Redding City Council
July 19, 2022

WDI 15061 August, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 458 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 459 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 460 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 461 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 462 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 463 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 464 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 465 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 466 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 467 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 468 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 469 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 470 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 471 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 472 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 473 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 474 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 475 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 476 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 477 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 478 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 479 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 480 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 481 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 482 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 483 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 484 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 485 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 486 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 488 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 489 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 490 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 491 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 492 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 493 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 494 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 495 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 496 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 497 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 498 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 499 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 500 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 501 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 502 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 503 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 504 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 505 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 506 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 507 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) City of Redding Page 53 of 62
WDI 15061 July, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com

APPENDICES
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 509 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 510 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 511 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 512 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 513 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 514 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 515 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 516 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 517 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Downtown Redding Parking Demand Analysis
September 14, 2018
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 520 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 522 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 523 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 524 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 525 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 526 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 527 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 528 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 529 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 530 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 531 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 532 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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 (4
11(h)
RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease)
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. 534 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 535 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 536 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease)

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. 537 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 538 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 539 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 540 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 541 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 542 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 543 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 544 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 545 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 546 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 547 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 548 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 549 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 550 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 551 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 552 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 553 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 554 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 555 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 556 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 557 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 558 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 559 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 560 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 561 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) 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. 562 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO REDDING AREA BUS AUTHORITY
Recommendation
Approve the use of the Bell Rooms parking lot as general public parking.

Fiscal Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact from the proposed action. The lot is used currently for parking and is available to the public. As proposed, more intensive use of the facility will occur as the City of Redding markets the lot to the general public. This may cause a proportionate increase in long-term maintenance. However, as the City of Redding’s downtown transforms and its parking landscape develops, RABA may potentially benefit should the City and RABA decide on a userpaid parking model in downtown Redding.

Alternative Action
The Board may choose not to allow general public parking in this lot. This alternative will limit the availability of parking for transportation and other uses in the downtown core.

Background/Analysis
The City of Redding (City) is a partner on two significant development projects currently underway – the Market Center (former Dicker’s building) and Block 7 (California Street Parking Structure) projects will bring more than 160 residential units, 40,000 square-feet of retail and office space, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, re-introduce the downtown street grid through the Promenade and replacement parking projects. Other projects include a new Courthouse, several mixed-use developments, and renovation of older motels. RABA is a committed partner on the Block 7 Project and will directly benefit with funding for transit operations for the Crosstown Express, transit passes for residential tenants, and potential ridership from this new activity.

Along with these new developments will come necessary changes to the availability and location of parking – particularly during the construction of these projects over the next several years. As such, the City of Redding received grant funding and contracted with the consultant team of Placeworks/Watry Design to prepare the Downtown Parking Strategy (Strategy). The Strategy MEETING DATE: September 16, 2019
ITEM NO. 4.11
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11--Bell Rooms Parking Lot as General Public Parking Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 9-16-19 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Report to Redding Area Bus Authority September 10, 2019 Re: 4.11--Bell Rooms Parking Lot Page 2
analyzes the current and proposed demand and supply for downtown parking, opportunities to add supply, management and enforcement considerations and financial options to ensure the most efficient utilization of parking supply that is convenient and available for all user groups.

The Strategy may be viewed at www.cityofredding.org/downtown.

The Strategy recommends the City add parking supply in the short term through partnerships with agencies or private entities that currently have excess parking supply on their properties.

The RABA Bell Rooms lot is one such location. RABA recently demolished the former Bings Automotive building and restriped the parking lot to provide roughly 135 parking stalls, well beyond the current parking need for transit use. The Board directed this lot be used for parking purposes until such time that the Downtown Transit Center requires expansion or some other transit related use is identified.

To ensure adequate supply is available to the public, the City requests the Bell Rooms lot be identified as parking for general public use. The City will publicize and appropriately sign the lot. The intent of the City is to provide off-street public parking free of charge to encourage long term parkers (employees, students, etc.) to use surface lots. This will free up more convenient on-street spaces for business turnover by restricting time and/or charging a reasonable rate.

Should the City decide to install a user-paid system for off-street parking lots in the future, RABA may choose to consider this alternative as well. RABA will retain control of the lot and may reduce availability to the general public as necessary should transit needs warrant.

Attachments
Parking Use Exhibit
Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 9-16-19 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease)

TS TSE W

TS TRUOC

TS AI NROFI LAC

TS TSAE

TS NOGERO

CENTER ST

SOUTH ST

CENTER ST

EVA DAORLI AR

EUREKA WAY

TEHAMA ST

SHASTA ST

GOLD ST

BUTTE ST

CENTER ST

PLACER ST

BUTTE STPINE ST

MARKET ST

SACRAMENTO ST

DIVISION ST

YUBA ST YUBA ST

TS TEKRAM

TS ENI P

TS TSAE

WEST ST

COURT ST

TS NOGERO
A
B
B
B
B
B
C
D E
G G
G
G
G
G G
G
H
J
K
G
B
2017
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2019
2019
2020
2021
2022

EXISTING

OFF-STREET
PUBLIC

PARKING

EXISTING

OFF-STREET
PUBLIC

PARKING
F
I
2019
2019
Parking Gains
Parking Losses
Dual loss/gain areas
Parking
Plan
Timeline
cityofredding.org/downtown-parking
@cityofredding
-640 Spaces
Parking Structure
Q4 2019
1554 Spaces
65% Utilized
Total in Core
2018
-40 Spaces
Total Net Loss
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2018 2019 2020 2021
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2022
-135 Spaces
Demo for Courthouse
Q1 2018
C
-140 Spaces
1551 Market Demo
Q4 2017
A
+140 Spaces
Q3 2019
Market Center
I
+200 Spaces
Begin Q1 2020
Add Leased Supply
01 G
+135 Spaces
Q2 2019
Bell Lot (RABA)
D
F
+200 Spaces
Q3 2022
Block 7 Structure
K
+70 Spaces
Q3 2019
California St Labs
E
+115 Spaces
Q2 2020
Block 7 South
H
-15 Spaces
California Cycle Track
Q1 2021
J
B
+30 Spaces
2018
On-Street Angled Parking –
Misc Locations
Interim Parking Plan for Downtown

CITY OF REDDING
Packet Pg.

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO REDDING AREA BUS AUTHORITY
Recommendation
Approve and authorize the following regarding use of the Redding Area Bus Authority (RABA) Downtown Parking Lot, located at 1346 California Street, 1376 California Street, and 1595 Shasta Street:
(1) Approve the Parking Facility Lease (Lease) with the City of Redding (City) for a twoyear term with annual renewals, in the amount of one dollar ($1.00) per month; (2) If the City of Redding, as the Lessee, installs equipment and operates a paid parking system on the RABA Downtown Parking Lot, the monthly lease payment will then be in the amount of $4,375, to be reviewed annually by both the City of Redding City Manager and RABA Executive Officer to ensure that each party is fairly compensated and an undue financial burden is not placed on either party; and (3) Find that the project is Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 – Existing Facilities.

Fiscal Impact
The terms of the Lease will allow RABA to benefit from revenue generated by paid public parking. Should the City install user paid parking devices, RABA will initially receive $35 per stall per month in Lease revenue. This value is similar to the City’s lease agreements with private entities in the downtown area. With roughly 125 spaces available for lease, RABA would realize revenue of approximately $4,375 per month. A provision of the Lease stipulates that the rent will be reviewed annually following an analysis of revenue and expenses associated with the paid parking system to ensure equitable and fair compensation for each entity.

Alternative Action
The Board may choose any of the following alternatives:

1. Do not approve the Lease and continue with free (RABA) parking. This alternative will limit RABA’s ability to generate revenue and impede the City’s parking program by creating free (RABA) parking in direct competition with user paid parking.

MEETING DATE: June 27, 2022
ITEM NO. 5.2
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected]
[email protected]
SUBJECT: 5.2--Consider Parking Facility Lease with the City of Redding for use of the Redding Area Bus Authority (RABA) Downtown Parking Lot.

Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 6-27-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Report to Redding Area Bus Authority June 23, 2022
Re: 5.2--Parking Facility Lease for the use of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot Page 2

2. Own, operate, and implement a paid (RABA) parking system independent of the City’s parking system. This could create an administrative burden unmanageable with current RABA staffing levels. It also may introduce confusion or incompatibility with both the City’s parking system and the City’s parking management goals.

3. Direct staff to enter into a Revenue Agreement with the City rather than a Lease. This alternative would take the form of a simple percentage of gross receipts revenue.

However, it may not be the best option considering long-term maintenance and future capital replacement needs for the (RABA) parking lot.

4. Provide alternative direction to staff.

Background/Analysis
At its regular meeting on September 16, 2019, the Board authorized the use of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot for general public parking. At the time, staff informed the Board of the City’s partnership on two significant development projects, as well as the preparation of the City Downtown Parking Strategy to ensure adequate parking during and after development.

On April 5, 2022, the Redding City Council accepted the Operational Needs Assessment (Assessment) outlining the need for a user paid parking system and the general parameters on how to manage such a parking system. The Assessment calls for user paid parking to balance the need for both long-term parking (e.g., parking for students and employees) and short-term parking (e.g., parking for business district shoppers and visitors). As such, and with the recent opening of the new private parking structure, the City is developing new parking rates and will install payment devices.

The RABA Downtown Parking Lot is situated in the core of the City’s downtown and adjacent to the new private parking structure. As user paid parking is implemented on street and in offstreet parking facilities (e.g., parking structures and parking lots), free parking, such as the RABA Downtown Parking Lot, will generate significant demand and unequally compete with such user paid parking. The City desires a coordinated and comprehensive parking system that is consistent in its operation, advertising, payment methods, and ability to appropriately balance demand through user rates. As such, the City approached RABA staff to consider the Lease. The Lease would allow the City to operate, manage, and maintain user paid parking devices on the RABA Downtown Parking Lot. The initial Lease term will be 2 years with an automatic annual renewal. However, the Lease may be terminated by either party with a notice of 90 days, which will allow RABA to retain control of the property should use of the lot for transit purposes be needed in the future. The Lease rate is proposed to be $1 per month until such time as the City installs a user paid parking system, at which time the rent will automatically increase to $35 per stall per month. This rate would generate roughly $4,375 per month based on the 125 parking stalls available to the City/public. (Note: The RABA Downtown Parking Lot has 135 parking stalls. Of these parking stalls, RABA will retain exclusive right to 10 parking stalls to accommodate the near term needs of staff and customers.) The revenue received may be used for any RABA purpose and will count as fare revenue when determining farebox ratio for the RABA public transit system.

Staff has determined that the project is Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 – Existing Facilities. Class 1 exemptions include the leasing of existing public structures and facilities. The existing parking lot will be leased to the City and the action does not involve expansion of use. The action area does not Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 6-27-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Report to Redding Area Bus Authority June 23, 2022
Re: 5.2--Parking Facility Lease for the use of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot Page 3 have significant values for wildlife habitat or other environmental resources and the project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

Attachments
^Parking Lease Agreement
^NOE RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 6-27-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease)

PARKING FACILITY LEASE WITH

REDDING AREA BUS AUTHORITY

PREAMBLE AND RECITALS
This Parking Facility Lease (hereinafter referred to as the “Lease”) is entered into by and between Redding Area Bus Authority (RABA), a joint powers transit authority, referred to in this Lease as “Lessor” and the City of Redding, a municipal corporation and general law city, referred to in this Lease as “Lessee.”
WHEREAS, Lessor is the owner of certain real property in the County of Shasta, State of California, commonly referred to as 1346 California Street, 1376 California Street and 1595 Shasta Street in the City of Redding, described and depicted on Exhibits A and B (hereinafter referred to as the “RABA Downtown Parking Lot”) which is attached and made a part of this Lease;
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2019, the City Council of the City of Redding, accepted the Downtown Redding Parking Strategy and authorized staff to negotiate lease agreements with Downtown Redding private property owners for additional parking supply for the public; WHEREAS, on September 16, 2019, the RABA Board of Directors (Board) authorized the use the RABA Downtown Parking Lot (formerly known as the Bell Rooms Parking Lot) and its approximately one hundred and thirty-five (135) spaces for general public parking use in the north west quadrant of Downtown Redding;
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2022, the City Council of the City of Redding, accepted the Operational Needs Assessment (Needs Assessment) of the Downtown Parking Strategy and approved implementation of the recommendations including management of a user paid parking facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Lessor wishes to lease to Lessee the RABA Downtown Parking Lot (as shown on Exhibits A and B) for the purpose of providing off-street parking available to the public at an hourly rate that is consistent with and meets the goals of the Needs Assessment recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the Lessor is willing to allow such parking so long as Lessee agrees to indemnify Lessor and the RABA Downtown Parking Lot against all claims, losses and liabilities that arise during the term that Lessee uses the RABA Downtown Parking Lot; and WHEREAS, the Lessee desires to lease from Lessor the RABA Downtown Parking Lot under the terms and conditions set forth in this Lease as more particularly described herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED found and determined that for the mutual promises contained herein, the Lessor and Lessee, together the “Parties” hereby agree as follows:

Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 6-27-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) ARTICLE 1. LEASE OF 2022 PINE STREET PARKING LOT AND TERM OF LEASE

1.01 Purpose. For and in consideration of the rents to be paid the RABA Downtown Parking Lot is hereby leased for the exclusive purpose of providing parking spaces available to the public. The Lessor and Lessee agree that the use, operation and maintenance of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot shall be consistent with this Lease. Except as expressly otherwise provided in this Lease, the RABA Downtown Parking Lot includes the real property plus any appurtenances and easements described in Exhibits A and B of this Lease, and any improvements now or hereafter located or constructed on the RABA Downtown Parking Lot.

1.02 Term of Lease and Termination by Lessee. The term of this Lease (the “Term”) shall commence as of the effective date defined in Section 9.14 of this Lease, and shall expire on the date that is two (2) years therefrom. Lessee may terminate this Lease without demonstration of cause being necessary upon ninety (90) calendar days written notice to Lessor at the address set forth in Section 2.02. Lessor may terminate this Lease without demonstration of cause being necessary upon ninety (90) calendar days written notice to Lessee at the address set forth in Section 9.06.

1.03 Renewal. Notwithstanding the foregoing, so long as Lessee is not in default under any provision of this Lease, the Lease will automatically renew annually unless such notice to terminate is provided by either party as in Section 1.02 of this Lease.

ARTICLE 2. LEASE FEE CREDIT AND LEASE FEES

2.01 Rent. Lessee agrees to pay monthly rent to Lessor in the amount of One Dollar and No/100 Dollars. In the event the Lessee installs equipment and operates a paid parking system on the RABA Downtown Parking Lot, the Lessee agrees to pay monthly rent to Lessor in the amount of four thousand three hundred and seventy five and No/100 Dollars ($4,375.00) calculated in consideration of one hundred and twenty five (125) parking spaces at Thirty and No/100 Dollars ($35.00) per parking space per month, payable in advance and due by the first day of each month. If the term of this Lease begins on a day other than the first day of the month, the first month’s rent shall be pro-rated based on a 30-day month. If the term of the Lease ends on a day other than the first day of the month, the last month’s rent shall be pro-rated on a 30-day month.

At the commencement of each annual renewal period, the City Manager of the City of Redding and the Executive Officer of RABA will review transaction records and financial information regarding any paid parking operations, if any, and shall mutually agree to modify the monthly rate per stall so as to ensure fair compensation in consideration of operational expenses, enforcement, utilities, improvements and any other liabilities associated with a user paid parking operation. The intent is to ensure each party is fairly compensated and not place an undue financial burden on either party.

Should a mutually acceptable agreement not be reached, either party may terminate as in Section 1.02 of this Lease.

Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 6-27-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease)

2.02 Manner of Payment. Every 1st day of the calendar month Lessee shall pay the Lessor the monthly Rent as defined in Section 2.01 to the Lessor at the address noted below:

Redding Area Bus Authority
Attention: RABA Management Analyst
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, CA 96001
ARTICLE 3. USE OF RABA DOWNTOWN PARKING LOT

3.01 Use of RABA Downtown Parking Lot. Lessee shall use the RABA Downtown Parking Lot for the sole purpose of operating and maintaining a parking lot available to the public. Lessee shall not use or permit the RABA Downtown Parking Lot to be used for any other purpose without the prior written consent of the Lessor. Lessor shall retain the right to exclusive use of up to ten (10) parking spaces.

3.02 Prohibited Uses. Lessee shall not permit the RABA Downtown Parking Lot or any portion of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot to be used or occupied in any manner or for any purpose that is in any way in violation of any valid law, ordinance, or regulation of any federal, state, county, or local governmental agency, body, or entity. Furthermore, Lessee shall not maintain, commit, or permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance as now or hereafter defined by any statutory or decisional law applicable to the RABA Downtown Parking Lot or any part of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot.

3.03 Assignment and Subletting. Lessee shall not assign this Lease or sublet to any portion of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot without prior written consent of the Lessor, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any such assignment or subletting without consent shall be void and, at the option of the Lessor, may terminate this Lease.

ARTICLE 4. UTILITIES

4.01 During the term of this Lease, Lessor shall pay or cause to be paid, prior to delinquency any and all utilities furnished to the RABA Downtown Parking Lot including, without limitation, water, electricity and other public utilities. Lessor shall hold the Lessee free and harmless from all charges for the furnishing of utilities to the RABA Downtown Parking Lot.

ARTICLE 5. IMPROVEMENTS

5.01 Improvements to the RABA Downtown Parking Lot. The Lessee in coordination with Lessor’s facilities management staff may complete improvements that include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Install public parking signage; and
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 6-27-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) b. Apply parking space striping and handicapped parking that meets the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
c. Operate and maintain a paid parking system at rates consistent with the City of Redding parking system including installation of payment equipment or electric charging stations.

ARTICLE 6. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS

6.01 Maintenance by Lessee.
a. During the term of this Lease, Lessee shall, at Lessee's own cost and expense, keep and maintain the RABA Downtown Parking Lot, all improvements and all appurtenances, now or hereafter on the RABA Downtown Parking Lot, in good order and repair and in a safe and clean condition. Lessee shall remove all garbage and rubbish from the RABA Downtown Parking Lot on a regular basis. b. Lessee shall do, or cause to be done without delay, all those things which, in the opinion of the City’s Public Work’s Director, are necessary or desirable in the interest of safety or to maintain the RABA Downtown Parking Lot and improvements in good repair and appearance.
c. Except for the improvements set forth in Section 5.01 of this lease, lessee shall not make or cause to be made any alterations or improvements to the RABA Downtown Parking Lot without first securing the written consent of the Lessor’s facilities management staff.

6.02 Surrender of RABA Downtown Parking Lot. All alterations or improvements to the RABA Downtown Parking Lot shall become a part of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot and shall remain on the RABA Downtown Parking Lot at the expiration or termination of this Lease. At the expiration or termination of this Lease, the Lessee shall remove all public parking signage or payment equipment from the RABA Downtown Parking Lot.

Lessee shall remove said signage and equipment from the RABA Downtown Parking Lot within thirty (30) days at Lessee’s sole cost and expense. Lessee shall leave the RABA Downtown Parking Lot in good condition, normal wear and tear excepted.

ARTICLE 7. INDEMNITY

7.01 Indemnification. Lessee shall indemnify, defend and hold Lessor, and its members, managers, officers, agents and employees harmless from and against all liens and encumbrances of any nature whatsoever which may arise in the exercise of Lessee’s rights hereunder, and from any and all claims, causes of action, costs (including actual attorneys’ fees) or damage arising from Lessee’s use of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot, or any act or failure to act of Lessee’s agents, employees, or invitees, except those arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Lessor, its officers, agents and employees.

Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 6-27-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) ARTICLE 8. DAMAGE

8.01 Damage or Loss. Lessee, as a material part of the consideration to Lessor, hereby assumes all risk of damage to its property or injury to persons in or upon the RABA Downtown Parking Lot. Lessee hereby releases and relieves Lessor, and waives its entire right of recovery against Lessor, for loss or damage arising out of or incident to the RABA Downtown Parking Lot, whether due to the negligence of the Lessee or their respective agents, employees and/or contractors.

ARTICLE 9. MISCELLANEOUS

9.01 Default. In the event of a breach by Lessee of any of the terms of this Lease, all rights of Lessee hereunder shall cease and terminate, and in addition to all other rights it may have at law or in equity Lessor may take possession of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot and may remove any and all persons therefrom, and may also cancel and terminate this Lease; and upon any such cancellation, all rights of Lessee in and to the RABA Downtown Parking Lot shall cease and terminate.

9.02 Force Majeure. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Lease, if the performance of any act required by this Lease to be performed by either Lessee or Lessor is prevented or delayed by reason of any act of God, strike, lockout, labor trouble, inability to secure materials, or any other cause (except financial inability) not the fault of the party required to perform the act, the time for performance of the act will be extended for a period equivalent to the period of delay and performance of the act during the period of delay will be excused. However, nothing contained in this Section shall excuse the prompt payment of rent by Lessee as required by this Lease or the performance of any act rendered difficult or impossible solely because of the financial condition of the party required to perform the act.

9.03 Attorney Fees. In any dispute between the Lessee and Lessor, whether or not resulting in litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party all reasonable costs, including without limitation, reasonable attorney’s fees. “Prevailing party” shall include without limitation, a party who dismisses an action for specific performance or for damages in exchange for sums allegedly due, performance for covenants allegedly breached or consideration substantially equal to the relief sought in the action, or which receives from the other party, in connection with any dispute, performance substantially equivalent to any of these.

9.04 Governing Law. This Lease shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any claim or lawsuit pertaining to this Lease shall be filed and litigated only in the Superior Court of Shasta County, State of California.

Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 6-27-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease)

9.05 Lessor’s Covenant Against Further Encumbrance. During the Lease term, Lessor shall not enter into new leases or any other obligations or agreements affecting the Lessee or the Lease without prior written consent of Lessee.

9.06 Notices. Any notices required to be given under this Lease shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly delivered, given or served when personally delivered to the Lessee or Lessor, or in lieu of such personal service, sent by United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, addressed as follows:

LESSEE:

City of Redding
Attention: Public Works Director
777 Cypress Avenue
P.O. Box 496071
Redding, California 96049-6071
LESSOR:

Redding Area Bus Authority
Attn: RABA Executive Officer
777 Cypress Avenue
P.O. Box 496071
Redding, California 96049-6071
In the event of personal service, notice shall be deemed given when personally served. In the event of service by mail, notice shall be deemed to have been given seventy-two (72) hours after deposit of same in the United States mail box in the State of California, postage prepaid, addressed as set forth above, or upon the date of the signed return receipt, whichever is sooner. Either party may change its address for the purposes of this section by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided in this section.

9.07 No Third Party Beneficiaries Intended. Unless specifically set forth, the parties to this Lease do not intend to provide any other party with any benefit or enforceable legal or equitable right or remedy.

9.08 Partial Invalidity. If any provision of this Lease is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be either invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Lease shall remain in full force and effect unimpaired by the holding.

9.09 Entire Lease. This Lease, which includes all exhibits attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, contains all the representations and the entire understanding and agreement between the parties pertaining to the use of the RABA Downtown Parking Lot and any other matters connected therewith. All correspondence, memoranda, or oral or written agreements pertaining to the RABA Downtown Parking Lot or the parties hereto, which originated before the date of this Lease are null, void and no longer in force and with no effect, and are replaced in total with this Lease unless otherwise expressly stated in this Lease.

9.10 Headings, Reference and Joint and Several Liability. The titles and headings of the various Sections of this Lease are intended solely for convenience of reference and are not intended to explain, modify or place any provisions of this Lease. Masculine and feminine, Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 6-27-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) or neutral gender and the singular and the plural number shall each be considered to include the other whenever the context so requires. If either party consists of more than one person, each such person shall be jointly and severally liable.

9.11 No Party Deemed Drafter. In the event of a dispute between any of the parties hereto over the meaning of this Lease, no party shall be deemed to have been the drafter hereof, and the principle of law set forth in Civil Code §1654 that contracts are construed against the drafter shall not apply.

9.12 Waivers and Amendments. All waivers of the provisions of this Lease must be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the Lessee or Lessor, and all amendments hereto must be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the Lessee and the Lessor.

However, amendments which do not result in a substantial or functional change to the original intent of the Lease and do not cause an increase to the amount payable under this Lease shall be deemed “minor amendments” and may be agreed to in writing between the City Manager and Lessor without requiring approval of the Redding City Council or RABA Board of Directors.

9.13 Authority. Each of the undersigned signatories hereby represents and warrants that they are authorized to execute this Lease on behalf of the respective parties to this Lease, that they have full right, power and lawful authority to undertake all obligations as provided in this Lease; and that the execution, performance and delivery of this Lease by said signatories has been fully authorized by all requisite actions on the part of the respective parties to this Lease.

9.14 Date of Lease. The date of this Lease shall be that date that it shall have been signed by Lessee.

Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 6-27-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) LESSEE
Dated: ______________________ __________________________________________

KRISTEN SCHREDER
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BARRY E. DEWALT
City Attorney
____________________________ __________________________________________ PAMELA MIZE By:

City Clerk
LESSOR
Dated: ______________________ __________________________________________

MICHAEL GALLAGHER
Board Chair, Redding Area Bus Authority
Exhibit A – Legal Description
Exhibit B – Site Map
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 6-27-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Packet Pg. 580
Attachment: Previous Staff Report 6-27-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 6-27-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease) Packet Pg. 582
Attachment: Previous Staff Report 6-27-22 (4.11(h)--RABA Downtown Parking Facility Lease)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the City Manager to appropriate necessary City of Redding Wastewater Utility (Utility) funds; waive competitive bidding requirements to procure consultant services, materials, equipment, and/or chemicals for the installation of wastewater treatment processes due to the Force Majeure declaration of the Utility’s sulfur dioxide supplier for the Clear Creek and Stillwater Wastewater Treatment Plants; and find that the action is categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) and 15301, Class 1 Existing Facilities.

Fiscal Impact
The estimated cost of the materials, consulting, and labor is not to exceed $500,000 for the installation of treatment at both the Stillwater and Clear Creek Wastewater Treatment Plants. The Wastewater Utility Division has sufficient funds available in the approved Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget for these projects.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose not to authorize the procurement of materials, equipment and consultant services through direct negotiation with vendors and/or consultants, and instead request quotes and award the various items procured through standard competitive procurement procedures. This alternative will increase the risk of violating the Utility’s Waste Discharge Permit and related environmental impacts due to the inability to properly treat the wastewater effluent prior to discharge into the Sacramento River. The Council may also provide alternative direction to staff.

Background/Analysis
The City of Redding (City) Wastewater Utility maintains two treatment facilities, Clear Creek MEETING DATE: July 19, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(i)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(i)--Authorize Emergency Wastewater Utility Funds for Purchase of Sulfur Dioxide
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 583
Report to Redding City Council July 13, 2022
Re: 4.11(i)--Wastewater Utility Funds for purchase of Sulfer Dioxide Page 2 and Stillwater Wastewater Treatment Plants. The final process prior to discharging the treated wastewater into the Sacramento River is to dose with sulfur dioxide (SO2) to dechlorinate the water for disinfection. This eliminates any harmful chlorine entering the river. The City receives deliveries of chlorine and SO2 gas from its supplier, Thatcher Company, Inc., of Sparks, Nevada, on a bi-weekly basis. These chemicals are delivered in one-ton cylinders on a truck and trailer.

The City received a letter on Wednesday, June 29, 2022, from Thatcher Company, Inc., citing force majeure on the delivery of SO2, effectively canceling any future SO2 deliveries.

Staff is currently working on several alternatives to secure another gaseous SO2 supplier or design and implement an alternative treatment process. There are few suppliers available and trucking costs may be too prohibitive should a supplier be identified. The other option for the treatment process is to use another chemical, liquid sodium bisulphite. Sodium bisulphite is more readily available, and comparable in costs. However, sodium bisulphite requires different process equipment (storage tanks, pumps, etc.) and the need to quickly design, procure, and implement a new treatment process. Time is of the essence as staff has calculated there is approximately 60 days of SO2 supply on site at the time the letter (June 29, 2022) was received. As such, it is important that staff has the flexibility to procure the required resources in an expedient manner.

Modifications to processes and equipment at the Wastewater Treatment Plants would be limited to the existing City properties and would not result in expansion of use. The project area has been reviewed for sensitive resources such as threatened or endangered species or their habitats, sensitive vegetation communities, tribal lands, or tribal cultural resources. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, there is no substantial evidence that the proposed action could have a significant effect on the environment. Staff recommends the Council finds that there is no possible significant effect directly related to the project because it will not cause a substantial or adverse physical change in the environment, therefore no further action is required under CEQA 15061(b)(3) and, independently, that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15301, Class 1 Existing Facilities.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Public Safety – “Work to improve all aspects of public safety to help people feel secure and safe where they live, work, and play in the City of Redding.” Attachments
^Letter Thatcher Company Force Majeure on SO2
^NOE Alternative Wastewater Treatment Project
^Clear Creek and Stillwater WWTP Location Map
Packet Pg. 584
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: ^Letter Thatcher Company Force Majeure on SO2 (4.11(i)--Wastewater Utility Funds for purchase of Sulfer Dioxide) Packet Pg. 586
Attachment: ^NOE Alternative Wastewater Treatment Project (4.11(i)--Wastewater Utility Funds for purchase of Sulfer Dioxide) Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: ^Clear Creek and Stillwater WWTP Location Map (4.11(i)--Wastewater Utility Funds for purchase of Sulfer Dioxide)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution adjusting the Redding Police Officer’s Association Schedule of Classifications and Hourly Wage Rates for the newly created classification titled Park Ranger, effective July 24, 2022.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact directly resulting from approval of the new classification. Approval of this resolution for the new classification specification allows the City of Redding (City) to move forward with the previous approvals of the City Council. The job classification was included in the 32nd Amendment to City Budget Resolution 2021-078, which approved use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds including, but not limited to, approving funding for four Park Ranger positions within the Redding Police Department.

Alternative Action
The City Council could decline to approve the resolution, and the new classification would not be created.

Background/Analysis
On February 17, 2022, the Council conducted a budget workshop which included an overview of recommended ARPA expenditures. Included with the presentation were new positions titled as Park Ranger for the Redding Police Department. The recommendation was to allocate ARPA funding for these positions for the first two years and eventually integrate funding with the General Fund financial plans. These positions were approved at a subsequent meeting in the 32nd Amendment to Budget Resolution 2021-078.

MEETING DATE: July 19, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.15(c)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.15(c)--Resolution Amending RPOA Salary Schedules and Establishing Newly Created Classification for Park Ranger
Kelley Martinez, Interim
Personnel Director
Packet Pg. 588
Report to Redding City Council July 11, 2022
Re: 4.15(c)--Amending RPOA Salary Schedule for Addition of Park Ranger Page 2 The new classification called “Park Ranger” will be dedicated to the City’s parks, trails, and open spaces. This change will increase opportunities for proactive policing, re-prioritize patrol time for officers assigned to the Neighborhood Police Unit, reduce response times to calls for service, and will allow for more initiatives as sought by the community. The creation of this classification will increase the number of sworn officers on staff, helping to return the department to levels the City had in 2008. The new classification will have a pay schedule that reflects a 5 percent higher wage than that of Police Officer.

Staff recommends the classification title of Park Ranger be added to the Redding Police Officer’s Association (RPOA) salary schedule, with the hourly pay rate range of $39.78 to $53.31.

Personnel met with RPOA representatives to discuss the matter, and RPOA is agreeable.

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

Attachments
^Resolution
RPOA Exhibit "A-3"
RPOA Exhibit "A-4"
Park Ranger - Sworn Class Spec DRAFT
Packet Pg. 589
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-_____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING

ADOPTING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND

SCHEDULE OF WAGE RATES BETWEEN THE CITY OF REDDING
AND THE REDDING PEACE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION, EFFECTIVE
JULY 24, 2022
WHEREAS, staff has recommended that the Redding Peace Officers’ Association Schedule of Classifications and Hourly Wage Rates be revised to add the classification of Park Ranger, effective July 24, 2022; and
WHEREAS, this change will increase opportunities for proactive policing; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City to adopt such recommendation;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council that the Redding Peace Officers’ Association Schedule of Classifications and Hourly Wage Rates be amended, effective July 24, 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 19th day of July, 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. 590 Attachment: ^Resolution (4.15(c)--Amending RPOA Salary Schedule for Addition of Park Ranger)

PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF REDDING
EXHIBIT "A-3"
Effective: July 24, 2022
Step 9
Step - Hourly Pay Rate Monthly
J/C Classification 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Equivalent
659 Canine Officer** $17.57
680 Police Recruit $29.34
660 Police Officer $34.37 $36.08 $37.89 $39.78 $41.77 $43.86 $46.05 $48.35 $50.77 $8,800 670 Park Ranger $39.78 $41.77 $43.86 $46.05 $48.35 $50.77 $53.31 $9,240 626 Crisis Intervention Response Team Officer* $53.35 $9,248 625 Police Detective* $53.35 $9,248
628 School Resource Officer* $46.09 $48.39 $50.81 $53.35 $9,248 629 Police Corporal $54.56 $9,456
* Positions subject to temporary upgrade or temporary reclassification only, and appointments or assignments may be terminated.
** Classification for canine care and maintenance only.

For those assignments of ARMOR, SWAT, Certified Instructors, and ID Technicians, a specialty pay of five percent (5%) over base pay will be paid but shall be limited to such time as they are performing that specific function.

Note: Pay rates are calculated utilizing a standardized formula and small differences may occur due to rounding.

Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: RPOA Exhibit "A-3" (4.15(c)--Amending RPOA Salary Schedule for Addition of Park Ranger)

PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF REDDING
EXHIBIT "A-4"
Effective: September 4, 2022
Step 9
Step - Hourly Pay Rate Monthly
J/C Classification 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Equivalent
659 Canine Officer** $18.80
680 Police Recruit $31.39
660 Police Officer $36.77 $38.61 $40.54 $42.57 $44.69 $46.93 $49.28 $51.74 $54.33 $9,416 670 Park Ranger $44.69 $46.93 $49.27 $51.74 $54.32 $57.04 $9,887 626 Crisis Intervention Response Team Officer* $57.09 $9,895 625 Police Detective* $57.09 $9,895
628 School Resource Officer* $49.32 $51.78 $54.37 $57.09 $9,895 629 Police Corporal $58.37 $10,118
* Positions subject to temporary upgrade or temporary reclassification only, and appointments or assignments may be terminated.
** Classification for canine care and maintenance only.

For those assignments of ARMOR, SWAT, Certified Instructors, and ID Technicians, a specialty pay of five percent (5%) over base pay will be paid but shall be limited to such time as they are performing that specific function.

Note: Pay rates are calculated utilizing a standardized formula and small differences may occur due to rounding.

Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: RPOA Exhibit "A-4" (4.15(c)--Amending RPOA Salary Schedule for Addition of Park Ranger) 670

CITY OF REDDING

PARK RANGER - SWORN
DEFINITION:

Under general supervision, to perform varied and routine sworn Park Ranger work with emphasis on park patrol, crime prevention, park protection and maintenance; to perform related record keeping and research; to perform related work as required.

EXAMPLES OF DUTIES:

NOTE: The following are the duties performed by employees in this classification. However, employees may perform other related duties. Not all duties listed are necessarily performed by each individual in the classification.

1. Patrols the various park facilities to enforce applicable laws, rules and regulations;* Measures: Monitor citizens and property to assist in lowering the crime rate and adherence to laws and regulations.

2. Provides information to the public, including answering questions, explaining park or facility policies and regulations, greeting visitors, and responding to visitor complaints;* Measures: Gives direction and provides appropriate information. Effectively responds to inquiries and complaints from the general public.

3. Actively engages park visitors in positive, community-oriented policing;* Measures: Improved community relations through positive interactions with the public, with an emphasis on building relationships with local youth.

4. Opens and closes City facilities, including park gates and public restrooms;* Measures: Opens and closes access areas as needed for events. Ensures facilities are secure to deter theft and vandalism.

5. Identifies and when possible reduces and eliminates safety hazards;* Measures: Maintain public safety by routinely patrolling roads, trails and facilities to ensure security, and identify potential issues that pose a risk of injury to the general public.

Coordinate with allied agencies and city personnel to eliminate hazards.

6. Issue citations and verbal warnings.*
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Park Ranger - Sworn Class Spec DRAFT (4.15(c)--Amending RPOA Salary Schedule for Addition of Park Ranger) Measures: Fair enforcement of the laws and regulations.

7. Review and approves park use permits when requested by City of Redding Community Services Department;*
Measures: Assist with review of park use permits when requested by a supervisor.

8. Conducts investigations, writes incident and arrest reports, compiles and tabulates data, and provides reports to the applicable authorities;*
Measures: Complete reports in a timely and accurate manner with all of the necessary information.

9. Assists with encampment enforcement and cleanups in park facilities; coordinates with RPD Community Work Program and applicable agencies and personnel;* Measures: Enforcement and clean up conducted in a manner to assist with improved community relations. Cooperative and professional relationships maintained between city staff, other agencies and community members.

10. Provides hazmat response as necessary;*
Measures: Identify potential hazards, coordinate with allied agencies for response and establish a perimeter for public safety.

11. Collects, documents, and books evidence;*
Measures: Accurate and complete evidence gathering.

12. Interviews and locates witnesses, apprehend suspects on foot, detain and/or arrest suspects;*
Measures: Obtains necessary information. Utilizes acceptable departmental and professional techniques.

13. Utilizes physical restraints such as handcuffs, spray irritant, taser, or baton, when deemed necessary;*
Measures: All actions taken in accord with applicable law and department policies.

14. Routinely assess and make recommendations for trail and road closures due to inclement weather or unsafe conditions;
Measures: Maintain public safety by routinely assessing roads and trails or identifying Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Park Ranger - Sworn Class Spec DRAFT (4.15(c)--Amending RPOA Salary Schedule for Addition of Park Ranger) facility issues that may pose a risk of injury to the general public or city personnel.

15. May direct vehicular and pedestrian traffic;
Measures: Facilitate orderly traffic flow during special circumstances and emergencies.

16. May testify in court and respond to requests for crime prevention services; Measures: Appears in Court as directed, on time, prepared, with necessary information, and assist in case preparation.

17. May attend community and departmental staff meetings; Measures: Interacts effectively with the public, City Staff and other agencies.

18. May perform research and coordination responsibilities for park related projects and programs;
Measures: Organized and well prepared. Cooperative and professional relationship maintained with city staff, other agencies, and community members.

19. May develop, conduct and present park interpretive programs for schools and the public in coordination with City of Redding Community Services Department; Measures: Efficient and effective coordination of activities and resources. Work professionally and effectively with city staff, county, or other agencies. Effectively work with school boards and community members.

20. Perform other park related work as assigned.
*=Essential Function
Duties recorded above are representative of the duties of the class and are not intended to cover all the duties performed by incumbent(s) of any particular position. The omission of specific statements of duties does not exclude them from the position if the scope of work is similar, related, or a logical assignment to this class; such assignments shall fall under the category of “other duties, as assigned.”
TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT USED:

Police vehicle, pick-up truck, All Terrain Motorcycle (ATMU), bicycle, police radio, cell phone, Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Park Ranger - Sworn Class Spec DRAFT (4.15(c)--Amending RPOA Salary Schedule for Addition of Park Ranger) computer, first aid equipment.

PHYSICAL DEMANDS:

While performing the duties of this job, the employee is frequently required to sit and talk and hear. The employee is occasionally required to stand; walk; use hands to finger, handle, or feel objects, tools, or controls; reach with hands and arms; climb or balance; stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl; and taste or smell.

The employee must occasionally lift and/or move more than 100 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, distance vision, color vision, peripheral vision, depth perception, and the ability to adjust focus.

WORK ENVIRONMENT:

While performing the duties of this job, the employee frequently works in outside weather conditions. The employee occasionally works near moving mechanical parts; in high, precarious places; and is occasionally exposed to wet and/or humid conditions, fumes, or airborne particles, toxic or caustic chemicals, extreme cold, extreme heat, and vibration. The noise level in the work environment is usually moderate.

KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS & ABILITIES:

Knowledge of: Correct English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation, including the writing of reports; applicable laws, park rules and regulations; evidence collection and documentation techniques; CPR and first aid procedures; and park geology and biology.

Ability to: Deal tactfully and effectively with individuals and groups of a diverse nature; answer questions regarding and explaining park policies and regulations; interpret written and oral instructions; present effective park interpretive programs to the public; write clear and accurate reports; perform mathematical computations; operate radio, four-wheel drive pick-up, and bicycle; work effectively and safely without direct supervision; analyze situations and take effective action; successfully complete formal training courses on job-related responsibilities.

QUALIFICATIONS:

Knowledge of:

Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Park Ranger - Sworn Class Spec DRAFT (4.15(c)--Amending RPOA Salary Schedule for Addition of Park Ranger) Park operations, penal code, vehicle code and municipal code provisions related to bicycles, vehicles and parks; park geology and biology, effective mediation and counseling techniques; firing range management procedures and techniques; common self-defense disciplines.

Ability to:

Interact effectively with the public and employees.

Education:

Any combination of training and experience that provides the required knowledge, skills, and abilities is qualifying; typical education would include a high school diploma, or equivalent; ability to obtain additional training in park geology and biology.

Experience:

Typical experience would include two years of progressive experience as a sworn police officer.

Special Requirements:

Possession of the appropriate California driver's license, or the ability to acquire one within ten days of appointment.

Working Conditions:

Date of study: January 1991. The following duties have been identified as the critical job elements for the POLICE STOP OFFICER classification. The Med-Tox Physical Standards Study established several task statements for each physical ability; the task statements selected below are based on the (1) Significant level of physical ability required to perform the task, (2) the high level of rater agreement - reliability, (3) the frequency with which the task is performed and (4) the high degree of criticality and importance raters assigned to the task.

Incumbents in this classification are required to work on a shift schedule, including weekends and holidays, and outdoors in a variety of extreme weather conditions.

STATIC STRENGTH: Drag an unconscious person weighing 150 lbs. off of the roadway.

EXPLOSIVE STRENGTH: Sprint 50 yards after a fleeing person.

DYNAMIC STRENGTH: Stand and patrol an area during a special event for 8 hours.

TRUNK STRENGTH: Support upper body while driving a motorcycle throughout a shift.

STAMINA: Chase a fleeing suspect for two hundred yards.

Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Park Ranger - Sworn Class Spec DRAFT (4.15(c)--Amending RPOA Salary Schedule for Addition of Park Ranger) EXTENT FLEXIBILITY: Participate in weekly training in arrest control techniques.

DYNAMIC FLEXIBILITY: Continuously stretch and reach while directing traffic for two hours.

SPEED OF LIMB MOVEMENT: Block the punch of a person who is trying to hit you.

WHOLE BODY COORDINATION: Climb over a fence while searching for a suspect.

WHOLE BODY EQUILIBRIUM: Maintain your body balance during a physical struggle with a suspect.

ARM-HAND STEADINESS: Aim a handgun.

MULTI-LIMB COORDINATION: Drive a patrol car during a high speed pursuit.

MANUAL DEXTERITY: Place handcuffs on a subject.

FINGER DEXTERITY: Type on a computer keyboard.

NEAR VISUAL ACUITY: Observe finger prints at a crime scene. Also, see examination bulletin.

FAR VISUAL ACUITY: Determine if a suspect has a weapon in his hand at 15 yards. Also, see examination bulletin.

VISUAL COLOR DISCRIMINATION: Identify the basic colors of clothes.

HEARING QUIET: Hear the whispered conversation of your partner at a prowler call.

HEARING NOISY: Hear dispatcher conversation over the radio during a pursuit over the sound of the siren.

HEARING LOCATION: While on a prowler call, hear the sounds of movement indicating the location of the prowler.

HEARING DISCRIMINATION: Hear the sound of the cylinder of a revolver being closed.

Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Park Ranger - Sworn Class Spec DRAFT (4.15(c)--Amending RPOA Salary Schedule for Addition of Park Ranger)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Conduct a Public Hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt Resolution relative to Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts (SSMD) 01-07 Hope Lane and 01-19 Seven Bridges, authorizing the following:
(1) Confirming the map of the assessment district as contained in the Engineer's Reports for SSMD 01-07 and SSMD 01-19; and
(2) Approving and confirming the annual assessments and ordering the levy amounts shown for Fiscal Year 2022-23 pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911, Chapter 26, Maintenance Districts, Streets and Highways Code Section 5820, et seq.

Fiscal Impact
Generally, sanitary sewer maintenance districts are self-supporting, and there is no fiscal impact to the City of Redding's (City) General Fund budget.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may decide to provide alternative direction to staff or make changes to the Engineer’s Report. This alternative may result in underfunding the SSMDs moving forward or subject the City to litigation if the actual costs are not properly allocated in accordance with State law.

Background/Analysis
This public hearing concerns the acceptance of testimony regarding the setting of the annual assessment and levy amounts to maintain the facilities in SSMD 01-07 and SSMD 01-19.

Following the hearing, the Council may take final action regarding the proposed annual assessments and levy amounts for Fiscal Year 2022–23.

MEETING DATE: July 19, 2022
ITEM NO. 6.1
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 6.1--Public Hearing to consider adopting a Resolution regarding Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 (Hope Lane) and 01-19 (Seven Bridges), Confirming and Approving the Annual Assessment for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 599
Report to Redding City Council July 11, 2022
Re: 6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19 Page 2 These SSMDs were formed to comply with the conditions of approval for the Hope Lane Subdivision, (S-12-03) and Seven Bridges Subdivision, (S-03-09/PD-1-09/RZ-2-09). These subdivisions were unable to utilize a standard gravity sewer line, and the subdivision’s conditions of development state that the costs of maintenance and operation of the lift station will be borne by the tributary property owners. Lift stations are not commonly used in the public system, and use of a sanitary sewer maintenance district ensures that the majority of maintenance responsibilities are borne by the owners of lots within the respective districts and not by other utility customers.

The proposed annual assessments for the SSMDs have been increased by an annual inflation adjustment which is tied to the “20 Cities Construction Cost Index” from the most recent March issue of Engineering News Record. This proposed assessment increase was developed pursuant to a methodology established at the time of the formation of the SSMD. The calculated levies reflect anticipated maintenance needs of the districts for Fiscal Year 2022-23. The proposed levy for SSMD 01-07 is less than the proposed assessment because the maintenance needs of this district for this fiscal year can be met at a lower levy amount.

SSMD District Name General Location Proposed
Assessment
Proposed
Levy
01-07 Hope Lane At the intersection of Hope Lane and
Carnegie Drive
$ 492.98 $ 322.72
01-19 Seven Bridges At the intersection of Oasis Road and Rialto Parkway
$ 178.96 $ 178.96
A legal advertisement notifying the proposed annual assessment and public hearing was placed in the local newspaper which explained the proposed increase from the current assessment for Fiscal Year 2022–23. As of this writing, City staff has received no protest from lot owners regarding the proposed assessment.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Budget and Financial Management – “Achieve balanced and stable 10-year Financial Plans for all funds.”
Attachments
^Resolution
^Location Map
SSMD 01-07 Engineer's Report 2022-23
SSMD 01-19 Engineer's Report 2022-23
Packet Pg. 600
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-____
SANITARY SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS: SSMD 01-07 AND
SSMD 01-19

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING (1) CONFIRMING THE MAPS OF THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
CONTAINED IN THE ENGINEER’S REPORTS ON FILE WITH
THE CITY CLERK;
(2) CONFIRMING THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING
THE LEVY AMOUNT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 PURSUANT
TO THE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911.

WHEREAS:

A. On June 7, 2022, by Resolution 2021-051, the City Council (Council) approved the Reports of the Engineer as filed with the City Clerk relating to Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District 01-07 and 01-19 (Districts), and gave notice of the time and place of the July 19, 2022, public hearing regarding the levy and collection of the assessment for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

B. A general location of the Districts are included in the table below, and a map is attached to the Engineer’s Reports on file with the City Clerk.

C. The public hearing, duly and properly noticed, commenced at the City Council Chambers, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, California on July 19, 2022, and was concluded prior to the adoption of this resolution. At the public hearing, the Council gave every interested person an opportunity to object to the proposed assessment.

D. The assessment for Fiscal Year 2022-23 is outlined in the table below. This assessment does not represent an increase within the meaning of the Streets and Highways Code because the Fiscal Year 2022-23 cost of living adjustment in the amount of 8.9 percent is pursuant to a methodology approved at the time of the formation of the District.

E. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this resolution have occurred.

THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS, RESOLVES, DETERMINES, AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. The matters set forth above are true and correct.

2. The maps of the assessment district contained in the Engineer's Reports are confirmed.

3. The Council has considered all oral statements and written protests or communications made or filed by interested persons at the public hearing of July 19, 2022, and expressly overrules any and all protests filed objecting to the proposed annual assessment and levy amount in the Districts.

Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: ^Resolution (6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19)

4. The Council finds that the Engineer’s Reports have fairly and properly apportioned the costs of the improvements to each developable lot, remaining parcel, or assessable acre of land in the district in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each developable lot, remaining parcel, or assessable acre from the improvements.

5. The assessment against each developable lot, remaining parcel, or assessable acre located within the District for Fiscal Year 2022-23 is confirmed, adopted, and levied as outlined in the table below, except that an assessment shall not be levied on property owned by a federal or state governmental agency or another local agency.

6. The City Clerk shall forthwith transfer to the Auditor Controller and the Assessor Recorder of Shasta County a certified copy of this resolution and a certified copy of the assessment district maps contained in the Engineer’s Report for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District 01-07 and 01-19.

7. That the City Clerk gave notice of said hearing pursuant to the Streets and Highways Code Section 22626(a).

SSMD District Name General Location Proposed
Assessment
Proposed
Levy
01-07 Hope Lane At the intersection of Hope Lane and
Carnegie Drive
$ 492.98 $ 322.72
01-19 Seven Bridges At the intersection of Oasis Road and Rialto Parkway
$ 178.96 $ 178.96
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 19th day of July, 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. 602 Attachment: ^Resolution (6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: ^Location Map (6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Sanitary Sewer
Maintenance District
SSMD 01-07
Hope Lane
Engineer's Report
Annual Update for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Prepared under the provisions
of the Improvement Act of 1911of the
California Streets & Highways Code

Prepared by
Chuck Aukland, PE
Director of Public Works /
City Engineer
May 2022
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: SSMD 01-07 Engineer's Report 2022-23 (6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 605
Attachment: SSMD 01-07 Engineer's Report 2022-23 (6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Overview
The purpose of this report is to update the Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District (District) budget and assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. The District is authorized and administered under provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911, Chapter 26, (commencing with Section 5280) of the Streets and Highways Code, “Proposition 218” (Article XIIID of the California Constitution), and the “Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act” (California Senate Bill 919). The aforementioned are collectively referred to as “Assessment Law.”
This Engineer’s Report addresses the annual maintenance of identified improvements within the District.

Part A: Assessment Map (See Part A Attachment)
Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District SSMD 01-07 (Hope Lane) is located in the City of Redding, County of Shasta, State of California. The District boundary is depicted on the Part A Attachment and includes 48 Lots from Hope Lane Subdivision Units 1 and 2 and 4 lots from Parcel Map No. 2013-01137. Parcel Map No. 2013-01137 recorded in Book 39 of Parcel Maps at Page 9, Shasta County Records, is a subdivision of a parcel that was annexed into the district in 2014.

Part B: Estimated Maintenance Expenses (See Part B Attachment) The Part B Attachment is a cost breakdown that includes actual costs from the previous fiscal year and the projected costs, assessment, and recommended levy amount for Fiscal Year 2022-23. This estimate is intended to account for a more significant capital improvement to maintain the District's integrity into the future.

No bonds will be issued in connection with this District.

Part C: District Assessment and Levy Calculation
The assessments are authorized to be indexed (increased) annually based on the published “20-City Construction Cost Index” (20-City CCI) compiled by the Engineering News Record. The maximum authorized assessments contained in this Engineer’s Report represent an increase over the previous year’s assessments. The increase (8.9%) is based on the change in the 20-City CCI (March 2022) and is consistent with the cost indexing provisions approved by property owners. Therefore, the vote requirements of Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution do not apply to these proceedings.

The actual per lot levy is the lesser of the amount calculated to be needed for each lot (total funds needed divided by number of lots/acres) and the maximum authorized assessment. The levy is the amount that will be assessed on each benefit unit. (See Part B Attachment) In the event that assessment revenues are insufficient to cover the cost of annual maintenance activities, services may be reduced to avoid a deficit.

City of Redding Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District Annual Update - District SSMD 01-07 Page 2 Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: SSMD 01-07 Engineer's Report 2022-23 (6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Part D: Analysis of Benefits of Properties Being Assessed Construction and maintenance of the identified improvements were a condition of development for the subdivision. The lift station is necessary to convey sewage generated by the subdivision to the existing public gravity sewer system. These are special benefits conferred upon each assessed lot within the District. The benefit received by the identified parcel is “special” in that the City does not generally provide such improvements or services to the public at large.

Part E: Method of Apportionment
The improvements generally consist of sanitary sewer lift station components including force mains.

Plans and specifications for the identified improvements are on file in the City’s Engineering Division. The plans depict materials and other appurtenances. The plans and specifications are hereby incorporated into this report by reference. The improvements and approximate maintenance qualities are conceptually depicted on the maps referenced in Part A.

Part F: Assessed Parcels (See Part F Attachment)
The Part C Attachment contains a list of the Shasta County Assessor's Parcel numbers within the Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office of the City Clerk and is incorporated in this Report by reference. The list is keyed to the records of the Shasta County Assessor, which are incorporated herein by reference.

City of Redding Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District Annual Update - District SSMD 01-07 Page 3 Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: SSMD 01-07 Engineer's Report 2022-23 (6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Part A Attachment
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: SSMD 01-07 Engineer's Report 2022-23 (6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2021-22
Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District (SSMD) 1-07
Hope Lane
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $ 16,105
REVENUE $14,294
Maintenance Expenses

1. Life Station Operational Maintenance…………………………………………………………… 11,091 11,100 Maintenance performed through weekly visits by Public Works staff.

2. Electric / Water/ Data Usage……………………………………………………………………….. 838 900 11,929 12,000
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration............................................................................................. 1,427 1,600 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration ....................................................................................... 49 76 $35.00 base fee and $0.27 per lot assessed (2021-22)
$68.00 base fee and $0.15 per lot assessed (2022-23)

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$13,405

ESTIMATED
$13,676
DISTRICT BALANCE $16,994

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2021.................................................................. 16,994 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2021/22 (July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022)................ 13,676 C.

D.

District Reserve (50% of Estimated Expenses Lines 1 & 2)..................................

Parts Replacement Reserve (100%)………………………………………………………………… 6,000
14,100
D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserves – District Balance) .............. 16,782 E. Number of Lots to be Levied ............................................................................... 52 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI (8.9%) ........................... 452.69 492.98 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed................................................... 277.56 322.73 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G) ............................................................ *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June).

Exception: County Admin
$ 277.56 $ 322.72

Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: SSMD 01-07 Engineer's Report 2022-23 (6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19)

PART F ATTACHMENT
Assessment Roll Fiscal Year 2020-21
District APN Subdivision Unit Benefit Units
SSMD01-07 073-300-033 Parcel Map 39-9 1
SSMD01-07 073-300-034 Parcel Map 39-9 1
SSMD01-07 073-300-035 Parcel Map 39-9 1
SSMD01-07 073-300-036 Parcel Map 39-9 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-001 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-002 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-003 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-004 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-005 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-006 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-007 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-008 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-009 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-010 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-012 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-013 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-014 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-015 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-016 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-017 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-018 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-022 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-028 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-029 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-032 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-033 Hope Lane 1 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-035 Hope Lane 2 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-036 Hope Lane 2 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-037 Hope Lane 2 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-038 Hope Lane 2 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-039 Hope Lane 2 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-040 Hope Lane 2 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-041 Hope Lane 2 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-042 Hope Lane 2 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-043 Hope Lane 2 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-044 Hope Lane 2 1
SSMD01-07 073-520-045 Hope Lane 2 1
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: SSMD 01-07 Engineer's Report 2022-23 (6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) SSMD01
-07073-520-048 Hope Lane21
SSMD01-07 073-520-049 Hope Lane21
SSMD01-07073-520-050 Hope Lane21
SSMD01-07073-520-051 Hope Lane21
SSMD01-07073-520-052 Hope Lane21
SSMD01-07073-520-053 Hope Lane21
SSMD01-07073-520-054 Hope Lane21
SSMD01-07073-520-055 Hope Lane21
SSMD01-07073-520-056 Hope Lane21
SSMD01-07073-520-057 Hope Lane21
SSMD01-07073-520-058 Hope Lane21
SSMD01-07073-520-059 Hope Lane21
SSMD01-07073-520-060 Hope Lane21
SSMD01-07073-520-062 Hope Lane21
SSMD01-07073-520-064 Hope Lane21
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: SSMD 01-07 Engineer's Report 2022-23 (6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Sanitary Sewer
Maintenance District
SSMD 01-19
Seven Bridges
Engineer's Report

Annual Update for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Prepared under the provisions
of the Improvement Act of 1911of the
California Streets & Highways Code

Prepared by
Chuck Aukland, PE
Director of Public Works /
City Engineer
May 2022
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: SSMD 01-19 Engineer's Report 2022-23 (6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Packet Pg. 613
Attachment: SSMD 01-19 Engineer's Report 2022-23 (6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Overview
The purpose of this report is to update the Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District (District) budget and assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. The District is authorized and administered under provisions of the Improvement Act of 1911, Chapter 26, (commencing with Section 5280) of the Streets and Highways Code, “Proposition 218” (Article XIIID of the California Constitution), and the “Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act” (California Senate Bill 919). The aforementioned are collectively referred to as “Assessment Law.”
This Engineer’s Report addresses the annual maintenance of identified improvements within the District.

Part A: Assessment Map (See Part A Attachment)
The District is located in the City of Redding, County of Shasta, State of California. The District boundary encompasses the Seven Bridges Subdivision (S-03-09 / PD-1-09 / RZ-2-09) and is depicted on the Part A Attachment.

Part B: Estimated Maintenance Expenses (See Part B Attachment) The Part B Attachment is a cost breakdown that includes actual costs from the previous fiscal year and the projected costs, assessment, and recommended levy amount for Fiscal Year 2022-23. This estimate is intended to account for a more significant capital improvement to maintain the District's integrity into the future.

No bonds will be issued in connection with this District.

Part C: District Assessment and Levy Calculation
The assessments are authorized to be indexed (increased) annually based on the published “20-City Construction Cost Index” (20-City CCI) compiled by the Engineering News Record. The maximum authorized assessments contained in this Engineer’s Report represent an increase over the previous year’s assessments. The increase (8.9%) is based on the change in the 20-City CCI (March 2022) and is consistent with the cost indexing provisions approved by property owners. Therefore, the vote requirements of Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution do not apply to these proceedings.

The actual per lot levy is the lesser of the amount calculated to be needed for each lot (total funds needed divided by number of lots/acres) and the maximum authorized assessment. The levy is the amount that will be assessed on each benefit unit. (See Part B Attachment) In the event that assessment revenues are insufficient to cover the cost of annual maintenance activities, services may be reduced to avoid a deficit.

City of Redding Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District Annual Update - District SSMD 01-19 Page 2 Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: SSMD 01-19 Engineer's Report 2022-23 (6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Part D: Analysis of Benefits of Properties Being Assessed Construction and maintenance of the identified improvements were a condition of development for the subdivision. The lift station is necessary to convey sewage generated by the subdivision to the existing public gravity sewer system. These are special benefits conferred upon each assessed lot within the District. The benefit received by the identified parcel is “special” in that the City does not generally provide such improvements or services to the public at large.

Part E: Method of Apportionment
The improvements generally consist of sanitary sewer lift station components including force mains.

Plans and specifications for the identified improvements are on file in the City’s Engineering Division. The plans depict materials and other appurtenances. The plans and specifications are hereby incorporated into this report by reference. The improvements and approximate maintenance qualities are conceptually depicted on the maps referenced in Part A.

Part F: Assessed Parcels (See Part F Attachment)
The Part C Attachment contains a list of the Shasta County Assessor's Parcel numbers within the Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2021-22. The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office of the City Clerk and is incorporated in this Report by reference. The list is keyed to the records of the Shasta County Assessor, which are incorporated herein by reference.

City of Redding Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District Annual Update - District SSMD 01-19 Page 3 Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: SSMD 01-19 Engineer's Report 2022-23 (6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Part A Attachment
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: SSMD 01-19 Engineer's Report 2022-23 (6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) Part B Attachment
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Sanitary Sewer Maintenance District (SSMD) 1-19
Seven Bridges
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $ 4457
REVENUE $ 4601
Maintenance Expenses

1. 2.

Life Station Operational Maintenance…………………………………………………………… Maintenance performed through weekly visits by Public Works staff.

Outside Services…………………………………………………………………………………………….
7752
0 783
0 3. Electric / Water / Data Usage………………………………………………………………………... 2115 2150 9867 2993
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................. 1138 1200 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Finance, and Public Works.

4. County Administration ....................................................................................... 45 79 $35.00 base fee and $0.27 per lot assessed (2021-22)
$68.00 base fee and $0.15 per lot assessed (2022-23)

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$11,050

ESTIMATED
$4,212
DISTRICT BALANCE $-1992

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 .................................................................. -1992 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022) ................ 4212 C.

E.

District Reserve……………………………………………………………………………………………….

Current Parts Replacement Reserve (year 3 of 10)……………………...………………….

Total 10 year estimate replacement parts cost is $23,462 0 7039
D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserves – District Balance) ................................ 13,243 E. Number of Lots to be Levied ............................................................................... 74 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI (8.9%) ........................... 164.34 178.96 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed ................................................... 164.34 178.96 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G) ............................................................ *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June).

Exception: County Admin
$ 164.34 $ 178.96

Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: SSMD 01-19 Engineer's Report 2022-23 (6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19)

PART F ATTACHMENT
Assessment Roll Fiscal Year 2021-22
District __ APN Subdivision Unit Benefit Units
SSMD 01-19 074-420-003 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-004 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-005 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-006 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-007 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-008 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-013 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-018 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-019 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-020 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-021 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-022 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-023 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-024 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-025 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-026 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-027 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-250-028 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-250-029 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-250-030 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-250-031 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-250-032 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-250-033 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-250-037 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-250-039 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-250-045 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-250-047 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-250-048 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-250-049 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-050 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-051 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-053 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-058 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-420-059 Seven Bridges 1 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-001 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-002 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-003 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-004 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-005 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-006 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-007 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-008 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-009 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-010 Seven Bridges 2 1
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: SSMD 01-19 Engineer's Report 2022-23 (6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19) SSMD 01-19 074-430-011 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-012 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-013 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-014 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-015 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-016 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-017 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-018 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-019 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-020 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-021 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-022 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-023 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-024 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-025 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-026 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-027 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-028 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-029 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-030 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-031 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-032 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-033 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-034 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-035 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-036 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-037 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-038 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-039 Seven Bridges 2 1
SSMD 01-19 074-430-040 Seven Bridges 2 1

Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: SSMD 01-19 Engineer's Report 2022-23 (6.1--Public Hearing for Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Districts 01-07 and 01-19)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following related to Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMDs):
(1) Conduct a Public Hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt Resolution relative to LMDs A, B, and C authorizing the following:
(a) Confirming the maps of the assessment districts as contained in the Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2022-23 for LMDs A, B, and C; and (b) Approving and confirming annual assessments and levy amounts shown for Fiscal Year 2022-23 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. (2) Conduct a Public Hearing and, upon conclusion, adopt Resolution relative to LMDs authorizing the following:
(a) Confirming the maps of the assessment districts as contained in the Engineer’s Reports for LMDs D, E, F, G, H, H1, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, S1, T, U, V, W, 01-06, 02-06, 03-06, 04-06, 05-06, 06-06, 07-06, 08-06, 09-06, 11-06, 01-07, 02-07, 02-09, 03-09, 01-11, 02-11, 03-11, 01-13, 02-14, 03-14, 01-15, 02-16, 03- 16, 01-17, 01-19, 02-19, and 01-20; and
(b) Approving and confirming annual assessments and levy amounts shown for Fiscal Year 2022-23 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.

Fiscal Impact
Approval of LMDs has no fiscal impact to the City of Redding's General Fund budget.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could either decline to adopt the resolutions, which would stop the collection of revenue for the districts to fund maintenance expenses, or provide staff with alternate direction.

MEETING DATE: July 19, 2022
ITEM NO. 6.2
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 6.2--Public Hearings (2) to consider adopting Resolutions (2) regarding Landscape Maintenance Districts Annual Assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

Kim Niemer, Community
Services Director
Packet Pg. 620
Report to Redding City Council July 12, 2022
Re: 6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts Page 2 Background/Analysis
The City of Redding (City) utilizes landscape maintenance districts to fund the maintenance of landscaped areas that directly benefit residential and commercial developments. Use of LMDs is common in cities throughout California. The districts are established when projects are approved.

The annual cost of the LMD is then divided up and assessed to the affected parcels through the property tax statements. The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 requires that the Council hold a public hearing regarding the adoption of annual assessments and levies for lots within each of the City's existing LMDs.

The City currently has 49 LMDs that require the adoption of an annual assessment. LMD-H, Clover Creek Village Subdivision, and LMD S, Fleur Du Lac have additional landscape in an area designated as Zone 1 that provides additional benefit to some of the property owners in that district; therefore, Districts H and S will require the adoption of one additional annual assessment, H1 and S1 respectively, for the additional benefit provided these property owners.

For the purpose of this report, "Proposed Assessment" is the maximum amount allowable by law without a vote of property owners and is based on changes in the Construction Cost Index since the formation of the district. "Proposed Levy" is the actual amount proposed to be levied against each benefit unit this fiscal year.

Assessments for LMDs A, B, or C are flat for Fiscal Year 2022-23 as no annual inflationary adjustments (note table below) were built in at the time these districts were formed. Staff is working to re-establish these districts with inflationary adjustments included, but this requires a majority affirmative vote of the homeowners. The remainder of the LMD A and B neighborhoods will be brought forward in the next few years. In the meantime, the cost of normal maintenance exceeds the district's revenues. Maintenance efforts continue at a heavily reduced service level in Fiscal Year 2022-23.

LMD District
Name General Location Proposed Assessment
Proposed
Levy
A Miscellaneous Miscellaneous–Refer to Resolution $29.46 $29.46 B Miscellaneous Miscellaneous–Refer to Resolution $71.00 $71.00 C Miscellaneous Miscellaneous–Refer to Resolution $7.46 $0.00 The assessment for Districts D, E, F, G, H, H1, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, 01-06, 02-06, 03-06, 04-06, 05-06, 06-06, 07-06, 08-06, 09-06, 11-06, 01-07, 02-07, 02-09, 03-09, 01- 11, 02-11, 03-11, 01-13, 02-14, 03-14, 01-15, 02-16, 03-16, 01-17, 02-19, 01-20 have been adjusted by an annual inflation adjustment which is tied to the "20 Cities Construction Cost Index" from the most recent March Engineering News Record.

Packet Pg. 621
Report to Redding City Council July 12, 2022
Re: 6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts Page 3 As shown in the table below, the calculated levies reflect the proposed maintenance needs of the districts for the Fiscal Year 2022-23. In many instances, the proposed levy is less than the assessment because the maintenance needs of these districts can be met at the lower levy amount.

The Shasta County Assessor requires that levy amounts be an even number for processing purposes. Some levies have been rounded down $0.01 to meet this requirement. LMD E – Blue Shield is not currently receiving service due to the construction that is taking place at the River Crossing/Costco location. Three LMD districts have negative balances. Nicolet – LMD O is due to a prior year insurance payment posted in error and reversed out in a previous fiscal cycle.

State Compensation Insurance - LMD 01-07, suffered extensive vehicle damage. LMD B is also on the list of negative balances this fiscal year due to the inability to collect increasing funds caused by inflation.

It is also noted that the levy was stayed in a number of districts and now have a $0 proposed levy. In these cases, the districts were formed when the final map was approved but was not yet enrolled with the County of Shasta (County). In these districts, either there is no maintenance or the developer continues to manage the maintenance needs.

LMD District
Name General Location Proposed Assessment
Proposed
Levy
D The Vistas North of Quartz Hill Road at the intersection with Terra Nova Drive

$ 884.22 $ 376.96
E Blue Shield At the intersection of Bechelli Lane and
South Bonnyview Road
10,894.89 6,284.00
F Placer Pines West of Placer Street at the intersection with Boston Avenue
234.84 151.18
G Quail Run South of Marlene Avenue at the intersection with Cockerill Drive
443.68 256.96
H
Clover Creek
Village
West of Airport Road at the intersection
with Preserve Boulevard
230.08 174.18
H1
Clover Creek
Village, Zone
1 West of Airport Road at the intersection
with Preserve Boulevard
136.64 83.40
J
Sunset
Avenues,
Units 1 and 2
North of State Route 299 at the intersection
with Buenaventura Boulevard
771.15 426.24
K Nob Hill West of Almond Avenue near the
intersection with Shasta Street
384.00 316.38
L Terra Vista East of Churn Creek Road at the intersection with Loma Vista Drive
585.24 205.96
Packet Pg. 622
Report to Redding City Council July 12, 2022
Re: 6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts Page 4 LMD District
Name General Location Proposed Assessment
Proposed
Levy
M
Parkview/
Leland
Between Lanning Avenue and Leland
Avenue south of Fell Street
400.35 352.66
N
Villages at
Shasta View
Gardens
West of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection with Tarmac Road

78.02 56.98
O
Nicolet
Estates
West of East Bonnyview Road at the
intersection with Nicolet Lane
1,362.20 750.00
P
Mill Pond
Estates
East of East Bonnyview Road at the south
end of Mill Pond Lane
845.68 500.00
Q
Clover Acres,
Units 1 and 2
Near the intersection of Wimbledon Drive
and Agassi Street
296.12 208.82
R Cerro Vista South of Radio Lane at the intersection with Cerro Lane
416.88 232.10
S
Fleur Du Lac, West of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection with Voltaire Way
272.53 184.74
S1 Fleur Du Lac,
Zone 1
West of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection with Goren Court
569.24 307.88
T
Redwood
Meadows
At the intersection of Marijean Way an
Redwood Boulevard
1,137.41 609.60
U
Bel Air
Estates
West of the intersection with Quartz Hill
Road and Stone Canyon Drive
110.08 0
V
Lakeside
Avenues
East of Buenaventura Boulevard at the
intersection with Lakeside Drive
772.96 339.24
W
Crown
Meadows
Estates
South of Girvan Road at the intersection
with Pit Road
189.48 127.08
01-06 Tarmac
Ridge Villas
West of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection with Tarmac Road
321.90 144.44
02-06 Galaxy Way At the west end of Galaxy Way at the
intersection with Morningsun Drive
531.38 190.10
03-06 Hope
Subdivision
East of Hope Lane at the intersection with
Carnegie Drive
579.57 134.48
Packet Pg. 623
Report to Redding City Council July 12, 2022
Re: 6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts Page 5 LMD District
Name General Location Proposed Assessment
Proposed
Levy
04-06 Rivercrest
Estates
East of Bechelli Lane south of the
intersection with Woodacre Drive
491.57 254.68
05-06 Monopoly
Estates
Along Boardwalk Place at the intersection
with Wyndham Lane
1,069.93 0
06-06 Lowe's HIW North of East Cypress Avenue at the
intersection with Alfreda Way
27,281.76 14,570.00
07-06 Buckeye
Pines
West of Lake Boulevard at the intersection
with Wilmington Way
755.53 343.06
08-06
Shastina
Ranch
(Stonesfair/
Silverstone
annex.)
Along Shasta View Drive from Rancho
Road to Airport Road
765.50 425.00
09-06 Buenaventura
Park
South of Waushara Avenue at the
intersection of Piper Way
664.79 389.80
11-06 Tuscany
Village
East of Gold Hills Drive at the intersection
with Oasis Road
375.73 0
01-07
State
Compensatio
n Insurance
East of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection of Tarmac Road
872.62 872.62
02-07 Hilltop
Center
East of Hilltop Drive at the intersection of
Browning Street
840.50 840.50
02-09 Placer West
On the southerly side of Placer Road
between Mary Lake Drive and O'Connor
Avenue
1,206.66 653.12
03-09 Highland
Park
Just east of Interstate 5 south of State Route
299E, west of Churn Creek Road, and north
of Browning Street
349.35 339.94
01-11
River Ridge
Park/Terrace
and Stanford
Manor
On the south side of Quartz Hill Road,
easterly one-quarter mile from River Ridge
Drive to 150 feet west of White Sail Drive
133.25 102.04
02-11 River Park
Highlands
At the intersection of Benton Drive and
River Park Drive and along River Park
Drive
104.88 104.86
03-11
River Heights
and River
Heights PD
At the intersection of Hilltop Drive and
River Bend Road and along River Bend
Road
316.77 288.18
Packet Pg. 624
Report to Redding City Council July 12, 2022
Re: 6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts Page 6 LMD District
Name General Location Proposed Assessment
Proposed
Levy
01-13 College
Highlands
On the west side of Shasta View Drive
between Simpson Boulevard and Palacio
Drive.
279.76 265.32
02-14 Westside
At the intersection of Placer Street and
Boston Avenue, White Hawk Estates, Units
2 and 3 generally located at the intersection
of Teton Drive and Crescent Moon Drive,
and Ridge View Estates located at the
intersection of Placer Road and Cumberland
Drive.

88.46 88.32
03-14 Browning
Pointe
On the west side of Browning Street
Boulevard from Old Alturas Road to
Friendly Road.
722.46 683.70
01-15 Hidden Hills At Bodenhamer Blvd and Rollingview
Drive.

82.32 82.06
02-16 Shasta View
SW
On the west side of Shasta View from
Castlewood Drive to Pacific Avenue

72.67 72.22
03-16 River Pointe Calgary Place and Beretta Lane and a portion of Oxbow Street
194.16 178.68
01-17 Salt Creek
Heights
The subdivision north of Sunflower at the
intersection of Buenaventura. 505.67 471.26
01-19 Seven
Bridges
East of Shasta View Drive on the south
side of Oasis Road on the center medians
and the north side of Oasis Road.
500.40 500.18
02-19
Center Court
Village (Elk
Crest annex.)
At both parkway strips of Palm Springs
Drive, at the corners of Sampras Drive and
Goolagong Drive, and at the corners at
Goolagong Drive and Argyle Road.
255.87 255.74
01-20 Wyndham
Pointe
Along Wyndham Lane crossing Thea
Drive, a section of the parkway strips at
Thea Drive, and at the intersection of
Ginny Court and Lagoon Drive.
856.89 856.32
Council Priority/City Manager Goals
This is a routine annual report.

Attachments
^Resolution LMD ABC
^Resolution All Other LMDs
Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23
Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23
Packet Pg. 625
Report to Redding City Council July 12, 2022
Re: 6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts Page 7 Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23
Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23
Packet Pg. 626
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING:
(1) CONFIRMING THE MAPS OF THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
CONTAINED IN THE ENGINEER’S REPORTS ON FILE WITH THE
CITY CLERK.
(2) CONFIRMING THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS AND ORDERING THE
LEVY AMOUNTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 PURSUANT TO THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972, COMMENCING WITH
SECTION 22500 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE.

WHEREAS:

A. On June 7, 2022, by Resolution 2022-047, the City Council approved the Reports of the Engineer as filed with the City Clerk relating to the Landscape Maintenance Districts outlined in the table below and gave notice of the time and place of the July 19, 2022, public hearing regarding the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-23; and B. A general location of each District is included in the table below, and maps of these Districts are attached to the Engineer’s Reports on file with the City Clerk; and C. The purpose of these Districts is to provide maintenance to those landscaping improvements required within the public rights-of-way and/or easements by the conditions of development approval for each District and the general locations as outlined in the table below; and D. The Engineer has filed his Report with the City Clerk pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22565, et seq.; and
E. This Resolution is made in satisfaction of those requirements set forth in the Streets and Highways Code Section 22631; and
F. The public hearing, duly and properly noticed, commenced at the Council Chambers, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, California on July 19, 2022, and was concluded prior to the adoption of this resolution. At the public hearing, the Council gave every interested person an opportunity to object to the proposed assessments; and
G. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this resolution have occurred; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT:

1. The matters set forth above are true, correct, and are adopted herein.

2. The Report of the Engineer, on file with the City Clerk, contains a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the District and any zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon the assessable acres and remaining parcels within the District.

3. The existing improvements for each subdivision in the District are set forth in Part B of the Engineer’s Reports on file with the City Clerk.

Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: ^Resolution LMD ABC (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

4. Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22631, the maps of the assessment districts addressed herein and contained in the Report of the Engineer are confirmed.

5. The general locations of the acres and remaining parcels in the District are set forth in Part A of the Engineer’s Reports on file with the City Clerk.

6. Only costs for the maintenance of landscaping, miscellaneous lighting, mulching, vandalism, repairs to the irrigation system, electric and water charges, replacement of vegetation as necessary, removal of trimmings, rubbish, and debris, maintenance of the detention basin, and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti, administrative costs, painting of any walls, and such other maintenance and incidental expenses as are authorized by Streets and Highways Code Sections 22526 and 22531 will be assessed.

7. The assessments against each developable lot or remaining parcel located within the Districts for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 are confirmed, adopted, and levied as outlined in the table below, except that an assessment shall not be levied on property owned by a federal or state governmental agency or another local agency.

8. The City Clerk shall forthwith transfer to the Auditor-Controller and Assessor-Recorder of Shasta County a certified copy of this resolution and a certified copy of the assessment maps contained in the Engineer’s Report for the Landscape Maintenance Districts outlined in the table below.

9. That the City Clerk gave notice of said hearing pursuant to the Streets and Highways Code Section 2262(a).

LMD District Name
Proposed
Assessment
Proposed
Levy
A Miscellaneous $29.46 $29.46
General Location:

Ravenwood Estates, Units 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7, 8, 8A, 9, and 17, generally located near the intersection of Old Alturas Road and Shasta View Drive.

Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: ^Resolution LMD ABC (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) B Miscellaneous $71.00 $71.00
General Location:

Alder Creek (Hacienda Heights), Units 7A, 7B, 8 and 9, generally located near the intersection of Shasta View Drive and Palacio Drive; Almaden Estates, Units 1 and 2, generally located at the intersection of Placer Street and Buenaventura Boulevard; Carriage Glen Estates, Units 5A, 5B and 6, generally located east of Shasta View Drive near Castlewood Drive; Copper Creek, Units 1, 2, and 3, generally located along Shasta View Drive, Rancho Road, and Goodwater Avenue; Darsha Lane, generally located south of Old Alturas Road off Oak Mesa Lane; East Redding Estates, Unit 1, generally located east of Victor Avenue on the south side of East Cypress Avenue; Forest Homes, Phase 3, Unit 3, generally located at the intersection of Shasta View Drive and Leonard Street; Girvan Estates, Unit 1, generally located at Girvan Road and Pit Road; Gold Hills, Units 3A, 5, 6, R1, and R2, generally located in various locations at the east side of Gold Hills Country Club; Heritage Oaks, generally located south of Old Alturas Road off Oak Mesa Lane; Highland Oaks, Unit 4, generally located at the intersection of Shasta View Drive and Castlewood Drive; Land Park, Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and R1, generally located west of the intersection of Buenaventura Boulevard and Sutro Mine Road; Monterey Springs, Units 1 and 2, generally located at the intersection of Churn Creek Road and Palacio Drive; Mountain View Heights, Unit 4, generally located west of Shasta View Drive near Palacio Drive; Oak Meadows Estates, Unit 1, generally located east of the intersection of Shasta View Drive and Galaxy Way; Oak Mesa Estates, Unit 2, generally located south of Old Alturas Road off Oak Mesa Lane; Quail Hollow, Unit 3, generally located north of the intersection of Churn Creek Road and Palacio Drive on Olympic Street; Ravenwood Estates, Units 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18, generally located near the intersection of Old Alturas Road and Rose Tree Lane; Robles North, Units 1 and 2, generally located at the intersection of Meadowview Drive and Robles Drive; Shasta View Manor, Unit 1, generally located near the intersection of Tarmac Road and Charade Way; St. Thomas Heights, Unit 1, generally located at the intersection of Hilltop Drive and St. Thomas Parkway; Stillwater Heights, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, generally located at the intersection of Old 44 Drive and Carson Drive; and Tierra Bendito, generally located south of Old Alturas Road off Oak Mesa Lane.

C Miscellaneous $7.46 $0.00
General Location:

Blossom Park, Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, R1 and R3, generally located near the intersection of Churn Creek Road and Constitution Way; Churn Creek Park, including Unit R1, generally located near the intersection of Churn Creek Road and Constitution Way; Fairway Estates, Units 1 and R1, generally located at the east end of Poppy Hills Drive; Forest Hills Estates, Units 1 and R1, generally located at the south end of Heritagetown Drive; and Potter Manor, Unit 1, generally located at the intersection of Shasta View Drive and Galaxy Way 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 19th day of July, 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. 629 Attachment: ^Resolution LMD ABC (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING:
(1) CONFIRMING THE MAPS OF THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
CONTAINED IN THE ENGINEERS’S REPORTS ON FILE WITH THE CITY CLERK.
(2) CONFIRMING THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS AND ORDERING THE
LEVY AMOUNTS FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 PURSUANT TO THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972, COMMENCING WITH
SECTION 22500 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE.

WHEREAS:

A. On June 7, 2022, by Resolution 2022-048, the City Council approved the Reports of the Engineer as filed with the City Clerk relating to the Landscape Maintenance Districts outlined in the table below and gave notice of the time and place of the July 19, 2022, public hearing regarding the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-23; and
B. A general location of each District is included in the table below and maps of these Districts are attached to the Engineer’s Reports on file with the City Clerk; and C. The purpose of these Districts is to provide maintenance to those landscaping improvements required within the public rights-of-way and/or easements by the conditions of development approval for each District and the general locations as outlined in the table below; and D. The Engineer has filed his Report with the City Clerk pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22565, et seq.; and
E. This Resolution is made in satisfaction of those requirements set forth in the Streets and Highways Code Section 22631; and
F. The assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-23 are not an increase within the meaning of Streets and Highways Code §22630.5 because the cost of living adjustment provided for herein was approved at the time of the formation of the Districts; and
G. The public hearing, duly and properly noticed, commenced at the Council Chambers, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, California on July 19, 2022, and was concluded prior to the adoption of this resolution. At the public hearing, the Council gave every interested person an opportunity to object to the proposed assessments.

H. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT:

1. The matters set forth above are true, correct, and are adopted herein.

2. The Report of the Engineer, on file with the City Clerk, contains a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the District and any zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon the assessable acres and remaining parcels within the District.

Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: ^Resolution All Other LMDs (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

3. The existing improvements for each subdivision in the District are set forth in Part B of the Engineer’s Reports on file with the City Clerk.

4. Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 22631, the maps of the assessment districts addressed herein and contained in the Report of the Engineer are confirmed.

5. The general locations of the acres and remaining parcels in the District are set forth in Part A of the Engineer’s Reports on file with the City Clerk.

6. Only costs for the maintenance of landscaping, miscellaneous lighting, mulching, vandalism, repairs to the irrigation system, electric and water charges, replacement of vegetation as necessary, removal of trimmings, rubbish, and debris, maintenance of the detention basin, and other improvements to remove or cover graffiti, administrative costs, painting of any walls, and such other maintenance and incidental expenses as are authorized by Streets and Highways Code Sections 22526 and 22531 will be assessed.

7. The assessments against each developable lot or remaining parcel located within the Districts for Fiscal Year 2022-23 are confirmed, adopted and levied as outlined in the table below, except that an assessment shall not be levied on property owned by a federal or state governmental agency or another local agency.

8. The City Clerk shall forthwith transfer to the Auditor-Controller and Assessor-Recorder of Shasta County a certified copy of this resolution and a certified copy of the assessment maps contained in the Engineer’s Report for the Landscape Maintenance Districts outlined in the table below.

9. The City Clerk gave notice of said hearing pursuant to the Streets and Highways Code Section 22626(a).

LMD District Name General Location Proposed
Assessment
Proposed
Levy
D The Vistas North of Quartz Hill Road at the
intersection with Terra Nova Drive $ 884.22 $ 376.96
E Blue Shield At the intersection of Bechelli Lane and
South Bonnyview Road 10,894.89 6,284.00
F Placer Pines West of Placer Street at the intersection with Boston Avenue 234.84 151.18
G Quail Run South of Marlene Avenue at the
intersection with Cockerill Drive 443.68 256.96
H
Clover Creek
Village
West of Airport Road at the intersection
with Preserve Boulevard 230.08 174.18
H1 Clover Creek
Village, Zone 1
West of Airport Road at the intersection
with Preserve Boulevard 136.64 83.40
J
Sunset
Avenues, Units
1 and 2
North of State Route 299 at the intersection
with Buenaventura Boulevard 771.15 426.24
K Nob Hill West of Almond Avenue near the
intersection with Shasta Street 384.00 316.38
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: ^Resolution All Other LMDs (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) LMD District Name General Location Proposed
Assessment
Proposed
Levy
L Terra Vista East of Churn Creek Road at the
intersection with Loma Vista Drive 585.24 205.96
M
Parkview/
Leland
Between Lanning Avenue and Leland
Avenue south of Fell Street 400.35 352.66
N
Villages at
Shasta View
Gardens
West of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection with Tarmac Road 78.02 56.98
O Nicolet Estates West of East Bonnyview Road at the
intersection with Nicolet Lane 1,362.20 750.00
P
Mill Pond
Estates
East of East Bonnyview Road at the south
end of Mill Pond Lane 845.68 500.00
Q
Clover Acres,
Units 1 and 2
Near the intersection of Wimbledon Drive
and Agassi Street 296.12 208.82
R Cerro Vista South of Radio Lane at the intersection
with Cerro Lane 416.88 232.10
S Fleur Du Lac West of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection with Voltaire Way 272.53 184.74
S1
Fleur du Lac,
Zone 1
West of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection with Goren Court 569.24 307.88
T
Redwood
Meadows
At the intersection of Marijean Way and
Redwood Boulevard 1,137.41 609.60
U Bel Air Estates West of the intersection with Quartz Hill Road and Stone Canyon Drive 110.08 0
V
Lakeside
Avenues
East of Buenaventura Boulevard at the
intersection with Lakeside Drive 772.96 339.24
W
Crown
Meadows
Estates
South of Girvan Road at the intersection
with Pit Road 189.48 127.08
01-06 Tarmac Ridge
Villas
West of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection with Tarmac Road 321.90 144.44
02-06 Galaxy Way At the west end of Galaxy Way at the
intersection with Morningsun Drive 531.38 190.10
03-06 Hope
Subdivision
East of Hope Lane at the intersection with
Carnegie Drive 579.57 134.48
04-06 Rivercrest
Estates
East of Bechelli Lane south of the
intersection with Woodacre Drive 491.57 254.68
05-06 Monopoly
Estates
Along Boardwalk Place at the intersection
with Wyndham Lane 1,069.93 0
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: ^Resolution All Other LMDs (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) LMD District Name General Location Proposed
Assessment
Proposed
Levy
06-06 Lowe's HIW North of East Cypress Avenue at the
intersection with Alfreda Way 27,281.76 14,570.00
07-06 Buckeye Pines West of Lake Boulevard at the intersection with Wilmington Way 755.53 343.06
08-06 Shastina Ranch South of Rancho Road and west of Airport Road 765.50 425.00
09-06 Buenaventura
Park
South of Waushara Avenue at the
intersection of Piper Way 664.79 389.80
11-06 Tuscany Villas East of Gold Hills Drive at the intersection with Oasis Road 375.73 0
01-07
State
Compensation
Insurance
East of Shasta View Drive at the
intersection of Tarmac Road 872.62 872.62
02-07 Hilltop Center East of Hilltop Drive at the intersection of Browning Street 840.50 840.50
02-09 Placer West On the southerly side of Placer Road
between Mary Lake Drive and O'Connor 1,206.66 653.12
03-09 Highland Park
Just east of Interstate 5 south of State Route
299E, west of Churn Creek Road, and
north of Browning Street
349.35 339.94
01-11
River Ridge
Park/Terrace
and Stanford
Manor
On the south side of Quartz Hill Road,
easterly one-quarter mile from River Ridge
Drive to 150 feet west of White Sail Drive
133.25 102.04
02-11 River Park
Highlands
At the intersection of Benton Drive and
River Park Drive and along River Park
Drive
104.88 104.86
03-11
River Heights
and River
Heights PD
At the intersection of Hilltop Drive and
River Bend Road and along River Bend
Road
316.77 288.18
01-13 College
Highlands
On the west side of Shasta View Drive
between Simpson Boulevard and Palacio
Drive.
279.76 265.32
02-14 Westside
At the intersection of Placer Street and
Boston Avenue, White Hawk Estates,
Units 2 and 3 generally located at the
intersection of Teton Drive and Crescent
Moon Drive, and Ridge View Estates
located at the intersection of Placer Road
and Cumberland Drive.

88.46 88.32
03-14 Browning
Pointe
On the west side of Browning Street
Boulevard from Old Alturas Road to
Friendly Road.
722.46 683.70
01-15 Hidden Hills At Bodenhamer Boulevard and
Rollingview Drive. 82.32 82.06
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: ^Resolution All Other LMDs (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) LMD District Name General Location Proposed
Assessment
Proposed
Levy
02-16 Shasta View
SW
On the west side of Shasta View from
Castlewood Drive to Pacific Avenue 72.67 72.22
03-16 River Pointe Calgary Place and Beretta Lane and a portion of Oxbow Street 194.16 178.68
01-17 Salt Creek
Heights
The subdivision north of Sunflower at the
intersection of Buenaventura. 505.67 471.26
01-19 Seven Bridges
East of Shasta View Drive on the south
side of Oasis Road on the center medians
and the north side of Oasis Road.
500.40 500.18
02-19 Center Court
Villages
At both parkway strips of Palm Springs
Drive, at the corners of Sampras Drive
and Goolagong Drive, and at the corners
at Goolagong Drive and Argyle Road.
255.87 255.74
01-20 Wyndham
Pointe
Along Wyndham Lane crossing Thea
Drive, a section of the parkway strips at
Thea Drive, and at the intersection of
Ginny Court and Lagoon Drive.
856.89 856.32
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 19th day of July, 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. 634 Attachment: ^Resolution All Other LMDs (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Landscape
Maintenance
District A

Ravenwood Estates, Units 1 - 8, 8A, 9 & 17

Annual Update for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Prepared under the provisions of the
City of Redding Municipal Code and
the Landscape & Lighting Act of 1972
of the California Streets & Highways Code
ENGINEER’S REPORT
Prepared by:

Chuck Aukland, PE
Director of Public Works / City Engineer
June 2022

Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 636
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update – District A Page 2

OVERVIEW
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to update the Landscape Maintenance District (District) budget and assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. The District is authorized and administered under provisions of the City of Redding Municipal Code, the “Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972” (California Streets & Highway Code §22500 et. seq.), “Proposition 218” (Article XIIID of the California Constitution), and the “Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act” (California Senate Bill 919). The aforementioned are collectively referred to as “Assessment Law.” This Engineer’s Report addresses the annual maintenance of identified improvements within the District.

This Report describes the District, any changes to the District, and the proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. The proposed assessment is based on the historical and estimated cost to maintain the improvements that provide direct and special benefits to properties within the District. The costs of the improvements and the annual levy include all expenditures, deficits, surpluses, revenues, and reserves.

Following consideration of all public comments and written protests at a noticed public hearing and review of the Report, the City Council may order amendments to the Report or confirm the Report as submitted. Following final approval of the Report and confirmation of the assessments, the Council may order the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 pursuant to the Act. Once the levy is approved, the assessment information will be submitted to the Shasta County Auditor-Controller and included on the property tax roll for each benefiting parcel for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

Effect of Proposition 218
On November 5, 1996, the electorate approved Proposition 218, Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution. The Article XIIID affects all assessments upon real property for a special benefit conferred on the property. Assessments imposed under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 are these types of benefit assessments.

The provision of Proposition 218 can be summarized in four general areas:

1. Strengthens the general and special tax provisions of Propositions 13 and 62;

2. Extends the initiative process to all local taxes, assessments, fees, and charges;

3. Adds substantive and procedural requirements to assessments; and,

4. Adds substantive and procedural requirements to property-related fees and charges.

Prior to Proposition 218, property owners petitioned Zones that were added to the Districts.

Subsequent to Proposition 218, all property owners were balloted for inclusion into the Districts in order to be in compliance with Proposition 218. This Report does not propose to increase the assessments for the Districts, including any annexations, above the approved annual Consumer Price Index (CPI). Increases, if any, above this amount were addressed in separate reports approved at prior Council meetings. Any subsequent increases in the assessments, as defined by Government Code Sections 53750-53756 (Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act), will be subject to the procedures and approval process of Section 4 of Article XIIID.

Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update – District A Page 3 PART A:

Assessment Map (See Part A Attachment)
Landscape Maintenance District A is located in the City of Redding, County of Shasta, State of California. Attached to this report are maps of each subdivision and a table providing information including subdivision name, improvement(s), and the general location of improvements. The maps are keyed to the lots within each subdivision in existence at the time of District formation. The District boundaries are depicted on the Part A Attachments and generally include:

Ravenwood Estates, Units 1 - 8, 8A, 9, & 17
District Improvements and Location of Improvements
The improved areas generally consist of landscaping amenities as noted in the table. As noted above, the table also includes the general location of landscape area(s) for each District. The plans and specifications for the identified improvements are on file in the City’s Planning Department. The plans may depict the plant materials, irrigation system, and other facilities and appurtenances. The plans and specifications are hereby incorporated into this report by reference.

PART B:

Estimated Maintenance Expenses (see Part B Attachment)
Attached for the District is a cost breakdown that includes actual costs from the previous fiscal year and the projected costs, assessment, and recommended levy amount for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. Following is a description of the costs outlined in the Part B Attachment.

Maintenance Expenses
Estimated District maintenance expenses include the total costs of maintaining and servicing the District's improved areas. The maintenance costs included in the Part B Attachment are estimates. The actual costs may vary and will be determined based on needs as determined by the City of Redding Parks Superintendent.

Contract (day to day) Maintenance - The day-to-day landscape maintenance is generally accomplished through contract with a private landscape maintenance company which includes sidewalk clearance and litter removal.

Additional Maintenance – maintenance beyond the day-to-day required maintenance may be performed by either the contracted landscape provider or Parks or other City department staff, and includes plant replacement, mulching, irrigation system repairs, vandalism repairs, and entrance sign repairs. In addition, funding set aside for additional maintenance is also intended to account for a more significant capital improvement including potential upgrades to the irrigation system to comply with water conservation standards, landscape replacements to enhance aging and dated landscaped areas, and other similar improvements. Efforts are being made to replace any dead or dying plants with more drought tolerant species when applicable.

Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update – District A Page 4 Vegetation Management/Detention Basin work is specific to the Districts that include these features and can be performed by either the contracted landscape provider or City staff.

Detention Basin work generally occurs annually in the fall before the rains, and Vegetation Management work generally occurs annually in late spring when tall weeds can pose a fire hazard. Vegetation Management is limited to those areas shown on the map (Part A Attachment) as covered by District maintenance and subsequent costs.

Electric/Water Usage describes the actual (previous fiscal year) and estimated (upcoming fiscal year) costs associated with irrigation and the electricity to run the irrigation controllers. In 2013, an effort to upgrade irrigation systems to include SMART meters began in an attempt to lower the costs associated with landscape irrigation. The City continues to explore SMART, green, and solar power alternatives for its landscaping needs.

Administrative Expenses
Estimated District Administrative Expenses - describes administrative work performed by City staff including but not necessarily limited to the preparation of the annual Engineer's Report, staff reports and resolutions for City Council review and action, review of actual costs and preparation of annual estimates, review of all Parcel Numbers and maps associated with every district, any required map updates when necessary, and the preparation of an annual Special Assessments report and its subsequent filing with the County Assessor's Office.

County Administrative Fee – The district assessment and levy are processed through the County and paid by the property owners on their property tax bill. The County charges a fee of $68 plus the total Benefit Unit count in each Landscape Maintenance District multiplied by $0.15.

Assessment and Levy Calculation
Allowable District Reserve: The goal of all LMDs is to have an operating reserve between a minimum of 10 percent of the operating budget and a maximum of 2/3 of total operating expenses. The District cost summary references this reserve which is based on total maintenance and administrative expenses (not include County administrative fee) and is used to cover the cost of maintenance that occurs before December's levy payments have been received in January. If the reserve is less than 10 percent, the levy will remain closer to the maximum assessment allowable until the reserve has been built up. If the reserve exceeds 2/3 operating expenses, the levy is lowered, suspended for a period of time, or refunded back to property owners.

Maximum Assessment Allowable: Pursuant to Government Code Section 53739, the amount of each Fiscal Year's assessment shall be adjusted for inflation in an amount not to exceed that provided by the “20-City Construction Cost Index” (CCI) from the most recent March (March 2022 - March 2023) issue of the Engineering News-Record. The maximum authorized assessments contained in this Engineer’s Report represent a CCI increase over the previous year’s amount. This increase is based on the CCI and is consistent with the cost indexing provisions approved by property owners. Therefore, the vote requirements of Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution do not apply to these proceedings.

For Fiscal Year 2022-2023, the applicable CCI increase is 8.9%.

In the event that assessment revenues are insufficient to cover the cost of annual maintenance activities, reserves may be used, or services may be reduced to avoid a deficit.

Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update – District A Page 5 The Lot Levy as noted on the Part B Attachment is the lesser of the amount calculated to be needed for each lot (total fund needed divided by number of lots/acres), and the maximum assessment amount as dictated by the CCI. The levy is the amount that will actually be assessed on each benefit unit.

The levy is the amount that is actually charged based on the funds needed to maintain landscape and reserves for the year. The assessment is the amount that is adjusted each year by the CCI. The levy cannot exceed the Maximum Assessment Allowable.

In the event that assessment revenues are insufficient to cover the cost of annual maintenance activities, services may be reduced to avoid a deficit.

No bonds will be issued in connection with these Districts.

PART C:

Analysis of Benefits of Properties being Assessed
Consistent with City Council Policy Number 1705 (Procedures and Policies Governing Landscape Maintenance Districts), construction and maintenance of the identified improvements were conditions of development for the subdivision. The landscaping amenities beautify the community by improving the unpaved areas that would otherwise become overgrown and unsightly. The improvement benefits which contribute both to the beautification and marketability of the lots within the subdivision, are listed in the table below. This is the special benefit conferred upon each assessed lot within the District. The benefit received by the identified parcel is “special” in that the City does not generally provide such improvements or services to the public at large.

LMD A Proposition 218
For Fiscal Year 2022-2023, the annual landscape maintenance assessment paid by property owners within LMD-A continues to be less than the cost to maintain the landscaping in this district. With the approval of Proposition 218 by California voters in 1996, the assessment for LMD-A was frozen at $29.46 with no annual cost inflation adjustment. City staff continues to meet with property owners in LMD-A to discuss the formation of new districts that would be formed from existing subdivisions within LMD-A and would include a built-in cost inflation factor.

Method of Apportionment
The law does not require lots to be contiguous to the improvements, only that the assessment is distributed across all lots in proportion to the degree of special benefit received from the improvements. The proposed apportionment methodology is based on a uniform special benefit and assessment over all developable lots within the District. The total number of benefit units (BUs) may vary from fiscal year to fiscal year due to parcel changes and/or land use reclassifications.

Assessment Roll (See Part C Attachment)
The Part C Attachment contains a list of the Shasta County Assessor's Parcel numbers within the Assessment Districts for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update – District A Page 6 of the City Clerk and is incorporated in this Report by reference. The list is keyed to the records of the Shasta County Assessor, which are incorporated herein by reference.

LMD Subdivision Name District Improvements and Location of Improvements A Ravenwood Estates,
Units 1-8, 8A, 9, & 17
The landscaping is located on the east side of Shasta View from just south of the intersection of Viking and Shasta View, to north of the intersection of Atrium and Shasta View. Prune shrubs off walkways for site and sidewalk clearance only, prune trees for height clearance. Trash and litter shall be picked up monthly prior to the 20th of each month. Shown on Area 5 map.

Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Attachment A
Maps
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Attachment B
Estimated Expenses
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022‐23
Landscape Maintenance District A (A‐170‐075‐050)
Multiple
FY 2021‐22 FY 2022‐23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $985
REVENUE $7,969
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day‐to‐Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 1,864 2,050 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance .............................................................................. 0 0 Work that falls outside regular, day‐to‐day maintenance schedule, including by not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 9,630

2. Electric/Water Usage  ........................................................................................ 279 279 2,143 11,959
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 1,480 1,200 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 170 109 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$3,793

ESTIMATED
$13,269
DISTRICT BALANCE $5,161

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 5,161 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 ‐ June 30, 2023) ............... 13,269 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 0 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance)  ................ 8,108 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 275 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI.......................................     29.46     29.46 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed ..................................................    29.48 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $   29.46 29.46 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 ‐ 11 of the Engineer's Report.  A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June).  Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Attachment C
Assessment Roll
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
A 077-350-001 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-002 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-003 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-004 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-005 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-006 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-007 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-008 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-009 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-010 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-011 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-012 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-013 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-014 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-015 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-016 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-017 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-018 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-019 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-020 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-021 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-022 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-023 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-024 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-025 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-026 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-027 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-028 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-029 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-030 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-033 Ravenwood Estates 1
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
A 077-350-034 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-035 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-036 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-037 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-038 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-039 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-040 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-041 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-042 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-043 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-044 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-045 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-046 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-047 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-048 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-049 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-050 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-051 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-052 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-053 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-054 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-055 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-056 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-057 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-058 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-059 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-060 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-061 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-062 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-063 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-064 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-065 Ravenwood Estates 1
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
A 077-350-066 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-067 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-068 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-069 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-070 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-071 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-072 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-073 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-074 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-075 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-076 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-077 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-078 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-079 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-080 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-081 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-082 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-083 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-084 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-085 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-350-086 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-001 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-002 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-003 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-004 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-005 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-006 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-007 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-008 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-009 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-010 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-011 Ravenwood Estates 1
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
A 077-360-012 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-013 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-014 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-018 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-019 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-020 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-021 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-022 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-023 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-024 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-025 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-026 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-027 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-028 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-029 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-030 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-031 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-032 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-033 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-034 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-035 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-036 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-037 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-038 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-039 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-040 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-041 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-042 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-043 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-044 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-045 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-046 Ravenwood Estates 1
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
A 077-360-047 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-048 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-049 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-050 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-051 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-052 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-054 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-056 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-057 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-058 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-059 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-060 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-061 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-062 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-063 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-064 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-065 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-066 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-067 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-068 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-069 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-070 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-071 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-072 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-073 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-074 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-075 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-076 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-077 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-078 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-079 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-080 Ravenwood Estates 1
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
A 077-360-081 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-082 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-083 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-084 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-085 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-360-086 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-001 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-002 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-003 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-004 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-005 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-006 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-007 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-008 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-009 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-010 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-011 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-012 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-013 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-014 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-015 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-016 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-017 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-018 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-019 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-020 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-021 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-023 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-024 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-025 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-026 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-027 Ravenwood Estates 1
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
A 077-460-028 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-029 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-030 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-031 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-032 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-033 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-034 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-035 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-036 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-037 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-038 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-039 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-040 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-041 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-042 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-043 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-044 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-049 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-050 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-051 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-052 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-053 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-054 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-055 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-056 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-057 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-058 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-059 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-060 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-061 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-062 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-063 Ravenwood Estates 1
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
A 077-460-064 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-065 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-066 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-067 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-068 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-069 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-070 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-071 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-072 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-073 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-074 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-075 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-076 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-078 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-085 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-460-086 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-001 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-002 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-003 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-004 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-005 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-006 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-007 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-008 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-009 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-010 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-011 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-012 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-013 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-014 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-015 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-016 Ravenwood Estates 1
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
A 077-540-017 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-018 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-019 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-020 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-021 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-022 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-023 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-024 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-025 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-026 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-027 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-028 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-029 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-030 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-031 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-032 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-033 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-034 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 077-540-035 Ravenwood Estates 1
A 204-420-039 Westside Estates 1
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD A 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Landscape Maintenance
District B
Alder Creek (Hacienda Heights), Units 7A, 7B, 8, & 9
Almaden Estates, Units 1 & 2
Carriage Glen Estates, Units 5A, 5B, & 6
Copper Creek, Units 1 - 3
Darsha Lane
East Redding Estates, Unit 1
Forest Homes, Phase 3, Unit 3
Girvan Estates, Unit 1
Gold Hills, Units 3A, 5, 6, R1, & R2
Heritage Oaks
Highland Oaks, Unit 4
Land Park, Units 1 - 4, & R1
Monterey Springs, Units 1 & 2
Mountain View Heights, Unit 4
Oak Meadows Estates, Unit 1
Oak Mesa Estates, Unit 2
Quail Hollow, Unit 3
Ravenwood Estates, Units 11-16, & 18
Robles North, Units 1 & 2
Shasta View Manor, Unit 1
St. Thomas Heights, Unit 1
Stillwater Heights, Units 1 - 4
Tierra Bendito
Annual Update for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Prepared under the provisions of the
City of Redding Municipal Code and
the Landscape & Lighting Act of 1972
of the California Streets & Highways Code
ENGINEER’S REPORT
Prepared by:

Chuck Aukland, PE
Director of Public Works / City Engineer
June 2022
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 657
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update – District B Page 2

OVERVIEW
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to update the Landscape Maintenance District (District) budget and assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. The District is authorized and administered under provisions of the City of Redding Municipal Code, the “Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972” (California Streets & Highway Code §22500 et. seq.), “Proposition 218” (Article XIIID of the California Constitution), and the “Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act” (California Senate Bill 919). The aforementioned are collectively referred to as “Assessment Law.” This Engineer’s Report addresses the annual maintenance of identified improvements within the District.

This Report describes the District, any changes to the District, and the proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. The proposed assessment is based on the historical and estimated cost to maintain the improvements that provide direct and special benefits to properties within the District. The costs of the improvements and the annual levy include all expenditures, deficits, surpluses, revenues, and reserves.

Following consideration of all public comments and written protests at a noticed public hearing and review of the Report, the City Council may order amendments to the Report or confirm the Report as submitted. Following final approval of the Report and confirmation of the assessments, the Council may order the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 pursuant to the Act. Once the levy is approved, the assessment information will be submitted to the Shasta County Auditor-Controller and included on the property tax roll for each benefiting parcel for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

Effect of Proposition 218
On November 5, 1996, the electorate approved Proposition 218, Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution. The Article XIIID affects all assessments upon real property for a special benefit conferred on the property. Assessments imposed under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 are these types of benefit assessments.

The provision of Proposition 218 can be summarized in four general areas:

1. Strengthens the general and special tax provisions of Propositions 13 and 62;

2. Extends the initiative process to all local taxes, assessments, fees, and charges;

3. Adds substantive and procedural requirements to assessments; and,

4. Adds substantive and procedural requirements to property-related fees and charges.

Prior to Proposition 218, property owners petitioned Zones that were added to the Districts.

Subsequent to Proposition 218, all property owners were balloted for inclusion into the Districts in order to be in compliance with Proposition 218. This Report does not propose to increase the assessments for the Districts, including any annexations, above the approved annual Consumer Price Index (CPI). Increases, if any, above this amount were addressed in separate reports approved at prior Council meetings. Any subsequent increases in the assessments, as defined by Government Code Sections 53750-53756 (Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act), will be subject to the procedures and approval process of Section 4 of Article XIIID.

Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update – District B Page 3 PART A:

Assessment Map (See Part A Attachment)
Landscape Maintenance District B is located in the City of Redding, County of Shasta, State of California. Attached to this report are maps of each subdivision and a table providing information including subdivision name, improvement(s), and the general location of improvements. The maps are keyed to the lots within each subdivision in existence at the time of District formation. The District boundaries are depicted on the Part A Attachments and generally include:

Alder Creek (Hacienda Heights), Units 7A, 7B, 8, & 9
Almaden Estates, Units 1 & 2
Carriage Glen Estates, Units 5A, 5B, & 6
Copper Creek, Units 1 - 3
Darsha Lane
East Redding Estates, Unit 1
Forest Homes, Phase 3, Unit 3
Girvan Estates, Unit 1
Gold Hills, Units 3A, 5, 6, R1, & R2
Heritage Oaks
Highland Oaks, Unit 4
Land Park, Units 1 - 4, & R1
Monterey Springs, Units 1 & 2
Mountain View Heights, Unit 4
Oak Meadows Estates, Unit 1
Oak Mesa Estates, Unit 2
Quail Hollow, Unit 3
Ravenwood Estates, Units 11-16, & 18
Robles North, Units 1 & 2
Shasta View Manor, Unit 1
St. Thomas Heights, Unit 1
Stillwater Heights, Units 1 - 4
Tierra Bendito
District Improvements and Location of Improvements
The improved areas generally consist of landscaping amenities as noted in the table. As noted above, the table also includes the general location of landscape area(s) for each District. The plans and specifications for the identified improvements are on file in the City’s Planning Department. The plans may depict the plant materials, irrigation system, and other facilities and appurtenances. The plans and specifications are hereby incorporated into this report by reference.

PART B:

District Improvements and Estimated Maintenance Expenses (see Part B Attachment) Attached for the District is a cost breakdown that includes actual costs from the previous fiscal year and the projected costs, assessment, and recommended levy amount for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. Following is a description of the costs outlined in the Part B Attachment.

Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update – District B Page 4 Maintenance Expenses
Estimated District maintenance expenses include the total costs of maintaining and servicing the District's improved areas. The maintenance costs included in the Part B Attachment are estimates. The actual costs may vary and will be determined based on needs as determined by the City of Redding Parks Superintendent.

Contract (day to day) Maintenance - The day-to-day landscape maintenance is generally accomplished through contract with a private landscape maintenance company and includes, but it not necessarily limited to, weed control, plant maintenance (fertilizing, pruning, etc.), and litter removal.

Additional Maintenance – maintenance beyond the day-to-day required maintenance man be performed by either the contracted landscape provider or Parks or other City department staff and includes plant replacement, mulching, irrigation system repairs, vandalism repairs, and entrance sign repairs. In addition, funding set aside for additional maintenance is also intended to account for a more significant capital improvement including potential upgrades to the irrigation system to comply with water conservation standards, landscape replacements to enhance aging and dated landscaped areas, and other similar improvements. Efforts are being made to replace any dead or dying plants with more drought tolerant species when applicable.

Vegetation Management/Detention Basin work is specific to the Districts that include these features and can be performed by either the contracted landscape provide or City staff.

Detention Basin work generally occurs annually in the fall before the rains, and Vegetation Management work generally occurs annually in late spring when tall weeds can pose a fire hazard. Vegetation Management is limited to those areas shown on the map (Part A Attachment) as covered by District maintenance and subsequent costs.

Electric/Water Usage describes the actual (previous fiscal year) and estimated (upcoming fiscal year) costs associated with irrigation and the electricity to run the irrigation controllers. In 2013, an effort to upgrade irrigation systems to include SMART meters began in an attempt to lower the costs associated with landscape irrigation. The City continues to explore SMART, green, and solar power alternatives for its landscaping needs.

Administrative Expenses
Estimated District Administrative Expenses - describes administrative work performed by City staff including but not necessarily limited to the preparation of the annual Engineer's Report, staff reports and resolutions for City Council review and action, review of actual costs and preparation of annual estimates, review of all Parcel Numbers and maps associated with every district, any required map updates when necessary, and the preparation of an annual Special Assessments report and its subsequent filing with the County Assessor's Office.

County Administrative Fee – The district assessment and levy are processed through the County and paid by the property owners on their property tax bill. The County charges a fee of $68 plus the total Benefit Unit count in each Landscape Maintenance District multiplied by $0.15.

Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update – District B Page 5 Assessment and Levy Calculation
Allowable District Reserve: The goal of all LMDs is to have an operating reserve between a minimum of 10 percent of the operating budget and a maximum of 2/3 of total operating expenses. The District cost summary references this reserve which is based on total maintenance and administrative expenses (not include County administrative fee) and is used to cover the cost of maintenance that occurs before December's levy payments have been received in January. If the reserve is less than 10 percent, the levy will remain closer to the maximum assessment allowable until the reserve has been built up. If the reserve exceeds 2/3 operating expenses, the levy is lowered, suspended for a period of time, or refunded back to property owners.

Maximum Assessment Allowable: Pursuant to Government Code Section 53739, the amount of each Fiscal Year's assessment shall be adjusted for inflation in an amount not to exceed that provided by the “20-City Construction Cost Index” (CCI) from the most recent March (March 2022 - March 2023) issue of the Engineering News-Record. The maximum authorized assessments contained in this Engineer’s Report represent a CCI increase over the previous year’s amount. This increase is based on the CCI and is consistent with the cost indexing provisions approved by property owners. Therefore, the vote requirements of Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution do not apply to these proceedings.

For Fiscal Year 2022-2023, the applicable CCI increase is 8.9%.

In the event that assessment revenues are insufficient to cover the cost of annual maintenance activities, reserves may be used, or services may be reduced to avoid a deficit.

The Lot Levy as noted on the Part B Attachment is the lesser of the amount calculated to be needed for each lot (total fund needed divided by number of lots/acres), and the maximum assessment amount as dictated by the CCI. The levy is the amount that will actually be assessed on each benefit unit.

The levy is the amount that is actually charged based on the funds needed to maintain landscape and reserves for the year. The assessment is the amount that is adjusted each year by the CCI. The levy cannot exceed the Maximum Assessment Allowable.

In the event that assessment revenues are insufficient to cover the cost of annual maintenance activities, services may be reduced to avoid a deficit.

No bonds will be issued in connection with these Districts.

PART C:

Analysis of Benefits of Properties being Assessed
Consistent with City Council Policy Number 1705 (Procedures and Policies Governing Landscape Maintenance Districts), construction and maintenance of the identified improvements were conditions of development for the subdivision. The landscaping amenities beautify the community by improving the unpaved areas that would otherwise become overgrown and unsightly. The improvement benefits which contribute both to the beautification and marketability of the lots within the subdivision, are listed in the table below. This is the special benefit conferred upon each assessed lot within the District. The benefit received by the identified parcel is “special” in that the City does not generally provide such improvements or services to the public at large.

Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update – District B Page 6 For Fiscal Year 2022-2023, the annual landscape maintenance assessment paid by property owners within LMD-B continues to be less than the cost to maintain the landscaping in this district. With the approval of Proposition 218 by California voters in 1996, the assessment for LMD-B was frozen at $71.00 with no annual cost inflation adjustment. City staff continues to meet with property owners in LMD-B to discuss the formation of new districts that would be formed from existing subdivisions within LMD-B and would include a built-in cost inflation factor.

For Fiscal Year 2022-2023, Gold Hills Subdivision Units 3A (8 lots) and 5 (30 lots) will have a zero levy. Although these units are within the District, it has been determined that they currently receive no benefit. When future units of the Gold Hills subdivision are constructed, Units 3A and 5 will receive a benefit, and the levy will be applied at that time.

Method of Apportionment
The law does not require lots to be contiguous to the improvements, only that the assessment is distributed across all lots in proportion to the degree of special benefit received from the improvements. The proposed apportionment methodology is based on a uniform special benefit and assessment over all developable lots within the District. The total number of benefit units (BUs) may vary from fiscal year to fiscal year due to parcel changes and/or land use reclassifications.

Assessment Roll (See Part C Attachment)
The Part C Attachment contains a list of the Shasta County Assessor's Parcel numbers within the Assessment Districts for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office of the City Clerk and is incorporated in this Report by reference. The list is keyed to the records of the Shasta County Assessor, which are incorporated herein by reference.

Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update – District B Page 7 LMD Subdivision Name District Improvements and Location of Improvements B Alder Creek Units 7A,
7B, 8, & 9
Generally located east side of Shasta View and South side of Palacio from intersection of Shasta View Dr. and Palacio Dr. to Shasta View Drive and Hemingway. Also east on Hemingway to first intersection. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as, trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions. Two maps for this LMD, shown on Area 16 maps.

B Almaden Estates,
Units 1 & 2
Generally located at the intersection of Placer Street and Buenaventura Blvd along the south side of Buenaventura Blvd, and along the north side of Placer St. east and west of Almaden Dr. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions. Shown on Area 4 map.

B Carriage Glen Estates,
Units 5A, 5B, & 6/
Highland Oaks, Unit 4
Generally located east side of Shasta View Dr. near Castlewood Dr. and on the west side of Goodwater Ave., along detention basin and North and South of the intersection with Montana Sky Dr. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions. Shown on Area 7 map.

B Copper Creek, Units 1-
3 Located on the east side of Shasta View from North of the intersection of Shasta View and Copper Creek extending to the north side of Rancho Rd to the intersection of Goodwater Ave and along west side of Goodwater to north of Henrys Fork Dr. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions.

Shown on Area 12 map.

B Darsha Lane Generally located south of the intersection of Old Alturas Rd and Oak Mesa Ln and on the south side of Old Alturas Rd. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions. See Oak Mesa Area 3 map.

B East Redding Estates,
Unit 1
Generally located east of Victor Ave on the south side of East Cypress Ave.

The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, slope protection, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions. Shown on Area 2 map.

B Forest Homes, Phase
3, Unit 3
Generally located at the intersection of Shasta View Drive and Leonard Street on the east side of Shasta View. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions. Shown on Area 11 map.

B Girvan Estates, Unit 1 Generally located at Girvan Road and Pit Road, west of Pit Road and on the North side Girvan. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, hardscape, and other identified improvements along the primary street at entry. Shown on Area 5 map.

B Gold Hills, Units 3A, 5,
6, R1, & R2
Landscape is generally located at the intersection of Hope Lane and Titleist Way. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, slope protection, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions. Shown on Area 19 map.

B Heritage Oaks Generally located south of the intersection of Old Alturas Rd and Oak Mesa Ln and on the south side of Old Alturas. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions. See Oak Mesa Area 3 map.

B Land Park, Units 1-4,
& R1
Generally located west side of Buenaventura Blvd. north and south of the intersection of Buenaventura Boulevard and Sutro Mine Road. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, hardscape, rock, and other identified improvements within the Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update – District B Page 8 subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions. Two maps for this LMD, shown on area 17 maps.

B Monterey Springs,
Units 1 & 2/ Quail
Hollow, Unit 3
Generally located at the intersection of Churn Creek Road and Palacio Drive; on both sides of Palacio and on the east side of Churn Creek Road. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, slope protection, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions.

Includes Pedestrian Path on the North end to be kept clear of debris. Shown on Area 8 map.

B Mountain View
Heights, Unit 4
Generally located west side of Shasta View Drive and South side of Palacio near the intersection of Palacio Drive and Shasta View Dr., to just north of the intersection of Shasta View and Hemingway. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions. See Alder Creek, Area 16 map.

B Oak Meadows
Estates, Unit 1
Generally located on the eastside of Shasta View Drive from the intersection of Shasta View Drive and Galaxy Way both north and south. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions. Shown on Area 15 map.

B Oak Mesa Estates,
Unit 2
Generally located south of the intersection of Old Alturas Rd and Oak Mesa Ln and on the south side of Old Alturas. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions. Shown on Area 3 map.

B Ravenwood Estates,
Units 11-16, & 18
Generally located east and west of the intersection of Old Alturas Road and Rose Tree Lane and additional area west on Old Alturas. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions. Two maps for this LMD shown on Areas 10 & 14 maps.

B Robles North, Units 1
& 2
Landscape is generally located at the intersection of Meadowview Drive and Robles Drive. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions.

Planter strip along fence is all that is included. Does not include slopes. Shown on Area 18 map.

B Shasta View Manor,
Unit 1
Generally located north and east of the intersection of Tarmac Road and Shasta View to Charade on the east and to the south of Viking on the North.

The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions. Shown on Area 9 map.

B St. Thomas Heights,
Unit 1
Generally located at the intersection of Hilltop Drive and St. Thomas Parkway along the North side of Hilltop. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, slope protection, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions. Shown on Area 1 map.

B Stillwater Heights,
Unit1
Generally located at the intersection of Old 44 Drive and Carson Drive. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, slope protection, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions.

Shown on Area 6 map.

B Tierra Bendito Generally located south side of Old Alturas Road near the intersection of Oak Mesa Lane and Old Alturas and along the east side of Oak Mesa Lane. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions. Does not include hillside, only planter strip along sidewalk. See Oak Mesa Area 3 map.

Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Attachment A
Maps
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 666
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 667
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 668
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 669
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 670
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 671
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 672
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 673
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 674
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 675
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 676
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 677
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 678
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 679
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 680
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 681
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 682
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 683
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 684
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 685
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Attachment B
Estimated Expenses
Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022‐23
Landscape Maintenance District B (A‐170‐075‐051)
Multiple
FY 2021‐22 FY 2022‐23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $18,547
REVENUE $86,159
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day‐to‐Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 63,057 64,319 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance .............................................................................. 5,556 0 Work that falls outside regular, day‐to‐day maintenance schedule, including by not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0

2. Electric/Water Usage  ........................................................................................ 28,208 28,208 96,821 92,527
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 2,508 2,000 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 382 258 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$99,711

ESTIMATED
$94,785
DISTRICT BALANCE $4,995

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 4,995 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 ‐ June 30, 2023) ............... 94,785 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 0 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance)  ................ 89,790 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 1268 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI.......................................     71.00     71.00 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed ..................................................    72.41 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $   71.00 71.00 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 ‐ 11 of the Engineer's Report.  A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June).  Exception: County Admin 0 Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Attachment C
Assessment Roll
Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 050-680-001 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-002 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-003 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-004 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-005 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-006 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-007 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-008 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-009 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-010 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-011 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-012 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-013 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-014 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-015 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-016 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-017 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-018 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-019 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-020 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-021 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-022 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-023 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-024 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-025 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-026 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-027 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-028 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-029 Girvan Estates 1
B 050-680-030 Girvan Estates 1
B 054-630-001 Highland Oaks 1
Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 054-630-002 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-003 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-004 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-005 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-006 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-007 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-008 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-009 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-010 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-011 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-012 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-013 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-014 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-015 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-016 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-017 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-018 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-019 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-020 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-021 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-022 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-023 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-024 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-025 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-026 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-630-027 Highland Oaks 1
B 054-690-001 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-690-002 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-690-003 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-690-004 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-690-005 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-690-006 Carriage Glen Estates 1
Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 054-690-007 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-690-008 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-690-009 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-690-010 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-690-011 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-690-012 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-690-013 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-690-014 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-690-015 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-690-016 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-690-017 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-690-018 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-690-019 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-710-001 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-710-002 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-710-003 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-710-004 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-710-005 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-710-006 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-710-007 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-710-008 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-710-009 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-710-010 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-710-011 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-710-012 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-710-013 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-710-014 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-710-015 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-710-017 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-710-018 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-710-019 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-710-021 Carriage Glen Estates 1
Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 054-720-001 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-002 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-003 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-004 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-006 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-007 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-008 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-009 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-010 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-011 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-012 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-013 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-014 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-015 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-016 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-017 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-018 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-019 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-020 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-021 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-022 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-023 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-024 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-025 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-026 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-027 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-028 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-029 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-030 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-031 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-032 Copper Creek 1
B 054-720-034 Copper Creek 1
Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 054-740-001 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-002 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-003 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-004 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-005 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-006 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-007 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-008 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-009 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-010 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-011 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-012 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-013 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-015 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-016 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-017 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-018 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-019 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-020 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-021 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-022 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-023 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-024 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-025 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-026 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-027 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-030 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-031 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-032 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-033 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-034 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-035 Copper Creek 1
Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 054-740-036 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-037 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-038 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-039 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-040 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-041 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-042 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-043 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-044 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-045 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-046 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-047 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-048 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-049 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-050 Copper Creek 1
B 054-740-053 Copper Creek 1
B 054-800-001 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-002 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-003 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-004 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-005 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-006 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-007 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-008 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-009 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-010 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-011 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-012 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-013 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-014 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-015 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-016 Carriage Glen Estates 1
Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 054-800-017 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-018 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-019 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-020 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-021 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-022 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-023 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-024 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-025 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-026 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-027 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-028 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-029 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-030 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-031 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 054-800-032 Carriage Glen Estates 1
B 056-620-001 Robles North 1
B 056-620-002 Robles North 1
B 056-620-003 Robles North 1
B 056-620-004 Robles North 1
B 056-620-005 Robles North 1
B 056-620-006 Robles North 1
B 056-620-007 Robles North 1
B 056-620-008 Robles North 1
B 056-620-009 Robles North 1
B 056-620-010 Robles North 1
B 056-620-011 Robles North 1
B 056-620-012 Robles North 1
B 056-620-013 Robles North 1
B 056-620-014 Robles North 1
B 056-620-015 Robles North 1
B 056-620-016 Robles North 1
Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 056-620-019 Robles North 1
B 056-620-020 Robles North 1
B 056-620-021 Robles North 1
B 056-620-022 Robles North 1
B 056-620-023 Robles North 1
B 056-620-024 Robles North 1
B 056-620-025 Robles North 1
B 056-620-028 Robles North 1
B 056-620-030 Robles North 1
B 056-630-001 Robles North 1
B 056-630-002 Robles North 1
B 056-630-003 Robles North 1
B 056-630-004 Robles North 1
B 056-630-005 Robles North 1
B 056-630-006 Robles North 1
B 056-630-007 Robles North 1
B 056-630-008 Robles North 1
B 056-630-009 Robles North 1
B 056-630-010 Robles North 1
B 056-630-011 Robles North 1
B 056-630-012 Robles North 1
B 056-630-013 Robles North 1
B 056-630-014 Robles North 1
B 056-630-015 Robles North 1
B 056-630-016 Robles North 1
B 056-630-017 Robles North 1
B 056-630-018 Robles North 1
B 067-490-024 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-025 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-026 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-027 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-028 East Redding Estates 1
Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 067-490-029 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-030 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-031 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-032 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-033 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-034 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-035 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-036 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-037 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-038 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-039 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-040 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-041 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-042 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-043 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-044 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-045 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-046 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-047 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-048 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-049 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-050 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-051 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-052 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-053 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-054 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-055 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-056 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-057 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-058 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-059 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-060 East Redding Estates 1
Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 067-490-061 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-062 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-063 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-064 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-065 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-066 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-067 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-068 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-069 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-070 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-071 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-072 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-073 East Redding Estates 1
B 067-490-074 East Redding Estates 1
B 073-100-086 Gold Hills 1
B 073-290-005 Gold Hills 1
B 073-290-006 Gold Hills 1
B 073-290-007 Gold Hills 1
B 073-290-008 Gold Hills 1
B 073-290-009 Gold Hills 1
B 073-290-010 Gold Hills 1
B 073-290-011 Gold Hills 1
B 073-290-012 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-003 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-004 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-005 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-006 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-007 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-008 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-009 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-010 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-011 Gold Hills 1
Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 073-480-012 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-013 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-014 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-015 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-016 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-017 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-018 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-019 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-020 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-021 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-022 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-023 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-024 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-025 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-026 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-027 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-028 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-029 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-030 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-032 Gold Hills 1
B 073-480-034 Gold Hills 1
B 073-510-001 Gold Hills 1
B 073-510-002 Gold Hills 1
B 073-510-003 Gold Hills 1
B 073-510-004 Gold Hills 1
B 073-510-005 Gold Hills 1
B 073-510-006 Gold Hills 1
B 073-510-007 Gold Hills 1
B 073-510-008 Gold Hills 1
B 073-510-009 Gold Hills 1
B 073-510-010 Gold Hills 1
B 073-510-011 Gold Hills 1
Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 073-510-012 Gold Hills 1
B 073-510-013 Gold Hills 1
B 073-510-014 Gold Hills 1
B 073-510-015 Gold Hills 1
B 073-510-016 Gold Hills 1
B 073-510-017 Gold Hills 1
B 073-510-018 Gold Hills 1
B 073-510-019 Gold Hills 1
B 073-510-022 Gold Hills 1
B 077-430-055 Oak Mesa Estates 1
B 077-430-056 Oak Mesa Estates 1
B 077-430-057 Oak Mesa Estates 1
B 077-430-058 Oak Mesa Estates 1
B 077-430-059 Oak Mesa Estates 1
B 077-430-060 Oak Mesa Estates 1
B 077-430-061 Oak Mesa Estates 1
B 077-430-062 Oak Mesa Estates 1
B 077-430-063 Oak Mesa Estates 1
B 077-430-064 Oak Mesa Estates 1
B 077-430-065 Oak Mesa Estates 1
B 077-430-066 Oak Mesa Estates 1
B 077-430-067 Oak Mesa Estates 1
B 077-430-068 Oak Mesa Estates 1
B 077-430-069 Oak Mesa Estates 1
B 077-430-070 Darsha Lane 1
B 077-430-071 Darsha Lane 1
B 077-430-072 Darsha Lane 1
B 077-430-073 Darsha Lane 1
B 077-430-074 Darsha Lane 1
B 077-430-075 Darsha Lane 1
B 077-470-001 Heritage Oaks 1
B 077-470-002 Heritage Oaks 1
Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 077-470-003 Heritage Oaks 1
B 077-470-004 Heritage Oaks 1
B 077-470-005 Heritage Oaks 1
B 077-470-006 Heritage Oaks 1
B 077-470-007 Heritage Oaks 1
B 077-470-008 Heritage Oaks 1
B 077-470-009 Heritage Oaks 1
B 077-470-010 Heritage Oaks 1
B 077-470-011 Heritage Oaks 1
B 077-470-012 Heritage Oaks 1
B 077-470-013 Heritage Oaks 1
B 077-470-014 Heritage Oaks 1
B 077-470-015 Heritage Oaks 1
B 077-470-016 Heritage Oaks 1
B 077-470-017 Heritage Oaks 1
B 077-470-018 Heritage Oaks 1
B 077-470-019 Heritage Oaks 1
B 077-470-020 Heritage Oaks 1
B 077-500-001 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-002 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-003 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-004 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-005 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-006 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-007 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-008 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-009 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-010 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-011 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-012 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-013 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-014 Ravenwood Estates 1
Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 077-500-015 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-016 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-017 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-018 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-019 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-020 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-021 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-022 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-023 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-024 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-025 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-026 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-027 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-028 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-029 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-030 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-031 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-032 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-033 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-034 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-035 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-038 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-039 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-040 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-041 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-042 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-045 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-046 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-047 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-048 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-049 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-050 Ravenwood Estates 1
Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 077-500-051 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-052 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-053 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-054 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-055 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-057 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-500-058 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-001 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-002 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-003 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-004 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-007 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-008 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-009 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-010 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-011 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-012 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-013 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-014 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-015 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-016 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-017 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-018 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-019 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-020 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-021 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-022 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-023 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-024 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-025 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-026 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-027 Ravenwood Estates 1
Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 077-510-028 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-029 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-510-031 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-001 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-002 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-003 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-004 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-005 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-006 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-007 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-008 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-009 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-010 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-011 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-012 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-013 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-014 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-015 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-016 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-017 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-018 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-019 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-020 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-021 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-022 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-023 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-024 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-025 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-026 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-027 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-028 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-029 Ravenwood Estates 1
Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 077-520-030 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-520-031 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-001 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-002 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-003 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-004 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-005 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-006 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-007 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-008 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-009 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-010 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-011 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-012 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-013 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-014 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-015 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-016 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-017 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-018 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-019 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-020 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-021 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-022 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-023 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-024 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-025 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-026 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-027 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-028 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-029 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-030 Ravenwood Estates 1
Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 077-530-031 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-032 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-033 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-034 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-035 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-530-036 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-550-001 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-550-002 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-550-003 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-550-004 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-550-005 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-550-006 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-550-007 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-550-008 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-550-009 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-550-010 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-550-011 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-550-012 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-550-013 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-550-014 Ravenwood Estates 1
B 077-560-001 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-002 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-003 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-004 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-005 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-006 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-007 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-008 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-009 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-010 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-011 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-012 Tierra Bendito 1
Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 077-560-013 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-014 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-015 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-016 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-017 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-018 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-019 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-020 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-021 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-022 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-023 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-024 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-025 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-026 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-560-027 Tierra Bendito 1
B 077-570-001 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-002 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-003 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-004 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-005 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-006 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-007 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-008 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-009 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-010 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-011 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-012 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-013 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-014 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-015 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-016 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-017 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 077-570-018 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-019 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-020 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-021 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-022 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-023 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-024 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-025 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-026 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-027 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-028 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-029 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-030 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-031 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-032 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-033 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-034 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-035 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-036 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-037 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-038 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-039 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-040 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-041 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-042 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-043 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-044 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-045 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-046 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-047 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-048 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-049 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 077-570-050 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-051 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-052 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-053 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-054 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-055 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-056 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-057 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-570-058 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-580-001 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-002 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-003 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-004 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-005 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-006 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-007 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-008 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-009 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-010 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-011 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-012 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-013 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-014 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-015 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-016 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-017 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-018 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-019 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-020 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-021 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-022 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-023 Mountain View Heights 1
Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 077-580-024 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-025 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-026 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-027 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-028 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-580-029 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-001 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-002 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-003 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-004 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-005 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-006 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-007 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-008 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-009 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-010 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-011 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-012 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-013 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-014 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-015 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-016 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-017 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-018 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-019 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-020 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-021 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-022 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-590-023 Mountain View Heights 1
B 077-600-001 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-002 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-003 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 077-600-004 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-005 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-006 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-007 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-008 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-009 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-010 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-011 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-012 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-013 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-014 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-015 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-016 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-017 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-018 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-019 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-020 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-021 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-022 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-023 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-024 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-025 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-026 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-027 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-028 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-029 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-030 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-031 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-032 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-033 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-034 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-035 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 077-600-036 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-037 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-038 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-039 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-040 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-041 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-042 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-043 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-044 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-045 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-046 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-047 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-048 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-053 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-056 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-057 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-060 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 077-600-061 Alder Creek (Hacienda Hts) 1
B 104-540-034 Almaden Estates 1
B 104-540-035 Almaden Estates 1
B 104-540-036 Almaden Estates 1
B 104-540-037 Almaden Estates 1
B 104-540-038 Almaden Estates 1
B 104-540-039 Almaden Estates 1
B 104-540-040 Almaden Estates 1
B 104-540-041 Almaden Estates 1
B 104-540-042 Almaden Estates 1
B 104-540-043 Almaden Estates 1
B 104-540-044 Almaden Estates 1
B 104-540-045 Almaden Estates 1
B 104-540-046 Almaden Estates 1
B 104-540-047 Almaden Estates 1
Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 104-540-050 Almaden Estates 1
B 104-540-051 Almaden Estates 1
B 104-540-052 Almaden Estates 1
B 104-540-053 Almaden Estates 1
B 104-540-054 Almaden Estates 1
B 109-280-001 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-002 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-003 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-004 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-005 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-006 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-007 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-008 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-009 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-010 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-011 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-012 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-013 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-014 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-015 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-016 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-017 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-018 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-021 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-022 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-023 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-024 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-025 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-026 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-027 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-028 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-029 Shasta View Manor 1
Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 109-280-030 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-031 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-032 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-033 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-034 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-035 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-036 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-037 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-050 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-280-051 Shasta View Manor 1
B 109-290-001 East Redding Estates 1
B 109-290-002 East Redding Estates 1
B 109-290-003 East Redding Estates 1
B 109-290-004 East Redding Estates 1
B 109-290-005 East Redding Estates 1
B 109-290-006 East Redding Estates 1
B 109-290-007 East Redding Estates 1
B 109-290-008 East Redding Estates 1
B 109-290-009 East Redding Estates 1
B 109-290-010 East Redding Estates 1
B 109-290-011 East Redding Estates 1
B 109-290-012 East Redding Estates 1
B 109-290-013 East Redding Estates 1
B 110-240-038 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-240-039 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-240-040 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-240-041 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-240-042 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-240-043 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-240-044 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-240-045 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-240-046 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 110-240-047 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-240-048 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-240-049 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-240-050 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-001 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-002 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-003 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-004 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-005 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-006 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-007 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-008 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-009 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-010 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-011 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-012 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-013 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-014 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-015 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-016 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-017 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-018 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-019 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-020 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-021 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-022 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-023 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-024 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-025 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-026 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-027 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-028 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 110-300-029 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-030 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-031 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-032 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-033 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-034 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-035 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-036 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-037 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-038 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-039 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-040 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-041 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-042 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-043 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-044 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-300-045 Forest Homes Phase 3 1
B 110-330-001 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-002 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-003 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-004 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-005 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-006 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-009 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-010 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-011 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-012 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-013 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-014 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-015 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-016 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-017 Oak Meadows Estates 1
Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 110-330-018 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-019 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-020 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-021 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-022 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-023 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-024 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-025 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-026 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-027 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-028 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-029 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-030 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-031 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-032 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-033 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-034 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-035 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-039 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-040 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-041 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-042 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-043 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-044 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-045 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-046 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-047 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-048 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-049 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-050 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-051 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-052 Oak Meadows Estates 1
Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 110-330-053 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-054 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-056 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-057 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-060 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 110-330-063 Oak Meadows Estates 1
B 111-250-001 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-002 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-003 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-004 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-005 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-006 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-007 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-008 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-009 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-010 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-011 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-012 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-013 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-014 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-015 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-016 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-017 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-018 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-019 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-020 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-021 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-022 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-023 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-024 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-025 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-026 Stillwater Heights 1
Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 111-250-027 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-028 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-029 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-030 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-031 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-032 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-034 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-035 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-250-037 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-001 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-002 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-003 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-004 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-005 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-006 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-007 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-008 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-009 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-010 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-011 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-014 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-015 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-016 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-017 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-018 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-019 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-020 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-021 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-022 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-023 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-024 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-025 Stillwater Heights 1
Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 111-260-026 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-027 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-029 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-031 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-032 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-033 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-034 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-035 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-036 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-260-037 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-001 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-002 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-003 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-004 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-005 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-006 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-007 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-008 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-009 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-010 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-011 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-012 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-013 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-014 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-015 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-016 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-017 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-018 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-019 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-020 Stillwater Heights 1
B 111-270-021 Stillwater Heights 1
B 115-410-002 Land Park 1
Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 115-410-003 Land Park 1
B 115-410-004 Land Park 1
B 115-410-005 Land Park 1
B 115-440-001 Land Park 1
B 115-440-002 Land Park 1
B 115-440-003 Land Park 1
B 115-440-004 Land Park 1
B 115-440-005 Land Park 1
B 115-440-006 Land Park 1
B 115-440-007 Land Park 1
B 115-440-008 Land Park 1
B 115-440-009 Land Park 1
B 115-440-010 Land Park 1
B 115-440-011 Land Park 1
B 115-440-012 Land Park 1
B 115-440-013 Land Park 1
B 115-440-014 Land Park 1
B 115-440-015 Land Park 1
B 115-440-016 Land Park 1
B 115-440-017 Land Park 1
B 115-440-018 Land Park 1
B 115-440-019 Land Park 1
B 115-440-020 Land Park 1
B 115-440-021 Land Park 1
B 115-440-022 Land Park 1
B 115-450-001 Land Park 1
B 115-450-002 Land Park 1
B 115-450-003 Land Park 1
B 115-450-004 Land Park 1
B 115-450-005 Land Park 1
B 115-450-006 Land Park 1
B 115-450-007 Land Park 1
Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 115-450-008 Land Park 1
B 115-450-009 Land Park 1
B 115-450-010 Land Park 1
B 115-450-011 Land Park 1
B 115-450-012 Land Park 1
B 115-450-013 Land Park 1
B 115-450-014 Land Park 1
B 115-450-015 Land Park 1
B 115-450-016 Land Park 1
B 115-450-017 Land Park 1
B 115-450-018 Land Park 1
B 115-450-019 Land Park 1
B 115-450-020 Land Park 1
B 115-450-021 Land Park 1
B 115-450-022 Land Park 1
B 115-450-023 Land Park 1
B 115-450-024 Land Park 1
B 115-450-025 Land Park 1
B 115-450-026 Land Park 1
B 115-450-027 Land Park 1
B 115-450-028 Land Park 1
B 115-450-029 Land Park 1
B 115-450-030 Land Park 1
B 115-450-031 Land Park 1
B 115-450-032 Land Park 1
B 115-450-033 Land Park 1
B 115-450-034 Land Park 1
B 115-450-035 Land Park 1
B 115-450-036 Land Park 1
B 115-450-037 Land Park 1
B 115-450-038 Land Park 1
B 115-450-039 Land Park 1
Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 115-450-040 Land Park 1
B 115-450-041 Land Park 1
B 115-450-042 Land Park 1
B 115-450-043 Land Park 1
B 115-470-001 Land Park 1
B 115-470-002 Land Park 1
B 115-470-003 Land Park 1
B 115-470-004 Land Park 1
B 115-470-005 Land Park 1
B 115-470-006 Land Park 1
B 115-470-007 Land Park 1
B 115-470-008 Land Park 1
B 115-470-009 Land Park 1
B 115-470-010 Land Park 1
B 115-470-011 Land Park 1
B 115-470-012 Land Park 1
B 115-470-013 Land Park 1
B 115-470-014 Land Park 1
B 115-470-015 Land Park 1
B 115-470-016 Land Park 1
B 115-470-017 Land Park 1
B 115-470-018 Land Park 1
B 115-470-019 Land Park 1
B 115-470-020 Land Park 1
B 115-470-027 Land Park 1
B 115-470-028 Land Park 1
B 115-470-029 Land Park 1
B 115-470-030 Land Park 1
B 115-470-031 Land Park 1
B 115-470-032 Land Park 1
B 115-470-033 Land Park 1
B 115-470-036 Land Park 1
Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 115-470-037 Land Park 1
B 115-470-038 Land Park 1
B 115-470-039 Land Park 1
B 115-470-040 Land Park 1
B 115-470-042 Land Park 1
B 116-480-058 Quail Hollow 1
B 116-480-059 Quail Hollow 1
B 116-480-060 Quail Hollow 1
B 116-480-061 Quail Hollow 1
B 116-480-062 Quail Hollow 1
B 116-480-063 Quail Hollow 1
B 116-480-064 Quail Hollow 1
B 116-480-065 Quail Hollow 1
B 116-480-066 Quail Hollow 1
B 116-480-067 Quail Hollow 1
B 116-480-068 Quail Hollow 1
B 116-480-069 Quail Hollow 1
B 116-480-070 Quail Hollow 1
B 116-480-071 Quail Hollow 1
B 116-480-072 Quail Hollow 1
B 117-140-001 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-002 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-003 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-004 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-005 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-006 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-007 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-008 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-009 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-010 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-011 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-012 St. Thomas Heights 1
Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 117-140-013 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-014 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-016 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-017 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-018 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-019 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-021 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-022 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-023 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-024 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-025 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-026 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-027 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-028 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-029 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-030 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-031 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-032 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-033 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-034 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-035 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-036 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-037 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-038 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-039 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-040 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-041 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-042 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-043 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-044 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-045 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-046 St. Thomas Heights 1
Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 117-140-047 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-048 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-049 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-050 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-051 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-052 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-054 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-140-055 St. Thomas Heights 1
B 117-240-024 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-240-025 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-240-026 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-240-027 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-240-028 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-240-029 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-240-030 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-240-031 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-240-032 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-240-033 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-240-034 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-240-035 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-240-036 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-240-037 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-240-038 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-240-039 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-240-040 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-240-045 Quail Hollow 1
B 117-240-046 Quail Hollow 1
B 117-240-047 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-420-001 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-420-002 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-420-003 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-420-004 Monterey Springs 1
Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 117-420-005 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-420-006 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-420-007 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-420-008 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-001 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-002 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-003 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-004 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-005 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-006 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-007 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-008 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-009 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-010 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-011 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-012 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-013 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-014 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-015 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-016 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-017 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-018 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-019 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-020 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-021 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-022 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-023 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-024 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-025 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-026 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-027 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-028 Monterey Springs 1
Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
B 117-480-029 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-480-030 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-490-001 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-490-002 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-490-003 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-490-004 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-490-005 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-490-006 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-490-007 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-490-008 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-490-009 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-490-010 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-490-011 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-490-012 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-490-013 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-490-014 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-490-015 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-490-016 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-490-017 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-490-018 Monterey Springs 1
B 117-490-019 Monterey Springs 1
Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD B 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Landscape
Maintenance
District C
Blossom Park, Units 1 - 5, & R1 - R3
Churn Creek Park, including Unit R1
Fairway Estates, Units 1 & R1
Forest Hills Estates, Units 1 - 4
Potter Manor, Unit 1

Annual Update for Fiscal Year 2022-23

Prepared under the provisions of the
City of Redding Municipal Code and
the Landscape & Lighting Act of 1972
of the California Streets & Highways Code
ENGINEER’S REPORT
Prepared by:

Chuck Aukland, PE
Director of Public Works / City Engineer
June 2022
Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 730
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update – District C Page 2 Overview
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to update the Landscape Maintenance District (District) budget and assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. The District is authorized and administered under provisions of the City of Redding Municipal Code, the “Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972” (California Streets & Highway Code §22500 et. seq.), “Proposition 218” (Article XIIID of the California Constitution), and the “Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act” (California Senate Bill 919). The aforementioned are collectively referred to as “Assessment Law.” This Engineer’s Report addresses the annual maintenance of identified improvements within the District.

This Report describes the District, any changes to the District, and the proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. The proposed assessment is based on the historical and estimated cost to maintain the improvements that provide direct and special benefits to properties within the District. The costs of the improvements and the annual levy include all expenditures, deficits, surpluses, revenues, and reserves.

Following consideration of all public comments and written protests at a noticed public hearing and review of the Report, the City Council may order amendments to the Report or confirm the Report as submitted. Following final approval of the Report and confirmation of the assessments, the Council may order the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 pursuant to the Act. Once the levy is approved, the assessment information will be submitted to the Shasta County Auditor-Controller and included on the property tax roll for each benefiting parcel for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

Effect of Proposition 218
On November 5, 1996, the electorate approved Proposition 218, Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution. The Article XIIID affects all assessments upon real property for a special benefit conferred on the property. Assessments imposed under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 are these types of benefit assessments.

The provision of Proposition 218 can be summarized in four general areas:

1. Strengthens the general and special tax provisions of Propositions 13 and 62;

2. Extends the initiative process to all local taxes, assessments, fees, and charges;

3. Adds substantive and procedural requirements to assessments; and,

4. Adds substantive and procedural requirements to property-related fees and charges.

Prior to Proposition 218, property owners petitioned Zones that were added to the Districts.

Subsequent to Proposition 218, all property owners were balloted for inclusion into the Districts in order to be in compliance with Proposition 218. This Report does not propose to increase the assessments for the Districts, including any annexations, above the approved annual Consumer Price Index (CPI). Increases, if any, above this amount were addressed in separate reports approved at prior Council meetings. Any subsequent increases in the assessments, as defined by Government Code Sections 53750-53756 (Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act), will be subject to the procedures and approval process of Section 4 of Article XIIID.

Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update – District C Page 3 PART A:

Assessment Map (See Part A Attachment)
Landscape Maintenance District C is located in the City of Redding, County of Shasta, State of California. The maps are keyed to the lots within each subdivision in existence at the time of District formation. The District boundaries are depicted on the Part A Attachments and generally include
Blossom Park, Units 1 - 5, & R1 - R3
Churn Creek Park, including Unit R1
Fairway Estates, Units 1 & R1
Forest Hills Estates, Units 1 - 4
Potter Manor, Unit 1
District Improvements and Location of Improvements
The plans and specifications for the identified improvements are on file in the City’s Planning Department. The plans may depict the plant materials, irrigation system, and other facilities and appurtenances. The plans and specifications are hereby incorporated into this report by reference.

PART B:

Estimated Maintenance Expenses (see Part B Attachment)
Attached for the District is a cost breakdown that includes actual costs from the previous fiscal year and the projected costs, assessment, and recommended levy amount for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. Following is a description of the costs outlined in the Part B Attachment.

Maintenance Expenses
Estimated District maintenance expenses include the total costs of maintaining and servicing the District's improved areas. The maintenance costs included in the Part B Attachment are estimates. The actual costs may vary and will be determined based on needs as determined by the City of Redding Parks Superintendent.

Contract (day to day) Maintenance - The day-to-day landscape maintenance is generally accomplished through contract with a private landscape maintenance company and includes, but it not necessarily limited to, weed control, plant maintenance (fertilizing, pruning, etc.), and litter removal.

Additional Maintenance – maintenance beyond the day-to-day required maintenance may be performed by either the contracted landscape provider or Parks or other City department staff and includes plant replacement, mulching, irrigation system repairs, vandalism repairs, and entrance sign repairs. In addition, funding set aside for additional maintenance is also intended to account for a more significant capital improvement including potential upgrades to the irrigation system to comply with water conservation standards, landscape replacements to enhance aging and dated landscaped areas, and other similar improvements. Efforts are being made to replace any dead or dying plants with more drought tolerant species when applicable.

Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update – District C Page 4 Vegetation Management/Detention Basin work is specific to the Districts that include these features and can be performed by either the contracted landscape provider or City staff.

Detention Basin work generally occurs annually in the fall before the rains, and Vegetation Management work generally occurs annually in late spring when tall weeds can pose a fire hazard. Vegetation Management is limited to those areas shown on the map (Part A Attachment) as covered by District maintenance and subsequent costs.

Electric/Water Usage describes the actual (previous fiscal year) and estimated (upcoming fiscal year) costs associated with irrigation and the electricity to run the irrigation controllers. In 2013, an effort to upgrade irrigation systems to include SMART meters began in an attempt to lower the costs associated with landscape irrigation. The City continues to explore SMART, green, and solar power alternatives for its landscaping needs.

Administrative Expenses
Estimated District Administrative Expenses - describes administrative work performed by City staff including but not necessarily limited to the preparation of the annual Engineer's Report, staff reports and resolutions for City Council review and action, review of actual costs and preparation of annual estimates, review of all Parcel Numbers and maps associated with every district, any required map updates when necessary, and the preparation of an annual Special Assessments report and its subsequent filing with the County Assessor's Office.

County Administrative Fee – The district assessment and levy are processed through the County and paid by the property owners on their property tax bill. The County charges a fee of $68 plus the total Benefit Unit count in each Landscape Maintenance District multiplied by $0.15.

Assessment and Levy Calculation
Allowable District Reserve: The goal of all LMDs is to have an operating reserve between a minimum of 10 percent of the operating budget and a maximum of 2/3 of total operating expenses. The District cost summary references this reserve which is based on total maintenance and administrative expenses (not include County administrative fee) and is used to cover the cost of maintenance that occurs before December's levy payments have been received in January. If the reserve is less than 10 percent, the levy will remain closer to the maximum assessment allowable until the reserve has been built up. If the reserve exceeds 2/3 operating expenses, the levy is lowered, suspended for a period of time, or refunded back to property owners.

Maximum Assessment Allowable: Pursuant to Government Code Section 53739, the amount of each Fiscal Year's assessment shall be adjusted for inflation in an amount not to exceed that provided by the “20-City Construction Cost Index” (CCI) from the most recent March (March 2022 - March 2023) issue of the Engineering News-Record. The maximum authorized assessments contained in this Engineer’s Report represent a CCI increase over the previous year’s amount. This increase is based on the CCI and is consistent with the cost indexing provisions approved by property owners. Therefore, the vote requirements of Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution do not apply to these proceedings.

For Fiscal Year 2022-2023, the applicable CCI increase is 8.9%.

In the event that assessment revenues are insufficient to cover the cost of annual maintenance activities, reserves may be used, or services may be reduced to avoid a deficit.

Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update – District C Page 5 The Lot Levy as noted on the Part B Attachment is the lesser of the amount calculated to be needed for each lot (total fund needed divided by number of lots/acres), and the maximum assessment amount as dictated by the CCI. The levy is the amount that will actually be assessed on each benefit unit.

The levy is the amount that is actually charged based on the funds needed to maintain landscape and reserves for the year. The assessment is the amount that is adjusted each year by the CCI. The levy cannot exceed the Maximum Assessment Allowable.

In the event that assessment revenues are insufficient to cover the cost of annual maintenance activities, services may be reduced to avoid a deficit.

No bonds will be issued in connection with these Districts.

PART C:

Analysis of Benefits of Properties being Assessed
Consistent with City Council Policy Number 1705 (Procedures and Policies Governing Landscape Maintenance Districts), construction and maintenance of the identified improvements were conditions of development for the subdivision. The landscaping amenities beautify the community by improving the unpaved areas that would otherwise become overgrown and unsightly. The improvement benefits which contribute both to the beautification and marketability of the lots within the subdivision, are listed in the table below. This is the special benefit conferred upon each assessed lot within the District. The benefit received by the identified parcel is “special” in that the City does not generally provide such improvements or services to the public at large.

Method of Apportionment
The law does not require lots to be contiguous to the improvements, only that the assessment is distributed across all lots in proportion to the degree of special benefit received from the improvements. The proposed apportionment methodology is based on a uniform special benefit and assessment over all developable lots within the District. The total number of benefit units (BUs) may vary from fiscal year to fiscal year due to parcel changes and/or land use reclassifications.

Assessment Roll (See Part C Attachment)
The Part C Attachment contains a list of the Shasta County Assessor's Parcel numbers within the Assessment Districts for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office of the City Clerk and is incorporated in this Report by reference. The list is keyed to the records of the Shasta County Assessor, which are incorporated herein by reference.

Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Attachment A
Maps
Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 736
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 737
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 738
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 739
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Attachment B
Estimated Expenses
Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022‐23
Landscape Maintenance District C (A‐170‐075‐052)
Multiple
FY 2021‐22 FY 2022‐23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $825
REVENUE $0
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day‐to‐Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 0 0 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance .............................................................................. 0 0 Work that falls outside regular, day‐to‐day maintenance schedule, including by not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0

2. Electric/Water Usage  ........................................................................................ 0 0 0 0
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 309 500 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 0 0 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$309

ESTIMATED
$500
DISTRICT BALANCE $516

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 516 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 ‐ June 30, 2023) ............... 500 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 0 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance)  ................ 0 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 345 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI.......................................   7.46   7.46 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed ..................................................   .00 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $     .00 .00 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 ‐ 11 of the Engineer's Report.  A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June).  Exception: County Admin 0 Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Attachment C
Assessment Roll
Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
C 073-310-002 Blossom Park 1
C 073-310-003 Blossom Park 1
C 073-310-004 Blossom Park 1
C 073-310-005 Blossom Park 1
C 073-310-006 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-001 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-002 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-003 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-004 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-005 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-006 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-007 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-008 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-009 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-010 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-011 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-012 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-013 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-014 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-015 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-016 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-017 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-018 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-019 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-020 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-021 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-022 Blossom Park 1
C 073-320-023 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-001 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-002 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-003 Blossom Park 1
Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
C 073-330-004 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-005 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-006 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-007 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-008 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-009 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-010 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-011 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-012 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-013 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-014 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-015 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-016 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-017 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-018 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-019 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-020 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-021 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-022 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-023 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-024 Blossom Park 1
C 073-330-025 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-006 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-008 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-009 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-010 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-011 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-012 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-013 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-014 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-016 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-017 Blossom Park 1
Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
C 073-350-018 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-019 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-020 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-021 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-022 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-023 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-024 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-025 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-029 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-030 Blossom Park 1
C 073-350-032 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-001 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-002 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-003 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-004 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-005 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-006 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-007 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-008 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-009 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-010 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-011 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-012 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-013 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-014 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-015 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-016 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-017 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-018 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-019 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-020 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-021 Blossom Park 1
Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
C 073-360-022 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-023 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-024 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-025 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-026 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-027 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-028 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-029 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-032 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-033 Blossom Park 1
C 073-360-035 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-001 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-002 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-003 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-004 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-006 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-007 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-008 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-009 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-010 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-011 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-012 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-013 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-014 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-015 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-016 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-017 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-018 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-019 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-020 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-021 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-022 Blossom Park 1
Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
C 073-440-023 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-024 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-025 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-026 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-027 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-028 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-029 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-030 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-031 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-032 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-033 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-034 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-035 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-036 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-037 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-038 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-039 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-040 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-041 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-042 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-043 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-044 Blossom Park 1
C 073-440-047 Blossom Park 1
C 073-460-001 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-002 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-003 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-004 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-005 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-006 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-007 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-008 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-009 Fairway Estates 1
Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
C 073-460-010 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-011 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-012 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-013 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-014 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-015 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-016 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-017 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-018 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-019 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-020 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-021 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-022 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-023 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-024 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-025 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-026 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-027 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-028 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-029 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-030 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-031 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-032 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-033 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-034 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-035 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-036 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-037 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-038 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-460-039 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-470-001 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-470-002 Fairway Estates 1
Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
C 073-470-003 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-470-004 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-470-005 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-470-006 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-470-007 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-470-008 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-470-009 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-470-010 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-470-011 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-470-012 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-470-013 Fairway Estates 1
C 073-490-001 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-002 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-003 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-004 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-005 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-006 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-007 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-008 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-009 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-010 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-011 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-012 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-013 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-014 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-015 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-016 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-017 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-018 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-019 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-020 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-021 Churn Creek Park 1
Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
C 073-490-022 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-023 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-024 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-025 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-026 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-027 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-028 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-029 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-490-030 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-500-001 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-500-002 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-500-003 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-500-004 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-500-005 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-500-006 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-500-007 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-500-008 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-500-009 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-500-010 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-500-011 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-500-012 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-500-013 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-500-014 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-500-015 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-500-016 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-500-017 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-500-018 Churn Creek Park 1
C 073-500-019 Churn Creek Park 1
C 110-030-023 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-024 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-026 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-027 Forest Hills Estates 1
Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
C 110-030-031 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-041 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-042 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-043 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-044 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-045 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-046 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-047 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-048 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-049 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-050 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-051 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-052 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-053 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-054 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-055 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-056 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-057 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-058 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-059 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-060 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-061 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-062 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-063 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-064 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-065 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-066 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-067 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-068 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-069 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-070 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-071 Forest Hills Estates 1
Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
C 110-030-072 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-073 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-074 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-030-075 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-260-008 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-009 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-010 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-011 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-012 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-013 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-014 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-015 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-016 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-017 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-018 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-019 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-020 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-021 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-022 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-023 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-024 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-025 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-026 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-027 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-028 Potter Manor 1
C 110-260-029 Potter Manor 1
C 110-290-001 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-002 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-003 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-004 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-005 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-006 Forest Hills Estates 1
Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) District APN Subdivision Benefit Unit
Part C Attachment
Assessment Roll FY 2022-23
C 110-290-007 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-008 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-009 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-010 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-011 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-012 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-013 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-014 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-015 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-016 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-017 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-018 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-019 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-026 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-027 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-028 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-029 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-030 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-031 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-032 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-033 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-034 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-035 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-040 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 110-290-042 Forest Hills Estates 1
C 116-280-001 Blossom Park 1
Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD C 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding
Landscape
Maintenance Districts (Excluding LMD A, B, & C filed under separate reports)

Annual Update for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Prepared under the provisions of the
City of Redding Municipal Code
and the Landscape & Lighting Act of 1972
of the California Streets & Highways Code

COMBINED ENGINEER'S REPORT
Prepared by:

Chuck Aukland, PE
Director of Public Works / City Engineer
June 2022

Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 755
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update- Combined Engineer’s Report Page 2

OVERVIEW
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to update the Landscape Maintenance District (District) budgets and assessments for the upcoming fiscal year. These Districts are authorized and administered under provisions of the City of Redding Municipal Code, the Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (the "Act"), and comply with Article XIIID of the California Constitution (enacted by Proposition 218).

This Combined Engineer's Report ("Report") includes all Districts (excluding Districts A, B, & C) approved by property owners and Council's actions through July 20, 2022, and addresses the annual maintenance of identified improvements within each District.

All Districts provide for the maintenance of landscaping located within the right-of-ways and easements of the respective district areas.

This Report describes the Districts, any changes to the Districts, and the proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. The proposed assessments are based on the historical and estimated costs to maintain the improvements that provide direct and special benefits to properties within the Districts. The costs of the improvements and the annual levy include all expenditures, deficits, surpluses, revenues, and reserves.

Following consideration of all public comments and written protests at a noticed public hearing and review of the Report, the City Council may order amendments to the Report or confirm the Report as submitted.

Following final approval of the Report and confirmation of the assessments, the Council may order the levy and collection of assessments for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 pursuant to the Act. Once the levy is approved, the assessment information will be submitted to the Shasta County Auditor-Controller and included on the property tax roll for each benefiting parcel for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

Effect of Proposition 218
On November 5, 1996, the electorate approved Proposition 218, Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution. The Article XIIID affects all assessments upon real property for a special benefit conferred on the property. Assessments imposed under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 are these types of benefit assessments.

The provision of Proposition 218 can be summarized in four general areas:

1. Strengthens the general and special tax provisions of Propositions 13 and 62;

2. Extends the initiative process to all local taxes, assessments, fees, and charges;

3. Adds substantive and procedural requirements to assessments; and,

4. Adds substantive and procedural requirements to property-related fees and charges.

Prior to Proposition 218, property owners petitioned Zones that were added to the Districts. Subsequent to Proposition 218, all property owners were balloted for inclusion into the Districts in order to be in compliance with Proposition 218. This Report does not propose to increase the assessments for the Districts, including any annexations, above the approved annual Consumer Price Index (CPI). Increases, if any, above this amount were addressed in separate reports approved at prior Council meetings. Any subsequent increases in the assessments, as defined by Government Code Sections 53750-53756 (Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act), will be subject to the procedures and approval process of Section 4 of Article XIIID.

Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update- Combined Engineer’s Report Page 3 PART A
Attached to this report is a map of each district (attachment A) and a table providing information on each district including subdivision name, improvement(s) and location of improvements, and the related benefits to the properties being assessed.

Assessment Map (See Part A Attachment)
These Districts are located in the City of Redding, County of Shasta, State of California. Maps are keyed to the lots within each subdivision in existence at the time of District formation. District boundaries are depicted and District improvements are conceptually depicted on the Part A Attachment and generally include the subdivisions listed in the table.

District Improvements and Location of Improvements
The improved areas generally consist of landscaping amenities as noted in the table. As noted above, the table also includes the general location of landscape area(s) for each District. The plans and specifications for the identified improvements are on file in the City’s Planning Department. The plans may depict the plant materials, irrigation system, and other facilities and appurtenances. The plans and specifications are hereby incorporated into this report by reference.

PART B: Estimated Maintenance Expenses (see Part B Attachment) Attached for each District is a cost breakdown that includes actual costs from the previous fiscal year and the projected costs, assessment, and recommended levy amount for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. Following is a description of the costs outlined in the Part B Attachment.

Maintenance Expenses
Estimated District maintenance expenses include the total costs of maintaining and servicing each District's improved areas. The maintenance costs included in the Part B Attachment are estimates. The actual costs may vary and will be determined based on needs as determined by the City of Redding Parks Superintendent.

Contract (day to day) Maintenance - The day-to-day landscape maintenance is generally accomplished through contract with a private landscape maintenance company and includes, but it not necessarily limited to, weed control, plant maintenance (fertilizing, pruning, etc.), and litter removal.

Additional Maintenance – maintenance beyond the day-to-day requirement may be performed by either the contracted landscape provider or Parks or other City department staff. This work includes plant replacement, mulching, irrigation system repairs, vandalism repairs, and entrance sign repairs. In addition, funding set aside for additional maintenance is also intended to account for a more significant capital improvement including potential upgrades to the irrigation system to comply with water conservation standards, landscape replacements to enhance aging and dated landscaped areas, and other similar improvements. Efforts are being made to replace any dead or dying plants with more drought tolerant species when applicable.

Vegetation Management/Detention Basin work is specific to the Districts that include these features and can be performed by either the contracted landscape provider or City staff. Detention Basin work generally Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update- Combined Engineer’s Report Page 4 occurs annually in the fall before the rains, and Vegetation Management work generally occurs annually in late spring when tall weeds can pose a fire hazard. Vegetation Management is limited to those areas shown on the map (Part A Attachment) as covered by District maintenance and subsequent costs.

Electric/Water Usage describes the actual (previous fiscal year) and estimated (upcoming fiscal year) costs associated with irrigation and the electricity to run the irrigation controllers. In 2013, an effort to upgrade irrigation systems to include SMART meters began in an attempt to lower the costs associated with landscape irrigation. The City continues to explore SMART, green, and solar power alternatives for its landscaping needs.

Administrative Expenses
Estimated District Administrative Expenses - describes administrative work performed by City staff including but not necessarily limited to the preparation of the annual Engineer's Report, staff reports and resolutions for City Council review and action, review of actual costs and preparation of annual estimates, review of all Parcel Numbers and maps associated with every district, any required map updates when necessary, and the preparation of an annual Special Assessments report and its subsequent filing with the County Assessor's Office.

County Administrative Fee – The district assessment and levy are processed through the County and paid by the property owners on their property tax bill. The County charges a fee of $68 plus the total Benefit Unit count in each Landscape Maintenance District multiplied by $0.15.

Assessment and Levy Calculation
Allowable District Reserve: The goal of all LMDs is to have an operating reserve between a minimum of 10 percent of the operating budget and a maximum of 2/3 of total operating expenses. The District cost summary references this reserve which is based on total maintenance and administrative expenses (not including County administrative fee) and is used to cover the cost of maintenance that occurs before December's levy payments have been received in January. If the reserve is less than 10 percent, the levy will remain closer to the maximum assessment allowable until the reserve has been built up. If the reserve exceeds 2/3 operating expenses, the levy is lowered, suspended for a period of time, or refunded back to property owners.

Maximum Assessment Allowable: Pursuant to Government Code Section 53739, the amount of each Fiscal Year's assessment shall be adjusted for inflation in an amount not to exceed that provided by the “20-City Construction Cost Index” (CCI) from the most recent March (March 2022 - March 2023) issue of the Engineering News-Record. The maximum authorized assessments contained in this Engineer’s Report represent a CCI increase over the previous year’s amount. This increase is based on the CCI and is consistent with the cost indexing provisions approved by property owners. Therefore, the vote requirements of Section 4 of Article XIIID of the California Constitution do not apply to these proceedings.

For Fiscal Year 2022-2023, the applicable CCI increase is 8.9%.

In the event that assessment revenues are insufficient to cover the cost of annual maintenance activities, reserves may be used, or services may be reduced to avoid a deficit.

The Lot Levy as noted on the Part B Attachment is the lesser of the amount calculated to be needed for each lot (total fund needed divided by number of lots/acres), and the maximum assessment amount as dictated by the CCI. The levy is the amount that will actually be assessed on each benefit unit and reflects Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) City of Redding Landscape Maintenance District Annual Update- Combined Engineer’s Report Page 5 the amount that is actually charged based on the funds needed to maintain landscape and reserves for the year. The assessment is the amount that is adjusted each year by the CCI. The levy cannot exceed the Maximum Assessment Allowable.

In the event that assessment revenues are insufficient to cover the cost of annual maintenance activities, services may be reduced to avoid a deficit.

No bonds will be issued in connection with these Districts.

PART C
Analysis of Benefits of Properties being Assessed
Consistent with City Council Policy Number 1705 (Procedures and Policies Governing Landscape Maintenance Districts), construction and maintenance of the identified improvements were conditions of development for the subdivision. The landscaping amenities beautify the community by improving the unpaved areas that would otherwise become overgrown and unsightly. The improvement benefits which contribute both to the beautification and marketability of the lots within the subdivision, are listed in the table below. This is the special benefit conferred upon each assessed lot within the District. The benefit received by the identified parcel is “special” in that the City does not generally provide such improvements or services to the public at large.

Method of Apportionment
The law does not require lots to be contiguous to the improvements, only that the assessment is distributed across all lots in proportion to the degree of special benefit received from the improvements. The proposed apportionment methodology is based on a uniform special benefit and assessment over all developable lots within the District. The total number of benefit units (BUs) may vary from fiscal year to fiscal year due to parcel changes and/or land use reclassifications.

Assessment Roll (see Part C Attachment)
The Part C Attachment contains a list of the Shasta County Assessor's Parcel numbers within the Assessment Districts for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office of the City Clerk and is incorporated in this Report by reference. The list is keyed to the records of the Shasta County Assessor, which are incorporated herein by reference.

Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) LMD Subdivision Name District Improvements and Location of Improvements Benefits of Properties Being Assessed D The Vistas
Units 1A and 1B
Generally along north side of Quartz Hill Road and located at the intersection of Terra Nova Drive. Includes roundabout east of Terra Nova on River Park Drive.

The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, block entry walls, retaining walls and other identified improvements within the subdivision or along the primary streets around the subdivision.

An entry statement for the subdivision and an
aesthetic buffer between the street and adjacent
properties. Without landscaping and on-going
maintenance, the unpaved area between the curb
and the property lines would become overgrown
and unsightly.

E Blue Shield Generally located as the center median on Bechelli Lane north of the intersection of Bechelli Lane and South Bonnyview Road. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and other identified improvements within the median along Bechelli Lane.

An entry statement for the subdivision, increased
marketability, and beautification for the lot.

F Placer Pines Generally located west side of Placer Street near intersection with Boston Avenue. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and other identified improvements along the fence lines on Placer Road.

An entry statement for the subdivision and an
aesthetic buffer between the street and adjacent
properties.

G Quail Run Generally located on the west side Cockerill Drive south of Marlene Avenue and a detention basin in the south west portion of the district. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, slope protection, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions.

An entry statement for the subdivision and an
aesthetic buffer between the street and adjacent
properties. Clearing of detention basin outfall
provides improved drainage operations.

H Clover Creek Villages Generally located west of Airport Road at the intersection with Preserve Boulevard. Includes median on Preserve Blvd. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as decorated street, lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, block walls, slope protection, and other identified improvements within the subdivisions or along the primary streets around the subdivisions, including center median located on Preserve Blvd.

Improvement of unpaved areas that would
otherwise become overgrown and unsightly. The
concrete block wall buffers some of the noise and
glare from nearby traffic.

H1 Clover Creek Villages
Zone 1
Generally located west of Airport Road at the intersection with Preserve Boulevard. The improvements consist of detention basin and numerous trees planted on the south side of Preserve Blvd. near the barricade. Detention basin will be cleared 2 times a year: October and May. Trees and irrigation maintained monthly. Over life of contract, trees will be replaced as additional work.

Improvement of unpaved areas that would
otherwise become overgrown and unsightly.

Improved drainage within the area by clearing the
detention basin.

J Sunset Avenues
Units 1 and 2
Generally located north of St Hwy 299 at the intersection with Buenaventura Blvd. Improvements are located along Buenaventura including the paved trail along the south wall and the east side of Sunflower Dr. Improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, block walls, slope protection, signage and other identified improvements within the subdivision or along the primary streets around the subdivisions.

An entry statement for the subdivision and an
aesthetic buffer between the street and adjacent
properties.

K Nob Hill Generally located at the intersection of Lombard Trail and Shasta Street.

Includes landscape at Almond Avenue traffic circle and detention basin. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and detention basin within the subdivision. Detention basin will be cleared 2 times a year: October and May.

An entry statement for the subdivision and an
aesthetic buffer between the street and adjacent
properties. It reduces glare from street traffic and
offers some noise-buffering benefits. Improved
drainage within the area by clearing the detention
basin
Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance LMD Subdivision Name District Improvements and Location of Improvements Benefits of Properties Being Assessed L Terra Vista Estates Generally located east of Churn Creek Road at the intersection with Loma Vista Drive. Landscape is located on the east side of Churn Creek and on Ethan Lane including detention basin. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, block walls, slope protection, signage and other identified improvements within the subdivision or along the primary streets around the subdivision. Limited weed abatement will be performed on the unimproved portion of Loma Vista Drive between Ethan Lane and Remi Lane. This area will be cleared 2 times a year:

October and May.

An entry statement for the subdivision and an
aesthetic buffer between the street and adjacent
properties. The detention basin improves local
drainage within the district and prevents damage by
controlling excess water
M The Greens at
Parkview/Leland
Generally located at the intersection of Lanning Ave and Fell Street. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, around the subdivisions’ Park setting.

An entry statement for the subdivision and an
aesthetic buffer between the street and some of the
property lines. Neighborhood park setting.

N Villages at Shasta
View Gardens
Generally located west side of Shasta View Drive at the intersection with Tarmac Road going south. Also includes 2 medians on Tarmac west of Shasta View Dr. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, drainage ditch, hardscape, block walls, slope protection, signage and other identified improvements within the subdivision or along the primary streets around the subdivision.

An entry statement for the subdivision and an
aesthetic buffer between the street and adjacent
properties.

O Nicolet Estates II
Unit 1
Generally located west side of East Bonnyview Road at the intersection with Nicolet Lane. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, detention basin, hardscape, slope protection, 200 lf of fencing, signage and other identified improvements within the subdivision or along the primary streets around the subdivision. Detention basin will be cleared 2 times a year: October and May.

An entry statement for the subdivision and an
aesthetic buffer between the street and adjacent
properties. The fencing reduces glare from street
traffic and offers some noise-buffering benefits. The
detention basin improves local drainage within the
district.

P Mill Pond Estates
Unit 1
Landscape is generally located on the west side of East Bonnyview south of Pioneer lane approx. 320 feet in length. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, fencing and other identified improvements.

An aesthetic buffer between the street and adjacent
properties. The fencing reduces glare from street
traffic and offers some noise-buffering benefits.

Q Clover Acres
Units 1 and 2
Generally located near the intersection of Wimbledon Drive and Agassi Street.

Includes planter on Agassi, Deuce, and Laver Streets. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch and other identified improvements within the subdivision or along the primary streets around the subdivision. Weed eat area along Wimbledon between sidewalk and cable fence from north to south in open area.

An entry statement for the subdivision and an
aesthetic buffer between the street and adjacent
properties.

R Cerro Vista Generally located south side of Radio Lane at the intersection with Cerro Lane.

Landscape along Radio Lane and drainage swales in subdivision. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, drainage swale maintenance, block walls, and other identified improvements within the subdivision or along the primary streets around the subdivision. Contractor responsible for managing and maintaining detention basins in front of residences working with home owners as necessary. Many of the basins are maintained by individual home owners but contractor responsible to make sure the inlets and outlets are clear and free from blockage.

An entry statement for the subdivision and an
aesthetic buffer between the street and adjacent
properties. Improved drainage within the area by
clearing inlets and outlets of blockages.

Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance LMD Subdivision Name District Improvements and Location of Improvements Benefits of Properties Being Assessed S Fleur du Lac Generally located along the west side of Shasta View Drive at the intersections with Voltaire Way and Goren Ct with additional landscaping improvements in the median between Voltaire and Goren in Shasta View Dr. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, decorative rock, and other identified improvements along the fence lines.

An entry statement for the subdivision and an
aesthetic buffer between the street and adjacent
properties. The sound wall reduces glare from
street traffic and offers some noise-buffering
benefits.

S1 Fleur du Lac
(The Terrace
Annexation)
Generally located along the southwest side of Shasta View Drive slightly past the intersection with Goren Ct. The improvements consist of brush management in designated open space areas, specifically annual weed abatement with brush clearing and tree limb lifting every three years.

Improvement of unpaved areas that would
otherwise become overgrown and unsightly.

Reduced fire fuels exposure.

T Redwood Meadows Generally located at the intersection of Marijean Way and Redwood Boulevard.

Detention basin is located at the south end of Marijean Way. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, sound walls, and other identified improvements along the fence lines at the entry and detention basin at the end of Marijean. Detention basin will be cleared 2 times a year: October and May.

An entry statement for the subdivision and an
aesthetic buffer between the street and adjacent
properties. The fencing reduces glare from street
traffic and offers some noise-buffering benefits.

U Bel Air Estates An entry sign and wall, detention basin, and other identified improvements along Quartz Hill Road and within the district.

The entry sign fosters a sense of community within
the district and landscapes an area along the public
right-of-way that otherwise might become
overgrown and unsightly. The detention basin
improves local drainage within the district and
prevents damage by controlling excess water.

V Lakeside Avenues Generally located on the east side of Buenaventura Boulevard at the intersection with Lakeside Drive. Includes a detention basin in the subdivision.

The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, and other identified improvements within the subdivision entry and detention basin off Foothill Blvd within the subdivision. Detention basin will be cleared 2 times a year: October and May.

An entry statement for the subdivision and an
aesthetic buffer between the street and adjacent
properties. The detention basin improves local
drainage within the district and prevents damage by
controlling excess water.

W Crown Meadows
Estates
Generally located south of the intersection of Girvan and Pit Road, including several intersection corners in the subdivision along Lonigan, Pendent and Legacy Way. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, artificial turf, and other identified improvements within the subdivision or along the primary streets around the subdivision.

An entry statement for the subdivision and an
aesthetic buffer between the street and adjacent
properties. Without landscaping and on-going
maintenance, the unpaved area between the curb
and the property line would become overgrown and
unsightly.
01-06 Tarmac Ridge Villas Generally located along the west side of Shasta View Drive north of the intersection of Tarmac Road. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, and other identified improvements within the subdivision along the Shasta View street area.

Includes retaining walls and raised plantings.

The landscaped public right-of-way and median
provides an aesthetic buffer between the street and
adjacent properties. Without landscaping and ongoing maintenance, these areas would become overgrown and unsightly.
02-06 Galaxy Way Two detention basins, one on each side of Galaxy Way at the east end of the district. Detention basins will be cleared annually.

The detention basins improve local drainage within
the subdivision and prevent damage by controlling
excess water.

Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance LMD Subdivision Name District Improvements and Location of Improvements Benefits of Properties Being Assessed 03-06 Hope Lane
Subdivision
Trees, shrubs, mulch, a detention basin, vegetation management, and other identified improvements along the portion of Hope Lane within the district.

Maintenance in vegetation management areas will consist of annual weed abatement and woody debris removal every (3) three years.

The landscaped street corners beautify the
community by improving the unpaved areas that
would otherwise become overgrown and unsightly.

The detention basin improves local drainage and
prevents damage by controlling excess water within
the subdivision.
04-06 Rivercrest Estates Generally located on the east side of Bechelli Lane, south of the intersection with Woodacre Drive. Includes detention basin on south end of subdivision.

The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, sound walls, and other identified improvements within the subdivision entries. Includes 2 islands in the center of the entry streets. Detention basin will be cleared 2 times a year: October and May.

Landscaping of unpaved areas that would
otherwise become overgrown and unsightly. The
addition of a detention pond improves local
drainage and prevents damage by controlling
excess water within the subdivision. The fencing
buffers some noise from nearby traffic and reduces
glare.
05-06 Monopoly Estates Trees, shrubs, mulch, a storm water detention basin, and other identified improvements within the Monopoly Estates subdivision. The improved areas generally reside in or along the proposed detention basin.

Landscaping of unpaved areas that would
otherwise become overgrown and unsightly. The
landscaped detention basin will serve the district by
beautifying the appearance of the subdivision and
improving local drainage.
06-06 Lowe's HIW Generally located north of East Cypress Avenue at the intersection with Alfreda Way. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, and other identified improvements on the east side of Alfreda Way. Includes center median on Cypress Ave. Does not include any landscape around the parking lot or building.

Improves the district's aesthetic appearance by
beautifying an unpaved area that otherwise would
become overgrown and unsightly.
7-06 Buckeye Pines Generally located on the west side of Lake Blvd at the intersection of Wilmington Way, and includes Detention basin on the east side of Lake Blvd.

The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, sound wall, detention basin and other identified improvements along the borders of the subdivision. Detention basin will be cleared 2 times a year: October and May.

The concrete block wall buffers some of the noise
and glare from nearby traffic. The detention basin
improves local drainage and aids in the prevention
of damage by controlling excess water within the
subdivision. Through these benefits, the
improvements provide a unique character to the
area, and potentially increase the marketability and
value of the lots within the subdivision.
08-06 Shastina Ranch
Including Stonesfair
and Silverstone
Subdivision
Generally located South of Rancho Road and west of Airport Road. The improvements generally consist of a Park, landscaping amenities such as lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, decorative rock, hardscape, entry signage, detention basin and other identified improvements including vegetation management of identified space within the subdivision or along the primary streets around the subdivision. Original Irrigation design includes some subsurface irrigation systems.

The landscaped and hardscaped improvements
offer an entry statement for the properties located in
the District and provide an aesthetic buffer between
the District and adjacent development. The
neighborhood park and associated amenities add to
the community aesthetic and provide enhanced
recreational opportunities.
09-06 Buenaventura Park
Also known as
Airpark Manor
Generally located south of Waushara Avenue at the intersection of Piper Way.

Landscape located on the east side of Buenaventura Blvd. just north of Placer Street. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and other identified improvements along the fence lines on Buenaventura. Includes concrete block walls and pathway from subdivision to Buenaventura sidewalk. Maintenance includes chain-link fence along pathway.

The landscaping beautifies the community by
improving areas that would otherwise become
overgrown and unsightly. The concrete block wall
buffers some of the noise and glare from nearby
traffic. The improvements provide a unique
character to the area, and increase the
marketability and value of the lots.

Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance LMD Subdivision Name District Improvements and Location of Improvements Benefits of Properties Being Assessed 11-06 Tuscany Villas Generally located along Oasis Road and Gold Hills Drive. Improvements consist of landscaped medians and concrete block walls. Improvements are shared and maintenance to be coordinated with Homeowners Association.

Improvement of unpaved areas that would
otherwise become overgrown and unsightly. The
landscaped public right-of-way offers an entry
statement for the subdivision, which provides an
aesthetic buffer between the street and adjacent
properties. The concrete block wall buffers some of
the noise and glare from nearby traffic. The
improvements provide a unique character to the
area, and increase the marketability and value of
the lots.
01-07 State Compensation
Insurance PM 24-05
Generally located on Shasta View Drive south of the intersection of Tarmac Road. A roadway median planter, landscaping, trees, shrubs, and an irrigation system. Ongoing maintenance is required for these amenities.

The landscaped median offers an entry statement
and provides an aesthetic buffer between the
District and the adjacent development.
02-07 Hilltop Center Landscape generally located in the center median of Hilltop Drive and center median of Browning Street at the intersection of Browning and Hilltop. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and other identified improvements along the center medians Hilltop and Browning.

The landscaped medians offer an entry statement
for the properties located in the District and provide
an aesthetic buffer between the District and the
adjacent development. These improvements
provide a unique character to the area and increase
the marketability and value of the lots within the
District.
02-09 Placer West Generally located on the south side of Placer Street adjacent to Hazelwood Court. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, sound wall, and other identified improvements within the subdivision entry as well as a detention basin area. Detention basin will be cleared 2 times a year: October and May.

Improvement of unpaved areas that would
otherwise become overgrown and unsightly. The
landscaped public right-of-way also offers an entry
statement, which provides an aesthetic buffer. The
detention basin improves local drainage and aids in
the prevention of damage by controlling excess
water within the subdivision These improvements
provide a unique character to the area and increase
the marketability and aesthetic value of the lots
within the District.
03-09 Highland Park Generally located at the following intersections: north of Mission de Oro Drive and Tanglewood Drive, west of Rollingview and Fairhill Drives, and south of the intersection of Montecrest Dr. and Domain Way. Landscape areas are located at each of these entries. Improvements generally consist of a Park, roundabout and triangular planter. Landscaping amenities include sound walls, lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, decorative rock, hardscape, walking paths between Durango and Grants Pass, trail improvements, vegetation management, rail fences, entry signage and other identified improvements within the subdivision or along the primary streets around the subdivision.

The landscaped and hardscape improvements offer
an entry statement for the properties located in the
District and provide an aesthetic buffer between the
District and adjacent development. These
improvements provide a unique character to the
area and increase the marketability and value of the
lots within the District
Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance LMD Subdivision Name District Improvements and Location of Improvements Benefits of Properties Being Assessed 01-11 River Ridge Park,
River Ridge Terrace,
Stanford Manor
Landscape generally located along the south side of Quartz Hill Rd. from west of White Sail Dr. continuing east at River Ridge Drive to the end of the houses and lawn. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as cinderblock and wood fence along Quartz Hill Road, lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, decorative rock, hardscape, entry signage and other identified improvements or along the primary streets around the subdivision The landscape improvements offer an entry
statement for properties located in the District and
provide an aesthetic buffer between the District and
adjacent development. The improvements provide a
unique character to the area and increase the
marketability and value of the lots within the District. 02-11 River Park Highlands Generally located along both sides of River Park Drive from Benton Drive to the intersection of Kingswood Way on the east and to the first residence on the west. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and fencing along Benton Drive and other identified improvements within the subdivision or along the primary streets around the subdivision.

Improvement of unpaved areas that would
otherwise become overgrown and unsightly. The
improvements provide a unique character to the
area, and potentially increase the marketability and
value of the lots within the subdivision.
03-11 River Heights Generally located south of the intersection of Hilltop Dr. and River Bend Rd.

Landscape located at neighborhood entry and along the southeast side of River Bend Rd. at Oakhurst Trail and rounding the corner. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as lawns, trees, shrubs, mulch, and hardscape, fences along the Hilltop Dr. frontage, and other identified improvements within the subdivision or along the primary streets around the subdivision. Also included is the center median at the River Bend Drive entry.

Improvement of unpaved areas that would
otherwise become overgrown and unsightly. The
improvements provide a unique character to the
area, and potentially increase the marketability and
value of the lots within the subdivision.
01-13 College Highlands Generally located at the northwest section of Shasta View Drive and Palacio Drive. Landscape is located along the west side of Shasta View Drive between Simpson Boulevard and Palacio Drive; north side of Palacio Drive from Shasta View east past the barricade; and the median strips on Simpson Boulevard between Shasta View Drive and Lafeyette Court. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, and other identified improvements along the fence lines of Shasta View and Palacio and the plantings in medians on Simpson Blvd.

Improvement of the unpaved areas that would
otherwise become overgrown and unsightly. The
improvements provide a unique character to the
area and potentially increase the marketability and
value of the lots within the subdivision.
02-14 Westside Generally located at the intersection of Placer Street and Boston Avenue, at the intersection of Teton Drive and Crescent Moon Drive and at the intersection of Placer Road and Cumberland Drive. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch, hardscape, roundabout planter, brick planters, lighting, signage, wrought iron fences, decorative wood fencing along Placer at Boston, trail maintenance of 1,000 feet on the northerly side of Teton Drive, and other identified improvements within the subdivision or along the primary streets around the subdivision. Vegetation management, near Ridgeview Park to residence on south side, includes both sides of street for a distance of 50 feet from sidewalk into open space areas, work to be done in March and June.

Improvement of unpaved areas that would
otherwise become overgrown and unsightly. The
landscaped public right-of-way also offers an entry
statement, which provides an aesthetic buffer.

These improvements provide a unique character to
the area and increase the marketability and
aesthetic value of the lots within the District.

Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance LMD Subdivision Name District Improvements and Location of Improvements Benefits of Properties Being Assessed 03-14 Browning Pointe Generally located on the west side of Browning Street Boulevard from Old Alturas Road to Friendly Road. The improvements generally consist of landscaping amenities such as trees, shrubs, mulch and other identified improvements along the subdivision entry.

The landscaped improvements offer an entry
statement for the properties located in the District
and provide an aesthetic buffer between the District
and the commercial property across Browning
Street. These improvements provide a unique
character to the area and increase the marketability
and value of the lots within the District
01-15 Hidden Hills Generally located at Bodenhamer Boulevard and Rollingview Drive. The improvements generally consist of trees, shrubs, mulch and a lighted entry sign.

These improvements provide a unique character to
the area and increase the marketability and value of
the lots within the District
02-16 Shasta View
Southwest
Generally located on the west side of Shasta View Drive from 170’ north of Castlewood Drive to approximately 900’ south of Pacific Avenue. The improvements generally consist of entry signage at Western Oak intersection, trees and irrigation. In future, improvements will include shrubs and mulch throughout.

The landscaped improvements provide an aesthetic
buffer between the street and adjacent properties
and provides entry statement for the properties
located in the District. These improvements provide
a unique character to the area and increase the
marketability and value of the lots within the District 03-16 River Pointe Generally located at Beretta and Waverly Place as well as corner plantings at Calgary and Beretta and at Calgary and Oxbow. The improvements generally consist of trees, shrubs, hardscape, and a walking path from Calgary Place to Hemlock and entry signage along Oxbow.

The landscaped improvements offer an entry
statement at the three entries to the subdivision and
enhances traffic calming bulb outs and the cul-desac for the properties located in the District. The walking path provides an exclusive entry into the
subdivision. These improvements provide a unique
character to the area and increase the marketability
and value of the lots within the District
01-17 Salt Creek Heights Generally located north of Sunflower at the intersection of Buenaventura Boulevard, continuing through the subdivision. The improvements generally consist of entry signage, trees, shrubs, hardscape and fire fuels management of surrounding open space. In future, improvements will include a neighborhood park.

The landscaped improvements provide an aesthetic
buffer between the street and adjacent properties
and provides entry statement for the properties
located in the District. These improvements provide
a unique character to the area and increase the
marketability and value of the lots within the District 01-19 Seven Bridges Generally located east of Shasta View Dr. on the south side of Oasis Rd., on the center medians, and along the north side of Oasis Rd. The improvements generally consist of trees, shrubs, hardscape, and vegetation management of identified space within the subdivision or along the primary streets around the subdivision
The landscaped improvements provide an aesthetic
buffer between the street and adjacent properties,
in the medians, and provides entry statement for
the properties located in the District. These
improvements provide a unique character to the
area and increase the marketability and value of the
lots within the District
Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance LMD Subdivision Name District Improvements and Location of Improvements Benefits of Properties Being Assessed 02-19 Center Court Villages Generally located on both parkway strips of Palm Springs, at the corners of Garros and Goolagong, and at the corners at Goolagong and Argyle. The improvements consist of trees, shrubs, hardscape, as well as a detention basin area. Detention basin will be cleared 2 times a year: October and May.

The landscape improvements provide an entry
statement for the subdivision and an aesthetic
buffer between the street and adjacent properties.

The detention basin improves local drainage within
the subdivision and prevent damage by controlling
excess water. The improvements provide a unique
character to the area, and potentially increase the
marketability and value of the lots within the
subdivision.
01-20 Wyndham Pointe Generally located along Wyndham Lane crossing Thea Drive, a section of the parkway strips at Thea Drive, and a roundabout at the intersection of Ginny Court and Lagoon Drive.

The landscaped improvements provide an aesthetic
buffer between the street and adjacent properties,
in the roundabout, and provides entry statement for
the properties located in the District. These
improvements provide a unique character to the
area and increase the marketability and value of the
lots within the District
Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Attachment A
Maps
Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 769
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 770
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 771
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 772
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 773
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 774
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 775
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 776
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 777
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 778
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 785
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 786
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 788
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 789
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 791
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 792
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 793
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 794
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 797
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 798
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 800
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 802
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 803
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 804
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 805
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 806
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 807
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 808
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 809
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 810
Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts) Attachment
B
Estimates
Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District D (A-170-075-053)
The Vistas
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $5,443
REVENUE $18,522
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 10,739 11,813 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 5,820 1,496 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 911 911 17,470 14,220
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 510 1,200 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 137 76 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$18,117

ESTIMATED
$15,496
DISTRICT BALANCE $5,848

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 5,848 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 25,827 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 10,331 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 19,979 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 53 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 811.96 884.22 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 376.96 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 366.78 376.96 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District E (A-170-075-054)
Blue Shield
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $3,807
REVENUE $6,836
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 1,979 4,328 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 0 1,496 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 909 909 2,889 6,734
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 524 1,200 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 197 68 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$3,610

ESTIMATED
$8,002
DISTRICT BALANCE $7,033

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 7,033 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 13,317 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 5,315 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 6,284 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 1 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 10,004.49 10,894.89 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 6,284.00 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 6,836.00 6,284.00 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District F (A-170-075-055)
Placer Pines
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $3,254
REVENUE $5,548
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 1,650 1,815 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 2,109 1,296 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 1,298 1,298 5,057 4,409
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 670 1,200 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 135 74 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$5,862

ESTIMATED
$5,683
DISTRICT BALANCE $2,940

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 2,940 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 9,441 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 3,758 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 6,501 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 43 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 215.65 234.84 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 151.19 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 131.40 151.18 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District G (A-170-075-056)
Quail Run
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $1,718
REVENUE $8,055
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 3,306 3,636 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 189 2,196 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 956 956 4,451 6,788
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 511 1,200 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 134 73 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$5,096

ESTIMATED
$8,062
DISTRICT BALANCE $4,677

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 4,677 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 13,414 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 5,352 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 8,737 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 34 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 407.42 443.68 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 256.97 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 240.44 256.96 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District H (A-170-075-057)
Clover Creek Village
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $7,498
REVENUE $33,067
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 14,977 16,475 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 557 7,496 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 4,718 4,718 20,253 28,690
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 591 1,500 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 224 86 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$21,067

ESTIMATED
$30,276
DISTRICT BALANCE $19,497

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 19,497 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 50,503 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 20,227 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 31,006 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 178 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 211.28 230.08 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 174.19 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 163.60 174.18 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District H1 (A-170-075-057)
Clover Creek Village
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $2,916
REVENUE $0
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 648 713 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 0 0 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 3,496

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 0 0 648 4,209
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 0 0 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 0 77 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$648

ESTIMATED
$4,286
DISTRICT BALANCE $2,268

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 2,268 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 7,106 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 2,820 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 4,838 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 58 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 125.47 136.64 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 83.41 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 79.28 83.40 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District J (A-170-075-059)
Sunset Avenues
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $2,930
REVENUE $24,304
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 15,834 17,417 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 2,082 0 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 5,276 5,276 23,193 22,694
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 743 700 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 138 77 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$24,074

ESTIMATED
$23,471
DISTRICT BALANCE $3,161

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 3,161 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 30,014 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 6,543 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 26,853 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 63 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 708.13 771.15 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 426.24 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 385.78 426.24 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District K (A-170-075-060)
Nob Hill
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $1,993
REVENUE $5,421
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 2,889 3,178 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 35 496 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 656 656 3,580 4,330
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 844 750 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 132 71 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$4,556

ESTIMATED
$5,150
DISTRICT BALANCE $2,858

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 2,858 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 8,553 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 3,403 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 5,695 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 18 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 352.62 384.00 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 316.39 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 301.16 316.38 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District L (A-170-075-061)
Terra Vista
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $5,108
REVENUE $7,016
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 4,678 5,145 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 983 0 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 746

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 642 642 6,302 6,533
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 526 1,200 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 135 74 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$6,963

ESTIMATED
$7,807
DISTRICT BALANCE $5,161

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 5,161 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 12,988 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 5,181 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 7,827 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 38 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 537.41 585.24 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 205.97 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 187.88 205.96 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District M (A-170-075-062)
The Greens at Parkview/Leland
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $11,187
REVENUE $11,652
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 5,506 6,056 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 858 3,796 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 3,310 3,310 9,674 13,162
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 613 1,200 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 134 73 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$10,420

ESTIMATED
$14,435
DISTRICT BALANCE $12,419

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 12,419 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 24,057 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 9,622 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 11,638 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 33 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 367.63 400.35 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 352.67 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 353.08 352.66 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District N (A-170-075-063)
Villages at Shasta View Gardens
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $5,278
REVENUE $7,471
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 2,756 3,031 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 71 1,496 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 2,000

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 1,796 1,796 4,623 8,324
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 584 1,200 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 152 91 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$5,358

ESTIMATED
$9,614
DISTRICT BALANCE $7,391

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 7,391 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 15,995 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 6,381 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 8,604 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 151 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 71.64 78.02 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 56.98 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 50.94 56.98 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District O (A-170-075-064)
Nicolet Estates
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $-8,494
REVENUE $7,800
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 5,297 5,827 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 323 0 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 1,470 1,470 7,090 7,297
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 171 160 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 131 70 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$7,392

ESTIMATED
$7,527
DISTRICT BALANCE $-8,086

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. (8,086) B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 7,527 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 0 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 15,613 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 13 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 1,250.87 1,362.20 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 1,201.00 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 600.00 750.00 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District P (A-170-075-065)
Mill Pond Lane
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $-1,202
REVENUE $4,320
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 1,928 2,121 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 0 0 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 369 369 2,297 2,490
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 171 400 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 130 69 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$2,599

ESTIMATED
$2,959
DISTRICT BALANCE $519

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 519 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 4,895 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 1,936 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 4,376 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 9 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 776.57 845.68 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 486.22 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 480.00 500.00 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District Q (A-170-075-066)
Clover Acres, Units 1-2
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $5,073
REVENUE $9,112
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 3,856 4,241 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 7 2,996 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 2,082 2,082 5,945 9,319
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 613 1,000 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 136 75 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$6,693

ESTIMATED
$10,394
DISTRICT BALANCE $7,492

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 7,492 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 17,307 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 6,913 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 9,815 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 47 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 271.92 296.12 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 208.83 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 193.88 208.82 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District R (A-170-075-067)
Cerro Vista
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $2,260
REVENUE $4,569
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 2,200 2,420 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 0 896 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 711 711 2,911 4,026
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 613 750 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 132 71 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$3,655

ESTIMATED
$4,848
DISTRICT BALANCE $3,174

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 3,174 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 8,048 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 3,200 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 4,874 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 21 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 382.81 416.88 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 232.10 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 222.90 232.10 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District S (A-170-075-068)
Fleur du Lac, Unit 1
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $3,339
REVENUE $12,239
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 4,923 5,415 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 2,973 796 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 1,475 1,475 9,370 7,685
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 765 1,200 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 137 74 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$10,272

ESTIMATED
$8,960
DISTRICT BALANCE $5,306

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 5,306 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 14,913 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 5,953 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 9,607 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 52 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 250.26 272.53 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 184.75 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 182.44 184.74 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District S1 (A-170-075-068)
Fleur du Lac, Unit 2 (The Terrace)
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $1,299
REVENUE $0
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 618 680 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 0 0 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 1,346

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 0 0 618 2,026
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 0 0 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 0 69 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$618

ESTIMATED
$2,095
DISTRICT BALANCE $681

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 681 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 3,452 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 1,357 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 2,771 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 9 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 522.72 569.24 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 307.89 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 305.78 307.88 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District T (A-170-075-069)
Redwood Meadows
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $1,840
REVENUE $5,349
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 3,028 3,331 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 549 0 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 932 932 4,509 4,263
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 613 750 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 131 70 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$5,252

ESTIMATED
$5,082
DISTRICT BALANCE $1,937

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 1,937 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 8,033 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 2,951 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 6,096 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 10 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 1,044.45 1,137.41 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 609.60 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 594.30 609.60 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District U (A-170-075-070)
Bel Air Estates
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $5,615
REVENUE $0
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 0 0 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 0 0 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 0 0 0 0
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 27 200 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 0 0 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$27

ESTIMATED
$200
DISTRICT BALANCE $5,589

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 5,589 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 334 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 134 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 0 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 62 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 101.08 110.08 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. .00 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ .00 .00 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District V (A-170-075-071)
Lakeside Avenues
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $8,632
REVENUE $12,071
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 5,784 6,362 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 4,496 2,496 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 2,288 2,288 12,568 11,146
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 613 750 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 135 74 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$13,315

ESTIMATED
$11,970
DISTRICT BALANCE $7,388

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 7,388 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 19,940 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 7,970 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 12,552 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 37 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 709.79 772.96 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 339.24 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 330.70 339.24 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District W (A-170-075-075)
Crown Meadows Estates
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $4,993
REVENUE $5,239
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 1,997 2,197 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 0 3,596 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 948 948 2,945 6,740
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 540 750 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 136 75 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$3,621

ESTIMATED
$7,565
DISTRICT BALANCE $6,611

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 6,611 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 12,584 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 5,019 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 5,973 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 47 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 173.99 189.48 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 127.09 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 115.30 127.08 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District 1-06 (A-170-075-072)
Tarmac Ridge Villas
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $70
REVENUE $10,532
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 4,817 5,298 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 2,444 0 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 1,697 1,697 8,958 6,996
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 627 750 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 142 81 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$9,727

ESTIMATED
$7,826
DISTRICT BALANCE $875

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 875 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 13,008 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 5,182 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 12,133 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 84 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 295.59 321.90 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 144.44 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 125.38 144.44 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District 2-06 (A-170-075-073)
Galaxy Way
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $386
REVENUE $1,796
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 891 981 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 0 0 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 0 0 891 981
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 526 500 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 131 70 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$1,548

ESTIMATED
$1,550
DISTRICT BALANCE $634

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 634 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 2,535 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 985 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 1,901 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 10 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 487.95 531.38 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 190.10 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 179.60 190.10 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District 3-06 (A-170-075-074)
Hope Subdivision
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $4,304
REVENUE $5,777
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 3,145 3,459 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 321 0 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 2,596

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 359 359 3,824 6,414
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 468 750 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 204 75 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$4,497

ESTIMATED
$7,239
DISTRICT BALANCE $5,584

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 5,584 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 12,039 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 4,800 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 6,455 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 48 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 532.20 579.57 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 134.48 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 124.48 134.48 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District 4-06 (A-170-075-076)
Rivercrest
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $3,808
REVENUE $23,338
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 13,628 14,991 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.

Additional Maintenance.............................................................................. 227 2,596 Work that falls outside regular, day-to-day maintenance schedule, including but not limited to mulch and plant replacement.

Vegetation Management and/or Detention Basin...................................... 0 0

2. Electric/Water Usage ........................................................................................ 2,216 2,216 16,071 19,803
Administrative Expenses

3. City Administration ............................................................................................ 468 750 Preparation of annual Engineer’s Report, Staff Reports, Resolutions, and admin charges by any or all of the following City Departments:

City Clerk, Planning, Parks, and Public Works.

4. County Administration....................................................................................... 143 82 $68 per tax code plus $0.15 per lot

TOTAL EXPENSES
ACTUAL
$16,682

ESTIMATED
$20,635
DISTRICT BALANCE $10,464

LEVY CALCULATION
A. District Balance as of *June 30, 2022 ................................................................. 10,464 B. Total Estimated Expenses for 2022/23 (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023) ............... 34,405 C. Allowable District Reserve (Maximum of 2/3 of total Est Expenses) ................. 13,770 D. Funds Needed to Provide Maintenance and Maintain District Reserve this Fiscal Year (Total Expenses + Reserve – District Balance) ................ 23,941 E. Number of Lots to be Levied .............................................................................. 94 F. Max Assessment Allowable, adjusted annually by CCI....................................... 451.40 491.57 G. Lot Assessment based on Total Funds Needed .................................................. 254.69 H. Lot Levy (Lesser of Lines F and G)............................................................. $ 252.30 254.68 District Improvements, Location and Benefit of improvements, detailed description of Maintenance and Administrative costs, and explanation of District Reserve and Assessment and Levy calculation can be found on Pages 5 - 11 of the Engineer's Report. A boundary map is also included for reference. *Amounts include 10 months actual costs plus 2 months estimated costs (May and June). Exception: County Admin Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: Engineer's Report LMD Combined 2022-23 (6.2--Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance Districts)

PART B ATTACHMENT
Estimated Cost of Maintenance for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Landscape Maintenance District 5-06 (A-170-075-077)
Monopoly
FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
*ACTUAL
Expenses

ESTIMATED
Expenses
BEGINNING BALANCE $-249
REVENUE $0
Maintenance Expenses

1. Landscape Maintenance:

Contract (Day-to-Day) Maintenance ........................................................... 0 0 Contract maintenance performed through weekly visits by private landscape company.