 2836.6 - All procurement of energy storage systems by a load-serving entity or local, publicly-owned electric utility shall be cost-effective.

Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix F F-4
Energy Storage Procurement Plan

2.1 Plan Overview
The purpose of the ESCP is to identify the policies and procedures for REU to meet the requirements set forth with AB 2514 and the Energy Storage section of the Public Utilities Code (Sections 2835-2839).
a) The ESCP incorporates REU’s TES Program with the legislative mandate requiring utilities to review various energy storage technologies and to set procurement and periodic review targets.
b) Under AB 2514, each utility is to review the applicability of various storage technologies to their local operating requirements and identify which of those, if any, would benefit the utility’s electric service requirements. REU has completed an assessment of its TES Program and determined the Program to be beneficial in assisting the overall operating conditions of the Utility.

Under ESCP-01, REU had a procurement target of 3.6 MW to be installed and operational by July 1, 2017. That target was obtained and REU is now in the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) phase for the TES Program as it is now configured. Due to the current (no growth) load forecast and adequate power supplies available for the foreseeable future, no further additions to REU’s energy storage capabilities are contemplated at this time. During the next review period, as part of ongoing Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) efforts, REU will analyze the value of all qualified energy storage technologies as defined by AB 2514, including TES. The existing TES assets are expected to have an effective 20-year plus life span. While the TES systems have been proving to be quite reliable, some routine maintenance will be needed over the multi-year time period that the equipment is expected to be in service.

CompliancePeriods
AB 2514 established the following compliance periods:

1. On or before March 1, 2012, REU must initiate a proceeding to determine appropriate storage targets.

2. Procurement targets must be adopted by October 1, 2014.

3. Review initial storage targets by September 2017.

4. Review the storage targets set in September 2017 by September 2020.

Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan SCHINSTOCK, BRIANAppendix F F-5
AB 2227 established the following compliance periods:

1. On or before January 1, 2017, REU must report to the California Energy Commission (CEC) demonstrating that it had complied with storage targets adopted by City Council on October 1, 2014.

2. By January 1, 2021, in similar fashion as Item 1 above, again file a progress report with the CEC, related to City Council adopted targets on October 1, 2017.

Definitions of Energy Storage Technologies
AB 2514 specifically defines what constitutes and qualifies as an energy storage system. The definition as stated in the law (section 2835 (a)(1) – (2)(A)) is:
“commercially available technology that is capable of absorbing energy, storing it for a period of time, and thereafter dispatching the energy.” An “energy storage system” shall do one or more of the following:
(1) Use mechanical, chemical, or thermal processes to store energy that was generated at one time for use at a later time.
(2) Store thermal energy for direct use for heating or cooling at a later time in a manner that avoids the need to use electricity at that later time. (3) Use mechanical, chemical, or thermal processes to store energy generated from renewable resources for use at a later time. (4) Use mechanical, chemical, or thermal processes to store energy generated from mechanical processes that would otherwise be wasted for delivery at a later time.

ESCPReview Requirements
Redding adjusts its load forecast annually. This forecast will be used to anticipate the ESCP’s needs in future years. This ESCP will be updated as appropriate to reflect Redding’s periodic review of loads and available power resources, including energy storage technologies.
a) Redding will review the initial procurement targets set in September 2014 no later than September 2017, and again no later than September 2020.

AB 2227 added to the requirements of AB 2514 minimally in that local, publicallyowned electric utilities, such as REU shall submit a report to the Energy Commission demonstrating it had complied with the energy storage system procurement targets and policies adopted by the City Council in September 2014 by January 1, 2017, and in similar fashion by January 1, 2021. Basically, AB 2227 provides for routine progress reports to the CEC.

Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - September 21, 2021, item no. 4.5(e)--Accept the 2021 Demand-Side Management Integrated Resource Plan

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Approve Consulting and Professional Services Agreement with Electric and Gas Industries Association, Inc. (EGIA), a 501(C)(6) non-profit organization, to provide automated rebate processing services to Redding Electric Utility in an amount not to exceed $1,690,623 annually; and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the Agreement and future renewals.

This agreement may be renewed for up to three successive one-year renewal terms by mutual agreement of both parties.

Background
In accordance with Public Utilities Code § 385, Redding Electric Utility (REU) offers rebates to promote energy efficiency and conservation within the Redding city limits. The Electric Department manually processes approximately 4,000 energy efficiency rebate applications per year and expects this number to increase with the addition of modified commercial rebates and implementation of the recent electric vehicle rebate. An opportunity exists to improve customer service and reduce administrative costs by transitioning to a software-based automated rebate processing service. Features of the proposed automated rebate processing service are as follows:
• Ability for the Electric Department to handle increased volume of rebates without hiring additional staff.
• Capability for customers to apply for rebates using an electronic platform in addition to the current paper-based process.
• Program reporting dashboard to provide real-time information related to rebates, savings and Program budget.

In 2015, the Southern California Public Power Agency (SCPPA) performed a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) and awarded a rebate processing contract to EGIA for SCPPA members. Staff reviewed proposals submitted by all respondents and verified that the EGIA proposal encompassed the needs of REU at the lowest cost. In addition, the City of Redding’s MEETING DATE: December 19, 2017
ITEM NO. 4.5(d)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Processing Services for Redding Electric Utility.

Daniel Beans, Director of
Electric Utility
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Report to Redding City Council December 12, 2017
Re: 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Processing ServicesPage 2 Purchasing Officer reviewed SCPPA’s RFP materials and determined that the City is able to award a contract to EGIA based on the SCPPA procurement.

If the Professional Services Contract is approved, the City will execute a one-year contract (attached) with EGIA in an amount not to exceed $185,623 per year for rebate processing services. Furthermore, an additional $5,000 will be reserved for postage and printing services, and $1,500,000 will be reserved to fund rebates for the City’s customers applying for commercial, residential, electric vehicle, and custom rebates. The total budgeted amount is $1,690,623; however, the actual amount of this contract will be dependent on the number of rebate applications received. This agreement may be renewed for up to three successive one-year renewal terms by mutual agreement of both parties.

Issue
Should the Redding City Council (Council) authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the Professional Services Contract with Electric and Gas Industries Association, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $1,690,623?
Alternatives and Implications of the Alternatives
The Council has the following alternatives:

1. Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the Professional Services Contract and up to three, one-year contract renewal terms with the Electric and Gas Industries Association, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $1,690,623 annually.

2. Reject the proposed plan to transition to automated rebate processing and provide alternate direction to staff.

Fiscal Impact
Funding for this Project will be provided from the existing demand-side management program funds and will not be a material impact to REU.

Conclusion
Staff respectfully recommends the Council authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the Professional Services Contract with Electric and Gas Industries, Inc. to provide automated rebate processing services to Redding Electric Utility.

Attachments
Consulting and Professional Services Agreement (available online) Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - December 19, 2017, item no. 4.5(d)--Approve Professional Services Contract for Automated Rebate

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize and approve the following actions relative to Request for Proposal Schedule No. 5260, To Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at Redding City Hall:
(1) Award to Heritage Coffeehouse;
(2) Authorize the Community Services Director to negotiate a three-year term effective on or before April 1, 2022, through March 31, 2025, with three one-year options to unilaterally extend the term; and
(3) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute the contract, and any future amendments and extensions.

Fiscal Impact
The Request for Proposal (RFP) included a monthly rent payment of two hundred dollars per month with a three percent annual increase over the life of the agreement. All other terms will be consistent with the attached RFP.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could choose not to authorize the award of the RFP to Heritage Coffeehouse The current food and beverage provider is scheduled to close operations by the end of next month. No services would be available after that date.

Background/Analysis
Since the opening of Redding City Hall in 2001, a coffee kiosk has been in operation. Originally there existed a partnership with Northern Valley Catholic Social Service (NVCSS) and then with David Baker directly. The coffee kiosk provides a convenient and welcome service to city employees and visitors.

MEETING DATE: February 15, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.6(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.6(a) Award Request for Proposal Schedule 5260, To Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at Redding City Hall to Heritage Coffeehouse and Authorize Director of Community Services to negotiate contract
Kim Niemer, Community
Services Director
Packet Pg. 432
Report to Redding City Council February 7, 2022
Re: 4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Coffeehouse Page 2 In November 2021, Mr. Baker notified City of Redding (City) staff of his intent to terminate services. A Request for Proposal was prepared and issued on November 17, 2021. An on-site meeting was held on December 15 with a dozen potential proposers in attendance. Five proposals were received. Three firms, Heritage Coffeehouse, Anthem Coffee, and Feast Coffee and Culture, were selected for interview. The interview panel was held on February 2, 2022, with four City employees as raters. The raters evaluated the proposals on: the variety and appeal of products to be sold, pricing, experience and qualifications, and the quality of the samples provided. The panel was unanimous in its preference for Heritage Coffeehouse. Heritage Coffeehouse operates a successful coffeehouse and café establishment in the City of Shasta Lake. The owners are Stuart and Sara Sutherland. They operate the business as 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Even through COVID, they have demonstrated a commitment to the community and their business has grown. While all those interviewed offered excellent coffee and customer service standards, the panel found Heritage Coffeehouse, with its kitchen at the Shasta Lake location, best able to provide full-service options to City Hall customers.

The agreement, when negotiated, will be approved to form by the City Attorney before execution.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Economic Development – “Facilitate and become a catalyst for economic development in Redding to create jobs, retain current businesses and attract new ones, and encourage investment in the community.”
Attachments
RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) Heritage Coffeehouse proposal (available online)
Packet Pg. 433
Purchasing Division
November 17, 2021

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
TO

FURNISH LIMITED FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICE

AT REDDING CITY HALL,

CITY OF REDDING, CALIFORNIA
(Schedule Number 5260)
In accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Redding, sealed proposals must be submitted to the City Clerk’s 3rd floor office of the City of Redding, located at City Hall, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, California 96001 prior to 3:00 p.m. PST, Thursday, January 20, 2022, for furnishing the City of Redding a proposal for selective catalytic reduction catalyst replacement per the attached specifications, and general terms and conditions contained herein.

PROPOSALS RECEIVED AFTER THIS TIME AND DATE MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED OR CONSIDERED.

The said proposals will be opened at 3:00 p.m. PST, on Thursday, January 20, 2022, in the designated City Hall Conference Room as posted in the main lobby of City Hall, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, California.

A pre-proposal site-survey will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 15, 2021, in the first floor lobby of Redding City Hall, located at 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA.

The proposer shall provide the original (unbound) proposal and one (1) exact copy of the proposal in PDF format on a USB “thumb” drive. Fax or electronic submission of proposals will not be allowed. The City will award any resulting contract in a manner consistent with the City Purchasing Ordinance.

The cut-off date and time for receiving questions regarding this RFP is 5:00 p.m.

PST, on Friday, December 17, 2021. All inquiries must be made in writing and may be submitted to the email address shown below.

THE CITY OF REDDING
Purchasing Division

Michelle Kempley, Buyer
[email protected]
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage NOTE
If a potential bidder/proposer received this solicitation document through some means other than surface mail from the City of Redding (such as from the City of Redding Internet web site, or from another prospective bidder/proposer), it is the responsibility of the potential bidder/proposer to advise the assigned City of Redding Purchasing contact of its intention to submit a bid/proposal so that any addenda or other correspondence related to this solicitation will be sent to the potential bidder/proposer. When contacting the Purchasing Division, the bidder/proposer shall provide the solicitation number located on the cover page of this document.

Transmittal of this information must be in writing, by U.S. Mail, fax, or e-mail.

Transmittal of this information via telephone is not acceptable.

Please submit bid/proposal as directed in the RFP package. Forward to:

City of Redding
City Clerk
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, CA 96001
Proposals must be received by the City Clerk’s office prior to 3:00 p.m. PST on the date indicated below. Mailing envelope is to be clearly marked on the outside with the following notation:
“Proposal for Schedule No. 5260; opening at
3:00 P.M., on Thursday, January 20, 2022”
Note: Signatures must be legible, indicating full first and last name.

The City of Redding
Purchasing Division
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage 1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
TO

FURNISH LIMITED FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICE

AT REDDING CITY HALL
(RFP 5260)
Introduction
The City is seeking qualified food service providers to operate a café/coffee bar in the lobby at Redding City Hall located at 777 Cypress Avenue.

This Request for Proposal (RFP) is intended to establish the specifications, terms and conditions governing the selection of a firm to provide café/coffee bar services at Redding City Hall.

Background
The City wishes to offer snack and beverage service to the public and staff. Since 2001, when the current Redding City Hall opened, a coffee bar located in the main lobby has operated under contract with a concessionaire, illustrated in Exhibit A. During this time, there have only been two contractors. More than 400 full-time employees work at City Hall and the adjacent Police building. Over a hundred visitors a day come to conduct business or visit the art exhibitions.

Redding City Hall is open Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, excluding the observed holidays listed on Exhibit B. Meeting and event services will be needed as well.

Term and Rent
The café/coffee bar will operate under a License Agreement with the City of Redding, a sample of which is attached hereto. The term of the License Agreement shall be for a period of three years, and may be renewed annually for consecutive one-year periods; however, the Proposer may offer an alternate term.

Monthly rent of $200 is due and payable by the 5th day of each month for the first year. The monthly rate will increase by five percent annually.

Scope of Work
The exact scope of service required will be set forth in the agreement between the City and the food service provider. The scope of work will generally consist of:
• Providing coffee service including espresso drinks, tea and hot chocolate. • Providing drink service including bottled waters, sodas and juices. • Providing smoothies or other blended drinks.
• Providing bagels, pastries, cookies or other confections. • Providing fresh fruit.
• Opening the café/coffee bar from 7 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. or later. • Providing all needed equipment beyond what is offered. • Providing signage for the café/coffee bar operation.
• Price goods competitively.
• Adhere to all local and state regulations regarding food preparation and handling. • Providing janitorial services for the café/coffee bar, and keeping the premises clean and free from refuse.
• Providing general directional information to City Hall visitors. • Pay rent.

Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage 2 City Responsibilities
• Provide 120-volt electrical service at City’s expense. • Provide Espresso machine, Water filter, Coffee maker, 2 refrigerators, display case, Menu board, Ice Machine, Espresso Grinder, Trash container, tamper, shot glasses, knock box, pitchers, and other accessories.
• Provide the food service provider with key or cardkey access to the café/coffee bar area.
• Grant the food service provider exclusive right and privilege to operate a café/coffee bar in City Hall.
• Approve signage for café/coffee bar operation.

Pre-Proposal Meeting and Site Survey
A pre-proposal site-survey is scheduled for Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Interested parties may meet in the first floor lobby of Redding City Hall. The purpose of this site-survey is to examine the café/coffee bar and equipment. Questions will be addressed at that time.

Proposal Format
For administrative ease to City personnel reviewing each proposal, please present the elements of your proposal in the order shown below, boldly denoting the title of each section:
• Cover Sheet. Use the form provided in this package, filled out appropriately.
• Qualifications. State your interest, qualifications and current relevant experience (the last three years) in a similar service. List businesses operated during the past three years, giving dates.
• Ownership. List of the names and addresses of any partnerships, coownerships, and subcontractors who may have or will have a financial or other interest in their operation at Redding City Hall.
• References. Reference list from similar contracts and/or services, with contact name and phone number indicated for each.
• Description of Services Offered, stating what you specifically propose to provide, and how you will be able to meet those objectives (manpower, equipment, etc.).
• Equipment. On a separate sheet of paper, titled “Attachment A”, list applicable equipment that would be made available to use for the services to be rendered at City Hall.
• Sample Menu(s). On a separate sheet of paper, titled “Attachment B”, list proposed foods and beverages, along with prices.
• Additional Information; this section would be at the discretion of the Proposer, to include any additional information felt to be pertinent for this proposal (i.e. photograph or brochure relating to your previous, related business).

Selection Criteria
All proposals will be reviewed by a panel comprised of City employees. The City’s decision will be the final decision in selecting which proposal(s) offers the best approach for providing the type of requested food and beverage services. At that point, further discussion will be held to Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage 3 develop a mutually agreed upon contract for the proposed services. In general, the successful Proposer will have the ability to provide quality food and beverage service as well as provide a financial return to the City of Redding. The panel will focus on evaluating the following areas in making their selection(s):
• Variety and appeal of food and beverage products to be sold. • Pricing of food and beverage products.
• Experience and qualifications in operating this type of business.

RFP Tentative Timeline
Begin Circulation of RFP November 17, 2021
Pre-Proposal Meeting December 15, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.

Deadline to Receive Questions December 17, 2021 at 5:00 p.m.

Deadline to Receive Proposals January 20, 2022 at 3:00 p.m.

Evaluate Proposals Week of January 24, 2022
Interview Selected Proposer(s) (if needed) Week of January 31, 2022 Contract in Place End of February 2022
Food Service to Begin on or about April 4, 2022
Attachments
• A: Proposal Submittal Cover Sheet for responding proposal. • B: Sample License Agreement. By submitting a proposal, the Proposer agrees to utilize the City’s standard License Agreement form. Please see the required levels of insurance coverage set forth in the sample license agreement. • C: Floor Plan of café/coffee bar area
• D: Holiday Closure Schedule
Questions
For questions or information regarding specifications, bid proposal, or general conditions contact:

Michelle Kempley, Buyer, [email protected]
For questions concerning insurance requirements, contact:

Pam Dahl, [email protected]
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Attachment A

PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL COVER SHEET
FOR

PROPOSAL TO FURNISH LIMITED FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICE

AT REDDING CITY HALL
(Schedule Number 5260)
To: The City of Redding Date: __________________
Michelle Kempley, Buyer
The undersigned ________________________________ (Corporate name of Proposer) presents the following proposal to provide limited food and beverage services to the City of Redding at City Hall, located at 777 Cypress Avenue in Redding, with services anticipated to begin on April 4, 2022. The attached proposal(s) are made in good faith, and the required equipment to provide the services is already on hand, or adequate funding is available to obtain necessary items. It is understood that the requirements set forth in the RFP will be incorporated into any subsequent contract that may be awarded.

I hereby acknowledge the receipt of the following addenda issued for RFP Schedule Number 5260: Addendum No. __________, __________, __________. ** **NOTE: Failure to acknowledge addenda, if any, may make proposal non-responsive.

Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________ _______________________________ (Mailing Address) (Corporate Name of Proposer)
_____________________________ By: ____________________________ (City, State, Zip) (Signature)
______________/______________ _______________________________ (Telephone / Fax) (Print Name and Title)
_____________________________
(Email Address)
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage

LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the CITY OF REDDING, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "CITY"), and _________ (hereinafter referred to as the "LICENSEE"):

RECITALS
A. CITY has need of a concessionaire to provide certain beverage and food services in the lobby of Redding City Hall located at 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding California (the "Site"); and B. CITY desires to accept LICENSEE's proposal to supply such services and to grant to LICENSEE a revocable license to supply such services in the lobby area of the Site pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

AGREEMENT

1. LICENSE. The CITY hereby grants to LICENSEE a non-exclusive revocable license for the purposes of providing beverage and food services at the Site. Such services shall include the sale of various non-alcoholic beverages including, but not limited to, coffee, tea and bottled drinks as well as prepared and snack items to CITY’s employees, visitors, and invitees. LICENSEE shall provide general directional information pertaining to Departments in City Hall with courteous service and helpful guidance in all interactions. Any other use or activity that LICENSEE may wish to carry on at the Site, in connection with the foregoing or independently, shall first require the written permission of CITY.

The parties intend that a revocable license, and not a lease, easement, or any other interest in real property be created by this Agreement. The license created herein does not include the right to place any vending machines at the Site. LICENSEE is further specifically prohibited from locating any TV, and video or arcade type games at the Site.

2. LOCATION. The portion of the Site to be used pursuant to this License Agreement shall be that area identified as the alcove area in the main lobby just south and west of the elevators as depicted on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein (“Location”). CITY retains the right to change at any time the location to be used pursuant to this License Agreement at the discretion of the City Manager, provided that CITY pays for any and all expenses associated with moving and equipment connection. CITY shall provide fifteen (15) days prior written notice to LICENSEE of any change in location. Any subsequent location assigned by the City Manager pursuant to this License Agreement shall automatically become the “Location” and subject to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement.

3. TERM. This Agreement shall become effective on the date when it is signed by the CITY, and shall remain in full force and effect until ____________, unless terminated sooner, or extended, as provided in this Agreement.

4. RENEWAL. This Agreement shall be automatically renew annually for consecutive one-year Attachment B
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage periods unless either party provides written notice ninety (90) calendar days in advance that it elects to terminate the Agreement.

5. LICENSE FEES. During the initial term, LICENSEE will pay the CITY an amount equal to $200/month for the first term of the Agreement. License Fee is to increase by five percent (5%) annually, after the initial term for the duration of the agreement.

The fees will be due and payable in arrears by the 5th day of the month following the month during which the sales take place. Generally accepted account principles as used herein shall mean the set of rules, conventions,standards, and procedures for reporting financial information as established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board of the United States.

6. EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES. LICENSEE shall maintain at its own cost and expense any equipment, and fixtures, and shall provide all utensils, and supplies reasonably required to provide the services described in Section 1 of this Agreement. The type and kind of equipment LICENSEE is expected to maintain is exemplified in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Ownership of the existing equipment and fixtures will remain with CITY. All furnishings, equipment, and supplies provided by LICENSEE or utilized in conjunction with the operation granted by this Agreement shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, codes, regulations, and policies, which are now in force, or which may hereafter be in force. All future equipment acquisition to be funded by LICENSEE.

7. REPAIR, MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING. LICENSEE shall immediately inform the CITY of any and all repairs to the Site and/or Location that LICENSEE believes necessary or appropriate.

LICENSEE shall maintain the Location in good and neat appearance and in a safe condition at all times.

LICENSEE, at its sole costs and expense, shall immediately repair and an all damage to the Site and/or Location caused or contributed to by LICENSEE, its agents, employee and/or invitees. LICENSEE shall be responsible for maintenance of the equipment and fixtures, the cleaning of the beverage/food service area (including floors), and the daily cleaning of the area within ten (10) feet of the beverage/food service area during regular business hours. Upon termination of this Agreement, LICENSEE shall return the Location to the CITY in substantially the same condition as the Location existed at the commencement of this Agreement, ordinary wear and tear excepted.

CITY shall be responsible for maintenance of the Site as follows:
a. The structural parts of the Site, including the foundation, bearing, and exterior walls (including glass and doors),subflooring, and roof;
b. The electrical, plumbing, and sewage systems, including, without limitation, those portions of such systems lying outside the Site;
c. The window frames, gutters, and down spouts;
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage d. The air conditioner, heating, and ventilating systems; and e. Fire extinguishers.

CITY shall provide regular janitorial service for the area outside the area assigned to LICENSEE.

8. IMPROVEMENTS. LICENSEE may reasonably improve or modify the Site and/or Location, but only with the prior review and written consent of CITY, and only at its own costs and expense, and only in accordance with any and all city, county, state, and federal laws and regulations.

9. UTILITIES. CITY shall provide at its own cost certain utilities reasonably required by LICENSEE under this Agreement, including electrical, gas, water, and refuse collection, and shall coordinate the connection of such utilities with LICENSEE. LICENSEE shall provide telephone service at its own cost.

10. HOURS OF OPERATION. LICENSEE must provide beverage and food service from the hours of 7:30 AM to 1:30 PM Pacific Standard Time on the days that the Redding City Hall is open for business to the public. These hours may be adjusted upon CITY’S prior written approval.

11. MENU. LICENSEE shall provide a limited selection of prepared, nutritious, snacks; and beverages, including various coffees and juices, at reasonable prices subject to prior review and approval by CITY.

12. HEALTH, SAFETY, AND SANITATION. LICENSEE shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the Site, Location, and its food service concession are operated in compliance with any and all city, county, state, and federal laws and regulations relating to health, safety, and sanitation.

13. MANAGER AND EMPLOYEES. LICENSEE shall designate a qualified Manager, who will oversee the operation during the hours stipulated in Section 10. All employees shall be qualified and trained to perform their assigned duties in a presentable, efficient, and courteous manner.

14. SIGNS. Any and all signs identifying LICENSEE’s business must be posted within the interior of the Location, and are subject to review and approval by the CITY.

15. ACCEPTANCE OF SITE AND LOCATION. LICENSEE understands and agrees that it is taking the Site and Location AS IS, and is responsible for equipping and improving the Site and Location at its own cost and expense to accommodate the efficient provision of beverage/food services, except as otherwise noted in this Agreement.

16. TAXATION. Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 107.6, the privileges granted in this Agreement may be subject to taxation and/or assessment. In such event, LICENSEE shall pay before delinquency all possessory interest taxes, if any, that may be assessed against its right to occupy Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage the Site and Location and conduct its beverage/food concession provided in this Agreement.

LICENSEE shall pay all taxes, assessments, fees, and charges on all merchandise, fixtures, and equipment owned or used thereon, if required.

17. RULES AND REGULATIONS. LICENSEE shall, at LICENSEE's sole cost and expense, comply with all of the requirements and laws of all city, county, state and federal authorities now in force, or which may hereafter be in force, pertaining to the Site and/or Location and shall faithfully observe in the use of the Location and in the operation granted by this Agreement all city and county ordinances and state and federal statutes and regulations, now in force or which may hereafter be in force.

18. RIGHT TO INSPECT. The CITY and its authorized officers, agents, employees, and other representatives shall have the right to inspect the Location for any purpose, including, but not limited to the following purposes:
a. To inspect the Location at reasonable intervals during regular business hours (or at any time in case of emergency) to determine whether LICENSEE has complied with or is complying with the terms and conditions of this License Agreement; b. To make repairs, additions,-or alterations as may be necessary or convenient for the conduct, safety, improvement, or preservation of the Site and/or Location; c. For emergency purposes; and
d. In the exercise of CITY police power.

Except for inspections for the purpose listed in subparagraphs 18(b), 18(c), and 18(d) above, the CITY shall provide LICENSEE written notice at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the inspection. No inspection by or on behalf of the CITY of the Location shall cause or constitute a termination of the License Agreement, or be deemed to constitute an interference with LICENSEE’s use of thereof

19. RECORDS AND AUDIT. LICENSEE shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the services rendered and costs incurred under this Agreement. In addition, LICENSEE shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to any payments to employees or subcontractors. All such records shall be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting procedures, shall be clearly identified, and shall be kept readily accessible. Upon request, LICENSEE shall make such records available to the City of Redding Community Services Director and to his/her agents and representatives, for the purpose of auditing and/or copying such records for a period of five (5) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement.

20. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. During the duration of this Agreement, LICENSEE shall maintain the following noted insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the LICENSEE’S Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage operations and/or use of the Site and/or Location.

Coverage Required Not Required
Commercial General Liability X
Comprehensive Vehicle Liability X
Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability X
(Place an “x” in the appropriate box)
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance:

1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability (occurrence from CG 0001).

2. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employers’ Liability insurance.

B. Minimum limits of Insurance:

1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. If commercial general liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Employer’s Liability: $1,000,000 per bodily injury or disease.

C. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions:

Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the CITY. At the option of the CITY, either: the insurer shall reduce or e liminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the CITY, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration, and defe nse expenses.

D. Other Insurance Provisions
The general liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

1. The CITY, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be included as additional insured as respects: liability arising out of premises owned, occupied or used by the LICENSEE. The coverage shall contain no special limitation on the scope of prote ction afforded to the CITY, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.

Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage

2. The LICENSEE’S insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the CITY, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers.

Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the CITY, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be in excess of the LICENSEE’S insurance and shall not contribute with it.

3. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to CITY.

E. Automobile Insurance
LICENSEE shall maintain in full force and effect automobile liability insurance as required by the laws of the State of California.

F. Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A-VII.

G. Verification of Coverage
LICENSEE shall furnish the CITY with certifications of insurance and original endorsements required by this Section. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf.

All endorsements and certificates are to be received and approved by the CITY not less than ten (10) days prior to the use of the Site and/or Location.

21. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS. This Agreement is entered into by and between both parties with the express understanding that LICENSEE shall perform all services required under this Agreement as an independent contractor. LICENSEE understands that the services performed are outside of the usual course of the CITY’s business. Accordingly, LICENSEE shall be free from the control and direction of CITY with regard to the performance of services provided herein. LICENSEE shall perform all such services in his independent judgement as to what may serve his customers. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed LICENSEE or any of its agents, employees, or officers as an agent, employee, or officer of the CITY.

22. INDEMNIFICATION. The CITY shall not be liable to LICENSEE and LICENSEE hereby waives all claims against the CITY for any injury or damage to any person or property in or about the premises by or from any cause whatsoever, except injury or damage to LICENSEE resulting from the acts or omissions of the CITY or the CITY’S authorized agents. LICENSEE shall indemnify and defend the CITY and its elected officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage against and hold harmless from any and all claims, losses, damages, penalties and liability for damages, including attorneys' fees and other costs of defense incurred by CITY, whether for damage to or loss of property or injury to or death of person, including properties of CITY and injury to or death or CITY'S elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, arising out of or resulting from LICENSEE'S use of the Location or from the actions of LICENSEE, LICENSEE'S employees, agents and invitees or from the performance of the obligations of LICENSEE described herein, unless such damage, loss, injury, or death is caused by the sole negligence of CITY.

23. RELEASE AND DISCHARGE. The CITY shall not be responsible for, and assumes no liability arising from fire, theft, damage or loss to LICENSEE's property, unless such fire, theft, damage or loss is solely the fault of CITY. LICENSEE hereby releases and discharges the CITY from all claims and demands by LICENSEE for loss of or damage to LICENSEE's property.

24. TERMINATION. The right to terminate this Agreement under this section may be exercised without prejudice to any other right or remedy to which the terminating party may be entitled at law or under this Agreement. This Agreement may be terminated by either party without cause upon ninety (90) calendar days’ written notice to the other. a. With Cause: This Agreement may be terminated by either party should the other party:
(1) be adjudged a bankrupt, or
(2) become insolvent or have a receiver appointed, or
(3) make a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, or (4) suffer any judgement which remains unsatisfied for (30) days, and which would substantively impair the ability of the judgement debtor to perform under this Agreement, or
(5) materially breach the Agreement.

For any of the occurrences except item five (5) of this Section, termination may be effected upon written notice by the terminating party specifying the date of the termination.

Upon a material breach, the Agreement may be terminated following the failure of the defaulting party to remedy the breach to the satisfaction of the non-defaulting party with five (5) days of written notice specifying the breach. If the breach is not remedied with that five (5) day period, the non-defaulting party may terminate the Agreement on further written notice specifying the date of termination.

If the nature of the breach is such that it cannot be cured with a five (5) days period, the defaulting party may submit a written proposal within that period which sets forth specific means to resolve the default. If the non-defaulting party consents to that proposal in writing, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, the defaulting party shall immediately Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage embark on its plan to cure. If the default is not cured within the time agreed, the non-defaulting party may terminate upon written notice specifying the date of termination. b. Effects of Termination: Termination of this Agreement shall not terminate any obligations to indemnify, to maintain and make available any records pertaining to the Agreement, or to cooperate with any audit.

25. PROHIBITED MATERIALS; NUISANCE PROHIBITED. LICENSEE shall not store or use combustible chemicals or materials at the premises except as permitted by the Redding Fire Department. LICENSEE shall not store, dispense or otherwise handle fuel, compressed gasses, or other hazardous materials. LICENSEE shall properly dispose of all wastes and hazardous materials in a legal manner and in appropriate receptacles. LICENSEE shall not create a nuisance or perform any other act or thing which interferes with the quiet enjoyment of the Site by any other licensee or tenant or member of the public. For purposes of this paragraph, hazardous materials include, but are not limited to: (A) Substances which are flammable, explosive, corrosive, radioactive, toxic; (B) Those asbestos-containing materials defined and described in Environmental Protection Agency Report No. 56/5-85-024 (June 1985) whether or not friable, or any related or successor report, or other applicable government regulations defining or describing such materials; (C) Pesticides as defined by Section 136(u) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. Section 136) as may be present in soil or groundwater; (D) "Hazardous wastes" as defined in Section 25117 of the California Health and Safety Code, or as a chemical that is known to the State of California "to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity'' under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Action of 1986, California Health and Safety Code sections 25249.5, et. seq.; and (E) Any material or substance defined hazardous materials, substances or waste, or toxic materials, substances or waste as those terms or similar terms are defined by any other federal, state or local law, rule, regulation, ordinance or order.

26. NO DAMAGE; COMPLIANCE WITH CODES. LICENSEE shall not by its own or its agents', employees' or invitees' actions cause any damage to the CITY's property. The use of the Site shall conform to all CITY rules and regulations and local building and fire codes.

27. NOTICES. Any notices required to be given under this License Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly delivered, given, or served when personally delivered to the CITY or LICENSEE, or in lieu of such personal service, sent by United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, addressed as follows:

To City: To Licensee:

Kimberly A. Niemer
Director of Community Services
777 Cypress Avenue
P.O. Box 496071
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage In the event of personal service, notice shall be deemed given when personally served. In the event of service by mail, notice shall be deemed to have been given seventy-two (72) hours after deposit of same in the United States mail postage prepaid, addressed as set forth above, or upon the date of the signed return receipt, whichever is sooner. LICENSEE shall keep its current mailing address and telephone number on file with the CITY during the term of this Agreement and shall notify the CITY in writing within fifteen (15) days of any change of address or telephone number.

28. ASSIGNMENT. The License is personal to LICENSEE and shall not be assigned, sublet or otherwise transferred in whole or in part to any other person or entity unless LICENSEE receives prior written CITY authorization.

29. ATTORNEY'S FEES. In any dispute between the CITY and LICENSEE, whether or not resulting in litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party all reasonable costs, including without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees. "Prevailing party'' shall include without limitation, a party who dismisses an action for specific performance or for damages in exchange for sums allegedly due, performance of covenants allegedly breached or consideration substantially equal to the relief sought in the action, or which receives from the other party, in connection with any dispute, performance substantially equivalent to any of these.

30. HEADINGS, REFERENCE,LAW, AND JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY. The titles and headings of the various sections of this License Agreement are intended solely for convenience of reference and are not intended to explain, modify or place any construction on any of the provisions of this License Agreement. Masculine and feminine, or neutral gender and the singular and the plural number shall each be considered to include the other whenever the context so requires. This License Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

Any litigation arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in Shasta County, California. LICENSEE waives the removal provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 394. If either party consists of more than one person, each such person shall be jointly and severally liable.

31. WAIVER. No waiver by a party of any provision of this License Agreement or of the regulations governing the use of the premises shall be considered a waiver of any other provision or any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision, including the time for performance of any such provision. The exercise by a party of any remedy provided in this License Agreement or at law shall not prevent the exercise by that party of any other remedy provided in this License Agreement or at law. The failure of either party to insist on strict compliance with any provision of this Agreement shall not be considered a waiver of any right to do so, whether for that breach or any subsequent breach. The acceptance of either party of either performance or payment shall not be considered to be a waiver of any preceding breach of the Agreement by the other party.

32. EXHIBITS AND RECITALS. The Recitals and the Exhibits to this Agreement are fully incorporated into and are integral parts of this Agreement.

33. NO PARTY DEEMED DRAFTER. In the event of a dispute between any of the parties Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage hereto over the meaning of this License Agreement, no party shall be deemed to have been the drafter hereof, and the principle of law that contracts are construed against the drafter shall not apply.

34. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES INTENDED. Unless specifically set forth, the parties to this Agreement do not intend to provide any other party with any benefit or enforceable legal or equitable right or remedy.

35. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This License Agreement contains all the representations and the entire understanding and agreement between the parties pertaining to the use of the Site and/or Location or any other matters connected therewith. All correspondence, memoranda, or oral or written agreements pertaining to the Site, Location, or the parties hereto, which originated before the date of this License Agreement, are null, void and no longer in force and with no effect, and are replaced in total with this License Agreement unless otherwise expressly stated in this License Agreement. This License Agreement shall not be altered, amended, or modified except by a writing signed by the CITY and LICENSEE.

36. CONFLICT WITH LAWS OR REGULATIONS/SEVERABILITY: This Agreement is subject to all applicable laws and regulations. If any provision of this Agreement is found by any court or other legal authority, or is agreed by the parties, to be in conflict with any code or regulation governing its subject, the conflicting provisions shall be considered null and void. If the effect of nullifying any conflicting provision is such that a material benefit of the agreement to either party is lost, the Agreement may be terminated at the option of the affected party. In all other cases, the remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage

37. DATE OF AGREEMENT. The date of this License Agreement shall be that date that it shall have been signed by the CITY.

CITY OF REDDING
A Municipal Corporation
Dated:

KIMBERLY A. NIEMER
Community Services Director
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BARRY E. DeWALT
City Attorney
PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk By:

LICENSEE
Dated:

Name
Position
Tax ID No.:

Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage The City of Redding uses PINSAdvantage.com to track Insurance Certificates and all related documents!
HOW IT WORKS?
PINS begins with the City of Redding. The City of Redding logs into PINS and emails a request for insurance to the Vendor/Contractor. The Vendor/Contractor forwards the email onto their Insurance Agent(s). The Insurance Agent(s) logs into www.PINSAdvantage.com and completes the insurance certificate online.

WHAT TO LOOK FOR?
Vendor/Contractor will receive an email from: [email protected] Thank you for your cooperation!
For PINS support or questions on how to use PINS,
please contact [email protected]
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Attachment
C
Site Plan – Café Location
First Floor – City Hall
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Attachment D
Holiday Closure Schedule

HOLIDAYS
The City has 11 fixed holidays a year whereby City Hall is closed. These days are:

January 1st
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
President’s Day
Memorial Day
Juneteenth
July 4th Independence Day
Labor Day
The Wednesday before Thanksgiving
Thanksgiving
The last half of the normal work shift prior to Christmas Christmas day (December 25th)
If any of the foregoing holidays fall on a Sunday, the holiday will be observed on the following Monday. Likewise, if the holiday falls on a Saturday, the holiday will be observed on the preceding Friday.

Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage

CITY OF REDDING, CALIFORNIA

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. PUBLIC INFORMATION
All submitted proposals and information included therein or attached thereto shall become public record upon their delivery to the City. Proposals may be reviewed by outside interested parties after all proposals received for a particular project have been reviewed and the intended awardee has been selected.

By submission of a proposal, Consultant understands and agrees that the City of Redding is subject to the California Public Records Act (Cal. Gov. Code section 62500 et seq.), and that all or part of the proposal submitted by Consultant may be subject to disclosure therein regardless of whether the proposal or part thereof is marked as proprietary. The City reserves sole discretion to determine whether disclosure is necessary under State law, and Consultant hereby releases City from all liability relating to such disclosure. City shall have no obligation to litigate the issue of disclosure under the Act on behalf of Consultant.

2. RFP ADDENDA
The City of Redding reserves the right to amend, alter, or revoke this RFP in any manner at any time. At the City’s sole discretion, modifications, clarifications, or additions will be distributed as an addendum to all known proposers. It is the responsibility of all interested parties to verify the existence of addenda (check Purchasing’s website at www.cityofredding.org/PurchasingBids or call/ email the stated City contact).

3. PROPOSAL PREPARATION COSTS
All costs incurred in the preparation and presentation of this proposal shall be wholly absorbed by the vendor.

4. PROPOSALS
All proposals will be firm for a period of ninety (90) calendar days following the required date of submission unless an alternate time frame is stated in the Request for Proposal.

5. DEVIATIONS
If there are any deviations from the specifications set forth herein, the bidder shall note the deviations in his proposal. Failure to note a deviation from the specifications may be grounds for rejection by the City of that particular proposal. Where deviations are noted, the City reserves the right to accept a proposal containing such deviations provided that, in the sole opinion of the City, the deviation or deviations so noted do not affect the overall capability of the alternative item or process proposed to perform the function for which it is to be acquired and such deviations result in lesser total cost to the City for the subject item or service.

Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage

6. WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSAL
Any proposer may withdraw their proposal, either personally or by written request at any time prior to the scheduled closing time for the receipt of proposals. Such requests are to be directed to the City Clerk.

7. SELECTION PROCEDURES
Proposals submitted will be subject to the City’s selection procedures for technical and/or professional consultants. Accordingly, final selection will be based upon overall capability to perform services and not exclusively upon cost of services.

The City may make any investigation it deems necessary to determine the ability of a Proposer to carry out the obligations indicated in the Request for Proposal and the submitted Proposal. At the City’s sole discretion, the Proposer shall furnish to the City all information and data for this purpose if materials submitted by, or investigation of, any Proposer fails to satisfy the City that the Proposer is properly qualified to carry out the stated obligations.

The City of Redding reserves the right to accept the proposal that is in the best interest of the City. The City’s decision shall be final.

8. RIGHT TO REJECT PROPOSALS
The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive any non-material irregularities or information in any proposal, and to accept or reject any combination of items.

9. AWARD OF CONTRACT
The award of the contract, if it is awarded, shall be made on the basis of availability of budgeted funds and to a responsible Contractor who presents the best value to the City per Redding Municipal Code 4.20.040(C).

4.20.040(C) Procure for the city the needed quality in supplies, services and equipment that prove to be the best value to the city. Determination of best value may take into consideration additional elements beyond cost such as warranty, life cycle related costs, lead time, desired aesthetics, work experience as verified through references or work examples, vendor location, prior work with the city or other factors deemed relevant by the purchasing officer in the procurement of the needed supplies, equipment or work to be performed.

10. CITY OF REDDING BUSINESS LICENSE
The awarded Vendor/Consultant may be required to obtain a City of Redding Business License per Municipal Code 6.02 – Business Licenses.

Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage

6.02.020 It is unlawful for any person to be engaged in business in the city without having a valid license from the city to do so, in compliance with any and all regulations contained in this chapter pertaining to the business, unless the person is exempt under the provisions of this chapter. No person who is an employee, or the direct representative of a licensee, shall be required to pay a license fee for doing any part of the work of the licensee.

The selected firm shall execute an agreement with the City within ten (10) working days after notification of selection, unless the time for execution has been extended for good cause at the sole discretion of the City. Failure of the selected firm to meet contract submission requirements (e.g. insurance) or failure to timely execute an agreement with the City may result, in the sole discretion of the City, a decision to select from the remaining proposers or to call for new proposals.

Rev. 07/17/20
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: RFP 5260 Furnish Limited Food and Beverage Service at City Hall (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Packet Pg. 457
Attachment: Heritage Coffeehouse proposal (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Coffeehouse) Packet Pg. 458
Attachment: Heritage Coffeehouse proposal (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Coffeehouse) Packet Pg. 459
Attachment: Heritage Coffeehouse proposal (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Coffeehouse) Packet Pg. 460
Attachment: Heritage Coffeehouse proposal (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Coffeehouse) Packet Pg. 461
Attachment: Heritage Coffeehouse proposal (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Coffeehouse) Packet Pg. 462
Attachment: Heritage Coffeehouse proposal (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Coffeehouse) Packet Pg. 463
Attachment: Heritage Coffeehouse proposal (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Coffeehouse) Packet Pg. 464
Attachment: Heritage Coffeehouse proposal (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Coffeehouse) Packet Pg. 465
Attachment: Heritage Coffeehouse proposal (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Coffeehouse) Packet Pg. 466
Attachment: Heritage Coffeehouse proposal (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Coffeehouse) Packet Pg. 467
Attachment: Heritage Coffeehouse proposal (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Coffeehouse) Packet Pg. 468
Attachment: Heritage Coffeehouse proposal (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Coffeehouse) Packet Pg. 469
Attachment: Heritage Coffeehouse proposal (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Coffeehouse) Packet Pg. 470
Attachment: Heritage Coffeehouse proposal (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Coffeehouse) Packet Pg. 471
Attachment: Heritage Coffeehouse proposal (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Coffeehouse) Packet Pg. 472
Attachment: Heritage Coffeehouse proposal (available online) (4.6(a)--Award RFP 5260 to Heritage Coffeehouse)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Approve the following actions relative to the City of Redding Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP):
(1) Adopt Resolution approving the LRSP; and
(2) Find that the action is statutorily exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15262 – Feasibility and Planning Studies.

Fiscal Impact
An amount of $72,000 in state funds was allocated to the City of Redding (City) with a local match from Street Division funds of $8,000, to cover the cost of the LRSP.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could choose to decline approval of the LRSP. This would jeopardize the award of future grant funds.

Background/Analysis
Each state maintains a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which is a data-driven safety plan outlining measures to reduce traffic accident fatalities and serious injuries. The main components making up the SHSP are Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies, also known as the five E’s. An LRSP similar to the SHSP is a means for local agencies to investigate and analyze traffic related safety needs and issues for local roads and present systemic solutions for potential implementation. Since 2009, the City has been successful in securing several federal grants through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) administered by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), including safety improvements to Victor Ave, Cypress Ave, Hartnell Ave, Churn Creek Road, and others. Due to a change in state policy, an approved LRSP is now a mandatory requirement for HSIP grant application eligibility.

MEETING DATE: February 15, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(a)--Approve Local Road Safety Plan
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 473
Report to Redding City Council February 7, 2022
Re: 4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan Page 2
On November 19, 2019, the Council directed staff to apply for LRSP funding for the purpose of creating an LRSP. On February 4, 2020, the Council accepted grant funding from the State of California Local Roadway Safety Plan Program and staff hired GHD, Inc., to develop the LRSP.

In following the overall LRSP process, a Stakeholder Working Group was formed with the City as the lead and individuals from local organizations representing the five E’s noted above including public safety agencies, engineers, school districts, County Health and Human Services, and planners. This group gathered for meetings to discuss the overall collision analysis, goals, priorities, safety recommendations, and development of the safety plan.

Based on the collision data analysis and the stakeholder working group input, the LRSP includes a citywide analysis of the roadway system in Redding comprising of the current collision patterns and high-risk roadway characteristics (systemic analysis). The goal of the LRSP is to identify safety countermeasures to help mitigate the City’s primary crash type trends and reduce the overall collision severity, and to also address multiple SHSP challenge areas such as pedestrians, bicyclists, distracted driving, intersections, and aggressive driving. The nonengineering strategies were also developed through stakeholder engagement. The engineering countermeasures in the plan coincide with HSIP funding.

Staff has reviewed the action and determined that it is Statutorily Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning Studies, as the LRSP only involves planning studies for possible future actions the Council has not approved, adopted, or funded. Any future action would require approval, funding, and independent evaluation under CEQA. Adoption of the plan would not result in physical alteration of the environment, and the action has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

The Resolution has been approved to form by the City Attorney.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Government of the 21st Century – “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
• Public Safety – “Work to improve all aspects of public safety to help people feel secure and safe where they live, work, and play in the City of Redding.

Attachments
Resolution
Notice of Exemption (unfiled) (available online)
Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online)
Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online)
Packet Pg. 474
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING

TO APPROVE THE LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2020, the City Council accepted grant funding from the State of California Local Roadway Safety Plan Program to develop the Local Road Safety Plan; and WHEREAS, the Local Road Safety Plan was created for the purpose of complying with new state and federal requirements related to the Highway Safety Improvement Plan (HSIP); and WHEREAS, the Local Road Safety Plan includes a citywide analysis of the roadway system and identifies safety countermeasures to help mitigate primary crash trends and reduce the overall collision severity by addressing multiple challenge areas such as pedestrians, bicyclists, distracted driving, intersections, and aggressive driving; and
WHEREAS, the Local Road Safety Plan is a requirement for future HSIP grant applications; and WHEREAS, the Local Road Safety Plan has been developed through the coordinated efforts of City staff and consultants, stakeholder working group meetings, and input from the public; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Redding hereby:

1. Determines that adoption of the 2021 Local Road Safety Plan is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the Feasibility and Planning Studies exemption (14 CCR 15262), as the plan would not result in physical alteration of the environment and implementation of any future action would require approval, funding, and independent evaluation under CEQA.

2. Approves the Local Road Safety Plan;
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 15th day of February, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________
KRISTEN SCHREDER, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVED:
______________________________ ______________________________ PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk BARRY E. DeWALT, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Resolution (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Packet Pg. 476
Attachment: Notice of Exemption (unfiled) (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Street Address City State Zip Code
Redding Local Road Safety Plan | February 15, 2022

LOCAL ROAD

SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
City of Redding
Draft Report
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) This page was intentionally left blank.

Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A special thanks to all the Safety Partners that contributed to this plan.

City of Redding
Mayor and City Council
Public Works Department
Police Department
Fire Department
County of Shasta
Public Works Department
Health and Human Services
Shasta Regional Transportation Agency
Redding Unified School District
Healthy Shasta Partnership
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2019, the City of Redding was awarded a state grant from Caltrans to perform a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). The LRSP is a requirement for Cycle 11 of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The LRSP grant application included a citywide analysis of the roadway system in Redding comprising of the current collisions patterns and high-risk roadway characteristics (systemic analysis).

Furthermore, the Redding’s goal is to identify safety countermeasures to help mitigate the City’s primary crash type trends and reduce the overall collision severity.

The LRSP is a collaborative process that is similar to a Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) except a LRSP has a local leadership group that represents the 5 E’s (not just engineering) and public outreach.

The 5 E’s of traffic safety include Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies.

This holistic approach allows certain areas of concern not showing a crash pattern to be analyzed. Also, it fosters local, state, and agency partnerships to advance local road safety.

In following the overall LRSP process, a Stakeholder Working Group (Working Group) was formed with the City as the lead and local organizations from the 5 E’s and anyone with an interest in improving the City’s roadway safety. This group gathered for meetings to discuss the overall collision analysis, goals, priorities, safety recommendations, and overall development of the safety plan.

Based on the past 5 years collision analysis and the City’s Stakeholder Working Group Meetings, this LRSP will address multiple Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Challenge (Emphasis) Areas including but not limited to:

1. Pedestrians

2. Distracted Driving

3. Bicyclists

4. Intersections

5. Impaired Driving

6. Aggressive Driving/Speeding

7. Roadway Design
a. Additional emphasis area per Stakeholder Working Group not in SHSP In addition, the vision, mission statement, and goals were established in guiding the development of the LRSP. It was also decided that the LRSP for the City of Redding would be a living document with official updated every five (5) years.

Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page iii
Data analysis, public input, and City feedback helped to determine the priority locations in the City. These locations, along with their proposed countermeasures, are shown in the tables below.

Priority Intersections and Recommended Countermeasures

Intersection Recommended Countermeasures
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Systemic (49 locations) Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Install left-turn lane and add turn phase in westbound direction Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Provide Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection
Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches
Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Increase DUI enforcement
Consolidate driveways
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Provide Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection
Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) Bicycle education about riding at night and rules of the road Butte St / Continental
St
None (upcoming safety project addresses current collision trends) Market St / Riverside
Dr Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.)
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Increase DUI enforcement
Churn Creek Rd /
Hartnell Ave
Hartnell Ave / Bechelli
Ln
South St / California St
Systemic (9 locations)
Victor Ave / Hartnell
Ave
Hartnell Ave /
Northwoods Way
Churn Creek Rd / E
Cypress Ave
Airport Rd / Preserve
Blvd
E Cypress Ave /
Bechelli Ln
Hilltop Dr / E Cypress
Ave
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page iv
Priority Segments and Recommended Countermeasures
It is important to understand the upcoming funding opportunities in the successful implementation of these safety projects. Most of the proposed countermeasures are HSIP fundable (next cycle 11 is scheduled to open in April 2022). However, countermeasures can be implemented through other funding sources to include
• Active Transportation Program (ATP)
o Next call for funding projects is scheduled to start in March 2022 • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program
• Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant (Sustainable Communities) • Stimulus funding sources
Segment Recommended Countermeasures
Add segment lighting (East of I-5 Interchange)
Install raised median (Between Hilltop Dr and Churn Creek Rd) Install bike lanes/Install separated bike lanes
Consolidate existing driveways to limit the number of access points Install bike conflict paint at intersections and driveways Install raised median (Between Dana Dr and Browning Dr) Install edge-lines and centerlines (between Ross/Big-Lots Driveway and Margalia St) Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
Pedestrian fencing along sidewalk to guide pedestrians to the enhanced crosswalk with RRFB
Install chevron signs on horizontal curves
Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) Install delineators, reflectors, and/or object markers
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
Install multiuse path/ sharrow on eastbound approach to the intersection of W Cypress Ave/ Market St
Install bike conflict paint at intersections and driveways Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
Install bike conflict paint at intersections and driveways Add Segment Lighting
Install curve advance warning signs
Increase DUI enforcement
Add Segment Lighting
Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
Consolidate existing driveways to limit the number of access points Install raised median (on the approaches to Hartnell Ave) Consolidate existing driveways to limit the number of access points Railroad Ave (South St
to Buenaventura Blvd) Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs S Bonnyview Rd (S
Market St to Churn
Creek Rd)
Install Separated Bike Lanes
Bechelli Ln (E Cypress
Ave to n/o 3rd St)
Railroad Ave (South St
to Buenaventura Blvd)
W Cypress Ave (Market
St to Park Marina Dr)
Churn Creek Rd
(Presidio St to S
Bonnyview Rd)
Hilltop Dr (n/o
Browning St to
Maraglia St)
E Cypress Ave (Park
Marina Dr to Churn
Creek Rd)
Hilltop Dr (n/o Redding
Hilltop Apartments to
St Thomas Pkwy)
Hartnell Ave
(Goodwater Ave to
Airport Rd)
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page v
• Capital Improvement Program or with on-going maintenance work Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

2. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2

2.1 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................. 2 City Roadways .................................................................................................. 3 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan ......................................................... 4

3. SAFETY PARTNERS/STAKEHOLDERS .................................................................................... 6 Stakeholder Working Group Meetings ............................................................. 6

3.2 SHSP Challenge/Emphasis Areas ..................................................................................... 7

3.3 Guiding Principles .............................................................................................................. 7 Vision Zero ........................................................................................................ 7 Vision ................................................................................................................ 8 Mission Statement ............................................................................................ 9 Goals ................................................................................................................ 9

4. ANALYZE SAFETY DATA ......................................................................................................... 10

4.1 Recent/Planned Safety Projects ...................................................................................... 10 Active Transportation Program (ATP) ............................................................ 10 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) .............................................. 11 SR 273 Multimodal Corridor Plan ................................................................... 13

4.2 Collision Data ................................................................................................................... 14 Collisions on City Roadways .......................................................................... 14 Collisions on Caltrans Roadways ................................................................... 18 Collisions Related to Challenge Areas ........................................................... 19

4.2.3.1 Pedestrians ..................................................................................................... 19

4.2.3.2 Distracted Driving ........................................................................................... 21

4.2.3.3 Bicyclists ......................................................................................................... 22

4.2.3.4 Intersections ................................................................................................... 23

4.2.3.5 Impaired Driving.............................................................................................. 24

5. PUBLIC OUTREACH ................................................................................................................. 25

5.1 Public Website ................................................................................................................. 25 Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page vii
Interactive Map ............................................................................................... 25 Public Survey .................................................................................................. 27

6. IDENTIFY STRATEGIES ........................................................................................................... 31

6.1 Engineering Strategies ..................................................................................................... 31 City Intersection Projects ................................................................................ 31 City Segment Analysis .................................................................................... 33 Speed Mitigation ............................................................................................. 34

6.1.3.1 Traffic Calming ................................................................................................ 34

6.1.3.2 Assembly Bill No. 43 ....................................................................................... 35 Systemic Safety Countermeasures ................................................................ 35

6.1.4.1 Leading Pedestrian Intervals .......................................................................... 36 Projects Suggested through Public Input ....................................................... 38 Additional Safety Projects ............................................................................... 38

6.2 Non-Engineering Strategies ............................................................................................. 39 Education ........................................................................................................ 39 Emerging Technologies .................................................................................. 39 Enforcement ................................................................................................... 39 Emergency Response .................................................................................... 40

7. PRIORITIZE & INCORPORATE STRATEGIES ........................................................................ 41

8. EVALUATION PROCESS .......................................................................................................... 44

9. NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................. 47

10. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 48

FIGURE INDEX
Figure 1 California SHSP (2020-2024) ............................................................................................ 1 Figure 2 FHWA’s LRSP Development Process ............................................................................... 1 Figure 3 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions in the City of Redding ................................................. 2 Figure 5 FHWA’s LRSP Development Map ..................................................................................... 5 Figure 6 Traditional Approach vs. Vision Zero ................................................................................ 8 Figure 7 Recent and Planned Safety Projects in Redding ............................................................ 12 Figure 8 Total Collisions on City Roadways (2015-2019) ............................................................. 14 Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page viii
Figure 9 Top Violation Categories on City Roadways ................................................................... 15 Figure 10 Collision Density on City Roads (2015-2019) .................................................................. 15 Figure 12 Summary of City Collisions (2015-2019) ......................................................................... 17 Figure 13 Collision Density on Caltrans Roads ............................................................................... 19 Figure 14 Pedestrian Location at Time of Collision ......................................................................... 20 Figure 15 Density of Pedestrian Collisions ...................................................................................... 21 Figure 16 Type of Inattention for Distracted Driving Collisions........................................................ 22 Figure 17 Top Violation Categories for Bicycle-Related Collisions ................................................. 22 Figure 18 Density of Bicycle Collisions ............................................................................................ 23 Figure 19 Top Violation Categories for Intersection-Related Collisions .......................................... 24 Figure 20 Collision Types for DUI/BUI Collisions ............................................................................ 24 Figure 21 Public Website Home Page ............................................................................................. 25 Figure 22 Public Website Interactive Map ....................................................................................... 27 Figure 23 Public-Identified Roadway Issues ................................................................................... 28 Figure 24 Responses to “Which of the following bikeways would you feel comfortable using?” .... 28 Figure 25 Responses to “Would you be willing to use alternate modes of travel (walking, biking, public transit, etc.) to get to work, school, shopping, etc.?” ....................................................... 29 Figure 26 Locations of Proposed Leading Pedestrian Intervals ...................................................... 37 Figure 27 Low Resource Neighborhoods and Priority Locations in Redding .................................. 46

TABLE INDEX
Table 1 Fatal Collisions on City of Redding Roadways (2015-2019) ............................................. 3 Table 2 Comprehensive Collision Costs and EPDO Weights (2018 dollars) ............................... 17 Table 3 Top Intersections, per Collision Analysis ......................................................................... 18 Table 4 Top Segments, per Collision Analysis ............................................................................. 18 Table 5 Priority Intersections and Crash Rates ............................................................................ 32 Table 6 Priority Segments and Crash Rates ................................................................................ 33 Table 7 Recommended Systemic Safety Countermeasures........................................................ 36 Table 8 Projects Suggested through Public Input ........................................................................ 38 Table 9 Priority of City Intersection Projects ................................................................................ 42 Table 10 Priority of City Segment Projects ..................................................................................... 43 Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page ix

APPENDIX INDEX
Appendix A Collision Data
Appendix B Stakeholder and Public Input
Appendix C Previous Safety Plans and Projects
Appendix D Recommended Projects

Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
APS Accessible Pedestrian Signal
ATP Active Transportation Program or Plan
BCR Benefit to Cost Ratio
BUI Biking Under the Influence
CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices CIP Capital Improvement Program
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
DUI Driving Under the Influence
EPDO Equivalent Property Damage Only
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FSI Fatal or Severe Injury
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
HSM Highway Safety Manual
LRSM Local Roadway Safety Manual
LRSP Local Road Safety Plan
SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SSAR Systemic Safety Analysis Report
SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
TIMS Transportation Injury Mapping System
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION
The project involves the development of a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP), which provides local agencies an opportunity to address unique roadway safety needs in their jurisdictions. This comprehensive document will both help to guide City in safety countermeasures and allow eligibility for funding in future HSIP applications. The process of preparing an LRSP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze local safety problems and recommend engineering safety improvements for future Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding.

Figure 1 California SHSP (2020-2024)
Preparing an LRSP facilitates local agency
partnerships and collaboration, resulting in a
prioritized list of improvements and actions that
contribute to California’s Strategic Highway Safety
Plan (SHSP) overall vision and goals. This SHSP
focuses on reducing fatal and severe injury collisions
(FSI collisions) with focused challenge areas with a
focus on the Five “E’s” of Traffic Safety (see Figure
1).

The City and GHD will follow the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Local Road Safety six (6) step process as shown in Figure 2:

Figure 2 FHWA’s LRSP Development Process
In working with the first step of establishing leadership, Shelby Nadin, Traffic Operations Manager, was identified as the Safety Champion/Lead for this project with a stakeholder working group that consisted of the other E’s (enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies) and other important safety partners. This stakeholder working group was paramount in creating a comprehensive safety plan that is tailored to address the local needs and issues.

Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 2

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Purpose and Need
The City of Redding has a current approximate population of 91,000 and is located in Shasta County, California. Redding’s “2000-2020 General Plan” evaluates how the City growth and development will occur. The Transportation Element of this plan contains fifteen (15) goals for Redding’s transportation system. The goals include providing safe, efficient, and comfortable multimodal transportation, creating Complete Street systems, maintaining downtown’s vitality, improving safety at railroad crossings, promoting public transit, and protecting residential neighborhoods from excessive through traffic.

In focusing in on the roadway safety needs, the past five (5) years of collisions (2015-2019) were evaluated for the City roadways and the fatal collisions are discussed below. Figure 3 presents a map of the twenty-four (24) fatal and ninety-three (93) severe injury collisions in the City from the past five years.

More information on fatal and severe injury (FSI) collisions is located in Appendix A: Collision Data.

Figure 3 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions in the City of Redding Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 3
City Roadways
During the five-year period (2015-2019), there were twenty-four (24) fatal collisions recorded for the roadways under the City of Redding’s jurisdiction. The fatal collisions on City streets had the following characteristics (see Table 1 below):

Table 1 Fatal Collisions on City of Redding Roadways (2015-2019) In improving roadway safety for the City of Redding, it is important to focus on mitigating these high injury collisions and loss of life.

Year Location Type Violation Other Information
2015 Hartnell Avenue, 147 feet west of Airport Road Overturned DUI Single vehicle 2015 Bechelli Lane, 129 feet south of Beagle Lane VehiclePedestrian Pedestrian
Violation
Pedestrian was crossing not in a
crosswalk
2015 Railroad Avenue, 1264 feet north of
Buenaventura Boulevard
VehiclePedestrian - Pedestrian was not in the road
2015 Churn Creek Road and Hartnell Avenue Broadside Unsafe Speed Motorcycle collision 2015 Butte Street and Continental Street Head On Automobile Right of Way Bicycle collision
2015 Airport Road and Preserve Boulevard Broadside Improper Turning Bicycle collision 2015 Delta Street at Santa Fe Avenue Broadside Automobile Right of Way -
2016 Hilltop Drive, 1062 feet north of Peppertree
Lane
VehiclePedestrianPedestrian
Violation
Pedestrian was crossing not in a
crosswalk
2016 Cypress Avenue, 360 feet west of Athens
Avenue
VehiclePedestrianPedestrian
Violation
Pedestrian was crossing not in a
crosswalk
2016 Hartnell Avenue at Northwoods Drive Broadside DUI - 2016 Buenaventura Boulevard and Lakeside Drive Broadside Automobile Right of Way -
2017 Hartnell Avenue, 250 feet east of Churn Creek
Road Broadside Automobile Right of Way Bicycle collision 2017 Hartnell Avenue at Middleton Lane Broadside Automobile Right of Way Motorcycle collision
2017 Churn Creek Road and Hartnell Avenue Rear End DUI / Unsafe Speed -
2017 Beltline Road and Mountain Lakes Boulevard Broadside Automobile Right of Way -
2017 Market Street at Riverside Drive VehiclePedestrian Pedestrian
Violation -
2018 Churn Creek Road, 106 feet south of Presidio
Street Hit Object Unsafe Lane Change Single vehicle
2018 Cypress Avenue, 165 feet west of Rosemary
Avenue
VehiclePedestrianPedestrian Right
of Way
Pedestrian was crossing in a
crosswalk not at an intersection
2018 South Street and California Street. Broadside Traffic Signals and Signs -
2018 Hartnell Avenue and Bechelli Lane VehiclePedestrian Pedestrian
Violation
Pedestrian was crossing in a
crosswalk at an intersection
2018 Railroad Avenue and Placer Street VehiclePedestrian Pedestrian
Violation
Pedestrian was crossing in a
crosswalk at an intersection
2019 Hilltop Drive, 548 feet north of Mistletoe Lane VehiclePedestrian DUI Pedestrian was crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection at night
2019 Hartnell Ave and Shotwick Trail Hit Object Unsafe Speed Single vehicle collisions where motorcycle ran off the road
2019 Old Eureka Way and Walnut Avenue Hit Object Wrong Side of Road Single vehicle
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 4

2.2 Standards and Guidelines
In developing the City of Redding LRSP, the following standards and guidelines were followed:
• “Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners”, Caltrans, Version 1.5, April 2020.
• 2020-2024 California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), “California Safe Roads: 2020-2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan”, Caltrans.
• “Local and Rural Road Safety Briefing Sheets: Local Road Safety Plans,” Federal Highway Administration, November 2014.
• “Developing Safety Plans, A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners”, Federal Highway Administration, March 2012.
• “Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool,” Federal Highway Administration, 2013. • “Highway Safety Manual”, American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO), 1st Edition, 2014 supplement.
• “California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)”, Revision 5, 2014.

California Strategic Highway Safety Plan
The LRSP will complement California’s SHSP 2020-2024. Per this plan the recommended challenge areas area shown in Figure 4. These challenge areas are recommended emphasis areas in the development of the plan.

Figure 4 SHSP Challenge Areas

2.3 LRSP Methodology
The LRSP methodology followed the FHWA’s LRSP development process as shown in Figure 5.

Below is a roadmap created by the Federal Highway Administration to show the process of creating the Local Road Safety Plan. Here are the primary steps used to create this plan:

Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 5

1. Identify Stakeholders
a. Stakeholder Working Group was formed of the 5 E’s and other safety partners.

2. Use Safety Data
a. Past 5 years of collisions were analysed with discussion of other high-risk locations.

3. Chose Proven Solutions
a. FHWA Proven Countermeasures and Caltrans safety countermeasures were used in mitigation collision trends and risk characteristics.

4. Implement Solutions
a. Projects were identified for specific locations and systemically.

Figure 5 FHWA’s LRSP Development Map
Source: Federal Highway Administration

Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 6

3. SAFETY PARTNERS/STAKEHOLDERS

3.1 LRSP Stakeholder Working Group Members
Based on community connections, the City of Redding led the formation of the LRSP Stakeholder Working Member Group. This leadership group was crucial in the development of the LRSP and helped in capturing the safety needs, goals, and priorities including safety countermeasures for the City of Redding.

The LRSP Stakeholder Working Group included the
following representatives:
• City of Redding
• Caltrans
• Shasta County Public Works
• Redding Police Department
• Redding Fire Department
• Redding Unified School District
• Health Shasta Partnership and Shasta County Health and Human Services
• Shasta Regional Transportation Agency (SRTA)
Stakeholder Working Group Meetings
Two meetings were held with the stakeholder working group and facilitated by GHD. The virtual meetings were as follows:

1. December 10, 2020 – 10 a.m. to noon
a. Discussed the LRSP overall process, stakeholder working group member’s safety priorities, past 5 years of collisions (City and Caltrans roadways), vision, goals, and priorities.

2. May 3, 2021 – 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
a. Reviewed first meeting, discussed public comments and ways to address their concerns, recent developments, safety countermeasures and projects, refined of LRSP’s guiding principles, and coordinated next steps.

The meeting summaries for the stakeholder working group meetings are in Appendix B: Stakeholder and Public Input. The stakeholder working group also provided their feedback and comments on the Draft Local Road Safety Plan document before the plan was finalized. With many of the safety countermeasures to include engineering, enforcement, and emergency response, it is important to have buy off from the stakeholders in understanding how the plan will be implemented.

Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 7

3.2 SHSP Challenge/Emphasis Areas
Based on the LRSP Stakeholder Working Group Meetings, this LRSP will address multiple Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Challenge Areas and additional emphasis areas, as suggested by the stakeholders, including:

1. Pedestrians
a. Focus on pedestrian crossings and enhancing existing pedestrian crossings. b. Safety around school zones

2. Distracted Driving
a. Rear end collisions due to distracted driving

3. Bicyclists
a. Reduce wrong-way cycling

4. Intersections
a. Find beneficial projects on west side of the City

5. Impaired Driving
a. Focus enforcement to mitigate DUI/BUI collisions

6. Aggressive Driving/Speeding
a. Speed management
i. Traffic calming devices to mitigate speed

7. Roadway Design
a. Geometric design to provide for all users
i. Identify lack of accommodations and connections for bike, ped, and transit users
ii. Provide access management as appropriate

3.3 Guiding Principles
The members of the stakeholder working group coordinated to establish the vision, mission statement, and goals that guided the development of the document. Ideally, this document will help the City move toward Vision Zero. The aim of Vision Zero is to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all. Traditionally, traffic deaths and severe injuries have been considered as inevitable side effects of modern life. The reality is that these tragedies can be addressed over time by taking a proactive, preventative approach that prioritizes traffic safety as a public health issue.

Vision Zero
Vision Zero is a significant departure from the status quo in two major ways:
• Vision Zero recognizes that people will sometimes make mistakes, so the road system and related policies should be designed to minimize those inevitable mistakes and reduce their likeliness to result in severe injuries or fatalities. This means that system designers and policymakers are Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 8
expected to improve the roadway environment, policies (such as speed management), and other related systems to lessen the severity of crashes. Roadway users are however still responsible for their mistakes and should follow all applicable laws and use reasonable judgement when conducting themselves within the public right of way.
• Vision Zero is a multidisciplinary approach, bringing together diverse and necessary stakeholders to address this complex problem. In the past, meaningful, cross-disciplinary collaboration among local traffic planners and engineers, policymakers, and public health professionals has not been the norm. Vision Zero acknowledges that many factors contribute to safe mobility -- including roadway design, speeds, behaviors, technology, and policies -- and sets clear goals to achieve the shared goal of zero fatalities and severe injuries.

As shown in Figure 6, is the comparison of the traditional approach versus the Vision Zero approach.

Figure 6 Traditional Approach vs. Vision Zero
Vision
A vision statement describes what the Local Road Safety Plan is trying to achieve.

Redding will develop a comprehensive
safety plan with engagement of
stakeholders and citizens that encourages
improved safety for all users, whether it is
walking, biking, and driving – because
every person in our community matters.

Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 9
Mission Statement
The mission statement defines the purpose of the plan, what it does, and what it is about. The mission statement was developed in collaboration with the stakeholder working group.

Goals
Safety goals were development for the Local Road Safety Plan. It is important to capture realistic goals that can be measurable or evolve over time.

Goal: Reduce the potential for fatal and
severe injury collisions citywide.

Goal: Create a safe, livable, and
welcoming community by developing a
roadway safety plan targeted to Redding’s
transportation and roadway safety needs.

Goal: Improve safety around schools.

Goal: Reduce speeding collisions through
engineering, enforcement, and education
strategies.

Goal: Improve multimodal transportation
safety by expanding the City’s nonmotorized transportation infrastructure.

Goal: Improve the health and vitality of our community by working with community safety partners to create a roadway safety plan targeted to Redding’s needs.

Goal: Reduce rear end collisions citywide by implementing speed management strategies.

Goal: Prioritize improvements that affect conditions/safety outcomes for identified disadvantaged populations.

The City of Redding shall utilize a datadriven approach to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable multimodal
transportation system for all users of the
public roadway network in Redding.

Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 10

4. ANALYZE SAFETY DATA

4.1 Recent/Planned Safety Projects
The City of Redding and Caltrans have conducted some previous safety analysis that has developed the following planned safety projects. The primary source of funding for the current safety projects in the City are the Caltrans’ Active Transportation Program and Highway Safety Improvement Program. Refer to Appendix C: Previous Safety Plans and Projects for specific project details and additional funding sources for other safety projects.

Active Transportation Program (ATP)
The City of Redding received one (1) ATP grant from Cycle 1, two (2) ATP grants from Cycle 2, two (2) ATP grants from Cycle 3, and was recently approved for two (2) ATP applications for Cycle 5.

The details of the ATP projects are as follows:

1. An ATP, Cycle 1 grant was awarded to Redding for the “Placer Street Improvements” project from south of Boston Avenue to Mesa Street. These improvements included sidewalk and curb improvements, signage and striping improvements, and signal modifications. Construction is completed for this project.

2. Two ATP, Cycle 2 grants were awarded for the “Diestelhorst to Downtown Non-Motorized Improvements” project and “Quartz Hill Road Improvements” project. The “Diestelhorst to Downtown Non-Motorized Improvements” project included signage and striping improvements, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) installation, and buffered bike lanes and will be in construction in 2021. The “Quartz Hill Road Improvements” project limits are Quartz Hill Road from south of Terra Nova Street to Brenton Drive and from west of Delta Street to State Route 273. This project includes road widening and pedestrian crossing improvements.

3. Two ATP, Cycle 3 grants were awarded for the “West Street Area School Safety Improvement Project” and “Bechelli & Loma Vista Corridor Improvements” project. Both projects are currently in design. The “West Street Area School Safety Improvement Project” includes curb and gutter improvements, curb bulb-outs, pedestrian improvements, RRFB installation, additional bicycle markings, buffered bike lanes, and lighting installation. The “Bechelli & Loma Vista Corridor Improvements” project includes the construction of a mix of buffered bike lanes, separated bike lanes, sidewalks, accessible driveways, curb ramps, enhanced crossings with rapid flashing beacons, pedestrian refuge islands, pedestrian safety amenities including safety lighting, and functional landscaping including shade trees and buffers from traffic.

4. Two ATP, Cycle 5 applications were submitted for the “Turtle Bay to Downtown Gap Completion Project” and the “Victor Ave & Cypress Ave Active Transportation” project. Both projects were recently funded. The “Turtle Bay to Downtown Gap Completion Project” includes the installation of a buffered 2-way cycle track, shared use path, raised intersection with curb extensions, bollards, lane reductions, raised crosswalks with bicycle and pedestrian separations, and shade trees. The “Victor Ave & Cypress Ave Active Transportation” project plans to construct shared use paths, sidewalks, curb ramps, bike lanes, and protected intersections.

Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 11
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The City of Redding received HSIP grants from Cycle 7, Cycle 8, and Cycle 9, and recently applied for two (2) grants from HSIP Cycle 10. The details of the HSIP projects are as follows:

1. An HSIP, Cycle 7 grant was awarded for the “Hartnell Avenue Safety Improvement Project” and is currently in construction. The “Hartnell Avenue Safety Improvement Project” includes striping improvements, ADA upgrades, lighting improvements, and the installation of a raised median. The project is located on Hartnell Avenue from Churn Creek Road to East Way.

2. An HSIP, Cycle 8 grant was awarded for the “Churn Creek Rd and Maraglia St Safety Improvements” project and will begin construction in 2021. The “Churn Creek Rd and Maraglia St Safety Improvements” project includes curb ramp improvements, additional lighting, and striping improvements on Maraglia Street and Churn Creek Road from E Cypress Road to Hartnell Avenue.

3. An HSIP, Cycle 9 grant was awarded for the “Systemic Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements” project at nine (9) different intersections throughout the City and is currently in design. The “Systemic Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements” project proposed various enhancements at the intersections including ADA upgrades, RRFBs, new striping and crosswalk markings, advance warning signage, refuge island/concrete medians, and detectable warning surface upgrades.

4. Two HSIP, Cycle 10 applications were awarded for the “Systemic Protected Left Turn Project” at four (4) locations throughout the City and the “Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project” at nineteen (19) intersections in the City. The “Systemic Protected Left Turn Project” proposed various upgrades such as micro-surfacing, striping improvements, installation of new traffic signal pole and mast arm, and ADA curb return upgrades. The “Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project” adds new or additional lighting to intersections.

The City was also awarded funding for Cycles 2 through 6 of the HSIP. These projects were not considered for further analysis in the LRSP since they were awarded prior to 2015. These projects include:
• HSIP, Cycle 2: Buenaventura Widening at SR 273
• HSIP, Cycle 3: Old Oregon Trail/Oasis Road Safety Project • HSIP, Cycle 4: Lake Blvd. Safety Project and Buenaventura Blvd. Safety Project • HSIP, Cycle 5: East Cypress Ave. Median Project and Churn Creek Road Widening Project • HSIP, Cycle 6: Victor Ave. Safety Project and Old Oregon Trail Widening Project The recent and planned safety projects in the City are mapped in Figure 7. These projects include funding sources from ATP and HSIP (as shown above) and other funding sources to include Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program, Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure (ASHC/STI), Section 130, and the City’s Capital Improvement Program funding. For more information on these safety projects, see Appendix C: Previous Safety Plans and Projects.

Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) FIGURE 7
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
Miles
Project No.

Revision No. -
11215289
Date 03/11/2021

CITY OF REDDING

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)
Map Projection: Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Horizontal Datum: WGS 1984
Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Paper Size ANSI B
o Data source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) 2015-2019, Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community. Created by: edarke N:\US\San Luis Obispo\Projects\561\11215289\GIS\Maps\Working\Upcoming Safety Projects-no labels.mxd
Print date: 23 Jun 2021 - 07:46
Legend
Project Type
ATP, Cycle 1
ATP, Cycle 2
ATP, Cycle 3
ATP, Cycle 5
HSIP, Cycle 6
HSIP, Cycle 7
HSIP, Cycle 8
HSIP, Cycle 9
HSIP, Cycle 10

ASHC/STI
Section 130
City CIP
City of Redding
City Limit

CURRENT/UPCOMING SAFETY

PROJECTS IN THE CITY OF REDDING

CITY OF

REDDING
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 13
SR 273 Multimodal Corridor Plan
In 2020, Shasta Regional Transportation Agency (SRTA) was awarded $500,000 for the State Route 273 Multimodal Corridor through a Strategic Partnerships Grant with Caltrans. This grant was for the northern section of SR 273 through Redding (northern terminus to Canyon Road). Caltrans also awarded a $500,000 Special Studies Grant for work on the southern section of SR 273 (Canyon Road to southern terminus).

SRTA hopes to combine the funding for both projects to create a comprehensive multimodal corridor plan for SR 273. If approved by Caltrans, SRTA will coordinate the scope of work with Redding and other affected cities. This project will likely include several multimodal and safety improvements on SR 273 that will benefit the City of Anderson.

Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 14

4.2 Collision Data
The City of Redding collision data was gathered using the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). The Redding Police Department provided additional detail to several of the collisions from the SWITRS database. Each data set was analyzed, crosschecked, and compiled into one complete comprehensive data set. This process was done to ensure that all reported collisions occurring within the City are accounted for and to provide additional information that one system may not have captured. The data set contains five years’ worth of collisions spanning from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019.

These collisions were classified based on roadway jurisdiction (City or Caltrans). During this period, a total of 3468 collisions were reported in the City of Redding. Collisions were further categorized into intersection related collisions and roadway segment related collisions with a separate focus on the City streets and Caltrans roadways.

The pie chart in Figure 8 depicts the number of City collisions by collision location (intersection or segment). The highest number of collisions was at City intersections (1320 collisions).

Figure 8 Total Collisions on City Roadways (2015-2019)
Collisions on City Roadways
There were 2364 collisions recorded on the City roadways between 2015 and 2019. The top five violation categories in order (not including unknown or not stated collisions) for City roadways are shown in the Figure 9. As shown on the collision density map (see Figure 10 below), areas with high density of collisions are mostly concentrated in the downtown area and on the following arterials: E Cypress Avenue, Churn Creek Road, and Hartnell Avenue. There were twenty-four (24) fatal collisions and ninety-three (93) severe injury collisions on the City roadways. Broadside collisions were the most common collision type.

Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 15
Figure 9 Top Violation Categories on City Roadways
Figure 10 Collision Density on City Roads (2015-2019)
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 16
Figure 11 presents a collision density map of the FSI collisions on City of Redding roadways between 2015 and 2019. As seen through this map, the intersection of Churn Creek Road and Hartnell Avenue has a high density of FSI collisions.

Figure 11 Collision Density of Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions on City Roads (2015-2019) Figure 12 summarizes the City collisions based on severity and type.

Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 17
Figure 12 Summary of City Collisions (2015-2019)
The total number of collisions and Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) rating were assessed to determine the top study intersections (refer to Appendix A: Collision Data). Per the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, it is recommended to rank locations with higher severity as higher focus. The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) methodology of Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) rating assigns a weight to collisions in capturing the relative severity in equivalent property damage only (PDO =1).

Table 2 provides the comprehensive collision costs and EPDO weights that were used in ranking the collisions. Collision costs include both direct and indirect costs. Direct crash costs include ambulance service, police and fire services, property damage, insurance, and other costs directly related to the crashes. Indirect collision costs account for the value society would place on pain and suffering or loss of life associated with the crash.

Table 2 Comprehensive Collision Costs and EPDO Weights (2018 dollars) Severity Comprehensive Costs EPDO Weight
Fatal (K) $6,418,400 544
Severe Injury (A) $345,800 30
Minor Injury (B) $126,500 11
Non-Visible Injury (C) $71,900 6
PDO (O) $11,800 1
Based on Table 7-1, Highway Safety Manual, 2010, Adjusted to 2018 dollars.

Table 3 shows the top intersections, per collision analysis. The intersection of Churn Creek Road and Hartnell Avenue had the highest EPDO score at 1223 and the highest number of collisions at 32.

Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 18
Table 3 Top Intersections, per Collision Analysis
Intersection EPDO Total Crashes
Churn Creek Rd / Hartnell Ave 1223 32
South St / California St 588 10
Hartnell Ave / Bechelli Ln 587 9
Airport Rd / Preserve Blvd 562 4
Butte St / Continental St 562 4
Market St / Riverside Dr 551 3
Hartnell Ave / Northwoods Way 544 1
Churn Creek Rd / E Cypress Ave 169 29
Victor Ave / Hartnell Ave 151 22
Hilltop Dr / E Cypress Ave 127 22
E Cypress Ave / Bechelli Ln 85 20
The segment collisions were also analyzed by EPDO and total number of collisions. Table 4 shows the top segments, per collision analysis. Churn Creek Road between Presidio Street and S Bonnyview Road had the highest EPDO rating (1021) and number of collisions (73).

Table 4 Top Segments, per Collision Analysis
Road Name EPDO Total Crashes
Churn Creek Rd (Presidio St to S Bonnyview Rd) 1021 73
E Cypress Ave (Park Marina Dr to Churn Creek Rd) 876 51 Hilltop Dr (n/o Browning St to Maraglia St) 835 45
Bechelli Ln (E Cypress Ave to n/o 3rd St) 711 29
W Cypress Ave (Market St to Park Marina Dr) 657 15
Railroad Ave (South St to Buenaventura Blvd) 651 10
Hartnell Ave (Goodwater Ave to Airport Rd) 618 7
Hilltop Dr (n/o Redding Hilltop Apartments to St
Thomas Pkwy) 604 11
Hartnell Ave (Northwoods Way to Kenco Ave) 193 30
S Bonnyview Rd (S Market St to Churn Creek Rd) 163 25
Further detailed collision analysis is in Appendix A: Collision Data.

Collisions on Caltrans Roadways
There were 1104 collisions reported to SWITRS at roadways under Caltrans jurisdiction between 2015 and 2019, including mainline collisions. As seen by the collision density map provided by TIMS (see Figure 13), the area where State Route 273 intersects State Route 299 has a high density of collisions.

This map excludes property damage only collisions. Caltrans does not currently have any planned safety improvements at this location.

Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 19
Figure 13 Collision Density on Caltrans Roads
Collisions Related to Challenge Areas

4.2.3.1 Pedestrians
There were one hundred and sixty-three (163) total pedestrian collisions on City roadways. The pedestrian location at the time of collision, along with corresponding severity, is shown in Figure 14.

There were nine (9) fatal and fifteen (15) severe injury collisions with pedestrians involved between 2015 and 2019.

Most pedestrians were crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection, but many were crossing not in a crosswalk. The top violation category for pedestrian collisions was pedestrian violation (44% of all pedestrian collisions). This category includes violations such as pedestrians failing to yield right of way to vehicles at areas without a marked crosswalk, crossing without a crosswalk at the mid-block of two adjacent signals, and walking on the wrong side of the road when no pedestrian facilities are provided outside of a business or residence district.

Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 20
Figure 14 Pedestrian Location at Time of Collision
As seen in the collision density map (Figure 15), areas with high densities of pedestrian collisions include West Street at 11th Street, E Cypress Avenue near Beverly Drive, and Churn Creek Road at Hartnell Avenue.

Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 21
Figure 15 Density of Pedestrian Collisions

4.2.3.2 Distracted Driving
Distracted driving is categorized in collision data as inattention. Categories for inattention include cell phones (handheld or hands-free), electronic equipment, smoking, eating, children, animal, personal hygiene, and reading.

There were fourteen collisions due to distracted driving on City roadways between 2015 and 2019. This is one percent (1%) of all collisions on City roadways. Most of these collisions were rear end collisions and no distracted driving collisions resulted in fatal or severe injury. Figure 16 presents a breakdown of the types of inattention for the fourteen distracted driving collisions.

Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 22
Figure 16 Type of Inattention for Distracted Driving Collisions

4.2.3.3 Bicyclists
There was a total of one hundred and twenty-two (122) bicycle collisions for City roadways. The top violation categories for bicycle-related collisions, along with collision severity, are shown in Figure 17.

There were three (3) fatal and fifteen (15) severe injury collisions with bicyclists involved between 2015 and 2019. The primary collision type for bicycle collisions is broadside collisions. The top violation category for bicycle collisions was travelling on the wrong side of the road (34% of all bicycle collisions).

Figure 17 Top Violation Categories for Bicycle-Related Collisions As seen in the collision density map (Figure 18), areas with high densities of bicycle collisions include Hilltop Road at Browning Street and Bechelli Lane near Markwood Drive.

Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 23
Figure 18 Density of Bicycle Collisions

4.2.3.4 Intersections
One-thousand three-hundred and twenty (1320) collisions in the City of Redding between 2015 and 2019 were at intersections. This is fifty-six percent (56%) of all collisions on City roadways. As seen in Figure 19, the majority of these collisions were due to an unsafe speed violation, resulting in a rear end collision.

Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 24
Figure 19 Top Violation Categories for Intersection-Related Collisions

4.2.3.5 Impaired Driving
Seventeen percent (17%) of all City collisions between 2015 and 2019 were due to driving or biking under the influence of drugs or alcohol (DUI/BUI). Fifty-five percent of these collisions occurred during the weekend (Friday through Saturday). As shown in Figure 20, the top collision type due to DUI/BUI collisions is hit object.

Figure 20 Collision Types for DUI/BUI Collisions
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 25

5. PUBLIC OUTREACH

5.1 Public Website
A project website was created on the Social Pinpoint platform to inform the public about the LRSP and provide a platform for input. Figure 21 displays the homepage for the website found at lrsp.mysocialpinpoint.com/redding. The project website had Google Translate enabled that was able to translate the webpage in over 100 languages and detect the user’s browsers settings to automatically display the website in their language preference. In addition, the user could toggle the preferred language on the upper right corner of the webpage. Visitors to the page were invited to provide comments on an interactive project map and share their thoughts through a project survey. Comments from the interactive map and detailed results from the survey are included in Appendix B: Stakeholder and Public Input.

Figure 21 Public Website Home Page
Interactive Map
The interactive map feature on the website allowed the public to drag icons to a location within the City and leave a comment regarding driving, pedestrian, or bicycle suggestions at that location. Figure 22 Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 26
shows the interactive map feature from the website. Forty-four (44) comments were recorded as of June 23, 2021. Some of the public comments collected from the interactive map are as follows:
• Adding multi-use paths at various locations throughout the City o Oasis Road near Midland Drive
o Old Oregon Trail near Old 44 Drive
o Connecting Magnolia neighborhood to Airpark Drive and Gold Street o Along ACID canal
o S Bonnyview Road near S Market Street
o Buenaventura Boulevard between Placer Road and Starlight Boulevard • Improving quality/maintenance of bicycle facilities
o Placer Street near Buenaventura Street
o Near Juniper School
o Along bridge on E Cypress Avenue
o On western end of S Bonnyview Road
• Congestion at intersections
o Hartnell Avenue at Alta Mesa Drive
o E Cypress Avenue at I-5 Ramps
o Old Alturas Road at Victor Avenue
• Safety of pedestrian crossings
o Crossing Buenaventura Boulevard near Lakeside Drive

Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 27
Figure 22 Public Website Interactive Map
Public Survey
The City of Redding Public Survey asked eight questions relating to the LRSP. As of June 23, 2021, the survey received 12 responses. According to the survey, the primary safety issue for Redding is a lack of infrastructure (see Figure 23 for a graph with the responses).

Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 28
Figure 23 Public-Identified Roadway Issues
When asked about level of comfort with bicycling, three responses were “Enthused and Confident” and nine were “Interested but Concerned”. The majority of responses indicated they were were most comfortable with bicycling on a shared use path (see Figure 24).

Figure 24 Responses to “Which of the following bikeways would you feel comfortable using?” Additionally, three of twelve of responses were unfamiliar with ATP projects, four of twelve of responses were unfamiliar with HSIP planned projects, and two of twelve were interested in learning more about the ATP and HSIP projects. Some roadway issues identified through the survey are listed below. • Safety of crosswalks near Shasta Regional
o Suggestion to add a lighting system
Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 29
• Speeding on Grandview Avenue
• High speed limits
• Signal timing downtown
• Safety for bicyclists at Shasta View Drive and Hartnell Avenue • Crossing Buenaventura Avenue at Lakeside Drive
Figure 25 shows the responses to the question “Would you be willing to use alternate modes of travel (walking, biking, public transit, etc.) to get to work, school, shopping, etc.?”. The majority of responses were “Maybe”. Some improvements that responses suggested to encourage increased use of alternate modes of travel include:
• Improved maintenance of roadways (fixing pot holes, cracking, etc.) • Improved transit schedules from Anderson to Redding
• Adding new bicycle facilities, specifically shared use paths • Improved travel times
• Improve and maintain bike lanes
• Less speeding, distracted driving, and impaired driving Figure 25 Responses to “Would you be willing to use alternate modes of travel (walking, biking, public transit, etc.) to get to work, school, shopping, etc.?” Some additional suggestions collected by the survey are summarized below.

Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 30
• Develop bicycle facilities to connect Redding to nearby communities • Connect the Girvan neighborhood to downtown with bike paths • Resurface roadways to increase bicycle comfort
• Additional pedestrian crossings and bike paths
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 31

6. IDENTIFY STRATEGIES
Through coordination and feedback from the City of Redding, LRSP stakeholder working group, and public outreach, safety projects and strategies were identified for the Local Road Safety Plan.

The LRSP will reference specific location engineering projects and systemic safety applications. In addition, safety strategies and projects that address the other E’s to include Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies will be discussed below.

6.1 Engineering Strategies
Locations to implement engineering strategies were determined through collision analysis and relative severity, public comments, recent safety improvements, and City feedback and recommendations.

Countermeasures were proposed for signalized intersections, two-way stop-controlled intersections, and roadway segments for roadways under City of Redding jurisdiction.

City Intersection Projects
Per the HSIP program, engineering countermeasures are available for grant funding. Per the most recent HSIP Cycle (Cycle 10) the approved countermeasures and crash reduction benefits were quantified in the HSIP analyzer. The recommended countermeasures for the intersections with the highest Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) rankings are presented in Appendix D: Recommended Projects. Since the next HSIP Cycle 11 is in 2022, further safety analysis should be conducted at that time in refining the collision data and subsequent safety projects and Benefit to Cost Ratios (BCRs).

Countermeasures were evaluated and prioritized based on benefit to cost ratios as prescribed in Caltrans most recent Local Road Safety Manual (LRSM). Refer to Appendix D: Recommended Projects for the list of countermeasures from Caltrans LRSM. The benefit value of a crash is the expected reduction in crashes with the countermeasure and the associated costs with the crash. Caltrans has opted to use 5 years of observed crashes in estimating future expected crashes. A benefit in reduction of cost can include benefits derived from savings of societal cost (emergency response, medical cost, and property damage). Cost associated with a project is based on planning level estimates of construction cost, planning and environmental cost and costs associated with right-of-way and utilities.

The locations of the priority signalized intersections and their corresponding crash rates are listed in Table 5 below.

Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 32
Table 5 Priority Intersections and Crash Rates
Some proposed countermeasures at City signalized intersections are shown below.

The City currently has advance dilemma zone detection on many high-speed roadways approaches.

Some additional countermeasures to consider for signalized intersections are ADA improvements, installing bicycle boxes, and installing guide marks through the intersection for left turns.

Additionally, there were seven (7) two-way stop-controlled intersections that had fatalities in the past five years. Some potential systemic countermeasures for these intersections could include a change of traffic control (multiway stop (if warrants are met) or roundabout), improved signage and pavement markings, and bicycle and pedestrian enhancements. The two-way stop-controlled intersections with fatalities are listed below.

Intersection
Crash Rate
(crashes/million
entering vehicles)*
Average Crash
Rate for Similar
Facility**
Churn Creek Rd / Hartnell Ave 0.4265 0.24
South St / California St - 0.24
Hartnell Ave / Bechelli Ln 0.1613 0.24
Airport Rd / Preserve Blvd 0.1809 0.24
Butte St / Continental St 0.2300 0.24
Market St / Riverside Dr - 0.20
Hartnell Ave / Northwoods Way 0.0363 0.24
Churn Creek Rd / E Cypress Ave 0.4752 0.24
Victor Ave / Hartnell Ave 0.3742 0.24
Hilltop Dr / E Cypress Ave 0.3174 0.24
E Cypress Ave / Bechelli Ln 0.2977 0.24
** California statewide average crash rate from "2018 Crash Data on California State Highways", Caltrans, 2020.
* Rates highlighted in bold are higher than average crash rates for similar facilities
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 33
• Hartnell Ave / Shotwick Trail
• Buenaventura Blvd / Lakeside Dr
• Hartnell Ave / Middleton Ln
• Old Eureka Way / Walnut Ave
• Mountain Lakes Blvd / Beltline Rd
• Delta St / Santa Fe Ave
• Placer St / Railroad Ave
City Segment Analysis
Throughout the analysis period, there were 1044 collisions reported on City of Redding roadway segments (non-intersection related). A breakdown of roadway collisions on City streets are included in Appendix A: Collision Data. The priority segments that were determined through data analysis and stakeholder coordination and their corresponding crash rates are listed in Table 6 below.

Table 6 Priority Segments and Crash Rates
Proposed mitigation measures for roadway segments are shown below. Detailed countermeasures for each priority segment are shown in Appendix D: Recommended Projects.

Segment Facility Type
Crash Rate
(crashes/million
vehicle miles)*
Average Crash
Rate for Similar
Facility**
CHURN CREEK RD from PRESIDIO ST to S BONNYVIEW RD 4-lane undivided 0.5375 0.8072 E CYPRESS AVE from PARK MARINA DR to CHURN CREEK RD 6-lane undivided 0.7648 0.8072 HILLTOP DR from N/O BROWNING ST to MARAGLIA ST 4-lane undivided 0.4676 0.8072 BECHELLI LN from E CYPRESS AVE to N/O 3RD ST 4-lane undivided 1.5918 0.8072 W CYPRESS AVE from MARKET ST to PARK MARINA DR 6-lane divided 0.5404 0.8141 RAILROAD AVE from SOUTH ST to BUENAVENTURA BLVD 2-lane undivided 0.3758 1.7391 HARTNELL AVE from GOODWATER AVE to AIRPORT RD 2-lane undivided - 1.7391 HILLTOP DR from N/O REDDING HILLTOP APARTMENT to ST THOMAS PKWY 4-lane undivided 0.6606 0.8072 HARTNELL AVE from NORTHWOODS WAY to KENCO AVE 4-lane undivided 0.9143 0.8072 S BONNYVIEW RD from S MARKET ST to CHURN CREEK RD 4-lane divided 0.2157 0.8141 * Rates highlighted in bold are higher than average crash rates for similar facilities ** Shasta County average crash rate from "2018 Crash Data on California State Highways", Caltrans, 2020.

Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 34
Speed Mitigation

6.1.3.1 Traffic Calming
The collision analysis from the past five years indicated that the top violation category for the City of Redding was unsafe speed. The stakeholder working group meetings and public website also gathered many comments related to speeding concerns. One way to help mitigate speed is to implement traffic calming measures. Some examples of traffic calming devices that can be used in the City of Redding to mitigate speed at areas of concern are shown below.

Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 35

The City of Redding has a Traffic Calming Program in place where residents can apply for a speed table to be implemented in their neighborhood. This program is neighborhood driven and requires support from 67% of the affected residents for installation of the speed table(s).

6.1.3.2 Assembly Bill No. 43
Assembly Bill (AB 43) was signed into law by Governor Newsom on October 8, 2021. This bill will change several aspects of speed setting and enforcement in California with a goal to make roadways safer for all road users. The new law is set to go into effect by June 30, 2024 and allows agencies more flexibility with keeping the previous speed limit, allows business and residential districts to have 15 and 20 mph speed limits, and allows the agency to round down the proposed speed limit based on an engineering study due to a high presence of bicycles or pedestrians.

Systemic Safety Countermeasures
When selecting countermeasures, just focusing on locations with a current collision issues is a reactive approach to roadway safety planning. A reactive approach targets recent hot-spots and specific problems that are associated with these locations; as a result of this approach, locations with low traffic volumes but with similar safety issues as hot spot locations are not addressed. In order to mitigate collisions in a both a reactive and proactive approach, Caltrans’ Local Road Safety Manual suggests agencies utilize a comprehensive approach that includes systemic and hot spot location improvements in developing a safety plan.

Some systemic safety countermeasure options, per the LRSM, at signalized intersections and segments for the current high-risk roadway characteristics are shown in Table 7. These systemic countermeasures Chicanes (create an S-shaped travel way for
Speed Tables vehicles)
Traffic Circles Partial Road Closure
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 36
could be added to a series of signalized intersections and segments through our recommendation or City coordination. Some additional systemic countermeasures for bicycle and pedestrian improvements can include leading pedestrian intervals and accessible pedestrian push buttons (APS) and/or pedestrian countdown signals, green conflict markings for bike lanes, and enhanced crossings (e.g. high visibility crosswalks, median refuge areas, rectangular rapid flashing beacons at midblock locations, and pedestrian hybrid beacons (must met CA MUTCD warrants).

Table 7 Recommended Systemic Safety Countermeasures
For HSIP funding, the goal will be to balance the need to have a competitive BCR (i.e. last call minimum BCR was 3.5 but funding was awarded for a minimum BCR closer to 12) and maximizing as many locations as possible that can benefit from similar safety countermeasures. However, HSIP does have set asides that require no BCR and therefore a systemic approach of these projects can be identified as long they meet the funding requirement (e.g. HSIP Cycle 10 had set aside funding were as follows: $250K per agency available for pedestrian crossing enhancements, $1M per agency for guardrail upgrades, and $250K per agency for installing edgelines).

6.1.4.1 Leading Pedestrian Intervals
One potential systemic project for signalized intersections is installing leading pedestrian intervals for pedestrian and bicycle crossings. This countermeasure benefits both pedestrians and bicyclists by allowing them to enter intersections a few seconds earlier than vehicles. According to the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), this has been proven to reduce vehicle-pedestrian collisions by 60% and increase visibility for pedestrians and bicyclists when entering the intersection.

Redding currently has leading pedestrian intervals at the following six signalized intersections:
• Lake Boulevard and Tamarack Drive
• Lake Boulevard and Clay Street
• Lake Boulevard and Masonic Avenue
• Court Street at Tehama Street
• Placer Street at East Street
• Hartnell Avenue at Parkview Avenue
The City compiled a list of locations that could benefit from this countermeasure. The specific locations for the recommended leading pedestrian intervals are shown in Figure 26. If all 49 locations are compiled into a systemic HSIP application, the estimated benefit-to-cost ratio will be approximately 57. Additional collision data for these locations is in Appendix D: Recommended Projects.

Location
Countermeasure
Number
CRF
Recommended Countermeasures
S02 15% Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
S03 15% Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Segments R26 30% Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs Signalized Intersections
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
n
n
n
n
n
n
8 1
7 9
6 5
4 3
2 45
41 40
24 23
20 13
22 31
21 25
18 19
16 17
15 37
36 35
38 39
43 44
34 42
49 33
32 30
29 28
27 26
48 12
11 10
14 46
47 FIGURE 26
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
Miles
Project No.

Revision No. -
11215289
Date 08/03/2021

CITY OF REDDING

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)
Map Projection: Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Horizontal Datum: WGS 1984
Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Paper Size ANSI B
o Data source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) 2015-2019, Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community. Created by: edarke N:\US\San Luis Obispo\Projects\561\11215289\GIS\Maps\Working\LPI Locations.mxd Print date: 04 Aug 2021 - 07:58
Legend
Location for
Proposed
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
n School
City of Redding
City Limit

LOCATIONS FOR PROPOSED

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL

PROJECT

CITY OF

REDDING
ID Primary Road Secondary Road
1 Lake Blvd Hiatt Dr
2 Lake Blvd Oasis Rd
3 Lake Blvd Tamarack Dr
4 Lake Blvd Clay St
5 Lake Blvd North Point Dr
6 Lake Blvd Masonic Ave
7 Hilltop Dr Peppertree Ln
8 Placer St Pleasant St
9 Court St Tehama St
10 Court St Shasta St
11 Court St Placer St
12 Court St South St
13 Placer St Airpark Dr
14 Buenaventura Blvd Placer St
15 Butte St Continental St
16 Placer St Continental St
17 Placer St East St
18 Cypress Ave Civic Center Dr
19 Athens Ave Locust St
20 Hartnell Ave Cobblestone
21 Hartnell Ave Parkview Ave
22 Hartnell Ave Bechelli Ln
23 Bechelli Ln Blue Shield
24 S Bonnyview Rd Fire Hall 4
25 E Cypress Ave Alfreda Way
26 Churn Creek Rd Old Alturas Rd
27 Churn Creek Rd Presidio St
28 Churn Creek Rd Mistletoe Ln
29 Churn Creek Rd Industrial St
30 Churn Creek Rd Merchant St
31 Hartnell Ave Northw oods Way
32 Churn Creek Rd Shirley Ln
33 Churn Creek Rd Loma Vista Dr
34 Shasta View Dr Hartnell Ave
35 Dana Dr Victor Ave
36 Dana Dr Bradford Way
37 Victor Ave E Cypress Ave
38 Old Alturas Rd Friendly Rd
39 Airport Rd Knighton Rd
40 Shasta View Dr Hemingw ay St
41 Shasta View Dr Tarmac Rd
42 Old Oregon Trl Old 44 Dr
43 Airport Rd Rancho Rd
44 Airport Rd Preserve Blvd
45 Airport Rd Shasta View Dr
46 Market St Riverside Dr
47 Lake Blvd Hilltop Dr
48 Hilltop Dr Brow ning St
49 Churn Creek Rd S Bonnyview Rd
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 38
Projects Suggested through Public Input
The interactive map tool on the public website for the plan gathered many suggestions from residents of the City for areas of improvement. These suggestions were summarized and are shown in Table 8 below.

Table 8 Projects Suggested through Public Input
Additional Safety Projects
A comprehensive approach to selecting countermeasure recognizes that not all safety issues can be addressed through infrastructure improvement. The comprehensive approach to safety involves the ‘5 E’s of traffic safety. Besides engineering safety countermeasures, it is important to recommend safety countermeasures to coincide with the other safety E’s.

Location Suggestion
E Cypress Ave bridge Restripe pavement markings
E Cypress Ave bridge
Placer St near Buenaventura Blvd
S Bonnyview Rd between S Market St and Sacramento River Old Oregon Trail between Viking Way and SR 44
Parallel to Almond Ave between Shasta St and Placer St
Parallel to Buenaventura Blvd along goat path between Placer St and Starlight neighborhood
Along ACID Canal between Radio Ln and N Bonnyview Rd
S Bonnyview Rd between S Market St and Sacramento River Old Oregon Trail, north of Akrich St
North side of Old Alturas Rd from Shasta View Dr to Browning St Buenaventura Blvd at Lakeside Dr Install enhanced pedestrian crossing Ellis St near Juniper School Improve K rail maintenance and appearance
Cedars Rd Continue bike lanes on S Bonnyview
Shasta St at Olive Ave Educate public about traffic circles Lake Blvd at Keswick Dam Rd Evaluate installation of traffic signal Shasta View Dr near Alden Ave
Benton Dr near Delta St
Benton Dr near Delta St
Old Alturas Bridge
Shasta View Dr from SR 44 and Hartnell Ave
Victor Ave from SR 44 and Cypress Ave
Rancho Rd
Churn Creek Rd from I-5 to Victor Ave
Churn Creek Rd at Rancho Rd Evaluate visibility and speed countermeasures
Goodwater Ave
Freeman Way
Freebridge St at Smile Pl
Tehama St at Oregon St
Eureka Way at Almond Ave Install safety lighting
California St at Gold St Evaluate left turn movements
Market St at Gold St Evaluate right turn movements
Old Alturas Rd at Victor Ave Evaluate installation of roundabout Evaluate installation of stop signs
Evaluate traffic calming measures
Install multiuse path
Sweep/maintain bike lanes
Install sidewalk
Install bike lanes
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 39

6.2 Non-Engineering Strategies
Education
Education strategies are listed below.
• Campaign to prevent distracted driving and walking
• Safe route to school maps and outreach at schools
• Social media blasts with quick education tool for all users • Partner with existing agencies for public education campaigns Emerging Technologies
Possible emerging technologies strategies are listed below. • ITS infrastructure, web/mobile application (apps) and smart cities practices • Crash warning system
• Communication with traffic signals
• Changeable message signs
• Automatic bicycle/pedestrian counters
• Improving signal operation
o This helps increase traffic flow and can help with safety by decreasing delay, greenhouse gas emissions, crashes, etc.

Enforcement
Enforcement strategies are listed below.
• Targeted speed enforcement
o Focus on areas of concern for residents based on public feedback • DUI saturation patrols
• Increasing number of traffic enforcement officers
• Distracted driving enforcement
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 40
Emergency Response
Emergency response strategies are suggested below.
• Emergency signal installation
• Ability to administer life saving measures on-site of a collision • Emergency vehicle pre-emption at signalized intersections • Improvements to roadways to increase access and potentially shorten response times Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 41

7. PRIORITIZE & INCORPORATE STRATEGIES
In evaluating how to implement safety projects, prioritized lists of projects are shown in the tables below.

The City of Redding can look for opportunities to incorporate safety enhancements with the Capital Improvement Program. However, it is noted that funding is very limited and typically used from roadway paving. Additional funding opportunities can come through grant funding to include HSIP, ATP, and CMAQ.

Table 9 contains a prioritized list of the proposed intersection projects on City roadways based on their respective benefits. Table 10 shows a prioritized list of the proposed segment projects for City roadway segments based on expected benefits. The lowest fundable Benefit-to-Cost ratio for HSIP Cycle 10 was

12. To help show the competitiveness of the proposed projects, the tables also display the maximum project cost for a benefit-to-cost ratio of 10.

Low-cost, systemic countermeasures are preferred by Caltrans in the HSIP process.

Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 42
Table 9 Priority of City Intersection Projects
Intersection Recommended Countermeasures
Max Project Cost
for B/C Ratio of 10
Total Expected
Benefit
Total Estimated
Project Cost**HSIP Funding
Reimbursement
Ratio*
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Systemic (49
locations****) Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) $2,075,100 $ 20,751,000 $$ 100% Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Install left-turn lane and add turn phase in westbound direction Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) - - - - Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Provide Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection
Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches
Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) - - - - Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Increase DUI enforcement
Consolidate driveways
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Provide Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection
Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) Bicycle education about riding at night and rules of the road - - - - Butte St / Continental
St None (upcoming safety project addresses current collision trends) - - - - Market St / Riverside
Dr Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.) $ 159,000 $ 1,590,000 $ 100% Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number $ 47,700 $ 477,001 $ 100%
Increase DUI enforcement - - - -
* Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation); HSIP Funding Eligibility: 50% Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before); HSIP Funding Eligibility: 90% Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches; HSIP Funding Eligibility: 90% ** $ = Estimated cost below $250,000
$$ = Estimated cost around $250,000 to $1,000,000
$$$ = Estimated cost above $1,000,000
***Locations for systemic mitigations: Churn Creek Rd/Hartnell Ave, South St/California St, Hartnell Ave/Bechelli Ln, Airport Rd/Preserve Blvd, Hartnell Ave/Northwoods Way, Churn Creek Rd/E Cypress Ave, Victor Ave/Hartnell Ave, Hilltop Dr/E Cypress Ave, E Cypress Ave/Bechelli Ln ****See Figure 26 for proposed locations
- -
Churn Creek Rd /
Hartnell Ave
$ 302,756 $ 3,027,557 $ 50%
-
Hartnell Ave / Bechelli
Ln
$ 403,061 $ 4,030,610 $$ 90%
South St / California St $ 522,218 $ 5,222,178
Systemic (9
locations***) $1,584,138 $ 15,841,375 $$ 50%
Victor Ave / Hartnell
Ave $ 215,421
Hartnell Ave /
Northwoods Way
Churn Creek Rd / E
Cypress Ave $ 211,949 $ 2,119,490 $
Airport Rd / Preserve
Blvd
$ 203,324 $ 2,033,242 $$
$ 2,154,205 $
E Cypress Ave /
Bechelli Ln $ 63,192 $ 631,924 $ 50%
Hilltop Dr / E Cypress
Ave $ 117,166 $ 1,171,664 $ 50%
$ 90%
50%
100%
50%
-
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 43
Table 10 Priority of City Segment Projects
Segment Recommended Countermeasures
Max Project Cost
for B/C Ratio of 10
Total Expected
Benefit
Total Estimated
Project Cost**HSIP Funding
Reimbursement
Ratio*
Add segment lighting (East of I-5 Interchange)
Install raised median (Between Hilltop Dr and Churn Creek Rd) Install bike lanes/Install separated bike lanes
Consolidate existing driveways to limit the number of access points - - - - Install bike conflict paint at intersections and driveways - - - - Install raised median (Between Dana Dr and Browning Dr) Install edge-lines and centerlines (between Ross/Big-Lots Driveway and Margalia St) Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
Pedestrian fencing along sidewalk to guide pedestrians to the enhanced crosswalk with

RRFB - - - -
Install chevron signs on horizontal curves
Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) Install delineators, reflectors, and/or object markers
Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
Install multiuse path/ sharrow on eastbound approach to the intersection of W Cypress Ave/ Market St
Install bike conflict paint at intersections and driveways Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs $ 910,518 $ 9,105,180 $ 100% Install bike conflict paint at intersections and driveways - - - - Add Segment Lighting
Install curve advance warning signs
Increase DUI enforcement - - - -
Add Segment Lighting
Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
Consolidate existing driveways to limit the number of access points - - - - Install raised median (on the approaches to Hartnell Ave) $ 620,150 $ 6,201,500 $ 90% Consolidate existing driveways to limit the number of access points - - - - Railroad Ave (South St
to Buenaventura Blvd) Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs $ 431,490 $ 4,314,901 $ 100% S Bonnyview Rd (S
Market St to Churn
Creek Rd)
Install Separated Bike Lanes $ 53,622 $ 536,220 $$ 90%
* Install raised median; HSIP Funding Eligibility: 90%
Install bike lanes; HSIP Funding Eligibility: 90%
Install Separated Bike Lanes; HSIP Funding Eligibility: 90% Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes); HSIP Funding Eligibility: 90% Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features); HSIP Funding Eligibility: 90% Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway); HSIP Funding Eligibility: 90% ** $ = Estimated cost below $250,000
$$ = Estimated cost around $250,000 to $1,000,000
$$$ = Estimated cost above $1,000,000
Bechelli Ln (E Cypress
Ave to n/o 3rd St)
Railroad Ave (South St
to Buenaventura Blvd) $1,268,251 $ 12,682,508 $$$ 90%
- - - -
W Cypress Ave (Market
St to Park Marina Dr)
$ 902,440 $ 9,024,397 90%
Churn Creek Rd
(Presidio St to S
Bonnyview Rd)
Hilltop Dr (n/o
Browning St to
Maraglia St)
$1,763,889 $ 17,638,888 $$ 90%
90%
100%
E Cypress Ave (Park
Marina Dr to Churn
Creek Rd)
$2,271,687 $ 22,716,865
Hilltop Dr (n/o Redding
Hilltop Apartments to
St Thomas Pkwy)
$ 820,648 $ 8,206,483 $$$
Hartnell Ave
(Goodwater Ave to
Airport Rd)
$ 877,729 $ 8,777,285 $$
$$
$$$ 90%
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 44

8. EVALUATION PROCESS
To evaluate the success of this plan, yearly collision analysis, along with requests for public feedback, can take place and be compared to the established goals.

Goal: Reduce the potential for fatal and severe injury collisions citywide o Measure of Success: This can be achieved by smaller reductions of 1 fatal or severe injury (FSI) collision reduction per year.

Goal: Create a safe, livable, and welcoming community by developing a roadway safety plan targeted to Redding’s transportation and roadway safety needs o Measure of Success: If this goal is successful, residents will express an increased feeling of safety while using Redding’s transportation systems and the number and severity of collisions each year will decrease.

Goal: Improve safety around schools
o Measure of Success: Results of public feedback shows that there are areas where pedestrian access and safety can be improved around schools in the City of Redding. An evaluation of the improvements of multimodal transportation infrastructure around schools will capture effectiveness of this goal.

Goal: Reduce speeding collisions through engineering, enforcement, and education strategies o Measure of Success: A reduction in collisions with “Unsafe Speed” violations after implementing engineering, enforcement, and education strategies will determine if this goal is met.

Goal: Improve multimodal transportation safety by expanding the City’s non-motorized transportation infrastructure
o Measure of Success: Public feedback results show that there are areas where pedestrian and bicycle accessibility can be improved or installed. Improvements and installations of non-motorized transportation infrastructure will capture this goal.

Goal: Improve the health and vitality of our community by working with community safety partners to create a roadway safety plan targeted to Redding’s needs o Measure of Success: Community stakeholders will have increased participation in conversations about safety improvements in the City of Redding.

Goal: Reduce rear end collisions citywide by implementing speed management strategies Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 45
o Measure of Success: This goal will be effective if there is a decrease in “Unsafe Speed” collisions after implementing speed management strategies outlined in this plan.

Goal: Prioritize improvements that affect conditions/safety outcomes for identified disadvantaged populations
o Measure of Success: An increase in the projects implemented in disadvantaged populations would achieve this goal. See Figure 27 for the locations for recommended projects, in relation to the locations of low resource neighborhoods in Redding.

Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) ³
&
&
&
³ ³
³
³
³
& ³
& ³
³
& ³ ³ &
044D
140B
039E
114B
039B
114A
122B 122D
124B
039E
77 76
49 35
373 378
371
370
341
305
291
237 260
210
171
133
115 130
FIGURE 27
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
Miles
Project No.

Revision No. -
11215289
Date 05/05/2021

CITY OF REDDING

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)
Map Projection: Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Horizontal Datum: WGS 1984
Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Paper Size ANSI B
o Data source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) 2015-2019, Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community. Created by: edarke N:\US\San Luis Obispo\Projects\561\11215289\GIS\Maps\Working\Disadvantaged Communities.mxd
Print date: 04 Aug 2021 - 08:01
Legend
³
Priority
Intersection
(Signalized)
&
Priority
Intersection
(Two-Way Stop
Controlled)
Priority
Segment
Low Resource
Neighborhood
City of Redding
City Limit

LOW RESOURCE NEIGHBORHOODS

AND PRIORITY LOCATIONS

IN REDDING

CITY OF

REDDING
SEGMENT_ID STREET FROM TO
039B HILLTOP DR N/O HILLTOP DR ST THOMAS PKWY
039E HILLTOP DR N/O BROWNING ST MARAGLIA ST
044D CHURN CREEK RD PRESIDIO ST DANA DR
114A W CYPRESS AVE MARKET ST PARK MARINA DR
114B E CYPRESS AVE PARK MARINA DR CHURN CREEK RD
122B HARTNELL AVE NORTHWOODS WAY KENCO AVE
122D HARTNELL AVE GOODWATER AVE AIRPORT RD
124B BECHELLI LN E CYPRESS AVE N/O 3RD ST
140B RAILROAD AVE SOUTH ST BUENAVENTURA BLVD
Intx_ID NS_Road EW_Road
35 Market St Riverside Dr
49 Mountain Lakes Blvd Beltline Rd
76 Delta St Santa Fe Ave
77 Buenaventura Blvd Lakeside Dr
115 Hilltop Dr E Cypress Ave
130 Churn Creek Rd E Cypress Ave
133 Churn Creek Rd Hartnell Ave
171 Airport Rd Preserve Blvd
210 Victor Ave Hartnell Ave
237 Old Eureka Way Walnut Ave
260 Butte St Continental St
291 Placer St Railroad Ave
305 South St California St
341 E Cypress Ave Bechelli Ln
370 Hartnell Ave Shotw ick Trl
371 Hartnell Ave Bechelli Ln
373 Hartnell Ave Northw oods Way
378 Hartnell Ave Middleton Ln
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 47

9. NEXT STEPS
The City of Redding plans to send the Local Road Safety Plan to City Council on February 15, 2022. This safety plan will be a living document and will guide the City’s roadway safety needs for the next five years.

It will be updated as needed and the goals will be monitored.

Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 48

10. REFERENCES
Recent/Upcoming Projects
• “Shasta County Projects”, Caltrans, District 2.
• “Oasis Road Specific Plan: Final Master Environmental Impact Report”, RBF Consulting, April 2006. • “Administrative Draft EIR: Traffic Impact Analysis”, City of Redding, Oasis Specific Plan. KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc., June 2005. • “Girvan Road Railroad Crossing Improvements and South Redding Bikeway and Pedestrian Trail Project”, Dokken Engineering, November 2020.
• “West Street Area School Safety Improvement Project”, City of Redding, Public Works Department, May 2020.
• “Trinity Street Bikeway Project”, City of Redding, Public Works Department, November 2020. • “Shasta Street R.R. Crossing Improvements Project”, City of Redding, Public Works Department, June 2020.
• “Systemic Protected Left Turn Project”, Application Form for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 10. City of Redding, Public Works Department, October 2020. • “Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project”, Application Form for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 10. City of Redding, Public Works Department, October 2020. • “Systemic Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements”, Application Form for Cycle 9 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). City of Redding, Public Works Department, August 2018. • “Airport Road Improvement Project”, City of Redding, Public Works Department, April 2019. • “Bechelli Lane & Loma Vista Active Transportation Corridor Improvements”, Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 3 Application Form. City of Redding, Public Works Department, June 2016. • “Hartnell Avenue Safety Improvement Project”, City of Redding, Public Works Department, March 2020.
• “Diestelhorst to Downtown Non-Motorized Improvement Project”, City of Redding, Public Works Department, June 2020.
• “Placer Street Improvements (ATP)”, City of Redding, Public Works Department, May 2016. • “Quartz Hill Road Improvements”, City of Redding, Public Works Department, January 2018. • “Churn Creek Rd & Maraglia St Safety Improvements Project”, City of Redding, Public Works Department, September 2020.
• “California Street Bikeway”, Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 5 Application Form. City of Redding, Public Works Department, December 2018.
• “Turtle Bay to Downtown Gap Completion Project”, Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 5 Application Form. City of Redding, Public Works Department, July 2020. • “Victor Ave & E Cypress Ave Active Transportation Project”, Active Transportation Program (ATP) Cycle 5 Application Form. City of Redding, Public Works Department, July 2020.

Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 49
• Shasta Regional Transportation Agency, “SR-273 Multimodal Corridor Plan”, https://www.srta.ca.gov/353/SR-273-Multimodal-Corridor-Plan Traffic Data
• City of Redding Collision Data, Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System, 2015-2019. • City of Redding Collision Data, Transportation Injury Mapping System, 2015-2019. • “2018 Crash Data on California State Highways”, Caltrans, October 2020.

Manuals/Articles
• “Developing Safety Plans, A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners”, Federal Highway Administration, March 2012, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa12017/. • 2020-2024 California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), “California Safe Roads: 2020-2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan”, Caltrans.
• “Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners”, Caltrans, Version 1.5, April 2020
• “Highway Safety Manual”, American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO), 1st Edition, 2014 supplement.
• “California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)”, Revision 5, 2014. • “Designing for All Ages & Abilities: Contextual Guidance for High-Comfort Bicycle Facilities”, National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), December 2017. • Geller, Rodger. “Four Types of Cyclists”, Portland Office of Transportation, 2009. • “2000-2020 General Plan”, City of Redding, Public Works Department, October 2000, https://www.cityofredding.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=5513. • “California Statewide Collision Overview”, Caltrans, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/safety-programs/documents/shsp/shsp-ca-datafactsheets_a11y.pdf. • “Local and Rural Road Safety Briefing Sheets: Local Road Safety Plans,” Federal Highway Administration, November 2014.
• “Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool,” Federal Highway Administration, 2013.

Websites
• California Department of Transportation, “Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)”, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/shsp.
• California Department of Transportation, “Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP)”, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-stateprograms/highway-safety-improvement-program/local-roadway-safety-plans. • California Department of Transportation, “HSIP Cycle 10”, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/localassistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety-improvement-program/apply-now.

Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 50
• City of Redding Local Road Safety Plan, https://lrsp.mysocialpinpoint.com/redding. • City of Redding, “Traffic Calming”,
https://www.cityofredding.org/home/showpublisheddocument/24813/637438934889970000. • National Association of City Transportation Officials, “Urban Street Design Guide”, https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/intersection-design-elements/trafficsignals/leading-pedestrian-interval/.

Surveys
• Local Road Safety Plan Project Survey, https://lrsp.mysocialpinpoint.com/redding.

Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) GHD | Redding Local Road Safety Plan | Page 51
Kathryn Kleinschmidt
[email protected]
805.305.5868
Emily Darke
[email protected]
916.865.5309
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Draft Local Road Safety Plan (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Appendix
A– Collision Data
Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan)

COLLISIONS BY YEAR
By Severity
By Collision Type
Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Collisions at Selected Intersections
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Injury (Complaint of
Pain)
Property Damage
Only
Head-on
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Listed
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
EPDO
Fatal + Injury
1 Lake Blvd Oasis Rd 1 1 2 1 21 1 2 1 19 2 42 Oasis Rd Vigil Ct 11 1 61 13 Oasis Rd Beltline Rd 11 1 61 14 Oasis Rd Daut Rd 11 1 30 1 15 Oasis Rd Oak Leaf Ln 1 11 30 1 16 Oasis Rd Sandstone Dr 11 1 10 17 Oasis Rd Twin View Blvd 2 3 1 1 41 3 2 1 41 5 68 Oasis Rd Old Oregon Trl 1 2 1 1 21 1 11 1 24 3 49 Old Oregon Trl Paso Robles Ave 1 1 2 11 17 2 2 10 Old Oregon Trl Frontier Rd 11 1 30 1 111 Lake Blvd Wilmington Way 1 11 1 61 112 Lake Blvd Keswick Dam Rd 1 3 3 151 11 2 3 32 4 713 Lake Blvd Magnums Way 11 1 30 1 114 Lake Blvd Santa Rosa Way 11 1 1 1 1 1 17 2 215 Lake Blvd Tamarack Dr 3 1 11 1 11 1 33 3 316 Lake Blvd St Nicholas Ave 2 2 31 111 1 1 34 4 417 Lake Blvd St Mark St 11 1 10 118 Lake Blvd Clay St 1 3 13 121 29 4 419 Lake Blvd North Point Dr 11 3 1 13 112 1 1 59 5 520 Lake Blvd Masonic Ave 1 6 1 1 331 2321 2 48 7 821 Lake Blvd N Market St 2 2 4 1 34 2222 38 4 822 Lake Blvd Hilltop Dr 12 4 1 132 1 11123 1 77 7 823 Lake Blvd Erickson Way 2 11 11 1 22 2 224 Lake Blvd Black Marble Way 2 3 1 51 11 2 2 41 5 625 Lake Blvd Churn Creek Rd 11 1 10 126 Twin View Blvd Oasis Ct 11 1 61 127 Twin View Blvd Caterpillar Rd 11 2 2 12 1 228 Twin View Blvd Midway Dr 11 1 61 129 Twin View Blvd N Market St 1 2 3 12 23 3 330 North Point Dr Redwood Blvd 11 1 10 131 N Market St Caterpillar Rd 1 1 11 1 1 12 1 232 N Market St Benton Dr 2 2 4 5 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 5 38 4 833 N Market St Arboretum Dr 11 1 61 134 N Market St Quartz Hill Rd 2 2 11 12 2 235 Market St Riverside Dr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 551 2 336 Market St Trinity St 12 1 1 3 2 1 112 1 59 4 537 Market St Eureka Way 2 21 2 31 14 2 438 Market St Shasta St 1 3 121 13 14 1 439 Market St Tehama St 1 1 4 114 32 1 21 2 640 Market St Placer St 11 1 61 141 Market St South St 2 2 1 1 12 1 31 1 35 4 542 Market St Lincoln St 11 1 10 143 S Market St California St 1 21 1 1 1 2 1 81 3 Year
Intersection # Primary Road Secondary Road
Total
Severity Type
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Packet Pg. 542
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Injury (Complaint of
Pain)
Property Damage
Only
Head-on
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Listed
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
EPDO
Fatal + Injury
Year
Intersection # Primary Road Secondary Road
Total
Severity Type
Pedestrian
Bicycle
44 S Market St Fell St 11 1 61 145 S Market St Grange St 11 1 61 146 S Market St Sutter St 11 1 10 147 S Market St Wyndham Ln 1 1 11 111 17 2 248 S Market St S Bonnyview Rd 3 11 1 1 2 30 349 Mountain Lakes Blvd Beltline Rd 11 1 544 1 150 Mountain Lakes Blvd Charles Dr 1 1 11 11 1 151 White River Dr Beltline Rd 11 1 10 152 White River Dr Jaxon Way 11 1 10 153 Wright Dr Mountain Shadows Blvd 1 11 1 11 1 154 Mountain Shadows Blvd Alder St 11 1 10 155 Midway Dr Ridge Rd 11 1 10 156 Boulder Creek Dr Boulder Creek Ct 11 1 10 157 Black Marble Way Boulder Dr 21 1 1 1 20 258 Boulder Dr Rhyonite Dr 11 1 10 159 Redwood Blvd Butternut Ln 11 2 1 1 12 1 260 Ridgewood Rd Rugby Hill Dr 11 1 10 161 Collyer Dr Hawley Rd 11 1 61 162 Collyer Dr Ridgewood Rd 1 1 1 1 11 71 263 Country Oak Dr Mica Ct 11 1 10 164 College View Dr Churn Creek Rd 1 1 1 12 3 18 2 365 College View Dr Tidmore Ln 11 1 11 1 166 College View Dr Shasta View Dr 1 3 1 3 1111 91 467 Quartz Hill Rd River Ridge Dr 11 1 1 2 71 268 Quartz Hill Rd Mount Bonnington Dr 11 1 61 169 Quartz Hill Rd Snow Ln 11 1 11 1 170 Quartz Hill Rd Benton Dr 1 3 111 1 111 1 91 471 Quartz Hill Rd Rio Dr 11 1 10 172 Snow Ln Lake Redding Dr 11 1 30 173 Benton Dr Delta St 11 1 10 174 Benton Dr Barbara Rd 11 1 10 175 Benton Dr Loma St 11 2 2 71 276 Delta St Santa Fe Ave 1 11 544 1 177 Buenaventura Blvd Lakeside Dr 1 1 1 1 11 550 2 278 Buenaventura Blvd Westgate Dr 11 1 61 179 Buenaventura Blvd Placer St 1 2 12 1 1 1 81 380 Buenaventura Blvd Teton Dr 11 1 10 181 Buenaventura Blvd Summit Dr 11 1 1 2 17 2 282 Buenaventura Blvd Railroad Ave 1 2 1 21 1 2 121 24 3 483 N Court St Middle Creek Rd 11 1 30 1 184 N Court St 11th St 1 1 11 11 71 285 Court St Euerka Way 2 1 3 12 13 2 386 Court St Shasta St 3 2 2 6 1 112 32 47 5 787 Court St Tehama St 3 2 3 1 5 2 2 214 1 48 5 888 Court St Butte St 22 2 20 2 Packet Pg. 543
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Injury (Complaint of
Pain)
Property Damage
Only
Head-on
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Listed
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
EPDO
Fatal + Injury
Year
Intersection # Primary Road Secondary Road
Total
Severity Type
Pedestrian
Bicycle
89 Court St Yuba St 1 11 1 1 2 71 290 Court St Placer St 12 6 1 221 2 213131 1 88 9 991 Court St Sacramento St 21 3 2 1 13 2 392 Court St South St 1 2 1 2 11 1 81 393 Court St Gold St 2 2 1 14 31 1 35 4 594 Court St Terrace St 111 3 3 18 2 395 Court St Sonoma St 1 11 1 61 196 Court St Schley Ave 1 1 11 1 1 12 1 297 Court St Rosealine Ave 1 1 1 1 1 11 71 298 Hilltop Dr Ridgecrest Trl 11 1 61 199 Hilltop Dr Peppertree Ln 2 11 1 1 20 2 100 Hilltop Dr Mercedes Ln 11 1 61 1101 Hilltop Dr St Thomas Pkwy 1 2 12 1 11 13 1 3102 Hilltop Dr Sandpoint Dr 11 1 10 1103 Hilltop Dr Palisades Ave 2 2 3 52 14 2 37 4 7104 Hilltop Dr I-5 11 1 61 1105 Hilltop Dr Browning St 1 4 5 4 1 8 3 11 1 2 3 2 4 2 3 108 10 14106 Hilltop Dr Rockaway Dr 11 2 11 71 2107 Hilltop Dr E Palisades Ave 11 1 61 1108 Hilltop Dr Dana Dr 11 1 5 1331 1 2 11 4 52 3 8109 Hilltop Dr Presidio St 1 2 1 1 3 12 1 24 3 4110 Hilltop Dr Mistletoe Ln 11 1 10 1111 Hilltop Dr Azalea Ave 11 1 11 1 1112 Hilltop Dr Industrial St 1 5 1221 11 3 2 60 6 6113 Hilltop Dr Commerce St 11 1 61 1114 Hilltop Dr Grove St 1 4 1 123 1 12 2 36 5 6115 Hilltop Dr E Cypress Ave 6 9 7 2 3 11 3 3 1 4 4 3 6 5 127 15 22116 Hilltop Dr Maraglia St 11 1 10 1117 Churn Creek Rd Golden Gate Trl 11 1 11 1 1118 Churn Creek Rd Palacio Dr 1 11 1 30 1 1119 Churn Creek Rd Bodenhamer Blvd 11 2 4 22 53 4 4120 Churn Creek Rd Whistling Dr 2 1 1 1111 2 2 29 3 4121 Churn Creek Rd Browning St 2 1 11 3 2 2 29 3 4122 Churn Creek Rd Lancers Ln 11 2 1 1 41 2 2123 Churn Creek Rd Old Alturas Rd 13 3 1 4 2 2 132 1 81 7 7124 Churn Creek Rd Dana Dr 5 7 7 2348 11346 5 104 12 19125 Churn Creek Rd Presidio St 4 2 1 2 2 11 1 2 1 1 1 1 26 4 6126 Churn Creek Rd Mistletoe Ln 1 5 2 224 132 3 43 6 8127 Churn Creek Rd Industrial St 2 11 1 1 20 2128 Churn Creek Rd Merchant St 1 5 2 152 1 1121 3 43 6 8129 Churn Creek Rd Wall St 4 1 1 22 311 25 4 5130 Churn Creek Rd E Cypress Ave 8 12 9 3 2 6 12 2 2 1 1 1 6 8 7 5 3 169 20 29131 Churn Creek Rd Maraglia St 12 2 1 1 3 23 3 3132 Churn Creek Rd Parsons Dr 2 2 1 1111 1 1 2 2 35 4 5133 Churn Creek Rd Hartnell Ave 2 3 15 12 1 2 21 4 1 2 1 2 1 8 5 5 9 5 1223 20 32 Packet Pg. 544
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Injury (Complaint of
Pain)
Property Damage
Only
Head-on
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Listed
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
EPDO
Fatal + Injury
Year
Intersection # Primary Road Secondary Road
Total
Severity Type
Pedestrian
Bicycle
134 Churn Creek Rd Bond St 1 11 1 1 1 71 2135 Churn Creek Rd Le Brun Ln 1 21 2 2 1 81 3136 Churn Creek Rd Del Sol Pl 2 1 21 1121 23 2 3137 Churn Creek Rd Shirley Ln 1 1 11 1 1 12 1 2138 Churn Creek Rd Camino Ct 11 1 1 1 1 71 2139 Churn Creek Rd Echo Rd 4 211 12 1 40 4140 Churn Creek Rd Harpole Rd 2 11 1 1 2 2 1 13 2 3141 Churn Creek Rd De Moll Dr 1 11 1 1 1 71 2142 Churn Creek Rd Loma Vista Dr 3 2 122 211 1 20 3 5143 Churn Creek Rd Denton Way 1 1 11 11 1 1144 Churn Creek Rd Arizona St 11 1 61 1145 Churn Creek Rd Hillmonte Dr 11 1 10 1146 Churn Creek Rd S Bonnyview Rd 1 4 5 1342 11341 1 59 5 10147 Churn Creek Rd Hartmey Ln 11 1 10 1148 Churn Creek Rd Victor Ave 1 1 13 2 1 37 2 3149 Churn Creek Rd Rancho Rd 1 1 3 1 1 21 1 1 3 20 2 5150 Shasta View Dr Palacio Dr 1 11 11 1 1151 Shasta View Dr Inspiration Pl 3 3 11 1 30 3152 Shasta View Dr Old Alturas Rd 5 2 3 3 24 1 4131 1 70 7 10153 Shasta View Dr Atrium Way 1 2 11 1 11 111 23 3 3154 Shasta View Dr Viking Way 11 1 61 1155 Shasta View Dr Goodwater Ave 2 1 1 1 1 111 13 2 3156 Shasta View Dr Kerry Ave 2 2 11 20 2157 Shasta View Dr Christian Ave 11 2 1 1 17 2 2158 Shasta View Dr Wilson Ave 1 3 22 111 1 48 4 4159 Shasta View Dr Hawn Ave 1 1 1 2 1 1 11 37 2 3160 Shasta View Dr Hartnell Ave 1 1 4 1 22 231 21 2 6161 Shasta View Dr Alden Ave 1 1 11 1 1 71 2162 Shasta View Dr Leonard St 1 21 2 2 1 13 1 3163 Shasta View Dr Saturn Skwy 11 1 10 1164 Shasta View Dr Galaxy Way 11 1 61 1165 Shasta View Dr Western Oak Dr 1 11 1 11 1 1166 Shasta View Dr Rancho Rd 1 3 22 2 1 1 91 4167 Old Oregon Trl Viking Way 1 1 11 11 1 1168 Old Oregon Trl Old 44 Dr 1 1 11 1 1 12 1 2169 Old Oregon Trl Airport Rd 12 3 1 2 23 3 3170 Old Oregon Trl Rancho Rd 11 1 11 1 1171 Airport Rd Preserve Blvd 1 1 1 1 22 121 1 562 3 4172 Airport Rd Rancho Rd 11 1 2 31 1 2173 Airport Rd Electro Way 1 1 11 1 1 12 1 2174 Airport Rd Knighton Rd 3 1 121 111 1 19 3 4175 Airport Rd Meadow View Dr 1 2 1 2 1 21 23 3 3176 Airport Rd Fig Tree Ln 1 2 1 11 111 81 3177 Airport Rd Marvel Ln 11 1 30 1 1178 Airport Rd Skyway St 11 1 10 1 Packet Pg. 545
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Injury (Complaint of
Pain)
Property Damage
Only
Head-on
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Listed
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
EPDO
Fatal + Injury
Year
Intersection # Primary Road Secondary Road
Total
Severity Type
Pedestrian
Bicycle
179 Airport Rd Lassen View Ln 11 1 61 1180 Airport Rd Terry Ln 1 1 11 30 1 1181 Yolla Bolly Trl Chaos Walk 11 1 10 1182 Fountain Cir Olympic St 11 1 10 1183 Fountain Cir Richland Way 11 1 11 1 1184 Whistling Dr Springer Dr 1 1 11 1 1 71 2185 Bobwhite Way Grouse Dr 11 1 10 1186 Browning St Mission de Oro Dr 1 11 1 61 1187 Browning St Canby Rd 42 1 1 3 1 40 4188 Browning St Lancers Ln 1 2 12 1 1 1 13 1 3189 Browning St Friendly Rd 2 1 3 1 11 13 2 3190 Browning St Old Alturas Rd 11 1 10 1191 Old Alturas Rd Canby Rd 3 1 1 11 1 1 1 18 3 3192 Old Alturas Rd Friendly Rd 11 1 1 1 1 41 2 2193 Old Alturas Rd Bradford Way 15 2 1 7 412 1 97 8 8194 Old Alturas Rd Victor Ave 1 2 1 1 1 111 23 3 3195 Old Alturas Rd Arroyo Manor Dr 1 1 10 1196 Old Alturas Rd Lema Rd 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 18 2 3197 Old Alturas Rd Modoc Ln 1 11 11 1 1198 Dana Dr Mt Shasta Mall 2 2 1111 3 1 14 2 4199 Dana Dr Friendly Rd 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 37 2 3200 Dana Dr Bradford Way 21 1 1 1 20 2201 Dana Dr Victor Ave 11 1 61 1202 Victor Ave Victor Ave 11 1 61 1203 Victor Ave Aspin Ave 2 3 5 1111 1 15 2 5204 Victor Ave SR 44 WB Ramps 11 1 61 1205 Victor Ave SR 44 EB Ramps 11 1 10 1206 Victor Ave Mistletoe Ln 3 5 1 4 2 2121 2 23 3 8207 Victor Ave Derby Ln 11 1 11 1 1208 Victor Ave Cascade Ln 11 2 1 1 71 2209 Victor Ave E Cypress Ave 322 6 1 3 22 47 5 7210 Victor Ave Hartnell Ave 1 6 8 7 4 1 10 5 2 2 2 5 3 6 4 4 151 15 22211 Victor Ave Bramble Pl 3 11 1 11 1 30 3212 Victor Ave Marlene Ave 1 1 11 11 31 1 2213 Victor Ave Vega St 11 1 11 1 1214 Victor Ave Galaxy Way 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 21 2 2 3 51 3 7215 Victor Ave El Vista St 11 1 10 1216 Victor Ave Alta Saga Dr 11 1 61 1217 Sierra Vista Dr Hallmark Dr 11 1 10 1218 Sunset Dr Red Bud Dr 1 1 11 11 1 1219 Royal Oaks Dr Scenic Dr 11 1 10 1220 Overhill Dr Pioneer Dr 11 1 10 1221 Eureka Way Overhill Dr 1 1 11 1 1 71 2222 Euerka Way Whiskeytown Ct 1 11 61 1223 Eureka Way Almond Ave 11 1 61 1 Packet Pg. 546
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Injury (Complaint of
Pain)
Property Damage
Only
Head-on
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Listed
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
EPDO
Fatal + Injury
Year
Intersection # Primary Road Secondary Road
Total
Severity Type
Pedestrian
Bicycle
224 Eureka Way Walnut Ave 11 1 61 1225 Eureka Way Orange Ave 11 1 1 10 1226 Eureka Way Rose Ave 1 11 1 1 1 12 1 2227 Eureka Way West St 11 1 10 1228 Eureka Way California St 3 11 1 1 2 1 18 3 3229 Eureka Way Pine St 3 3 1 11 30 3230 Eureka Way Continental St 1 3 22 112 91 4231 West St 10th St 11 1 61 1232 West St 11th St 3 2 21 1 1 4 221 45 5 5233 Trinity St Center St 11 1 10 1234 Trinity St Pine St 2 11 1 1 20 2235 Foothill Blvd Las Animas Dr 11 1 10 1236 Monte Bello Dr Las Animas Dr 11 1 10 1237 Old Eureka Way Walnut Ave 1 1 1 1 11 545 1 2238 Monte Bello Dr Manzanita Hills Ave 11 1 10 1239 North St Olive Ave 11 1 10 1240 Shasta St Lombard Trl 1 11 1 11 1 1241 Shasta St Almond Ave 11 1 61 1242 Shasta St Olive Ave 1 1 11 1 1 12 1 2243 Shasta St Orange Ave 1 2 2 1 1 11 1 23 3 3244 Shasta St Magnolia Ave 11 1 10 1245 Shasta St Willis St 1 21 1 1 1 2 81 3246 Shasta St West St 1 1 1 1 1 11 71 2247 Shasta St Oregon St 11 1 61 1248 Shasta St Center St 1 11 1 61 1249 Shasta St California St 1 2 111 11 1 81 3250 Shasta St Pine St 2 5 2 1 7 1 11 43 2 54 7 9251 Shasta St East St 3 4 321 1 1 214 22 3 7252 Auditorium Dr Sundial Bridge Dr 11 1 11 1 1253 Tehama St Oregon St 1 8 1 8 21 3 3 14 1 9254 Tehama St California St 1 1 1 11 1 1 12 1 2255 Tehama St Pine St 14 5 1 461 5311 1 105 10 11256 Tehama St East St 5 1 213 1 222 31 5 6257 Butte St Magnolia Ave 11 1 10 1258 Butte St West St 2 1 1 11 20 2259 Butte St East St 1 2 2 21 2 2 1 12 1 44 3 5260 Butte St Continental St 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 12211 562 3 4261 Butte St Sequoia St 11 1 10 1262 Butte St Sundial Bridge Dr 11 1 10 1263 Park Marina Dr Athens Ave 1 2 21 2 1 81 3264 Park Marina Dr Olympus Ave 11 1 11 1 1265 Park Marina Dr South St 21 1 2 2 1 28 3 3266 Park Marina Dr Washington Ave 11 1 10 1267 Park Marina Dr Locust St 11 1 61 1268 Yuba St Railroad Ave 11 1 61 1 Packet Pg. 547
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Injury (Complaint of
Pain)
Property Damage
Only
Head-on
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Listed
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
EPDO
Fatal + Injury
Year
Intersection # Primary Road Secondary Road
Total
Severity Type
Pedestrian
Bicycle
269 Yuba St California St 11 1 10 1270 Yuba St Pine St 32 4 1 1 1 3 1 20 3 5271 Yuba St East St 1 11 1 61 1272 Yuba St Liberty St 1 11 1 61 1273 Tralee Ln Tralee Ln 11 1 10 1274 Oconnor Ave Wicklow Ct 11 1 10 1275 Oconnor Ave Nantucket Dr 11 1 10 1276 Mary Lake Dr Carlow Way 1 11 1 11 1 1277 Placer Rd Boston Ave 11 1 11 1 1278 Placer Rd Oconnor Ave 2 2 1 3 22 34 4 4279 Placer Rd Almaden Dr 11 1 11 1 1280 Placer St Cottonwood Ave 11 1 10 1281 Placer St Oak St 11 1 61 1282 Placer St Mesa St 1 11 61 1283 Placer St Walnut Ave 11 1 11 1 1284 Placer St Jay St 11 1 10 1285 Placer St Olive Ave 1 2 12 11 1 81 3286 Placer St Magnolia Ave 1 5 1 42 1 21 4 42 6 7287 Placer St Willis St 3 11 1 11 12 33 3 3288 Placer St Chesnut St 11 1 10 1289 Placer St West St 3 4 3 26 2 211422 1 60 7 10290 Placer St Oregon St 1 1 2 111 1 1 2 2 19 2 4291 Placer St Railroad Ave 1 11 1 544 1 1292 Placer St Center St 11 1 10 1293 Placer St California St 7 1123 13 3 70 7294 Placer St Pine St 2 7 10 3 2 5 8 1 1 3 4 5 5 2 74 9 19295 Placer St East St 1 4 6 4213 1 3141 2 41 5 11296 Placer St Continental St 11 1 1 2 2 41 2 2297 Pleasant St Yuba St 11 1 10 1298 Sacramento St Chesnut St 11 1 10 1299 California St Sacramento St 11 1 1 2 71 2300 Pine St Sacramento St 11 1 11 1 1301 Continental St Sacramento St 3 12 21 30 3302 Airpark Dr Gold St 11 1 10 1303 South St Oregon St 11 1 11 1 1304 South St Railroad Ave 11 1 61 1305 South St California St 1 1 5 3 161 2 212314 588 7 10306 South St Pine St 1 2 2 14 21 2 25 3 5307 South St East St 4 3 1 114 2 111112 3 63 7 8308 South St Garden Ave 1 11 10 1309 South St Canal Dr 11 1 30 1 1310 South St Athens Ave 11 1 1 1 1 12 1 2311 Florence St Garden Ave 11 1 61 1312 Florence St Sequoia St 11 1 10 1313 Gold St Waldon St 11 1 10 1 Packet Pg. 548
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Injury (Complaint of
Pain)
Property Damage
Only
Head-on
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Listed
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
EPDO
Fatal + Injury
Year
Intersection # Primary Road Secondary Road
Total
Severity Type
Pedestrian
Bicycle
314 Gold St California 11 1 10 1315 Gold St East St 1 1 11 1 1 71 2316 California St Sonoma St 2 11 1 1 20 2317 Pine St Lincoln St 11 1 11 1 1318 Pine St East St 2 11 2 20 2319 Pine St Cypress Ave 12 3 2 322 1 1 2121 2 72 6 8320 Athens Ave Locust St 4 1 22 4 1 1 3 4 52 5 7321 Azela Ave Iris Dr 11 1 10 1322 Mistletoe Ln Shasta Pines Way 11 1 61 1323 Mistletoe Ln Penn Dr 11 1 11 1 1324 Mistletoe Ln Shady Ln 11 1 10 1325 Mistletoe Ln Lindeena Ln 11 1 11 1 1326 Larkspur Ln Executive Way 1 11 10 1327 Larkspur Ln Industrial St 11 1 10 1328 Oxford Rd Yale Ct 11 1 10 1329 Marigold Way Dewberry Dr 11 1 10 1330 Tarmac Rd Tuscany Way 11 1 10 1331 Tarmac Rd Salzburg Trl 11 1 10 1332 Tarmac Rd Charade Way 11 1 1 1 2 41 2 2333 Tarmac Rd Abernathy Ln 11 1 10 1334 Cypress Ave Civic Center Dr 4 2 1211 1 1 1212 26 4 6335 Cypress Ave Athens Ave 12 3 2 1142 1121 2 3 72 6 8336 Park Marina Dr Athens Ave 1 2 11 1 1 11 1 81 3337 Cypress Ave Hartnell Ave 13 6 5 1841 1 12261 4 104 10 15338 E Cypress Ave Lowden Ln 11 1 10 1339 E Cypress Ave Beverly Dr 1 1 1 12 12 1 18 2 3340 E Cypress Ave Rosemary Ave 2 1 12 1 1 12 2 2341 E Cypress Ave Bechelli Ln 1 11 8 5 10 2 1 1 1 1 6 3 4 3 4 85 12 20342 E Cypress Ave I-5 1 1 11 61 1343 E Cypress Ave Larkspur Ln 2 2 2 32 1 2 23 1 36 4 6344 E Cypress Ave E Cypress Ave 1200 11 1 10 1345 E Cypress Ave Alfreda Way 121 3 1 1 3 1 24 3 4346 E Cypress Ave Irwin Rd 11 1 61 1347 E Cypress Ave Heather Ln 1 1 11 2 17 2 2348 E Cypress Ave Oxford Rd 11 2 1 1 1 17 2 2349 Parkview Ave Angelo Ave 11 1 10 1350 Parkview Ave Favretto Ave 1 4 11 3 3 211 1 35 5 5351 Parkview Ave Grape Ave 1 1 11 61 1352 Parkview Ave Akard Ave 12 3 1 22 1 122211 70 6 6353 Parkview Ave State St 11 1 10 1354 State St Leland Ave 11 1 11 1 1355 Fell St Favretto Ave 1 1 11 11 1 1356 Fell St Leland Ave 2 2 11 20 2357 Leland Ave Severtson Dr 11 1 10 1358 Teton Dr Allegheny Ct 11 1 10 1 Packet Pg. 549
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Injury (Complaint of
Pain)
Property Damage
Only
Head-on
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Listed
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
EPDO
Fatal + Injury
Year
Intersection # Primary Road Secondary Road
Total
Severity Type
Pedestrian
Bicycle
359 Auburn Dr Donnor Ct 1 11 1 11 1 1360 Court St Railroad Ave 11 2 1 1 17 2 2361 Railroad Ave Sheridan St 1 1 1 11 12 1 2362 Railroad Ave Eugenia Ave 11 1 11 1 1363 Railroad Ave Laurel Ave 11 1 61 1364 Larkspur Ln Maraglia Ave 1 11 11 1 1365 Yana Ave Carleton St 11 1 11 1 1366 East Way Vale dr 11 1 1 11 1 1367 King St Hawn Ave 11 1 10 1368 Goodwater Ave Wilson Ave 1 11 1 1 1 12 1 2369 Hartnell Ave Parkview Ave 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 18 2 3370 Hartnell Ave Shotwick Trl 1 1 1 1 2 11 1 551 2 3371 Hartnell Ave Bechelli Ln 1 2 3 3 1 2 4 1 12 1 3 1 2 3 587 6 9372 Hartnell Ave C St 1 1 1 11 2 12 1 2373 Hartnell Ave Northwoods Way 1 11 544 1 1374 Hartnell Ave School St 11 1 10 1375 Hartnell Ave Lawrence Rd 2 11 1 1 12 2 2376 Hartnell Ave Irwin Rd 1 1 11 1 1 71 2377 Hartnell Ave Reservoir Ln 11 1 61 1378 Hartnell Ave Middleton Ln 1 1 2 1 11 550 2 2379 Hartnell Ave Fairway Ave 3 12 1 2 18 3 3380 Hartnell Ave Fairway Ave 2 1 11 1 1 12 2 2381 Hartnell Ave Kenco Ave 1 1 11 11 1 71 2382 Hartnell Ave Yana Ave 11 1 10 1383 Hartnell Ave East Way 11 1 10 1384 Hartnell Ave Churn Ct 2 11 11 12 2 2385 Hartnell Ave Alta Mesa Dr 2 2 11 12 2 2386 Hartnell Ave Leonard St 1 1 11 61 1387 Hartnell Ave Argyle Rd 11 1 61 1388 Canyon Creek Rd Blazingwood Dr 11 1 61 1389 Wyndham Ln Rivella Vista Dr 1 1 11 61 1390 Wilshire Dr Henderson Rd 11 1 11 1 1391 Bechelli Ln Grove St 11 1 10 1392 Bechelli Ln Leila Ave 3 1 1 2 1 11 2 39 4 4393 Bechelli Ln Parsons Dr 1 1 2 31 12 1 19 2 4394 Bechelli Ln Wilshire Dr 11 1 11 1 1395 Bechelli Ln 3rd St 1 1 11 61 1396 Bechelli Ln 2nd St 2 1 1 1 21 12 1 29 3 4397 Bechelli Ln Layton Rd 11 1 1 1 1 17 2 2398 Bechelli Ln Cheryl Dr 11 1 10 1399 Bechelli Ln Loma Vista Dr 2 1 2 11 11 28 3 3400 Bechelli Ln Chinook Dr 1 1 11 61 1401 Bechelli Ln S Bonnyview Rd 2 1 4 15 1 1 1311 1 32 3 7402 C St Saginaw St 1 11 61 1403 C St 5th St 11 1 61 1 Packet Pg. 550
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Injury (Complaint of
Pain)
Property Damage
Only
Head-on
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Listed
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
EPDO
Fatal + Injury
Year
Intersection # Primary Road Secondary Road
Total
Severity Type
Pedestrian
Bicycle
404 Layton Rd Ricardo Ave 11 1 10 1405 Camino Ct Adams Ln 11 1 10 1406 Marlene Ave Flintwood Way 11 1 10 1407 Mercury Dr Jupiter Ter 11 1 10 1408 Vega St Mercury Dr 11 1 10 1409 Cockerill Dr Button Pl 11 1 10 1410 Galaxy Way Meteor St 3 1 1 1 11 1 30 3411 Alta Mesa Dr Saturn Skwy 11 1 1 1 1 71 2412 Galaxy Way Polaris Way 11 1 10 1413 Venus Way Capricorn Way 1 1 11 1 1 12 1 2414 Whimbledon Dr Laver St 11 1 10 1415 Airport Rd Skypark Dr 11 1 10 1416 Capricorn Way Bridger Dr 11 1 10 1417 Sunglow Dr Oak Glen Dr 11 1 61 1418 Howard Dr Frances Dr 11 1 10 1419 Cedars Rd Riviera Dr 1 11 1 61 1420 Cedars Rd Kenyon Dr 11 1 11 1 1421 Westside Rd Kenyon Dr 11 1 10 1422 Eastside Rd Wilsey Dr 1 1 11 11 1 1423 Eastside Rd Radio Ln 1 11 1 1 1 71 2424 Radio Ln Veterans Ln 11 1 10 1425 Radio Ln N Bonnyview Rd 11 1 1 1 1 71 2426 E Bonnyview Rd Pioneer Ln 11 1 10 1427 E Bonnyview Rd Barrel Ct 11 1 10 1428 S Bonnyview Rd E Bonnyview Rd 1 3 4 121 91 4429 Westside Rd Canyon Creek Rd 2 21 1 20 2430 Estate St Traverse St 11 1 1 1 1 71 2431 Joaquin Ave Ricardo Ave 2 1 1 11 20 2432 Portal Dr Joaquin Ave 1 1 11 2 17 2 2433 Portal Dr Loma Vista Dr 2 11 2 22 2 2434 Ethan Ln Monterra Ln 11 1 10 1435 Lofty Oak Dr Heavenly Oak Dr 11 1 10 1436 Arizona St Starthmore Dr 11 1 10 1437 Screech Owl Ln Squirrel Run Ct 11 1 10 1438 Dandelion Dr Buttercup Ln 11 1 10 1439 Alta Mesa Dr El Verano St 1 1 11 1 1 17 2 2440 Branstetter Ln Branstetter Ct 1 11 11 1 1441 Cedars Rd Branstetter Ln 111 2 1 2 1 18 2 3442 Cedars Rd Acorn Ln 11 1 11 1 1443 Cedars Rd Concord Ln 1 11 30 1 1444 Westside Rd Cedars Rd 1 11 30 1 1445 S Bonnyview Rd Eastside Rd 14 3 5 254 2 2 25 4 97 8 13446 S Bonnyview Rd Indianwood Dr 2 1 1 112 21 1 29 3 4447 Churn Creek Rd I-5 1 1 11 2 71 2448 Rancho Rd Alta Mesa Dr 2 2 1 12 1 12 14 2 4 Packet Pg. 551
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Injury (Complaint of
Pain)
Property Damage
Only
Head-on
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Listed
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
EPDO
Fatal + Injury
Year
Intersection # Primary Road Secondary Road
Total
Severity Type
Pedestrian
Bicycle
449 Rancho Rd Surrey Dr 11 1 10 1450 Rancho Rd Saratoga Dr 11 1 61 1451 Rancho Rd Goodwater Ave 1 1 11 2 17 2 2452 Rancho Rd Persistence Ln 11 2 1 1 41 2 2453 Rancho Rd Rancho Vista Way 11 1 61 1454 Lofty Oak Dr Alrose Ln 11 1 10 1455 Westwood Ave Jewell Ln 11 1 10 1456 Westside Rd Westwood Ave 3 2 21 33 3 3457 Camino Dr Wilder Dr 11 1 10 1458 Eastside Rd North Dr 21 2 1 2 1 13 2 3459 Eastside Rd Sacramento Dr 11 1 61 1460 Eastside Rd Star Dr 2 2 1 122 1 1 3 35 4 5461 Westside Rd Gelngary Dr 11 10 1462 Eastside Rd Girvan Rd 11 1 1 61 1463 Girvan Rd Pit Rd 11 1 10 1464 Girvan Rd Hemlock St 1 1 11 11 1 1465 Girvan Rd Creekside St 11 1 61 1466 Creekside St Brookside Ln 11 1 10 1467 Creekside St Mullen Pkwy 11 1 10 1468 Knighton Rd Lockheed Dr 2 11 1 1 12 2 2469 Churn Creek Rd Kallerup Dr 11 1 30 1 1470 Mistletoe Ln Deerfield Ave 11 1 1 61 1471 Hilltop Dr Hwy 44 11 1 61 1472 Placer St Wisconsin Ave 11 1 10 1473 Eureka Way Olive Ave 11 1 10 1474 East St Locust St 11 1 10 1475 Oro St Travona St 11 1 10 1476 Churn Creek Rd E Entrance to Food Max 11 1 61 1477 Churn Creek Rd Linda Ln 1 1 1 1 11 71 2478 Tehama St Liberty St 11 1 11 1 1479 Sacramento Dr Hemlock St 11 1 11 1 1480 Parkview Ave Freebridge St 1 1 11 1 11 1 1481 Kenyon Dr Calarasas Hts 11 1 10 1482 Old Oregon Trl Lois Ln 11 1 61 1483 Sacramento St Garden Ave 11 1 10 1484 Market St Hill St 1 1 11 10 1 Total 15 43 275 478 509 120 111 393 417 150 13 68 1 91 67 281 272 251 264 252 - - 1320 Packet Pg. 552
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Collisions at Selected Segments
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other
Visible)
Injury (Complaint of
Pain)
Property Damage
Only
Head-on
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Listed
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
EPDO
Fatal + Injury
002A AKRICH ST RAINTREE LN OASIS RD 1 1 3 32 1 3 1 20 2 5003A KESWICK DAM RD W CITY LIMIT LAKE BLVD 11 1 1 1 1 41 2 2004A OASIS RD LAKE BLVD ALEE LN 11 1 11 1 1 3 42 2 3 004B OASIS RD DAUT RD OAK LEAF LN 1 11 10 1004C OASIS RD OLD OASIS RD RANDOLPH RD 1 11 1 11 1 1004D OASIS RD BALER RD AKRICH ST 2 1 1 11 1 2 23 2 3 005A OLD OREGON TRL AKRICH ST MIDLAND DR 11 1 10 1
005B OLD OREGON TRL MIDLAND DR N CITY LIMIT 1 2 5 31 3 1 1 3 3 1 28 3 8 006A CASCADE BLVD N CITY LIMIT OASIS RD 1 2 11 1 1 2 81 3007A LAKE BLVD GLENWOOD DR OASIS RD 2 2 11 1 1 12 2 2 007B LAKE BLVD OASIS RD KESWICK DAM BLVD 1 1 1 1 1 11 12 1 2007C LAKE BLVD KESWICK DAM BLVD SANTA ROSA WAY 3 1 1 21 2 1 1 34 3 4007D LAKE BLVD SANTA ROSA WAY ST MARK ST 1 1 3 1 2 1 11 2 1 1 1 20 2 5 007E LAKE BLVD ST MARK ST MOUNTAIN SHADOWS BLVD 12 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 52 3 3 007F LAKE BLVD MOUNTAIN SHADOWS BLVD N MARKET ST 1 7 6 1 7 2 1 2 12 1 3314 3 78 8 14 007G LAKE BLVD BLACK MARBLE DR W/O CAMPERS CT 11 2 5 351 1 1 3 5 58 4 9 008A SR 299 LAKE BLVD E/O I5 NB RAMPS 11 2 1 1 71 2009A MAGNUMS WAY LAKE BLVD ST NICHOLAS AVE 11 1 10 1010A SANTA ROSA WAY MAGNUMS WAY LAKE BLVD 11 1 10 1011A ST MARKS ST N END LAKE BLVD 1 11 1 61 1012A HOOPA PATH LITTLE DEER LN LAKE BLVD 11 1 10 1013A BELTLINE RD GOPHER LN WHITE RIVER DR 2 1 1 11 1 1 1 23 2 3014A CATERPILLAR RD BELTLINE RD N MARKET ST 111 2 1 2 1 18 2 3015A TWIN VIEW BLVD OASIS RD CONSTITUTION WAY 2 1 1 11 12 2 2 015B TWIN VIEW BLVD N MARKET ST MOUNTAIN VIEW DR 1 3 2 1 1 11 2 2 3 1 31 4 6015C TWIN VIEW BLVD TWIN VIEW BLVD TWN PEEKS MOBILE HOME PKWY 11 1 10 1 016A ST ANDREWS DR GOLD HILLS CT S END 11 1 11 1 1017A WHITE RIVER DR BELTLINE RD REDWOOD BLVD 1 1 2 11 36 2 2018A REDWOOD BLVD CATERPILLAR RD NORTH POINT DR 1 2 2 1 11 1 81 3019A NORTH POINT DR LAKE BLVD N MARKET ST 11 1 10 1020A VALLEYRIDGE DR TWIN VIEW BLVD RIDGE RD 11 1 61 1021A N BOULDER DR VALLEYRIDGE DR LAKE BLVD 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 18 2 3022A BOULDER CREEK DR N BOULDER DR E END 11 1 10 1023A BEAUMONT DR W END E END 11 1 10 1024A MOUNTAIN VIEW DR TWIN VIEW BLVD TERRA LINDA WAY 2 11 1 1 20 2025A HAWLEY RD N END LEAF LN 1 11 10 1026A BLACK OAK LN W END HAWLEY RD 11 1 10 1027A COLLYER DR CHURN CREEK RD POISON OAK LN 2 1 1 11 20 2028A COLLEGEVIEW DR BETHEL LN W/O OLD OREGON TRL 2 3 1 1 2 1 11 2 1 2 1 41 5 6029A QUARTZ HILL RD RIVER RIDGE DR S/O MT BONNINGTON DR 1 1 11 2 12 1 2 029B QUARTZ HILL RD S/O MT BONNINGTON DR N MARKET ST 2 11 1 1 3 13 2 3 030A BENTON DR MIDDLE CREEK RD RIVERSIDE DR 1 11 1 10 1 030B BENTON DR MIDDLE CREEK RD N MARKET ST 1 3 4 1 213 1 1 1 4 2 1 33 4 8 031A LOMA ST QUARTZ HILL RD BENTON DR 1 11 11 1 1032A BUENAVENTURA BLVD N CITY LIMIT S END 11 1 10 1033A DELTA ST BETON DR QUARTZ HILL RD 11 1 10 1034A ARBORETUM DR ARBORETUM DR E END 11 1 61 1035A BUCKEYE TR CLAY ST DOGWOOD LN 21 1 1 1 20 2036A DOGWOOD LN W END E END 11 1 1 1 2 41 2 2037A MASONIC AVE LAKE BLVD S END 11 1 10 1038A N MARKET ST LAKE BLVD BENTON DR 1 1 1 2 1 111 18 2 3 038B N MARKET ST BENTON DR QUARTZ HILL RD 1 2 1 2 1 11 13 1 3 Pedestrian
Bicycle
Year
Total
Severity Type
Segment # Primary Road Begin of Segment End of Segment
Packet Pg. 553
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other
Visible)
Injury (Complaint of
Pain)
Property Damage
Only
Head-on
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Listed
Pedestrian
Bicycle
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
EPDO
Fatal + Injury
Year
Total
Severity Type
Segment # Primary Road Begin of Segment End of Segment
038C MARKET ST QUARTZ HILL RD EUREKA WAY 2 1 3 13 11 1 1 1 2 2 31 3 6038D MARKET ST EUREKA WAY TEHAMA ST 11 1 10 1 038E MARKET ST PLACER ST GOLD ST 2 1 1 11 20 2
038F S MARKET ST GOLD ST GEARY ST 2 1 11 1 2 1 13 2 3
039A HILLTOP DR LAKE BLVD N/O HILLTOP DR 1 7 2 4 6 42 1 11 3 2 6 1 2 123 10 14 039B HILLTOP DR N/O HILLTOP DR ST THOMAS PKWY 1 2 6 2 2 5 21 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 604 9 11039C HILLTOP DR ST THOMAS PKWY S/O RIVER BEND RD 1 2 111 1 2 13 1 3039D HILLTOP DR S/O RIVER BEND RD N/O BROWNING ST 2 4 12111 1 3 1 1 1 26 2 6 039E HILLTOP DR N/O BROWNING ST MARAGLIA ST 1 3 9 14 19 1 11 4 12 10 4 4 5 3 13 10 11 4 8 836 27 46040A PEPPERTREE LN HILLTOP DR WOODCLIFF DR 11 1 10 1041A WOODHILL DR WOODCLIFF DR TEAKWOOD DR 11 1 10 1042A BLACK MARBLE WAY LAKE BLVD S END 1 1 11 61 1043A CAMPERS CT BOULDER DR S END 11 1 11 1 1044A CHURN CREEK RD COLLEGE VIEW DR BROWNING ST 12 3 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 70 6 6 044B CHURN CREEK RD BROWNING ST DANA DR 14 1 4 1 42 3 1 3 3 1 3 84 6 10044C CHURN CREEK RD DANA DR PRESIDIO ST 11 1 1 2 17 2 2044D CHURN CREEK RD PRESIDIO ST S BONNYVIEW RD 1 4 14 23 28 10 8 9 21 14 4 4 5 5 17 14 14 11 14 984 42 70 044E CHURN CREEK RD S BONNYVIEW RD HARTMEYER LN 2 11 1 1 12 2 2 044F CHURN CREEK RD HARTMEYER LN S/O RANCHO RD 1 2 3 1 32 3 1 2 30 6 045A DAKOTA WAY TIDMORE LN E/O DANBURY DR 11 1 10 1046A CHANCELOR BLVD PALACIO DR HACIENDA DR 11 1 10 1047A SHASTA VIEW DR HEMINGWAY ST INSPIRATION PL 1 1 12 1 12 1 18 2 3 047B SHASTA VIEW DR INSPIRATION PL ATRIUM WAY 11 1 61 1047C SHASTA VIEW DR ATRIUM WAY GOODWATER AVE 31 2 11 1 30 3047D SHASTA VIEW DR GOODWATER AVE LEONARD ST 1 2 2 3 1 2 31 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 67 5 8 047E SHASTA VIEW DR LEONARD ST CASTLEWOOD DR 11 1 10 1
047F SHASTA VIEW DR CASTLEWOOD DR RANCHO RD 21 1 1 1 20 2 048A OLD OREGON TRL S/O LOIS LN E CITY LIMIT 11 1 61 1
048B OLD OREGON TRL ACCIDENT LN VIKING WAY 11 1 30 1 1048C OLD OREGON TRL HARVEY LEIGHTON RD OLD 44 DR 1 2 5 1 213 1 2 2 4 28 3 8048D OLD OREGON TRL OLD 44 DR HARTNELL AVE 2 1 12 1 2 13 2 3 048E OLD OREGON TRL MISTY LN RANCHO RD 11 2 2 12 1 2
048F OLD OREGON TRL RANCHO RD DESPARADO TRL 11 1 61 1
049A MISSION SIERRA CT MISSION DE ORO DR E END 2 11 1 1 20 2050A MISSION DE ORO DR MILL VALLEY PKWY BROWNING ST 1 11 11 1 1051A CANBY RD SPRINGER DR BROWNING ST 11 1 11 1 1 052B CANBY RD BROWNING ST OLD ALTURAS RD 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 18 2 3 053A BROWNING ST HILLTOP DR CANBY RD 2 11 2 20 2
053B BROWNING ST CHURN CREEK RD OLD ALTURAS RD 11 1 10 1 054A SPRINGER DR S/O BOBWHITE WAY WHISTLING DR 1 11 1 61 1055A WHISTLING DR SPRINGER DR S/O PARTRIDGE DR 11 1 10 1056A WINGSETTER WAY PARTRIDGE DR PARTRIDGE DR 1 11 11 1 1057A LANCERS LN CHURN CREEK RD BROWNING ST 1 1 1 1 1 11 12 1 2058A BRANDON CT N END S END 11 1 10 1059A GROUSE DR WHISTLING DR N/O PARTRIDGE DR 1 2 21 1 1 1 13 1 3060A EDGEWOOD DR N END OLD ALTURAS RD 11 1 10 1061A OLD ALTURAS RD CANBY RD BROWNING ST 3 2 4 13131 1 1312 2 49 5 9 061B OLD ALTURAS RD BROWNING ST LEMA RD 2 1 1 31 1 1 2 29 3 4 062A ARROYO MANOR DR OLD ALTURAS RD CASA VEREDA WAY 11 1 11 1 1063A DANA DR HILLTOP DR BRADFORD RD 1 7 6 1 2 6 3 1 11 1 3311 6 59 8 14 063B DANA DR BRADFORD RD VICTOR AVE 11 2 1 1 17 2 2
064A E PALISADES AVE VIEW AVE HILLTOP DR 11 1 61 1065A FRIENDLY RD OLD ALTURAS RD DANA DR 1 2 1 2 11 1 1 23 3 3 Packet Pg. 554
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other
Visible)
Injury (Complaint of
Pain)
Property Damage
Only
Head-on
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Listed
Pedestrian
Bicycle
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
EPDO
Fatal + Injury
Year
Total
Severity Type
Segment # Primary Road Begin of Segment End of Segment
066A SALMONBERRY DR MARIGOLD WAY E/O IMPERIAL DR 1 11 11 1 1067A VICTOR AVE DANA DR AZOULAY CT 2 11 1 1 20 2 067B VICTOR AVE AZOULAY CT MISTLETOE LN 1 1 11 1 1 31 1 2067C VICTOR AVE MISTLETOE LN BURKSGARDEN ST 2 1 12 1 1 1 13 2 3067D VICTOR AVE BURKSGARDEN ST E CYPRESS AVE 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 37 2 3 067E VICTOR AVE E CYPRESS AVE S/O BUNKER ST 1 2 1 2 1 1 11 13 1 3 067F VICTOR AVE S/O BUNKER ST GALAXY WAY 3 5 3 1 3 41 1 11 2 2 3 1 3 66 8 11 067G VICTOR AVE EL VISTA ST CHURN CREEK RD 11 1 61 1
068A LEISHA LN W END E END 11 1 10 1069A WEST ST 7TH ST EUREKA WAY 1 11 1 11 1 1070A 11TH ST EUREKA WAY N COURT ST 1 1 11 1 1 17 2 2071A RIVERSIDE DR N COURT ST N MARKET ST 1 1 11 1 1 71 2072A CENTER ST RIVERSIDE DR EUREKA WAY 11 1 10 1073A CALIFORNIA ST RIVERSIDE DR TRINITY ST 11 1 10 1 073B CALIFORNIA ST EUREKA WAY TEHAMA ST 11 1 10 1073C CALIFORNIA ST TEHAMA ST GOLD ST 11 1 1 1 1 71 2073D CALIFORNIA ST GOLD ST S MARKET ST 11 1 11 1 1 074A CONTINENTAL ST N/O TRINITY ST SOUTH ST 11 1 61 1075A AUDITORIUM DR W END SUNDIAL BRIDGE DR 11 1 10 1076A SUNDIAL BRIDGE DR SUNDIAL BRIDGE DR SUNDIAL BRIDGE DR 11 1 1 2 71 2077A PALISADES AVE HILLTOP DR S END 2 11 1 1 20 2078A ASPIN AVE VICTOR AVE E END 11 1 10 1079A SHINING STAR WAY TUSCANY WAY VIENNA WAY 11 1 10 1080A TARMAC RD TUSCANY WAY CROSSFIRE WAY 11 1 10 1081A ABERNATHY LN TARMAC RD HWY 44 11 1 11 1 1082A AIRSTRIP RD TRUMPET DR S END 1 11 30 1 1083A VIKING WAY AIRSTRIP RD N STAR DR 1 1 11 1 1 17 2 2084A OLD 44 DR OLD OREGON TRL BRANDY LN 11 1 10 1085A LYNBROOK LOOP CARSON DR CARSON DR 1 11 1 11 1 1086A EUREKA WAY RIDGE DR N COURT ST 11 1 111 1 2 42 2 3 086B EUREKA WAY N COURT ST N MARKET ST 2 1 12 1 1 1 1 28 3 3 087A RIDGE DR EUREKA WAY LAKESIDE DR 11 1 10 1088A BUENAVENTURA BLVD EUREKA WAY LAKESIDE DR 11 1 10 1 088B BUENAVENTURA BLVD TETON DR CANYON CREEK RD 1 2 1 11 2 1 81 3088C BUENAVENTURA BLVD CANYON CREEK RD RAILROAD AVE 2 1 1 1 11 22 2 2 089A GALWAY DR N/O BRINN DR MOYVANE DR 11 1 10 1090A RECORD LN W CITY LIMIT E END 11 1 10 1091A KILDARE DR OCONNOR AVE N/O KILDARE CT 11 1 10 1092A LAKESIDE DR KILKEE DR BUENAVENTURA BLVD 11 1 61 1093A MANZANITA HILLS AVE FOOTHILL BLVD SHASTA ST 11 1 10 1094A ALMOND AVE EUREKA WAY PLACER ST 11 1 10 1095A SHASTA ST FOOTHILL BLVD WEST ST 13 3 1 1 1 2 91 4 095B SHASTA ST WEST ST CALIFORNIA ST 1 1 2 2 11 2 1 1 19 2 4095C SHASTA ST MARKET ST PINE ST 22 1 1 20 2095D SHASTA ST PINE ST LIBERTY ST 11 1 61 1 096A WILLIS ST EUREKA WAY PLACER ST 2 1 2 11 1 2 23 2 3097A CHESNUT ST SHASTA ST S/O AMELIA CT 11 1 10 1098A OLIVE AVE EUREKA WAY PLACER ST 1 1 1 1 1 11 71 2099A N COURT ST RIVERSIDE DR EUREKA WAY 11 1 10 1 099B COURT ST EUREKA WAY YUBA ST 1 6 3211 2131 17 1 7099C COURT ST YUBA ST PLACER ST 1 11 61 1099D COURT ST PLACER ST GOLD ST 1 2 1 11 1 1 1 1 13 1 3 099E COURT ST GOLD ST SCHLEY AVE 11 1 1 1 1 17 2 2
Packet Pg. 555
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other
Visible)
Injury (Complaint of
Pain)
Property Damage
Only
Head-on
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Listed
Pedestrian
Bicycle
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
EPDO
Fatal + Injury
Year
Total
Severity Type
Segment # Primary Road Begin of Segment End of Segment
100A PINE ST SHASTA ST CYPRESS AVE 3 1 5 3 32 1 12 1 2 3 3 44 4 9101A EAST ST TEHAMA ST PLACER ST 11 1 11 1 1 101B EAST ST SACRAMENTO ST LINCOLN ST 11 1 10 1101C EAST ST LINCOLN ST PINE ST 1 1 11 1 1 71 2 102A LIBERTY ST BUTTE ST PLACER ST 11 1 11 1 1103A YUBA ST COURT ST CALIFORNIA ST 1 1 11 1 1 1 12 1 2 103B YUBA ST PINE ST CONTINENTAL ST 11 1 10 1
104A PARK MARINA DR SEQUOIA ST SUNDIAL BRIDGE DR 1 1 1 1 11 17 2 2 104B PARK MARINA DR SUNDIAL BRIDGE DR ROME AVE 1 2 1 1 21 1 1 2 24 3 4104C PARK MARINA DR ROME AVE WASHINGTON AVE 1 2 12 1 1 1 81 3104D PARK MARINA DR WASHINGTON AVE LOCUST ST 11 1 61 1 104E PARK MARINA DR LOCUST ST PARKVIEW AVE 22 2 22 2 2105A TEHAMA ST MARKET ST CONTINENTAL ST 11 1 11 1 1106A PLACER ST BOSTON AVE CUMBERLAND DR 2 3 11 3 1 4 15 2 5 106B PLACER ST CUMBERLAND DR HIGHLAND AVE 6 4 3 1 423 3 3 1 4 1 2 5 93 10 13106C PLACER ST HIGHLAND AVE JAY ST 11 1 10 1106D PLACER ST JAY ST EAST ST 3 3 10 1 5 4 2 1 2 1 2 4 6 2 1 3 61 6 16 106E PLACER ST EAST ST E END 22 1 1 20 2107A SACRAMENTO ST CALIFORNIA ST EAST ST 2 11 1 1 20 2108A SOUTH ST COURT ST EAST ST 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 21 33 1 4 108B SOUTH ST EAST ST ATHENS AVE 1 1 1 1 1 11 17 2 2108C SOUTH ST ATHENS AVE PARK MARINA DR 21 1 2 20 2 109A SEQUOIA ST BUTTE ST SOUTH ST 11 1 10 1110A ATHENS AVE PARK MARINA DR SOUTH ST 11 1 10 1 110B ATHENS AVE SOUTH ST CYPRESS AVE 1 2 11 1 2 1 81 3
111A CANAL DR SOUTH ST LOCUST ST 11 1 10 1112A LOCUST ST EAST ST ATHENS AVE 3 12 1 1 1 30 3113A CIVIC CENTER DR LOCUST ST CYPRESS AVE 1 1 4 2 11 2 1 1 3 1 21 2 6114A W CYPRESS AVE MARKET ST PARK MARINA DR 11 5 4 4 2 3 1 4 1 4 4 2 4322 4 657 11 15 114B E CYPRESS AVE PARK MARINA DR CHURN CREEK RD 1 3 8 23 16 4 7 6 24 3 1 2 4 4 5 8 6 9 13 15 876 35 51114C E CYPRESS AVE CHURN CREEK RD ALFREDA WAY 1 3 12 1 1 2 1 91 4114D E CYPRESS AVE ALFREDA WAY VICTOR AVE 3 2 2 11 32 1 2 2 2 1 47 5 7 114E E CYPRESS AVE VICTOR AVE E END 1 11 10 1115A MISTLETOE LN CHURN CREEK RD E END 12 2 3 1 24 1 11 1 4 3 67 5 8116A INDUSTRIAL ST CHURN CREEK RD E END 11 1 10 1117A CANBY RD N END MISTLETOE LN 11 1 10 1118A OXFORD RD N/O OAKDALE LN E CYPRESS AVE 11 1 10 1119A MANCHESTER DR VICTOR AVE E END 1 11 10 1120A GOODWATER AVE W END SHASTA VIEW DR 1 1 11 11 1 1 120B GOODWATER AVE SHASTA VIEW DR HARTNELL AVE 11 1 61 1 121A HENDERSON RD N END WILSHIRE DR 1 11 2 1 1 2 37 2 3122A HARTNELL AVE E CYPRESS AVE C ST 3 3 7 1 2 3 1 4 1 11 1 4222 3 58 6 13 122B HARTNELL AVE NORTHWOODS WAY KENCO AVE 1 3 6 9 13 2 5 4 11 6 4 6 2 2 11 10 5 4 767 19 32122C HARTNELL AVE YANA AVE SHASTA VIEW DR 2 2 4 2 221 1 1 3 1 2 2 38 4 8122D HARTNELL AVE GOODWATER AVE AIRPORT RD 12 2 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 1 618 5 7 123A HARTNELL AVE YANA AVE CHURN CT 2 11 1 1 1 22 2 2124A BECHELLI LN S/O TURTLE BAY PARK E CYPRESS AVE 1 1 4 1311 1 3 2 21 2 6 124B BECHELLI LN E CYPRESS AVE N/O 3RD ST 1 1 4 14 9 4 4 3 14 1 2 1 1 4 5 8 5 5 6 711 20 29124C BECHELLI LN 3RD ST CHINOOK DR 2 3 5 1 1 3 23 1 1 3 5 45 5 10124D BECHELLI LN CHINOOK DR N/O S BONNYVIEW RD 1 11 1 1 1 71 2 124E BECHELLI LN N/O S BONNYVIEW RD S BONNYVIEW RD 1 1 1 3 1 11 37 2 3 124F BECHELLI LN S BONNYVIEW RD SUNNYHILL LN 11 1 10 1
125A JUNE ST MARAGLIA ST S END 1 11 1 2 12 1 2
Packet Pg. 556
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other
Visible)
Injury (Complaint of
Pain)
Property Damage
Only
Head-on
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Listed
Pedestrian
Bicycle
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
EPDO
Fatal + Injury
Year
Total
Severity Type
Segment # Primary Road Begin of Segment End of Segment
126A LARKSPUR LN MARAGLIA ST PARSONS DR 11 1 61 1
126B LARKSPUR LN INDUSTRIAL ST E CYPRESS AVE 11 1 61 1
127A ALFREDA WAY E CYPRESS AVE HARTNELL AVE 11 1 10 1128A RESERVOIR LN E CYPRESS AVE HARTNELL AVE 11 1 10 1129A SOBRE CT E CYPRESS AVE S END 1 11 1 11 1 1130A WILSON AVE W/O JASMINE WAY GOODWATER AVE 1 1 11 1 1 12 1 2131A DARTMOUTH DR RAINIER DR E/O SIENA AVE 1 11 11 1 1132A WASATCH DR CUMBERLAND DR E END 11 1 10 1133A BLUE BELL DR ASPEN GLOW LN E END 11 1 10 1134A STARBURST DR BLUE BELL DR CANYON CREEK RD 11 1 10 1135A AIRPARK DR PLACER ST ROSALINE AVE 11 1 61 1136A ROSALINE AVE AIRPARK DR COURT ST 11 2 1 1 12 1 2137A LINDEN AVE W END WEST ST 1 11 30 1 1138A WEST ST ROSALINE AVE LAUREL AVE 11 1 61 1139A LAUREL AVE WEST ST RAILROAD AVE 11 1 10 1140A RAILROAD AVE YUBA ST PLACER ST 11 1 10 1 140B RAILROAD AVE SOUTH ST BUENAVENTURA BLVD 12 2 4 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 2 3212 2 651 9 10 141A PARKVIEW AVE S MARKET ST STATE ST 1 1 2 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 38 2 4 141B PARKVIEW AVE STATE ST FREEBRIDGE ST 1 1 11 61 1141C PARKVIEW AVE FREEBRIDGE ST CYPRESS AVE 1 1 2 11 17 2 2 142A FAVRETTO AVE PARKVIEW AVE GRANGE ST 11 1 10 1143A FELL ST S MARKET ST LELNAD AVE 11 1 10 1144A LELAND AVE PARKVIEW AVE GRANGE ST 11 1 10 1145A FREEBRIDGE ST SMILE PL RIO ST 11 1 10 1146A HAMILTON ST FREEBRIDGE ST E END 11 1 10 1147A RIO ST W END MAHAN ST 11 1 10 1148A GEARY ST S MARKET ST POLK ST 11 1 10 1149A TEXAS SPRINGS RD S CITY LIMIT BRANSTETTER LN 11 1 11 1 1150A BRANSTETTER LN TEXAS SPRINGS RD S MARKET ST 11 1 10 1151A HOWARD DR SUNGLOW DR EL RENO LN 1 11 1 1 1 71 2152A SUNGLOW DR WINTER GREEN CT OAK GLEN DR 11 1 61 1153A RIVIERA DR OAK GLEN DR CEDARS RD 1 1 11 1 1 1 17 2 2154A KENYON DR W END E/O CHANTILLY LN 11 1 10 1155A CEDARS RD EL RANCHO RD S MARKET ST 1 21 2 2 1 13 1 3156A WESTSIDE RD CANYON CREEK RD CEDARS RD 2 7 112 5 2 2 1 2 2 29 2 9 156B WESTSIDE RD JEWELL LN WESTWOOD AVE 2 2 11 20 2156C WESTSIDE RD WESTWOOD AVE GLENGARY DR 11 1 11 1 1156D WESTSIDE RD CLEAR CREEK RD SR 273 1 11 61 1 157A SEVERTSON DR LELAND AVE E END 1 11 1 11 1 1158A EASTSIDE RD WYNDHAM LN N/O S BONNYVIEW RD 1 2 2 1 2 11 3 2 44 3 5 158B EASTSIDE RD N/O S BONNYVIEW RD S BONNYVIEW RD 11 1 61 1158C EASTSIDE RD S BONNYVIEW RD GIRVAN RD 1 5 9 2 4 1 71 5 2 5 2 1 50 6 15 159A E BONNYVIEW RD RADIO LN S BONNYVIEW RD 1 1 1 1 11 1 2 18 2 3160A BONNYVIEW AVE BONNIE DR N BONNYVIEW RD 11 1 61 1161A N BONNYVIEW RD EASTSIDE RD E/O E BONNYVIEW RD 1 1 11 30 1 1162A BIDWELL RD N END N BONNYVIEW RD 11 1 10 1163A RENO LN N END S BONNYVIEW RD 11 1 10 1164A OLD BARN WAY FARM HOUSE LN BARREL CT 11 1 10 1165A C ST HARTNELL AVE LAYTON RD 2 11 1 1 20 2166A SAGNAW ST W END C ST 11 1 10 1167A 2ND ST BECHELLI LN C ST 11 1 10 1168A RICARDO AVE LAYTON RD JOAQUIN AVE 22 1 1 20 2169A LOMA VISTA DR BECHELLI LN ETHAN LN 1 11 1 11 1 1 Packet Pg. 557
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other
Visible)
Injury (Complaint of
Pain)
Property Damage
Only
Head-on
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/Not Listed
Pedestrian
Bicycle
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
EPDO
Fatal + Injury
Year
Total
Severity Type
Segment # Primary Road Begin of Segment End of Segment
170A DIANE ST CHARLENE WAY WOODACRE DR 11 1 30 1 1171A KERRYJEN CT W END RICARDO AVE 11 1 10 1172A LE BRUN LN CHURN CREEK RD LAWRENCE RD 2 33 2 1 2 1 2 15 2 5173A LAWRENCE RD HARTNELL AVE MADEWOOD LN 1 1 1 1 11 12 1 2174A HARPOLE RD CHURN CREEK RD E/O ALMA AVE 11 1 10 1175A HARROW DR HARPOLE RD S END 11 1 61 1176A SUNWOOD DR N/O VEGA ST MORNINGSUN DR 11 1 10 1177A DOMINION DR DENTON WAY JAMES PL 11 1 10 1178A CONIFER WAY W/O VICTOR AVE E/O VICTOR AVE 11 1 10 1179A ALTA MESA DR HARTNELL AVE RANCHO RD 3 1 311 1 2 1 34 3 4180A ALDEN AVE COCKERILL ST SHASTA VIEW DR 11 1 61 1181A SUZETTE AVE ALTA MESA DR LARAMIE ST 11 1 10 1182A SATURN SKWY MERCURY DR SHASTA VIEW DR 11 1 1 1 1 71 2183A SCORPIUS WAY SATURN SKWY GALAXY WAY 1 11 1 2 12 1 2184A ORION WAY SATURN SKWY VENUS WAY 1 1 11 61 1185A POLARIS WAY SATURN SKWY S/O NEBULA ST 11 1 10 1186A GALAXY WAY MORNINGSUN DR MEADOW OAKS WAY 2 11 1 1 22 2 2187A NEBULA ST VIRGO ST POLARIS WAY 11 1 10 1188A EL VERANO ST COLUMBINE DR ST CHARLES DR 11 1 11 1 1189A CASABELLA DR ST CHARLES DR W/O TEMPLETON DR 11 1 10 1190A RANCHO RD BO PEEP LN SHASTA VIEW DR 11 1 10 1 190B RANCHO RD GOODWATER AVE OLD OREGON TRL 11 1 2 111 1 1 1 1 1 2 49 3 5 191A LEONARD ST HARTNELL AVE N/O FOREST HOMES DR 11 1 10 1192A ARGLE RD HARTNELL AVE AIRPORT RD 11 1 1 2 12 1 2193A AIRPORT RD PRESERVE BLVD N/O BILLY JEAN LN 11 1 11 1 1 193B AIRPORT RD ENGINEERS LN MILL LN 1 5 1 4 1 11 1 4 1 1 42 6 7193C AIRPORT RD S/O SYLVIA LN S CITY LIMIT 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 21 1 1 2 2 1 3 72 6 8 194A ELECTRO WAY AIRPORT RD E END 11 1 10 1195A KNIGHTON RD SW CITY LIMIT AIRPORT RD 11 1 10 1196A WOODRUM CIR MUNICIPAL BLVD MUNICPAL BLVD 1 11 1 61 1197A S BONNYVIEW RD S MARKET ST CHURN CREEK RD 2 5 6 13 2 6 6 3 8 1 3 2459 6 164 13 26198A SACRAMENTO DR E/O CENTER DR W/O RIVERSIDE DR 1 1 2 11 12 1 2199A CLEAR CREEK RD E/O SW CITY LIMIT S/W CITY LIMIT 211 2 2 2 1 1 29 3 4 199B CLEAR CREEK RD SW CITY LIMIT SR 273 11 1 10 1
200A CREEKSIDE ST MULLEN PKWY GIRVAN RD 11 1 10 1201A GIRVAN RD EASTSIDE RD CREEKSIDE ST 1 11 1 1 1 12 1 2202A PIT RD N/O BROOCH CT S/O PLATINUM WAY 1 11 11 1 1203A REDDING RANCHERIA RD W END RT 273 11 1 10 1204A CANYON RD RT 273 S/O S CITY LIMIT 1 2 31 4 1 1 121 2 45 3 6205A VALLEY VIEW RD N END CANYON RD 11 1 10 1206A JULY WAY YULETIDE AVE E/O PATTERSON CT 11 1 10 1207A GOLD ST CALIFORNIA ST MARKET ST 11 1 10 1 207B GOLD ST MARKET ST PINE ST 11 1 11 1 1
208A ECHO RD CHURN CREEK RD ODIN CT 11 1 10 1209A ROME AVE ATHENS AVE PARK MARINA DR 1 11 10 1210A SACRAMENTO RIVER TRL MIDDLE CREEK RD OVERHILL DR 1 1 11 30 1 1211A PARSONS DR HARTNELL AVE CHURN CREEK RD 11 1 10 1212A DOWNARD LN CHURN CREEK RD E END 11 1 61 1213A GOLD ST WEST ST COURT ST 11 1 10 1 Total 9 50 221 285 477 112 158 154 195 261 49 60 53 71 55 208 215 217 181 221 - - 1044 Packet Pg. 558
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Appendix B – Stakeholder
and Public Input
Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Meeting Summary
GHD
669 Pacific Street Suite A San Luis Obispo California 93401 United States T +1 805 242 0461 W www.ghd.com
December 18, 2020
To: Shelby Nadin Project: City of Redding Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP)

From: Kathy Kleinschmidt (GHD) Ref/Job No.: 11215289
CC: Farid Rahman (GHD)
Emily Darke (GHD)
File No.: LRSPMS0001.docx
Subject: Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) Meeting #1 Summary – December 10th, 2020 The following is GHD’s understanding of the discussions and decisions for the above referenced meeting. Please notify GHD of any discrepancies in the information recorded.

This meeting record has been prepared to serve as documentation for the virtual meeting conducted on December 10th, 2020 via Microsoft Teams platform. A PowerPoint presentation was used to focus the discussion.

All participants attending virtually, no sign-in sheet was circulated. Rather, the list of attendees will be provided at the end of this document.

1. Introductions
A. Attendees of LRSP meeting
I. Self-introductions of meeting attendees
a. Attendees are listed at the back of the document

2. Meeting Summary
A. Background
I. Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP)
a. Similar process to a Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR), but replacing the SSAR process by Caltrans and FHWA
b. Consistent with the State’s Strategic Safety Plan (SHSP) and focuses on the 5 E’S of traffic safety – Engineering, Education, Enforcement, Emergency Response and Emerging Technologies (new addition) c. Circular process with a living document – updated periodically. d. Will be required for next cycle of Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) - Cycle 11.

B. Current Emerging Technologies
I. Signal preemption for emergency response and a project is being investigated regarding preemption (transit priority at signals) for buses II. Signal coordination along corridors
III. Communication with traffic signals
C. Focus Challenge Areas per SHSP - Challenge areas will be identified based on collision data and interactive poll with the LRSP group participants were taken during the meeting.

Top 5 challenge areas identified in the poll are shown below. Results of the interactive poll are attached to this meeting summary.

I. Pedestrian
Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) LRSPMS0001 / 11214205 2
II. Distracted Driving
III. Bicyclists
IV. Intersection
V. Impaired Driving
a. Mark Montgomery (Redding Police Department) mentioned that PD is implementing DUI checkpoints to address impaired driving b. 6 required checkpoints per Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grant c. Effectiveness of DUI checkpoints are somewhat diminished by social media release of locations of checkpoint. Drivers are aware of where the checkpoints will be. Some unlicensed drivers are caught at DUI checkpoint.
d. Some impaired drivers are apprehended in the periphery of the checkpoints by patrolling officers.
e. DUI saturation patrols is the most effective way of apprehending DUI drivers
D. Overall Collision Analysis
I. Collision density map of all City of Redding collisions shows concentration of collisions along the following corridors.
a. Hartnell Avenue
b. Cypress Avenue
c. Churn Creek Road
d. Hilltop Road
e. Lake Boulevard
f. Rancho Road – S Bonnyview Road
II. Collision Density map of City of Redding fatal and severe injury collision shows concentration of collisions along the following corridors. a. Cypress Avenue
b. Hartnell Avenue
c. Lake Boulevard
d. Churn Creek Road
III. Caltrans collision analysis shows high density of collisions along SR 299, SR 44 and SR 273, at the intersection of SR 299 (Eureka Way) and SR 273 (S market Street) and at the intersection of SR 44 (Tehama Street) and SR 273 (S Market Street).

IV. Collision Severity and Type On City roadways
a. Within the City there were 25 fatal and 93 severe injury collisions in the last 5 years (2015-2019).
b. Main types of fatal collisions are broadside and pedestrian-vehicle collisions.
c. Top five collision types are broadside, rear ends, hit-object, sideswipe and head-on collisions
i. There are advanced dilemma zone detection at some of the city intersections.
ii. Distracted driving is a contributing factor in rear-end collisions. d. Reflective back plates at signals is another countermeasure that can be implemented at signalized intersection to reduce rear-end collisions. i. Currently Caltrans is implementing this countermeasure at locations that are likely to experience power outage due to weather conditions. Data on effectiveness of this
countermeasure is limited. (confirmed by Jesse Solorio
(Caltrans))
Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) LRSPMS0001 / 11214205 3
ii. City of Redding does not have any intersection with this countermeasure.
e. Hit object collisions can be mitigated by installing delineators on fixed objects inside the clear recovery zones.

E. Environmental Factor
I. Most collisions were in dry condition when there were no unusual condition in roadways.

II. There were three collision reported as “streetlight not functioning”. These collisions (two in 2019 and one in 2018) were located at the following locations:
a. Hilltop Drive 85’ east of Mercedes Lane
b. Churn Creek Road at Hillmonte Drive
c. Hartnell Avenue at Victor Avenue
d. GHD will coordinate with the City with the details of this information F. Violation Category
I. The top 5 violation category for City collisions are: unsafe speed, DUI/BUI, automobile right of way violation, wrong side of the road driving and improper turning.

II. Unsafe Speed at busy intersections could be because other vehicles are in slow speed conditions (stop and go type traffic) where unsafe start would maybe be more applicable
G. Pedestrian Collisions
I. There were 163 total collisions pedestrian related collision recorded in the City of Redding roadways. Pedestrians involved in crossing were crossing in crosswalk at intersection, crossing not in a crosswalk and walking in road, including shoulder.

II. Collisions were observed along Lake Boulevard, S Market St, E Cypress Avenue, Hartnell Avenue, and Placer Street
III. Mark Montgomery (Redding Police) mentioned that pedestrian collisions at segment could be caused by certain population not recognize crossing at designated locations (pedestrian violations). There are mitigation measures (crossing) at some of the highlighted segments already. a. Potential education program can be implement to combat this.

IV. A location of concern along SR 273 is near the Win-River Resort and Casino.

Redding police reports that some pedestrian wearing dark clothing are crossing SR 273 (S Market Street) mid-block (not at crossing) north of the intersection of SR 273 (S Market Street) at Redding Rancheria Road.
a. Pedestrians are crossing near the south end of the bridge over Clear Creek and walking along the west side of the bridge (pedestrians are walking northbound opposite direction of traffic flow) near edgeline where no sidewalks are present. Lighting is also limited at this location. b. There is a transient trail across the street which is creating the demand for a crossing.
c. Pedestrians crossing are often under the influence.
d. Caltrans has a few projects in the area including
i. Enhanced crosswalk at Girvan Rd which will adjust some grades at the railroad crossing
ii. A grade separated path is planned on the west side of SR 273 but the path will merge with the bridge.
iii. John Abshier (City of Redding Public Works) has sent the plans for the improvement to GHD to be included in the LRSP process.

H. Bicycle Collisions
Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) LRSPMS0001 / 11214205 4
I. Broadside is the most common bicycle collision type; there are a total of 122 bicycle collisions recorded in the City of Redding roadways.

II. Wrong Side of Road is top violation category
a. Some bicyclists travelling the wrong way on the sidewalk and coming off into intersection
b. Concentration of bicycle collisions on Lake Blvd
i. Possibly due to high concentration of driveways
I. Collision source
I. The current analysis takes into account all collisions reported to SWITRS. a. The city has their own database of collisions.
b. Redding Police Department is recording collisions on the Spillman database
i. This database does not include property damage only (PDO) collisions.

J. Current Safety related projects
I. HSIP Projects
a. Hartnell Avenue from Churn Creek Road to Victor Avenue – In planning/construction
i. Construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk
ii. American with Disability (ADA) compliant curb ramp and other facilities
iii. Restriping of roadway to include 2 travel lanes in each direction, a Two-way-left turn lane and buffered bike lanes.
iv. Enhanced crossings across Hartnell Avenue with refuge island at Alfreda Way and east of Reservoir Lane.
v. Consolidation of driveway (access management) to reduce vehicular conflict
b. Churn Creek Road Hartnell Road and Cypress Avenue – In planning/construction
i. Construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk
ii. Restriping of roadway to include bike lanes
iii. Enhanced crossing across Churn Creek Road at the intersection of Margalia St
iv. Possible installation of speed reduction tables at Maraglia Street at Blueview Street and at Larkspur Lane near Parsons Middle School
c. Systemic intersection lighting – submitted Cycle 10
i. Focused on broadside collisons and night collisions
ii. Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) was 30+ (very competitive) d. Protected left turn phasing in downtown area – submitted in Cycle 10 i. Focused on broadside collisions
ii. BCR was 17-18 (very competitive)
II. ATP grant application
a. Victor Avenue from E Cypress Avenue to Hartnell Road. i. Protected intersection Hartnell Road and Victor Avenue ii. Roundabout at E Cypress Avenue and Victor Avenue
iii. Shared use path and bike lanes on west side of Victor Avenue b. E Cypress Avenue from Alfreda Way to Victor Avenue
c. Alfreda Way north of E Cypress St
d. Sundial Bridge Drive shared used path (Downtown to Turtle Bay) i. Currently there is a gap in the path that connects Sacramento Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) LRSPMS0001 / 11214205 5
River Trail to downtown at the Sundial Bridge Drive Bridge across SR 44 (South of the intersection of Sundial Bridge Drive and SR 44 Westbound Off-ramp).

III. Other Projects
a. Trinity Street Bikeway Project
i. Proposed Cycle track along Trinity Street, South on Continental Street and East on Butte Street (becomes Park Marina Dr) ii. This will connect to the Sacramento River trail once the Sundial Bridge Drive cycle track is constructed.

1. City is doing due diligent analysis before
implementing cycle tracks.

2. Bike signals are not included in downtown for
now.
b. Sundial Bridge Drive improvements around Redding Civic Auditorium i. Tighten up and raise (vertically) the intersection of Sundial Bridge Drive toward the parking lot and Sundial Bridge Drive toward Sheraton Redding Hotel.
ii. North leg of the intersection will be one-way traffic. This will be part of a loop that will increase circulation when there are events at the Auditorium.
c. Other raised intersection in Downtown.
d. Shelby Nadin (City of Redding) will send GHD the HSIP applications, ATP applications and plans associated with planned and proposed safety related projects.

K. School related Issues
I. There is only way in and out for Boulder Creek Elementary School (through Whistling Drive) so there is a lot of traffic nearby
II. Turtle Bay School is the most populated campus on the west side of Redding a. Several mitigation projects but still poses some issues L. Priority list of locations
I. Beside the number of collisions, top locations are also identified based on Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scale. EPDO weights locations based on collision severity as well as number of collisions.

II. Locations with collision history can also be ranked based on collision rates. This process will normalize the number of collisions based on the daily traffic.

III. Top Study Intersections
a. Churn Creek Road at Hartnell Avenue is the top intersection in term of EPDO and total collisions.
b. Cypress at Hilltop had red-light enforcement project (around 2012) which helped to bring it lower down on the list
i. Highest volume intersection in Redding
IV. Top Study Segments
a. Churn Creek Road from Presidio to S Bonnyview Road is top segment i. During the meeting, this segment was identified incorrectly as Churn Creek Road from Presidio to Dana Drive.

M. Countermeasure Development
I. Comprehensive approach will be applied which incorporates systemic and hot spot approach.

II. Proven Countermeasures
a. Caltrans has a list of countermeasures (published in the Local Road Safety Manual (LRSM)) that can be funded by the HSIP.

Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) LRSPMS0001 / 11214205 6
III. Leading Pedestrian Intervals
a. John Abshier (City of Redding Public Works) has provided GHD with a list of six city intersections with leading ped interval (LPI).

N. Vision, Goals and Priorities
I. Members of the LRSP working group will coordinate with Kathy Kleinschmidt (GHD) in forming vision, goals and missions. Example of vision goals and mission are shown below
a. Vision:
i. Toward Vision Zero – The aim is to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy and equitable mobility for all.
ii. Working together in creating a comprehensive roadway safety plan that encourages improved safety for all users, whether it is walking, biking and driving – because every person in our community matters.
b. Goal example:
i. Strive to achieve zero deaths and life altering injuries on local roadways
ii. Increase safety with roadway infrastructure improvements iii. Identify countermeasures to correlate to emphasis areas (5 – E’s)
iv. Increase walking, biking, rolling (wheelchair, skateboard, scoter, etc.) to downtown district, to work and to school)
c. Mission example:
i. Redding will provide a safe and sustainable multimodal transportation system for all users of the public roadways in the City of Redding.

II. Performance measures should be specific, measureable, achievable, relevant and time constrained (SMART).

III. Mitigation strategies should correlate with challenge areas.

O. Public Outreach
I. Social Pinpoint Website
a. City prefers sooner rather than later to launch website

3. Next Steps
A. Finalize Vision, goals and mission
B. The report will be a living document that will be update periodically C. GHD will compile current and planned safety projects D. GHD will Develop Safety Projects
I. Benefit/ Cost analysis based on HSIP analyzer
II. Will be ready for the next HSIP Cycle
E. Website will be made publically available after review from City staff.

I. Public outreach results will be presented at the next meeting F. Next LRSP meeting will be virtual near the beginning of 2021.

List of Attendees

1. Shelby Nadin – Associate Engineer, City of Redding

2. John Abshier – Assistant Director of Public Works, City of Redding

3. Mark Montgomery – Sergeant, Redding Police Department

4. Jesse Solorio – Traffic Operations Engineer, Caltrans

5. John Heath – Associate Engineer, Shasta County Public Works Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) LRSPMS0001 / 11214205 7

6. Robert Fellinger – Chief Business Official, Redding Unified School District

7. Sara Sundquist – Healthy Shasta Coordinator, Healthy Shasta Partnership and Shasta County Health and Human Services

8. Sean Tiedgen – Shasta Regional Transportation Agency

9. Kathy Kleinschmidt – Project Manager, GHD

10. Farid Rahman – Transportation Engineer, GHD

11. Emily Darke – Transportation Engineer, GHD
Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Meeting Summary
GHD
669 Pacific Street Suite A San Luis Obispo California 93401 United States T +1 805 242 0461 W www.ghd.com
May 3, 2021
To: Shelby Nadin Project: City of Redding Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP)

From: Kathy Kleinschmidt Ref/Job No.: 11215289
CC: Emily Darke File No.: LRSPMS002.docx
Subject: Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) Meeting #2 Summary – May 3, 2021 The following is GHD’s understanding of the discussions and decisions for the above referenced meeting. Please notify GHD of any discrepancies in the information recorded.

This meeting record has been prepared to serve as documentation for the virtual meeting conducted on May 3, 2021 via Microsoft Teams platform. A PowerPoint presentation was used to focus the discussion.

All participants attending virtually, no sign-in sheet was circulated. Rather, the list of attendees will be provided at the end of this document.

1. Introductions
a. Safety Champion/Project Manager for the City – Shelby Nadin b. LRSP stakeholder group members

2. Summary of 1st Stakeholder Meeting
a. Meeting Summary
i. Challenge/Emphasis areas

1. Pedestrians

2. Distracted Driving

3. Bicyclists

4. Intersections

5. Impaired Driving

6. Speeding (associated with Aggressive Driving)

7. Add ‘Roadway Design’
ii. Collision analysis
iii. Projects in the City
b. Vision, Mission, and Goals
i. Sent form to stakeholders to provide input

3. Recent Developments
a. Review of collision analysis
i. Top violation category was unsafe speed

1. Many of these collisions resulted in rear ends

2. Usually the default primary collision for rear ends with police department ii. Input from fire department

1. Priorities
a. Road widths
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) LRSPMS002 / 11215289 2
b. Ability to get around obstacles (mountable curbs, etc.) c. Traffic calming devices
d. Roads in high fire hazard severity zones
i. To evacuate during a wildfire event

2. City does not currently have a largescale evacuation plan a. In progress

3. Heatmap of collisions
a. Look into collision density in relation to collision rates b. Public website engagement
i. Summarized interactive map comments

1. ACID canal request for multi-use paths are known to the City a. Difficult to do since it is different agency

2. Magnolia neighborhood has come up in recent conversations a. City has had requests for more projects on west side of town

3. Congestion at E Cypress Ave at I-5 ramps
a. Difficult intersection
b. Timed recently
c. Would benefit from a 2nd northbound lane on on-ramp
d. Proposal was previously considered along corridor for signage/striping

4. Crossing for pedestrians Buenaventura at Lakeside
a. In safety lighting project
b. Nothing specific to pedestrian crossings

5. Traffic circles on Shasta St
a. Many questions when they first went in
b. Potentially related to student drivers
i. High school is in close proximity

6. Lake Blvd at Keswick Dam has design for traffic signal a. Been looking at funding to complete the project

7. Sidewalks near Hartnell and Alta Mesa
a. Big project to connect discontinuous sidewalks at pinch point ii. Summarized survey results

1. Primary safety concern from public was a lack of infrastructure

2. Residents preferred shared use paths for bicyclists

3. Most people were familiar with ATP and HSIP projects and wanted to learn more
a. Have mailing list from people who responded
i. Can reach out to people who wanted more information

4. Most people might be willing to use alternate modes of travel iii. Other comments from the public

1. Concern about safety along Palisades Ave

2. No current plans to make improvements

3. Many people spend time at trailhead

4. Was sometimes confused with on-ramp to I-5

5. Seems to be a few specific drivers that frequent this area c. Safety projects in the City
i. HSIP Cycle 10 projects
ii. ATP Cycle 5 projects

1. Will likely be constructed around 2024-2026

2. Design will start this year
iii. South Redding Bikeway and Pedestrian Trail Project Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) LRSPMS002 / 11215289 3

1. Could potentially add pedestrian fencing along roadway or additional enforcement
a. Between bridge and casino entrance

4. Safety Projects
a. Methodology
b. Priority locations
c. Recommended countermeasures
i. Priority intersections

1. Most signal heads have been updated to 12”

2. Most pedestrian signals have countdown timers
a. Working through incrementally to get these replaced

3. City has advance dilemma zone for high-speed approaches

4. Decision was previously made by the City to not install retroreflective tape
a. City runs on its own power

5. Consider alternate routes as a countermeasure
a. Sometimes the improvements can funnel active transportation in areas that are not as desirable as alternate routes
b. Can view data for bike/pedestrian routes in the City c. SRAT hired a travel data collection company
i. Around 30 active transportation video counts around the City
ii. Under contract to do these counts in intervals in the next few years
ii. Priority segments

1. Bechelli Ln has ATP project to add bike lanes and reduce area for vehicles
a. Around 1 more year until construction
b. From Cypress to S Bonnyview Rd

2. Hartnell Avenue curvature
a. Considered HSIP project but couldn’t find one that would be competitive
b. Might be good bike corridor
i. Parallels SR 44 and connects to development
d. Potential funding sources for projects
i. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)

1. Benefit-to-cost ratio projects

2. Set-aside funding
ii. Active Transportation Program (ATP)
e. Non-engineering safety projects
i. Education

1. Agencies to partner with
a. Information Gatekeepers, Shasta Living Streets, Public Health Department
ii. Emerging Technologies

1. Automatic bicycle/pedestrian counters
a. City has current vehicle counters from decades ago but not utilized often
iii. Enforcement
iv. Emergency Response
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) LRSPMS002 / 11215289 4

1. Speed tables don’t dramatically affect response times and are not as harsh on equipment

5. LRSP Timeframe
a. Living document that is updated as needed
b. Official update every 5 years
c. LRSP schedule for completion
i. Final LRSP around June/July 2021

6. Next Steps
a. Provide input on vision, mission, and goals
b. Dan will provide shapefile of areas with disadvantaged communities to overlay over areas with recent/upcoming/proposed projects
c. Continue to share the LRSP website with the public
d. Review of draft LRSP document
List of Attendees

1. Shelby Nadin – Associate Engineer, City of Redding

2. John Abshier – Assistant Director of Public Works, City of Redding

3. Craig Wittner – Fire Marshal, Redding Fire Department

4. Jesse Solorio – Traffic Operations Engineer, Caltrans

5. Robert Fellinger – Chief Business Official, Redding Unified School District

6. Sara Sundquist – Healthy Shasta Coordinator, Healthy Shasta Partnership and Shasta County Health and Human Services

7. Michael Kuker – Associate Transportation Planner, Shasta Regional Transportation Agency

8. Dan Wayne – Senior Planner, Shasta Regional Transportation Agency

9. Kathy Kleinschmidt – GHD

10. Emily Darke – GHD
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Interactive Map Comments
ID Created on Type Comment Response to Comment
1 3/26/2021 9:13 Biking Comment
Bridge shoulders need to be swept more frequently and thoroughly. Also, the fog line has worn away almost completely. It would be easy to restripe and maybe even add bike lane buffers This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan. 2 3/26/2021 9:14 Driving Comment Congestion occurs during peak periods. Recommend installing a roundabout Related to congestion at the intersection of Hartnell Ave at Alta Mesa Dr. 3 3/26/2021 9:15 Driving Comment Congestion occurs during peak periods. Recommend installing a roundabout Related to congestion at the intersection of Old Alturas Rd at Victor Ave.4 3/26/2021 9:18 Driving Comment The (arguably) worst congestion in Redding occurs near the I-5/Cypress Ave interchange. Are there any long-term improvements planned? Related to congestion at the US 101 interchange at Cypress Ave.5 3/26/2021 11:44 Biking Comment This area would be idea for a multiuse path. There are many families who live in Stillwater Heights that attend Columbia School (and would like to go to the Big League).

This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan. 6 3/26/2021 11:45 Pedestrian Comment Improve access to EHS for residents through back of school to avoid traffic at front of school. Related to traffic flow near Enterprise High School.7 3/26/2021 11:50 Biking Comment Difficult for bikes to trigger signal and cross Market esp heading eastbound. Signal does not have a protected left. Consider adding sign/sharrow or other improvements for bikes heading westbound up CA street hill.

Related to roadway under Caltrans jurisdiction (SR 273 at California St). 8 3/26/2021 11:52 Biking Comment a path through this area would be idea to get people from Magnolia neighborhood over to Airpark/Gold to head to hospital area and downtown. This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan.9 3/26/2021 11:55 Biking Comment Signalized crossing of some sort would help bikes, peds, drivers and school traffic. This area preferred over Sunset Terrace for signal as this area lacks site distance, has high speeds, and trail access is close (trail to Manzanita) and River Trail on south side of 299. Could be a great connection for a great deal of students (Shasta, Pioneer, Uprep, Manzanita, Coop...) Related to roadway under Caltrans jurisdiction (SR 299 at Overhill Dr). 10 3/26/2021 11:57 Pedestrian Comment
Unsafe to cross with high speeds, multiple lanes esp peak traffic hours. Lots of school time traffic. Many residents (along Buenaventura and Lakeside subdivision) like to walk/bike to Mary Lake and Westside trails. many drive as they do not feel safe driving. One of my neighbors moved to Mary Lake because he didn't like crossing Buenaventura for his daily morning walks.

This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan. 11 3/26/2021 11:58 Biking Comment Lots of gravel in Bike Lane due to buffered bike lane. Needs to be swept to curb on a more frequent basis. This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan.12 3/26/2021 12:00 Pedestrian Comment Well defined goat path here. Residents living off Starlight walk/bike to market. Would be nice to define this multiuse path (lots of goat heads as a goat path!) No good for bikes (rocky and goat heads).

This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan. 13 3/26/2021 12:03 Biking Comment
K rail is put in odd spots for bikes to enter/exit roadway block to eliminate cut through traffic. It's also poorly maintained and feels unsafe. I don't think it is unsafe, it feels unsafe and could be improved through art, paint, landscaping to make this an incredible bike way with low traffic. Low hanging fruit, good neighborhood/Juniper School project! This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan. 14 3/26/2021 12:06 Biking Comment ACID Canal would make an amazing bike path for N/S commuters and kids going to school (Sequoia, Cypress, Bonney View, Sycamore - and schools in Anderson) This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan.15 3/26/2021 12:08 Driving Comment Intersection is huge. Difficult for all users. Related to roadway under Caltrans jurisdiction (SR 273 at S Bonnyview Rd).16 3/26/2021 12:09 Biking Comment High Speeds for regular bike lane. Needs multiuse path or alternative route for cyclists. Will get busier when Costco comes. This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan.17 3/30/2021 7:26 Biking Comment It would be nice to see more frequent maintenance of the eastbound bike lane, the roadside vegetation encroaches into the lane reducing the usable width for cyclists. This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan.18 3/30/2021 7:38 Biking Comment The westbound bike lane on South Bonnyview ends at Eastside Road. It would be nice to have bike facilities continue on South Bonnyview to Cedars Road. This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan.

Packet Pg. 571
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) ID Created on Type Comment Response to Comment
19 3/30/2021 7:40 Biking Comment There is a Bike Route sign on Cedars at Westside Road. It would be nice to link this bike route with the bike lanes on South Bonnyview Road This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan.20 3/30/2021 7:41 Biking Comment This is a challenging Intersection for westbound cyclists Related to roadway under Caltrans jurisdiction (SR 273 at S Bonnyview Rd).21 3/30/2021 15:40 Biking Comment No bike lane or pedestrian walkway advailable. Please develop such a path on this stretch of road. Unsafe road for bicyclists and pedestrians. This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan.22 4/12/2021 14:06 Driving Comment Generally a confusing intersection - sensors don't get tripped, road gets blocked, cars turn on red at wrong time. I do not know what needs to be done to fix this intersection, but I know it's an extremely frustrating and potentially dangerous one.

Related to roadway under Caltrans jurisdiction (SR 273 at Breslauer Way). 23 4/16/2021 22:54 Driving Comment
It's not that I do not appreciate having traffic circles in my neighborhood. It is that others are unaware of the right of way in a traffic circle. So many times I've had to slam on my brakes as I'm making a left turn already in the intersection as someone tries to beat me to go straight through the intersection. Too many close calls to count. If the city was able to inform/educate the public 0 maybe there won't be so many incidents in these areas.

This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan. 24 4/17/2021 10:43 Driving Comment I have seen too many close calls at this intersection. There needs to be traffic lights here. This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan.25 4/28/2021 16:09 Pedestrian Comment This area really needs a sidewalk, or at the very least grade it and make it easier for people to walk, push a baby carriage or use a wheel chair. This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan.26 4/28/2021 17:53 Pedestrian Comment Need sidewalks on this street and bike lanes as well. Very unsafe. This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan.27 4/29/2021 7:23 Driving Comment Very foolish to close this major street. During the Carr fire, it was a vitally important escape route. Hard to figure out why this shortsighted decision was made.

How should the response to the clossure of Riverside Dr be phrased? 28 4/29/2021 17:26 Driving Comment
Cars turning left onto Rancho Rd have very fast traffic coming around a blind curve from Churn Creek Rd. Have witnessed many close calls. Anyone unfamiliar with the road and the traffic is greatly at risk of a serious injury accident at this intersection as well as those who are familiar as well.

This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan. 29 4/30/2021 8:13 Driving Comment Congested intersection due to commuter traffic and pedestrian traffic. Traffic light skips Airpark Dr. frequently. Related to congestion at the intersection of Placer St at Airpark Dr. 30 5/7/2021 16:25 Driving Comment Lanes seem too narrow for most cars. I have witnessed so many drivers driving over the white lines because they look too close to other vehicles. The area around the E Cypress Ave bridge has been identified as a priority location in the Local Road Safety Plan. Countermeasures for this location are presented in the plan.31 5/8/2021 8:39 Driving Comment Too much drag racing and speeding done on Goodwater Ave, endangers children walking &amp; waiting at the numerous bus stops for elementary and high school students and pedestrians on walks or bike rides with children. One house on this road fence was damaged from car racing. Recommend several speed bumps be placed to discourage speeding and racing vehicles. Including Freeman Way which has the same problems and many families.

This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan. 32 5/14/2021 21:38 Driving Comment
Freebridge at Smile is desperately in need of a STOP Sign. Either a 4 Way stop or Stop signes on Freebridge Entering Freebridge from Russel to Smile making a left or a right turn is dangerous and has blind spots of seeing traffic coming at a high rate of speed from the south on Freebridge and also from Parkview heading South on Freebridge.

This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan. 33 5/14/2021 21:43 Driving Comment
Turning from Eureka way, left onto Almond at night is confusing and dangerous because there is no street light. This is exacerbated by the lights of East bound traffic on Eureka way.

This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan.

Packet Pg. 572
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) ID Created on Type Comment Response to Comment
34 5/17/2021 9:39 Biking Comment
Old Alturas Bridge lacks proper bike lanes requiring bikes and cars to share the lane. Traffic travels at high speeds in this corridor. This narrow bridge is my biggest safety concern when biking to and from work (Shasta View to Downtown). Replacing the bridge and providing adequate facilities would be a huge improvement. Better yet, would be a multi-use path on the north side of Old Alturas from Shasta View Drive to Browning Street.

This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan. 35 5/17/2021 12:59 Driving Comment Lots of congestion on Shasta View between 44 and Hartnell. Road should be widened with bike lanes and sidewalk improvements. This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan. 36 5/17/2021 12:59 Driving Comment Lots of congestion on Victor between 44 and Cypress. Road should be widened with bike lanes and sidewalk improvements. This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan.37 5/17/2021 13:01 Driving Comment Double signal at Mistletoe and 44, always causes backups. Recommend installing very large roundabout to cover the close intersection of all the roads. Related to roadway under Caltrans jurisdiction (SR 44 at Mistletoe Ln).38 5/17/2021 13:03 Driving Comment Left turn onto Airport Road or left turn onto 44 westbound ramp can be difficult during peak traffic times. Consider intersection improvements such as a roundabout.

Related to roadway under Caltrans jurisdiction (SR 44 at Airport Rd). 39 6/17/2021 15:11 Driving Comment
When trying to turn left here onto Gold, it's often difficult to judge whether or not a car will be going straight onto California or turning left onto Gold. It would be great if there was a definitive way to tell the difference.

This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan. 40 6/17/2021 15:13 Driving Comment
Twice in the past 2 weeks I've been in the far right lane to turn right and had another car to the right of me use the bike lane. Typically this means they are parking, but two separate drivers appear to have been confused and then tried to get into the lane I was in.

This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan. 41 6/17/2021 15:14 Driving Comment It would be great if the stop signs here became permanent. This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan.42 6/17/2021 16:47 Pedestrian Comment This section of Old Alturas is dangerous for pedestrians and bikers. The bridge is too narrow as well as the shoulders on both sides of the street. Intersection of Old Alturas and Victor begs for a roundabout.

This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan. 43 6/18/2021 6:58 Biking Comment Bike lanes don't continue to Rancho Road. Plenty of room to add white lines. This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan. 44 6/18/2021 7:01 Biking Comment
This stretch of road has very small shoulder. It would be great if road could be expanded in this stretch from Victor to I5 so I could ride to work and the grocery store.

This suggestion is recorded in the "Public Suggestions" table in the Local Road Safety Plan.

Packet Pg. 573
Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Appendix
C– Previous
Safety Plans and Projects
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) 9 2
1 8
12 17
13 10
3 11
18 14
13 16
5 5
15 5
6 6
6 6
6 6
7 6
5 7
6 6
6 7
6 6
6 7
7 6
7 7
6 7
6 4
6 6
7 FIGURE C.1
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
Miles
Project No.

Revision No. -
11215289
Date 03/11/2021
Map Projection: Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Horizontal Datum: WGS 1984
Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Paper Size ANSI B
o Data source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) 2015-2019, Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community. Created by: edarke N:\US\San Luis Obispo\Projects\561\11215289\GIS\Maps\Working\Upcoming Safety Projects.mxd Print date: 11 Mar 2021 - 15:18
Legend
Project Type
ATP, Cycle 1
ATP, Cycle 2
ATP, Cycle 3
ATP, Cycle 5
HSIP, Cycle 6
HSIP, Cycle 7
HSIP, Cycle 8
HSIP, Cycle 9
HSIP, Cycle 10

ASHC/STI
Section 130
City CIP
City of Redding
City Limit

CITY OF REDDING

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)

CURRENT/UPCOMING SAFETY

PROJECTS IN THE CITY OF REDDING

CITY OF

REDDING
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Safety Projects in Progress/Recently Completed in the City of Redding City Roadways
Prj ID Project Funding Year Progress Name Location Improvements 1 ATP, Cycle 3 May-20 In design West Street Area School Safety Improvement Project
West St, 7th St, 8th St, 9th St, 10th St,
Magnolia Ave
Curb and gutter improvements, curb bulb-outs, pedestrian improvements, installing RRFB, adding bicycle markings, buffered bike lane, installing lighting
2 HSIP, Cycle 6 Oct-18 In design Old Oregon Trail Widening Old Oregon Trail from Paso Robles Ave to Bear Mountain Rd Widening roadway
3 ASHC/STI Nov-20 In design Trinity Street Bikeway Project Trinity St, S on Continental St, E on Butte St Installing buffered cycle track, installing green conflict paint 4 Section 130 Jun-20 Construction
this year
Shasta Street R.R. Crossing
Improvements Project Shasta St at Railroad Crossing Pedestrian improvements at railroad crossing 5 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Protected Left Turn Project Court St (Shasta St to Butte St) Micro-surfacing, striping improvements 5 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Protected Left Turn Project South St (Railroad Crossing to SR 273) Striping improvements, ADA curb return upgrades, micro-surfacing 5 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Protected Left Turn Project Placer St (Market St to Continental St) Microsurfacing, striping improvements, ADA curb return upgrades 5 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Protected Left Turn Project Butte St at Continental St Micro-surfacing, striping improvements, installation of new traffic signal pole and mast arm, ADA curb return upgrade
6 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project Beltline Rd at Mountain Lakes Blvd Install new intersection lighting on Beltline Rd 6 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project Lake Blvd at Wilmington Way Install new intersection lighting on Lake Blvd 6 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project Lake Blvd at Keswick Dam Rd Install new intersection lighting on Keswick Dam Rd and Lake Blvd 6 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project Lake Blvd at Magnums Way Install new intersection lighting on Magnums Way 6 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project Buenaventura Blvd at Lakeside Dr Install new intersection lighting on Buenaventura Blvd 6 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project Hilltop Dr at Industrial St Install new intersection lighting on Hilltop Dr and Industrial St 6 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project Churn Creek Rd at Harpole Rd Install new intersection lighting on Churn Creek Rd and Harpole Rd 6 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project Shasta View Dr at Christian Ave Install new intersection lighting on Shasta View Dr and Christian Ave
6 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project Shasta View Dr at Wilson Ave Install new intersection lighting on 6 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project Shasta View Dr at Hawn Ave Install new intersection lighting on Shasta View Dr at Hawn Ave 6 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project Shasta View Dr at Alden Ave Install new intersection lighting on Alden Ave at Shasta View Dr 6 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project Shasta View Galaxy Way Install new intersection lighting on Galaxy Way 6 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project Rancho Rd at Alta Mesa Dr Install new intersection lighting on Rancho Rd and Alta Mesa Dr 6 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project Rancho Rd at Alta Camino Dr Install new intersection lighting on Rancho Rd 6 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project Rancho Rd at Alta Rico Rd Install new intersection lighting on Rancho Rd at Alta Rico Dr 6 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project Rancho Rd at Saratoga Dr Install new intersection lighting on Saratoga Dr and Rancho Rd 6 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project Rancho Rd at Goodwater Ave Install new intersection lighting on Rancho Rd and Goodwater Ave 6 HSIP, Cycle 10 Oct-20 Funded Systemic Intersection Safety Lighting Project Rancho Rd at Persistence Ln Install new intersection lighting on Rancho Rd and Persistence Ln 7 HSIP, Cycle 9 Aug-18 In design Systemic Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Placer St at West St New striping and crosswalk markings, ADA upgrades, RRFBs, advance warning signage 7 HSIP, Cycle 9 Aug-18 In design Systemic Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Gold St at Court St New striping and crosswalk markings, detectable warning surface upgrades, RRFBs, refuge island/concrete median 7 HSIP, Cycle 9 Aug-18 In design Systemic Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Parkview Ave at State St ADA upgrades, RRFBs, new striping and crosswalk markings, advance warning signage, refuge island/concrete median
7 HSIP, Cycle 9 Aug-18 In design Systemic Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Hilltop Dr at Sandpoint Dr ADA upgrades, RRFBs, new striping and crosswalk markings, advance warning signage 7 HSIP, Cycle 9 Aug-18 In design Systemic Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Churn Creek St at Palacio Dr ADA upgrades, RRFBs, new striping and crosswalk markings, advance warning signage 7 HSIP, Cycle 9 Aug-18 In design Systemic Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Browning St at Lancers Ln ADA upgrades, RRFBs, new striping and crosswalk markings, advance warning signage, new lighting 7 HSIP, Cycle 9 Aug-18 In design Systemic Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Old Alturas Rd at Bradford Way
New striping and crosswalk markings, detectable warning surface upgrades, RRFBs, ADA upgrades, refuge island/concrete median, new lighting, advance warning signage
7 HSIP, Cycle 9 Aug-18 In design Systemic Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Churn Creek Rd at Michael Ln ADA upgrades, RRFBs, new striping and crosswalk markings, advance warning signage, new lighting 7 HSIP, Cycle 9 Aug-18 In design Systemic Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Saturn Skyway at Shasta View Dr
New striping and crosswalk markings, detectable warning surface upgrades, RRFBs, ADA upgrades, refuge island/concrete median, advance warning signage
8 City CIP Apr-19 Constructed Airport Road Improvement Project Airport Rd (Billy Jean Ln to Electro Way) Road widening 9 ATP, Cycle 3 Jun-16 In design Bechelli & Loma Vista Corridor Improvements Bechelli Ln, Loma Vista Ave
Construction of a mix of buffered bike lanes, separated bike lanes, sidewalks, accessible driveways, curb ramps, enhanced crossings with rapid flashing beacons, pedestrian refuge islands, pedestrian safety amenities including safety lighting, and functional landscaping including shade trees and buffers from traffic. 10 HSIP, Cycle 7 Mar-20 In
construction
Hartnell Avenue Safety
Improvement Project
Hartnell Ave from Churn Creek Rd to
East Way
Striping improvements, ADA upgrades, lighting improvements.

Install raised median.
11 ATP, Cycle 2 Jun-20 Construction
this year
Diestelhort to Downtown NonMotorized Improvement Diestelhort to Downtown Signage and striping improvements, install RRFBs, buffered bike lanes,
12 ATP, Cycle 1 May-15 Completed Placer Street Improvements Placer St (S of Boston Ave to Mesa St) Sidewalk and curb improvements, signage and striping improvements, signal modifications
13 ATP, Cycle 2 Jan-18 Completed Quartz Hill Road Improvements Quartz Hill Rd (S of Terra Nova St to Brenton Dr) Road widening, pedestrian crossing improvements Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Prj ID Project Funding Year Progress Name Location Improvements 13 ATP, Cycle 2 Jan-18 Completed Quartz Hill Road Improvements Quartz Hill Rd (W of Delta St to SR 273) Pedestrian crossing improvements 14 HSIP, Cycle 8 Sep-20 Construction
this year
Churn Creek Rd & Maraglia St
Safety Improvements
Churn Creek (E Cypress to Hartnell),
Maraglia
Curb ramp improvements, additional lighting, striping
improvements
15 ASHC/STI Dec-18
In design but
applied for
more $
California Street Bikeway California St (Eureka Way to Yuba St) Construction of two-way Class IV bikeway and pedestrian access improvements along California Street, between Division Street and Yuba Street.
16 ATP, Cycle 5 Jul-20 Funded Turtle Bay to Downtown Gap Completion Project Turtle Bay
Buffered 2-way cycle track; shared use path; raised intersection with curb extensions, bollards, lane reductions; raised crosswalks with bike/ped separations; and shade trees.
17 ATP, Cycle 5 Jul-20 Funded Victor Ave & Cypress Ave Active Transportation
Victor Ave (s/o Hartnell Ave to Cypress
Ave), Cypress Ave (Victor Ave to Alfreda
Way), Alfreda Way (Cypress Ave to Del
Monte St)
Along Victor Ave, Cypress Ave, and Alfreda Way, construct shared use paths, sidewalks, curb/gutter/curb ramps, bike lanes, and protected intersections.
18 Section 130 Oct-20 Construction
this year
Girvan Road Railroad Crossing
Improvements and South Redding
Bikeway Pedestrian Trail Project
SR 273, Westside Rd, Girvan Rd,
Eastside Rd Bicycle and pedestrian crossing improvements Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Appendix D – Recommended
Projects
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Priority Intersection Characteristics
Intersection
EPDO
Total Crashes
Crash Rate
Intersection Type
Top Type of Collision
(Number of Collisions)
Top Violation Category
(Number of Collisions)
Night
Wet
Ped
Bike
Involv. w/Fixed Object
Crosing Not in
Crosswalk
DUI
Churn Creek Rd / Hartnell Ave 1223 32 0.4265 Signalized Rear End (21) Unsafe Speed (13) 13 4 2 1 1 0 7 South St / California St 588 10 - Signalized Broadside (6) Traffic Signals and Signs (5) 2121101
Hartnell Ave / Bechelli Ln 587 9 0.1613 Signalized Hit Object (4) Unsafe Speed
(2)/Other Than Driver
(or Pedestrian) (2)
3121311
Airport Rd / Preserve Blvd 562 4 0.1809 Signalized Rear End (2)/ Broadside (2) N/A (all unique) 2001001
Butte St / Continental St 562 4 0.2300 Signalized N/A (all unique)
Other Hazardous
Violation (2) 0012000
Market St / Riverside Dr 551 3 - Signalized N/A (all
unique) N/A (all unique) 2110111
Hartnell Ave / Northwoods Way 544 1 0.0363 Signalized Broadside (1) DUI/BUI (1) 1100001 Churn Creek Rd / E Cypress Ave 169 29 0.4752 Signalized Broadside (12) Traffic Signals and Signs (7) 10 1 1 1 2 0 5
Victor Ave / Hartnell Ave 151 22 0.3742 Signalized Rear End (10) Unsafe Speed (7) 13 12 2 2 1 1 6 Hilltop Dr / E Cypress Ave 127 22 0.3174 Signalized Rear End (11) Unsafe Speed (10) 9401305 E Cypress Ave / Bechelli Ln 85 20 0.2977 Signalized Rear End (10) Unsafe Speed (9) 3311102 Priority Segment Characteristics
Road Name
EPDO
Total Crashes
Crash Rate
Length
Top Type of Collision
(Number of Collisions)
Top Violation Category
(Number of Collisions)
Night
Wet
Ped
Crossing Not in
Crosswalk
Bike
Involv. w/Fixed Object
DUI
Churn Creek Rd (Presidio St to S
Bonnyview Rd) 1021 73 0.5606 3.11 Broadside (21) Automobile Right of Way (21) 23 9 5 2 5 18 13
E Cypress Ave (Park Marina Dr to
Churn Creek Rd) 876 51 0.7648 1.12 Broadside (24) Automobile Right of Way (17) 10 8 4 2 5 4 4
Hilltop Dr (n/o Browning St to
Maraglia St) 835 45 0.4574 1.86 Broadside (12) Automobile Right of Way (11) 15 7 5 4 3 13 15
Bechelli Ln (E Cypress Ave to n/o
3rd St) 711 29 1.5918 0.84 Broadside (14) Automobile Right of Way (7) 6111423
W Cypress Ave (Market St to Park
Marina Dr) 657 15 0.5404 0.72
Hit Object
(4)/Vehicle
Pedestrian (4)
Unsafe Speed (4) 6342244
Railroad Ave (South St to
Buenaventura Blvd) 651 10 0.3758 1.8 Broadside (3) N/A (all unique) 4121021 Hartnell Ave (Goodwater Ave to
Airport Rd) 618 7 - 0.87 Hit Object (3) DUI/BUI (5) 4100055 Hilltop Dr (North of Hilltop Dr to
St Thomas Pkwy) 604 11 0.6606 0.65 Broadside (5) Automobile Right of Way (3) 5011112
Hartnell Ave (Northwoods Way to
Kenco Ave) 193 30 0.8571 0.94 Broadside (11) Automobile Right of Way (10) 9664244
S Bonnyview Rd (S Market St to
Churn Creek Rd) 163 25 0.2074 2.01 Hit Object (8) Unsafe Speed (8) 7 4 0 0 3 10 7 Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Priority Intersection Mitigations
Intersection Focus Area
Countermeasure
Number
CRF
Recommended Countermeasures Reasoning
Impaired Driving - - Increase DUI enforcement 7 DUI collisions.

S02 15%
Improve signal hardware: lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
21 rear end and 4 broadside collsions.

S03 15% Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, red, yellow, or operation)
2 study intersections and 1 study
segment on Churn Creek Rd.
- - Consolidate driveways Multiple driveways in close proximity to intersection.

Pedestrians S21PB 60% Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
2 pedestrian collisions. At commercial
district and near Mr Shasta Mall.

S02 15%
Improve signal hardware: lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
6 broadside collisions.

S03 15% Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, red, yellow, or operation) Located in downtown.

S06 55% Install left-turn lane and add turn phase
6 broadside collisions. No current left
turn lane or phase on north leg of
California St.

Pedestrians S21PB 60% Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
2 pedestrian collisions. Located in
downtown.

S02 15%
Improve signal hardware: lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
2 rear end collisions.

S03 15% Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, red, yellow, or operation)
2 study intersections and 1 study
segment on Hartnell Ave.

S04 40% Provide Advanced Dilemma-Zone
Detection
2 rear end collisons. Nearest
intersection is around 0.5mi away.

Pedestrians S13PB 35% Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches
2 pedestrian collisions. Fatal pedestrian
collision due to the pedestrian entering
traffic, not in a crosswalk.

S02 15%
Improve signal hardware: lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
2 rear end and 2 broadside collisions.

S04 40% Provide Advanced Dilemma-Zone
Detection
2 rear end and 2 broadside collisions. In
rural area. Nearest signalized
intersection around 1 mi away.

S20PB 15% Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (Bicycle Box)
2 bicycle collisions. No bike
accomodations at intersection.
-- Bicycle education about riding at night
and rules of the road
2 bicycle collisions. Fatal collision was at
night from bike improperly turning west
while vehicle was proceeding south.

Butte St /
Continental St - --
Pedestrians S18PB 25% Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.) 1 fatal pedestrian collision due to
pedestrian crossing not at crosswalk. No
pedestrian crossing on north leg.

Intersections S02 15%
Improve signal hardware: lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
1 fatal broadside collision.

Impaired Driving - - Increase DUI enforcement 1 fatal collision due to DUI.

Intersections
Intersections
Intersections
Churn Creek Rd /
Hartnell Ave
Market St /
Riverside Dr
Intersections
None (upcoming safety project addresses current collision trends) Bicyclists
South St /
California St
Airport Rd /
Preserve Blvd
Hartnell Ave /
Bechelli Ln
Hartnell Ave /
Northwoods Way
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Intersection Focus Area
Countermeasure
Number
CRF
Recommended Countermeasures Reasoning
S02 15%
Improve signal hardware: lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
12 broadside and 6 rear end collisions.

S03 15% Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, red, yellow, or operation)
2 study intersections and 1 study
segment on Churn Creek Rd. 3 study
intersections and 3 study segments on
Cypress Ave.

S02 15%
Improve signal hardware: lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
10 rear end and 5 broadside collisions.

S03 15% Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, red, yellow, or operation)
2 study intersections and 1 study
segment on Hartnell Ave.

Pedestrians S21PB 60% Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 2 pedestrian collisions.

S02 15%
Improve signal hardware: lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
11 rear end and 3 broadside collisions.

S03 15% Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, red, yellow, or operation)
2 study intersections and 1 study
segment on Churn Creek Rd. 3 study
intersections and 3 study segments on
Cypress Ave.

S09 10% Install raised pavement markers and
striping (Through Intersection)
9 night and 4 wet roadway collisions. All
approaches have multiple left-turn
lanes.

S02 15%
Improve signal hardware: lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
10 rear end and 2 broadside collisions.

S03 15% Improve signal timing (coordination,
phases, red, yellow, or operation)
2 study intersections and 1 study
segment on Churn Creek Rd. 3 study
intersections and 3 study segments on
Cypress Ave.

E Cypress Ave /
Bechelli Ln Intersections
Hilltop Dr / E
Cypress Ave
Intersections
Intersections
Churn Creek Rd / E
Cypress Ave
Victor Ave /
Hartnell Ave
Intersections
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) City Segment Mitigations
Segment Focus Area
Countermeasure
Number
CRF
Recommended Countermeasures Reasoning
- R26 30% Install dynamic/variable speed warning
signs 10 unsafe speed violations.

Bicyclists - - Install bike conflict paint at
intersections and driveways 5 bike collisions, 4 were broadside.

R01 35% Add segment lighting (East of I-5
Interchange) 10 night collisions.
-- Consolidate existing driveways to limit
the number of access points
24 broadside collisions. 8 improper turning
and 17 automobile right-of-way violations.

High density of driveways along corridor.

R08 25% Install raised median (Between Hilltop
Dr and Churn Creek Rd)
4 head on collisions. 8 improper turning and
17 automobile right-of-way violations.

R32PB/
R33PB
35%/
45%
Install bike lanes/Install separated bike
lanes
5 bike collisions. No consistent bike facilities
along the corridor.
-- Install bike conflict paint at
intersections and driveways
5 bike collisions. High density of driveways
along corridor.

R08 25% Install raised median (Between Dana
Dr and Browning Dr) 1 head on collision.

R27 15% Install delineators, reflectors and/or
object markers 13 fixed-object collisions.

R28 25%
Install edge-lines and centerlines
(between Ross/Big-Lots Driveway and
Margalia St)
No existing lane markings.

Pedestrians - -
Pedestrian fencing along sidewalk to
guide pedestrians to the enhanced
crosswalk with RRFB
5 pedestrian collisions.

R08 25% Install raised median (on the
approaches to Hartnell Ave) 4 head on collsions.
-- Consolidate existing driveways to limit
the number of access points
14 broadside collisions. 6 improper turning
and 7 automobile right-of-way collisions.
- R26 30% Install dynamic/variable speed warning
signs 4 unsafe speed collisions.

Pedestrians R35PB 35% Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) 5 pedestrian collisions.

Pedestrians,
Bicyclists --
Install multiuse path/ sharrow on
eastbound approach to the intersection
of W Cypress Ave/ Market St
5 pedestrian and 2 bicycle collisions
Bicyclists - - Install bike conflict paint at
intersections and driveways 2 bicycle collisions.

R23 40% Install chevron signs on horizontal
curves
2 hit object collisions. Many several sharp
curves at end of segment.

R26 30% Install dynamic/variable speed warning
signs
2 hit object collisions. Many several sharp
curves at end of segment.

R27 15% Install delineators, reflectors, and/or
object markers
2 hit object collisions. Many several sharp
curves at end of segment.

Pedestrians R34PB 80% Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway)
2 pedestrian collisions (1 fatal) on southern
end of segment.
-
Bicyclists
-
-
-
Churn Creek Rd
(Presidio St to S
Bonnyview Rd)
E Cypress Ave (Park
Marina Dr to Churn
Creek Rd)
Hilltop Dr (n/o
Browning St to
Maraglia St)
W Cypress Ave
(Market St to Park
Marina Dr)
Bechelli Ln (E Cypress
Ave to n/o 3rd St)
Railroad Ave (South St
to Buenaventura Blvd)
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Segment Focus Area
Countermeasure
Number
CRF
Recommended Countermeasures Reasoning
R01 35% Add Segment Lighting 4 collisions at night.

R24 25% Install curve advance warning signs 5 hit object collisions. Several sharp curves.

Impaired
Driving
- - Increase DUI enforcement 5 collisions with alcohol involved.

R01 35% Add Segment Lighting 5 collisions at night. Limited lighting on northbound lanes.
-- Consolidate existing driveways to limit
the number of access points
5 broadside collisions and 3 automobile right
of way violations.

Bicyclists R14 30%
Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4
to 3 and add a two way left-turn and
bike lanes)1
5 broadside collisions, 3 automobile right of
way violations, and 1 bicyclist collision.

Vehicles turning left onto roadway from
driveways currently need to cross 2 lanes of
traffic. Area with high density housing.

Pedestrians,
Bicyclists R35PB 35%
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at
uncontrolled locations (with enhanced
safety features)
1 pedestrian and 1 bicycle collision near
Ridgetop Drive.

Hartnell Ave
(Northwoods Way to
Kenco Ave)
- --
S Bonnyview Rd (S
Market St to Churn
Creek Rd)
Bicyclists,
Pedestrians R33PB 45% Install Separated Bike Lanes 3 bike collisions. Several public comments to increase bicycle safety on this segment. 1 Traffic volumes in the segment must be evaluated to ensure that the road diet would sustain current and future traffic None (upcoming safety project addresses current collision trends) -
-
Hilltop Dr (North of
Hilltop Dr to St
Thomas Pkwy)
Hartnell Ave
(Goodwater Ave to
Airport Rd)
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan) Locations for Proposed Leading Pedestrian Interval Project Fatal Severe
Injury
Other Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain PDO
Lake Blvd Hiatt Dr - - - - -
Lake Blvd Oasis Rd 0 0 0 0 0
Lake Blvd Tamarack Dr 0 0 1 0 0
Lake Blvd Clay St 0 0 0 0 0
Lake Blvd North Point Dr 0 1 0 0 0
Lake Blvd Masonic Ave 0 0 0 2 0
Hilltop Dr Peppertree Ln 0 0 0 0 0
Placer St Pleasant St - - - - -
Court St Tehama St 0 0 2 0 0
Court St Shasta St 0 0 2 0 0
Court St Placer St 0 0 1 2 0
Court St South St 0 0 0 0 0
Placer St Airpark Dr / Fig Ave - - - - -
Buenaventura Blvd Placer St 0 0 0 0 0
Butte St Continental St 1 0 1 1 0
Placer St Continental St 0 1 1 0 0
Placer St East St 0 0 0 0 0
Cypress Ave Civic Center Dr 0 0 0 1 0
Athens Ave Locust St 0 0 1 0 0
Hartnell Ave Cobblestone - - - - -
Hartnell Ave Parkview Ave 0 0 0 1 0
Hartnell Ave Bechelli Ln 1 0 1 1 0
Bechelli Ln Blue Shield - - - - -
S Bonnyview Rd Fire Hall 4 - - - - -
E Cypress Ave Alfreda Way 0 0 0 1 0
Churn Creek Rd Old Alturas Rd 0 0 1 1 0
Churn Creek Rd Presidio St 0 0 0 2 0
Churn Creek Rd Mistletoe Ln 0 0 0 1 0
Churn Creek Rd Industrial St 0 0 0 0 0
Churn Creek Rd Merchant St 0 0 1 0 0
Hartnell Ave Northwoods Way 0 0 0 0 0
Churn Creek Rd Shirley Ln 0 0 0 0 0
Churn Creek Rd Loma Vista Dr 0 0 0 0 0
Shasta View Dr Hartnell Ave 0 0 0 0 0
Dana Dr Victor Ave 0 0 0 0 0
Dana Dr Bradford Way 0 0 0 0 0
Victor Ave E Cypress Ave 0 0 0 0 0
Old Alturas Rd Friendly Rd 0 0 0 0 0
Airport Rd Knighton Rd 0 0 0 0 0
Shasta View Dr Hemingway St - - - - -
Shasta View Dr Tarmac Rd - - - - -
Old Oregon Trl Old 44 Dr 0 0 0 0 0
Airport Rd Rancho Rd 0 0 0 0 0
Airport Rd Preserve Blvd 1 0 0 0 0
Airport Rd Shasta View Dr - - - - -
Total 3 2 12 13 0
Primary Road Secondary Road
Bike+Ped Collisions
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Local Road Safety Plan Appendices (available online) (4.11(a)--Local Road Safety Plan)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions regarding the Westside Sewer Interceptor Phase Three Project for the City of Redding Wastewater Utility:
(1) Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring Program; (2) Approve Westside Sewer Interceptor Phase Three Project as described; and (3) Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination with the Shasta County Clerk’s Office and the State Clearinghouse, thereby satisfying requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines §15074).

Fiscal Impact
Approval of the Westside Sewer Interceptor Phase Three (3) Project (Project) along with adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) allows the project to move toward the final design and construction phases. There is no fiscal impact as a direct result of adopting the MND, MMP, and approving the project.

The project is estimated to cost approximately $8,000,000 and will be funded through the Wastewater Utility fund.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could choose to not adopt the MND and the MMP, and not approve the Project as described. Without approval, the project would not be able to proceed as a City of Redding (City) project, as it would not be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

MEETING DATE: February 15, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(b)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(b)--Adoption of Westside Sewer Interceptor Phase Three (3) Project, Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 585
Report to Redding City Council February 9, 2022
Re: 4.11(b)--Westside Sewer Interceptor Phase 3 Project Page 2 Background/Analysis
The City of Redding (City) is proposing to construct a new 48-inch diameter trunk sewer pipeline to increase the wastewater collection system hydraulic capacity. The existing 42-inch diameter pipeline conveys wastewater from a diversion structure near Girvan Road to the Clear Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (CCWWTP). The proposed new pipeline would provide additional capacity to accommodate both existing and planned wastewater flows. The additional capacity would also significantly reduce the risk of sanitary sewer overflows during wet weather events.

The new 4,200-foot pipeline would begin at the existing diversion structure located at Girvan Road and terminate at the CCWWTP’s existing headworks pump station wet well along the south bank of Clear Creek. The pipeline would be sized to provide a maximum design flow of 30 million gallons per day to serve the existing and planned development in the area. The pipeline includes a 20-foot-wide by 20-foot-long by 20-foot-deep concrete junction structure at the north end, seven maintenance access points placed approximately every 600 feet along the alignment, and a second 20-foot-wide by 20-foot-long by 16-foot-deep concrete junction structure approximately 100 feet north of the Clear Creek crossing. One new maintenance access point would be constructed on the existing 42-inch pipe to improve inspection and maintenance access (located near the end of Garnet Court). Two additional new maintenance access points would be constructed to connect existing sewer lines that serve nearby properties to both the existing and new pipelines. Construction is scheduled to start in the summer of 2023, the project is anticipated to take approximately 24 months.

An Initial Study (IS) was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It describes why the project is proposed and the potential impacts to the existing environment. The IS shows that the proposed project could have a significant effect on biological resources, but with implementation of mitigation measures, those impacts will be reduced to a level considered less than significant. The mitigation measures and conservation measures to be implemented are common practices and include, but are not limited to, biological pre-construction surveys, in-water work windows, water quality monitoring, compensatory mitigation for vegetation loss, impact minimization, exclusionary fencing, and erosion control.

Based on the conclusions made in the IS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. The MND describes the project, including mitigation measures, and makes the determination that there will be no significant effect on the environment provided that the defined mitigation measures are implemented as part of the project. In addition, a Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMP) has been written and incorporated into the MND (CEQA Section 21081.6). The MMP will be used by City staff, contractors, agencies, and monitoring personnel during and after the project to ensure effective implementation of the adopted mitigation measures outlined in the MND.

The IS/MND/MMP documents were sent to the State Clearinghouse for a 30-day public review period and distribution to pertinent state agencies. They were sent to local resource agencies, the Shasta County Clerk, and posted on the Public Works Department website. A public notice was also sent to landowners in the vicinity of the project and posted in the local newspaper. One comment letter was received during the public comment period. A response to the comment letter has been prepared and is attached to the final MND.

Packet Pg. 586
Report to Redding City Council February 9, 2022
Re: 4.11(b)--Westside Sewer Interceptor Phase 3 Project Page 3 The City of Redding is the lead agency for the project pursuant to CEQA. As the lead CEQA agency, the Council is authorized to adopt the MND per Redding Municipal Code Section §18.24.070.E and state law. Upon adoption of the MND and approval of the project by the Council, a Notice of Determination will be filed with the Shasta County Clerk’s Office and the State Clearinghouse, completing the environmental review process. The IS/MND is available in the City Clerk’s office for review and is currently available online at https://www.cityofredding.org/departments/public-works/environmental-management.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item.

Attachments
Location Map
Mitigated Negative Declaration Westside Sewer Interceptor Phase 3 (available online) Response to Public Comments (available online)
Packet Pg. 587

GIRVAN RD

CREEKSIDE ST

ISLAND DR

PLATINUM WAY
ELY LN

IRVING RD

METZ RD

RIVER DR

PENDANT WAY

QUEENS WAY

PERNIE TRL

MARVIN TRL LEGACY CT

DAVID TRL

RHINESTONE WAY

YVONNE CT

DENNIS CT

GUNN CT

GARNET CT

FERNWOOD ST

SHA VAL PL

SANDALWOOD ST

LONIGAN CT

MEADOW WOOD TRL

BROOCH CT

CITRINE AVE

PENELOPE ST

MINNOW CT

LANDCASTER CT

HEMLOCK CT

GEMSTONE CT
PIT RD

PERNIE TRL
HWY 273

EASTSIDE RD
PIT RD

SACRAMENT
MTG. DATE:

ITEM:

ATTACHMENT:

LOCATION MAP GIS DIVISION

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
DATE PRODUCED: - 0 200 400 Feet
NOVEMBER 15, 2021 Westside Sewer Interceptor
Phase 3 Project
City of Redding
Clear Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Cascade Park
Sacramento River
P:\Environmental Management\ProProjects\WestsideSewerProject.aprx City Limit
Project Area
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Location Map (4.11(b)--Westside Sewer Interceptor Phase 3 Project) Westside Sewer Interceptor Phase 3 Project Page 1
January 2022

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WESTSIDE SEWER INTERCEPTOR PHASE 3 PROJECT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2021110246)

SUBJECT
Westside Sewer Interceptor Phase 3 Project

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Redding (City) is proposing to construct a new 48-inch diameter trunk sewer pipeline to increase the wastewater collection system hydraulic capacity. The existing 42-inch diameter pipeline conveys wastewater from a diversion structure near Girvan Road to the Clear Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (CCWWTP). The proposed new pipeline would provide additional capacity to accommodate existing and planned development wastewater flows. The additional capacity would also significantly reduce the risk of sanitary sewer overflows during wet weather events.

The new 4,200-foot pipeline would begin at the existing diversion structure located at Girvan Road and terminate at the CCWWTP’s existing headworks pump station wet well along the south bank of Clear Creek. The pipeline would be sized to provide a maximum design flow of 30 million gallons per day to serve the existing and planned development in the area. The pipeline includes a 20-foot-wide by 20-footlong by 20-foot-deep concrete junction structure at the north end, seven maintenance holes placed approximately every 600 feet along the alignment, and a second 20-foot-wide by 20-foot-long by 16-footdeep concrete junction structure approximately 100 feet north of the Clear Creek crossing. One new maintenance hole would be constructed on the existing 42-inch pipe to improve inspection and maintenance access (located near the end of Garnet Ct.). Two new maintenance holes would be constructed to connect existing sewer lines that serve nearby properties to both the existing and new pipelines. Construction is scheduled to start in the summer of 2023 and the project is anticipated to take approximately 24 months.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project area occurs on developed land within the City of Redding including Cascade Park and the CCWWTP. The project area also crosses undeveloped land adjacent to the Sacramento River which includes valley oak woodlands, riparian habitat, Olney Creek, Clear Creek and an unnamed channel between Cascade Park and the CCWWTP. Surrounding land uses include residential to the north, west, and south. The Sacramento River runs along the east side of the project area.

FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
The City of Redding conducted an Initial Study (attached) that determined that the proposed project could have significant environmental effects on biological resources and water quality. Use of specific mitigation measures identified below will avoid or mitigate the potentially significant environmental effects identified, and the preparation of an environmental impact report will not be required. If there are Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Mitigated Negative Declaration Westside Sewer Interceptor Phase 3 (available online) (4.11(b)--Westside Sewer Interceptor Phase 3 City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Mitigated Negative Declaration