Redding City Council
June 21, 2022

WDI 15061 August, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Downtown Redding
Parking Strategy
August 2019
Submitted by Watry Design and PlaceWorks
Submitted to City of Redding
Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding

WDI 15061 August, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 3 of 62
WDI 15061 August, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 DOWNTOWN PARKING CONTEXT AND CHALLENGES............................................................................................. 9 DOWNTOWN PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND ................................................................................................... 10 METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................................................................................10 FINDINGS....................................................................................................................................................................11 DEVELOPMENT FORECAST AND IMPACTS TO DOWNTOWN PARKING ................................................................. 18 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS BY PHASE ............................................................................................................................20 Phase I – Current.................................................................................................................................................20 Phase II – Short Term ..........................................................................................................................................20 Phase III – Long Term..........................................................................................................................................22 PARKING SUPPLY ANALYSIS BY PHASE...............................................................................................................................22 Phase I – Current.................................................................................................................................................22 Phase II – Short Term ..........................................................................................................................................23 Phase III – Long Term..........................................................................................................................................25 PARKING STRATEGIES .......................................................................................................................................... 30 SHARED PARKING AND SUPPLY MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................30 ADDING PUBLIC PARKING SUPPLY....................................................................................................................................31 COSTS, REVENUE, AND FINANCING ..................................................................................................................................33 Municipal or Private Parking Lots for Public Use ................................................................................................34 Pricing Strategies................................................................................................................................................35 Revenue Collection..............................................................................................................................................37 Management of the Parking System...................................................................................................................41 Enforcement Options..........................................................................................................................................42 Off-Street Parking Improvement Cost Considerations........................................................................................43 Public On-Street Parking Costs............................................................................................................................45 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION.................................................................................................... 46 PARKING SUPPLY AND OWNERSHIP..................................................................................................................................46 PARKING PRICING STRATEGY ..........................................................................................................................................46 REVENUE COLLECTION...................................................................................................................................................47 MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................48 MARKETING................................................................................................................................................................48 ENFORCEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................48 IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................................................................49 Short Term ..........................................................................................................................................................49 Long Term ...........................................................................................................................................................50 FINANCING CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 50 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................... 52 APPENDICES......................................................................................................................................................... 53 Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 4 of 62
WDI 15061 August, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: STRATEGY AREA................................................................................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 2: 2010/2017 OFF-STREET PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARKING CAPACITY .................................................................................13 FIGURE 3: 2010/2017 PUBLIC PARKING CAPACITY ...............................................................................................................14 FIGURE 4: 2018 ON-STREET AND OFF-STREET PARKING CAPACITY ...........................................................................................15 FIGURE 5: DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTANCE ANALYSIS: WALKING DISTANCE TO DOWNTOWN PARKING LOCATIONS...........................16 FIGURE 6: COMPARABLE PARKING DISTANCE ANALYSIS: WALKING DISTANCE TO REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS ...............................17 FIGURE 7: PHASE I CURRENT PARKING SUPPLY (CORE AREA) ...................................................................................................17 FIGURE 8: PHASE II SHORT TERM PARKING SUPPLY (CORE AREA) .............................................................................................23 FIGURE 9: PHASE III LONG TERM PARKING SUPPLY (CORE AREA) ..............................................................................................25 FIGURE 10: SUPPLY AND DEMAND PER PHASE (CORE AND STRATEGY AREAS) ..............................................................................29 FIGURE 11: POTENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING LEASE LOCATIONS ..............................................................................................32 FIGURE 12: SINGLE-SPACE PARKING METER .........................................................................................................................37 FIGURE 13: MULTI-SPACE PAY STATION ..............................................................................................................................39 FIGURE 14: SMART METER TECHNOLOGY.............................................................................................................................40 List of Tables
TABLE 1: CURRENT AND SHORT-TERM DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS TO PARKING SUPPLY...................................................................19 TABLE 2: CURRENT SF, PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND (WEEKDAYS) ........................................................................................26 TABLE 3: PHASE II SF, PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND (WEEKDAYS) .........................................................................................27 TABLE 4: PHASE III SF, PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND (WEEKDAYS) ........................................................................................28 TABLE 5: CURRENT OFF-STREET PARKING OWNERSHIP (CORE AREA) ........................................................................................35 TABLE 6: PROJECTED OFF-STREET PARKING OWNERSHIP (CORE AREA) ......................................................................................35 TABLE 7: INITIAL IMPROVEMENTS: COST PER SQUARE FEET .....................................................................................................43 TABLE 8: PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE: COST PER SQUARE FEET ............................................................................................44 TABLE 9: ROUTINE MAINTENANCE: COST PER SQUARE FEET....................................................................................................44 TABLE 10: REPLACEMENT OF SYSTEM: COST PER SQUARE FEET ................................................................................................45 TABLE 11: SHORT-TERM EQUIPMENT/MATERIAL COSTS .........................................................................................................50 TABLE 12: SHORT-TERM IMPLEMENTATION COSTS.................................................................................................................51 Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 5 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The goal of this Downtown Redding Parking Strategy is to make the most efficient use of all public and private parking spaces in Downtown Redding (Downtown), while planning for potential future demands that may necessitate the turnover of on-street parking spaces and the use of additional off-street parking. As construction commences on several significant new Downtown developments including the removal of the California Street Parking Structure, there will be a period of a few years when parking will be required to shift to alternative locations throughout Downtown to make use of the existing capacity.

This study analyzes parking supply and demand and makes recommendations for consideration by the community and City Council. A detailed modeled analysis of the current and proposed parking demand reveals there is considerable excess capacity in the current parking supply to meet the expected demand into the future in both the Downtown Core and the overall Strategy Area studied as shown in the following tables:

Executive Summary Table 1 and 2: Core and Strategy Area Supply and Demand Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 6 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
However, during the construction period over the next few years, the supply will be limited, and the City may desire to add supply during this time to ensure consistent and convenient parking for all user groups including employees, patrons, students and residents. To effectively manage the tight supply and ensure clear communication to the public, there will be a need to increase enforcement, maintenance and public education efforts. These activities as well as the cost of the additional supply needed will require significantly more resources than is allocated to the parking system today. The City and the community will need to consider whether these resources will come from the City’s General Fund, be user paid, or funded by property owners through some form of Business Improvement District or other funding mechanism.

Should the decision be made to implement a user paid system, in order to ensure adequate parking throughout this transition and in the long term, it is recommended that the City of Redding (City):
• Lease private lots in order to add public parking inventory, as necessary • Implement a standard fee structure for parking
• Purchase and implement a parking management mobile device application • Add smart meters to all on-street parking spaces in the Downtown Core District (Core) • Partner with new private/public parking garages and surface lots to manage parking • Add pay stations to the two City-owned surface parking lots and newly leased parking lots • Provide staff to manage the parking system, including enforcement • Develop and implement a parking marketing strategy, including signage In the long term, it is recommended that the City:
• Consider partnering with a private entity to manage the parking system • Add smart meters to all on-street parking spaces in the Downtown Redding Parking Strategy Area (Strategy Area)
• Add pay stations or app-managed spaces to other parking lots • Institute a demand based fee structure
A property owner paid system may reduce the initial capital investment in revenue collection devices like smart meters and pay stations. However, enforcement, administration, maintenance and capital reserves will require ongoing resources to ensure a sustainable and consistent parking system.

As these community changes occur to the Downtown and the new parking system, it is imperative to have an open line of communication with the public and Downtown businesses to clearly communicate where and how parking is changing and where it will be available and accessible.

Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 7 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com

INTRODUCTION
Starting in August 2016 the City began studying parking in Downtown, for the 2018 Downtown Redding Specific Plan Update (Downtown Specific Plan), and was adopted in April 2018. The Downtown Specific Plan briefly addressed parking but acknowledged the need for further analysis. Since the Downtown Specific Plan, the City, in partnership with private developers, has received grant funding for two projects in Downtown, which will include the removal and addition of parking (e.g., the removal of two parking structures). In anticipation of these projects and future development/revitalization of Downtown, a detailed analysis is needed to address short- and long-term parking needs and strategies.

This strategy, submitted by Watry Design and PlaceWorks to the City, describes existing parking, recent development that has an effect of parking demand and supply, a set of alternative parking strategies, parking recommendations, and financing considerations. As shown in Figure 1: Strategy Area, the Strategy Area encompasses the Core and includes portions of the Downtown Specific Plan Area. For comparison and implementation purposes, this strategy compares the larger “Strategy Area” to the smaller “Core” or “Core Area.”

Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 8 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Figure 1: Strategy Area
Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 9 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com

DOWNTOWN PARKING CONTEXT AND CHALLENGES
For several decades, the City and its partners have been trying to encourage development in and the revitalization of Downtown. In an effort to make development projects more affordable in Downtown, the City has provided public parking and has reduced/eliminated parking requirements throughout the Strategy Area, especially in the Core Area. Additionally, the City has invested in parking resources in Downtown, including:
 Providing and maintaining off-street public parking, including a 640-space structure (the California Street Parking Structure), a 140-space subterranean structure (the old Dicker’s Parking Structure), and two surface lots. In the Core Area, a total of 1,014 off-street public parking spaces are available, of which 881 (or 87 percent) are owned by the City.
 Removing parking meters from City-owned lots (making them free of charge).  Providing and maintaining on-street public parking, including 540 spaces in the Core Area (277 of which have poles for parking meters) and 1,187 spaces in the Strategy Area (363 of which have poles for parking meters).

Despite the City’s investment in the provision of public parking and maintenance, challenges to the parking program remain and the resulting impact on Downtown vitality and development has been underwhelming.

Some of the ongoing issues affecting parking demand and supply include:
 Despite removing parking requirements for development projects in the Core Area, a limited amount of new development has come to Downtown in the past 20 years.  There is a high rate of business turnover in existing commercial buildings.  The Mt. Shasta Mall area continues to draws large retail stores away from Downtown.  There is a large government office presence in Downtown, whose employees patronize retail establishments, but their location in ground floor retail stores creates an all-day parking demand in prime retail parking locations. Recent data for this strategy indicates that government offices use a substantial supply of off-street parking spaces in the Core Area for all-day parking – well over 30 percent of the California Street Parking Structure.
 The California Street Parking Structure takes up nearly three city blocks – an area that is better utilized with more active uses, such as mixed-use development (housing, restaurants, and retail and office uses) and a more compact private parking garage.
 There is an uneven playing field for peripheral development outside of the Core Area. These properties are further from the free centralized off-street parking lots and they must provide on-site parking.
 Over the years, the City has removed some parking meters or has not replaced other broken on-street parking meters due to funding limitations. For the parking meters that remain, the charge for onstreet metered parking is $0.20 per hour. The majority of these meters are mechanical and do not have the ability to be programmed for different rates.
 The City provides very limited enforcement due to funding limitations. This means that parking meters are ignored by some, leading to all-day parking in high demand areas instead of preserving nearby convenient spaces for short-term customers.

Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 10 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
 The Downtown parking program is not self-sufficient. Instead, the City’s General Fund subsidizes parking, providing $70-80K/year for operational costs and necessary maintenance. Due to funding limitations, preventative maintenance has been deferred. The California Street Parking Structure and the old Dicker’s Parking Structure have approached the end of their useful life at more than 50-yearsold; however, due to prohibitive costs, the City likely will not replace these structures.

DOWNTOWN PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Methodology
City Public Works staff has gathered a considerable amount of data related to current parking supply and demand. Data was collected from several sources, as described below.  Physical Counts. City staff physically counted occupied parking stalls for the Core and the Strategy Areas in October 2010 and May 2017, between 11:00 am and 2:00 pm. For this analysis, the highest number of filled parking spaces on a block (between 2010 and 2017 counts) was used, to give a conservative estimate. Data was updated in 2018. Physically counting the occupied parking stalls is valuable in identifying the parking demands on a specific day and time. The counts performed helped to augment the model developed to determine the demand for parking spaces throughout the Phases outlined in this strategy.
 Interviews. Numerous interviews with interested downtown parties were conducted in Summer 2018 to help assess the variety of parking needs and to help calibrate the parking models used to complete this strategy. A few of the larger user groups comments are included below to provide prospective to the variety of issues addressed.
o Shasta County indicated that downtown office space is critically important to the Social Services operations and that downtown space provides good access to clients and has affordable lease rates. Once the Shasta County Courthouse is completed, it may open up space in the old courthouse to move some of these agencies into the vacated building. o Superior Court was interviewed to gain an understanding of existing and projected future parking needs. A new Courthouse is under construction in Downtown; with current parking spaces, they anticipate a need for approximately 100 additional parking spaces after the courthouse is operational.
o Commercial Realtors – Assisted in determining existing vacant lease space, what the current mix of existing commercial uses are and what clients for space downtown look for in parking. o Restaurant Counts. Existing restaurants in the Core and the Strategy Areas were counted during the 2018 summer, to feed into the demand model. At the time of the count, there were 40 restaurants in the Strategy Area, with the majority of them in the Core Area. o Downtown property owners and business owners, as well as Downtown interest groups such as Viva Downtown and the Chamber of Commerce, have been part of the process from the beginning and have provided valuable input on existing operations and what the future needs of business owners include.

Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 11 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
o Business owners – A variety of owners that own and maintain private parking lots have been consulted as to the impacts of owning businesses downtown and the various issues they continually have to address. These issues are primarily around maintenance and security and how the impacts from trespassing and vandalism affect their businesses.

It should be noted that the existing parking occupancy counts from 2010 and 2017 were for Downtown at a time when there were many vacancies, particularly in the retail sector. These parking occupancy numbers would not give an accurate snapshot of a fully leased and vibrant downtown area, which is anticipated to happen during the next several years. The existing demands downtown are very different from that of a fully energized downtown, which will be addressed in more detail later in this strategy.

Findings
The data is summarized in Figures 2 to 6, as described below. • Figure 2: 2010/2017 Off-Street Public/Private Parking Capacity shows the capacity percentages of the off-street public/private parking lots, based on the counts found at the time. • Figure 3: 2010/2017 Public Parking Capacity shows the capacity percentages of the public parking only, a combination of on- and off-street parking, based on the counts found at the time. • Figure 4: 2018 On-Street and Off-Street Parking Capacity provides public/private parking supply numbers, based on the counts found during the new survey. • Figure 5: Downtown Parking Distance Analysis illustrates walking distances from existing parking lots within the Core at 300 feet and 600 feet radiuses,
• Figure 6: Comparable Parking Distance Analysis compares the same 300 and 600 feet walking distances at other familiar developments.

As shown in Figure 2: 2010/2017 Off-Street Public/Private Parking Capacity:
o The Core was parked on average at 60 percent capacity (1,194 occupied stalls within a total supply of 1,987 stalls) inclusive of private facilities.
o The Strategy Area was parked on average at 56 percent capacity (1,916 occupied stalls within total supply of 3,395 stalls) inclusive of private facilities.

As shown in Figure 3: 2010/2017 Public Parking Capacity:
o The Core was parked on average at 65 percent capacity (1,018 occupied stalls within a total supply of 1,558 stalls).
o The Strategy Area was parked on average at 60 percent capacity (1,852 occupied stalls within total supply of 3,070 stalls).

As shown in Figure 4: 2018 On-Street and Off-Street Parking Capacity:
o The Core total supply count of 2,596 stalls is inclusive of private facilities, and is an increase of 53 stalls from the 2010/2017 survey counts (2,543).
o The Strategy Area total supply count of 4,651 stalls is inclusive of private facilities, and is an increase of 53 stalls from the 2010/2017 survey counts (4,598).

Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 12 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
As shown in Figure 5: Downtown Parking Distance Analysis and Figure 6: Comparable Parking Distance Analysis:
o These two figures, when compared side by side, illustrate the same walking distances from parking lots to either within the Downtown Core or to big box stores or shopping malls.

The data shows that there is an adequate supply of parking in Downtown, but there continues to be a perceived lack of parking. This is likely due to a combination of issues. One such issue is that, while the few prime on-street spaces in front of stores typically are always being utilized (often by vehicles parked for a full 8 hours), other off-street parking spaces located within one to two blocks away are underutilized. The existing on-street parking is typically the most desired and the off-street public parking supply is out of sight and often overlooked.

Additionally, the data found that many of the metered parking spaces have meters that are out-of-service or missing. As such, the payment requirements are unclear, as many assume the remaining meters are remnants of an older system and it is not necessary to pay. Enforcement has been light, due in part to limited enforcement staff and a lack of funds to pay for more enforcement staff and/or meters.

Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 13 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Figure 2: 2010/2017 Off-Street Public/Private Parking Capacity Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 14 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Figure 3: 2010/2017 Public Parking Capacity
Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 15 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Figure 4: 2018 On-Street and Off-Street Parking Capacity Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 16 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Figure 5: Downtown Parking Distance Analysis: Walking Distance to Downtown Parking Locations Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 17 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Figure 6: Comparable Parking Distance Analysis: Walking Distance to Regional Shopping Centers

Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 18 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com

DEVELOPMENT FORECAST AND IMPACTS TO DOWNTOWN PARKING
The revitalization of Downtown will have a significant effect on public parking demands, coupled with a reduced supply of public spaces, both during and after construction of the projects mentioned below. During the Downtown Specific Plan, parking emerged as an issue that many community members and business owners expressed concern. As part of the Downtown Specific Plan process, a community meeting was held on November 9, 2017 that focused on parking issues. Many of the comments received had to do with concerns about cost of parking, where paid parking may or may not be appropriate, enforcement of on-street parking meters, potential loss of parking spots, walking distance from parking, and the potential for new parking at various locations.

A number of significant developments are underway or in development in the short term. The parking impacts are outlined below.
 The 1551 Market Street project (affordable housing, retail space, subterranean parking, and reintroducing the downtown grid through the promenade) has already removed the 140-space subterranean structure (the old Dicker’s Parking Structure) and is in the process of rebuilding 100 spaces. The project will add 40-50 on-street spaces with new street connections on Market, Butte and Yuba Streets. The net result will not significantly change the overall supply of parking spaces but will certainly change the parking utilization and parking demand with a mix of residential and retail uses.
 The Block 7 project (affordable and market rate housing, retail space, office space, new transit service, bike and pedestrian facilities, and a new multi-story parking garage) will remove the approximately 640-space California Street Parking Structure. The project will replace roughly 300 spaces on-site with a 200-plus space multi-story parking structure, a 100 plus space surface lot at the south end, and an additional 15 on-street alley parking spaces. The net result will be a loss of roughly 325 spaces.  These and other planned developments will add about 180 residential units and nearly 40,000 square feet (SF) of retail/office space adding to the future parking demand. This demand will partially be met by providing off-street private parking on the project sites.  The Shasta County Courthouse project removed 135 off-street spaces and as designed a handful of new employee parking (10-12 spaces) will be on-site.
 The Diestelhorst to Downtown Active Transportation Project will remove about 15 on-street spaces for a cycle track along California Street.
 The McConnell Foundation has committed to a 10-year program to improve the physical and social environment in Downtown, beginning with the launch of the California Street Labs in October 2018, which will temporarily provide for about 70 spaces.
 This activity has encouraged other private development to follow with new breweries, a food truck hub and other mixed-use residential/commercial projects.

Following planned developments, there will be a total net reduction of 135 spaces in the Core Area and 260 in the Strategy Area. See Table 1 Current and Short-Term Development Impacts to Parking Supply for a summary of the parking supply changes following the planned short-term developments.

Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 19 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Table 1: Current and Short-Term Development Impacts to Parking Supply On-Street parking loss or gain from development- Yellow Off-Street parking loss or gain from development - Green Forecasted developments:

Core
Area
Strategy
Area
1551 Market St. – Center Market Project
Demolished existing retail and subterranean lot -140 -140 Add subterranean lot 100 100
New on-street spaces 40 40
Total - 0 0

Block 7
Demolish parking garage -640 -640
Add multi-story parking structure 200 200
Replace with a surface lot at south end 100 100
California-Market Alley on-street spaces 15 15
Total - -325 -325

Courthouse block demolition
Demolished existing uses -135
Add employee parking 10
Total - -125

Diestelhorst to Downtown Project
Remove spaces for cycle track on Cal. Street -15 -15
McConnell Foundation
Open California Street Labs Parking Lot 30 30
Demolished police station and create surface lot 40 40
RABA (Redding Area Bus Authority)
Demolished retail and auto repair building and added surface lot 135 135 190 190
Net On- and Off-Street Parking Totals: -175 -300
+40 +40
Overall Total: -135 -260
Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 20 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Parking Demand Analysis by Phase
This section summarizes the findings of the Downtown Redding Parking Demand Analysis (Watry, 2018), specifically, the anticipated current, short, and long term parking demands and how the demands align with existing and anticipated supply to determine needed additions, if any. The demand forecast is broken down into three main Phases. Phase I looked at the current situation and used the existing commercial, office and residential occupancy rates and compared them to actual parking counts during peak occupancy to determine that the models were calibrated correctly. Parking demand for short-term development (Phase II), along with demand for future long-term redevelopment (Phase III) were considered and included in an analysis (see Appendix 2 thru 5) of predicted future parking demands for Downtown and examined within the Core and Strategy Areas. Phase II and III assumes a fully vibrant and utilized downtown with the existing vacant square footage occupied at 90 percent. This was done to maximize the demand so that, when the vacant spaces are filled and lower parking demand uses such as office are converted to retail space, the associated increase in potential demand is captured in the models.

In a Downtown setting, residential development does not generate additional retail parking demand since residents will be able to park in their development and visit Downtown businesses without driving. In addition, if managed properly, parking for residents can be shared with businesses because many downtown employees live outside of downtown, leaving public parking spaces open during the evening.

With the collected current parking data, known and forecasted developments and the anticipated parking demands, the parking strategy should address short and long-term goals. Below are summaries of the phases, defined by significant points of development. Included in the demand analyses are recent changes that have reduced demand for parking in Downtown, including the demolition of Bings Automotive, the old Police Building, and the Dickers building. A significant amount of research and background information is attached as reference to this report.

Phase I – Current
This Phase includes all of the currently occupied and vacant commercial and office square-feet in the Core and Strategy Areas. Phase I Current is the existing condition; it uses parking data based on conditions from the 2010/2017 survey, with 2018 updates. Based on the surveys it is assumed there is an 88 percent occupancy rate for office space and a 65 percent occupancy rate for retail and restaurant space.  The Core Area – The collected data resulted with a peak demand of 1,477 parking stalls.  The Strategy Area – The collected data resulted with a peak demand of 2,506 parking stalls.

Phase II – Short Term
Phase II assumes all retail and office space is fully revitalized to a 90 percent occupancy rate and considers the addition of the following projects:
 1551 Market Street – Demolition of existing 65,000 square feet of retail and the loss of its associated parking demand will be replaced by 82 residential units and 22,800 square foot of retail with its associated parking demand.

Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 21 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
 Block 7 development - Demolition of parking garage – a loss of zero demand. At completion will add 100 residential units and approximately 20,000 square feet of retail and office space and its associated demand.
 Shasta County Courthouse - Demolition of multiple buildings including residential, office space, retail, and a restaurant space and their associated parking demand, but at completion will add a new courthouse that will replace the current facility. There will be a net increased demand.  Planned developments for 40,000 SF of retail and offices – Loss of existing buildings reduces the demand and the replacement may not increase demand, if the redevelopment is not more intense or enough parking is provided onsite.
 California Street Labs/Former police station lot – Demolition of the 14,000 sq. ft. of the police station and its associated parking demand was replaced by the addition of 40 spaces for a total of 70 spaces for California Street Labs.
 Redding Area Bus Authority (RABA) /Bell Rooms lot – Demolition of 4,300 sq. ft. of auto repair and the associated parking demand. This area was replaced with an additional 76 parking spaces including the old gated police lot.
 Miscellaneous other private redevelopment, including mixed use residential and commercial – Much of the other development is redevelopment of existing buildings that may add demand if the redevelopment is a more intense of use than the existing structure.

Forecasted Phase II parking demands (with parking inventory carried over from Phase I):
 Core Area. A shared use model for the Phase II conditions was created with assumed square footage increases for different land uses (office, retail and restaurants spaces). The model results were tailored to replicate the collected data with a peak demand of 1,909 parking stalls, and a net loss of 135 stalls due to development for a 78 percent utilization rate (see Table 3 of Phase II Core). This assumes a fully leased, (90 percent) and vibrant Core Area model. Note the modified demand for private parking is assumed to be 459 stalls.
 Strategy Area. A shared use model for the Phase II conditions was created with assumed square footage increases for different land uses (office, retail and restaurants spaces). The model results were tailored to replicate the collected data with a peak demand of 3,001 parking stalls, and a net loss of 260 stalls due to development for a 68 percent utilization rate (see Table 3 of Phase II Strategy).

This assumes a fully leased, (90 percent) and vibrant Core Area model. Note the modified demand for private parking is assumed to be 654 stalls.
 Initially, demand has been reduced and a few significant structures have been removed, including the old Dicker’s building, the former police station, Bings Automotive and a small café, county office buildings, and the Dobrowski House. The demand will quickly ramp up to the anticipated peak demand as new developments come online and create the demand. Even though demand is currently less due to demolition of the structures, it was decided that, in order to be conservative, the loss of demand was not included in these early phases to help compensate for the growth of the retail sector that is occurring. It is also assumed the residential developments will provide their own parking. The developments above are factored in the ULI shared use models in the Appendix.

Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 22 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Phase III – Long Term
This Phase includes all of Phase I and Phase II, and new square footage added and some existing square footage re-purposed for other uses. Noted new and re-purposed square footage amounts are assumed to be built out in the next 10-20 years.

Forecasted Phase III parking demands (with parking inventory carried over from Phase II) –  The Core Area. A shared use model for the Phase III conditions was created with assumed square footage increases for different land uses (office, retail and restaurants spaces). The model results were tailored to replicate the collected data with a peak demand of 1,941 parking stalls with a predicted utilization rate of 79 percent assuming no additional supply (see Table 4 of Phase III Core).

Note the modified demand for private parking is assumed to be 459 stalls.  The Strategy Area. A shared use model for the Phase III conditions was created with assumed square footage increases for different land uses (office, retail and restaurants spaces). The model results were tailored to replicate the collected data with a peak demand of 3,180 parking stalls with a predicted utilization rate of 73 percent assuming no additional supply (see Table 4 of Phase III Strategy). Note the modified demand for private parking is assumed to be 654 stalls.

Parking Supply Analysis by Phase
As downtown residential development occurs, the need to add parking supply should be balanced with some anticipated shift in transportation modality. The new residents of downtown are more likely to utilize transit, bike and/or walk to destinations, and have less vehicles. As access to downtown improves and better links are constructed to adjacent neighborhoods, recreation, and the river trail, more users may choose these alternative options to access downtown without a vehicle.

Progress to add parking is already underway with the addition of 135 off-street spaces added following demolition of the Bings Automotive structures for the RABA Bell Rooms lot. Another 70 off-street spaces are available at the former police station, as part of the California Street Labs.

The overall desired effect for the new development is a shift in parking supply, from a centralized model to one that will spread supply throughout the downtown and is dynamic, ebbing and flowing as new developments or significant re-development projects come on-line. The City’s goal is to engage the community, encourage efficient use of the existing parking supplies available, provide the best Level of Service (LOS) possible for customers and employees, and develop the downtown parking program into a selfsufficient operation not reliant on the City General Fund.

Phase I – Current
Currently, there are 4,651 parking spaces available in the Strategy Area (see Figure 4: 2018 On-Street and OffStreet Parking Capacity) either on-street, in public parking lots, or in private parking lots. Of these, 2,596 parking spaces are located in the Core Area. The strategy revealed existing parking supply utilization is on average 57 percent in the Core Area and 54 percent in the Strategy Area, for public and private parking combined. See Figure 7: Phase I Current Parking Supply (Core Area) for current utilization rates and available capacity (underutilization) and Table 1 Current and Short-Term Development Impacts to Parking Supply for a full breakdown of the current parking demand and supply. The goal is to have 15 percent of parking spaces Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 23 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
open and available for the short-term retail parking, which is the green section of the pie chart. The red section is the amount of supply that on average remains underutilized.

Figure 7: Phase I Current Parking Supply (Core Area)

Phase II – Short Term
Phase II includes planned developments in Downtown. Phase II is already underway as the construction of 1551 Market Street has already closed the 140 public parking spaces that existed under that facility and the Shasta County Courthouse has removed their 135 spaces. The RABA Bell Rooms lot has been completed and is now open to the public. Additionally, the California Street Labs recently paved the former police station lot, bringing the combined total to 205 spaces added. The current state of parking in Downtown following the loss of the parking spaces associated with the Courthouse and 1551 Market Street projects has had a relatively minor impact to date with excess supply absorbing those losses effectively with very little public concern.

The redevelopment of the California Street Parking Garage is slated to begin in late 2019 and will soon remove all 640 spaces. The removal of these spaces and prior to the construction of the new parking garage and surface lot on the south end will result in the fewest parking spaces in the Core Area and will have a significant impact on supply. Although there is predicted to be nearly enough sufficient supply when considering the on-street and private spaces, the City may consider additional public supply during this timeframe to ease the transition during construction. Fortunately, additional spaces are expected to come online in 2020 with the opening of the 1551 Market Street project and the associated 100 space new public parking facility under the structure and the addition of some 40-50 on-street spaces constructed with the new extensions of Butte, Market, and Yuba Streets in the Core Area. Within a year or two of these projects, the Block 7 project will be complete and will add 315 spaces to the Core Area.

To better understand this timing, Phase II can be described in three sub-phases, Phase II-A includes the loss of the 1551 Subterranean Lot, the Courthouse and the California Street Parking Garage, Phase II-B considers the 1551 Market Street project complete with the addition of 140 spaces, and Phase II-C considers all projects contemplated are complete and the Core is revitalized to a 90 percent lease rate for all retail and office space.

Current
Utilization
57%
Under
Utilization
28%
Goal Available
Spaces
15%
Core Current Parking Supply Total - 2596
Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 24 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Figure 8 Phase II Short Term Parking Supply (Core Area) depicts the predicted parking utilization rates and available capacity.

Figure 8: Phase II Short Term Parking Supply (Core Area) Estimated
Utilization
96%
Under Utilized
0%
Estimated
Remaining
Supply Capacity
4%
Core Phase II -A Parking Supply
Total Spaces - 1996
Estimated
Utilization
89%
Under Utilized
0%
Estimated
Remaining
Supply Capacity
11%
Core Phase II -B Parking Supply
Total Spaces - 2136
Estimated
Utilization
78%
Under Utilization
7%
Goal Available
spaces
15%
Core Phase II -C Parking Supply
Total Spaces - 2461
Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 25 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com

Phase III – Long Term
As shown in Figure 9: Phase III Long Term Parking Supply (Core Area), by phase III, the parking inventory in the Core Area is now reaching 79 percent. In the Strategy Area, parking utilization is projected to be 72 percent occupied. The parking supply is still adequate at this point in time. Although it will remain important to encourage users to take advantage of off-street parking through incentives such as lower hourly rates to maintain available on-street parking.

Figure 9: Phase III Long Term Parking Supply (Core Area) As depicted in Tables 2, 3, and 4, the model shows sufficient capacity to handle the predicted demands in all three phases without building additional supply. However, during construction in Phase II, there will be times when parking demand is approaching 100 percent utilization and the need to add supply, if even temporarily, may be desirable to limit public frustration during the transition.

Estimated
Utilization
79%
Under Utilization
6%
Goal Available
Spaces
15%
Core Phase III Parking Supply Total - 2461
Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 26 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Table 2: Current SF, Parking Supply and Demand (Weekdays) Occupancy Core Area Strategy Area
Current occupied SF 557,167 875,989
Current vacant SF 115,688 181,886
Total SF * 672,855 1,057,875
* Not counting Theater parking
On-Street Parking (Public)
Unmetered supply** 263 824
Metered supply (with/without meter heads)** 277 363
Current supply, total 540 1,187
Demand (from 2010/2017 survey) 283 590
Utilization 52% 50%
Off-Street Parking (Public + Permit)
Current supply** 1,014 1,879
Demand (from 2010/2017 survey) 735 1,262
Utilization 72% 67%
Total Parking (On- and Off-Street Public Parking)
Current supply** 1,554 3,066
Demand (2010/2017 survey) 1,018 1,852
Utilization 66% 60%
**Supply based on 2018 survey
Off-Street Parking (Private Parking)
Current supply** 1,042 1,585
Demand (2010/2017 survey) 459 654
Utilization 44% 41%
Grand Total Parking (On- and Off-Street Parking, Public + Private) Current supply** 2,596 4,651
Demand (2010/2017 survey) 1,477 2,506
Utilization 57% 54%
**Supply based on 2018 survey

Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 27 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Table 3: Phase II SF, Parking Supply and Demand (Weekdays) Occupancy Core Area Strategy Area
Phase II occupied SF (90% of total available SF) 602,911 964,913 Phase II vacant SF 66,990 107,213
Total SF * 669,901 1,072,125
* Not counting Theater parking
On-Street Parking (Public)
Phase II supply, total** 540 1,187
Stalls lost or gained after development construction 40 40 Phase II supply (after construction) 580 1,227
Off-Street Parking (Public + Permit)
Phase II supply** 1,014 1,879
Stalls lost or gained after development construction -175 -300 Phase II supply (after construction) 839 1,579
Total Parking (On- and Off-Street Public Parking)
Supply From Phase I** 1,554 3,066
Stalls lost after development construction -135 -260
Phase II supply (after construction) 1,419 2,806
Demand (per shared parking demand summary, based on
land use and not parking type) less current Private
Parking Demand 1,450 2,347
Utilization 102% 84%
**Supply based on 2018 survey
Off-Street Parking (Private Parking)
Phase II supply** 1,042 1,585
Grand Total Parking (On- and Off-Street Parking, Public + Private) Phase II supply** 2,461 4,391
Demand (per shared parking demand summary, based on
land use and not parking type) Includes Private Parking Demand 1,909 3,001
Utilization 78% 68%
**Supply based on 2018 survey
Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 28 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Table 4: Phase III SF, Parking Supply and Demand (Weekdays) Occupancy Core Area Strategy Area
Phase III occupied SF (90% of total available SF) 596,057 992,453 Phase III vacant SF 66,229 110,273
Total SF * 662,286 1,102,725
* Not counting Theater parking
On-Street Parking (Public)
Supply from Phase II
(Post Phase II construction)** 580 1,227
Off-Street Parking (Public + Permit)
Supply from Phase II
(Post Phase II construction)** 839 1,579
Total Parking (On- and Off-Street Public Parking)
Supply from Phase II
(Post Phase II construction)** 1,419 2,806
Demand (per shared parking demand summary, based
on land use and not parking type) less current Private
Parking Demand 1,482 2,526
Utilization 104% 90%
**Supply based on 2018 survey
Off-Street Parking (Private Parking)
Phase III supply** 1,042 1,585
Grand Total Parking (On- and Off-Street Parking, Public + Private) Phase III supply** 2,461 4,391
Demand (per shared parking demand summary, based
on land use and not parking type) Includes Private
Parking Demand 1,941 3,180
Utilization 79% 72%
**Supply based on 2018 survey

Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 29 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Figure 70: Supply and Demand per Phase (Core and Strategy Areas) Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 30 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com

PARKING STRATEGIES
How will the City and its community partners adapt to new demands and loss of supply over the short and long terms? What will the pricing choices look like and will they provide sustainable funding? How can turnover be encouraged during high demand while not overwhelming enforcement? What can be done to ensure a positive customer experience? These questions will be addressed in the following sections.

Shared Parking and Supply Management
Shared parking is the use of a parking space to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. Considering shared use parking is critical to not overestimating the overall supply need.

Shared use parking was considered and incorporated into the demand models using industry standards.

As noted in Shared Parking, Second Edition (Mary Smith and Urban Land Institute, 2005)), “shared parking is the use of a parking space to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment” and there are two conditions for shared use: 1) “variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour, by day, or by season at the individual land uses,” and 2) “relationships among the land uses that result in visiting multiple land uses on the same auto trip.” Shared Parking also states, “The key goal of shared parking analysis, then, is to find the balance between providing adequate parking to support a development from a commercial viewpoint and minimizing the negative aspects of excessive land area or resources devoted to parking.

Downtown areas that share parking result in greater density, better pedestrian connections, and in turn, reduces reliance on driving, typically because multiple destinations can be accessed by walking.” Parking Demands – When analyzing shared-use parking, one has to understand what parking demands are based on:
• Project program: Land uses and sizes of each. Size could be defined by the gross floor area (GFA), gross leasable area (GLA), number of seats, number of units or bedrooms, etc. It is important to have a well-defined program for best results.
• Parking ratios: Examples of parking ratios include four to six (4-6) parking stalls per 1,000 GLA of retail space; three (3) parking stalls per 1,000 of GFA for office space; and 0.27 parking stalls per seat for a theater.
• Multi-modal adjustments: This includes people arriving at the site by means other than a private vehicle requiring a parking stall, UBER/Lyft, public transportation, ride sharing, etc. • Non-captive adjustments: This includes patrons that are on-site visiting a land use and will visit other land uses without having to re-park the car.

Adjustments can be made to the parking ratios, multi-modal factors, and the non-captive factors as needed in order to create a model that best represents the project’s specific characteristics, behaviors, and parking needs.

The Urban Land Institute (ULI) Model, which is used for this strategy, predicts parking demand by taking into consideration the parking ratios, the multi-modal and non-captive adjustments, time of day, day of month, and month of year, along with shared use considerations for all user groups. ULI, working with the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), the National Parking Association (NPA), and a core group of parking professionals, published Shared Parking and the associated MS Excel spreadsheet model to assist with the analysis and development of parking demands. Shared Parking is a recognized and accepted tool within Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 31 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
the parking planning and traffic engineering professions and accepted by many municipalities as an effective approach to establish parking demands. The ULI Model calculations include the 85th percentile approach when establishing project peak parking demands, and is consistent with traffic engineering practices.

The nature of a downtown is a great example of the shared parking model. A customer that parks to visit a store or shop and will likely visit other businesses on the same trip; this is a captive sharing factor. Mode of transportation is another sharing factor. Customers who arrive by public transit, UBER/Lyft, drop offs, walking, etc. do not require a parking space. The sharing factors reduce the overall demand for parking spaces and fewer can be built. At approximately $10,000 for a surface lot space and $35,000 for a structured space, optimizing the available parking supply is imperative.

Per the ULI Model the Downtown peak parking demand is currently weekdays at 2:00 p.m. Typically, private off-street lots would not be available at this time to share their parking spaces but since there are vacancies in the downtown and outdated parking models, there is private parking available. Downtown weekend peak parking demand is at 7:00 p.m. This is an ideal time for many businesses to share their parking supply but would require developing partnerships and agreements to allow public parking during certain hours and may require a revenue source to help enforce, maintain, and administer the program.

Private parking for public use - A shared parking strategy that is highly effective is the sharing of off-street private parking spaces. This is an effective way to minimize required parking in downtown areas, as well as minimizing constructing new parking. This is especially true as evening activities increase in downtown areas.

This option would require a collaboration and partnership between the City and local businesses. This also may require incentives for local businesses to utilize their privately maintained lots. Charging to use the private parking spaces and sharing the revenue with the owners might be the incentive needed to encourage owners to participate. Sharing of the revenue could be in the form of services, such as litter clean up and periodic power washing. There are 1,585 off-street private parking spaces in the Strategy Area, of which 1,042 are located in the Core Area. These parking spaces could be utilized during their non-business hours for other land uses (e.g., office parking supply could be used in the evenings and weekends for other uses, such as dining and entertainment).

Adding Public Parking Supply
Although there appears to be sufficient supply for the short and long term, the community may wish to invest in additional supply to ebb and flow with development and provide more convenient options. There are several options to increase supply as noted below.
• Develop New City Owned Parking Spaces– Add additional off-street parking spaces, which could consist of the City purchasing existing properties for new surface parking lots or the development of multi-story parking structures. Parking structures are very expensive at approximately $35,000 per space and require a revenue source. On-grade, off-street lot parking costs approximately $10,000 per space.
• Encourage Private Provision of Off-Street Parking– Encourage policies that allow private investment in off-street parking spaces. This will only work if public lots are paid parking since they will not be able to compete with free parking. A lot where the primary use is parking may be counter to the newly adopted Downtown Specific Plan that encourages development of a walkable, pedestrian- friendly downtown and discourages parking lots along street frontages.

Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 33 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Potential Parking Lots to Lease for Public Use
Figure 12 Potential Off-Street Parking Lease
Locations provides a list of potential locations for
leasing on grade lots, with approximate costs using
recent lease rates. If fully implemented, 275 stalls
could be added to the supply at a cost of
approximately $15,000 per month based on current
lease rates. The lots listed are meant to be an
example of potential lots that are privately owned
and currently underutilized. They may not be
available if owners do not wish to partner with the
City. As other lots become available in desired
locations, they may also be considered.

Costs, Revenue, and Financing
To charge or not to charge for parking is itself an option. Providing parking free of charge to the user is a nice amenity but requires the City subsidize parking operations and enforcement from the City General Fund or a subsidy from the private businesses that benefit from the parking through a Business Improvement District (BID) or some other financing mechanism. Alternatively, charging the user for parking can contribute to or cover the cost of parking operations, maintenance, enforcement, and other amenities. User paid parking also provides an effective mechanism to manage parking in high demand areas and encourages turnover through a balance of pricing options.

Historically, the City has had some form of parking meters on most of the parking spaces, both prior to construction of the Downtown Mall and today. Meters were slowly removed from off-street lots and only onstreet meters remain. The current rate on those remaining historical meters that are still operational is 20 cents per hour. The rate cannot be changed as they are mechanical and not electronic with programmable rates. Although the City has since purchased a few replacement electronic meters in recent years, the majority of the remaining meters have become obsolete, vandalized, and eventually removed by the City due to a lack of a funding source. As a result, many of the parking spaces downtown remain unmetered and by default the parking spaces are free of charge.

The City decided to provide free parking in the downtown garages and surface lots to attract customers and compete with other retail developments. Now, as Downtown redevelops and streets are reintroduced, the Location Size Spaces
1 Pine/Eureka Way 0.4 36
2 Shasta /Market East 0.32 29
3 Shasta Market / West 0.18 16
4 Pine/Tehama 0.31 28
5 Pine / Yuba 0.4 36
6 Pine / South 0.33 30
7 Gold / California 0.3 27
8 Gold / Market 0.25 23
9 Yuba / Oregon 0.50 50
TOTAL SPACES 275
Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 34 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
question of whether to provide free parking in Downtown has again become an issue to address the new developments and its overall vibrancy. If the parking remains free, will the costs be borne by public or private sources? If parking becomes user paid, what revenue collection mechanism is appropriate for this community? What are the costs of parking facilities, maintenance, collection systems and enforcement? And regardless of payment, enforcement, administration, communication is necessary for a healthy, transparent, and functioning parking system.

A shift to paid parking on- and off-street may be required if businesses are unwilling to subsidize parking for their patrons. The City General Fund impact to own and maintain these facilities is substantial and much of the maintenance has been deferred with no funding reserved to pay for capital replacement.

Municipal or Private Parking Lots for Public Use
Until recently, the City has owned and maintained up to six off-street parking lots. Over time, as the maintenance burdens have proven to be difficult and the lots were underutilized, they have been sold to investors looking to redevelop Downtown. The
former police station parking lot at 1346 California
Street was sold to RABA, who will maintain it as a
parking lot. The 1551 Market Street project removed
subterranean public parking, but the developer will
rebuild, maintain, and manage new public parking.

The City is currently talking to the Block 7 project
developers regarding how the 640 space California
Street Parking Structure will be redeveloped. This
strategy will help to guide discussions on how many
spaces will be required to be maintained throughout
the redevelopment and how many will need to be
replaced and left open to the public. That would
leave two City-owned parking lots remaining: one at
1410 Pine Street with 27 parking spaces and the other
at 1795 Pine Street with about 66 spaces. Below,
Table 5 Current Off-Street Parking Ownership (Core
Area) summarizes the current off-street parking ownership (mostly the City) and Table 6 Projected Off-Street Parking Ownership (Core Area) summarizes the projected off-street parking ownership (includes planned redevelopment projects).

City of Redding Owned Parking Lots
Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 35 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Table 5: Current Off-Street Parking Ownership (Core Area) Lot Location Spaces Ownership Type
1551 Market Street Subterranean Lot 140 City of Redding California Street Parking Structure 640 City of Redding Lot 4 at the Sacramento/Pine 27 City of Redding
Lot 11 at 1795 Pine St 66 City of Redding
Total Inventory 873

Table 6: Projected Off-Street Parking Ownership (Core Area) Lot Location Spaces Ownership Type
1551 Market Street Subterranean Lot 100 Private with Public Provision California Street Parking Structure 200 Private with Public Provision South Surface Lot at California/Placer 100 Private with Public Provision Bell Lot at Shasta/Tehama/California 135 Redding Area Bus Authority California Street Labs 70 Private with Public Provision Lot 4 at the Sacramento/Pine 27 City of Redding
Lot 11 at 1795 Pine St 66 City of Redding
Total Inventory 698
The question of ownership must be addressed. The City may continue to own land and maintain public parking lots or rather lease and/or sell existing lots to private development retaining agreements to ensure access for public parking. A major benefit is that private ownership of parking lots affords the owners of the lots the ability to enforce trespass laws and other security concerns while public lots are not able to as easily provide the same level of security.

Either type of lot may charge users for parking. How those funds are utilized will vary greatly. A private parking lot may not be part of a larger parking system and therefore able to maintain and enforce their parking lot with little relationship/consistency to the larger parking landscape Downtown. Municipal lots, or City controlled lots through leasing, as part of a larger, centrally managed parking system may pool funds that would go back into the Downtown area to fund the lease arrangements, parking operations, capital improvements, maintenance and enforcement. This parking district could include other items such as: litter abatement, restrooms, security, adding and replacing lights, power washing, and the replacement or addition of street trees.

Pricing Strategies
To ensure turnover, accessibility, convenience and distribution of parking, there are several strategies and pricing options that are available.

Maintain the Status Quo - Let the current supply accommodate the demand and continue to subsidize the current parking operation (cleaning of structure and blocks four days per week, meter maintenance and collection and limited enforcement). This will result in continued deterioration of parking facilities due to the Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 36 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
lack of a maintenance budget, prevent the improvement of parking facilities, such as adding lights to increase security at night and will not provide funds to invest in new parking facilities. The General Fund impact of the limited operations is approximately $40-50K annually with another $30K in deferred maintenance.

Validation Parking – Depending on the type of fee collection system there are a variety of options to provide for a validation program. Individual business owners could subsidize the parking costs by allowing their specific customers a method to provide free parking for the time that they might patronize their facility.

First Hour Free – One way to incentivize use of parking spaces outside of prime on-street locations would be to allow the first hour free. This could encourage users that plan on going Downtown to eat or run some errands to know that they could find a spot and not worry about paying the meter for a short trip. This may work to incentivize parking spots that may not be as convenient and would encourage some users to change parking habits, opening spots up for users willing to pay for the open spot closer to the destination.

Nights and Weekends Free Parking – One of the main goals of the parking program is to provide an accessible method for people to patronize businesses downtown in a safe, clean, comfortable manner that attracts customers to Downtown. One hindrance to this is that some employees that work in the area tend to park in the prime parking locations for a typical 8-hour shift from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. A parking program should ensure the employees have access to longer-term parking in an alternative location so that customers will have access to prime parking during business hours. The current status of parking Downtown is dominated by a majority of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. workers; and the nights and weekends do not yet have the same level of parking constraints. The peak parking timeframe is currently around the lunch hour until 2:00 p.m.

Allowing free parking at night or on the weekends may be allowed as an option until such time that the same methods to manage parking is required. This may lead to loss in potential revenue to fund items such as security; lighting, cleaning and maintenance that could help manage issues at night when those potential issues rise.

Static Rate – One option is to simply assign a flat hourly rate for every stall in downtown. The static rate could be different by on-street and off-street lots, or by zones, such as Core and outside Core pricing. Holding a static rate has the benefit of a consistent approach that may ease adoption and creating a standard that is understood by users. Simple items such as signage are easier to understand and to reproduce.

Length of Stay Pricing - This option calls for zones within the Downtown area to have the same base hourly rate for parking. This rate increases as time spent parked increases. For example, the base rate can start at first hour free, second hour $1, third hour $1.75 and so on. This approach encourages parkers to move their cars in order to avoid a higher charge. In central Downtown, the incremental increase of pricing might be more aggressive than surrounding areas to incentivize employees, long-term parkers and solo drivers with more flexible time to park farther away and save money. We recommend the initial hour be free at off-street lots only to encourage the use of off-street parking.

Demand Based Variable Pricing –Parking availability and turnover is critical to the success and viability of local businesses. This option seeks to optimize occupancy by determining desired occupancy rates block-by-block in order to achieve an even spread of 85 percent occupancy across Downtown. Other communities have established its desired target occupancy rate on a block-by-block basis as 60 percent-80 percent. This approach also helps support the ability of local employees, long-term parkers and solo drivers to find parking, Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 37 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
but discourages them from parking in “prime” on-street spaces. For example, employees that park for 8-hour shifts should have the ability to purchase permits at reduced rates outside of the prime on-street parking areas. The other communities that have implemented demand based pricing have seen, prices increased in 32 percent of the cases, decreased in 31 percent, and remained the same in 37 percent. Although the spatial spread changed, the overall average price of parking within the area remained almost the same with very little change. This could be a strategy in the future once a more straightforward parking strategy is in place but is not recommended for initial implementation.

Revenue Collection
Should the decision be made to move toward user paid parking, the simplest option is to address the problem that is most visible to the public: missing and broken parking meters. By replacing meters, the City restores a functioning parking meter network. It eliminates uncertainty about whether or not certain meters are enforced. The majority of the meters in Downtown are missing or broken; these are most concentrated in the Core. With a functioning meter network, visitors and residents will know that consistent enforcement is in place. Since the parking meter posts still exist, this may be more cost effective than the implementation of the pay stations as you would only have to install the new meter head. The following are options for revenue collection in Downtown.

Smart Meters – Since many of the meter poles are in place, the first option would be to replace the existing on-street meters with smart, single-space meters (See Figure 12 Single-Space Parking Meter). Smart meters are powered by a small photovoltaic system and allow coin or credit card payment. They can sense when a car is parked or has not paid so enforcement is simplified. In addition, they reset when a user leaves with time still on the meter, which increases revenue. Basic electronic parking meters from POM Incorporated can range from $875 to $920 each, depending on how many are ordered at a time. For cost estimate calculations $875 per smart meter is used.

Figure 92: Single-Space Parking Meter
Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 38 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
In the Core Area there are 263 unmetered on-street parking spaces and 277 metered parking spaces. In total, there are 540 on-street parking spots. If only the unmetered parking spaces receive new smart meters the cost would be $230,125 for new smart meter equipment. However approximately half of the parking spaces would have old fashioned meters with locked in rates and half the parking spaces would have new smart meters. To be consistent, we recommend replacing all meters in the Core Area. This would cost approximately $472,500. The 277 old fashioned meters could be reused in preferred parking locations in the Core area until funds are available to replace them with smart meters.

In the Strategy area there are 561 on-street unmetered parking spaces and 86 metered parking spaces. If only the unmetered parking spaces receive new smart meters the cost would be $490,875 for new smart meter equipment. A small portion of the metered parking spaces in the Strategy area already have smart meters. If the entire supply of 647 on-street parking spaces in the Strategy area receive new smart meters the cost would be $566,125 for new smart meter equipment.

Recurring fees include $5 per meter per month, as well as $0.10 per settled credit card transaction. Cost estimates do not include installation.

An alternative option is to replace existing on-street meters with smart, dual-space meters. The unit price is the same as single-space smart meters - $875 each. The only difference is just over half the amount of meters would need to be purchased, for each of the scenarios listed above. Since it is not always possible to have every stall use dual meters we assume the cost would be 60 percent of singles space meters to account for some stalls that will need to have a single space meter.

In the Core Area there are 263 unmetered on-street parking spaces and 277 metered parking spaces. In total there are 540 on-street parking spots. If only the unmetered parking spaces receive new smart meters the cost would be $138,075 for new smart meter equipment. However, approximately half of the parking spaces would have old fashioned meters with locked in rates and half the parking spaces would have new smart meters. To be consistent we recommend replacing all meters in the Core Area. This would cost approximately $283,500. The 277 old fashioned meters could be reused in preferred parking locations in the Core area until funds are available to replace them with smart meters.

In the Strategy Area there are 561 on-street unmetered parking spaces and 86 metered parking spaces. If only the unmetered parking spaces receive new smart meters the cost would be $294,525 for new smart meter equipment. A portion of the metered parking spaces in the Strategy area are already smart meters. If the entire supply of 647 on-street parking spaces in the Strategy area receive new smart meters the cost would be $339,675 for new smart meter equipment.

Recurring fees include $5 per meter per month, as well as $0.10 per settled credit card transaction. Cost estimates do not include installation.

For off-street parking, smart meters are cost prohibitive due to the amount of parking stalls. With 374 offstreet parking stalls (1,014 stalls minus California Street Garage), the initial cost would be $327,250 plus installation for single space meters and approximately $196,350 plus installation for dual-space meters.

Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 39 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Pay Stations – Another viable option is to install multi-space pay stations throughout Downtown, both on- and off-street (See Figure 13 Multi-Space Pay Station). Pay stations are not necessarily a new concept, but their implementation in Downtown would involve a learning curve, especially after parking meters have been defunct for such a long period. These units are centralized and serve multiple stalls at a time. They are strategically located to have maximum visibility for the stalls they serve. These stations cost more than singlespace parking meters and mounting locations would need to be determined.

Figure 103: Multi-Space Pay Station

• Pay-by-Space On- and Off-Street - MacKay Meters carries pay-by-space stations that list at approximately $10,000 plus installation. For convenience, each pay station should serve about 25 parking spaces for on-street parking and 50 parking spaces at off-street parking (or a minimum of 1 per lot).

In the Core Area there are 540 on-street spaces. This would require 22 pay stations. The total cost for equipment would be approximately $220,000. In the Strategy area there are 647 on-street parking stalls. This would require 26 pay stations. The total cost for equipment would be approximately $260,000.

Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 40 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
For the 374 stalls on the public off-street lots (1,014 stalls minus California Street Garage) in the Strategy area, 8 pay stations minimum is required, but to be conservative, assume 10. At 10 pay stations, $100,000 can be expected for the equipment, plus installation and maintenance costs.

Recurring fees include $5 per pay station per month, as well as $0.10 per settled credit card transaction. Cost estimates do not include installation. • Pay-by-Space On-Street, Pay-On-Foot Off-Street - An alternative way to implement all multi-space stations, both on- and off-street, would be installing pay-by-space stations on-street and pay-on-foot systems with gate arms off-street. The costs involved with implementing a pay-on-foot off-street solution are as follows: each pay-on-foot station costs approximately $25,000, plus $25,000 per entry or exit lane, and $25,000 for the server. Users would pull a ticket at an entry station and once ready to leave pay at a pay station on foot or at the exit station adjacent to the gate arm. For the 374 offstreet parking spaces and lots 18 pay-on-foot stations would be required. The total cost for 18 offstreet pay-on-foot stations would be approximately $450,000 for the equipment alone plus installation and maintenance costs. This is significantly higher than pay by space but is offset by the fact that enforcement is not required since the gate arms will not lift and allow users to leave until they have paid.
• Combination of Pay-by-Space Off-Street and Smart Meters On-Street - A third option is to install a combination of both single-space smart meters, (or dual space smart meters) and pay stations. The smart meters would be located at on-street parking and the pay stations located on off-street lots (Figure 14 Smart Meter Technology) demonstrates the different combinations possible).

The City has the option to install single-space smart meters on-street. It can also opt to install dualspace smart meters on-street.

For off-street, the City can install either pay-by-space pay stations, or install pay-on-foot pay stations.

Figure 114: Smart Meter Technology
Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 41 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com

Pay-by-phone - A pay-by-phone system could be implemented in a short timeframe and help reestablish revenues quickly. There are a number of smart phone applications such as ParkMobile and pay-by-phone that provide a revenue collection solution with no equipment requirements by the City other than signage.

This can be a cost-effective method to reestablish the revenue control system and provide an initial move towards technological solutions with minimal up-front investment for the City. However, pay-by-phone is typically used to augment a pay station system. It is not typically a stand-alone system. Customers can use a smart phone app solution to quickly pay for on-street and off-street parking without having to use a meter or pay station.

When implemented successfully pay-by-phone increase revenue by allowing users to add more time to their smart meter or pay-by-space stall and can reduce the amount of pay stations needed.

Once a customer has selected a parking space, they would then open the mobile app, enter the parking stall number, and enter the amount of time desired. Additional time can be conveniently added using the phone app, if needed. Stall numbers would be painted onto the stalls to uniquely identify them in the same manner as with a pay station system.

Phone application payment methods reduce cash collection and management, provide valuable data on parking trends and demands that can be useful in establishing parking rates, and improve the user’s parking experience.

Management of the Parking System
Expand the role of the City Public Works Department - If the City manages a newly formed parking system, it would require the addition of approximately three full time equivalent employees. • Administrative staff member to manage marketing, payment collections, mobile applications, contracts, leases, cleaning, and enforcement staff
• At a minimum a full-time equivalent enforcement staff member is required. It is recommended that there be at least two staff members to manage shift work and may employ part time staff to manage enforcement schedules
• A full-time maintenance worker to clean and maintain City-owned/leased lots as well as revenue collection, sign and furniture/amenity maintenance.

The additional costs of these staff members should be fully borne by a newly formed parking system.

Public Private Partnerships - A public private partnership may be formed to develop a parking district that is privately maintained but has a public element that would help to coordinate the public parking for the community.

Business Improvement District or Other Financing District - Another way to provide for a parking district is for the beneficiaries of the parking to help fund the maintenance and replacement of these types of facilities.

The BID or other similar financing district may provide the financing mechanism to generate the necessary revenue to pay maintenance and replacement costs as well as the associated benefits such as parking enforcement, cleaning, security and other general amenities to improve the area.

Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 42 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Enforcement Options
License Plate Recognition - Enforcement can be improved with a license plate recognition (LPR) based system.

An LPR camera on an enforcement vehicle can be used to simply drive through the lots and scan parked vehicles. The LPR system will cross reference the plates with the registered permits or paid parking and flag vehicles that are in violation. This works well for employee permits and can be integrated with any of the paid parking concepts to reduce enforcement staff. This type of automated LPR system integrated with an existing vehicle costs approximately between $50-60K, which includes installation, equipment, training and infrastructure needed.

Permits – Implement an Employee Parking Permit Program - Employees often park in prime on-street spaces, limiting parking for customers and visitors and increasing the number of vehicles circling for parking. An employee parking permit (EPP) program operates by designating priority parking within the Core for employees. Designated parking areas for employees can be located in off-street facilities, with permit holders eligible to park in those spaces during a specific time period exempt from posted regulations. Ownership of a permit, however, does not guarantee the availability of a parking space. For this reason, it is important not to sell permits far in excess of parking supply. It is assumed that the 865 off-street county parking spaces in the Strategy area will continue to be handled with parking permits.

Many conventional EPP programs do not prohibit non-employee parking, but allow the general public to park within the area, subject to posted parking restrictions. Permits provide a consistent parking option for employees, reducing the need for an employee to search for a parking space or move their vehicle to avoid parking tickets. Experience with other cities has shown that most employees will choose to pay for a permit that offers a reliable parking option over searching for on-street parking and having to move their vehicle throughout the day in a time limit zone or pay higher fees in a paid parking area. A convenient parking option makes it easier for employers to attract and retain employees. When employees park in popular on- or offstreet spaces, those spaces are no longer available for customers and visitors. Employee permits encourage participants to park in select areas while enhancing customer parking turnover at prime locations. EPP programs do create additional administrative costs for the City and potentially to employers and employees as well.

Implementation of a new EPP would involve costs to the City to administer the program, including enforcement. Permit costs would generally be set at a rate to offset those administrative costs, but the City should ensure that permit rates are low enough to encourage their use. In addition to administering the program, enforcement costs should be taken into consideration when setting the permit price. The cost of this program would be low to moderate compared to the other strategies, depending on the price the City sets for permits. The strategy does not increase parking supply, but would likely free up prime parking spaces that are currently being used by downtown employees for long periods of time. This is likely to be a very cost-effective strategy as it could improve the availability of on-street parking spaces in the Core at a relatively low cost to the City.

Industry Enforcement Guidelines
The key goal for parking enforcement is to promote compliance with regulations designed to maximize the safety and efficiency of public parking. Emerging best practices combine enforcement with Downtown ambassadors who provide information resources to users and communicate the active enforcement system in place. Industry guidelines for efficient and effective parking enforcement include:
• Parking enforcement officers should be routed such that a circuit of the enforcement area is completed every two hours.

Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 43 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
• Set a goal to lower the rate of violation, an ideal percentage rate is at or below 9 percent. • Street signs should clearly indicate the hours of enforcement. • Courtesy tickets should be issued to first-time offenders as a gentle reminder that they have overstayed the posted time limit. Courtesy tickets can also serve as a marketing piece, thanking parkers for coming downtown and directing them to facilities where longer stays are allowed. • Enforcement officers can be used as Downtown “ambassadors” to assist parkers with directions, parking options, and use of the Downtown businesses.

Revenue from citations should cover all operating costs and future needs of the enforcement system. Users who obey the rules should not be burdened with parking fines.

Fees for parking violations should be based on three criteria:
• The cost of maintaining existing operations, including administration, personnel, back office, equipment, and the physical condition of the parking facilities. • Capital improvements including system growth, replacement, and technology upgrades. • Targeted goals for rate of violation (less than 9 percent, with an ideal range of 5 percent-8 percent).

Rates should be evaluated every two years based on the above. To support this strategy, the City can:
• Review existing deployment routes to ensure the highest efficiency of coverage. • Evaluate violation data and assess methods to lower the current rate of violation. • Develop a reporting format that separates parking spaces to differentiate between on-street and offstreet parking supply and location of spaces. • Develop a reporting format that separates citations issued for parking violations and those issued for non-parking incidents (e.g., expired tags, jaywalking).

Review citation fees every two years to ensure that revenue covers, at minimum, all operating costs for the enforcement program. Annual personnel needs are estimated at $120K and require initial investment in vehicles for service.

Off-Street Parking Improvement Cost Considerations
It is important to address the condition of the existing parking lots and garages. The parking facilities have been neglected over the years and are in the need of maintenance and repair. The recommended physical improvements are presented in the table below.

Table 7: Initial Improvements: Cost per Square Feet

INITIAL IMPROVEMENTS - COST PER SQUARE FEET

ITEM GARAGE SURFACE LOT
Sealants $0.150 $0.113
Traffic topping $0.300 $0.225
Pavement markings $0.075 $0.056
Miscellaneous $0.250 $0.188
Sub-Total $0.775 $0.581
Contingency $0.078 $0.058
Total $0.853 $0.639
1,000 space facility (325,000 S.F.) $277,062.50 $207,796.88 Cost per space $277.06 $207.80
Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 44 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Maintenance and Operations with Opinion of Probable Costs The maintenance program will address routine maintenance and repair and replacement maintenance.

Preventative maintenance is covered in the Initial Improvements section on the preceding page. The program budget is reflective of the condition of the surface lots and garages and typically starts with a comprehensive condition assessment.

Table 8: Preventative Maintenance: Cost per Square Feet

PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE - COST PER SQUARE FEET

ITEM GARAGE SURFACE LOT
Sealants $0.100 $0.050
Traffic topping $0.250 $0.250
Pavement markings $0.050 $0.050
Miscellaneous $0.200 $0.100
Sub-Total $0.600 $0.450
Contingency $0.060 $0.045
Total $0.660 $0.495
1,000 space facility (325,000 S.F.) $214,500.00 $160,875.00 Cost per space per year $42.90 $32.18
Table 9: Routine Maintenance: Cost per Square Feet

ROUTINE MAINTENANCE - COST PER SQUARE FEET

ITEM GARAGE SURFACE LOT
Maintain sealants $0.075 $0.038
Maintain traffic topping $0.125 $0.063
Interim surface patching $0.075 $0.038
Interim beam and column patching $0.040
Maintain drainage system $0.040 $0.020
Maintain lighting $0.030 $0.015
Maintain PARCS $0.125 $0.063
Maintain elevators $0.040
Miscellaneous $0.020 $0.150
Sub-Total $0.570 $0.385
Contingency $0.086 $0.058
Total $0.656 $0.443
1,000 space facility (325,000 S.F.) $213,037.50 $143,893.75 Cost per space per year $213.04 $143.89
Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 45 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Table 10: Replacement of System: Cost per Square Feet

REPLACEMENT OF SYSTEM - COST PER SQUARE FEET

ITEM GARAGE SURFACE LOT
Replace drainage system $1.000 $0.500
Replace lighting system $2.150 $2.150
Replace PARCS $0.175 $0.175
Replace signs and graphics $0.025 $0.025
Replace elevators $1.850
Miscellaneous $0.150 $0.100
Sub-Total $5.350 $2.825
Contingency $0.535 $0.283
Total $5.885 $3.108
1,000 space facility (325,000 S.F.) $1,912,625.00 $1,009,937.50 Cost per space per year $95.63 $50.50
The total annual cost to provide preventative and routine maintenance combined with system replacement cost is $351.57 per parking space for the garages and $226.57 per parking space for the surface lots.

Public On-Street Parking Costs
The maintenance program budget to support the on-street parking spaces located within the public right-ofway (streets) is likely part of the street maintenance program. Currently, street maintenance is a considerable issue for the City, with a system pavement condition rating in the mid 40’s of a 100 point scale.

Current revenues are not sufficient to properly maintain existing pavement inventory. Given the limited resources available, a proportionate share of the parking revenue profits should supplement the maintenance program with minor improvements.

Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 46 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com

RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION
Parking Supply and Ownership
Although the analysis indicates there will be sufficient parking supply both on- and off-street to meet the predicted demand there will certainly be short term supply concerns during construction and an overall reduction in parking supply – particularly the public off-street supply. To minimize the risk of expensive over investment and to ensure public convenience and perception, it is recommended that off-street supply be increased by up to 200 spaces in the short term through leasing available underutilized private lots. This will facilitate the transition from a large centralized model to one that ebbs and flows with demand and is strategically placed to provide convenient access for all purposes. Off-street parking should be incentivized to encourage all day parkers to use these alternative off-street parking lots instead of the prime on-street parking spaces near retail locations.

A new ownership and operational model is actively in place with the subterranean lot at 1551 Market Street where a public/private partnership has been created. This model will likely follow with the Block 7 development as well. In addition, much of the new supply will be owned either privately such as the California Street Labs or by other governmental agencies like RABA and Shasta County. The City should monitor these various model types and consider further private partnerships in the long term.

Parking Pricing Strategy
In order to sufficiently fund new off-street parking facilities like the 1551 subterranean garage and the Block 7 garage, user fees will be assessed. To ensure consistency, fund repair and replacement, and to encourage private investment, off-street parking should move toward a user paid model with incentives.

For on-street parking, we recommend a user-paid model as well. This will allow the City to quickly implement supply, enforcement, management and maintenance needs. Moving toward a BID or other funding model will take significant time and community coordination/buy in from the business owners. However, this model is available should the business community be willing to invest in parking for their patrons rather than onstreet user-paid collection.

The most effective parking pricing strategy for the size and scale of Downtown would be the static rate approach. A static rate is simple and easily understood and can be adjusted periodically over time. We recommend initially implementing a simple pricing policy with parking rates at $0.50 per hour for both the on-street spaces and the off-street City-owned or leased lots. Parking should be enforced Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. for Core parking and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for the remaining strategy area.

We recommend operating this system for a minimum of three years before implementing any significant changes or until the system is financially self-sustainable.

When it is time to review the pricing, we recommend consideration of a demand based variable rate system for on-street and off-street parking spaces. Where and when the parking demand is high, the rates increase.

Where and when there is a lower demand the rates decrease. This is the age-old supply and demand approach. The prime parking spaces on a block or within a lot should be priced as such; the less desirable parking spaces should have a lower price point.

Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 47 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
The prime on-street parking spaces are the most desirable and yet at the same time they need to be medium to high-turnover spaces with a space by space monitoring system. Having the prime spaces priced correctly will encourage good turnover and generate higher revenues. We recommend a goal of 85 percent as the optimum occupancy rate. If the demand pushes to 85 percent and up, the rates should be increased until the 85 percent is back in balance. If the occupancy rate drops, so do the rates until we get back up to 85 percent.

Grace periods where parking is free for a limited time may be considered at the beginning of the program, for special events, or to manage parking and encourage users to make use of the off-street parking facilities in outlying areas from the Core area. For example, a one-hour grace period may be used for on-street parking in the Core area, and longer (90- or 120-minute) grace periods for off-street parking in the outlying strategy area The city will be examining these and other grace period combinations with the impacts to cash flow and the overall plans of improving the Downtown parking experience.

Revenue Collection
Smart Meters – On-street
Installing all smart meters to replace all missing, broken and antiquated meters will provide a high level of service for users since they are familiar with parking meter technology and paying with coins is an option. To reduce the cost, dual-head meters that serve two spots would be an option where it works. We recommend starting with the Core Area and expanding smart meters to the Strategy area once a revenue stream is established.

Pay Stations – Off-street
A pay-on-foot or at the gate payment system would be a viable option for large garages and off-street lots since over time enforcement costs are reduced. This option would include a large upfront investment for implementation of the gate and ticket system. The quickest and most cost effective payment system for offstreet parking is to install pay stations. Enforcement will be required but the upfront savings are substantial.

This system should be augmented with a pay-by-phone system.

The privately managed new parking garages will likely be gate controlled and paid through a variety options for tenants, patrons and business owners.

Pay by Mobile Application
There are a number of mobile parking applications that would be an excellent supplement to the parking program and could assist in a number of areas to allow the parking program to become more self-sufficient moving into the future. For example an app could:
• Identify Parking Lot locations and even number of empty spaces; • Manage payment for your location on your phone, even if you overstay your allotted time; • Manage leased lots without a pay station;
• Provide parking analytics about locations and length of stay; • Integrate parking lots into one system managed by the app; and • Prepare for future auto integration.

Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 48 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Management
In order to oversee and manage all the parking operations, we suggest that the City implement a centralized Parking Division that provides full-time management of the parking operation. Responsibilities pertaining to parking can become easily overlooked; a municipality’s departments that have some form of a parking related role can span many disciplines, including transit, finance, police department, public works, planning and even community and economic development. A lack of internal structure within the City when it comes to parking can adversely affect all of the departments mentioned above, so it is in the City’s best interest to allocate specific resources to parking management operations.

If in the long term the City can partner with a newly formed Downtown district to manage the parking system along with other downtown maintenance items, this may be the preferred option.

Marketing
To ensure a successful implementation it is important to market the new parking system including branding.

This introduces users to the system and creates awareness. Additionally, a marketing and branding program educates users about the benefits of paying for parking since some of the profits are reinvested to the area.

Additional public outreach should be conducted to identify how the local community would like to see the parking revenue reinvested in the Downtown blocks. Ideas for improvements could be services such as power washing the sidewalks regularly, touch up painting of site fixtures (light poles, fire hydrants, etc.), new site furniture (trash cans, benches), enhanced holiday decorations, etc. This will create a cleaner and more inviting Downtown and is good for community overall.

Continued collaboration with Downtown partners will be beneficial to parking operations and help maintain a good level of service for all. Having an established working relationship with the retailers who work directly with the public every day will provide parking operations with current information of ongoing parking related issues and trends. Additionally, regular meetings will provide a place to discuss issues, share ideas, and plan for the evolution of the System.

Signage
As a successful part of the marketing program for the parking district, the City should develop a parking wayfinding sign program that is distinctive and easy to use. The signage could implement new technology that indicates how many spaces are available in a parking garage or surface lot to help guide users to the best options.

Enforcement
A major issue that needs to be implemented along with the installation of a collection system is enforcement.

The potential parking district or the City would need to review cost versus return. The parking district would need to evaluate what the costs will be to provide staff hours, salaries, and benefits, in relation to the revenue of parking fees that would be generated. Additional enforcement goals that the City should consider including:
• An enforcement circuit that checks most of the spaces downtown in approximately 2 hours; • Start the program with courtesy “tickets” that are used during an implementation period; Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 49 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
• Enforcement officers should be trained as downtown “ambassadors” to help the users learn the new program and to work with business owners;
• Monitor parking rates, violations, costs and usage in order to consider adjustments over time; and • Implement a system that realizes an approximate 9 percent violation rate.

With any changes made to parking Downtown, it is crucial to keep the public informed. Designating and advertising a grace period or a “first time warning” is recommended once new meters and time zones are in place in order to allow people time to learn about changes instead of being misinformed and penalized as a result. Additionally, it is suggested that the parking district maintain social media and an online presence so people have an additional resource to reference.

Implementation
Short Term
If the City determines that there is the need to institute a revenue collection system, the first step is to develop a parking management program. There will be some initial investment in order to start the program management:
- Negotiate additional supply leases from the private sector - Establish pricing block locations
- Establish rate and time schedules
- Select payment collections for on- and off-street parking:
o Smart meters within the Core
o Pay stations for all public off-street parking
- Select and implement a Mobile Parking Application
- Establish the management, maintenance and enforcement system The first capital purchase will be upgrading and modernizing the parking revenue collection equipment.

Watry recommends focusing on the Core initially. The 540 on-street parking spaces in the Core should have dual space smart meters installed. Users are familiar with the current parking meters so matching the current meter concept with more modern meters makes sense from a user familiarity perspective and an upfront cost perspective. The cost of the equipment is $283,500 not including installation. At the same time the onstreet parking meters are installed in the Core we recommend installing pay-by-space pay stations in public off-street parking locations in the Core. The cost of the equipment is $210,000 not including installation. The 277 remaining old fashioned meters could be reused at preferred parking locations in the Strategy area until revenue is established to upgrade them and install smart meters in the Strategy Area. Alternatively the Strategy area could be left as free parking which would encourage some Core users to park in the free Strategy area parking which makes more parking in the Core available.

As downtown develops we recommend adding wayfinding signage to the Core, directing users to larger and more remote parking facilities away from the Core, likely in the Strategy area since underutilized supply exists. Ideally parking revenue could be used to pay for the new signage.

Following initial development and implementation, the City should begin to address maintenance, operations and other improvements. With the meters and pay stations in operation, revenue should allow the establishment of a parking maintenance, operations and improvements program. Such items to address are:

Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 50 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
- Lighting
- General Maintenance to asphalt
- Landscaping
- Meter upkeep
- Site furniture (benches, trash and recycling receptacles) Revenue should be assessed at this point since the new parking payment system will have been in place for a few years. Based on City provided data the existing meters generate $300/year each charging the current rate of $0.20 per hour. Assuming Downtown leasing is at 90 percent (which increases parking demand as shown in Table 2 Current SF, Parking Supply and Demand (Weekdays)) and 540 smart meters are installed in the Core, revenue would be approximately $162,000, not counting the recommended rate increases. For the 1,014 off-street public parking spaces in the core (839 after development), revenue would be $304,200 not counting the recommended rate increase. With the proposed rate increase to $0.50 per hour, revenues will increase incrementally with total receipts expected in the $600-$700,000 range.

Long Term
Parking Revenues will have been collected for 5 to 10 years at this point so consideration should be given to adding smart meters in the Strategy area on-street parking. The Strategy area has 647 on-street parking spaces. The cost of dual head smart meter equipment is approximately $339,675 not including installation.

Based on City provided data, the existing meters generate $300/year each these 647 meters at 71 percent occupied these meters would generate yearly revenue of $137,811 at current parking rates.

The longer term is an ideal time to evaluate additional improvements and upgrades. Such items may include:
- Amenity projects with excess receipts
- Parking supply alternatives, if needed (may include reducing or adding supply and location) - General maintenance capital improvements such as sealing or pavement replacement - Parking rate design with the potential for demand based variable rates - Landscaping enhancements
- Meters added in Strategy area
- Site furniture (benches ad trash/recycling receptacles) - Banners and flags

FINANCING CONSIDERATIONS
Initial Costs - We recommend proceeding with the installation of single-space smart meters in combination with pay stations, and with a pay-by-phone option. Once a consistent revenue source has been established we recommend a trailblazing sign package to direct drivers to the off-street or non-prime on-street parking spaces. These could be dynamic real time stall availability signs or static signs that direct users to off-street parking resources. Some of the residents will have a difficult time at first and this can be addressed using the Parking Ambassadors. Having an Enforcement Officer walking the beat is good for the neighborhood, improves the level of service to the community and improved relations with City staff.

Table 11: Short-term Equipment/Material Costs
Dual Head Smart Meters at on-street parking in Core Area Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 51 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Item Unit Cost No. of Units Cost
Smart Meters $875 540x60% 283,500
Installation 33% Cost $93,555
Contingency 20% Cost+Install $75,411
Total $452,466
Pay Stations at off-street parking in Core Area
Item Unit Cost No. of Units Cost
Pay Stations 10,000 10 $100,000
Installation 33% Cost $33,000
Contingency 20% Cost+Install $26,600
Total $159,600
Dual Head Smart Meters at on-street parking in Strategy Area Item Unit Cost No. of Units Cost
Smart Meters $875 647x60% $339,675
Installation 33% Cost $112,093
Contingency 20% Cost+Install $90,354
Total $542,122
Table 12: Short-term Implementation Costs
Item Annual On-going Initial Capital
Add Smart Meters to the Core (540 on-street) $32,400 $452,460 Add Pay Stations to Off-street lots (21) $159,600
Add Wayfinding and Trailblazing Signage $120,000
Lease 200 off-street spaces for supply ($60/stall/month) $144,000 Implement Mobile Parking Application
Enforcement (two part time employees) $120,000
Cleaning, Maintenance and Revenue Collection $120,000
Parking Management, Fines and Appeal $150,000
Upgrade Existing City Owned Lots (Paving and Striping) $180,000 Annual Maintenance/Replacement Reserves for City Managed Spac (300 spaces at $230 per space)
$69,000
On-street Maintenance Reserve Fund $30,000
Total $665,400 $912,060
If the City decides to pursue a privately funded BID based model, a significant portion of the capital investment will not be needed. The system will not be user-paid and there will be no need for revenue Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 52 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
collection equipment. However, ongoing funding for enforcement, management, maintenance and leased space will still be needed.

Economist Steve Gunnells of PlaceWorks has developed options for financing of the measures discussed above. These are presented in a separate Parking Strategy Funding and Finance report.

CONCLUSION
The City has an opportunity to help gain acceptance of the new pay-for-parking System and engage the retailers and public by reinvesting a share of the parking revenue back into the Downtown streets.

Continued collaboration will be beneficial to parking operations and help maintain a good level of service for all. Having an established working relationship with the retailers who work directly with the public every day will provide parking operations with current information of ongoing parking related issues and trends.

Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 53 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com

APPENDICES
Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 54 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Appendix 1 - User Groups
To better understand the Downtown parking needs it is helpful to discuss the different user groups and parking space types. They include the following:

Customer Parking - Ideally, customers should have a choice of parking options based on convenience and price. The choice of parking stall type could include on-street prime parking, on-street secondary parking, offstreet surface lot parking, or garage parking. Many customers like to park in on-street parking spaces as close to the shopping or service they are visiting. Others would prefer a space within a small walking distance and save on the cost of parking.

Residential Parking – Ideally, each residential project will provide the adequate parking supply for the project at a minimum. However, since the residential parking is needed at night and not during the daytime when demand is higher there is an opportunity to share parking and provide new residential development without added parking. By adding residents to downtown, nighttime uses such as restaurants and entertainment will see increased revenue since most employees in downtown live outside of downtown.

Commercial Employee Parking - Employee and customer conflicts are common in Downtown areas.

Employees should be required to park in off-street parking lots or structures away from the Core and have an opportunity to purchase an all-day parking pass for a reduced rate.

Courthouse Employee Parking – Employee and patron parking will be provided within the existing supply plus an additional 100 parking spaces. Employees can use their current credentials to park in designated areas all day.

Students and Staff – Students of educational facilities, especially Shasta College, often drive to school for classes. Students should be directed to park in off-street parking lots away from the Core and have an option to purchase a pass for long term parking.

ADA Parking - ADA parking should be evaluated to ensure that the appropriate amount is existing at each parking facility and that the existing conditions meet current local, state and federal requirements.

Electric vehicles – The percentage of electric vehicles sold in California today is about 5 percent of total vehicles sold and expected to increase although electric vehicles are much more common in large cities. For new parking structures, 6 percent of stalls are required to be electric vehicle ready, with conduit prepared for future installations per the (Cal Green Building Code – CGBC).

Alternative fuel vehicles, carpools and electric vehicle charging spaces - For new parking structures, the CGBC requires that 8 percent of the parking supply be designated for any combination of alternative fuel vehicles, car pools and electric vehicle charging stalls.

Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 55 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Appendix 2 – Phase II Core Area Parking Demand, Shared Parking Demand Summary

Table 9/13/2018Project: City of Redding Core Area Phase II - Short Term ForecastDescription: Shared Use Study

SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
PEAK MONTH: DECEMBER -- PEAK PERIOD: 2 PM, WEEKDAY
Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend
Non- Non- Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Base Mode Captive Project Base Mode Captive Project Adj Adj Parking Adj Adj Parking Land Use Quantity Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit 2 PM December Demand 7 PM December Demand Retail 73,481 sf GLA 2.90 0.90 1.00 2.61 /ksf GLA 3.20 0.95 1.00 3.04 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.56 192 0.75 1.00 167 Employee 0.70 0.80 1.00 0.56 /ksf GLA 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.64 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.80 41 0.80 1.00 38 Fine/Casual Restaurant 30,000 sf GLA 15.25 0.90 0.80 10.98 /ksf GLA 17.00 0.95 0.90 14.54 /ksf GLA 0.65 0.85 214 0.95 1.00 414 Employee 2.75 0.80 1.00 2.20 /ksf GLA 3.00 0.80 1.00 2.40 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.95 60 1.00 1.00 72 Family Restaurant 40,500 sf GLA 9.00 0.80 0.75 5.40 /ksf GLA 12.75 0.90 0.90 10.33 /ksf GLA 0.50 0.85 110 0.70 1.00 293 Employee 1.50 0.80 1.00 1.20 /ksf GLA 2.25 0.80 1.00 1.80 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.95 49 0.95 1.00 69 Fast Food Restaurant 5,000 sf GLA 12.75 0.80 0.70 7.14 /ksf GLA 12.00 0.90 0.90 9.72 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.85 32 0.80 1.00 39 Employee 2.25 0.80 1.00 1.80 /ksf GLA 2.00 0.80 1.00 1.60 /ksf GLA 0.95 0.95 8 0.90 1.00 7 Theater 1,000 seats 0.19 0.90 0.90 0.15 /seat 0.26 0.90 0.90 0.21 /seat 0.55 0.27 19 0.80 0.67 113 Employee 0.01 0.80 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.01 0.80 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.60 0.50 2 1.00 0.80 6 Office >500 ksf 520,920 sf GLA 0.20 0.95 1.00 0.19 /ksf GLA 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.02 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 99 0.00 1.00 0 Employee 2.60 0.80 1.00 2.08 /ksf GLA 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.26 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 1,083 0.00 1.00 0 ULI base data have been modified from default values. Customer 666 Customer 1026 Employee 1243 Employee 192
Reserved 0 Reserved 0
Total 1909 Total 1218
Shared Parking Reduction 42% 63%
Project Data
Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 56 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Appendix 3 – Phase III Core Area Parking Demand, Shared Parking Demand Summary Table 9/13/2018 Project: City of Redding Core Area Phase III - Long Term Forecast Description: Shared Use Study SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY PEAK MONTH: DECEMBER -- PEAK PERIOD: 2 PM, WEEKDAY Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Non- Non- Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Base Mode Captive Project Base Mode Captive Project Adj Adj Parking Adj Adj Parking Land Use Quantity Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit 2 PM December Demand 7 PM December Demand Retail 84,866 sf GLA 2.90 0.90 1.00 2.61 /ksf GLA 3.20 0.95 1.00 3.04 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.56 221 0.75 1.00 194 Employee 0.70 0.80 1.00 0.56 /ksf GLA 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.64 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.80 47 0.80 1.00 44 Fine/Casual Restaurant 35,000 sf GLA 15.25 0.90 0.80 10.98 /ksf GLA 17.00 0.95 0.90 14.54 /ksf GLA 0.65 0.85 250 0.95 1.00 483 Employee 2.75 0.80 1.00 2.20 /ksf GLA 3.00 0.80 1.00 2.40 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.95 69 1.00 1.00 84 Family Restaurant 45,000 sf GLA 9.00 0.80 0.75 5.40 /ksf GLA 12.75 0.90 0.90 10.33 /ksf GLA 0.50 0.85 122 0.70 1.00 325 Employee 1.50 0.80 1.00 1.20 /ksf GLA 2.25 0.80 1.00 1.80 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.95 54 0.95 1.00 77 Fast Food Restaurant 5,000 sf GLA 12.75 0.80 0.70 7.14 /ksf GLA 12.00 0.90 0.90 9.72 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.85 32 0.80 1.00 39 Employee 2.25 0.80 1.00 1.80 /ksf GLA 2.00 0.80 1.00 1.60 /ksf GLA 0.95 0.95 8 0.90 1.00 7 Theater 1,000 seats 0.19 0.90 0.90 0.15 /seat 0.26 0.90 0.90 0.21 /seat 0.55 0.27 19 0.80 0.67 113 Employee 0.01 0.80 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.01 0.80 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.60 0.50 2 1.00 0.80 6 Office >500 ksf 492,420 sf GLA 0.20 0.95 1.00 0.19 /ksf GLA 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.02 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 93 0.00 1.00 0 Employee 2.60 0.80 1.00 2.08 /ksf GLA 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.26 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 1,024 0.00 1.00 0 ULI base data have been modified from default values. Customer 737 Customer 1154 Employee 1204 Employee 218 Reserved 0 Reserved 0 Total 1941 Total 1372 Shared Parking Reduction 44% 60% Project Data Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 57 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Appendix 4 – Phase II Strategy Area Parking Demand, Shared Parking Demand Summary

Table 9/13/2018Project: City of Redding Strategy Area Phase II - Short Term ForecastDescription: Shared Use Study

SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend
Non- Non- Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Base Mode Captive Project Base Mode Captive Project Adj Adj Parking Adj Adj Parking Land Use Quantity Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit 2 PM December Demand 1 PM December Demand Retail 144,125 sf GLA 2.90 0.90 1.00 2.61 /ksf GLA 3.20 0.90 1.00 2.88 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.56 376 0.95 1.00 394 Employee 0.70 0.80 1.00 0.56 /ksf GLA 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.64 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.80 81 1.00 1.00 92 56500 37,500 sf GLA 15.25 0.90 0.80 10.98 /ksf GLA 17.00 0.90 0.90 13.77 /ksf GLA 0.65 0.85 268 0.55 1.00 284 Employee 2.75 0.80 1.00 2.20 /ksf GLA 3.00 0.80 1.00 2.40 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.95 74 0.75 1.00 68 Family Restaurant 56,500 sf GLA 9.00 0.80 0.75 5.40 /ksf GLA 12.75 0.80 0.90 9.18 /ksf GLA 0.50 0.85 153 0.85 1.00 441 Employee 1.50 0.80 1.00 1.20 /ksf GLA 2.25 0.80 1.00 1.80 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.95 68 1.00 1.00 102 Fast Food Restaurant 15,000 sf GLA 12.75 0.80 0.70 7.14 /ksf GLA 12.00 0.80 0.90 8.64 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.85 96 1.00 1.00 130 Employee 2.25 0.80 1.00 1.80 /ksf GLA 2.00 0.80 1.00 1.60 /ksf GLA 0.95 0.95 26 1.00 1.00 24 Theater 1,000 seats 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 /seat 0.26 0.90 0.90 0.21 /seat 0.55 0.27 0 0.45 0.67 63 Employee 0.00 0.80 1.00 0.00 /seat 0.01 0.80 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.60 0.50 0 0.60 0.80 4 Office >500 ksf 819,000 sf GLA 0.20 0.95 1.00 0.19 /ksf GLA 0.02 0.95 1.00 0.02 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 156 0.80 1.00 12 Employee 2.60 0.80 1.00 2.08 /ksf GLA 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.26 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 1,703 0.80 1.00 170 ULI base data have been modified from default values. Customer 1049 Customer 1324 Employee 1952 Employee 460
Reserved 0 Reserved 0
Total 3001 Total 1784
Shared Parking Reduction 40% 64%
Project Data
PEAK MONTH: DECEMBER -- PEAK PERIOD: 2 PM, WEEKDAY
Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 58 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Appendix 5 – Phase III Strategy Area Parking Demand, Shared Parking Demand Summary Table 9/13/2018 Project: City of Redding Strategy Area Phase III - Long Term Forecast Description: Shared Use Study SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Non- Non- Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated 163225 Base Mode Captive Project Base Mode Captive Project Adj Adj Parking Adj Adj Parking Land Use Quantity Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit 2 PM December Demand 7 PM December Demand Retail 163,225 sf GLA 2.90 0.90 1.00 2.61 /ksf GLA 3.20 0.95 1.00 3.04 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.56 426 0.75 1.00 372 Employee 0.70 0.80 1.00 0.56 /ksf GLA 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.64 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.80 91 0.80 1.00 84 Fine/Casual Restaurant 42,500 sf GLA 15.25 0.90 0.80 10.98 /ksf GLA 17.00 0.95 0.90 14.54 /ksf GLA 0.65 0.85 303 0.95 1.00 587 Employee 2.75 0.80 1.00 2.20 /ksf GLA 3.00 0.80 1.00 2.40 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.95 84 1.00 1.00 102 Family Restaurant 65,500 sf GLA 9.00 0.80 0.75 5.40 /ksf GLA 12.75 0.90 0.90 10.33 /ksf GLA 0.50 0.85 177 0.70 1.00 473 Employee 1.50 0.80 1.00 1.20 /ksf GLA 2.25 0.80 1.00 1.80 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.95 78 0.95 1.00 112 Fast Food Restaurant 19,000 sf GLA 12.75 0.80 0.70 7.14 /ksf GLA 12.00 0.90 0.90 9.72 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.85 122 0.80 1.00 148 Employee 2.25 0.80 1.00 1.80 /ksf GLA 2.00 0.80 1.00 1.60 /ksf GLA 0.95 0.95 33 0.90 1.00 27 Theater 1,000 seats 0.19 0.90 0.90 0.15 /seat 0.26 0.90 0.90 0.21 /seat 0.55 0.27 19 0.80 0.67 113 Employee 0.01 0.80 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.01 0.80 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.60 0.50 2 1.00 0.80 6 Office >500 ksf 812,500 sf GLA 0.20 0.95 1.00 0.19 /ksf GLA 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.02 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 155 0.00 1.00 0 Employee 2.60 0.80 1.00 2.08 /ksf GLA 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.26 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 1,690 0.00 1.00 0 ULI base data have been modified from default values. Customer 1202 Customer 1693 Employee 1978 Employee 331 Reserved 0 Reserved 0 Total 3180 Total 2024 Shared Parking Reduction 40% 62% Project Data PEAK MONTH: DECEMBER -- PEAK PERIOD: 2 PM, WEEKDAY Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 59 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Appendix 6 – Program Summaries: Core Area
The following is our understanding of the project area programs and the land uses as categorized by the Urban Land Institute’s Shared Parking, for the Core Area.

TABLE 1A – PHASE II A SHORT TERM
Use SF or Units
Retail 73,481 GLA1
Fine/Casual Restaurants 30,000 GLA
Family Restaurant (no table service) 40,500 GLA
Fast Food Restaurant (take out) 5,000 GLA
Office 520,920 GFA
Theater 1,000 seats 1 Reduction of retail space due to redevelopment to residential/mixed-use.

TABLE 2A – PHASE III LONG TERM
Use SF or Units
Retail 84,866 GLA
Fine/Casual Restaurants 35,000 GLA
Family Restaurant (no table service) 45,000 GLA
Fast Food Restaurant (take out) 5,000 GLA
Office 492,420 GFA2
Theater 1,000 seats 2 Reduction of office space due to redevelopment to residential/mixed-use.

Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 60 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Appendix 7 – Program Summaries: Strategy Area
The following is our understanding of the project area programs and the land uses as categorized by the Urban Land Institute’s Shared Parking, for the Strategy Area.

TABLE 1B – PHASE II SHORT TERM
Use SF or Units
Retail 144,125 GLA
Fine/Casual Restaurants 37,500 GLA
Family Restaurant (no table service) 56,500 GLA
Fast Food Restaurant (take out) 15,000 GLA
Office 819,000 GFA
Theater 1,000 seats
Courthouse (100 dedicated stalls)

TABLE 2B – PHASE III LONG TERM
Use SF or Units
Retail 163,225 GLA
Fine/Casual Restaurants 42,500 GLA
Family Restaurant (no table service) 65,500 GLA
Fast Food Restaurant (take out) 19,000 GLA
Office 812,500 GFA1
Theater 1,000 seats
Courthouse (100 dedicated stalls)
1 Reduction of office space due to redevelopment to
residential/mixed-use.

Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 61 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Appendix 8 – Parking Demands for the Core and Strategy Areas The four models included in this report (Appendices 2--5) support recommendations for parking demands for the Core and Strategy Areas. We studied three scenarios: Phase I Current, Phase II Short Term forecast, and Phase III Long Term forecast. At the same time, we included the results from the 2010/2017 survey, for comparison. The results are summarized in the tables below and all numbers represent public parking only, not private.

TABLE 1C - CORE AREA PEAK PARKING DEMANDS
Phase Weekday Peak
Phase I - Current 1,018 stalls
Phase II - Short Term Forecast 1,450 stalls
Phase III - Long Term Forecast 1,482 stalls
TABLE 2C - STRATEGY AREA PARKING DEMANDS
Phase Weekday Peak
Phase I - Current 1,852 stalls
Phase II - Short Term Forecast 2,347 stalls
Phase III - Long Term Forecast 2,526 stalls
Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Page 62 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Appendix 9 – September 2018 Downtown Redding Parking Demand Analysis Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Downtown Redding Parking Demand Analysis
September 14, 2018
Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) A r c h i t e c t s  E n g i n e e r s  P a r k i n g P l a n n e r s September 14, 2018
Bruce Brubaker, LEED AP
Associate Principal

PLACEWORKS
1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, California 94709
510.848.3815
RE: City of Redding, California
Downtown Redding Parking Strategy – Parking Demand Analysis WDI Job #15061.312
Dear Bruce,
Watry is pleased to present this parking demand analysis to compliment the Downtown Parking Strategy exercises for the City of Redding. The report includes our shared parking demand findings and recommendations.

We appreciate the opportunity to assist PLACEWORKS and the City of Redding with the Parking Strategy exercises.

Sincerely yours,
WATRY DESIGN, INC.

Matt Davis
Associate Principal
Michael Johnson
Sr. Project Manager
cc:

Enclosure
MJ/mj
Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) A r c h i t e c t s  E n g i n e e r s  P a r k i n g P l a n n e r s

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................2 SHARED USE PARKING - CONCEPT AND METHODOLOGY.............................................................................2 PROJECT APPROACH .....................................................................................................................................4 COLLECTION OF DATA...................................................................................................................................5 PHASE I – CURRENT PARKING DEMANDS .....................................................................................................5 SUMMARY OF PEAK PARKING DEMANDS FOR PHASES II AND III.................................................................6 PROGRAM SUMMARIES – CORE AREA..........................................................................................................7 PROGRAM SUMMARIES – STRATEGY AREA..................................................................................................8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................9 ATTACHMENTS............................................................................................................................................10 ATTACHMENT A – MAP OF STUDY AREAS ..............................................................................................11 ATTACHMENT B – TABLE OF PARKING OCCUAPNCY COUNTS................................................................13 ATTACHMENT C – SHORT TERM FORECAST MAP AND DATA.................................................................15 ATTACHMENT D - CORE AREA PHASE I – CURRENT CONDITIONS ..........................................................18 ATTACHMENT E – CORE AREA PHASE II – SHORT TERM FORECAST.......................................................22 ATTACHMENT F – CORE AREA PHASE III – LONG TERM FORECAST........................................................26 ATTACHMENT G - STRATEGY AREA PHASE I – CURRENT CONDITIONS ..................................................30 ATTACHMENT H – STRATEGY AREA PHASE II – SHORT TERM FORECAST...............................................34 ATTACHMENT I – STRATEGY AREA PHASE III – LONG TERM FORECAST.................................................38 Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding, CA September 14, 2018
WDI # 15061 Page 2 of 41
P:\Projects\2015\15061Downtown Redding Specific Plan\Parking Demand Study\091418\City of Redding Parking Strategy - Parking Demand Report 091418.docx
Irvine, CA • San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com

INTRODUCTION
The City of Redding is underway on a study of parking in the Downtown area, which will lead to a Parking Strategy for the City to use in three phases: existing, short-term and long-term. This study will look at existing and future parking demand, then compare that demand to the existing public and private parking supply. This will allow the City to determine how to manage the existing parking spaces that exist today, and to make plans for adding spaces for the future if necessary.

The parking study is being led by two consultants, PlaceWorks and Watry Design, Inc. PlaceWorks recently completed the Downtown Redding Specific Plan Update. Watry was the Parking consultant for the both the Specific Plan Update and the Downtown Connectivity Plan that was completed before the Specific Plan Update. In addition, the City of Redding Public Works staff has done a considerable amount of data gathering to understand how many parking spaces exist today, and how many of them were occupied at the time of the survey. This information is critical to the development of the Parking Strategy, and it is summarized in this report. The study focuses on two areas: the Downtown Core (which is the same as the Downtown Core district in the Downtown Specific Plan) and the Downtown Strategy Area (which includes the Downtown Core within it). These areas are shown in the map in Attachment A.

During the Specific Plan Update, parking emerged as an issue that many community members and business owners were concerned about. The Specific Plan Update process held a community meeting on November 9, 2017 that focused on parking issues. Many of the comments received had to do with concerns about cost of parking, where paid parking may or may not be appropriate, enforcement of onstreet parking meters, potential loss of parking spots, and the potential for new parking at various locations. All of these topics will be addressed in the Parking Strategy that is underway.

At the end of this process, the existing, short-term and long-term parking demand for Downtown will be known, and the work of creating strategies to solve parking issues will commence.

SHARED USE PARKING - CONCEPT AND METHODOLOGY
When analyzing the parking demand for a downtown area like the City of Redding, a shared use parking demand analysis is a suitable approach within the parking planning and traffic engineering professions.

The Urban Land Institute (ULI), working with the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), the National Parking Association (NPA), and a core group of parking professionals, published the Shared Parking manual and associated MS Excel spreadsheet model to assist with the analysis and development of parking demands for various mixed-use land developments. The first edition was published in 1983 and the second addition was published in 2005. The third edition is currently being produced with an anticipated release date in 2019. Shared Parking is a recognized and accepted tool within the parking planning and traffic engineering professions as well as many municipalities.

Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding, CA September 14, 2018
WDI # 15061 Page 3 of 41
P:\Projects\2015\15061Downtown Redding Specific Plan\Parking Demand Study\091418\City of Redding Parking Strategy - Parking Demand Report 091418.docx
Irvine, CA • San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
“Shared parking is the use of a parking space to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment”, according to the Shared Parking, Second Edition introduction. Shared Parking also identifies two conditions for shared use: 1) “variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour, by day, or by season at the individual land uses”, and 2) “relationships among the land uses that result in visiting multiple land uses on the same auto trip”.
“The key goal of shared parking analysis, then, is to find the balance between providing adequate parking to support a development from a commercial viewpoint and minimizing the negative aspects of excessive land area or resources devoted to parking. Downtown areas that share parking result in greater density, better pedestrian connections, and in turn, reduces reliance on driving, typically because multiple destinations can be access by walking”, Shared Parking, Second Edition.

Parking demands are based on:
 Project program: Land uses and sizes of each. Size could be defined by the GFA (gross floor area), GLA (gross leasable area), number of seats, number of units or bedrooms, etc. It is important to have a well-defined program for best results.
 Parking ratios: Examples of parking ratios include: four to six (4-6) parking stalls per 1,000 GLA of retail space; three (3) parking stalls per 1,000 of GFA for office space; and .27 parking stalls per 1,000 seats for a theater.
 Multi-modal adjustments: This includes people arriving at the site by means other than a private vehicle requiring a parking stall; UBER/Lift, public transportation, ride sharing, etc.  Non-captive adjustments: This includes patrons that are on-site visiting a land use and will visit other land uses without having to re-park the car.

Adjustments can be made to the parking ratios, multi-modal factors, and the non-captive factors as needed in order to create a model that best represents the project’s specific characteristics, behaviors, and parking needs.

The ULI model takes into consideration the parking ratios, the multi-modal and non-captive adjustments, time of day, day of month, and month of year, along with shared use considerations for all user groups.

Again, “The key goal of shared parking analysis, then, is to find the balance between providing adequate parking to support a development from a commercial viewpoint and minimizing the negative aspects of excessive land area or resources devoted to parking”, Shared Parking, Second Edition.

The ULI model calculations include the 85th percentile approach when establishing project peak demands and is consistent with traffic engineering practices. The parking demands will represent 85 percent of the overall peak demand. The thinking is that you don’t build the church for Easter Sunday.

Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding, CA September 14, 2018
WDI # 15061 Page 4 of 41
P:\Projects\2015\15061Downtown Redding Specific Plan\Parking Demand Study\091418\City of Redding Parking Strategy - Parking Demand Report 091418.docx
Irvine, CA • San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com

PROJECT APPROACH
We were tasked with providing parking demand analyses for the Core Area and the Strategy Area shown on the map in Attachment A.

Phase I – Current Conditions
Core Area: Create a ULI shared use model to replicate the current conditions with a parking demand of 1,476 cars. The parking demand of 1,476 cars was established using the 2010 and 2017 field occupancy counts collected by City staff. We adjusted the parking ratios and the multi-modal and non-captive patron factors within the model, specifically the retail and restaurants as these have the largest vacancy rate and lower parking needs.

Strategy Area: Create a ULI shared use model using the Core Area model’s parking ratios and the multimodal and non-captive factors. A parking demand of 2,504 cars was established using the 2010 and 2017 field occupancy counts collected by City staff. The goal is to see if the Core’s factors and the Strategy Area’s program data reflect the parking demand of 2,504 parking stalls. The ULI model calculated a peak parking demand of 2,316 parking stalls.

Phase II – Short Term Forecast
Core and Strategy Areas: create ULI shared use models for the short term scenarios that includes five mixed-use and commercial projects in the planning stages, in entitlement review, or approved. The ULI model assumes occupancy rates at capacity in combination with a fully energized downtown.

Phase III – Long Term Forecast
Core and Strategy Areas: create ULI shared use models for the long term scenarios that includes anticipated developments over the next 10 to 20 years in conformity with the Downtown Redding Specific Plan. Parking ratios and adjustments used in the models represent an energized downtown and associated parking demands.

Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding, CA September 14, 2018
WDI # 15061 Page 5 of 41
P:\Projects\2015\15061Downtown Redding Specific Plan\Parking Demand Study\091418\City of Redding Parking Strategy - Parking Demand Report 091418.docx
Irvine, CA • San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com

COLLECTION OF DATA
Data was collected from several sources to get an understanding of current use of parking supplies.

Physical Counts. The City staff physically counted occupied parking stalls for the Core and the Strategy Areas in October of 2010 and May of 2017 between 11:00 am and 2:00 pm. The data collected on those days revealed:
 The Core Area was parked at 58% capacity (1,476 occupied stalls within total supply of 2,543 stalls).  The Strategy Area was at 55% capacity (2,504 occupied stalls within total supply of 4,598 stalls).

Physically counting the occupied parking stalls can be valuable in identifying the parking demands on a specific day and time. Ideally, but not practical, would be to collect physical counts three days a week for the entire year. However, even a limited number of physical counts help.

Interviews with Shasta County and the Superior Court of Shasta County were conducted in summer 2018 to gain an understanding of existing and projected future parking needs. A new courthouse is proposed for Downtown Redding; with current parking spaces they anticipate a need for approximately 100 additional parking spaces after the Courthouse is operational.

A count of existing restaurants in the Downtown Core and the Strategy Area was conducted in summer 2018, to feed into the demand model. At the time of the count, there were 40 restaurants in the Strategy Area, with the majority of them in the Downtown Core.

It should be noted that the existing parking occupancy counts from 2010 and 2017 were for Downtown Redding at a time when there are many vacancies, particularly in the retail sector. These parking occupancy numbers will not give an accurate snapshot of a fully leased and vibrant downtown area, which is anticipated to happen during the next several years. The demands for an economically challenged downtown are very different than that of a fully energized downtown. That is why the data for the existing condition is calibrated to the lower occupancy rates, but the Phase II Short-term and Phase III Long-term are assumed to be a fully occupied Downtown environment.

PHASE I – CURRENT PARKING DEMANDS
The Core Area ULI model for the current conditions was created to replicate the parking count data collected in 2010 and 2017. The current conditions include office space with an 88% occupancy rate and retail space occupied at 65%. The model results were tailored to replicate the collected data with a peak demand of 1,476 parking stalls. A fully leased and vibrant Core Area model shows a peak parking demand would be approximately 1,860 parking stalls.

The Strategy Area model was then created using identical ratios, adjustments, and discounts that were used for the Core Area model, just more program space for retail, office, and restaurants. The model identified a peak demand of 2,316 parking stalls versus the 2,504 occupied parking stalls from field data.

Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding, CA September 14, 2018
WDI # 15061 Page 6 of 41
P:\Projects\2015\15061Downtown Redding Specific Plan\Parking Demand Study\091418\City of Redding Parking Strategy - Parking Demand Report 091418.docx
Irvine, CA • San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com

SUMMARY OF PEAK PARKING DEMANDS FOR PHASES II AND III
The following is a summary of the peak parking demands for weekdays and weekends for the Core Area and for the Strategy Area. Refer to Attachments D through I for details of parking demand numbers.

Phase II - Core Area Short Term Forecast
 Weekday Peak Demand: 1,909 parking stalls at 2:00 PM.  Weekend Peak Demand: 1,218 parking stalls at 7:00 PM.

Phase II - Strategy Area Short Term Forecast
 Weekday Peak Demand: 3,122 parking stalls at 2:00 PM1.  Weekend Peak Demand: 1,884 parking stalls at 7:00 PM1.

Phase III - Core Area Long Term Forecast
 Weekday Peak Demand: 1,941 parking stalls at 2:00 PM.  Weekend Peak Demand: 1,372 parking stalls at 7:00 PM.

Phase III Strategy Area Long Term Forecast
 Weekday Peak Demand: 3,220 parking stalls at 2:00 PM1.  Weekend Peak Demand: 2,070 parking stalls at 7:00 PM1. 1 The peak parking demand numbers shown include 100 dedicated Courthouse parking stalls.

Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding, CA September 14, 2018
WDI # 15061 Page 7 of 41
P:\Projects\2015\15061Downtown Redding Specific Plan\Parking Demand Study\091418\City of Redding Parking Strategy - Parking Demand Report 091418.docx
Irvine, CA • San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
PROGRAM SUMMARIES – CORE AREA
The following is our understanding of the project area programs and the land uses as categorized by the Urban Land Institute’s Shared Parking.

TABLE 1A – PHASE I CURRENT CONDITIONS
Use SF or Units
Retail 90,435 GLA
Fine/Casual Restaurants 25,000 GLA
Family Restaurant (no table service) 31,500 GLA
Fast Food Restaurant (take out) 5,000 GLA
Office 520,920 GFA
Theater 1,000 seats
TABLE 2A – PHASE II A SHORT TERM
Use SF or Units
Retail 73,481 GLA1
Fine/Casual Restaurants 30,000 GLA
Family Restaurant (no table service) 40,500 GLA
Fast Food Restaurant (take out) 5,000 GLA
Office 520,920 GFA
Theater 1,000 seats
1 Reduction of retail space due to redevelopment to
residential/mixed-use.

TABLE 3A – PHASE III LONG TERM
Use SF or Units
Retail 84,866 GLA
Fine/Casual Restaurants 35,000 GLA
Family Restaurant (no table service) 45,000 GLA
Fast Food Restaurant (take out) 5,000 GLA
Office 492,420 GFA2
Theater 1,000 seats
2 Reduction of office space due to redevelopment to
residential/mixed-use.

Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding, CA September 14, 2018
WDI # 15061 Page 8 of 41
P:\Projects\2015\15061Downtown Redding Specific Plan\Parking Demand Study\091418\City of Redding Parking Strategy - Parking Demand Report 091418.docx
Irvine, CA • San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
PROGRAM SUMMARIES – STRATEGY AREA
TABLE 1B – PHASE I CURRENT CONDITIONS
Use SF or Units
Retail 144,1255 GLA
Fine/Casual Restaurants 32,500 GLA
Family Restaurant (no table service) 47,250 GLA
Fast Food Restaurant (take out) 15,000 GLA
Office 819,000 GFA
Theater 1,000 seats
TABLE 2B – PHASE II SHORT TERM
Use SF or Units
Retail 144,125 GLA
Fine/Casual Restaurants 37,500 GLA
Family Restaurant (no table service) 56,500 GLA
Fast Food Restaurant (take out) 15,000 GLA
Office 819,000 GFA
Theater 1,000 seats
Courthouse (100 dedicated stalls)
TABLE 3B – PHASE III LONG TERM
Use SF or Units
Retail 163,225 GLA
Fine/Casual Restaurants 42,500 GLA
Family Restaurant (no table service) 65,500 GLA
Fast Food Restaurant (take out) 19,000 GLA
Office 812,500 GFA1
Theater 1,000 seats
Courthouse (100 dedicated stalls)
1 Reduction of office space due to redevelopment to
residential/mixed-use.

Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding, CA September 14, 2018
WDI # 15061 Page 9 of 41
P:\Projects\2015\15061Downtown Redding Specific Plan\Parking Demand Study\091418\City of Redding Parking Strategy - Parking Demand Report 091418.docx
Irvine, CA • San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The six models included in this report support recommendations for parking demands for the Core and Strategy Areas. We studied three scenarios: Phase I Existing Conditions, Phase II Short Term forecast, and Phase III Long Term forecast. The results are summarized in the tables below.

TABEL 4A - CORE AREA PEAK PARKING DEMANDS
Phase Weekday Peak Weekend Peak
Phase I - Existing Conditions 1,476 stalls 811stalls
Phase II - Short Term Forecast 1,909 stalls 1,218 stalls Phase III - Long Term Forecast 1,941 stalls 1,372 stalls TABLE 4B - STRATEGY AREA PARKING DEMANDS
Phase Weekday Peak Weekend Peak
Phase I - Existing Conditions 2,316 stalls 1,235 stalls Phase II - Short Term Forecast 3,122 stalls 1,884 stalls Phase III - Long Term Forecast 3,220 stalls 2,070 stalls Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding, CA September 14, 2018
WDI # 15061 Page 10 of 41
P:\Projects\2015\15061Downtown Redding Specific Plan\Parking Demand Study\091418\City of Redding Parking Strategy - Parking Demand Report 091418.docx
Irvine, CA • San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com

ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A – MAP OF STUDY AREAS
ATTACHMENT B – TABLE OF PARKING OCCUAPNCY COUNTS
ATTACHMENT C – SHORT TERM FORECAST MAP AND DATA
ATTACHMENT D – CORE AREA PHASE I – CURRENT CONDITIONS
ATTACHMENT E – CORE AREA PHASE II – SHORT TERM FORECAST ATTACHMENT F – CORE AREA PHASE III – LONG TERM FORECAST ATTACHMENT G - STRATEGY AREA PHASE I – CURRENT CONDITIONS ATTACHMENT H – STRATEGY AREA PHASE II – SHORT TERM FORECAST ATTACHMENT I – STRATEGY AREA PHASE III – LONG TERM FORECAST Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding, CA September 14, 2018
WDI # 15061 Page 11 of 41
P:\Projects\2015\15061Downtown Redding Specific Plan\Parking Demand Study\091418\City of Redding Parking Strategy - Parking Demand Report 091418.docx
Irvine, CA • San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
ATTACHMENT A – MAP OF STUDY AREAS
Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Existing Open Space
Union Pacic Railroad
Downtown Core District Boundary
Downtown Specic Plan Boundary
Parking Strategy Boundary
Promenade
Source: City of Redding, 2016
0 125 250 500 1,000
Feet
N

PARKING STRATEGY AREA
Linden Ditch Creek
Sacramento River
44 273
273
Sacramento River Trail
299

EUREKA WAY

TRINITY ST

RIVERSIDE DR

CENTER ST

MARKET ST

N COURT ST

TEHAMA ST

BUTTE ST

YUBA ST

BUTTE ST

BUTTE ST

YUBA ST

PLACER ST

SHASTA ST

DIVISION ST

SOUTH ST

SACRAMENTO ST

GOLD ST

GOLD ST

SONOMA ST

HILL ST

LOCUST ST

CYPRESS AVE

LIBERTY ST

GILBERT ST

EAST ST

CONTINENTAL ST

GARDEN ST

VERDA ST

SEQUOIA ST

PINE ST

WALDON ST

COURT ST

TERRACE ST

WEST ST

CHESTNUT ST

CALIFORNIA ST

OREGON ST

RAILROAD AVE

WILLIS ST

ROSE AVE

LINCOLN ST
Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4
5 22 (9
11(h)
Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding, CA September 14, 2018
WDI # 15061 Page 13 of 41
P:\Projects\2015\15061Downtown Redding Specific Plan\Parking Demand Study\091418\City of Redding Parking Strategy - Parking Demand Report 091418.docx
Irvine, CA • San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
ATTACHMENT B – TABLE OF PARKING OCCUPANCY COUNTS
Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding Parking Strategy
September 14, 2018
Parking Data Downtown Core Downtown Core Entire Strategy Area Entire Strategy Area Total Spaces Occupied Total Spaces Occupied
Off Street Public Parking 1002 735 1002 735
On Street Unmetered Spaces 255 130 798 400
On Street Metered Spaces 97 55 170 86
On Street Missing Meter Heads 204 97 235 103
Off Street Private Parking Parking 985 459 1528 654
Public Employee/Permit Parking 0 0 865 526
Total 2543 1476 4598 2504
Data from "Public Parking Capacity" map dated 7/31/2017 plus "Off Street Public/Private Parking Capacity" map dated 7/31/17 (note: whole numbers used)
Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding, CA September 14, 2018
WDI # 15061 Page 15 of 41
P:\Projects\2015\15061Downtown Redding Specific Plan\Parking Demand Study\091418\City of Redding Parking Strategy - Parking Demand Report 091418.docx
Irvine, CA • San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
ATTACHMENT C – SHORT TERM FORECAST MAP AND DATA
Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic))

TEHAMA STREET

YUBA STREET PLACER STREET PINE STREET

SHASTA STREET CALIFORNIA STREET MARKET STREET

EUREKA WAY

LINCOLN STREET

GOLD STREET MARKET STREET PINE STREET EAST STREET

SACRAMENTO STREET

TRINITY STREET

YUBA STREET LIBERTY STREET CALIFORNIA STREET EAST STREET PINE STREET CALIFORNIA STREET EAST STREET LIBERTY STREET OREGON STREET WEST STREET COURT STREET WEST STREET N. COURT STREET RAILROAD AVENUE DOWNTOWN CORE BOUNDARY

SOUTH STREET
BUTTE STREET BUTTE STREET 1
3 2
5 4 OVERALL PARKING STUDY AREA
Downtown Redding Parking Study
Short-Term Parking Demand
Proposed Projects
September 11, 2018 0 250 500
FEET
N
SCALE: 1' = 500'
125
Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Estimated Areas for Parking Demand (Short-term)
Opportunity
Site Parcel
Site Name /
Address
Lot Area
(sf) Existing Use
Existing
SF To Be
Removed Anticipated Use
Retail
Ground
Floor Area
(sf)
New
Office
(sf)
New
Residential
(units)
Within Downtown Core
1 1551 Market Street 65,634 Dickers Dept Store 48,000 Mixed Use 22,800 - 82 2 1701 Pine Street 14,859 Vacant - Mixed Use 4,921 - 16 3 Former Bell Rooms 6,994 Vacant Commercial - Commercial / Retail 4,800 - -
4 California Street
Parking Structure 47,475 Parking Structure - Mixed Use 12,525 - 79 Within Parking Strategy Area (Outside Downtown Core)
5 New Courthouse 91,466 - - Courthouse - - -
Subtotal - 45,046 0 177
Total Demand - (48,000) -2,954 0 177
Notes - New Retail Square Footage offset by loss of existing Dickers Department Store square footage New Restaurant Square Footage (Assumption) = 14,000 s.f.

Courthouse Parking Demand anticipated to increase by 100 Spaces Parking spaces lost to new development are not shown here - will be reviewed in following Parking Strategy tasks Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding, CA September 14, 2018
WDI # 15061 Page 18 of 41
P:\Projects\2015\15061Downtown Redding Specific Plan\Parking Demand Study\091418\City of Redding Parking Strategy - Parking Demand Report 091418.docx
Irvine, CA • San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
ATTACHMENT D - CORE AREA PHASE I – CURRENT CONDITIONS
Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Redding Downtown Core Area
Phase I - Current Conditions
Parking Demand
September 14, 2018
Projected Parking Supply: 2543
Max Parking Spaces Weekday Weekend Weekday
Land Use Quantity Weekday Weekend Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime EveningRetail 90,435 sf GLA 181 289 90% 95% 90% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% Employee 44 72 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Fine/Casual Restaurant 25,000 sf GLA 210 234 90% 95% 90% 95% 80% 80% 90% 90% Employee 38 41 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Family Restaurant 31,500 sf GLA 156 221 80% 90% 80% 90% 75% 75% 90% 90% Employee 26 39 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Fast Food Restaurant 5,000 sf GLA 35 33 80% 90% 80% 90% 70% 75% 90% 90% Employee 6 5 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Theater 1,000 seats 0 260 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Employee 2 10 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Office >500 ksf 520,920 sf GLA 92 10 95% 100% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Employee 1219 135 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Subtotal Customer/Guest Spaces 674 1047Subtotal Employee/Resident Spaces 1335 302Subtotal Reserved Spaces 0 0Total Parking Spaces 2009 1349 Weekend
Noncaptive Ratio Mode Adjustment
Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Redding Downtown Core Area
Phase I - Current Conditions
Parking Demand
September 14, 2018
Unit
Visitor Employee Visitor Employee
Retail 2.00 0.49 3.20 0.80 /ksf GLARegional Shopping Center (400 to 600 ksf) Linear 2.9<x<3.2 /ksf GLASuper Regional Shopping Center (>600 ksf) 3.20 0.80 3.60 0.90 /ksf GLAFine/Casual Restaurant 8.39 1.51 9.35 1.65 /ksf GLAFamily Restaurant 4.95 0.83 7.01 1.24 /ksf GLAFast Food Restaurant 7.01 1.24 6.60 1.00 /ksf GLANightclub 15.25 1.25 17.50 1.50 /ksf GLATheater 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.01 /seatPerforming Arts Theater 0.30 0.07 0.33 0.07 /seatArena 0.27 0.03 0.30 0.03 /seatPro Football Stadium 0.30 0.01 0.30 0.01 /seatPro Baseball Stadium 0.31 0.01 0.34 0.01 /seatGym 6.60 0.40 5.50 0.25 /ksf GFAConvention Center 5.50 0.50 5.50 0.50 /ksf GLAHotel-Business 1.00 0.25 0.90 0.18 /roomMotel 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.18 /room Restaurant/Lounge 10.00 10.00 /ksf GLA Conference Ctr/Banquet (20 to 50 sq ft/guest room) 30.00 30.00 /ksf GLA Convention Space (>50 sq ft/guest room) 20.00 10.00 /ksf GLAResidential, Rental, Shared Spaces * 0.15 1.50 0.15 1.50 /unitResidential, Owned, Shared Spaces * 0.15 1.7 0.15 1.7 /unitOffice <25 ksf 0.30 3.5 0.03 0.35 /ksf GFAOffice 100 to 500 ksf /ksf GFAOffice 100 to 500 ksf Linear 0.25<x<0.2 /ksf GFAOffice >500 ksf 0.18 2.34 0.02 0.26 /ksf GFAData Processing Office 0.25 5.75 0.03 0.58 /ksf GFAMedical/Dental Office 3.00 1.50 3.00 1.50 /ksf GFABank Branch Office 3.00 1.60 2.00 1.60 /ksf GFA Weekday Weekend
Recommended Parking Ratios
Spaces required per unit land use
Land Use
Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Redding Downtown Core Area
Phase I - Current Conditions
Parking Demand
September 14, 2018
Table 9/13/2018Project: City of Redding Core Area Phase I - Current ConditionsDescription: Shared Use Study

SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
PEAK MONTH: DECEMBER -- PEAK PERIOD: 2 PM, WEEKDAY
Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend
Non- Non- Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Base Mode Captive Project Base Mode Captive Project Adj Adj Parking Adj Adj Parking Land Use Quantity Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit 2 PM December Demand 1 PM December DemandRetail 90,435 sf GLA 2.00 0.90 1.00 1.80 /ksf GLA 3.20 0.90 1.00 2.88 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.56 163 0.95 1.00 247 Employee 0.49 0.80 1.00 0.39 /ksf GLA 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.64 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.80 35 1.00 1.00 58Fine/Casual Restaurant 25,000 sf GLA 8.39 0.90 0.80 6.04 /ksf GLA 9.35 0.90 0.90 7.57 /ksf GLA 0.65 0.85 98 0.55 1.00 104 Employee 1.51 0.80 1.00 1.21 /ksf GLA 1.65 0.80 1.00 1.32 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.95 27 0.75 1.00 25Family Restaurant 31,500 sf GLA 4.95 0.80 0.75 2.97 /ksf GLA 7.01 0.80 0.90 5.05 /ksf GLA 0.50 0.85 47 0.85 1.00 135 Employee 0.83 0.80 1.00 0.66 /ksf GLA 1.24 0.80 1.00 0.99 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.95 21 1.00 1.00 31Fast Food Restaurant 5,000 sf GLA 7.01 0.80 0.70 3.93 /ksf GLA 6.60 0.80 0.90 4.75 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.85 18 1.00 1.00 24 Employee 1.24 0.80 1.00 0.99 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.80 1.00 0.80 /ksf GLA 0.95 0.95 5 1.00 1.00 4Theater 1,000 seats 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 /seat 0.26 0.90 0.90 0.21 /seat 0.55 0.27 0 0.45 0.67 63 Employee 0.00 0.80 1.00 0.00 /seat 0.01 0.80 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.60 0.50 0 0.60 0.80 4Office >500 ksf 520,920 sf GLA 0.18 0.95 1.00 0.17 /ksf GLA 0.02 0.95 1.00 0.02 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 87 0.80 1.00 8 Employee 2.34 0.80 1.00 1.87 /ksf GLA 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.26 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 975 0.80 1.00 108ULI base data have been modified from default values. Customer 413 Customer 581 Employee 1063 Employee 230
Reserved 0 Reserved 0
Total 1476 Total 811
Shared Parking Reduction 41% 68%
Project Data
Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding, CA September 14, 2018
WDI # 15061 Page 22 of 41
P:\Projects\2015\15061Downtown Redding Specific Plan\Parking Demand Study\091418\City of Redding Parking Strategy - Parking Demand Report 091418.docx
Irvine, CA • San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
ATTACHMENT E – CORE AREA PHASE II – SHORT TERM FORECAST Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Redding Downtown Core Area
Phase II - Short Term Forecast
Parking Demand
September 14, 2018
Projected Parking Supply: 2543
Max Parking Spaces Weekday Weekend Weekday
Land Use Quantity Weekday Weekend Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime EveningRetail 73,481 sf GLA 213 235 90% 95% 90% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% Employee 51 59 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Fine/Casual Restaurant 30,000 sf GLA 458 510 90% 95% 90% 95% 80% 80% 90% 90% Employee 83 90 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Family Restaurant 40,500 sf GLA 365 516 80% 90% 80% 90% 75% 75% 90% 90% Employee 61 91 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Fast Food Restaurant 5,000 sf GLA 64 60 80% 90% 80% 90% 70% 75% 90% 90% Employee 11 10 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Theater 1,000 seats 190 260 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Employee 10 10 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Office >500 ksf 520,920 sf GLA 104 10 95% 100% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Employee 1354 135 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Subtotal Customer/Guest Spaces 1394 1591Subtotal Employee/Resident Spaces 1570 395Subtotal Reserved Spaces 0 0Total Parking Spaces 2964 1986 Weekend
Noncaptive Ratio Mode Adjustment
Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Redding Downtown Core Area
Phase II - Short Term Forecast
Parking Demand
September 14, 2018
Unit
Visitor Employee Visitor Employee
Retail 2.90 0.70 3.20 0.80 /ksf GLARegional Shopping Center (400 to 600 ksf) Linear 2.9<x<3.2 /ksf GLASuper Regional Shopping Center (>600 ksf) 3.20 0.80 3.60 0.90 /ksf GLAFine/Casual Restaurant 15.25 2.75 17.00 3.00 /ksf GLAFamily Restaurant 9.00 1.50 12.75 2.25 /ksf GLAFast Food Restaurant 12.75 2.25 12.00 2.00 /ksf GLANightclub 15.25 1.25 17.50 1.50 /ksf GLATheater 0.19 0.01 0.26 0.01 /seatPerforming Arts Theater 0.30 0.07 0.33 0.07 /seatArena 0.27 0.03 0.30 0.03 /seatPro Football Stadium 0.30 0.01 0.30 0.01 /seatPro Baseball Stadium 0.31 0.01 0.34 0.01 /seatGym 6.60 0.40 5.50 0.25 /ksf GFAConvention Center 5.50 0.50 5.50 0.50 /ksf GLAHotel-Business 1.00 0.25 0.90 0.18 /roomMotel 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.18 /room Restaurant/Lounge 10.00 10.00 /ksf GLA Conference Ctr/Banquet (20 to 50 sq ft/guest room) 30.00 30.00 /ksf GLA Convention Space (>50 sq ft/guest room) 20.00 10.00 /ksf GLA Residential, Rental, Shared Spaces * 0.15 1.50 0.15 1.50 /unitResidential, Owned, Shared Spaces * 0.15 1.7 0.15 1.7 /unitOffice <25 ksf 0.30 3.5 0.03 0.35 /ksf GFAOffice 100 to 500 ksf /ksf GFAOffice 100 to 500 ksf Linear 0.25<x<0.2 /ksf GFA Office >500 ksf 0.20 2.60 0.02 0.26 /ksf GFAData Processing Office 0.25 5.75 0.03 0.58 /ksf GFAMedical/Dental Office 3.00 1.50 3.00 1.50 /ksf GFABank Branch Office 3.00 1.60 2.00 1.60 /ksf GFA Land Use Weekday Weekend
Recommended Parking Ratios
Spaces required per unit land use
Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Redding Downtown Core Area
Phase II - Short Term Forecast
Parking Demand
September 14, 2018
Table 9/13/2018Project: City of Redding Core Area Phase II - Short Term ForecastDescription: Shared Use Study

SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
PEAK MONTH: DECEMBER -- PEAK PERIOD: 2 PM, WEEKDAY
Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend
Non- Non- Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Base Mode Captive Project Base Mode Captive Project Adj Adj Parking Adj Adj Parking Land Use Quantity Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit 2 PM December Demand 7 PM December DemandRetail 73,481 sf GLA 2.90 0.90 1.00 2.61 /ksf GLA 3.20 0.95 1.00 3.04 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.56 192 0.75 1.00 167 Employee 0.70 0.80 1.00 0.56 /ksf GLA 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.64 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.80 41 0.80 1.00 38Fine/Casual Restaurant 30,000 sf GLA 15.25 0.90 0.80 10.98 /ksf GLA 17.00 0.95 0.90 14.54 /ksf GLA 0.65 0.85 214 0.95 1.00 414 Employee 2.75 0.80 1.00 2.20 /ksf GLA 3.00 0.80 1.00 2.40 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.95 60 1.00 1.00 72Family Restaurant 40,500 sf GLA 9.00 0.80 0.75 5.40 /ksf GLA 12.75 0.90 0.90 10.33 /ksf GLA 0.50 0.85 110 0.70 1.00 293 Employee 1.50 0.80 1.00 1.20 /ksf GLA 2.25 0.80 1.00 1.80 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.95 49 0.95 1.00 69Fast Food Restaurant 5,000 sf GLA 12.75 0.80 0.70 7.14 /ksf GLA 12.00 0.90 0.90 9.72 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.85 32 0.80 1.00 39 Employee 2.25 0.80 1.00 1.80 /ksf GLA 2.00 0.80 1.00 1.60 /ksf GLA 0.95 0.95 8 0.90 1.00 7Theater 1,000 seats 0.19 0.90 0.90 0.15 /seat 0.26 0.90 0.90 0.21 /seat 0.55 0.27 19 0.80 0.67 113 Employee 0.01 0.80 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.01 0.80 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.60 0.50 2 1.00 0.80 6Office >500 ksf 520,920 sf GLA 0.20 0.95 1.00 0.19 /ksf GLA 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.02 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 99 0.00 1.00 0 Employee 2.60 0.80 1.00 2.08 /ksf GLA 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.26 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 1,083 0.00 1.00 0ULI base data have been modified from default values. Customer 666 Customer 1026 Employee 1243 Employee 192
Reserved 0 Reserved 0
Total 1909 Total 1218
Shared Parking Reduction 42% 63%
Project Data
Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding, CA September 14, 2018
WDI # 15061 Page 26 of 41
P:\Projects\2015\15061Downtown Redding Specific Plan\Parking Demand Study\091418\City of Redding Parking Strategy - Parking Demand Report 091418.docx
Irvine, CA • San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
ATTACHMENT F – CORE AREA PHASE III – LONG TERM FORECAST Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Redding Downtown Core Area
Phase III - Long Term Forecast
Parking Demand
September 14, 2018
Projected Parking Supply: 2543
Max Parking Spaces Weekday Weekend Weekday
Land Use Quantity Weekday Weekend Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime EveningRetail 84,866 sf GLA 246 272 90% 95% 90% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% Employee 59 68 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Fine/Casual Restaurant 35,000 sf GLA 534 595 90% 95% 90% 95% 80% 80% 90% 90% Employee 96 105 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Family Restaurant 45,000 sf GLA 405 574 80% 90% 80% 90% 75% 75% 90% 90% Employee 68 101 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Fast Food Restaurant 5,000 sf GLA 64 60 80% 90% 80% 90% 70% 75% 90% 90% Employee 11 10 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Theater 1,000 seats 190 260 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Employee 10 10 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Office >500 ksf 492,420 sf GLA 98 10 95% 100% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Employee 1280 128 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Subtotal Customer/Guest Spaces 1537 1771Subtotal Employee/Resident Spaces 1524 422Subtotal Reserved Spaces 0 0Total Parking Spaces 3061 2193 Weekend
Noncaptive Ratio Mode Adjustment
Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Redding Downtown Core Area
Phase III - Long Term Forecast
Parking Demand
September 14, 2018
Unit
Visitor Employee Visitor Employee
Retail 2.90 0.70 3.20 0.80 /ksf GLARegional Shopping Center (400 to 600 ksf) Linear 2.9<x<3.2 /ksf GLASuper Regional Shopping Center (>600 ksf) 3.20 0.80 3.60 0.90 /ksf GLAFine/Casual Restaurant 15.25 2.75 17.00 3.00 /ksf GLAFamily Restaurant 9.00 1.50 12.75 2.25 /ksf GLAFast Food Restaurant 12.75 2.25 12.00 2.00 /ksf GLANightclub 15.25 1.25 17.50 1.50 /ksf GLATheater 0.19 0.01 0.26 0.01 /seatPerforming Arts Theater 0.30 0.07 0.33 0.07 /seatArena 0.27 0.03 0.30 0.03 /seatPro Football Stadium 0.30 0.01 0.30 0.01 /seatPro Baseball Stadium 0.31 0.01 0.34 0.01 /seatGym 6.60 0.40 5.50 0.25 /ksf GFAConvention Center 5.50 0.50 5.50 0.50 /ksf GLAHotel-Business 1.00 0.25 0.90 0.18 /roomMotel 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.18 /room Restaurant/Lounge 10.00 10.00 /ksf GLA Conference Ctr/Banquet (20 to 50 sq ft/guest room) 30.00 30.00 /ksf GLA Convention Space (>50 sq ft/guest room) 20.00 10.00 /ksf GLA Residential, Rental, Shared Spaces * 0.15 1.50 0.15 1.50 /unitResidential, Owned, Shared Spaces * 0.15 1.7 0.15 1.7 /unitOffice <25 ksf 0.30 3.5 0.03 0.35 /ksf GFAOffice 100 to 500 ksf /ksf GFAOffice 100 to 500 ksf Linear 0.25<x<0.2 /ksf GFA Office >500 ksf 0.20 2.60 0.02 0.26 /ksf GFAData Processing Office 0.25 5.75 0.03 0.58 /ksf GFAMedical/Dental Office 3.00 1.50 3.00 1.50 /ksf GFABank Branch Office 3.00 1.60 2.00 1.60 /ksf GFA Land Use Weekday Weekend
Recommended Parking Ratios
Spaces required per unit land use
Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Redding Downtown Core Area
Phase III - Long Term Forecast
Parking Demand
September 14, 2018
Table 9/13/2018Project: City of Redding Core Area Phase III - Long Term ForecastDescription: Shared Use Study

SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
PEAK MONTH: DECEMBER -- PEAK PERIOD: 2 PM, WEEKDAY
Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend
Non- Non- Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Base Mode Captive Project Base Mode Captive Project Adj Adj Parking Adj Adj Parking Land Use Quantity Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit 2 PM December Demand 7 PM December DemandRetail 84,866 sf GLA 2.90 0.90 1.00 2.61 /ksf GLA 3.20 0.95 1.00 3.04 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.56 221 0.75 1.00 194 Employee 0.70 0.80 1.00 0.56 /ksf GLA 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.64 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.80 47 0.80 1.00 44Fine/Casual Restaurant 35,000 sf GLA 15.25 0.90 0.80 10.98 /ksf GLA 17.00 0.95 0.90 14.54 /ksf GLA 0.65 0.85 250 0.95 1.00 483 Employee 2.75 0.80 1.00 2.20 /ksf GLA 3.00 0.80 1.00 2.40 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.95 69 1.00 1.00 84Family Restaurant 45,000 sf GLA 9.00 0.80 0.75 5.40 /ksf GLA 12.75 0.90 0.90 10.33 /ksf GLA 0.50 0.85 122 0.70 1.00 325 Employee 1.50 0.80 1.00 1.20 /ksf GLA 2.25 0.80 1.00 1.80 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.95 54 0.95 1.00 77Fast Food Restaurant 5,000 sf GLA 12.75 0.80 0.70 7.14 /ksf GLA 12.00 0.90 0.90 9.72 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.85 32 0.80 1.00 39 Employee 2.25 0.80 1.00 1.80 /ksf GLA 2.00 0.80 1.00 1.60 /ksf GLA 0.95 0.95 8 0.90 1.00 7Theater 1,000 seats 0.19 0.90 0.90 0.15 /seat 0.26 0.90 0.90 0.21 /seat 0.55 0.27 19 0.80 0.67 113 Employee 0.01 0.80 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.01 0.80 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.60 0.50 2 1.00 0.80 6Office >500 ksf 492,420 sf GLA 0.20 0.95 1.00 0.19 /ksf GLA 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.02 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 93 0.00 1.00 0 Employee 2.60 0.80 1.00 2.08 /ksf GLA 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.26 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 1,024 0.00 1.00 0ULI base data have been modified from default values. Customer 737 Customer 1154 Employee 1204 Employee 218
Reserved 0 Reserved 0
Total 1941 Total 1372
Shared Parking Reduction 44% 60%
Project Data
Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding, CA September 14, 2018
WDI # 15061 Page 30 of 41
P:\Projects\2015\15061Downtown Redding Specific Plan\Parking Demand Study\091418\City of Redding Parking Strategy - Parking Demand Report 091418.docx
Irvine, CA • San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
ATTACHMENT G - STRATEGY AREA PHASE I – CURRENT CONDITIONS Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Redding Downtown Strategy Area
Phase I - Current Conditions
Parking Demand
September 14, 2018
Projected Parking Supply: 4598
Max Parking Spaces Weekday Weekend Weekday
Land Use Quantity Weekday Weekend Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime EveningRetail 144,125 sf GLA 288 461 90% 95% 90% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% Employee 70 115 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Fine/Casual Restaurant 32,500 sf GLA 273 304 90% 95% 90% 95% 80% 80% 90% 90% Employee 49 54 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Family Restaurant 47,250 sf GLA 234 331 80% 90% 80% 90% 75% 75% 90% 90% Employee 39 59 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Fast Food Restaurant 15,000 sf GLA 105 99 80% 90% 80% 90% 70% 75% 90% 90% Employee 19 15 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Theater 1,000 seats 0 260 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Employee 2 10 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Office >500 ksf 819,000 sf GLA 144 16 95% 100% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Employee 1916 213 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Subtotal Customer/Guest Spaces 1044 1471Subtotal Employee/Resident Spaces 2095 466Subtotal Reserved Spaces 0 0Total Parking Spaces 3139 1937 Weekend
Noncaptive Ratio Mode Adjustment
Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Redding Downtown Strategy Area
Phase I - Current Conditions
Parking Demand
September 14, 2018
Unit
Visitor Employee Visitor Employee
Retail 2.00 0.49 3.20 0.80 /ksf GLARegional Shopping Center (400 to 600 ksf) Linear 2.9<x<3.2 /ksf GLASuper Regional Shopping Center (>600 ksf) 3.20 0.80 3.60 0.90 /ksf GLAFine/Casual Restaurant 8.39 1.51 9.35 1.65 /ksf GLAFamily Restaurant 4.95 0.83 7.01 1.24 /ksf GLAFast Food Restaurant 7.01 1.24 6.60 1.00 /ksf GLANightclub 15.25 1.25 17.50 1.50 /ksf GLATheater 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.01 /seatPerforming Arts Theater 0.30 0.07 0.33 0.07 /seatArena 0.27 0.03 0.30 0.03 /seatPro Football Stadium 0.30 0.01 0.30 0.01 /seatPro Baseball Stadium 0.31 0.01 0.34 0.01 /seatGym 6.60 0.40 5.50 0.25 /ksf GFAConvention Center 5.50 0.50 5.50 0.50 /ksf GLAHotel-Business 1.00 0.25 0.90 0.18 /roomMotel 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.18 /room Restaurant/Lounge 10.00 10.00 /ksf GLA Conference Ctr/Banquet (20 to 50 sq ft/guest room) 30.00 30.00 /ksf GLA Convention Space (>50 sq ft/guest room) 20.00 10.00 /ksf GLAResidential, Rental, Shared Spaces * 0.15 1.50 0.15 1.50 /unitResidential, Owned, Shared Spaces * 0.15 1.7 0.15 1.7 /unitOffice <25 ksf 0.30 3.5 0.03 0.35 /ksf GFAOffice 100 to 500 ksf /ksf GFAOffice 100 to 500 ksf Linear 0.25<x<0.2 /ksf GFAOffice >500 ksf 0.18 2.34 0.02 0.26 /ksf GFAData Processing Office 0.25 5.75 0.03 0.58 /ksf GFAMedical/Dental Office 3.00 1.50 3.00 1.50 /ksf GFABank Branch Office 3.00 1.60 2.00 1.60 /ksf GFA Land Use Weekday Weekend
Recommended Parking Ratios
Project: City of Redding Strategy Area Phase I - Current Conditions Packet Pg. 997 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Redding Downtown Strategy Area
Phase I - Current Conditions
Parking Demand
September 14, 2018
Table 9/13/2018Project: City of Redding Strategy Area Phase I - Current ConditionsDescription: Shared Use Study

SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
4598
Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend
Non- Non- Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Base Mode Captive Project Base Mode Captive Project Adj Adj Parking Adj Adj Parking Land Use Quantity Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit 2 PM December Demand 1 PM December DemandRetail 144,125 sf GLA 2.00 0.90 1.00 1.80 /ksf GLA 3.20 0.90 1.00 2.88 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.56 259 0.95 1.00 394 Employee 0.49 0.80 1.00 0.39 /ksf GLA 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.64 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.80 56 1.00 1.00 92Fine/Casual Restaurant 32,500 sf GLA 8.39 0.90 0.80 6.04 /ksf GLA 9.35 0.90 0.90 7.57 /ksf GLA 0.65 0.85 128 0.55 1.00 135 Employee 1.51 0.80 1.00 1.21 /ksf GLA 1.65 0.80 1.00 1.32 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.95 35 0.75 1.00 32Family Restaurant 47,250 sf GLA 4.95 0.80 0.75 2.97 /ksf GLA 7.01 0.80 0.90 5.05 /ksf GLA 0.50 0.85 70 0.85 1.00 203 Employee 0.83 0.80 1.00 0.66 /ksf GLA 1.24 0.80 1.00 0.99 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.95 31 1.00 1.00 47Fast Food Restaurant 15,000 sf GLA 7.01 0.80 0.70 3.93 /ksf GLA 6.60 0.80 0.90 4.75 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.85 53 1.00 1.00 71 Employee 1.24 0.80 1.00 0.99 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.80 1.00 0.80 /ksf GLA 0.95 0.95 14 1.00 1.00 12Theater 1,000 seats 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 /seat 0.26 0.90 0.90 0.21 /seat 0.55 0.27 0 0.45 0.67 63 Employee 0.00 0.80 1.00 0.00 /seat 0.01 0.80 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.60 0.50 0 0.60 0.80 4Office >500 ksf 819,000 sf GLA 0.18 0.95 1.00 0.17 /ksf GLA 0.02 0.95 1.00 0.02 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 137 0.80 1.00 12 Employee 2.34 0.80 1.00 1.87 /ksf GLA 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.26 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 1,533 0.80 1.00 170ULI base data have been modified from default values. Customer 647 Customer 878 Employee 1669 Employee 357
Reserved 0 Reserved 0
Total 2316 Total 1235
Shared Parking Reduction 39% 67%
Project Data
Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding, CA September 14, 2018
WDI # 15061 Page 34 of 41
P:\Projects\2015\15061Downtown Redding Specific Plan\Parking Demand Study\091418\City of Redding Parking Strategy - Parking Demand Report 091418.docx
Irvine, CA • San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
ATTACHMENT H – STRATEGY AREA PHASE II – SHORT TERM FORECAST Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Redding Downtown Strategy Area
Phase II - Short Term Forecast
Parking Demand
September 14, 2018
Projected Parking Supply: 4598
Max Parking Spaces Weekday Weekend Weekday
Land Use Quantity Weekday Weekend Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime EveningRetail 144,125 sf GLA 418 461 90% 95% 90% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% Employee 101 115 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Fine/Casual Restaurant 37,500 sf GLA 572 638 90% 95% 90% 95% 80% 80% 90% 90% Employee 103 113 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Family Restaurant 56,500 sf GLA 509 720 80% 90% 80% 90% 75% 75% 90% 90% Employee 85 127 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Fast Food Restaurant 15,000 sf GLA 191 180 80% 90% 80% 90% 70% 75% 90% 90% Employee 34 30 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Theater 1,000 seats 190 260 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Employee 10 10 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Office >500 ksf 819,000 sf GLA 164 16 95% 100% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Employee 2129 213 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Subtotal Customer/Guest Spaces 2044 2275Subtotal Employee/Resident Spaces 2462 608Subtotal Reserved Spaces 0 0Total Parking Spaces 4506 2883 Weekend
Noncaptive Ratio Mode Adjustment
Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Redding Downtown Strategy Area
Phase II - Short Term Forecast
Parking Demand
September 14, 2018
Unit
Visitor Employee Visitor Employee
Retail 2.90 0.70 3.20 0.80 /ksf GLARegional Shopping Center (400 to 600 ksf) Linear 2.9<x<3.2 /ksf GLASuper Regional Shopping Center (>600 ksf) 3.20 0.80 3.60 0.90 /ksf GLAFine/Casual Restaurant 15.25 2.75 17.00 3.00 /ksf GLAFamily Restaurant 9.00 1.50 12.75 2.25 /ksf GLAFast Food Restaurant 12.75 2.25 12.00 2.00 /ksf GLANightclub 15.25 1.25 17.50 1.50 /ksf GLATheater 0.19 0.01 0.26 0.01 /seatPerforming Arts Theater 0.30 0.07 0.33 0.07 /seat Arena 0.27 0.03 0.30 0.03 /seat
Pro Football Stadium 0.30 0.01 0.30 0.01 /seatPro Baseball Stadium 0.31 0.01 0.34 0.01 /seatGym 37500.00 0.40 5.50 0.25 /ksf GFAConvention Center 5.50 0.50 5.50 0.50 /ksf GLAHotel-Business 56500.00 0.25 0.90 0.18 /roomMotel 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.18 /room Restaurant/Lounge 10.00 10.00 /ksf GLA Conference Ctr/Banquet (20 to 50 sq ft/guest room) 30.00 30.00 /ksf GLA Convention Space (>50 sq ft/guest room) 20.00 10.00 /ksf GLA Residential, Rental, Shared Spaces * 0.15 1.50 0.15 1.50 /unitResidential, Owned, Shared Spaces * 0.15 1.7 0.15 1.7 /unitOffice <25 ksf 0.30 3.5 0.03 0.35 /ksf GFAOffice 100 to 500 ksf /ksf GFAOffice 100 to 500 ksf Linear 0.25<x<0.2 /ksf GFA Office >500 ksf 0.20 2.60 0.02 0.26 /ksf GFAData Processing Office 0.25 5.75 0.03 0.58 /ksf GFAMedical/Dental Office 3.00 1.50 3.00 1.50 /ksf GFABank Branch Office 3.00 1.60 2.00 1.60 /ksf GFA Land Use Weekday Weekend
Recommended Parking Ratios
Project: City of Redding Strategy Area Phase I - Current Conditions Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Redding Downtown Strategy Area
Phase II - Short Term Forecast
Parking Demand
September 14, 2018
Table 9/13/2018Project: City of Redding Strategy Area Phase II - Short Term ForecastDescription: Shared Use Study

SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend
Non- Non- Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Base Mode Captive Project Base Mode Captive Project Adj Adj Parking Adj Adj Parking Land Use Quantity Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit 2 PM December Demand 1 PM December DemandRetail 144,125 sf GLA 2.90 0.90 1.00 2.61 /ksf GLA 3.20 0.90 1.00 2.88 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.56 376 0.95 1.00 394 Employee 0.70 0.80 1.00 0.56 /ksf GLA 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.64 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.80 81 1.00 1.00 92 56500 37,500 sf GLA 15.25 0.90 0.80 10.98 /ksf GLA 17.00 0.90 0.90 13.77 /ksf GLA 0.65 0.85 268 0.55 1.00 284 Employee 2.75 0.80 1.00 2.20 /ksf GLA 3.00 0.80 1.00 2.40 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.95 74 0.75 1.00 68Family Restaurant 56,500 sf GLA 9.00 0.80 0.75 5.40 /ksf GLA 12.75 0.80 0.90 9.18 /ksf GLA 0.50 0.85 153 0.85 1.00 441 Employee 1.50 0.80 1.00 1.20 /ksf GLA 2.25 0.80 1.00 1.80 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.95 68 1.00 1.00 102Fast Food Restaurant 15,000 sf GLA 12.75 0.80 0.70 7.14 /ksf GLA 12.00 0.80 0.90 8.64 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.85 96 1.00 1.00 130 Employee 2.25 0.80 1.00 1.80 /ksf GLA 2.00 0.80 1.00 1.60 /ksf GLA 0.95 0.95 26 1.00 1.00 24Theater 1,000 seats 0.19 0.90 0.90 0.15 /seat 0.26 0.90 0.90 0.21 /seat 0.55 0.27 19 0.45 0.67 63 Employee 0.01 0.80 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.01 0.80 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.60 0.50 2 0.60 0.80 4Office >500 ksf 819,000 sf GLA 0.20 0.95 1.00 0.19 /ksf GLA 0.02 0.95 1.00 0.02 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 156 0.80 1.00 12 Employee 2.60 0.80 1.00 2.08 /ksf GLA 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.26 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 1,703 0.80 1.00 170ULI base data have been modified from default values. Customer 1068 Customer 1324 Employee 1954 Employee 460
Reserved 0 Reserved 0
Total 3022 Total 1784
Shared Parking Reduction 39% 64%
Project Data
PEAK MONTH: DECEMBER -- PEAK PERIOD: 2 PM, WEEKDAY
Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) City of Redding, CA September 14, 2018
WDI # 15061 Page 38 of 41
P:\Projects\2015\15061Downtown Redding Specific Plan\Parking Demand Study\091418\City of Redding Parking Strategy - Parking Demand Report 091418.docx
Irvine, CA • San Jose, CA • Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
ATTACHMENT I – STRATEGY AREA PHASE III – LONG TERM FORECAST Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Redding Downtown Strategy Area
Phase III - Long Term Forecast
Parking Demand
September 14, 2018
Projected Parking Supply: 4598
Max Parking Spaces Weekday Weekend Weekday
Land Use Quantity Weekday Weekend Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime EveningRetail 163,225 sf GLA 473 522 90% 95% 90% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% Employee 114 131 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Fine/Casual Restaurant 42,500 sf GLA 648 723 90% 95% 90% 95% 80% 80% 90% 90% Employee 117 128 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Family Restaurant 65,500 sf GLA 590 835 80% 90% 80% 90% 75% 75% 90% 90% Employee 98 147 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Fast Food Restaurant 19,000 sf GLA 242 228 80% 90% 80% 90% 70% 75% 90% 90% Employee 43 38 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Theater 1,000 seats 190 260 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% Employee 10 10 80% 80% 80% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100%Office >500 ksf 812,500 sf GLA 163 16 95% 100% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Employee 2113 211 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Subtotal Customer/Guest Spaces 2306 2584Subtotal Employee/Resident Spaces 2495 665Subtotal Reserved Spaces 0 0Total Parking Spaces 4801 3249 Weekend
Noncaptive Ratio Mode Adjustment
Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Redding Downtown Strategy Area
Phase III - Long Term Forecast
Parking Demand
September 14, 2018
Unit
Visitor Employee Visitor Employee
Retail 2.90 0.70 3.20 0.80 /ksf GLARegional Shopping Center (400 to 600 ksf) Linear 2.9<x<3.2 /ksf GLASuper Regional Shopping Center (>600 ksf) 3.20 0.80 3.60 0.90 /ksf GLAFine/Casual Restaurant 15.25 2.75 17.00 3.00 /ksf GLAFamily Restaurant 9.00 1.50 12.75 2.25 /ksf GLAFast Food Restaurant 12.75 2.25 12.00 2.00 /ksf GLANightclub 163225.00 1.25 17.50 1.50 /ksf GLATheater 0.19 0.01 0.26 0.01 /seatPerforming Arts Theater 0.30 0.07 0.33 0.07 /seat Arena 0.27 0.03 0.30 0.03 /seat
Pro Football Stadium 0.30 0.01 0.30 0.01 /seatPro Baseball Stadium 0.31 0.01 0.34 0.01 /seatGym 37500.00 0.40 5.50 0.25 /ksf GFAConvention Center 5.50 0.50 5.50 0.50 /ksf GLAHotel-Business 56500.00 0.25 0.90 0.18 /roomMotel 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.18 /room Restaurant/Lounge 10.00 10.00 /ksf GLA Conference Ctr/Banquet (20 to 50 sq ft/guest room) 30.00 30.00 /ksf GLA Convention Space (>50 sq ft/guest room) 20.00 10.00 /ksf GLA Residential, Rental, Shared Spaces * 0.15 1.50 0.15 1.50 /unitResidential, Owned, Shared Spaces * 0.15 1.7 0.15 1.7 /unitOffice <25 ksf 0.30 3.5 0.03 0.35 /ksf GFAOffice 100 to 500 ksf /ksf GFAOffice 100 to 500 ksf Linear 0.25<x<0.2 /ksf GFA Office >500 ksf 0.20 2.60 0.02 0.26 /ksf GFAData Processing Office 0.25 5.75 0.03 0.58 /ksf GFAMedical/Dental Office 3.00 1.50 3.00 1.50 /ksf GFABank Branch Office 3.00 1.60 2.00 1.60 /ksf GFA Land Use Weekday Weekend
Recommended Parking Ratios
Project: City of Redding Strategy Area Phase I - Current Conditions Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Redding Downtown Strategy Area
Phase III - Long Term Forecast
Parking Demand
September 14, 2018
Table 9/13/2018Project: City of Redding Strategy Area Phase III - Long Term ForecastDescription: Shared Use Study

SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY
Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend
Non- Non- Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated 163225 Base Mode Captive Project Base Mode Captive Project Adj Adj Parking Adj Adj Parking Land Use Quantity Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit 2 PM December Demand 7 PM December DemandRetail 163,225 sf GLA 2.90 0.90 1.00 2.61 /ksf GLA 3.20 0.95 1.00 3.04 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.56 426 0.75 1.00 372 Employee 0.70 0.80 1.00 0.56 /ksf GLA 0.80 0.80 1.00 0.64 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.80 91 0.80 1.00 84Fine/Casual Restaurant 42,500 sf GLA 15.25 0.90 0.80 10.98 /ksf GLA 17.00 0.95 0.90 14.54 /ksf GLA 0.65 0.85 303 0.95 1.00 587 Employee 2.75 0.80 1.00 2.20 /ksf GLA 3.00 0.80 1.00 2.40 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.95 84 1.00 1.00 102Family Restaurant 65,500 sf GLA 9.00 0.80 0.75 5.40 /ksf GLA 12.75 0.90 0.90 10.33 /ksf GLA 0.50 0.85 177 0.70 1.00 473 Employee 1.50 0.80 1.00 1.20 /ksf GLA 2.25 0.80 1.00 1.80 /ksf GLA 1.00 0.95 78 0.95 1.00 112Fast Food Restaurant 19,000 sf GLA 12.75 0.80 0.70 7.14 /ksf GLA 12.00 0.90 0.90 9.72 /ksf GLA 0.90 0.85 122 0.80 1.00 148 Employee 2.25 0.80 1.00 1.80 /ksf GLA 2.00 0.80 1.00 1.60 /ksf GLA 0.95 0.95 33 0.90 1.00 27Theater 1,000 seats 0.19 0.90 0.90 0.15 /seat 0.26 0.90 0.90 0.21 /seat 0.55 0.27 19 0.80 0.67 113 Employee 0.01 0.80 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.01 0.80 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.60 0.50 2 1.00 0.80 6Office >500 ksf 812,500 sf GLA 0.20 0.95 1.00 0.19 /ksf GLA 0.02 1.00 1.00 0.02 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 155 0.00 1.00 0 Employee 2.60 0.80 1.00 2.08 /ksf GLA 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.26 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 1,690 0.00 1.00 0ULI base data have been modified from default values. Customer 1202 Customer 1693 Employee 1978 Employee 331
Reserved 0 Reserved 0
Total 3180 Total 2024
Shared Parking Reduction 40% 62%
Project Data
PEAK MONTH: DECEMBER -- PEAK PERIOD: 2 PM, WEEKDAY
Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic)) Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (9.11(h)--Ordinance amending RMC Title 11 (Vehicles and Traffic))

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following regarding a ballot measure to convert the offices of the City Clerk and City Treasurer to appointed positions:
(1) Adopt a Resolution calling a municipal election and requesting consolidation with the Statewide General Election for the purpose of seeking voter approval to convert the offices of the City Clerk and City Treasurer to be appointed offices, setting dates for the submission of arguments in favor or against the ballot measure, and requesting the assistance of the County of Shasta in connection with the election to be held on November 8, 2022;
(2) Direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the proposed ballot measure; (3) Determine whether the City Council, or individual member thereof, will submit an argument related to the ballot measure and designate the Mayor and/or Council Members to write the argument;
(4) Direct the City Clerk to take all necessary actions to submit the proposed ballot measure to voters; and
(5) Find that the adoption of the resolution and direction provided by the City Council herein is exempt from environmental review pursuant to 14 CCR 15061(b)(3) (“Common Sense Exemption”) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that placing the measure on the ballot will have a direct or indirect effect on the physical environment.

Fiscal Impact
If the issue of whether the City Clerk and City Treasurer shall be appointed offices is put before the electorate on a ballot, there will be costs associated with the election in an amount yet to be determined.

Alternative Action
An alternative action is to not adopt any resolution and maintain the status quo with bifurcated MEETING DATE: June 21, 2022
ITEM NO. 9.14(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.14(a)--Consider Resolution regarding a ballot measure to convert the City Clerk and City Treasurer offices to appointive positions.

Barry DeWalt, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 1010
Report to Redding City Council June 16, 2022
Re: 9.14(a)--Ballot Measure re City Clerk and Treasurer Appointive Positions Page 2 elected and appointed manager positions in the offices of City Clerk and City Treasurer.

Background/Analysis
Prior to describing the means required to convert the offices of City Clerk and City Treasurer from elected positions to appointed positions, this memorandum will note some general background relating to the duties of each office and a brief description of the history of each position in the City of Redding.

The statutory duties of a City Clerk are expressed in Government Code sections 40801 through 40814, inclusive and attached for reference. The statutory duties of a City Treasurer are expressed in Government Code sections 41001 through 41007, inclusive and also attached for reference. The duties for both offices have become more technical over the years since these government code sections were adopted.

The statutory qualifications for the office for a City Clerk and City Treasurer are easily satisfied.

Government Code section 3502(a) provides generally that a person is not eligible to hold office as a City Clerk or City Treasurer unless he or she is, at the time of assuming office, eighteen (18) years of age or older, registered to vote, and residing within the limits of the City of Redding.

These are the sole requirements.

Notwithstanding, the duties of a City Clerk and City Treasurer have, as stated previously, become more technical over the years. One advantage of making both offices appointive is that the City Council or City Manager, in the case of a delegation by the City Council, can establish professional standards and eligibility criteria appropriate for each position above and beyond the minimum qualifications for office of being eighteen (18) years of age or older, registered to vote, and a resident.

The office of City Clerk has evolved significantly over the years. The City Clerk must possess a number of very specific skills and have knowledge and understanding of the law in order to fully perform the responsibilities of the position. The City Clerk serves as an elections official in the context of administering federal, state, and local procedures through which government representatives are selected. The City Clerk is responsible for assisting candidates for office in meeting their legal responsibilities before, during, and after an election. The City Clerk also takes a lead role in agenda preparation, posting of notices and agendas, and records the decisions of the City Council. This includes the preparation of minutes, ordinances, proclamations, and resolutions. The City Clerk also acts as Records Manager in the oversight of the preservation and protection of public records. This requires knowledge of the California Public Records Act and records retention laws.

As it relates to the City Treasurer, the duties have evolved over time as well. While the statutory duties can be described as fairly comprehensive, effective financial management requires professional skills and expertise in areas such as electronic banking, municipal fund accounting, government reporting requirements, investment regulations, and debt management.

From a historical perspective, the City Clerk and City Treasurer have always been elective offices in the City of Redding. In 1975, the City Council adopted Resolution 75-63. This resolution bifurcated the elected offices of City Clerk and Treasurer to create an administrator position for each as well. The administrator position in each office is by appointment. This is the Packet Pg. 1011
Report to Redding City Council June 16, 2022
Re: 9.14(a)--Ballot Measure re City Clerk and Treasurer Appointive Positions Page 3 current structure of each office. Presently, the elected office and the administrator position in the City Clerk’s office is held by Pamela Mize. The elected office and administrator positions in the Treasurer’s office is held by Allyn Clark.

Having set forth a brief description of the duties of each office and the requisite qualifications for each, this memorandum will briefly describe the legal means by which the offices of City Clerk and Treasurer may be converted from elective to appointive. State law requires that general law cities maintain the positions of City Clerk and City Treasurer. The positions may be appointed or elected. The City Clerk and City Treasurer are currently elected. Notwithstanding, Government Code section 36508 states that the City Council may submit the question of whether the elective officers shall be appointed by the City Council. Pursuant to Government Code section 36509, the question shall be printed on the ballots used at the election substantially in one of the following forms:
(a) “Shall the offices of City Clerk and City Treasurer be appointive?”; or (b) “Shall the office of City Clerk be appointive?”; or (c) “Shall the office of City Treasurer be appointive?” The words “yes” and “no” shall be printed on the ballots so that the voters may express their choice.

Changing the City Clerk and City Treasurer positions from elective to appointive requires placing a ballot measure in the form of (a) or (b) or (c), above, before the electorate. This is accomplished by adopting a resolution that submits the proposed ballot measure wording to the Shasta County Clerk/Registrar of Voters and directs the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure. The resolution attached hereto advances Option (a), above.

If the ballot measure is adopted by a majority of the votes cast in favor, the default position expressed by Government Code section 36510 is that the City Clerk and City Treasurer would be appointed by the City Council itself with the first opportunity for such an appointment to occur at the expiration of the term of office for each officer or upon any vacancy in such an office. Put another way, the change from elected office to appointive office is prospective.

The City Clerk elected office is on the ballot for the statewide election occurring on November 8, 2022. In an effort to avoid making a nullity of the election of the successful candidate on November 8, 2022, and in order to operate prospectively as required, the office of City Clerk would not become appointive until the expiration of the City Clerk’s term of office on November 3, 2026. As for the City Treasurer, the current office holder’s term of office expires on November 5, 2024. That office would not become appointive until that date. However, if either office is vacated by the then current officeholder, the City Council may, by operation of law, appoint a successor, and the office would be appointive thereafter.

One important matter to emphasize is that Government Code section 36510 permits the City Council, by ordinance, to vest in the City Manager its authority to appoint the City Clerk and the City Treasurer. Whether this occurs or not is a question to be resolved after the election in the Packet Pg. 1012
Report to Redding City Council June 16, 2022
Re: 9.14(a)--Ballot Measure re City Clerk and Treasurer Appointive Positions Page 4 sole discretion of the City Council. Because the question to be put on the ballot used at the election is dictated with precise language, as set forth in Government Code section 36509, the City Council may not deviate from the language set forth in that section. The issue of whether the power to appoint shall be delegated to the City Manager, either with or without Council authority to ratify any such appointment, can be resolved after the election. Notwithstanding, the possibility of a delegation will be placed in the text of the measure (see Section 2 of the attached resolution) and expressed as a post-election possibility in the City Attorney’s impartial analysis.

In the event that the offices of City Clerk and City Treasurer are made appointive, Government Code section 36510 provides that these officers would no longer be required to be residents or electors residing within the jurisdictional limits of the City. One advantage to this is that this will widen the pool of applicants because non-residents (i.e., County residents) could be appointed.

Lastly, and only if the City Council desires to put the measure on the ballot, the Council should consider whether there is interest in authoring an argument in favor of the ballot measure to convert the City Clerk and City Treasurer to appointive positions. Pursuant to Elections Code section 9282(b), the City Council, or any member of the City Council authorized by the City Council, may file a written argument for or against any city measure. Arguments of not more than three hundred (300) words each for and against any ballot measure will then be included in the voter information guide. Pursuant to Elections Code 9285, a qualified rebuttal argument may not exceed two hundred fifty (250) words.

Generally, Elections Code section 9286(a) requires the city elections official (City Clerk) to fix a date fourteen (14) days from the calling of the election (the date of adoption of the attached resolution) as a deadline, after which no arguments for or against a city measure may be submitted for printing and distribution to the voters.

However, subdivision (b) of Elections Code section 9286 provides that the requirement for submitting argument for inclusion with the voter information guide materials within fourteen (14) days from the calling of the election does not apply when the election is consolidated with another election. This is the case at present because the municipal election is consolidated with the statewide election to be held on November 8, 2022. As such, the City Clerk may fix a date exceeding fourteen (14) days from the date of the adoption of this resolution for the submission of arguments in favor or opposed to the ballot measure. The City Clerk has fixed July 18, 2022, as the date by which arguments for or against the ballot measure must be submitted.

Notwithstanding, any rebuttal argument must be submitted by July 29, 2022.

Although an argument can be authored by a maximum of five (5) eligible voters, the Elections Code requires that only one argument for and one against each ballot measure will be accepted by the elections official (City Clerk) and provides for an orderly process in determining who is eligible to submit a statement. If more than one argument for or more than one argument against the measure is received by the deadline, the elections official (City Clerk) must select only one argument for and against, giving preference and priority pursuant to Elections Code section 9287 in the following order to:

Packet Pg. 1013
Report to Redding City Council June 16, 2022
Re: 9.14(a)--Ballot Measure re City Clerk and Treasurer Appointive Positions Page 5

1. The legislative body, or member or members of the legislative body authorized by that body.

2. The individual voter, or bona fide association of citizens, or combination of voters and associations, who are the bona fide sponsors or proponents of the measure.

3. Bona fide associations of citizens.

4. Individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure.

The City Council has several options regarding the preparation of ballot arguments. In the event the City Council decides to author an argument as a whole body, this could be accomplished in several ways in compliance with the Brown Act. The Council could write the argument in open session or delegate up to two (2) Council members to prepare the argument and present the draft to the whole Council for approval in an open session. Alternately, the City Council could authorize up to two (2) Council Members to author and sign the argument either with the Council’s consent to include the name and title of the non-authoring members of the City Council or without any such inclusion. If this last option is adopted, the Council should be fully aware that it is delegating the authorship of the argument entirely and there would be no opportunity to amend the argument once delegated.

Lastly, as a matter of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the adoption of the attached resolution would have no impact on the environment. Placing a measure on the ballot, and the subsequent adoption of said measure by the public, which would establish that the elected offices of City Clerk and City Treasure shall be appointive rather than elective is a matter of policy having no bearing on the physical impact, either directly or indirectly.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item.
c: City Manager Barry Tippin
City Clerk Pamela Mize
City Treasurer Allyn Clark
Attachments
^Resolution
^Statutory Duties - City Clerk
^Statutory Duties - Treasurer
Packet Pg. 1014
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

REDDING CALLING FOR A MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE

CONSOLIDATED WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION
ON NOVEMBER 8, 2022, SEEKING VOTER APPROVAL TO

CONVERT THE OFFICES OF THE CITY CLERK AND CITY

TREASURER TO APPOINTED OFFICES, SETTING DATES FOR THE

SUBMISSION OF ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THE

BALLOT MEASURE, AND REQUESTING THE ASSISTANCE OF

THE COUNTY OF SHASTA IN CONNECTION WITH THAT

ELECTION
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to submit to the voters of the City of Redding at a General Municipal Election to be consolidated with the Statewide General Election on November 8, 2022, a question relating to the City Clerk and City Treasurer positions; and WHEREAS, State statute provides that the City Clerk and City Treasurer positions shall be elective; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 36508 also providesthat theCity Council may submit ameasure to the voters asking ifthe City Clerk and City Treasurer positions should be appointive.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. That theCityCouncil, pursuant to itsright and authority, does call a General Municipal Election and orders submitted to the voters at the General Municipal Election to be held and consolidated with the Statewide General Election scheduled for Tuesday, November 8, 2022, the following question:

Shall the offices of City Clerk and City Treasurer be appointive? Yes
No
Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: ^Resolution (9.14(a)--Ballot Measure re City Clerk and Treasurer Appointive Positions) A "yes" vote shall be counted in favor of having the positions become appointive. A "No" vote shall be counted against having the positions be appointive.

Section 2. That the proposed measure submitted to the voters shall read:

The people of the City of Redding do hereby request:

TheCityClerk and CityTreasurer shall no longer be elective officials of the City of Redding. From and after November 3, 2026, for the position of CityClerk, and from and after November 5, 2024, for the position of City Treasurer, or upon an earlier vacancy in the office of City Clerk or City Treasurer,theCityClerk andCity Treasurershall be appointed by theCityCouncil. TheCityClerk and City Treasurer so appointed shall hold office at the pleasure of the City Council and, notwithstanding California Government Code Section 36502 to the contrary, are not required to be a resident or elector in the City. The City Council may by ordinance vest in the City Manager its authority to appoint the City Clerk and City Treasurer.

Section 3. Pursuant to Elections Code section 10403, the City Council requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of Shasta to consolidate this City measure with the General Statewide Election to be held November 8, 2022.

Section 4. The City Council authorizes any and all members of the City Council (or anyone assigned by a Council Member) to file a written argument in favor or against the City measure, accompanied by the printed name(s) and signature(s) of the person(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers, in accordance with Article 4, Chapter 3, Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California and to change the argument until and including the date fixed by the City Clerk after which no arguments for or against the City measure may be submitted to the City Clerk.

Section 5. Pursuant to Elections Code section 9286, the City Clerk has established Monday, July 18, 2022, 5:00 p.m. as the deadline for the submission of arguments in favor of and arguments against the question. If more than one argument for or more than one argument against the question is submitted, the priorities set forth in Elections Code section 9287 shall control.

Section 6. Pursuant to Elections Code section 9285 (b) the City Council hereby adopts the provisions of Elections Code section 9285 (a) allowing the filing of rebuttal arguments. The deadline for filing rebuttal arguments shall be Friday, July 29, 2022, 5:00 p.m.

Section 7. Pursuant to Elections Code section 9280, the City Clerk is instructed to transmit a copy of the ballot measure to the City Attorney along with a request that an impartial analysis be prepared for the ballot measure. The City Attorney shall transmit such impartial analysis to the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m., Monday, July 18, 2022.

Packet Pg. 1016 Attachment: ^Resolution (9.14(a)--Ballot Measure re City Clerk and Treasurer Appointive Positions) Section 8. Pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to general law cities, there is called and ordered a general municipal election to be consolidated with the Statewide General Election held in the City of Redding on Tuesday, November 8, 2022, for the purpose of placing a measure to the voters of Redding relating to the elective nature of the City Clerk and City Treasurer positions.

Section 9. The City Clerk is authorized, instructed, and directed to work with the Shasta County Clerk and Registrar of Voters as needed in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. The ballots to be used in the election shall be in form and content as required by law. The County is authorized to canvass the returns of the general municipal election.

Section 10. The Board of Supervisors is requested to instruct the Shasta County Clerk and Registrar of Voters to provide such services as may be necessary for the holding of the consolidated election. The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election. The City of Redding recognizes that the County will incur additional costs because of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for those costs.

Section 11.The pollsforthe election shall beopen atseveno'clock a.m. on the dayoftheelection and shallremain open continuously fromthat time until eight o'clock p.m. thatsame day,when the polls shall be closed, except as provided in Section 14401 of the Elections Code of the State of California.

The notice of the time and place of holding the election is hereby given, and the City Clerk is authorized to give further notice of the election, as required by law.

Section 12. That in all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

Section 13. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Shasta County Board of Supervisors and the Shasta County Clerk and Registrar of Voters.

Section 14. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 21st day of June, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
________________________________________
KRISTEN SCHREDER, Mayor
Packet Pg. 1017 Attachment: ^Resolution (9.14(a)--Ballot Measure re City Clerk and Treasurer Appointive Positions) ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________ ______________________________________ PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk BARRY E. DeWALT, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: ^Resolution (9.14(a)--Ballot Measure re City Clerk and Treasurer Appointive Positions) Packet Pg. 1019
Attachment: ^Statutory Duties - City Clerk (9.14(a)--Ballot Measure re City Clerk and Treasurer Appointive Positions) Packet Pg. 1020
Attachment: ^Statutory Duties - City Clerk (9.14(a)--Ballot Measure re City Clerk and Treasurer Appointive Positions) Packet Pg. 1021
Attachment: ^Statutory Duties - Treasurer (9.14(a)--Ballot Measure re City Clerk and Treasurer Appointive Positions)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution of Intention; offer an uncodified Ordinance for first reading by title only and waive the full reading, giving notice of the City of Redding’s intent to amend the contract with California Public Employees’ Retirement System as allowed in Section 20516 of the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (Employees Sharing Additional Cost) for Unrepresented NonSafety Employees and Elected Officials.

Fiscal Impact
The cost sharing of the City’s California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) employer contribution rate will equate to an estimated annual savings of $97,000; of which, $16,000 applies to the General Fund.

Alternative Action
The City Council could choose not to adopt the attached resolution and not introduce for reading by title only the attached ordinance. The City’s CalPERS contract for Classic Unrepresented Non-Safety Employees and Elected Officials would not be changed.

Background
On February 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-018, confirming the agreement between the City of Redding and the Classic Unrepresented Non-Safety Employees and Elected Officials for additional cost sharing of employer contributions to CalPERS. The Classic CalPERS Unrepresented Non-Safety Employees and Elected Officials agreed to pay an additional 1.125 percent of the City’s employer contribution. The increased contribution will be effective when the appropriate CalPERS contract amendment has been executed.

MEETING DATE: June 21, 2022
ITEM NO. 9.15(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.15(a)--Consider Resolution of Intention and Introduction of Uncodified Ordinance Amending the City of Redding's Contract with California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) to Allow Unrepresented Non-Safety Employees and Elected Officials to Share Additional Costs of the Retirement Benefit Kelley Martinez, Interim
Personnel Director
Packet Pg. 1022
Report to Redding City Council June 16, 2022
Re: 9.15(a)--Resolution of Intention and Ordinance - CalPERS Page 2 In order for the City to amend its contract with CalPERS, there is a requirement by CalPERS that specific procedures, established by the State of California statute, be followed to initiate retirement contract amendments for the Classic Unrepresented Non-Safety Employees and Elected Officials. Approval of the Resolution of Intention initiates the process for the contract amendment. CalPERS requires that the City adopt this Resolution of Intention at least twenty (20) days prior to adopting an ordinance that approves the contract amendment. Attached is the proposed ordinance authorizing an amendment to the contract between the Board of Administration of CalPERS and the City Council of the City of Redding. This is the first reading of the ordinance, a second and final reading will follow for adoption.

The cost-sharing modification is permitted in Government Code Section 20516, and the pre-tax contributions are consistent with IRS Code Section 401(a). Per the CalPERS amendment process, staff will seek final adoption of the ordinance at the July 19, 2022, City Council meeting with an effective date of the CalPERS contract amendment being August 21, 2022.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Budget and Financial Management – “Achieve balanced and stable 10-year Financial Plans for all funds.”
Attachments
^Ordinance
^Resolution of Intention
^Resolution of Intention Signature Page
Amendment to Contract - Exhibit

2.15.22 4.15(b) Adopt Resolution Confirming Cost Sharing of Employer Contributions_Unrepresented Non-Safety Employees and Elected Officials Packet Pg. 1023
ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF REDDING AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT

BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING AND THE

BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM
The City Council of the City of Redding does ordain as follows:

Section 1. That an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Redding and the Board of Administration, California Public Employees’ Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy of said amendment on file in the City Clerk’s Office, and by such reference made a part hereof as though herein set out in full.

Section 2. The Mayor of the City Council is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said amendment for and on behalf of said Agency.

Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption, and prior to the expiration of fifteen days from the passage thereof shall be published at least once in the Redding Record Searchlight, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Redding, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 21th day of June, 2022; and was read and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the ____ day of ___________, 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. 1024 Attachment: ^Ordinance (9.15(a)--Resolution of Intention and Ordinance - CalPERS)

RESOLUTION OF INTENTION

TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT

BETWEEN THE

BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM

AND THE

CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF REDDING
WHEREAS, the Public Employees' Retirement Law permits the participation of public agencies and their employees in the Public Employees' Retirement System by the execution of a contract, and sets forth the procedure by which said public agencies may elect to subject themselves and their employees to amendments to said Law; and WHEREAS, one of the steps in the procedures to amend this contract is the adoption by the governing body of the public agency of a resolution giving notice of its intention to approve an amendment to said contract, which resolution shall contain a summary of the change proposed in said contract; and
WHEREAS, the following is a statement of the proposed change:

Section 20516 (Employees Sharing Additional Cost) of an additional 1.125% for classic local miscellaneous members in the Unrepresented Non-Safety Employees and Elected Officials Group.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the governing body of the above agency does hereby give notice of intention to approve an amendment to the contract between said public agency and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, as an "Exhibit" and by this reference made a part hereof.

By: _________________________________
Presiding Officer
_________________________________
Title
________________________________
Date adopted and approved
(Amendment) CalPERS ID# 4091792151
CON-302 (Rev. 6/12/19)
Packet Pg. 1025 Attachment: ^Resolution of Intention (9.15(a)--Resolution of Intention and Ordinance - CalPERS) 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 21 st day of June, 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. 1026 Attachment: ^Resolution of Intention Signature Page (9.15(a)--Resolution of Intention and Ordinance - CalPERS) Packet Pg. 1027
Attachment: Amendment to Contract - Exhibit (9.15(a)--Resolution of Intention and Ordinance - CalPERS) Packet Pg. 1028
Attachment: Amendment to Contract - Exhibit (9.15(a)--Resolution of Intention and Ordinance - CalPERS) Packet Pg. 1029
Attachment: Amendment to Contract - Exhibit (9.15(a)--Resolution of Intention and Ordinance - CalPERS) Packet Pg. 1030
Attachment: Amendment to Contract - Exhibit (9.15(a)--Resolution of Intention and Ordinance - CalPERS) Packet Pg. 1031
Attachment: Amendment to Contract - Exhibit (9.15(a)--Resolution of Intention and Ordinance - CalPERS) Packet Pg. 1032
Attachment: Amendment to Contract - Exhibit (9.15(a)--Resolution of Intention and Ordinance - CalPERS) Packet Pg. 1033
Attachment: Amendment to Contract - Exhibit (9.15(a)--Resolution of Intention and Ordinance - CalPERS) Packet Pg. 1034 Attachment: 2.15.22 4.15(b) Adopt Resolution Confirming Cost Sharing of Employer Contributions_Unrepresented Non-Safety Employees and Packet Pg. 1035 Attachment: 2.15.22 4.15(b) Adopt Resolution Confirming Cost Sharing of Employer Contributions_Unrepresented Non-Safety Employees and Packet Pg. 1036 Attachment: 2.15.22 4.15(b) Adopt Resolution Confirming Cost Sharing of Employer Contributions_Unrepresented Non-Safety Employees and Packet Pg. 1037 Attachment: 2.15.22 4.15(b) Adopt Resolution Confirming Cost Sharing of Employer Contributions_Unrepresented Non-Safety Employees and Packet Pg. 1038 Attachment: 2.15.22 4.15(b) Adopt Resolution Confirming Cost Sharing of Employer Contributions_Unrepresented Non-Safety Employees and Packet Pg. 1039 Attachment: 2.15.22 4.15(b) Adopt Resolution Confirming Cost Sharing of Employer Contributions_Unrepresented Non-Safety Employees and Packet Pg. 1040 Attachment: 2.15.22 4.15(b) Adopt Resolution Confirming Cost Sharing of Employer Contributions_Unrepresented Non-Safety Employees and

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution approving a 180-day wait period exception and single interim appointment of Angela Udovich as Safety Specialist for the City of Redding pursuant to Government Code sections 7522.56 and 21221(h), effective July 11, 2022, and ending no later than March 11, 2023, and granting the City Manager authority to execute the necessary hiring documentation.

The resolution, if approved, would allow retiring Safety Specialist Angela Udovich to be rehired to perform the complex duties of the position during the recruitment and hiring process for a new Safety Specialist.

Fiscal Impact
The estimated total salary cost for the appointment will be approximately $42,028 for the period of July 11, 2022, to March 11, 2023. The Public Works Department (Department) has sufficient salary savings to cover the cost. There will be no negative impact to the General Fund.

Alternative Action
The City Council can choose not to adopt the attached resolution and provide staff with alternative direction. Not adopting the resolution would put additional workload on existing staff.

Background
Safety Specialist Angela Udovich retires from the City of Redding on July 1, 2022, after 23 years of service in the City. The City has actively recruited to fill the vacancy that will be created by Ms. Udovich’s retirement, but has been unsuccessful at finding a replacement. Ms. Udovich’s knowledge and experience would assist the continuance of the City’s safety program.

Specifically, Ms. Udovich would manage the safety, training and regulatory compliance program for the Public Works Department, maintain the department’s commercial driver database, MEETING DATE: June 21, 2022
ITEM NO. 9.15(c)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.15(c)--Consider adoption of Resolution approving an exception to the California Public Employee's Retirement System (CalPERS) 180-day wait period with regard to the re-hiring of retiring Safety Specialist Angela Udovich.

Sheri DeMaagd, Assistant
City Manager
Packet Pg. 1041
Report to Redding City Council June 16, 2022
Re: 9.15(c)--Exception to the CalPERS 180-day Wait Period Page 2 maintain the new hire training program, and assist with regulatory inspections. Ms. Udovich would be re-hired effective July 11, 2022.

CalPERS’ rules limit a contracting agency’s ability to employ a retired annuitant in a permanent or regular staff position without reinstatement from retirement. However, Government Code Section 21221(h) provides a limited exception to allow a governing body of a contracting agency to approve the appointment of a retiree to fill a vacant position during the recruitment process. A retiree can be appointed only once to the position, with a specified end date. The end date cannot be amended to extend the appointment term. A retiree appointed more than once would be subject to mandatory reinstatement.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
This agenda item is a routine operational item.

Attachments
^CalPERS Reso 180 Day Exception-Udovich
^PAF_RA Udovich
Packet Pg. 1042
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___
June 21, 2022
RESOLUTION FOR EXCEPTION TO THE 180-DAY WAIT PERIOD AND

INTERIM APPOINTMENT OF RETIREE ANGELA UDOVICH
GC sections 7522.56 & 21221(h)
WHEREAS, in compliance with Government Code section 7522.56 the Redding City Council must provide CalPERS this certification resolution when hiring a retiree before 180 days has passed since his or her retirement date; and
WHEREAS, Angela Udovich, CalPERS ID 7962478236, retires from the City of Redding in the position of Safety Specialist in the Public Works Department effective July 1, 2022; and WHEREAS, section 7522.56 requires that post-retirement employment commence no earlier than 180 days after the retirement date, which is December 28, 2022, without this certification resolution; and
WHEREAS, section 7522.56 provides that this exception to the 180-day wait period shall not apply if the retiree accepts any retirement-related incentive; and WHEREAS, the Redding City Council, the City of Redding and Angela Udovich certify that Angela Udovich has not and will not receive a Golden Handshake or any other retirement-related incentive; and
WHEREAS, the Redding City Council hereby appoints Angela Udovich as an interim appointment retired annuitant to the vacant position of Safety Specialist for the City of Redding under Government Code section 21221(h), effective July 11, 2022; and WHEREAS, an appointment under Government Code section 21221(h) requires an active publicly posted recruitment for a permanent replacement; and WHEREAS, the current status of this recruitment is in process and is anticipated to be complete by the end of November 2022; and
WHEREAS, this section 21221(h) appointment shall only be made once and therefore will end no later than March 11, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the entire employment agreement, contract or appointment document between Angela Udovich and the City of Redding has been reviewed by this body and is attached herein; and
Packet Pg. 1043 Attachment: ^CalPERS Reso 180 Day Exception-Udovich (9.15(c)--Exception to the CalPERS 180-day Wait Period) WHEREAS, no matters, issues, terms or conditions related to this employment and appointment have been or will be placed on a consent calendar; and
WHEREAS, the employment shall be limited to 960 hours per fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the compensation paid to retirees cannot be less than the minimum nor exceed the maximum monthly base salary paid to other employees performing comparable duties, divided by 173.333 to equal the hourly rate; and
WHEREAS, the maximum monthly base salary for this position will be $7,589 and the hourly equivalent is $43.78, and the minimum monthly base salary for this position is $5,394 and the hourly equivalent is $31.12; and
WHEREAS, the hourly rate paid to Angela Udovich will be $43.78; and WHEREAS, Angela Udovich has not and will not receive any other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefit or other form of compensation in addition to this hourly pay rate; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Redding City Council hereby certifies the nature of the appointment of Angela Udovich as described herein and that this appointment is necessary to fill a critically needed role of Safety Specialist for the City of Redding during recruitment for a permanent appointment. Ms. Udovich will manage the safety, training and regulatory compliance program for the Public Works Department, maintain the Department’s commercial driver database, maintain the new hire training program, and assist with regulatory inspections. Ms. Udovich’s title will be Safety Specialist during her employment as a retired annuitant.

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 21st day of June, 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. 1044 Attachment: ^CalPERS Reso 180 Day Exception-Udovich (9.15(c)--Exception to the CalPERS 180-day Wait Period) original: employee file copies: employee department director F-0015 - 3/20

CITY OF REDDING
Personnel Action Form
Department/Division Number Employee Number Effective Date Employee Name
Last First MI
A. TYPE OF ACTION
G New Hire G Re-employment G Separation/Termination G Promotion G Reclassification G Pay-for-Performance G Step Increase G Status Change FMLA/LOA Other B. ACTION (See instructions and sample codes on reverse side) Status
Code
Job Code
Number Step
Wage/Salary
Rate
Classification
Title
Dept.

No.

Division
Name
From:

To:

C. EXPLANATION OF ACTION
D. ORDER OF ROUTING
Requested by: Date:

Supervisor
Requested by: Date:

Division Head
Requested by: Date:

Department Director
Recommended by: Date:

Personnel Director
Funds Available: Date:

Director of Finance
Approved: Date:

City Manager
Personnel Office Use Only
E. PROCESSING Eligibility
List
Pre-Bid Loyalty
Oath
Physical
Exam
Psych
Exam
DOT Background
Investigation
Last Step
Increase
Last PFP Hire
Date
Initials _________
Budgeted
Hours FMLA EEO-4
Next Step Increase
Date Amount
Retro Pay
Processed
Dept.

Notified
Date
Notified
Personnel Office Use Only
Analyst Review
Position Control No.

Packet Pg. 1045 Attachment: ^PAF_RA Udovich (9.15(c)--Exception to the CalPERS 180-day Wait Period) This form is to be initiated by the Department/Division and forwarded to the Personnel Department at [email protected] after signatures have been obtained. Please include any supporting documents as attachments in the email to expedite processing. Signed evaluations may be scanned and sent with the email, but the original version with ink signatures must be sent via interoffice mail to Personnel for recordkeeping purposes.

DEPARTMENT NUMBER: Refers to the three digit number assigned by Finance for each department and division.

EMPLOYEE NUMBER: Refers to the number assigned to each employee (refer to a PER 10 Job Classification and Status Report or telephone the Personnel Office).

EFFECTIVE DATE: On new hires or re-employs, the effective date must be the first day the employee actually reports for work. On separations/terminations, the effective date is the last day of employment. On promotions, reclassifications, pay increases, status changes, etc., the effective date must be the beginning of a payroll period.

A. TYPE OF ACTION: Check the appropriate box indicating the type of action required. Use "Other" for actions not specifically listed, i.e. Transfer, Suspension, Return from Leave of Absence, Return from FMLA, etc.

B. ACTION: Status Code: 3 = Regular/Probationary positions; 7 = Seasonal positions (950 hours); 8A = Part-time positions (990 hours); 8B = Part-time positions (1560 hours) with PERS Benefits; and 9 = Part-time (on-call, seasonal 950 hours).

Job Code: Refers to the number assigned to each job classification (refer to salary schedules). Example 397 – Clerk
Wage/Salary Rate: Refer to current salary schedules found on the City of Redding website for appropriate rate. Do not use an hourly rate for a payfor-performance request, use a monthly salary rate, rounded to the nearest dollar.

Classification: Refers to the job title. Example: Clerk II C. EXPLANATION OF ACTION: Please be as specific as possible on the explanation of action. Indicate the reason for the action.

D. ORDER OF ROUTING: The Personnel Action Form must be signed by the department director before submitting to the Personnel Office.

E. PROCESSING: This section is to be completed by the Personnel Office.

Packet Pg. 1046 Attachment: ^PAF_RA Udovich (9.15(c)--Exception to the CalPERS 180-day Wait Period)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution approving amendment to the Executive Management Pay-For-Performance Salary Plan (Unrepresented) to correct a calculation error impacting the compensation for one job classification, “Electric Program Supervisor – Power Production”, effective June 26, 2022.

Fiscal Impact
The fiscal impact of this change is small but corrects a calculation error for one classification.

The total annual estimated salary cost of the wage adjustment is $30,000. Personnel savings have accrued from current vacant positions to cover the cost.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could choose not to approve the resolution, and the recommended salary schedule change would not be adopted.

Background/Analysis
On January 18, 2022, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-06 approving amendments to the Executive Management Pay-For-Performance Salary Plan, and amendment of the Employment and Benefit Policies for Unrepresented Employees. The amendment to the Executive Management Pay-for-Performance Salary Plan provided compensation adjustments to unrepresented employees to align salaries with the broader labor market. However, the approved salary plan was based on a calculation error for the “Electric Program Supervisor – Power Production” classification. Staff recommends updating the Pay-For-Performance Salary Plan to correct the error with an effective date of June 26, 2022. The update will increase the Electric Program Supervisor - Power Production monthly salary by 9.5 percent, from $12,767/month to $13,980/month.

MEETING DATE: June 21, 2022
ITEM NO. 9.15(d)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.15(d)--Consider Resolution approving amendments to Executive Management Pay-For-Performance Salary Plan.

Kelley Martinez, Interim
Personnel Director
Packet Pg. 1047
Report to Redding City Council June 16, 2022
Re: 9.15(d)--Unrepresented Salary Schedule Page 2
Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item.

Attachments
^Resolution
ExecMgmtSalaryPlan-June 26, 2022
ExecMgmtSalaryPlan-July 10, 2022
ExecMgmtSalaryPlan-July 9, 2023
Packet Pg. 1048
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-_____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING

APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT
PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE SALARY PLAN EFFECTIVE JUNE 26, 2022 WHEREAS, staff has recommended that the Executive Management Pay-ForPerformance Salary Plan be amended adjusting the monthly maximum salary range of the Electric Program Supervisor – Power Production classification from $12,767 to $13,980, effective June 26, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City to adopt such recommendations;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council that the Executive Management Pay-For-Performance Salary Plan be amended, effective June 26, 2022.

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 21st day of June, 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. 1049 Attachment: ^Resolution (9.15(d)--Unrepresented Salary Schedule) Job Code Title
96 City Clerk (Elected Official) $600
97 City Treasurer (Elected Official) $600
30 Director of Electric Utility $17,173 – $22,326
31 Assistant Director of Electric Utility $15,611 – $20,296 35 Chief of Police $14,635 – $19,026
61 Electric Manager - Energy Management $14,165 – $18,415 84 Electric Manager - Engineering $14,165 – $18,415
12 Assistant City Manager $13,459 – $17,498
40 Fire Chief $13,013 – $16,918
88 Electric Program Supervisor - Energy Management $12,846 – $16,700 62 Electric Program Supervisor - Transmission & Distribution $12,846 – $16,700 20 Director of Public Works $12,818 – $16,665
76 Electric Manager - Power Production $12,114 – $15,748 69 Electric Manager - Financial $11,920 – $15,496
94 Chief Information Officer $11,920 – $15,496
63 Electric Manager - Customer Services and Metering $11,823 – $15,370 77 Electric Manager - Line $11,823 – $15,370
86 Electric Manager - Resources $11,823 – $15,370
43 Director of Development Services $11,618 – $15,103
52 Director of Community Services $11,618 – $15,103
134 Assistant City Attorney II $11,375 – $14,788
66 Electric Manager - Compliance $11,327 – $14,725
67 Electric Manager - Technology $11,327 – $14,725
42 Deputy Fire Chief $11,212 – $14,576
87 Electrical Engineering Supervisor $11,092 – $14,420
64 Director of Finance $10,812 – $14,056
65 Personnel Director $10,812 – $14,056
18 Deputy City Manager $10,790 – $14,028
78 Electric Program Supervisor - Line $10,785 – $14,021 59 Electric Program Supervisor - Power Production $10,753 – $13,980 106 Assistant Director of Public Works $10,570 – $13,741 80 Electric Program Supervisor - Substations $10,530 – $13,689 41 Electric Program Supervisor - Meter Shop $10,530 – $13,689 89 Electric Program Supervisor - Service Planning $10,392 – $13,510 135 Assistant City Attorney I $10,301 – $13,392
81 Electric Manager $10,106 – $13,139
108 Electrical Engineer $10,098 – $13,127
68 Operations/Compliance Engineer $10,098 – $13,127
262 Power Plant Engineer II $10,098 – $13,127
112 Assistant City Engineer $9,990 – $12,988

CITY OF REDDING

EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE SALARY PLAN
Effective: June 26, 2022
Monthly Salary Range

NO RANGE

NO RANGE
Packet Pg. 1050 Attachment: ExecMgmtSalaryPlan-June 26, 2022 (9.15(d)--Unrepresented Salary Schedule) Job Code Title Monthly Salary Range
82 Electric Program Supervisor $9,876 – $12,839
58 Electric Program Supervisor - Operational Technology $9,876 – $12,839 260 Electric Utility Senior Resource Planner $9,876 – $12,839 155 Electric Utility Senior Project Engineer $9,775 – $12,708 71 Assistant Director of Development Services/Building Official $9,710 – $12,623 93 Deputy Director of Public Works $9,640 – $12,533
54 Cyber Security Officer $9,379 – $12,193
138 Planning /Community Development Manager $9,269 – $12,050 50 Assistant Director - Community Services $9,181 – $11,935 252 Municipal Utilities Manager $9,181 – $11,935
192 Electric Utility Operational Technology Engineer $9,085 – $11,811 116 Electric Utility Resource Planner $9,085 – $11,811
60 Finance Officer $8,979 – $11,673
72 Environmental Compliance Manager $8,836 – $11,488
127 Building Official $8,813 – $11,457
110 Electric Utility Engineer $8,652 – $11,248
261 Power Plant Engineer I $8,652 – $11,248
151 Deputy City Attorney $8,621 – $11,208
75 Airports Manager $8,537 – $11,099
103 Housing Manager $8,317 – $10,813
182 Geographic Information Systems Manager $8,106 – $10,538 249 Field Foreman-Electrical Technician $8,097 – $10,527 95 Personnel Manager $7,980 – $10,374
90 Risk Manager $7,980 – $10,374
98 Administrator - Office of City Clerk $7,897 – $10,266 99 Administrator - Office of City Treasurer $7,897 – $10,266 131 Economic Development, Innovation and Equity Manager $7,773 – $10,106 121 Electric Utility Engineering Associate $7,570 – $9,842 105 Assistant Finance Officer $7,512 – $9,765
92 Parks & Facilities Manager $7,481 – $9,725
51 Communication Manager $7,451 – $9,686
195 Electric Utility Associate Resource Planner $7,342 – $9,545 107 Energy Services Account Manager $7,247 – $9,422
56 Senior Personnel Analyst $7,234 – $9,404
209 Assistant Airports Manager $7,117 – $9,253
136 Electric Utility Engineering Assistant II $6,907 – $8,979 166 Purchasing Officer $6,812 – $8,856
Packet Pg. 1051 Attachment: ExecMgmtSalaryPlan-June 26, 2022 (9.15(d)--Unrepresented Salary Schedule) Job Code Title
113 Electric Utility Field Foreman $5,362 – $8,549
175 Management Assistant to the City Manager $6,477 – $8,421 150 Electric Utility Engineering Assistant I $6,272 – $8,154 165 Parks Superintendent $6,225 – $8,093
169 Recreation Superintendent $6,225 – $8,093
130 Fleet Manager $6,145 – $7,988
185 Police Services Manager $6,145 – $7,988
245 Executive Assistant to the City Manager $5,052 – $6,568 109 Reprographics Manager $5,052 – $6,568
Monthly Salary Range
Packet Pg. 1052 Attachment: ExecMgmtSalaryPlan-June 26, 2022 (9.15(d)--Unrepresented Salary Schedule) Job Code Title
96 City Clerk (Elected Official) $600
97 City Treasurer (Elected Official) $600
30 Director of Electric Utility $17,516 – $22,772
31 Assistant Director of Electric Utility $15,924 – $20,702 35 Chief of Police $15,659 – $20,358
61 Electric Manager - Energy Management $14,448 – $18,783 84 Electric Manager - Engineering $14,448 – $18,783
40 Fire Chief $14,334 – $18,635
12 Assistant City Manager $13,273 – $17,256
88 Electric Program Supervisor - Energy Management $13,103 – $17,034 62 Electric Program Supervisor - Transmission & Distribution $13,103 – $17,034 20 Director of Public Works $13,075 – $16,998
76 Electric Manager - Power Production $12,356 – $16,063 69 Electric Manager - Financial $12,158 – $15,806
94 Chief Information Officer $12,158 – $15,806
63 Electric Manager - Customer Services and Metering $12,059 – $15,678 77 Electric Manager - Line $12,059 – $15,678
86 Electric Manager - Resources $12,059 – $15,678
42 Deputy Fire Chief $11,940 – $15,523
43 Director of Development Services $11,850 – $15,406
52 Director of Community Services $11,850 – $15,406
134 Assistant City Attorney II $11,602 – $15,083
66 Electric Manager - Compliance $11,553 – $15,020
67 Electric Manager - Technology $11,553 $15,020
87 Electrical Engineering Supervisor $11,436 – $14,867
64 Director of Finance $11,028 – $14,337
65 Personnel Director $11,028 – $14,337
18 Deputy City Manager $11,006 – $14,308
78 Electric Program Supervisor - Line $11,001 – $14,302 59 Electric Program Supervisor - Power Production $10,968 – $14,259 106 Assistant Director of Public Works $10,781 – $14,016 80 Electric Program Supervisor - Substations $10,740 – $13,963 41 Electric Program Supervisor - Meter Shop $10,740 – $13,963 89 Electric Program Supervisor - Service Planning $10,600 – $13,780 135 Assistant City Attorney I $10,507 – $13,660
81 Electric Manager $10,308 – $13,401
108 Electrical Engineer $10,299 – $13,390
68 Operations/Compliance Engineer $10,299 – $13,390
262 Power Plant Engineer II $10,299 – $13,390
112 Assistant City Engineer $10,190 – $13,248

CITY OF REDDING

EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE SALARY PLAN
Effective: July 10, 2022
Monthly Salary Range

NO RANGE

NO RANGE
Packet Pg. 1053 Attachment: ExecMgmtSalaryPlan-July 10, 2022 (9.15(d)--Unrepresented Salary Schedule) Job Code Title Monthly Salary Range
82 Electric Program Supervisor $10,073 – $13,096
58 Electric Program Supervisor - Operational Technology $10,073 – $13,096 260 Electric Utility Senior Resource Planner $10,073 – $13,096 155 Electric Utility Senior Project Engineer $9,970 – $12,962 71 Assistant Director of Development Services/Building Official $9,904 – $12,876 93 Deputy Director of Public Works $9,833 – $12,783
54 Cyber Security Officer $9,567 – $12,437
138 Planning /Community Development Manager $9,454 – $12,291 50 Assistant Director - Community Services $9,364 – $12,174 252 Municipal Utilities Manager $9,364 – $12,174
192 Electric Utility Operational Technology Engineer $9,267 – $12,047 116 Electric Utility Resource Planner $9,267 – $12,047
60 Finance Officer $9,158 – $11,906
72 Environmental Compliance Manager $9,013 – $11,717
127 Building Official $8,989 – $11,686
110 Electric Utility Engineer $8,825 – $11,473
261 Power Plant Engineer I $8,825 – $11,473
151 Deputy City Attorney $8,793 – $11,432
75 Airports Manager $8,708 – $11,321
103 Housing Manager $8,484 – $11,029
182 Geographic Information Systems Manager $8,268 – $10,749 249 Field Foreman-Electrical Technician $8,259 – $10,737 95 Personnel Manager $8,140 – $10,582
90 Risk Manager $8,139 – $10,582
98 Administrator - Office of City Clerk $8,055 – $10,472 99 Administrator - Office of City Treasurer $8,055 – $10,472 131 Economic Development, Innovation and Equity Manager $7,929 – $10,308 121 Electric Utility Engineering Associate $7,721 – $10,038 105 Assistant Finance Officer $7,662 – $9,961
92 Parks & Facilities Manager $7,630 – $9,920
51 Communication Manager $7,600 – $9,880
195 Electric Utility Associate Resource Planner $7,489 – $9,736 107 Energy Services Account Manager $7,392 – $9,610
56 Senior Personnel Analyst $7,378 – $9,592
209 Assistant Airports Manager $7,260 – $9,438
136 Electric Utility Engineering Assistant II $7,045 – $9,159 166 Purchasing Officer $6,949 – $9,033
113 Electric Utility Field Foreman $5,362 – $8,720
Packet Pg. 1054 Attachment: ExecMgmtSalaryPlan-July 10, 2022 (9.15(d)--Unrepresented Salary Schedule) Job Code Title
175 Management Assistant to the City Manager $6,607 – $8,589 150 Electric Utility Engineering Assistant I $6,397 – $8,317 165 Parks Superintendent $6,349 – $8,254
169 Recreation Superintendent $6,349 – $8,254
130 Fleet Manager $6,267 – $8,148
185 Police Services Manager $6,267 – $8,148
245 Executive Assistant to the City Manager $5,153 – $6,700 109 Reprographics Manager $5,153 – $6,700
Monthly Salary Range
Packet Pg. 1055 Attachment: ExecMgmtSalaryPlan-July 10, 2022 (9.15(d)--Unrepresented Salary Schedule) Job Code Title
96 City Clerk (Elected Official) $600
97 City Treasurer (Elected Official) $600
30 Director of Electric Utility $17,779 – $23,114
31 Assistant Director of Electric Utility $16,163 – $21,012 35 Chief of Police $15,894 – $20,664
61 Electric Manager - Energy Management $14,665 – $19,065 84 Electric Manager - Engineering $14,665 – $19,065
40 Fire Chief $14,549 – $18,915
12 Assistant City Manager $13,472 – $17,515
88 Electric Program Supervisor - Energy Management $13,299 – $17,290 62 Electric Program Supervisor - Transmission & Distribution $13,299 – $17,290 20 Director of Public Works $13,271 – $17,253
76 Electric Manager - Power Production $12,541 – $16,304 69 Electric Manager - Financial $12,341 – $16,043
94 Chief Information Officer $12,341 – $16,043
63 Electric Manager - Customer Services and Metering $12,240 – $15,913 77 Electric Manager - Line $12,240 – $15,913
86 Electric Manager - Resources $12,240 – $15,913
42 Deputy Fire Chief $12,120 – $15,756
43 Director of Development Services $12,028 – $15,637
52 Director of Community Services $12,028 – $15,637
134 Assistant City Attorney II $11,776 – $15,310
66 Electric Manager - Compliance $11,726 – $15,245
67 Electric Manager - Technology $11,726 $15,245
87 Electrical Engineering Supervisor $11,607 – $15,090
64 Director of Finance $11,194 – $14,552
65 Personnel Director $11,194 – $14,552
18 Deputy City Manager $11,171 – $14,523
78 Electric Program Supervisor - Line $11,166 – $14,516 59 Electric Program Supervisor - Power Production $11,133 – $14,473 106 Assistant Director of Public Works $10,943 – $14,227 80 Electric Program Supervisor - Substations $10,901 – $14,172 41 Electric Program Supervisor - Meter Shop $10,901 – $14,172 89 Electric Program Supervisor - Service Planning $10,759 – $13,987 135 Assistant City Attorney I $10,665 – $13,865
81 Electric Manager $10,463 – $13,602
108 Electrical Engineer $10,454 – $13,591
68 Operations/Compliance Engineer $10,454 – $13,591
262 Power Plant Engineer II $10,454 – $13,591
112 Assistant City Engineer $10,343 – $13,446

CITY OF REDDING

EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE SALARY PLAN
Effective: July 9, 2023
Monthly Salary Range

NO RANGE

NO RANGE
Packet Pg. 1056 Attachment: ExecMgmtSalaryPlan-July 9, 2023 (9.15(d)--Unrepresented Salary Schedule) Job Code Title Monthly Salary Range
82 Electric Program Supervisor $10,224 – $13,292
58 Electric Program Supervisor - Operational Technology $10,224 – $13,292 260 Electric Utility Senior Resource Planner $10,224 – $13,292 155 Electric Utility Senior Project Engineer $10,120 – $13,156 71 Assistant Director of Development Services/Building Official $10,053 – $13,069 93 Deputy Director of Public Works $9,980 – $12,975
54 Cyber Security Officer $9,710 – $12,624
138 Planning /Community Development Manager $9,596 – $12,475 50 Assistant Director - Community Services $9,505 – $12,356 252 Municipal Utilities Manager $9,505 – $12,356
192 Electric Utility Operational Technology Engineer $9,406 – $12,228 116 Electric Utility Resource Planner $9,406 – $12,228
60 Finance Officer $9,296 – $12,085
72 Environmental Compliance Manager $9,148 – $11,893
127 Building Official $9,124 – $11,861
110 Electric Utility Engineer $8,958 – $11,645
261 Power Plant Engineer I $8,957 – $11,645
151 Deputy City Attorney $8,925 – $11,603
75 Airports Manager $8,839 – $11,491
103 Housing Manager $8,611 – $11,195
182 Geographic Information Systems Manager $8,392 – $10,910 249 Field Foreman-Electrical Technician $8,383 – $10,898 95 Personnel Manager $8,262 – $10,741
90 Risk Manager $8,262 – $10,741
98 Administrator - Office of City Clerk $8,176 – $10,629 99 Administrator - Office of City Treasurer $8,176 – $10,629 131 Economic Development, Innovation and Equity Manager $8,048 – $10,463 121 Electric Utility Engineering Associate $7,837 – $10,189 105 Assistant Finance Officer $7,777 – $10,110
92 Parks & Facilities Manager $7,745 – $10,068
51 Communication Manager $7,714 – $10,028
195 Electric Utility Associate Resource Planner $7,602 – $9,882 107 Energy Services Account Manager $7,503 – $9,754
56 Senior Personnel Analyst $7,489 – $9,736
209 Assistant Airports Manager $7,368 – $9,579
136 Electric Utility Engineering Assistant II $7,150 – $9,296 166 Purchasing Officer $7,053 – $9,169
113 Electric Utility Field Foreman $5,362 – $8,851
Packet Pg. 1057 Attachment: ExecMgmtSalaryPlan-July 9, 2023 (9.15(d)--Unrepresented Salary Schedule) Job Code Title
175 Management Assistant to the City Manager $6,706 – $8,718 150 Electric Utility Engineering Assistant I $6,493 – $8,441 165 Parks Superintendent $6,444 – $8,378
169 Recreation Superintendent $6,444 – $8,378
130 Fleet Manager $6,361 – $8,270
185 Police Services Manager $6,361 – $8,270
245 Executive Assistant to the City Manager $5,231 – $6,800 109 Reprographics Manager $5,231 – $6,800
Monthly Salary Range
Packet Pg. 1058 Attachment: ExecMgmtSalaryPlan-July 9, 2023 (9.15(d)--Unrepresented Salary Schedule)