Agenda Packet — Redding City Council, October 18, 2022 (part 2 of 3)

Library – Courts Building 916-323-9759
P.O. Box 942837 [email protected]
Sacramento, CA 94237-0001 www.library.ca.gov
At this time, please acknowledge receipt of this Intent to Award as soon as possible, and no later than Friday, September 23, by email to [email protected].

Your official Award Packet will be issued in the coming weeks after we have received your acknowledgement of this Intent to Award correspondence. The Packet will include the Award Letter confirming the award amount, project period, and required match amount (if applicable), as well as the Grant Agreement, a list of unallowable costs, and templates and guidance for submitting the following items, which are required for us to process your first payment:
• Confirmed Project Budget
• Final Project Implementation Plan
• Certification of Compliance
• Letter Certifying Availability of Match Funds (if applicable) • Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of the Grant
• Signed Grant Agreement
• Completed Fiscal Claim Form for the first award payment Please note: No payment will be made until the above items, free from errors, have been received by the State Library. Awardees may typically expect payment to be issued within 45 days from the date a grant payment request is properly submitted and approved by the Fiscal Analyst.

Hard copies of this correspondence will not follow. Please keep this Intent to Award correspondence as part of your official grant files. If you have any questions, please contact the Building Forward Team at [email protected].

The State Library looks forward to working to help you complete this project.

Respectfully,
Rebecca L. Wendt
California Deputy State Librarian
cc: Annly Roman
Reed Strege
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Notice of Intent to Award: Anderson Library (4.6(a)--Adopt Resolution for Library Infrastructure Safety Renovations Grant) Library – Courts Building 916-323-9759
P.O. Box 942837 [email protected]
Sacramento, CA 94237-0001 www.library.ca.gov
September 12, 2022
Kimberly Niemer
Director of Community Services
City of Redding
777 Cypress Ave
Redding, CA 96001

Re: Building Forward Grant Program
Jurisdiction: SHASTA PUBLIC LIBRARIES
Library: Burney Library
Project: Burney Library Safety Renovation Project
Dear Kimberly Niemer:

Congratulations! Following a rigorous review process, the California State Library is pleased to notify you of our intent to award a Building Forward grant for the project submitted for Burney Library.

Your grant award will be: $453,109
This award is intended to fund the following project outputs and related activities listed in your Supplementary Budget in accordance with allowable costs per the Grant Guidelines:

UV filter for HVAC
Generator
Roof
Security Cameras
Solar
Your request for a 100% reduction in the required cash match amount has also been approved. Based on your Award amount and your Local Income Per Capita (LIPC) level, your organization is required to provide a matching amount of $0 to support this project. Please note: Match funds must be expended during the grant period and at the same rate as state grant funds. Neither grant funds nor match funds may be spent on unallowable costs, which includes work done outside of the grant period.

Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Notice of Intent to Award: Burney Library (4.6(a)--Adopt Resolution for Library Infrastructure Safety Renovations Grant) Building Forward Grant Program

Page 2 ends

The State Library looks forward to working to help you complete this project.

Respectfully,
Rebecca L. Wendt
California Deputy State Librarian
cc: Annly Roman
Reed Strege
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Notice of Intent to Award: Burney Library (4.6(a)--Adopt Resolution for Library Infrastructure Safety Renovations Grant) Library – Courts Building 916-323-9759
P.O. Box 942837 [email protected]
Sacramento, CA 94237-0001 www.library.ca.gov
September 12, 2022
Kimberly Niemer
Director of Community Services
City of Redding
777 Cypress Ave
Redding, CA 96001

Re: Building Forward Grant Program
Jurisdiction: SHASTA PUBLIC LIBRARIES
Library: Redding Library
Project: Redding Library Safety Renovation Project
Dear Kimberly Niemer:

Your grant award will be: $1,626,790
This award is intended to fund the following project outputs and related activities listed in your Supplementary Budget in accordance with allowable costs per the Grant Guidelines:

UV filter for HVAC
HVAC automated controls
Emergency lighting
Light electrical panel
Cameras
Carpet
Generator
Generator housing
Your request for a 100% reduction in the required cash match amount has also been approved. Based on your Award amount and your Local Income Per Capita (LIPC) level, your organization is required to provide a matching amount of $0 to support this project. Please note: Match funds must be expended during the grant period and at Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Notice of Intent to Award: Redding Library (4.6(a)--Adopt Resolution for Library Infrastructure Safety Renovations Grant) Building Forward Grant Program

Page 2 ends

Library – Courts Building 916-323-9759
P.O. Box 942837 [email protected]
Sacramento, CA 94237-0001 www.library.ca.gov
the same rate as state grant funds. Neither grant funds nor match funds may be spent on unallowable costs, which includes work done outside of the grant period.

At this time, please acknowledge receipt of this Intent to Award as soon as possible, and no later than Friday, September 23, by email to [email protected].

The State Library looks forward to working to help you complete this project.

Respectfully,
Rebecca L. Wendt
California Deputy State Librarian
cc: Annly Roman
Reed Strege
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Notice of Intent to Award: Redding Library (4.6(a)--Adopt Resolution for Library Infrastructure Safety Renovations Grant)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to the award of a grant from the California State Library to fund the Shasta Public Libraries English as a Second Language Services:
(1) Adopt Resolution authorizing acceptance of grant funds in the amount of $45,150; (2) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute the Grant Agreement and all subsequent documentation relative to the grant; and
(3) Adopt Resolution approving and adopting the 65th Amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 2021-078 appropriating funds.

Fiscal Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund.

Alternative Action
The City Council could choose not to accept the $45,150 grant from the California State Library.

This would further limit literacy services and language support available to non-English speakers at the Redding, Anderson, and Burney libraries.

Background/Analysis
Literacy programs in California’s public libraries transform the lives of thousands of Californians and their families every year. They help adults gain basic literacy skills, achieve learning goals, and use library services effectively. They strengthen communities and help families grow and succeed. Since 1984, California’s library literacy programs have helped more than a quarter of a million learners and their families.

MEETING DATE: October 18, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.6(b)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.6(b)--Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for English as a Second Language Services and Adopt Budget Resolution Appropriating Funds Kim Niemer, Community
Services Director
Packet Pg. 264
Report to Redding City Council October 13, 2022
Re: 4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services Page 2 In 2021-2022, the state budget included one-time California Library Literacy Services funding of $15 million specifically geared for English as a Second Language (ESL) services. These funds will be allocated over a five-year period to public libraries across the state. Californians served through this program are usually the lowest level and hardest-to-reach learners. Shasta Public Libraries currently utilizes trained tutors to provide adult and family literacy services at each of its branches; however, these services are limited to English speakers. The goal is to expand services to non-English speakers by providing one-on-one tutoring based on each individual’s pace and goals. This will be accomplished by enhancing tutor training to be ESL-specific, providing laptops with ESL learning apps for student checkout, increasing literacy staff hours at the Anderson and Burney libraries, and offering ESL family literacy events at all three branches.

Should the City Council accept the funds from the California State Library, the City of Redding will be able to provide new ESL literacy services at the Redding, Anderson, and Burney libraries. Such funding would help increase the number of Shasta County adults who receive ESL literacy support to enhance their work skills, lifelong learning, family roles, and community participation. The City Attorney’s office has reviewed and approved the proposed language of the agreement.

Environmental Review
This is not a project defined under the California Environmental Quality Act, and no further action is required.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Budget and Financial Management – “Achieve balanced and stable 10-year Financial Plans for all funds.”
• Government of the 21st Century – “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
• Economic Development – “Facilitate and become a catalyst for economic development in Redding to create jobs, retain current businesses and attract new ones, and encourage investment in the community.”
Attachments
^Resolution - Grant Acceptance
^Resolution - Budget
Letter of Intent to Award
Packet Pg. 265
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING

AUTHORIZING THE GRANT ACCEPTANCE AND EXECUTION OF
THE GRANT FUNDS FROM THE 2021-2022 CALIFORNIA STATE

LIBRARY BUDGET FOR ONE-TIME CALIFORNIA LIBRARY

LITERACY SERVICES FUNDING FOR ENGLISH AS A SECOND

LANGUAGE SERVICES
WHEREAS, the California State Library has provided funds for the program shown above; and WHEREAS, the California State Library has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of this grant program, establishing necessary procedures; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California State Library require a resolution certifying the approval by the potential grantee’s governing board either before submission of said application(s) to the State or prior to execution of the grant agreement; and WHEREAS, the Applicant/Grantee, if selected, will enter into an agreement with the State of California to carry out the project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Redding proposes to implement the Shasta Public Libraries Literacy Services for English as a Second Language Services at the Redding Library; and WHEREAS, the City of Redding has the legal authority and is authorized to enter into a funding agreement with the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the City of Redding intends to accept grant funding from the California State Library for the Shasta Public Libraries Literacy Services for English as a Second Language Services at the Redding Library;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redding as follows:

1. That pursuant and subject to all of the terms and provisions of the California State Library, the City of Redding City Manager, or designee is hereby authorized and directed to accept the grant funding with the California State Library, and take such other actions necessary or appropriate to maintain grant funding.

2. The City of Redding City Manager, or designee is hereby authorized and directed to execute the funding agreement with the California State Library and any amendments thereto.

3. The City of Redding City Manager, or designee is hereby authorized and directed to submit any required documents, funding requests, and reports required to maintain grant funding.

Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: ^Resolution - Grant Acceptance (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services)

4. Certifies that the project will comply with any laws and regulations including, but not limited to, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), legal requirements for building codes, health and safety codes, the California Labor Code, disabled access laws, and, that prior to commencement of the project, all applicable permits will have been obtained.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 18th day of October, 2022, and was duly adopted at said meeting 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. 267 Attachment: ^Resolution - Grant Acceptance (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 65 th AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2021-078
APPROPRIATING $45,150 FOR THE CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY GRANT PROGRAM AWARD FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING THAT Budget Resolution No. 2021-078 be and is hereby amended as follows:

FUND DIVISION DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE
129 637 Library $45,150
THAT account titles and numbers requiring adjustments by this Resolution are as follows:

USE SOURCE

OF FUNDS OF FUNDS
Increase (Decrease) Revenue
129-637-6-1200-13 State Grant Operating Revenue $ 45,150 Increase Expenditures
129-637-4001-92 Library ESL Grant $ 45,150
Total $ 45,150 $ 45,150
THAT the purpose is to appropriate $45,150 for the California State Library Grant program award for fiscal year 2022-23.

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

KRISTEN SCHREDER, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVAL:

PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk BARRY E. DeWALT, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: ^Resolution - Budget (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 269
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 270
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 271
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 272
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 273
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 274
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 275
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 276
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 277
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 278
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 279
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 280
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 281
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 282
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 283
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 284
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 285
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 286
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 287
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 288
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 289
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 290
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 291
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 292
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 293
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 294
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 295
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 296
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 297
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 298
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 299
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 300
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 301
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 302
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 303
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 304
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 305
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services) Packet Pg. 306
Attachment: Letter of Intent to Award (4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution to Accept Library Literacy Services Grant for ESL Services)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution approving and adopting the 67th Amendment to the City Budget Resolution No. 2021-078 appropriating $563,620 from the Park Development Fund and $472,580 from the Park In-Lieu Southeast Quadrant Fund to pay for the construction of a neighborhood park in Shastina Ranch Subdivision.

Fiscal Impact
The recommended budget resolution appropriates $563,620 from the Park Development Fund and $472,580 from the Park In-Lieu Southeast Fund; leaving a remaining Park Development Fund balance of $1,759,275 and a zero balance in the Park In-Lieu Southeast Quadrant Fund.

There will be no impact on the General Fund for construction.

The park maintenance expense is included in a landscape maintenance district. The City of Redding (City) is responsible for twenty-five percent of the park maintenance costs, estimated at $50,000 annually, beginning in Fiscal Year 2024-25.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could choose not to approve the budget resolution and request additional information or provide direction relative to recommended budget changes.

Background/Analysis
The Shastina Ranch Master Plan, which includes three subdivisions, is located south of Rancho Road, straddles the new Shasta View Drive extension, and will include over 700 homes at full build-out. During the entitlement process, the City obtained four acres through park dedication and reserved an additional 3.5 acres through the reservation process for future purchase.

MEETING DATE: October 18, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.6(c)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.6(c)--Adopt Budget Resolution for the Shastina Ranch Subdivision Park Project Kim Niemer, Community
Services Director
Packet Pg. 307
Report to Redding City Council October 13, 2022
Re: 4.6(c)--Adopt Budget Resolution for the Shastina Ranch Subdivision Park Project Page 2 The City and the developers, Palomar Homes and Sierra Pacific Land and Timber Company, agreed to a park development agreement in 2005. The park development agreement, in its current form, requires the construction of the park to commence following the recordation of the 315th lot. A separate item on the October 18, 2022, City Council meeting agenda will record the final subdivision map. The park construction has been pushed out two times through amendments to the park development agreement. Staff has received and reviewed a 90 percent submittal of preliminary park project estimates from the consultant. Preliminary park project design, engineering, and construction are estimated at $4.2 million. This amount is substantially more than what was estimated previously. The funding requested, $1,036,200, will bring the total allocated amount to $3.2 million, which is anticipated to fund Phase 1 of the project, the scope of which is still being determined.

With the recordation of the 416th lot, the developers will make a payment of $908,640. This amount, plus the existing fees from the Shastina Ranch Master Plan, brings the developer’s contribution to $2,163,805 for the development of the Shastina Ranch Neighborhood Park.

Staff’s recommendation is to advance $1,036,200, $563,619 from the Park Development Fund, and $472,576 from the Park In-Lieu Southeast Fund from the Park Development, to reach the $3.2 million to fund Phase 1. Funds will be recouped as more homes are built in the Shastina Ranch Master Plan, and any future fees collected will replenish the Park Development Fund.

Bidding is planned for later this year, and construction is planned to begin in 2023.

Environmental Review
On June 15, 2005, the Council held a public hearing and adopted a resolution approving the Tentative Subdivision Map Application (S-7-03) and Planned Development Application (PD-5- 04) for the Shastina Ranch Subdivision Project after adopting a resolution certifying the completeness and adequacy of Environmental Impact Report EIR-1-03 on April 15, 2005. The park project was included in the approved Environmental Impact Report.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 67
th AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2021-078
APPROPRIATING $1,036,200 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK RELATED TO THE SHASTINA RANCH SUBDIVISION PARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING THAT Budget Resolution No. 2021-078 be and is hereby amended as follows:

FUND DIVISION DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE
128
128
619
618
Parks Development
Parks In-Lieu
$563,620
$472,580
THAT account titles and numbers requiring adjustments by this Resolution are as follows:

USE SOURCE

OF FUNDS OF FUNDS
Decrease (Increase) Revenue
128-619-1-0001-01 Park Development Fund $ 563,620
128-618-1-0001-01 Parks In-Lieu Division Balance $ 472,580 Increase Expenditures
128-619-4747-05 Shastina Park Development $ 563,620
128-618-4747-05 Shastina Parks In-Lieu $ 472,580
Total $ 1,036,200 $ 1,036,200
THAT the purpose is to appropriate $1,036,200 for the construction of a neighborhood park related to the Shastina Ranch Subdivision park development agreement fiscal year 2022-23.

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

KRISTEN SCHREDER, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVAL:

PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk BARRY E. DeWALT, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: ^Resolution (4.6(c)--Adopt Budget Resolution for the Shastina Ranch Subdivision Park Project)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to RFP Schedule No. 5315, Architectural and Engineering Design Services for the Panorama Park and Recreation Center Project:
(1) Award to NJA Architecture;
(2) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute a Consulting and Professional Services Contract with NJA Architecture for an amount not to exceed $940,000; and (3) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to approve any amendments up to $94,000.

Fiscal Impact
The cost of the architectural and engineering design for the Panorama Park Project is estimated at $940,000. The California Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program grant award of $8.5 million will be applied to the construction of the Panorama Park Project. The grant required a match as the program will not fund 100 percent of the cost to construct indoor spaces. At its October 6, 2020, meeting, the City Council approved $1.5 million in matching funds to complete the project. Match funding will come from the Park Development Fund.

Because it is not part of a landscape maintenance district, the new park and facility will require further funding for operations and maintenance. Staff estimates the early years to cost approximately $250,000 annually and grow to $350,000 annually as the facilities wear and require more repairs and maintenance. The ongoing operations and maintenance funding will need to be budgeted beginning in Fiscal Year 2024-25. This cost would be a general fund expense with some offset from facility rental revenue.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could choose not to award the contract to NJA Architecture (NJA) or provide staff with an alternate direction.

MEETING DATE: October 18, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.6(d)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.6(d)--Award of Request for Proposal (RFP) Schedule No. 5315, Architectural and Engineering Design Services for the Panorama Park and Recreation Center Project.

Kim Niemer, Community
Services Director
Packet Pg. 310
Report to Redding City Council October 13, 2022
Re: 4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315 Page 2
Background/Analysis
The City of Redding’s (City) Panorama Park Project is one of 112 projects in California to receive state grant funding for park improvements through round four of the Proposition 68- funded Statewide Park Program. The highly competitive program received 468 applications totaling $2.42 billion in funding requests. Of those awarded, the City is one of only 18 communities to receive funding in two rounds of the program; the City received a $6.7 million grant for the Caldwell Park Expansion Project in 2020. For this round, the City received an award of $8.5 million for the construction of the 10.53-acre Panorama Park, which includes the City’s first gymnasium and recreation center. The project scope includes:
• A 20,000-square-foot recreation center with parking
• Playground
• Dog park
• Walkways and lighting
• Shade structures
• A multi-use field
• A public plaza
• Disc golf practice area
As part of the design process, the City must contract with qualified design firms to create buildable plans for project construction. The City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) on August 8, 2022, for architectural and engineering services to design Panorama Park and the recreation center. The RFP resulted in two firms submitting proposals, listed as follows:
• Nichols, Melburg & Rossetto + Populous
• NJA Architecture
A four-member selection panel, consisting of City staff from the Engineering Division and the Community Services Department, evaluated the proposals based on the criteria outlined in the RFP. The criteria consisted of project understanding, project approach, responsible personnel, project management strategy, and related experience, which included a minimum of three references. Following the review of the proposals and ranking by staff, the group issued invitations for interviews to both firms. The interview process consisted of a consultant-led presentation and a staff-led 10-question interview.

It was the opinion of the selection panel that, during the interview, NJA best demonstrated an ability to meet the objectives of the RFP, showcased creativity in its design and approach, and had more relevant experience with the building type. NJA’s team demonstrated a right-sized approach geared toward the limited budget and showed a strong understanding of the project scope and grant-required elements that the budget must accommodate. Its previous experience and strategy to integrate the exterior and the interior by including the landscape architect in the overall project design met the intent of the RFP, which specifically sought out designs that create synergy between the two spaces.

Due to supply shortages and inflation, building costs have risen since the grant application submission, which have thereby reduced the grant’s purchasing power and strained the original proposed $10 million budget for this project. Therefore, questions were asked of the consultants Packet Pg. 311
Report to Redding City Council October 13, 2022
Re: 4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315 Page 3
as to how they would approach cost reductions for the project. Based on past experience and research, staff felt that the recreation center construction could utilize a metal building to mitigate some of the cost increase. NJA proposed a prefabricated metal building as part of the interview question which aligned with staff’s perspective of actions needed for cost reduction.

NJA specializes in using metal buildings, and its proposal showed creativity and experience with this method and managing tightly budgeted projects. The firm has experience with public works, multi-purpose recreation centers, and creating flexibility in constrained spaces. Furthermore, the park design method and understanding of safety through design showed initiative; the design suggestions proposed that vary from the initial concept were well-conceived and context sensitive.

The RFP is a qualification-based selection process. Following the proposal review, staff evaluated the cost proposal and determined the proposed costs are consistent with pre-proposal estimates and provide good value for the services included. Additionally, NJA’s proposal was the lowest received.

Environmental Review
On June 22, 2021, the Planning Commission (Commission) adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the Mitigation Monitoring Programs (MMP) and approved the Panorama Park Project, thereby satisfying the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines §15074 (CEQA). At this meeting, the Commission also approved Site Development Permit SDP-2021-00785, General Plan Amendment GPA-2021-0786, and Rezoning Application RZ-2021-0787.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Economic Development – “Facilitate and become a catalyst for economic development in Redding to create jobs, retain current businesses and attract new ones, and encourage investment in the community.”
• Government of the 21st Century – “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
Attachments
Previous Staff Report - Grant Application - October 6, 2020 Agreement
Packet Pg. 312

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution approving the City of Redding as an applicant for the California Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program grant administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation; and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to apply for the grant, appropriate funds should the grant be awarded, and execute any agreements necessary to implement the project.

Fiscal Impact
The grant application will request up to the maximum of $8.5 million to construct Panorama Park and Field House (gymnasium). Staff is required to complete the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation and filing fees concurrent with the application. This is anticipated to cost $20,000 which can be funded out of an existing allocation in the parks development fund. The grant guidelines require a match for construction of indoor facilities.

Based on current project cost estimates a $1.5 million (15percent of total project) match will be required to complete the project. Funding from the Parks Development Fund will be utilized for the studies, fees, and match funding.

If awarded the grant, the new park and facility will require new funding for operations and maintenance. Staff estimates the early years to be close to $200,000 annually and grow to $300,000 over time as the facilities wear and require more repairs and maintenance. If approved, the ongoing operations and maintenance funding will need to be budgeted beginning in Fiscal Year 2023-2024. This cost would be a general fund expense with some offset from facility rental income.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could decline to apply for the funds under this grant opportunity or provide staff with alternative direction.

MEETING DATE: October 6, 2020
ITEM NO. 4.6(b)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.6(b)--Adopt Resolution for California Statewide Park Program Application Kim Niemer, Community
Services Director
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - Grant Application - October 6, 2020 (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) Report to Redding City Council September 29, 2020
Re: 4.6(b)--Resolution California Statewide Park Program Application Page 2 Background/Analysis
Following the passage of Proposition 68, the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018, the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Grant Program allotted approximately $650 million to create, expand, and renovate parks and recreational opportunities in underserved communities. In 2019, the City of Redding (City) applied for round three of the program and received $6.7 million for the Caldwell Park Expansion project, becoming one of only 62 California communities to receive such funds. The highly competitive program received 478 applications totaling $2.3 billion in funding requests.

In July 2020, California State Parks announced round four of the program, and a total allotment of $395.3 million for park construction, improvement or expansion. To capitalize on the funding source, staff is beginning preparations for project planning and the public engagement process to submit an eligible application. Using the 2018-2021 Action Plan and the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan as a framework for selecting potential projects, staff analyzed the program guidelines alongside available park properties. The analysis determined that the 10.53-acre Panorama Park site, located at 950 Lake Blvd, demonstrated both the highest need in the community and proved to be the highest scoring park site currently in the City’s ownership. The City acquired these 10 undeveloped acres in 2006 for park purposes. In 2008, new park planning stalled as the recession hit.

The State’s Community Fact Finder tool shows that the area is considered “deficient” of park space, meaning there are no nearby parks for area residents. Additionally, the area’s median income is below the program’s low-income threshold of 80 percent of the statewide average, and is therefore considered a Severely Disadvantaged Community by those standards. The guidelines and scoring rubric for the grant favor low-income and park deficient areas, and staff believes the park site is the strongest candidate possible, more so than the already awarded Caldwell Park area was in 2019.

For the grant, the staff will propose the construction of a new large neighborhood park and recreation facility known as the Panorama Field House. The project will include park amenities such as trails, landscaping, playground, parking and more. The Field House is conceptually planned to be approximately 20,000 square feet of gym space (enough to accommodate two basketball courts) and 5,000 square feet of classroom, restroom, storage, and reception space.

This project will address the service area gap in the northwest quadrant, and address the critical lack of gymnasium space outlined in the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan. Providing recreational opportunities for the residents of the Lake Boulevard area will provide future jobs and economic investment into one of Redding’s Severely Disadvantaged Communities, as calculated by the California State Parks Community Fact Finder.

Adequate recreational gymnasium space is one of the longstanding recreational needs within the community. The City of Redding does not currently own a gym, which is atypical for a community of its size. Historically, school facilities and joint-use agreements allowed for some City programming of gym space and reduced the need for the City to operate its own facility.

Even with these partnerships, in 2004 the City’s Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan highlighted the need for two additional gyms, and an additional two needed by 2020. Existing school functions, scheduling conflicts, limited availability, closed campuses and sheer capacity issues have diminished the City’s ability to rely on other facilities. When the City does have Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - Grant Application - October 6, 2020 (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) Report to Redding City Council September 29, 2020
Re: 4.6(b)--Resolution California Statewide Park Program Application Page 3 access to gyms, the school retains first priority and scheduling conflicts are a common occurrence, thus creating consistency issues for participants and staff. Furthermore, the current restrictions surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic have halted any shared use and no gymnasiums are available for City recreational programming.

At nearly 600 kids, participation in the City’s youth basketball program last year hit an all-time high. In fact, Redding Recreation turned 60 kids away due to lack of gym availability, which equates to about 10 percent of total participants. Providing a gymnasium with at least two basketball courts will address roughly 50 percent of the current identified need within the City. If funded, a City-owned facility would also be used for youth and adult volleyball leagues, adult basketball, Grasshopper sports, summer camps and much more. Staff anticipates generating rental revenue from AAU basketball teams, tournaments, and other uses as gym space in Redding is at a premium. The facility will also include classroom space for exercise and special interest classes.

As this is a new facility, there is no internal capacity to absorb the maintenance and operating costs. The grant will not fund ongoing maintenance, nor fund a project without a long term maintenance plan. Limited development opportunity makes the prospect of a new landscape maintenance district (LMD) in the area unlikely, and there are no existing LMD’s in the area into which the park could potentially be absorbed with district member approval. For these reasons, maintenance funding for the park would have to be appropriated internally. It is anticipated that construction of the facility would begin in 2023. Operations and maintenance funding would need to be budgeted for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.

As previously stated, the Lake Boulevard area has limited future development opportunities and is unlikely to generate much in terms of park in-lieu fees. Though, the nearby Kennett Court development, a recently approved affordable housing development, is currently under construction with approximately 160+ new multifamily units expected in the next few years. The project will generate park development funds that could be used for match, in addition to strong trends in park development fees throughout the City. These new residences are in addition to the 1,650 residents currently living within the park service area (0.5 mile of the site).

At its September 9, 2020, meeting, the Community Services Advisory Commission unanimously recommended that the Council approve the filing of the grant application. The application is due December 14, 2020, and involves extensive community input as required by the grant program.

During the public engagement process, it is typical for residents to bring new ideas and concepts to the table that will best fit the community’s needs. The process requires at least five public meetings to establish park needs and begin to develop the basic park feature selection and conceptual placement. Staff has experience with this framework, having followed the same guidelines during the planning phase for the Caldwell Park Expansion project. The process will conform to current COVID-19 health guidelines. Potential meeting strategies include online meetings, live and interactive broadcasts, socially distanced or independent site walks, and online polling. The state is issuing guidance on public engagement and staff will incorporate those strategies while meeting local guidelines to provide the best outcome for the current circumstances.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
 Economic Development – “Facilitate and become a catalyst for economic development in Redding to create jobs, retain current businesses and attract new ones, and encourage Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - Grant Application - October 6, 2020 (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) Report to Redding City Council September 29, 2020
Re: 4.6(b)--Resolution California Statewide Park Program Application Page 4 investment in the community.”
 Government of the 21st Century – “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
Attachments
Resolution
Panorama Park Site Map
Panorama Field House Concept
Panorama Park Service Area
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Previous Staff Report - Grant Application - October 6, 2020 (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting and Professional Services Agreement
NJA – Panorama Park Project Page 1

CITY OF REDDING

CONSULTING AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT

THIS CONTRACT is made at Redding, California, by and between the City of Redding (“City”), a municipal corporation, and NJA Architecture (“Consultant”) for the purpose of design and engineering services for the Panorama Park Project.

WHEREAS, City does not have sufficient personnel to perform the services required herein thereby necessitating this Contract for professional services.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties covenant and agree, for good consideration hereby acknowledged, as follows:

SECTION 1. CONSULTANT SERVICES
Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Contract, Consultant shall provide to City the services described in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein. Consultant shall provide the services at the time, place and in the manner specified in Exhibit A.

SECTION 2. COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS
A. City shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Contract, at the times and in the manner set forth in Exhibit B, attached and incorporated herein, in a total amount not to exceed nine hundred thirty-nine thousand four hundred dollars ($939,400). This sum includes all out-of-pocket travel, lodging and incidental expenses incurred by Consultant that are reasonably associated with the provision of services under this Contract. The payments specified herein shall be the only payments to be made to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Contract.

B. Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City for work completed to the date of the invoice. All invoices shall be itemized to reflect the employees performing the requested tasks, the billing rate for each employee and the hours worked.

C. All correct, complete and undisputed invoices sent by Consultant to City shall be paid within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt.

D. Pursuant to Section 1781 of the Labor Code, Consultant is advised that some of the work contemplated in Task 2, of Exhibit A in this contract is subject to the payment of prevailing wages and all other requirements of the Prevailing Wage Law. The prevailing wage of each job classification may be found by inquiry with the California Department of Industrial Relations. Consultant shall comply with all laws related to the performance of public work including, but not limited to, the Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting and Professional Services Agreement
NJA – Panorama Park Project Page 2
employment of apprentices pursuant to Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code, work day/week hours and overtime rates pursuant to Sections 1813 and 1815 of the Labor Code and the obligation set forth in Section 1774-1776 of the Labor Code in regards to payment of prevailing wages and to provide the City of Redding and Department of Industrial Relations certified payrolls when required. A certified copy of all payroll records relative to this project shall be submitted to the City of Redding along with the related invoice. Receipt of certified payroll records is a prerequisite to receiving payment.

E. No Consultant or subconsultant may be listed on a bid proposal for a public works project unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5. No Consultant or subconsultant may be awarded a contract for public work on a public works project unless registered with the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5. All Consultants and subconsultants must furnish electronic certified payroll records to the Labor Commissioner. This requirement applies to all public works projects, whether new or ongoing. Consultant is further advised that the work contemplated herein is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.

SECTION 3. TERM AND TERMINATION
A. Consultant shall commence work on or about the date of this contract and complete said work no later than January 31, 2025. Time is of the essence.

B. If Consultant fails to perform its duties to the satisfaction of City, or if consultant fails to fulfill in a timely and professional manner its obligations under this Contract, then City shall have the right to terminate this Contract effective immediately upon City giving written notice thereof to Consultant.

C. Either Party may terminate this Contract without cause on thirty (30) calendar days’ written notice. Notwithstanding the preceding, if the term set forth in Section 3.A. of this Contract exceeds ninety (90) calendar days in duration, Consultant’s sole right to terminate shall be limited to termination for cause.

D. Consultant hereby acknowledges and agrees that the obligation of City to pay under this Contract is contingent upon the availability of City’s funds which are appropriated or allocated by the City Council. Should the funding for the project and/or work set forth herein not be appropriated or allocated by the City Council, City may terminate this Agreement by furnishing at least thirty (30) calendar days’ written notice of its intention to terminate. In the event of a termination pursuant to this subdivision, Consultant shall not be entitled to a remedy of acceleration of payments due over the term of this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the power to terminate described herein is required by Article 16, Section 18, of Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting and Professional Services Agreement
NJA – Panorama Park Project Page 3
the California Constitution, and that constitutional provision supersedes any law, rule, regulation or statute which conflicts with the provisions of this Section.

E. In the event that City gives notice of termination, Consultant shall promptly provide to City any and all finished and unfinished reports, data, studies, photographs, charts or other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Contract. City shall have full ownership, including, but not limited to, intellectual property rights, and control of all such finished and unfinished reports, data, studies, photographs, charts or other work product.

F. In the event that City terminates the Contract, City shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of services rendered by Consultant pursuant to this Contract; provided, however, that City shall not in any manner be liable for lost profits which might have been made by Consultant had Consultant completed the services required by this Contract. Consultant shall, not later than ten (10) calendar days after termination of this Contract by City, furnish to City such financial information as in the judgment of the City’s representative is necessary to determine the reasonable value of the services rendered by Consultant.

G. In no event shall the termination or expiration of this Contract be construed as a waiver of any right to seek remedies in law, equity or otherwise for a Party’s failure to perform each obligation required by this Contract.

SECTION 4. MISCELLANEOUS TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT A. City shall make its facilities accessible to Consultant as required for Consultant’s performance of its services under this Contract, and, upon request of Consultant, provide labor and safety equipment as required by Consultant for such access.

B. Pursuant to the City’s business license ordinance, Consultant shall obtain a City business license prior to commencing work.

C. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of any nature whatsoever that are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Contract any licenses, permits and approvals that are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession.

D. Consultant shall, during the entire term of this Contract, be construed to be an independent contractor and nothing in this Contract is intended, nor shall it be construed, to create an employer/employee relationship, association, joint venture relationship, trust or partnership or to allow City to exercise discretion or control over the professional manner in which Consultant performs under this Contract. Any and Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting and Professional Services Agreement
NJA – Panorama Park Project Page 4
all taxes imposed on Consultant’s income, imposed or assessed by reason of this Contract or its performance, including but not limited to sales or use taxes, shall be paid by Consultant. Consultant shall be responsible for any taxes or penalties assessed by reason of any claims that Consultant is an employee of City. Consultant shall not be eligible for coverage under City’s workers’ compensation insurance plan, benefits under the Public Employee Retirement System or be eligible for any other City benefit.

E. No provision of this Contract is intended to, or shall be for the benefit of, or construed to create rights in, or grant remedies to, any person or entity not a party hereto.

F. No portion of the work or services to be performed under this Contract shall be assigned, transferred, conveyed or subcontracted without the prior written approval of City. Consultant may use the services of independent contractors and subcontractors to perform a portion of its obligations under this Contract with the prior written approval of City. Independent contractors and subcontractors shall be provided with a copy of this Contract and Consultant shall have an affirmative duty to assure that said independent contractors and subcontractors comply with the same and agree to be bound by its terms. Consultant shall be the responsible party with respect to all actions of its independent contractors and subcontractors, and shall obtain such insurance and indemnity provisions from its contractors and subcontractors as City’s Risk Manager shall determine to be necessary.

G. Consultant, at such times and in such form as City may require, shall furnish City with such periodic reports as it may request pertaining to the work or services undertaken pursuant to this Contract, the costs or obligations incurred or to be incurred in connection therewith, and any other matters covered by this Contract.

H. Consultant shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, property and financial records, adequate to identify and account for all costs pertaining to this Contract and such other records as may be deemed necessary by City to assure proper accounting for all project funds. These records shall be made available for audit purposes to state and federal authorities, or any authorized representative of City.

Consultant shall retain such records for three (3) years after the expiration of this Contract, unless prior permission to destroy them is granted by City.

I. Consultant shall perform all services required pursuant to this Contract in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of Consultant’s profession. All products of whatsoever nature which Consultant delivers to City pursuant to this Contract shall be prepared in a professional manner and conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing the profession of Consultant and its agents, employees and subcontractors assigned to perform the services contemplated by this Contract.

Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting and Professional Services Agreement
NJA – Panorama Park Project Page 5
J. All completed reports and other data or documents, or computer media including diskettes, and other materials provided or prepared by Consultant in accordance with this Contract are the property of City, and may be used by City. City shall have all intellectual property rights including, but not limited to, copyright and patent rights, in said documents, computer media, and other materials provided by Consultant. City shall release, defend, indemnify and hold harmless Consultant from all claims, costs, expenses, damage or liability arising out of or resulting from City’s use or modification of any reports, data, documents, drawings, specifications or other work product prepared by Consultant, except for use by City on those portions of the City’s project for which such items were prepared.

K. Consultant, including its employees, agents, and subconsultants, shall not maintain or acquire any direct or indirect interest that conflicts with the performance of this Contract. Consultant shall comply with all requirements of the Political Reform Act (Government Code § 8100 et seq.) and other laws relating to conflicts of interest, including the following: 1) Consultant shall not make or participate in a decision made by City if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision may have a material effect on Consultant’s economic interest, and 2) if required by the City Attorney, Consultant shall file financial disclosure forms with the City Clerk.

SECTION 5. INSURANCE
A. Unless modified in writing by City’s Risk Manager, Consultant shall maintain the following noted insurance during the duration of the Contract:

Coverage Required Not Required
Commercial General Liability x
Comprehensive Vehicle Liability x
Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability x
Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) x
(Place an “x” in the appropriate box)
B. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. Insurance Services Office form number CG-0001, Commercial General Liability Insurance, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage;

2. Insurance Services Office form number CA-0001 (Ed. 1/87), Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance, which provides for total limits of not less than $1,000,000 combined single limits per accident applicable to all owned, non-owned and hired vehicles;
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting and Professional Services Agreement
NJA – Panorama Park Project Page 6

3. Statutory Workers’ Compensation required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers' Liability Insurance in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Both the Workers’ Compensation and Employers' Liability policies shall contain the insurer's waiver of subrogation in favor of City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers;

4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance, appropriate to Consultant’s profession, against loss due to error or omission or malpractice in an amount not less than $1,000,000.

5. The City does not accept insurance certificates or endorsements with the wording “but only in the event of a named insured’s sole negligence” or any other verbiage limiting the insured’s insurance responsibility.

C. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City.

At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration and defense expenses.

D. The General Liability shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:

1. City, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents are to be covered as additional insured as respects liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of Consultant; premises owned, leased or used by Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Consultant.

The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers.

2. The insurance coverage of Consultant shall be primary insurance as respects City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers, shall be in excess of Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

3. Coverage shall state that the insurance of Consultant shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.

Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting and Professional Services Agreement
NJA – Panorama Park Project Page 7

4. Each insurance policy required by this Contract shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled except after thirty (30) calendar days' prior written notice has been given to City. In addition, Consultant agrees that it shall not reduce its coverage or limits on any such policy except after thirty (30) calendar days’ prior written notice has been given to City.

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

F. Consultant shall designate the City of Redding as a Certificate Holder of the insurance. Consultant shall furnish City with certificates of insurance and original endorsements effecting the coverages required by this clause. Certificates and endorsements shall be furnished to: Risk Management Department, City of Redding, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by the insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City’s Risk Manager prior to the commencement of contracted services. City may withhold payments to Consultant if adequate certificates of insurance and endorsements required have not been provided, or not been provided in a timely manner.

G. The requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant as required by Section 5 of this Contract, and any approval of said insurance by City, are not intended to and will not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by Consultant pursuant to this Contract, including, without limitation, provisions concerning indemnification.

H. If any policy of insurance required by this Section is a “claims made” policy, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 342 and Government Code § 945.6, Consultant shall keep said insurance in effect for a period of eighteen (18) months after the termination of this Contract.

I. If any damage, including death, personal injury or property damage, occurs in connection with the performance of this Contract, Consultant shall immediately notify City’s Risk Manager by telephone at (530) 225-4068. No later than three (3) calendar days after the event, Consultant shall submit a written report to City’s Risk Manager containing the following information, as applicable: 1) name and address of injured or deceased person(s); 2) name and address of witnesses; 3) name and address of Consultant’s insurance company; and 4) a detailed description of the damage and whether any City property was involved.

Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting and Professional Services Agreement
NJA – Panorama Park Project Page 8
SECTION 6. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS
A. Consistent with California Civil Code § 2782.8, when the services to be provided under this Contract are design professional services to be performed by a design professional, as that term is defined under Section 2782.8, Consultant shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify protect, defend and hold harmless, City, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents, and each and every one of them, from and against all actions, damages, costs, liability, claims, losses, penalties and expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees of the City Attorney or legal counsel retained by City, expert fees, litigation costs, and investigation costs) of every type and description to which any or all of them may be subjected by reason of, or resulting from, directly or indirectly, the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officers, employees or agents in the performance of professional services under this Contract, except when liability arises due to the sole negligence, active negligence or misconduct of the City.

B. Other than in the performance of professional services by a design professional, which is addressed solely by subdivision (A) of this Section, and to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify protect, defend and hold harmless, City, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents, and each and every one of them, from and against all actions, damages, costs, liability, claims, losses, penalties and expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees of the City Attorney or legal counsel retained by City, expert fees, litigation costs, and investigation costs) of every type and description to which any or all of them may be subjected by reason of the performance of the services required under this Contract by Consultant its officers, employees or agents in the performance of professional services under this Contract, except when liability arises due to the sole negligence, active negligence or misconduct of the City.

C. The Consultant’s obligation to defend, indemnify and hold harmless shall not be excused because of the Consultant’s inability to evaluate liability. The Consultant shall respond within thirty (30) calendar days to the tender of any claim for defense and indemnity by the City, unless this time has been extended in writing by the City.

If the Consultant fails to accept or reject a tender of defense and indemnity in writing delivered to City within thirty (30) calendar days, in addition to any other remedy authorized by law, the City may withhold such funds the City reasonably considers necessary for its defense and indemnity until disposition has been made of the claim or until the Consultant accepts or rejects the tender of defense in writing delivered to the City, whichever occurs first. This subdivision shall not be construed to excuse the prompt and continued performance of the duties required of Consultant herein.

D. The obligation to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless set forth in this Section applies to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting and Professional Services Agreement
NJA – Panorama Park Project Page 9
are applicable. The policy limits of said insurance policies do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by Contractor.

E. City shall have the right to approve or disapprove the legal counsel retained by Consultant pursuant to this Section to represent City’s interests. City shall be reimbursed for all costs and attorney's fees incurred by City in enforcing the obligations set forth in this Section.

SECTION 7. CONTRACT INTERPRETATION, VENUE AND ATTORNEY FEES A. This Contract shall be deemed to have been entered into in Redding, California. All questions regarding the validity, interpretation or performance of any of its terms or of any rights or obligations of the parties to this Contract shall be governed by California law. If any claim, at law or otherwise, is made by either party to this Contract, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

B. This document, including all exhibits, contains the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes whatever oral or written understanding each may have had prior to the execution of this Contract. This Contract shall not be altered, amended or modified except by a writing signed by City and Consultant. No verbal agreement or conversation with any official, officer, agent or employee of City, either before, during or after the execution of this Contract, shall affect or modify any of the terms or conditions contained in this Contract, nor shall any such verbal agreement or conversation entitle Consultant to any additional payment whatsoever under the terms of this Contract.

C. No covenant or condition to be performed by Consultant under this Contract can be waived except by the written consent of City. Forbearance or indulgence by City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of the covenant or condition in question. Until performance by Consultant of said covenant or condition is complete, City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to City under this Contract or by law or in equity despite said forbearance or indulgence.

D. If any portion of this Contract or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be invalid or unenforceable to any extent, the remainder of this Contract shall not be affected thereby and shall be enforced to the greatest extent permitted by law.

E. The headings in this Contract are inserted for convenience only and shall not constitute a part hereof. A waiver of any party of any provision or a breach of this Contract must be provided in writing, and shall not be construed as a waiver of any other provision or any succeeding breach of the same or any other provisions herein.

Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting and Professional Services Agreement
NJA – Panorama Park Project Page 10
F. Each Party hereto declares and represents that in entering into this Contract, it has relied and is relying solely upon its own judgment, belief and knowledge of the nature, extent, effect and consequence relating thereto. Each Party further declares and represents that this Contract is made without reliance upon any statement or representation not contained herein of any other Party or any representative, agent or attorney of the other Party. The Parties agree that they are aware that they have the right to be advised by counsel with respect to the negotiations, terms, and conditions of this Contract and that the decision of whether or not to seek the advice of counsel with respect to this Contract is a decision which is the sole responsibility of each of the Parties. Accordingly, 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.

G. Each of the Parties hereto hereby irrevocably waives any and all right to trial by jury in any action, proceeding, claim or counterclaim, whether in contract or tort, at law or in equity, arising out of or in any way related to this Agreement or the transactions contemplated hereby. Each Party further waives any right to consolidate any action which a jury trial has been waived with any other action in which a jury trial cannot be or has not been waived.

H. In the event of a conflict between the term and conditions of the body of this Contract and those of any exhibit or attachment hereto, the terms and conditions set forth in the body of this Contract proper shall prevail. In the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of any two or more exhibits or attachments hereto, those prepared by City shall prevail over those prepared by Consultant.

SECTION 8. SURVIVAL
The provisions set forth in Sections 3 through 7, inclusive, of this Contract shall survive termination of the Contract.

SECTION 9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS - NONDISCRIMINATION
A. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances and codes of federal, state and local governments.

B. In the performance of this Contract, Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religious creed, sex, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, political affiliation, or membership or nonmembership in any organization. Consultant shall take affirmative action to ensure applicants are employed and that employees are treated during their employment without regard to their race, color, ancestry, national origin, religious creed, sex, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, political affiliation, or membership or nonmembership in any organization. Such actions shall Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting and Professional Services Agreement
NJA – Panorama Park Project Page 11
include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and selection for training.

SECTION 10. REPRESENTATIVES
A. City’s representative for this Contract is Kimberly Niemer, telephone number (530) 225-4512, fax number (530) 225-4585. All of Consultant’s questions pertaining to this Contract shall be referred to the above-named person, or to the representative's designee.

B. Consultant’s representative for this Contract is Nick Seward, telephone number (209) 400-6080. All of City’s questions pertaining to this Contract shall be referred to the above-named person.

C. The representatives set forth herein shall have authority to give all notices required herein.

SECTION 11. NOTICES
A. All notices, requests, demands and other communications hereunder shall be deemed given only if in writing signed by an authorized representative of the sender (may be other than the representatives referred to in Section 10) and delivered by facsimile, with a hard copy mailed first class, postage prepaid; or when sent by a courier or an express service guaranteeing overnight delivery to the receiving party, addressed to the respective parties as follows:

To City:

Kimberly A. Niemer
City of Redding
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, CA 96001
To Consultant:

Nick Seward
NJA Architecture
212 W. Pine St., Suite 1
Lodi, CA 95240
B. Either party may change its address for the purposes of this paragraph by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided in this Section.

C. Notice shall be deemed effective upon: 1) personal service; 2) two calendar days after mailing or transmission by facsimile, whichever is earlier.

Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting and Professional Services Agreement
NJA – Panorama Park Project Page 12
SECTION 12. AUTHORITY TO CONTRACT
A. Each of the undersigned signatories hereby represents and warrants that they are authorized to execute this Contract on behalf of the respective parties to this Contract; that they have full right, power and lawful authority to undertake all obligations as provided in this Contract; and that the execution, performance and delivery of this Contract by said signatories has been fully authorized by all requisite actions on the part of the respective parties to this Contract.

B. When the Mayor is signatory to this Contract, the City Manager and/or the Department Director having direct responsibility for managing the services provided herein shall have authority to execute any amendment to this Contract which does not increase the amount of compensation allowable to Consultant or otherwise substantially change the scope of the services provided herein.

C. Notwithstanding the preceding, the City Manager or his designee shall have the authority to amend the scope of work and the compensation due to the consultant in the amount not to exceed $94,000.

SECTION 13. DATE OF CONTRACT
The date of this Contract shall be the date it is signed by City.

Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Consulting and Professional Services Agreement
NJA – Panorama Park Project Page 13
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Contract on the days and year set forth below:

CITY OF REDDING,
A Municipal Corporation
Dated: _________________, 2022 ______________________________

BARRY TIPPIN, CITY MANAGER
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

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

NJA Architecture
Dated: ___________, 2022
__________________________________
By:

Tax ID No.: 82-0803614

Department of Industrial Relations No.: PW-LR-1000967440

Attachments:

Exhibit A (Scope of Work)
Exhibit B (Payment Schedule)
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315)

CITY OF REDDING

PANORAMA PARK AND

RECREATION CENTER
EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF WORK
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) 2 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
DATE October 7, 2002
CLIENT City of Redding
PROJECT Panorama Park and Recreation Center Project
LOCATION 950 Lake Blvd., Redding, CA 96003
SERVICE NJ Associates, Inc. DBA (‘NJA Architecture & NJA”) PROVIDER Licensed Architect John Vierra (License No. C35199) Licensed Architect Nick Seward (License No. C38947)
NJA shall provide Architectural Services for the Project listed in this agreement covering the following project requirements described in Article 1.1 Project Scope.

1.1 PROJECT SCOPE
• Community Center:
• Approximately 20,000 SF
• Gymnasium/multipurpose space, classroom(s), storage, restrooms, locker rooms, (2) 84’ x 50’ basketball courts w/bleachers, and administration spaces • Site Features:
• Playground and associated hardscape improvements
• Dog Park: small and large dog areas
• Multi-use athletic field (with conduit for future lighting) • Public plaza area
• Parking area as required with drainage / Low Impact Development (LID) features, lighting, landscaping, and irrigation
• Disc golf course area
• (1) Shade structure
• Pathways: including looped and lighted trail, signs, utility connections, and landscaping
• Street Frontage: including striping, curb and gutter, landscaping and crosswalks • Site Safety Fencing
• Site Features: benches, water fountains, garbage cans, way-finding signage • Landscaping
• Master Planning Efforts for Future Improvements:
• Identify locations, stub utilities, install conduits, and anticipate future construction • Lighted skateboard plaza, lighted outdoor multi-use sports court that accommodates basketball, pickle-ball, roller sports, lighting for the multi-use athletic fields 01 Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) 3 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES

1.2 PR E - D E S I G N
• Task 1: Project Management Review and Scheduling:
• (1) Project Kickoff Meeting with City Project Manager, City Staff and Design Team • Meeting agendas and minutes
• Project Schedule and updates
• Monthly progress report and invoice, including:
• Overview of work accomplished during the month
• Description of current key activities with schedule update for each task and subtask • List of problems and proposed corrective actions
• List of tasks for the following month
• Schedule Summary indicating any concerns or critical path items and a Recovery Plan for activities over 2 weeks behind schedule
• Quality Assurance – Quality Control Program
• Correspondence and file maintenance
• Prepare and conduct (3) presentations: City Council, the Community Services Advisory Commission, and the public
• Meeting(s) with City to discuss project status, problems, budgeting, and adverse effects
• Task 2: Data Collection and Field Surveys:
• Geotechnical Engineering:
• Geotechnical investigation of subsurface conditions for roadway and facility improvements
• Data used to design underground structures, foundations, parking, sidewalks, and trails
• Log of all test borings shall be made available to the City’s Project Manager • In-situ soil sampling and laboratory tests: soil “R” value, pavement structural section, and determination of ground stability
• Notification to City and Underground Service Alert (USA) of all sampling work • Obtain permits for geotechnical work
• Coordinate with City Project Manager at least 48 hours prior to work on site • Provide City with (4) hard copies and (1) electronic PDF of draft and final report • Geotechnical report to include: recommendations for foundations and structural sections for trails and parking
• Civil Engineering:
• Identify and coordinate with each utility, including new or relocated utilities • Utilities include: PG&E, REU, Redding Municipal Utilities (RMU), AT&T, and Charter.
01 Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) 4 • Conduct data collection and field surveys necessary to establish horizontal and vertical control, utility locations, right-of-way limits, and property boundaries, including: boundary, topographic and control surveys to establish elements required for plan preparation and construction
• Determine and record location of existing City Right of Way • Review utility maps, identify locations, points of connection, and service upgrades
• Building and structure location data for tie in control • Basis of bearings shall be City of Redding monumentation and coordination with State Plane Coordinate System NAD 83 and NAVD 88 datums. • Landscape Architecture:
• Receive background data and information from previous public outreach by the City, visit site, review project goals and phasing, review schedule and budget, work with City to identify a hierarchy of exterior program elements • Architectural:
• Environmental, geotechnical, and pertinent site document review • Review existing data to aid design, including park design standards, amenities, locations, and additional requirements
• Perform site reconnaissance of existing conditions, surrounding features, circulation, landscaping, and other relevant factors
• Meet with City staff for field review of existing site, infrastructure, and project components
• Recap community input and design criteria outlined in grant proposal and contract

1.3 S C H E M AT I C D E S I G N
• Task 3: Conceptual and Schematic Design:
• (4) Project meeting(s) with City Staff and Design Team • Review project background, reference materials, investigations, conceptual materials, project goals, assumptions, and budget
• Review grant application and program requirements to ensure compliance with standards referenced in the guidelines
• Present to City Project Manager and staff team for comment and approval • Prepare Basis of Design document, including building and systems descriptions, code analysis, and Title 24 energy considerations
• Develop schematic drawings and outline specifications per approved concept, budget, standards, and regulatory requirements noted
• Make recommendations to City for selection and approval of equipment and systems 01 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) 5 • Prepare design update presentation materials
• Provide cost estimate with Schematic Design submittal • Civil Engineering:
• Prepare conceptual design for the grading and drainage, site access, building location, park features, and master plan for future improvements • Landscape Architecture:
• Prepare concept diagrams that explore different ways or organizing the program elements on the site, bubble diagrams illustrating the general size and location for each program element, as well as walkways, buffers or other site elements, meet with City staff to review 3 layouts to identify pros and cons, based on City input refine concepts and prepare a single site master bubble diagram, graphically appealing colored concept diagram showing general size and layout of exterior amenities, not a detailed design
• Develop a single conceptual landscape design plan to illustrate the preferred design, review function, circulation, materials, and overall character, reflecting actual design and detail associated with each program element. Concept Site Plan, Supplemental Design Documentation, Site Plan CAD file, Preliminary Landscape Plan
• Architectural:
• Provide conceptual site design studies for review by Owner • Develop conceptual site plan showing features, path of travel, and parking requirements
• Provide conceptual exterior building elevation design studies for review by owner • Develop conceptual floor plan(s)
• Conceptual renderings showing materials and finishes
• Our proposal includes a maximum of two (2) revisions to initial concepts • Structural:
• Prepare conceptual design and BOD to include building structural description and code analysis
• Mechanical:
• Prepare conceptual design and BOD to include building systems descriptions, code analysis, and preliminary Title 24 energy performance data • Plumbing:
• Prepare conceptual design and BOD to include building systems descriptions, code analysis, and preliminary Title 24 performance data • Electrical:
• Prepare conceptual design and BOD to include building systems descriptions, code analysis, and preliminary Title 24 energy performance data 01 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) 6 1.4 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
• Task 4: Design Development (30% Plans & Estimate):
• (2) Project meeting(s) with City Staff and Design Team • Incorporate stakeholder comments received through schematic design phase • Develop 30% plans and potential options considering preliminary cost estimates • Circulate 30% plans and estimates for comment and review; make revisions as required
• Prepare 30% Estimate of Construction Costs
• Civil Engineering:
• Prepare 30% Plans and Details, Grading and Drainage Plan, Drainage Report, MS4 Reports, SWPP and outline specifications
• Landscape Architecture:
• Prepare 30% Hardscape Plans and Details, Grading and Drainage Plan, Planting Plans, Irrigation Plans, Planting and Irrigation Details, Landscape Accent Lighting, and Specifications
• Architectural:
• Prepare 30% Plans, details, and outline specifications • Refine site plan showing features, public path of travel, and total parking requirements
• Develop floor plan(s) in accordance with the necessary code requirements • Develop exterior elevations
• Coordination with the following design consultants: civil, landscape, structural, mechanical, plumbing and electrical
• (2) revisions are factored into this phase, with any design changes beyond this number resulting in additional services
• Structural:
• Prepare 30% structural design, engage in agency and design team coordination, design development meetings, preliminary drawings and outline specifications • Mechanical:
• Prepare 30% HVAC system design, engage in agency and design team coordination, design development meetings, preliminary drawings and outline specifications, preliminary Title 24 compliance for Envelope and Mechanical • Plumbing:
• Prepare 30% plumbing system design, engage in agency and design team coordination, design development meetings, preliminary drawings and outline specifications
• Electrical:
• Design 30% plans for all electrical elements and potential options considering preliminary cost estimates
01 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) 7 1.5 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
• Task 6: Plans, Specifications, and Engineering Estimates:
• (1) Project meeting(s) with City Staff and Design Team • Prepare plans to City standards, including: Title Sheet, General Notes, Right-of-Way, Existing Conditions and Demolition Plans, Civil Plans, Grading and Utilities Plans, Landscaping and Irrigation Plans, Architectural Plans, Structural Plans, Mechanical Plans, Electrical and Lighting Plans, and details necessary to construct the project • Existing City Right of Way (ROW) accurately shown on plans and exhibits • Identify and design the stormwater treatment or low impact development for the project
• Prepare project specifications
• Prepare 60% and 90% Estimates of Construction Costs
• Design to comply with appropriate local and state design codes and guidelines • Each submittal provided with comment resolution matrix and checked redlines • Respond to and incorporate appropriate City, utility, and regulatory agency comments • Submittals (plans, specifications and estimates) at the 30%, 60%, and 90% completion points for City and outside agency review.
• Civil Engineering:
• Prepare 60% and 90% Plans
• Specifications
• Boundary and topographic survey
• Onsite improvement plans
• Offsite improvement plans for street frontage
• SWPPP
• Landscape Architecture:
• Prepare 60% and 90% Plans
• Hardscape Plans and Details
• Grading and Drainage Plan
• Planting Plans
• Irrigation Plans
• Planting and Irrigation Details
• Landscape Accent Lighting
• Specifications
• Architectural:
• Prepare 60% and 90% Plans
• Cover sheet with project information, building code analysis, vicinity Map & general notes
• Site plan showing features, public path of travel and parking requirements 01 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) 8 • Floor plans and general notes
• Reflected ceiling plans
• Roof plans and general notes
• Exterior elevations with material keynotes
• Building Sections and wall sections as required
• Enlarged restroom plans and interior elevations as required • Door and window/storefront schedules
• Architectural design details as required
• Interior finish schedules as required
• Finish floor & ceiling plans
• Finish Schedules and materials
• Life safety plan with occupancy load analysis and plumbing fixture count • Accessibility standards & details
• Specifications
• Structural:
• Prepare 60% and 90% Plans
• Assistance in establishing building gravity and lateral structural systems • Building structural systems design and engineering calculations • Drawings describing structural systems for purposes of permitting, bidding, and construction
• Calculations describing structural systems for purposes of permitting, bidding, and construction
• Specifications for specified structural systems on drawings • Mechanical:
• Prepare 60% and 90% Plans
• HVAC system design
• Agency coordination
• Design team coordination
• Mechanical Drawings, Schedules, and Details
• Mechanical Specifications
• Title 24 compliance for Envelope and Mechanical
• Plumbing:
• Prepare 60% and 90% Plans
• Plumbing system design
• Agency coordination
• Design team coordination
• Plumbing Drawings, Schedules, and Details
• Plumbing Specifications
01 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) 9 • Electrical:
• Prepare 60% and 90% Plans
• Complete electrical design for the Community Center building and Park • Lighting and controls
• Electrical distribution
• Connections of outlets
• Connect of the HVAC equipment
• Conduit/wire for all low voltage systems (fire alarm, clock, speaker, data) • Fire alarm system design and calculations
• Data system design
• Performance design of PA system
• Power Plans
• Title 24 lighting compliance documents for interior and exterior lighting and power distribution
• Park: Athletic Field and Court lights, Lighted Pathways • Task 5: Permitting:
• Support and provide necessary services to obtain required permits, including:
• Site Grading and Underground Utility Permit
• Associated drainage or stormwater discharge permit
• Community Center Building Permit (and associated foundation permit, if necessary) • Shade structure Building Permit
• Task 7: Final Submittals:
• (1) Project meeting(s) with City Staff and Design Team • Upon City acceptance and approval, submit final construction bid documents • Plans, specifications and estimate of the 100% Final Package completion points for City and outside agency review.
• Submittals for review at appropriate design stages: 8 ½” x 11” reproducible specifications and 50% reduced drawing sheets
• Provide (10) sets at review stages for City and appropriate agency reviews • Final drawings prepared on 22” x 34” mylar for original signatures • Specification cover and each plan sheet sealed and signed by the design professional
• Submit two (2) full-size and (2) half-size final plan sets on bond paper • Cost Estimating services: Prepare Final Estimate of Construction Costs • Prepare bid packages incorporating City standard general provisions, instructions and notice to bidders, technical specifications, special provisions, required federal provisions, and approved plans reduced by 50%.
• Submit electronic copy of all plans in AutoCAD and Adobe Acrobat format 01 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) 10 • Submit specification document in Microsoft Word and PDF format • Submit (1) set of quantity calculations and final engineering estimate in Microsoft Excel

1.6 BIDDING & CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
• Task 8: Assistance During Bidding and Construction:
• Provide assistance during bidding and construction to ensure contractor understands technical aspects of the design and changes • Coordinate with City to respond to contractor and supplier questions during bidding • Provide drawings, modifications, and clarifications during the bidding period • Prepare addenda as required
• Attend (1) pre-construction conference to ensure contractor understanding of project • Assist City with submittal reviews, preparation of change orders, and response to RFIs related to technical design issues
• Prepare design clarifications to convey design intent • Following construction, prepare record drawings based upon as-built mark-ups submitted by contractor and resident engineer
• Design professional’s stamp and signature shall be maintained, and a “Record Drawing” stamp shall be added

1.7 BASIS OF DESIGN DOCUMENT & MAINTENANCE PLAN
• Task 9: Basis of Design Document and Maintenance Plan • Develop and maintain Basis of Design Document (BOD) throughout project development
• Primary design assumptions include but are not limited to the following:
• Project background, relevant to understand design, including major influences such as energy, safety, and sustainability
• References or citations affecting primary design decisions • Schedule and budget limitations
• Operational occupancy and building usage
• Indoor Environment: temperature, humidity, ventilation, air changes, space pressurization
• Building system criteria: ambient conditions, equipment loads, redundancy, safety, power loads and capacities
• Close-out folder to include: final BOD document, record drawings, warranties, and O&M manuals for future reference
• Reference specific codes, standards, regulations, guidelines, and year of publication 01 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) 11 • Legal requirements such as building codes, fire and life safety regulations and specialized equipment or system codes
• Owner mandated standard or project specific design requirements, such as Environmental Health and Safety guidelines
• Sustainable design goals
• Energy considerations, such as facility source, energy consumption and cost goals • Considerations for future expansion
• Narrative descriptions of major building systems
• Limiting project conditions on system types and locations • System type and location selection criteria, including life cycle cost analyses • Air distribution systems, including ducts, plenums, air flow control strategies, fan systems, sizing criteria, and static pressure
• Heating and cooling system design demands and excess capacity capabilities • Building automation system types, control schemes, and sequences • BOD to serve as a technically complete tool with updates during design development, construction, and at project completion
• Include a summary of notable design solutions and exceptions • Unique pieces of information that should be carried forward to potential future projects that may impact the built space or the way the space is operated or maintained, etc.
• Examples of notable design solutions are considerations for future expansion; both functional tie-ins for space or tie-in to utilities, as well as designed spare capacity by system (exhaust, emergency power, etc).
• Develop a maintenance plan building appurtenant features • Exterior park shall not be included in the Maintenance Plan • The Maintenance Plan shall include:
• Expected lifespans of building materials, systems, hardware, and recreational accessories
• Strategies, methods, timelines and suggestions for maintenance or replacement • Care instructions and schedule for basketball court flooring • Cost estimates for future replacements based upon designated replacement service intervals, including anticipated inflation
• Appurtenant features including, parking lot lighting, parking lot seal coating, and striping
• Provide operations and maintenance manual closeout binders at project completion:
• (2) physical copies and (1) electronic copy
• Include warranty documents, manufacturer’s maintenance schedule, and cut sheets for the actual products used
01 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315) 12 1.8 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES NOT PROVIDED
• Changes in the project’s program defined in 1.1 Project Scope • Re-design or changes to drawings after finalization of construction drawings or changes for substituted systems
• Fire sprinkler plan, fire alarms and fire suppression system (to be provided by designbuild subcontractor during construction) • Existing Environmental Analysis - Phase 1 & 2 reports • CEQA studies for the project are complete and excluded from the scope • All relevant studies for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act have been completed and an exemption and a mitigated negative declaration filed in 2021.
• Planning, design, or engineering related to underground for existing overhead utilities • Additional buildings beyond Community Center structure, such as standalone restroom • Specialty equipment design and layout
• Building commissioning beyond code minimum requirements • Hazardous material reports and abatement if necessary • Joint trench design
• Solar design
• EV charging stalls and canopy design
• Water feature design and engineering
• Any governmental fees required by this work
• NJA cannot assume responsibility for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, safety precautions, programs connected with the work, or for acts and omissions by the Contractor, subcontractors, or others 01 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315)

CITY OF REDDING

PANORAMA PARK AND

RECREATION CENTER
EXHIBIT B: PAYMENT SCHEDULE
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315)

CITY OF REDDING

PAYMENT SCHEDULE

CONSULTANT AND SUBCONSULTANT TEAM

PANORAMA PARK AND RECREATION CENTER PROJECT FEE SUMMARYPHASE

ARCHITECT
CIVIL

ENGINEER ENGINEER

GEOTECH

ARCHITECT
LANDSCAPE STRUCT.

PLUMB
MECH.

ELEC. COST EST. TOTALS
OCT 2022 Task 1: Project Management 26,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,200 $ 2,000 $ 31,200 $ SurveysTask 2: Data Collection and Field
10,000 $ 23,000 $ 10,000 $ 2,800 $ - $ - $ 2,600 $ - $ 48,400 $ Design Task 3: Conceptual and Schematic
108,000 $ 15,500 $ - $ 30,000 $ 12,000 $ 10,200 $ 12,600 $ 4,000 $ 192,300 $ NOV 2022-JAN
2023
Task 4: Design Development (30%
Report, MS4 Reports, SWPPPPlans & Estimate) + Drainage
104,600 $ 38,400 $ - $ 13,700 $ 24,500 $ 12,500 $ 12,600 $ 8,000 $ 214,300 $ JAN-MAR 2023
Task 6: Plans, Specifications, and
Engineering Estimates 137,000 $ 55,200 $ - $ 22,000 $ 31,000 $ 14,800 $ 50,000 $ 8,000 $ 318,000 $ MAR-JUN 2023 Permits Task 5: Obtain All Necessary 14,000 $ - $ - $ 14,300 $ 4,000 $ 3,500 $ - $ 35,800 $ JUL 2023 Task 7: Final Submittals
5,000 $ - $ - $ 9,500 $ 2,500 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ - $ 23,000 $ AUG 2023
Administration (Allowance)and Construction, Construction Task 8: Assistance During Bidding 20,000 $ 13,000 $ - $ 15,000 $ - $ - $ 3,200 $ - $ 51,200 $ OCT 2023-NOV
2024 and Maintenance Plan
Task 9: Basis of Design Document
9,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,200 $ - $ 16,200 $ Grant Close-out - Excluded - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
Reimbursables 5,400 $ - $ - $ 3,600 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 9,000 $ ExcludedAdditional Meetings (Allowance) - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 439,000 $ 145,100 $ 10,000 $ 110,900 $ 76,000 $ 46,000 $ 90,400 $ 22,000 $ 939,400 $ OCT-NOV 2022
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315)

CITY OF REDDING

PAYMENT SCHEDULE

ARCHITECT

PANORAMA PARK AND RECREATION CENTER NJA ARCHITECTURE

PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL PROJECT

ARCHITECT MANAGER

PROJECT

DESIGNER

PROJECT

DESIGNER

INTERIOR

NICK JOHN RICH JAC JOSE MICHAYLA

HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS
SchedulingTask 1: Project Management Review and
164 20 16 40 46 28 8 6 0
$26,000
Task 2: Data Collection and Field Surveys 67 8 8 12 15 8 8 8 0 $10,000Task 3: Conceptual and Schematic Design 735 64 44 128 105 178 192 6 18
$108,000
Task 4: Design Development (30% Plans & SWPPPEstimate) + Drainage Report, MS4 Reports, 722 54 32 130 110 180 190 8 18 $104,600
Task 6: Plans, Specifications, and Engineering
Estimates 941 57 36 182 150 244 252 8 12 $137,000
Task 5: Obtain All Necessary Permits
101 8 8 12 15 20 26 12 0 $14,000
Task 7: Final Submittals
35 4 2 4 5 8 10 2 0 $5,000
(Allowance)Construction, Construction Administration Task 8: Assistance During Bidding and 148 8 2 16 18 43 43 2 16 $20,000
Maintenance PlanTask 9: Basis of Design Document and
75 2 0 5 5 4 4 2 53 $9,000
Reimbursables $5,400
TOTAL HOURS 2,988 225 148 529 469 713 733 54 117
BILLING RATE $195 $195 $175 $150 $125 $125 $80 $110 TOTAL TOTAL LABOR $433,600 $439,000
OCT 2023-NOV
2024
OCT-NOV 2022
NOV 2022 -
JAN 2023
MAR-JUN 2023
JAN-MAR 2023
AUG 2023
JUL 2023

TASK TOTAL HOURS
ADMIN.

STAFF

COMMISSIONING

SERVICES TASK TOTAL
OCT 2022
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315)

CITY OF REDDING

PAYMENT SCHEDULE

CIVIL ENGINEERING SUBCONSULTANT

PANORAMA PARK AND RECREATION CENTER SHARRAH DUNLAP SAWYER

PROFESSIONA

SUPERVISING PROFESSIONA
L 3

PROJECT
MANAGER 2

JOSH IAN TONY

HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS
Review and SchedulingTask 1: Project Management
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0
Field SurveysTask 2.1: Data Collection and
64 10 0 0 0 0 0 48 6 $10,080
Field SurveysTask 2.2: Data Collection and
40 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 $12,920
Schematic Design Task 3: Conceptual and
96 0 14 14 0 0 60 5 3 $15,500
Task 4: Design Development
SWPPPDrainage Report, MS4 Reports, (30% Plans & Estimate) + 264 0 38 8 0 138 54 18 8 $38,400
Task 6: Plans, Specifications,
and Engineering Estimates 271 0 29 29 0 0 172 29 12 $42,950 PermitsTask 5: Obtain All Necessary
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0
Task 7: Final Submittals 75 0 12 12 0 0 40 8 3 $12,250
(Allowance)Construction Administration Bidding and Construction, 72 0 20 32 0 0 16 0 4 $13,000
PlanDocument and Maintenance Task 9: Basis of Design
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0
TOTAL HOURS 881 10 113 95 40 138 342 108 36
BILLING RATE $222 $210 $186 $323 $125 $149 $149 $121
TOTAL LABOR $145,100

MAR-JUN
2023
NOV 2024
OCT 2023-
AUG 2023
JUL 2023
NOV 2024
ADMIN. 2

PROJECT

TASK TOTAL

OCT-NOV
OCT 2022
2022
NOV 2022 -

JAN-MAR
JAN 2023
2023

TASK TOTAL HOURS
2-MAN
SURVEY CREW DESIGNER 1 DESIGNER 2 TECHNICIAN 4
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315)

CITY OF REDDING

PAYMENT SCHEDULE

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SUBCONSULTANT

PANORAMA PARK AND RECREATION CENTER CGI TECHNICAL SERVICES

HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS
Task 1: Project Management Review and Scheduling 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 $290 subtasks (not subject to Prevailing Wage)Task 2.1: Data Collection and Field Surveys: Off-Site 14 0 12 0 0 0 1 1 0 $4,795
Geotechnical ReportTask 3: Conceptual and Schematic Design: subtasks (subject to Prevailing Wage)Task 2.2: Data Collection and Field Surveys: On-Site 35 0 27 8 0 0 0 0 0 $4,915
Task 4: Design Development (30% Plans & Estimate) + Drainage Report, MS4 Reports, SWPPP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0Task 6: Plans, Specifications, and Engineering Estimates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0
Task 5: Obtain All Necessary Permits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0Task 7: Final Submittals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0Construction Administration (Allowance)Task 8: Assistance During Bidding and Construction, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0
PlanTask 9: Basis of Design Document and Maintenance
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0
TOTAL HOURS 51 0 41 8 0 0 1 1 0
BILLING RATE $180 $145 $125 $90 $107 $1,905 $1,150 $85
TOTAL LABOR $10,000
OCT 2023-NOV
2024
NOV 2024
OCT-NOV 2022
NOV 2022 -
JAN 2023
MAR-JUN 2023
JAN-MAR 2023
AUG 2023
JUL 2023

PREVAILING

TECHNICIAN
WAGE

LAB SERVICES

DRILLING

SUB DRAFTER TASK
TOTAL
OCT 2022

TASK TOTAL HOURS

PRINCIPAL
SENIOR

PROFESSIONAL
STAFF

PROFESSIONAL

TECHNICIAN
SPECIAL INSP.

Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315)

CITY OF REDDING

PAYMENT SCHEDULE

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SUBCONSULTANT

PANORAMA PARK AND RECREATION CENTER KLA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE - PLANNING

HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS
Task 1: Project Management Review and Scheduling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Task 2: Data Collection and Field Surveys 17.00 9.00 6.00 0.00 2.00 0.00Task 3: Conceptual and Schematic Design 214.50 60.00 94.00 0.00 60.50 0.00Task 4: Design Development (30% Plans & Estimate) + Drainage Report, MS4 Reports, SWPPP 108.25 22.00 40.00 0.00 46.25 0.00Task 6: Plans, Specifications, and Engineering Estimates 176.00 34.00 64.00 0.00 78.00 0.00Task 5: Obtain All Necessary Permits 120.00 14.00 50.00 0.00 56.00 0.00Task 7: Final Submittals

82.00 12.00 25.00 0.00 45.00 0.00
Construction Administration (Allowance)Task 8: Assistance During Bidding and Construction, 112.50 20.00 60.00 0.00 32.50 0.00
PlanTask 9: Basis of Design Document and Maintenance

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Reimbursables $3,600
TOTAL HOURS 830.25 171.00 339.00 0.00 320.25 0.00
BILLING RATE $200 $140 $100 $80 $60
TOTAL LABOR $107,300 $110,900
NOV 2024 $0
TOTAL
JUL 2023 $14,300
AUG 2023 $9,500
OCT 2023-NOV
2024 $15,000
NOV 2022 -
JAN 2023 $30,000
JAN-MAR 2023 $13,700
MAR-JUN 2023 $22,000

CLERICAL TASK
TOTAL
OCT 2022 $0
OCT-NOV 2022 $2,800

TASK TOTAL HOURS

PRINCIPAL

ARCHITECT

LANDSCAPE
SENIOR

MANAGER

PROJECT JOB CAPTAIN DRAFTING
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315)

CITY OF REDDING

PAYMENT SCHEDULE

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SUBCONSULTANT

PANORAMA PARK AND RECREATION CENTER MOZAFFARI ENGINEERING

HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS
SchedulingTask 1: Project Management Review and
0 0 0 0 0 $0
Task 2: Data Collection and Field Surveys 0 0 0 0 0 $0Task 3: Conceptual and Schematic Design 74 8 16 44 6 $12,000 Task 4: Design Development (30% Plans & Estimate)
+ Drainage Report, MS4 Reports, SWPPP 131 22 40 60 9 $24,500Task 6: Plans, Specifications, and Engineering Estimates 172 28 46 86 12 $31,000
Task 5: Obtain All Necessary Permits 25 4 4 15 2 $4,000Task 7: Final Submittals 15 4 4 5 2 $3,000 Construction Administration (Allowance)Task 8: Assistance During Bidding and Construction, 0 0 0 0 0 $0
PlanTask 9: Basis of Design Document and Maintenance
10 3 3 0 4 $2,000
TOTAL HOURS 427 69 113 210 35
BILLING RATE $275 $275 $110 $95
TOTAL LABOR $76,000
NOV 2024
OCT 2023-
AUG 2023
JUL 2023
NOV 2024
TASK
TOTAL

OCT-NOV
OCT 2022
2022
NOV 2022 -
JAN 2023
JAN-MAR 2023

MAR-JUN
2023

TASK TOTAL HOURS

STRUCTURAL

ENGINEER ENGINEER DRAFTING ADMINISTRATION
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315)

CITY OF REDDING

PAYMENT SCHEDULE

MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING ENGINEERING SUBCONSULTANT

PANORAMA PARK AND RECREATION CENTER NEXUS ENGINEERING

PRINCIPAL

PROFESSIONAL

ENGINEER

ENGINEER DESIGNER DRAFTER CLERICAL

ALLEN GARY, TRAVIS OSCAR, NATHAN, TREVOR STEVE, DARIO, SAL, DAN CHRISTINA

HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS
Task 1: Project Management Review and Scheduling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Task 2: Data Collection and Field Surveys 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 Task 3: Conceptual and Schematic Design 62 0 6 38 18 0 0 $10,200Task 4: Design Development (30% Plans & Estimate) + Drainage Report, MS4 Reports, SWPPP 80 0 4 24 52 0 0 $12,500 Task 6: Plans, Specifications, and Engineering
Estimates 94 0 4 26 64 0 0 $14,800
Task 5: Obtain All Necessary Permits 20 0 6 14 0 0 0 $3,500 Task 7: Final Submittals 20 0 0 8 8 0 4 $3,000
Construction Administration (Allowance)Task 8: Assistance During Bidding and Construction, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0
PlanTask 9: Basis of Design Document and Maintenance
12 0 2 4 4 0 2 $2,000
TOTAL HOURS 288 0 22 114 146 0 6
BILLING RATE $210 $180 $170 $150 $120 $85
TOTAL LABOR $46,000

JAN-MAR
2023

MAR-JUN
2023
NOV 2024
OCT 2023-
AUG 2023
JUL 2023
NOV 2024

TASK TOTAL HOURS TASK TOTAL

OCT-NOV
OCT 2022
2022
NOV 2022 -
JAN 2023
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315)

CITY OF REDDING

PAYMENT SCHEDULE

ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING SUBCONSULTANT

PANORAMA PARK AND RECREATION CENTER HCS ENGINEERING

HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS
and SchedulingTask 1: Project Management Review
16 16 0 0 0 0 0 $3,200
SurveysTask 2: Data Collection and Field
13 13 0 0 0 0 0 $2,600
Design Task 3: Conceptual and Schematic
63 63 0 0 0 0 0 $12,600
Task 4: Design Development (30%
MS4 Reports, SWPPPPlans & Estimate) + Drainage Report,
63 63 0 0 0 0 0 $12,600
Task 6: Plans, Specifications, and
Engineering Estimates 250 250 0 0 0 0 0 $50,000
Task 5: Obtain All Necessary Permits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0Task 7: Final Submittals 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 $3,000 Administration (Allowance)Construction, Construction
16 16 0 0 0 0 0 $3,200
Maintenance PlanTask 9: Basis of Design Document and
16 16 0 0 0 0 0 $3,200
TOTAL HOURS 452 452 0 0 0 0 0
BILLING RATE $200 $175 $140 $100 $85 $75
TOTAL LABOR $90,400
MAR-JUN 2023
JAN-MAR 2023
AUG 2023
JUL 2023
OCT 2023-NOV 2024
NOV 2024
DRAFTSMAN ADMIN. TASK
TOTAL
OCT 2022
NOV 2022 - JAN
OCT-NOV 2022
2023

TASK TOTAL HOURS

PRINCIPAL

ENGINEER

ELECTRICAL

PRINCIPAL ELECTRICAL

ENGINEER DESIGNER
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315)

CITY OF REDDING

PAYMENT SCHEDULE

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATOR

PANORAMA PARK AND RECREATION CENTER SIERRA WEST GROUP

COST ESTIMATOR
JOHN

HOURS HOURS
Review and SchedulingTask 1: Project Management
16 16 0 $2,000
SurveysTask 2: Data Collection and Field
0 0 0 $0
Design Task 3: Conceptual and Schematic
32 32 0 $4,000
Task 4: Design Development (30% Report, MS4 Reports, SWPPPPlans & Estimate) + Drainage 64 64 0 $8,000
Task 6: Plans, Specifications, and
Engineering Estimates 56 56 0 $7,000PermitsTask 5: Obtain All Necessary 0 0 0 $0
Task 7: Final Submittals 8 8 0 $1,000
Administration (Allowance)and Construction, Construction Task 8: Assistance During Bidding 0 0 0 $0
and Maintenance PlanTask 9: Basis of Design Document
0 0 0 $0
TOTAL HOURS 176 176 0
BILLING RATE $125 $0
TOTAL LABOR $22,000
NOV 2024
NOV 2022 -
JAN 2023
MAR-JUN 2023
JAN-MAR 2023
AUG 2023
JUL 2023
OCT 2023-NOV
2024
OCT-NOV 2022

TASK TOTAL HOURS
ADMIN.

TASK TOTAL
OCT 2022
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Agreement (4.6(d)--Award RFP Schedule No. 5315)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the Redding Fire Department to donate the following equipment:
(1) One 1998 Pierce Saber Type I Heavy Pumper to the College of the Siskiyou’s Fire Academy Program;
(2) Two 1998 Pierce Saber Type 1 Heavy Pumpers to the Sierra Valley Fire Protection District; one of which has an engine with an irreparable power plant and transmission and will be used for parts only; and
(3) One 1994 Pierce Saber Type 1 Heavy Pumper to the Gazelle Fire Protection District.

Fiscal Impact
Vehicles such as the ones listed have no appraised value; there would be no realized fiscal implications from donations to the College of the Siskiyou’s Fire Academy Program, the Sierra Valley Fire Protection District, or the Gazelle Fire Protection District.

Alternative Action
The City Council could choose to place these engines on the open market and attempt to sell them. Vehicles of this type vary in value when sold. Three of the listed fire engines are 24 years old, and the remaining one is 28 years old. National standards recommend the replacement of fire apparatus over 25 years of age. It is very likely any value associated with the sale of these engines would be insignificant and would have no realized benefit to the Redding Fire Department’s (Fire Department) Rolling Stock fund.

Background/Analysis
Presently, the Fire Department maintains 22 engines in its Operations Fleet. In 2022, the Fire Department took delivery of four 2021 Pierce Enforcer Cab Type I engines. The new engines have been placed in service, and the two operating 1998 and the 1994 Pierce engines have been MEETING DATE: October 18, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.8(b)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected] SUBJECT: 4.8(b)--Donation of Fire Engines
Jerrod Vanlandingham, Fire
Chief
Packet Pg. 352
Report to Redding City Council October 10, 2022
Re: 4.8(b)--Donation of Fire Engines Page 2
removed from service as part of the Department’s vehicle replacement plan. One additional 1998 engine is no longer operational and will be provided as surplus to accompany one of the other 1998 engines to be used for parts.

The College of the Siskiyou’s (College) Fire Technology program utilizes donated engines and equipment for training students. The limited discretionary funds the College has available make purchasing a new or even used fire engine cost prohibitive. By donating the fire engine, the overall curriculum will be enhanced, and the students who enroll in this program will benefit.

Both the Sierra Valley Fire Protection District and the Gazelle Fire Protection District are volunteer-based departments. These volunteer departments have limited funds and would be unable to purchase new or used equipment. Volunteer fire departments are crucial aspects of California fire defenses.

Environmental Review
This is not a project defined under the California Environmental Quality Act, and no further action is required.

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.” • Government of the 21st Century – “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
Packet Pg. 353

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Accept Bid Schedule No. 5227 (Job No. 2671), Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project, awarded to Axner Excavating, Inc., as satisfactorily complete, with a final cost of $457,033.38.

Fiscal Impact
Wastewater Utility funding in the amount of $600,000 was approved for this project for Fiscal Year 2021-22. The total project cost, including surveying, design, bidding, construction, field engineering, inspection, and contract administration, is $457,033.38.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose to not accept the project as satisfactorily complete, and advise staff on how to proceed.

Background/Analysis
As of May 24, 2022, Axner Excavating, Inc., has completed all items of work within the contract time frame for the Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project. The project warranty period expires one year from the completion date of May 24, 2022, and the Public Works Department subsequently filed the notice of completion with the County of Shasta.

At its September 21, 2021, meeting the Council awarded a construction contract to Axner Excavating, Inc., of Redding, California, for $309,134 and approved a $35,000 construction contingency fund. Also authorized was $57,000 for contract administration and construction inspection fees, $38,000 for project development costs, and the City Manager was authorized to approve additional increases of up to $15,000 in either the construction management or construction contingency amounts for a total authorized amount of $454,134. Project development costs include engineering, environmental, and consultant services. The Council also MEETING DATE: October 18, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(a)--Project Acceptance, Bid Schedule No. 5227, Job No. 2671, Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 354
Report to Redding City Council October 11, 2022
Re: 4.11(a)--Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project Page 2
awarded an additional $35,000 in contingency funds at its meeting on July, 19, 2022, in order to cover costs due to unforeseen conditions. During the course of construction, there were six change orders in the amount of $61,899.38, leaving a balance of $8,100.62 in the contingency fund. The final project cost was $457,033.38.

The project involved the replacement of approximately 765 linear feet of six-inch sanitary sewer main with eight-inch high density polyethylene pipe (HDPE) along Hilltop Drive. In addition, two existing manholes were rehabilitated, one new manhole was installed, and four sewer laterals were reconnected.

During the course of construction, it was found that an additional 48-linear feet (LF) of sag repairs were needed in addition to the planned quantity of 65-LF in order to properly convey wastewater through the new sewer main without causing sewer backups. At the final location of sag repairs, the contractor encountered a large concrete encasement beneath an existing 48-inch storm drain pipe that crossed the sewer main. This concrete encasement encapsulated both the sewer main and a small portion of the existing storm drain pipe bottom, which was not known during the design phase. In order to remove the large sag in the sewer main, the contractor was required to remove the concrete encasement without damaging the adjacent utilities.

Additionally, the existing storm drain piping joints were also found to be leaking, which allowed storm water to infiltrate the contractor’s trench zone and caused additional dewatering efforts and minor cave-ins during the removal of the concrete encasement. The timing was critical to authorize the work while the contractor was active at the site. Due to these unforeseen conditions, a project budget increase to cover the additional costs for the work was required.

Subsequently, the approval for additional funding to the construction contingency was authorized by the Council on July 19, 2022.

Cost Summary
Awarded
Amounts
Revised
Budget Actual Cost
Project Development Costs $38,0000 $38,000 $38,000
Construction Contract + Contingency $344,134 $379,134
Construction Contract + Contract Change Orders $371,033.38 Contract Administration & Inspection $57,000 $57,000 $48,000 Additional City Manager Authority $15,000 $15,000 $0
Total $454,134 $489,134 $457,033.38
Environmental Review
On September 21, 2021, the Council determined that the project was Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, per Section 15301(b) - Existing Facilities. This activity is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and no further action is required.

Packet Pg. 355
Report to Redding City Council October 11, 2022
Re: 4.11(a)--Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project Page 3
Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item
c: Josh Anthony, Assistant Director of Public Works
Attachments
^Location Map
Previous Staff Report 9-21-21
Previous Staff Report 7-19-2022
Packet Pg. 356
Packet Pg. 357
Attachment: ^Location Map (4.11(a)--Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to Bid Schedule No. 5227 (Job No. 2671) Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project:
(1) Award to Axner Excavating, Inc. in the amount of $309,134; (2) Approve an additional $57,000 to cover the cost of administration and inspection fees; and $38,000 for project development costs;
(3) Approve $35,000 to provide construction contingency funding; (4) Authorize the City Manager to approve additional increases in either the construction management or construction contingency amounts up to a total of $15,000; and (5) Find that the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301(b) - Existing Facilities.

Fiscal Impact
The Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project (Project) is being funded by the Wastewater Utility Fund.

Cost Summary
Item Estimated
Project Development Costs $38,000
Construction Contract + Contingency $344,134
Contract Administration, Inspection, Testing $57,000
Additional City Manager Authority $15,000
Total Project Costs $454,134
Project Budget $600,000
Project cost components are estimates and some shifting of the project development, construction management, and construction contingency funds may be necessary to balance the MEETING DATE: September 21, 2021
ITEM NO. 4.11(f)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(f)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5227 (Job Order No. 2671) Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 9-21-21 (4.11(a)--Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project) Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2021
Re: 4.11(f)--Award BS No. 5227 Hilltop Sewer Improvements Page 2 project within the approved budget.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could choose not to award the bid for the Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project and provide staff with alternate direction. If the project is not awarded, the sewer main will have ongoing maintenance and will be in jeopardy of failing.

Background/Analysis
Attached is a tabulation of bids received and opened on September 9, 2021, for the Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project. The low bid in the amount of $309,134 was received from Axner Excavating, Inc., of Redding, California. The engineer's estimate was $299,170. Total project development costs for this project are estimated to be $38,000. Project development costs include engineering, surveying, right-of-way, environmental, consultant services, and permit fees. There is $600,000 budgeted for the total project.

This project includes the replacement of approximately 765 linear feet of 6-inch sanitary sewer main with 8-inch high density polyethylene pipe (HDPE) along Hilltop Drive. In addition, two existing manholes will be rehabilitated, one new manhole will be installed, and four sewer laterals will be reconnected.

Staff has determined that the project qualifies as Categorically Exempt from environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15301. The project area does not have significant values for wildlife habitat or other environmental resources, and the project has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.

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

Attachments
Location Map
Bid Tab
Notice of Exemption
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 9-21-21 (4.11(a)--Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project) Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 9-21-21 (4.11(a)--Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project) BID TABULATION FOR:

HILLTOP SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Bid Schedule No.: 5227Job No.: 2671 ENGINEER'S EST Axner Excavating, Inc. Cox & Cox Construction, Inc. AVERAGE9/9/2021 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 Prepare Water Pollution Control Plan LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $908.00 $908.00 $2,625.00 $2,625.00 $1,766.502 Water Pollution Control LS 1 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $2,369.00 $2,369.00 $2,090.00 $2,090.00 $2,229.50 3 Trench Sheeting and Shoring LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,290.00 $3,290.00 $6,571.00 $6,571.00 $4,930.504 Bypass Pumping LS 1 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $6,050.00 $6,050.00 $3,838.00 $3,838.00 $4,944.005 Construction Area Signs EA 6 $245.00 $1,470.00 $315.00 $1,890.00 $307.00 $1,842.00 $311.00 6 Traffic Control LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $41,140.00 $41,140.00 $26,250.00 $26,250.00 $33,695.00 7 Project Funding Sign LS 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $908.00 $908.00 $4,053.00 $4,053.00 $2,480.508 Pre-Rehabilitation CCTV Inspection LF 765 $5.00 $3,825.00 $9.00 $6,885.00 $9.00 $6,885.00 $9.00 9 Sanitary Sewer (8" HDPE, Pipe Burst) LF 765 $225.00 $172,125.00 $177.00 $135,405.00 $201.00 $153,765.00 $189.00 10 Sanitary Sewer Lateral Locate EA 4 $500.00 $2,000.00 $3,460.00 $13,840.00 $812.00 $3,248.00 $2,136.00 11 Sanitary Sewer Lateral (Reconnect) LF 200 $195.00 $39,000.00 $137.00 $27,400.00 $185.00 $37,000.00 $161.00 12 Rehabilitate Manhole (Sewer, Type 1 - 4 EA 2 $6,000.00 $12,000.00 $15,512.00 $31,024.00 $13,225.00 $26,450.00 $14,368.50 13 Remove Manhole EA 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $6,864.00 $6,864.00 $3,370.00 $3,370.00 $5,117.0014 Manhole (Sewer, Type 1-4') EA 1 $6,800.00 $6,800.00 $10,361.00 $10,361.00 $6,854.00 $6,854.00 $8,607.5015 Sag Repair LF 65 $150.00 $9,750.00 $320.00 $20,800.00 $593.00 $38,545.00 $456.50

AVERAGE BID
TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS $299,170.00 $309,134.00 $323,386.00 $316,260.00

Page 1 of 1 ends

Attachment: Previous Staff Report 9-21-21 (4.11(a)--Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project) Packet Pg. 362
Attachment: Previous Staff Report 9-21-21 (4.11(a)--Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Approve and ratify an increase to the project construction contingency budget for the completion of Bid Schedule No. 5227, Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project in the amount of $35,000 from City of Redding Wastewater Utility funds.

Fiscal Impact
This additional work will cause the project budget to exceed the awarded amounts. An additional $35,000 in Wastewater funds is requested to cover an increase to the construction contingency.

COST SUMMARY
Item Awarded Amount Projected
Amount
Increase
Construction Contingency $35,000 $70,000 $35,000
Total Project Amount $344,134 $379,134 $35,000
Sufficient Wastewater Utility funds are available in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget to cover the estimated cost increase.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose to reject the project budget increase or provide alternative direction to staff. The additional improvements were necessary in order for the sewer system to properly convey wastewater. If the Council rejects the increase, the contractor will not be paid for the work already completed.

MEETING DATE: July 19, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(d)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(d)--Approve Increase to the Project Budget for Bid Schedule 5227 (Job Order No. 2671) Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 7-19-2022 (4.11(a)--Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project) Report to Redding City Council July 11, 2022
Re: 4.11(d)--Project Budget Increase for Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project Page 2 Background/Analysis
On September 21, 2021, the Council awarded the Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project to Axner Excavating, Inc. This project includes the replacement of approximately 765 linear feet of sixinch sanitary sewer main with eight-inch high density polyethylene pipe (HDPE) along Hilltop Drive near Maraglia Street. In addition, two existing manholes are being rehabilitated, one new manhole installed, and four sewer laterals reconnected.

During the course of construction, it was found that an additional 48-linear feet (LF) of sag repairs was needed in addition to the planned quantity of 65-LF in order to properly convey wastewater through the new sewer main without causing sewer backups. The contractor began sag repairs on the upstream side of the new sewer main and worked its way downstream to the final location of sag repairs. At the final location of sag repairs, the contractor encountered a large concrete encasement beneath an existing 48-inch storm drain pipe that crossed the sewer main. This concrete encasement encapsulated both the sewer main and a small portion of the existing storm drain pipe bottom, which was not known during the design phase. In order to remove the large sag in the sewer main, the contractor is required to remove the concrete encasement without damaging the adjacent utilities. Additionally, the existing storm drain piping joints were also found to be leaking, which allowed storm water to infiltrate the contractor’s trench zone and caused additional dewatering efforts and minor cave-ins during the removal of the concrete encasement. The timing was critical to authorize the work while the contractor was active at the site thereby necessitating the expenditure prior to Council approval.

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.” • Government of the 21st Century – “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
Attachments
^Project Site Map
Previous Staff Report 9-21-21
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 7-19-2022 (4.11(a)--Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project) Packet Pg. 365
Attachment: Previous Staff Report 7-19-2022 (4.11(a)--Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project)

CITY OF REDDING

Fiscal Impact
The Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project (Project) is being funded by the Wastewater Utility Fund.

Cost Summary
Item Estimated
Project Development Costs $38,000
Construction Contract + Contingency $344,134
Contract Administration, Inspection, Testing $57,000
Additional City Manager Authority $15,000
Total Project Costs $454,134
Project Budget $600,000
Project cost components are estimates and some shifting of the project development, construction management, and construction contingency funds may be necessary to balance the MEETING DATE: September 21, 2021
ITEM NO. 4.11(f)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(f)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5227 (Job Order No. 2671) Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 7-19-2022 (4.11(a)--Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project) Report to Redding City Council September 12, 2021
Re: 4.11(f)--Award BS No. 5227 Hilltop Sewer Improvements Page 2 project within the approved budget.

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

Attachments
Location Map
Bid Tab
Notice of Exemption
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 7-19-2022 (4.11(a)--Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project) Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 7-19-2022 (4.11(a)--Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project) BID TABULATION FOR:

HILLTOP SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Bid Schedule No.: 5227Job No.: 2671 ENGINEER'S EST Axner Excavating, Inc. Cox & Cox Construction, Inc. AVERAGE9/9/2021 UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT

AVERAGE BID
TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS $299,170.00 $309,134.00 $323,386.00 $316,260.00

Page 1 of 1 ends

Attachment: Previous Staff Report 7-19-2022 (4.11(a)--Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project) Packet Pg. 370
Attachment: Previous Staff Report 7-19-2022 (4.11(a)--Hilltop Sewer Improvements Project)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following related to the purchase of one 2022 Caterpillar (CAT) 950M Loader for the City of Redding Solid Waste Utility to replace a 2016 CAT 950M Loader currently used at the City of Redding’s Transfer and Recycling Facility:
(1) Authorize the purchase using Sourcewell contract pricing, with a net delivered cost of $542,992.65, including all applicable taxes and fees; and (2) Authorize the City Manager to approve future pricing adjustments, terms, and policy changes as needed due to inflation and unstable economic conditions up to a total of $30,000.

Fiscal Impact
For Fiscal Year 2022-23, the Solid Waste Utility (Utility) budgeted $404,480 for the purchase of a Loader. Due to significant manufacturing price increases, the net delivered cost of $542,992.65 requires an additional $138,512.65 from the Rolling Stock Fund. The Rolling Stock Fund contains sufficient funds to facilitate this purchase and other planned purchases through the fiscal year. Staff is working on updating current pricing on the Rolling Stock Plan to account for these rapid increases.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose to not authorize the purchase using the Sourcewell contract and direct staff to use the competitive bid process.

MEETING DATE: October 18, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(b)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(b)--Purchase One Caterpillar 950M Loader Using Sourcewell Contract Pricing
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 371
Report to Redding City Council October 11, 2022
Re: 4.11(b)--Purchase One Caterpillar 950M Loader Using Sourcewell Contract Pricing Page 2 Background/Analysis
The City of Redding (City) performs processing of Municipal Solid Waste and Construction and Demolition materials for transport to the West Central Landfill and/or other approved facilities.

The operations at the City of Redding Transfer Station and Recycling Facility are conducted six days per week. Staff uses the loader for the primary pushing of these materials on the transfer station floor area into a stock pile and also to load the transfer truck trailers.

Replacing this unit aligns with the adopted Rolling Stock Plan for the Utility. Staff planned for the replacement of this unit due to it reaching the end of its expected lifecycle, which is based on the cumulative cost of the repairs and maintenance, age of the equipment, and the cost for known repairs. Currently, with the increase of tonnage over the last two years, the daily run time of this loader has increased causing wear and tear to occur faster than anticipated. The current loader has 11,960 hours of run time which is well past the normal 10,000 hours of expected life for a frontline unit. The current machine continues to have frequent break downs resulting in a loss of production and extended over-time for staff due to impact on the ability of staff to complete tasks efficiently.

This unit is available under a Sourcewell competitively bid contract. Sourcewell develops national competitive solicitations that meet or exceed local standards, and offers its members the benefits derived from cooperative purchasing. Using the Sourcewell cooperative contract to purchase a 2022 Caterpillar (CAT) 950M Loader saves significant staff time needed to prepare bid specifications and solicit individual quotations from vendors. The City also receives a significant price discount due to economies of scale realized through the volume of purchases on a multi-agency cooperate contract.

Environmental Review
The purchase of equipment is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and no further action is required.

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

Attachments
^Quote
Packet Pg. 372
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: ^Quote (4.11(b)--Purchase One Caterpillar 950M Loader Using Sourcewell Contract Pricing) Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: ^Quote (4.11(b)--Purchase One Caterpillar 950M Loader Using Sourcewell Contract Pricing) Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: ^Quote (4.11(b)--Purchase One Caterpillar 950M Loader Using Sourcewell Contract Pricing)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Accept Bid Schedule No. 5223 (Job No. 2622), Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project, awarded to SnL Group, Inc., as satisfactorily complete, with a final cost of $1,884,574.26.

Fiscal Impact
This project was funded by multiple sources consisting of Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds, Redding Area Bus Authority (RABA) Proposition 1B funds, and Streets funds. The City of Redding (City) also coordinated with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to obtain additional HSIP funding for the project. Funds in the amount of $1,932,540 were approved for this project. The total project cost, including surveying, design, bidding, construction, field engineering, inspection, and contract administration, is $1,884,574.26.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose to not accept the project as satisfactorily complete, and advise staff on how to proceed.

Background/Analysis
As of June 21, 2022, SnL Group, Inc., has completed all items of work within the contract time frame for the Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project. The project warranty period expires one year from the completion date of June 21, 2022, and the Public Works Department subsequently filed a notice of completion with the County of Shasta.

At its November 2, 2021, meeting, the Council awarded a construction contract to SnL Group, Inc., of Redding, California, for $1,338,540 and approved a $134,000 construction contingency fund. Also authorized was $210,000 for contract administration and construction inspection fees MEETING DATE: October 18, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(c)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(c)-- Project Acceptance, Bid Schedule No. 5223, Job No. 2622, Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 376
Report to Redding City Council October 10, 2022
Re: 4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance Page 2 and $235,000 for project development costs. The City Manager was authorized to approve additional increases in either the construction management or construction contingency amounts up to a total of $15,000, for a total authorized amount of $1,932,540. Project development costs include engineering, environmental, and consultant services. During the course of construction, additional contingency funds were needed to balance the construction budget. There were a total of 13 change orders in the amount of $146,034.26, leaving a balance of $47,034.74 in the revised contingency fund. The final project cost was $1,884,574.26.

The project involved the construction of bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Churn Creek Road from Hartnell Avenue to Cypress Avenue and along Maraglia Street from Hilltop Drive to Churn Creek Road. The improvements also included an enhanced high visibility crosswalk at the intersection of Churn Creek Road and Maraglia Street, bike lanes, completing sidewalk gaps along Churn Creek Road and Maraglia Street, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant curb ramps, micro-surfacing, asphalt concrete pavement, street lighting, striping and other miscellaneous items of work.

Cost Summary
Awarded
Amounts
Revised
Budget Actual Cost
Project Development Costs $235,000 $235,000 $235,000
Construction Contract + Contingency $1,472,540 $1,532,540 Construction Contract + Contract Change Orders $1,484,574.26 Contract Administration & Inspection $210,000 $165,000 $165,000 Additional City Manager Authority $15,000 $0 $0
Total $1,932,540 $1,932,540 $1,884,574.26
Environmental Review
This action is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and no further action is required.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item.
c: Josh Anthony, Assistant Director of Public Works
Becky Kraft, Assistant Engineer
Attachments
^Location Map
11-2-21 Previous Staff Report
Packet Pg. 377
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: ^Location Map (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to Bid Schedule No. 5223 (Job No. 2622) for the Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project:
(1) Reject the apparent low bid by RTA Construction, Inc., (RTA) as nonresponsive and award the project to the second low bidder SnL Group, Inc., in the amount of $1,338,540; (2) Approve an additional $210,000 to cover the cost of administration and inspection fees; and $235,000 for project development costs;
(3) Approve $134,000 to provide construction contingency funding; (4) Authorize the City Manager to approve additional increases in either the construction management or construction contingency amounts up to a total of $15,000; and (5) Find that the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301(c) - Existing Facilities.

Fiscal Impact
The Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project (Project) is being funded by multiple sources which consist of Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds in the amount of $1,599,300, Redding Area Bus Authority (RABA) Prop 1B funds in the amount of $177,700, and Streets funds in the amount of $155,540, for a total project budget of $1,932,540. The City of Redding (City) is coordinating with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to obtain additional HSIP funding for the project. If additional HSIP funds are made available they will offset costs covered by Streets funds. Any additional HSIP funds will be budgeted separately.

MEETING DATE: November 2, 2021
ITEM NO. 4.11(b)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(b)--Award Bid Schedule No. 5223 (Job No. 2622) for the Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Report to Redding City Council October 27, 2021
Re: 4.11(b)--Award BS No. 5223 Churn Creek & Maraglia Safety Improv Project Page 2 Cost Summary
Item Estimated
Project Development Costs $235,000
Construction Contract + Contingency $1,472,540
Contract Administration, Inspection, Testing $210,000
Additional City Manager Authority $15,000
Total Project Costs $1,932,540
Total Project Budget $1,932,540
Project cost components are estimates and some shifting of the project development, construction management, and construction contingency funds may be necessary to balance the project within the approved budget.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could choose not to award the bid for the Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project to second low bidder SnL and determine that RTA, the low bidder, did make adequate Good Faith Efforts (GFE) and award the project to RTA. This may jeopardize federal funding, if audited and the audit determines that RTA did not perform an adequate GFE.

The Council may alternately choose not to award the bid for the Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project and provide staff with other direction. Without this project, proposed pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle street improvements will not be constructed. The City would be at risk of losing federal funds and may have to reimburse project development federal funds spent to date.

Background/Analysis
Attached is a tabulation of bids received and opened on August 4, 2021, for the Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project. The low bid in the amount of $1,326,283.35 was received from RTA of Redding, California. Because the HSIP grant funds are from a federal source, the City was required to establish a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation goal specific for the project, and 18 percent was established for this project. RTA did not achieve the goal and in fact did not propose any DBE participation from sub-contractors or suppliers. If a contractor does not meet the DBE goal, according to federal regulations, it must have performed a Good Faith Effort (GFE) to solicit DBE firms during the bid process in order to be awarded the project. Staff’s evaluation of a bidder’s GFE is based on Section 9 of the CalTrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual and Appendix A of Title 49 CFR Part 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). After completing the evaluation of the low bidder’s (RTA) GFE, staff determined that it did not demonstrate an adequate GFE to meet the DBE participation goal for the reasons noted in the attached letter to RTA dated September 10, 2021.

Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Report to Redding City Council October 27, 2021
Re: 4.11(b)--Award BS No. 5223 Churn Creek & Maraglia Safety Improv Project Page 3 Therefore, in accordance with 49 CFR 26.53 the City must allow the bidder/offeror an opportunity for administrative reconsideration as outlined below:

1. As part of this reconsideration, the bidder/offeror must have the opportunity to provide written documentation or argument concerning the issue of whether it met the goal or made an adequate GFE to do so.

2. City decision on reconsideration must be made by an official who did not take part in the original determination that the bidder/offeror failed to meet the goal or make adequate GFE to do so.

3. The bidder/offeror must have the opportunity to meet in person with the City reconsideration official to discuss the issues of whether it met the goal or made an adequate GFE to do so.

4. City must send the bidder/offeror a written decision on reconsideration, explaining the basis for finding that the bidder did or did not meet the goal or make an adequate GFE to do so.

5. The result of the reconsideration process is not administratively appealable to the Department of Transportation.

The City’s September 10, 2021, letter to RTA was notification of the City’s determination and its right to reconsideration. RTA responded by letter on September 13, 2021, requesting reconsideration and on September 15, 2021, provided the City with a written argument that it made an adequate GFE to meet the goal. RTA provided an additional written argument on September 23, 2021. The City acknowledged RTA’s request for reconsideration and began the reconsideration process as provided in the City’s letter to RTA dated September 21, 2021. The reconsideration meeting was held on September 30, 2021, and in attendance were RTA, two Reconsideration Officials (Officials) and staff. All parties agreed on the meeting format and presented positions regarding the RTA GFE to the Officials. After the reconsideration meeting, the Officials deliberated independently to make a final determination. The Officials’ final determination concluded that RTA did not perform an adequate GFE to meet the DBE participation goal for the reasons identified in the final GFE determination letter to RTA dated October 21, 2021, and as communicated by telephone to RTA after the meeting. All correspondence is attached for reference. Therefore, RTA’s bid is deemed non-responsive to the bid solicitation. It should be noted that a non-responsive bid is not unusual in the industry, and in no way provides a reflection of the contractor’s ability to perform the work nor does it reflect the quality of work or affect the ability to bid on future public works projects.

The City proceeded to evaluate the second low bidder, SnL Group, Inc., of Redding, California, in the amount of $1,338,540. The City reviewed SnL’s proposal and DBE commitment form.

SnL achieved an 18.49 percent participation goal, thereby exceeding the project goal of 18 percent. Since SnL met the project DBE goal, the CFR does not require the bidder to submit a GFE, although one was provided by SnL. Staff recommends awarding the project to the second low bidder, SnL Group, Inc. The engineer's estimate was $1,240,541. Total project development costs for this project are estimated to be $235,000. Project development costs include engineering, surveying, right-of-way, environmental, and consultant services.

This project includes the construction of bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Churn Creek Road from Hartnell Avenue to Cypress Avenue and along Maraglia Street from Hilltop Drive to Churn Creek Road. The improvements include an enhanced high visibility crosswalk, bike lanes, completing sidewalk gaps, installing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Report to Redding City Council October 27, 2021
Re: 4.11(b)--Award BS No. 5223 Churn Creek & Maraglia Safety Improv Project Page 4 compliant curb ramps, micro-surfacing, asphalt concrete pavement, street lighting, striping and other miscellaneous items of work.

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

Attachments
Location Map
Bid Tabulation
CEQA Notice of Exemption
09-10-2021 COR GFE Letter to RTA Construction, Inc. (available online) 09-21-21 COR RTA GFE Reconsideraton Meeting Letter (available online) 09-24-21 COR Response to RTA GFE Argument Letter (available online) 09-13-21 RTA Administrative Reconsideration Request Letter (available online) 09-15-21 RTA Churn Creek Improvements Argument Letter (available online) 09-23-21 RTA Churn Creek Maraglia Augument Letter (available online) 10-21-21 COR RTA GFE Reconsideration Final Determination Letter (available online) Title 49 CFR 26.53 (available online)
Title 49 CFR 26.53 Appendix A (available online)
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Shaded areas indicate corrections made in accordance with the special provisions. Page 1 of 2 BID TABULATION FOR:

CHURN CREEK AND MARAGLIA SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Bid Schedule No.: 5223
Job No.: 2622 ENGINEER'S EST RTA Construction, Inc. SnL Group, Inc. 8/4/2021 UNIT UNIT UNIT

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL 1 Prepare Storm Water Pollution LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $5,800.00 $5,800.00 2 Implement Storm Water Pollution LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,300.00 $6,300.00 3 Traffic Control LS 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 4 Construction Area Signs EA 15 $300.00 $4,500.00 $240.00 $3,600.00 $300.00 $4,500.00 5 Project Funding Sign EA 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 6 Surveying (Construction) LS 1 $37,000.00 $37,000.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $14,850.00 $14,850.00 7 Excavation (Unclassified) CY 539 $50.00 $26,950.00 $45.50 $24,524.50 $85.00 $45,815.00 8 Remove Concrete SF 3725 $8.00 $29,800.00 $8.00 $29,800.00 $8.40 $31,290.00 9 Remove Traffic Stripe (Diamond Grind) LF 20000 $2.50 $50,000.00 $0.65 $13,000.00 $0.75 $15,000.00 10 Class 1 RSP CY 50 $300.00 $15,000.00 $205.00 $10,250.00 $185.00 $9,250.00 11 Aggregate Base (Class 2) CY 405 $85.00 $34,425.00 $59.75 $24,198.75 $102.00 $41,310.00 12 Asphalt Concrete TON 750 $125.00 $93,750.00 $272.00 $204,000.00 $183.00 $137,250.00 13 Pavement Fabric SY 5778 $3.50 $20,223.00 $5.25 $30,334.50 $3.00 $17,334.00 14 Cold Mill Asphalt Concrete (Wedge SF 10956 $2.50 $27,390.00 $2.60 $28,485.60 $1.20 $13,147.20 15 Fog Seal SY 18260 $2.50 $45,650.00 $0.35 $6,391.00 $0.33 $6,025.80 16 Curb and Gutter (5") LF 30 $50.00 $1,500.00 $137.00 $4,110.00 $65.00 $1,950.00 17 Curb and Gutter (6") LF 2600 $60.00 $156,000.00 $44.50 $115,700.00 $50.00 $130,000.00 18 Curb and Gutter (Roll) LF 630 $60.00 $37,800.00 $55.00 $34,650.00 $64.00 $40,320.00 19 Sidewalk (4" PCC) SF 11570 $13.00 $150,410.00 $11.75 $135,947.50 $14.00 $161,980.00 20 Sidewalk (6" PCC) SF 5516 $16.00 $88,256.00 $11.75 $64,813.00 $18.25 $100,667.00 21 Driveway Residential SF 1198 $17.00 $20,366.00 $17.00 $20,366.00 $15.00 $17,970.00 22 Concrete Curb Ramp SF 1125 $23.00 $25,875.00 $30.00 $33,750.00 $23.00 $25,875.00 23 Concrete Curb (6") LF 30 $60.00 $1,800.00 $100.00 $3,000.00 $68.00 $2,040.00 24 Traffic Stripe (6" Thermoplastic) LF 27269 $1.50 $40,903.50 $1.00 $27,269.00 $0.80 $21,815.20 25 Pavement Marking (Thermoplastic) SF 1291 $8.00 $10,328.00 $8.00 $10,328.00 $7.25 $9,359.75 26 Pavement Markers EA 954 $10.00 $9,540.00 $3.25 $3,100.50 $4.00 $3,816.00 27 Reset Sign EA 5 $500.00 $2,500.00 $325.00 $1,625.00 $350.00 $1,750.00 28 Reset Catch Basin No. 3 EA 2 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $1,250.00 $2,500.00 29 Catch Basin No. 3 EA 2 $4,000.00 $8,000.00 $7,000.00 $14,000.00 $7,500.00 $15,000.00 30 Catch Basin No. 3 Lid (Modified) EA 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 $7,775.00 $7,775.00 31 Catch Basin No. 4 EA 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 $7,775.00 $7,775.00 32 Manhole (Storm Drain, Type 1 - 4') EA 2 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $8,500.00 $17,000.00 $10,400.00 $20,800.00 33 Beacon System (2 Pole RRFB) EA 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $22,500.00 $22,500.00 $20,000.05 $20,000.05 34 Street Light (STD & Luminare) EA 22 $7,000.00 $154,000.00 $13,500.00 $297,000.00 $7,600.00 $167,200.00 35 Street Light Pull Box (2E) EA 8 $750.00 $6,000.00 $925.00 $7,400.00 $1,550.00 $12,400.00 36 Street Light Pull box (3E) EA 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,650.00 $3,300.00 $5,550.00 $11,100.00 37 Cross Gutter SF 205 $15.00 $3,075.00 $48.00 $9,840.00 $35.00 $7,175.00 TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS $1,240,541.50 $1,326,283.35 $1,338,540.00 Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Shaded areas indicate corrections made in accordance with the special provisions. Page 2 of 2 BID TABULATION FOR:

CHURN CREEK AND MARAGLIA SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Bid Schedule No.: 5223
Job No.: 2622
8/4/2021

ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY
1 Prepare Storm Water Pollution LS 1
2 Implement Storm Water Pollution LS 1
3 Traffic Control LS 1
4 Construction Area Signs EA 15
5 Project Funding Sign EA 1
6 Surveying (Construction) LS 1
7 Excavation (Unclassified) CY 539
8 Remove Concrete SF 3725
9 Remove Traffic Stripe (Diamond Grind) LF 20000
10 Class 1 RSP CY 50
11 Aggregate Base (Class 2) CY 405
12 Asphalt Concrete TON 750
13 Pavement Fabric SY 5778
14 Cold Mill Asphalt Concrete (Wedge SF 10956
15 Fog Seal SY 18260
16 Curb and Gutter (5") LF 30
17 Curb and Gutter (6") LF 2600
18 Curb and Gutter (Roll) LF 630
19 Sidewalk (4" PCC) SF 11570
20 Sidewalk (6" PCC) SF 5516
21 Driveway Residential SF 1198
22 Concrete Curb Ramp SF 1125
23 Concrete Curb (6") LF 30
24 Traffic Stripe (6" Thermoplastic) LF 27269
25 Pavement Marking (Thermoplastic) SF 1291
26 Pavement Markers EA 954
27 Reset Sign EA 5
28 Reset Catch Basin No. 3 EA 2
29 Catch Basin No. 3 EA 2
30 Catch Basin No. 3 Lid (Modified) EA 1
31 Catch Basin No. 4 EA 1
32 Manhole (Storm Drain, Type 1 - 4') EA 2
33 Beacon System (2 Pole RRFB) EA 1
34 Street Light (STD & Luminare) EA 22
35 Street Light Pull Box (2E) EA 8
36 Street Light Pull box (3E) EA 2
37 Cross Gutter SF 205

TOTAL - CONTRACT ITEMS
Sunrise Excavating

UNIT UNIT UNIT

PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL
$1,500.00 $1,500.00
$36,500.00 $36,500.00
$90,625.00 $90,625.00
$250.00 $3,750.00
$1,250.00 $1,250.00
$12,000.00 $12,000.00
$93.00 $50,127.00
$6.00 $22,350.00
$0.50 $10,000.00
$100.00 $5,000.00
$154.00 $62,370.00
$254.00 $190,500.00
$3.60 $20,800.80
$1.40 $15,338.40
$0.50 $9,130.00
$83.80 $2,514.00
$64.55 $167,830.00
$57.75 $36,382.50
$13.15 $152,145.50
$13.65 $75,293.40
$19.00 $22,762.00
$35.00 $39,375.00
$65.00 $1,950.00
$0.70 $19,088.30
$6.00 $7,746.00
$2.50 $2,385.00
$250.00 $1,250.00
$700.00 $1,400.00
$4,500.00 $9,000.00
$3,500.00 $3,500.00
$4,500.00 $4,500.00
$9,500.00 $19,000.00
$16,000.00 $16,000.00
$10,454.00 $229,988.00
$550.00 $4,400.00
$750.00 $1,500.00
$30.00 $6,150.00
$1,355,400.90
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Packet Pg. 386
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 387
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 388
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 389
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 390
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 391
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 392
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 393
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 394
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 395
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 396
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 397
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) September 13, 2021
Becky Kraft
City of Redding Public Works
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, CA 96001
Re: COR BS 5223 Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Subject: Good Faith Effort Administrative Reconsideration Becky,
RTA Construction, Inc. would like to request administrative reconsideration of the City’s determination that our Good Faith Effort for COR BS 5223 Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements is inadequate. RTA Construction, Inc has identified several inaccuracies in the notification of inadequate Good Faith Effort that we received form the City on September 10, 2021. We would like to schedule an in-person meeting with the reconsideration official to discuss this issue.

Sincerely,
Darren Trawick
RTA CONSTRUCTION, INC.
9614 Tanqueray Court ∙ Redding, CA 96003
Phone: (530) 223‐1100 ∙ Fax: (530) 223‐6320
CSLB No. 862067
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 399
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 400
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 401
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 402
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 403
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 404
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 405
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 406
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 407
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 408
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 409
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 410
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 411
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 412
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 413
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 414
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 415
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 416
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 417
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 418
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 419
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 420
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 421
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 422
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 423
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 424
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 425
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) Packet Pg. 426
Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements Project Acceptance) 8/24/2021 eCFR :: 49 CFR 26.53 -- What are the good faith efforts procedures recipients follow in situations where there are contract goals? https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-A/part-26/subpart-C/section-26.53 1/4 This site is for beta evaluation only. Please provide feedback using the Feedback button at the bottom right.  You are viewing the current version of the eCFR. The eCFR is up to date as of 8/20/2021.

Title 49
§ 26.53 What are the good faith efforts procedures recipients follow in situations where there are contract goals?
(a) When you have established a DBE contract goal, you must award the contract only to a bidder/offeror who makes good faith efforts to meet it. You must determine that a bidder/offeror has made good faith efforts if the bidder/offeror does either of the following things:
(1) Documents that it has obtained enough DBE participation to meet the goal; or (2) Documents that it made adequate good faith efforts to meet the goal, even though it did not succeed in obtaining enough DBE participation to do so. If the bidder/offeror does document adequate good faith efforts, you must not deny award of the contract on the basis that the bidder/offeror failed to meet the goal. See Appendix A of this part for guidance in determining the adequacy of a bidder/offeror's good faith efforts.
(b) In your solicitations for DOT-assisted contracts for which a contract goal has been established, you must require the following:
(1) Award of the contract will be conditioned on meeting the requirements of this section; (2) All bidders or offerors will be required to submit the following information to the recipient, at the time provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section:
(i) The names and addresses of DBE firms that will participate in the contract; (ii) A description of the work that each DBE will perform. To count toward meeting a goal, each DBE firm must be certified in a NAICS code applicable to the kind of work the firm would perform on the contract; (iii) The dollar amount of the participation of each DBE firm participating; (iv) Written documentation of the bidder/offeror's commitment to use a DBE subcontractor whose participation it submits to meet a contract goal; and
(v) Written confirmation from each listed DBE firm that it is participating in the contract in the kind and amount of work provided in the prime contractor's commitment.
(vi) If the contract goal is not met, evidence of good faith efforts (see Appendix A of this part). The documentation of good faith efforts must include copies of each DBE and non-DBE subcontractor quote submitted to the bidder when a non-DBE subcontractor was selected over a DBE for work on the contract; and Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements 8/24/2021 eCFR :: 49 CFR 26.53 -- What are the good faith efforts procedures recipients follow in situations where there are contract goals? https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-A/part-26/subpart-C/section-26.53 2/4 (3)
(i) At your discretion, the bidder/offeror must present the information required by paragraph (b)(2) of this section - (A) Under sealed bid procedures, as a matter of responsiveness, or with initial proposals, under contract negotiation procedures; or
(B) No later than 7 days after bid opening as a matter of responsibility. The 7 days shall be reduced to 5 days beginning January 1, 2017.
(ii) Provided that, in a negotiated procurement, including a design-build procurement, the bidder/offeror may make a contractually binding commitment to meet the goal at the time of bid submission or the presentation of initial proposals but provide the information required by paragraph (b)(2) of this section before the final selection for the contract is made by the recipient.
(c) You must make sure all information is complete and accurate and adequately documents the bidder/offeror's good faith efforts before committing yourself to the performance of the contract by the bidder/offeror. (d) If you determine that the apparent successful bidder/offeror has failed to meet the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, you must, before awarding the contract, provide the bidder/offeror an opportunity for administrative reconsideration. (1) As part of this reconsideration, the bidder/offeror must have the opportunity to provide written documentation or argument concerning the issue of whether it met the goal or made adequate good faith efforts to do so. (2) Your decision on reconsideration must be made by an official who did not take part in the original determination that the bidder/offeror failed to meet the goal or make adequate good faith efforts to do so. (3) The bidder/offeror must have the opportunity to meet in person with your reconsideration official to discuss the issue of whether it met the goal or made adequate good faith efforts to do so. (4) You must send the bidder/offeror a written decision on reconsideration, explaining the basis for finding that the bidder did or did not meet the goal or make adequate good faith efforts to do so. (5) The result of the reconsideration process is not administratively appealable to the Department of Transportation. (e) In a “design-build” or “turnkey” contracting situation, in which the recipient lets a master contract to a contractor, who in turn lets subsequent subcontracts for the work of the project, a recipient may establish a goal for the project. The master contractor then establishes contract goals, as appropriate, for the subcontracts it lets. Recipients must maintain oversight of the master contractor's activities to ensure that they are conducted consistent with the requirements of this part. (f)
(1)
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements 8/24/2021 eCFR :: 49 CFR 26.53 -- What are the good faith efforts procedures recipients follow in situations where there are contract goals? https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-A/part-26/subpart-C/section-26.53 3/4 (i) You must require that a prime contractor not terminate a DBE subcontractor listed in response to paragraph (b)(2) of this section (or an approved substitute DBE firm) without your prior written consent. This includes, but is not limited to, instances in which a prime contractor seeks to perform work originally designated for a DBE subcontractor with its own forces or those of an affiliate, a non-DBE firm, or with another DBE firm. (ii) You must include in each prime contract a provision stating:
(A) That the contractor shall utilize the specific DBEs listed to perform the work and supply the materials for which each is listed unless the contractor obtains your written consent as provided in this paragraph (f); and (B) That, unless your consent is provided under this paragraph (f), the contractor shall not be entitled to any payment for work or material unless it is performed or supplied by the listed DBE. (2) You may provide such written consent only if you agree, for reasons stated in your concurrence document, that the prime contractor has good cause to terminate the DBE firm.
(3) For purposes of this paragraph, good cause includes the following circumstances:
(i) The listed DBE subcontractor fails or refuses to execute a written contract; (ii) The listed DBE subcontractor fails or refuses to perform the work of its subcontract in a way consistent with normal industry standards. Provided, however, that good cause does not exist if the failure or refusal of the DBE subcontractor to perform its work on the subcontract results from the bad faith or discriminatory action of the prime contracor; (iii) The listed DBE subcontractor fails or refuses to meet the prime contractor's reasonable, nondiscriminatory bond requirements.
(iv) The listed DBE subcontractor becomes bankrupt, insolvent, or exhibits credit unworthiness; (v) The listed DBE subcontractor is ineligible to work on public works projects because of suspension and debarment proceedings pursuant 2 CFR Parts 180, 215 and 1,200 or applicable state law; (vii) You have determined that the listed DBE subcontractor is not a responsible contractor; (vi) The listed DBE subcontractor voluntarily withdraws from the project and provides to you written notice of its withdrawal; (vii) The listed DBE is ineligible to receive DBE credit for the type of work required; (viii) A DBE owner dies or becomes disabled with the result that the listed DBE contractor is unable to complete its work on the contract;
(ix) Other documented good cause that you determine compels the termination of the DBE subcontractor. Provided, that good cause does not exist if the prime contractor seeks to terminate a DBE it relied upon to obtain the contract so that the prime contractor can self-perform the work for which the DBE contractor was engaged or so that the prime contractor can substitute another DBE or non-DBE contractor after contract award.

Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements 8/24/2021 eCFR :: 49 CFR 26.53 -- What are the good faith efforts procedures recipients follow in situations where there are contract goals? https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-A/part-26/subpart-C/section-26.53 4/4 [64 FR 5126, Feb. 2, 1999, as amended at 76 FR 5098, Jan. 28, 2011; 79 FR 59595, Oct. 2, 2014] (4) Before transmitting to you its request to terminate and/or substitute a DBE subcontractor, the prime contractor must give notice in writing to the DBE subcontractor, with a copy to you, of its intent to request to terminate and/or substitute, and the reason for the request.
(5) The prime contractor must give the DBE five days to respond to the prime contractor's notice and advise you and the contractor of the reasons, if any, why it objects to the proposed termination of its subcontract and why you should not approve the prime contractor's action. If required in a particular case as a matter of public necessity (e.g., safety), you may provide a response period shorter than five days.
(6) In addition to post-award terminations, the provisions of this section apply to preaward deletions of or substitutions for DBE firms put forward by offerors in negotiated procurements.
(g) When a DBE subcontractor is terminated as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, or fails to complete its work on the contract for any reason, you must require the prime contractor to make good faith efforts to find another DBE subcontractor to substitute for the original DBE. These good faith efforts shall be directed at finding another DBE to perform at least the same amount of work under the contract as the DBE that was terminated, to the extent needed to meet the contract goal you established for the procurement. The good faith efforts shall be documented by the contractor. If the recipient requests documentation under this provision, the contractor shall submit the documentation within 7 days, which may be extended for an additional 7 days if necessary at the request of the contractor, and the recipient shall provide a written determination to the contractor stating whether or not good faith efforts have been demonstrated. (h) You must include in each prime contract the contract clause required by § 26.13(b) stating that failure by the contractor to carry out the requirements of this part is a material breach of the contract and may result in the termination of the contract or such other remedies set forth in that section you deem appropriate if the prime contractor fails to comply with the requirements of this section. (i) You must apply the requirements of this section to DBE bidders/offerors for prime contracts. In determining whether a DBE bidder/offeror for a prime contract has met a contract goal, you count the work the DBE has committed to performing with its own forces as well as the work that it has committed to be performed by DBE subcontractors and DBE suppliers. (j) You must require the contractor awarded the contract to make available upon request a copy of all DBE subcontracts. The subcontractor shall ensure that all subcontracts or an agreement with DBEs to supply labor or materials require that the subcontract and all lower tier subcontractors be performed in accordance with this part's provisions.

Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements 8/24/2021 eCFR :: Appendix A to Part 26, Title 49 -- Guidance Concerning Good Faith Efforts https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-49/part-26/appendix-Appendix A to Part 26 1/3 This site is for beta evaluation only. Please provide feedback using the Feedback button at the bottom right.  You are viewing the current version of the eCFR. The eCFR is up to date as of 8/20/2021.

Title 49
Appendix A to Part 26 - Guidance Concerning Good Faith Efforts I. When, as a recipient, you establish a contract goal on a DOT-assisted contract for procuring construction, equipment, services, or any other purpose, a bidder must, in order to be responsible and/or responsive, make sufficient good faith efforts to meet the goal. The bidder can meet this requirement in either of two ways. First, the bidder can meet the goal, documenting commitments for participation by DBE firms sufficient for this purpose. Second, even if it doesn't meet the goal, the bidder can document adequate good faith efforts. This means that the bidder must show that it took all necessary and reasonable steps to achieve a DBE goal or other requirement of this part which, by their scope, intensity, and appropriateness to the objective, could reasonably be expected to obtain sufficient DBE participation, even if they were not fully successful.

II. In any situation in which you have established a contract goal, Part 26 requires you to use the good faith efforts mechanism of this part. As a recipient, you have the responsibility to make a fair and reasonable judgment whether a bidder that did not meet the goal made adequate good faith efforts. It is important for you to consider the quality, quantity, and intensity of the different kinds of efforts that the bidder has made, based on the regulations and the guidance in this Appendix.

The efforts employed by the bidder should be those that one could reasonably expect a bidder to take if the bidder were actively and aggressively trying to obtain DBE participation sufficient to meet the DBE contract goal. Mere pro forma efforts are not good faith efforts to meet the DBE contract requirements. We emphasize, however, that your determination concerning the sufficiency of the firm's good faith efforts is a judgment call. Determinations should not be made using quantitative formulas.

III. The Department also strongly cautions you against requiring that a bidder meet a contract goal (i.e., obtain a specified amount of DBE participation) in order to be awarded a contract, even though the bidder makes an adequate good faith efforts showing. This rule specifically prohibits you from ignoring bona fide good faith efforts.

IV. The following is a list of types of actions which you should consider as part of the bidder's good faith efforts to obtain DBE participation. It is not intended to be a mandatory checklist, nor is it intended to be exclusive or exhaustive. Other factors or types of efforts may be relevant in appropriate cases.

Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements 8/24/2021 eCFR :: Appendix A to Part 26, Title 49 -- Guidance Concerning Good Faith Efforts https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-49/part-26/appendix-Appendix A to Part 26 2/3 A. (1) Conducing market research to identify small business contractors and suppliers and soliciting through all reasonable and available means the interest of all certified DBEs that have the capability to perform the work of the contract. This may include attendance at pre-bid and business matchmaking meetings and events, advertising and/or written notices, posting of Notices of Sources Sought and/or Requests for Proposals, written notices or emails to all DBEs listed in the State's directory of transportation firms that specialize in the areas of work desired (as noted in the DBE directory) and which are located in the area or surrounding areas of the project. (2) The bidder should solicit this interest as early in the acquisition process as practicable to allow the DBEs to respond to the solicitation and submit a timely offer for the subcontract. The bidder should determine with certainty if the DBEs are interested by taking appropriate steps to follow up initial solicitations.

B. Selecting portions of the work to be performed by DBEs in order to increase the likelihood that the DBE goals will be achieved. This includes, where appropriate, breaking out contract work items into economically feasible units (for example, smaller tasks or quantities) to facilitate DBE participation, even when the prime contractor might otherwise prefer to perform these work items with its own forces.

This may include, where possible, establishing flexible timeframes for performance and delivery schedules in a manner that encourages and facilitates DBE participation.

C. Providing interested DBEs with adequate information about the plans, specifications, and requirements of the contract in a timely manner to assist them in responding to a solicitation with their offer for the subcontract.

D. (1) Negotiating in good faith with interested DBEs. It is the bidder's responsibility to make a portion of the work available to DBE subcontractors and suppliers and to select those portions of the work or material needs consistent with the available DBE subcontractors and suppliers, so as to facilitate DBE participation. Evidence of such negotiation includes the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of DBEs that were considered; a description of the information provided regarding the plans and specifications for the work selected for subcontracting; and evidence as to why additional Agreements could not be reached for DBEs to perform the work.
(2) A bidder using good business judgment would consider a number of factors in negotiating with subcontractors, including DBE subcontractors, and would take a firm's price and capabilities as well as contract goals into consideration. However, the fact that there may be some additional costs involved in finding and using DBEs is not in itself sufficient reason for a bidder's failure to meet the contract DBE goal, as long as such costs are reasonable. Also, the ability or desire of a prime contractor to perform the work of a contract with its own organization does not relieve the bidder of the responsibility to make good faith efforts. Prime contractors are not, however, required to accept higher quotes from DBEs if the price difference is excessive or unreasonable.

E. (1) Not rejecting DBEs as being unqualified without sound reasons based on a thorough investigation of their capabilities. The contractor's standing within its industry, membership in specific groups, organizations, or associations and political or social affiliations (for example union vs. non-union status) are not legitimate causes for the rejection or non-solicitation of bids in the contractor's efforts to meet the project goal. Another practice considered an insufficient good faith effort is the rejection of the DBE because its quotation for the work was not the lowest received. However, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require the bidder or prime contractor to accept unreasonable quotes in order to satisfy contract goals. (2) A prime contractor's inability to find a replacement DBE at the original price is not alone sufficient to support a finding that good faith efforts have been made to replace the original DBE. The fact that the contractor has the ability and/or desire to perform the contract work with its own forces does not relieve the contractor of the obligation to make good faith efforts to find a replacement DBE, and it is Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements 8/24/2021 eCFR :: Appendix A to Part 26, Title 49 -- Guidance Concerning Good Faith Efforts https://ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-49/part-26/appendix-Appendix A to Part 26 3/3 F. Making efforts to assist interested DBEs in obtaining bonding, lines of credit, or insurance as required by the recipient or contractor.

G. Making efforts to assist interested DBEs in obtaining necessary equipment, supplies, materials, or related assistance or services.

H. Effectively using the services of available minority/women community organizations; minority/women contractors' groups; local, State, and Federal minority/women business assistance offices; and other organizations as allowed on a case-by-case basis to provide assistance in the recruitment and placement of DBEs.

V. In determining whether a bidder has made good faith efforts, it is essential to scrutinize its documented efforts. At a minimum, you must review the performance of other bidders in meeting the contract goal. For example, when the apparent successful bidder fails to meet the contract goal, but others meet it, you may reasonably raise the question of whether, with additional efforts, the apparent successful bidder could have met the goal. If the apparent successful bidder fails to meet the goal, but meets or exceeds the average DBE participation obtained by other bidders, you may view this, in conjunction with other factors, as evidence of the apparent successful bidder having made good faith efforts. As provided in §

26.53(b)(2)((vi), you must also require the contractor to submit copies of each DBE and non-DBE subcontractor quote submitted to the bidder when a non-DBE subcontractor was selected over a DBE for work on the contract to review whether DBE prices were substantially higher; and contact the DBEs listed on a contractor's solicitation to inquire as to whether they were contacted by the prime. Pro forma mailings to DBEs requesting bids are not alone sufficient to satisfy good faith efforts under the rule.

VI. A promise to use DBEs after contract award is not considered to be responsive to the contract solicitation or to constitute good faith efforts. [79 FR 59600, Oct. 2, 2014]
not a sound basis for rejecting a prospective replacement DBE's reasonable quote.

Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: 11-2-21 Previous Staff Report (4.11(c)--Churn Creek and Maraglia Safety Improvements

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following related to the purchase of one 2022 Caterpillar (CAT) 910 Loader for the City of Redding Solid Waste Utility:
(1) Authorize the purchase using Sourcewell contract pricing, with a net delivered cost of $224,054.10, including all applicable taxes and fees; and (2) Authorize the City Manager to approve future pricing adjustments, terms, and policy changes as needed due to inflation and unstable economic conditions up to a total of $30,000.

Fiscal Impact
For Fiscal Year 2022-23, the Solid Waste Utility (Utility) budgeted $155,000 for the purchase of a loader. Due to significant manufacturing price increases, the net delivered cost of $224,054.10 requires an additional $69,054.10 to be transferred from the Rolling Stock Fund. The Rolling Stock Fund contains sufficient funds to facilitate this purchase and other planned purchases through the fiscal year. Staff is working on updating current pricing on the Rolling Stock Plan to account for these rapid increases.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose to not authorize the purchase using the Sourcewell contract and direct staff to use the competitive bid process.

Background/Analysis
The Utility performs processing and sorting of recyclable commodities collected both curbside and self-hauled to the City of Redding (City) Transfer Station and Recycling Facility (Transfer Station). The operations at the Transfer Station are conducted six days per week. Staff uses the loader as the primary unit for moving the recyclable materials on the Transfer Station floor area into a stock pile and loading the feed belt for the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) machine.

MEETING DATE: October 18, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(d)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(d)--Purchase of One Caterpillar 910 Loader Using Sourcewell Contract Pricing
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 434
Report to Redding City Council October 11, 2022
Re: 4.11(d)--Purchase of One Caterpillar 910 Loader Using Sourcewell Contract PricingPage 2 Replacement of a medium sized loader aligns with the Utility’s adopted Rolling Stock Plan. Staff is requesting to replace this unit due to it reaching the end of its expected lifecycle, which is based on the cumulative cost of the repairs and maintenance and the cost for known repairs.

Currently, with the increase of recycling tonnage over the last two years, the daily run time of this loader has increased causing significant wear and tear to occur faster than anticipated. The current loader has 10,379 hours of use and needs numerous repairs that have made it unreliable.

It is beyond the expected 10,000 hours of life for designation as a primary unit. Production and efficiency have been negatively affected by this machine’s maintenance issues and extended downtimes. Additionally, the current machine is undersized to perform the duties and tasks assigned to it, so the replacement loader will be of a more appropriate size for the application.

For this model of loader, CAT does not offer solid tires or an open grapple bucket, both of which are needed for the operations and environment in which the loader will be used. The net delivered cost includes the purchase of these items from a supplier to Peterson Tractor and includes installation prior to the delivery of the machine. These items, however, are not part of the Sourcewell contract and do not receive the contract discount.

This unit is available under a Sourcewell competitively bid contract. Sourcewell develops national competitive solicitations that meet or exceed local standards and offers its members the benefits derived from cooperative purchasing. Using the Sourcewell cooperative contract to purchase a 2022 Caterpillar (CAT) 910 Loader saves significant staff time needed to prepare bid specifications and solicit individual quotations from vendors. The City also receives a significant price discount due to economies of scale realized through the volume of purchases on a multiagency cooperate contract.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and no further action is required.

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

Attachments
^Quote
Packet Pg. 435
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: ^Quote (4.11(d)--Purchase of One Caterpillar 910 Loader Using Sourcewell Contract Pricing) Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: ^Quote (4.11(d)--Purchase of One Caterpillar 910 Loader Using Sourcewell Contract Pricing) Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: ^Quote (4.11(d)--Purchase of One Caterpillar 910 Loader Using Sourcewell Contract Pricing)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following related to the purchase of one 2023 Freightliner M2-106 Street Sweeper for the City of Redding Solid Waste Utility:
(1) Authorize the purchase using Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC) contract pricing, with a net delivered cost of $399,862.75 including all applicable taxes and fees; and (2) Authorize the City Manager to approve future pricing adjustments, terms, and policy changes as needed due to inflation and unstable economic conditions up to a total of $30,000.

Fiscal Impact
For Fiscal Year 2022-23, the Solid Waste Utility (Utility) budgeted $367,700 for the purchase of a Street Sweeper. Due to significant manufacturing price increases, the net delivered cost of $399,862.75 requires an additional transfer of $32,162.75 from the Rolling Stock Fund. The Rolling Stock Fund contains sufficient funds to facilitate this purchase and other planned purchases through the fiscal year. Staff is working on updating current pricing on the Rolling Stock Plan to account for these rapid increases.

Alternative Action
The City Council may choose not to authorize the purchase using HGAC contract pricing, and direct staff to use the competitive bid process, which would delay the acquisition of the replacement truck.

MEETING DATE: October 18, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(e)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(e)--Purchase of One Street Sweeper Using Houston-Galveston Area Council Contract Pricing
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 439
Report to Redding City Council October 11, 2022
Re: 4.11(e)--Purchase of One Street Sweeper Using Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC) Contract Pricing Page 2
Background/Analysis
A core function of the Utility’s daily operations includes sweeping the streets of all commercial areas weekly and residential neighborhoods monthly. The Utility uses three street sweepers, two of which are used on a daily basis for sweeping pre-determined routes, while the third is utilized as a spare when one of the other trucks is out of service and during leaf season.

Replacing this unit aligns with the adopted Rolling Stock Plan; in particular, this request will replace one 2012 sweeper. This unit has reached the end of its expected lifecycle based on the cumulative cost of repairs, maintenance, breakdowns, age of the equipment, and an increase in cost to maintain. One of the recent issues was an onboard fire due to an electrical issue. The unit is 10 years old, has 85,265 miles, and 10,701 run hours.

The HGAC contract was competitively bid. In addition to being an industry standard, using the HGAC contract to purchase equipment saves significant staff time needed to prepare bid specifications and solicit individual quotations from vendors. The City of Redding also receives a significant price discount due to economies of scale realized through the volume of purchases on a multi-agency cooperative contract.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and no further action is required.

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

Attachments
^Quote
Packet Pg. 440
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: ^Quote (4.11(e)--Purchase of One Street Sweeper Using Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC) Contract Pricing)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Approve and authorize the following actions relative to the Lake Redding Park Culvert and Storm Damage Repairs Project:
(1) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Mitigation Monitoring and Environmental Commitment Program; and
(2) Approve the Lake Redding Park Culvert and Storm Damage Repairs Project as described, thereby satisfying the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines §15074.

Fiscal Impact
Approval of the Lake Redding Park Culvert and Storm Damage Repairs Project (Project) along with adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) allows the project to move toward the final design and construction phases.

There is no fiscal impact as a direct result of adopting the MND and MMP, and approving the project.

The City of Redding (City) has received funding assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for public assistance project PA-09-CA-4301-PW-00937. FEMA has obligated approximately $153,531 for delivery of this project to date but will provide funding for actual costs expended. Actual project costs are shared by FEMA (75 percent), the State of California (State) (18.75 percent) and the City (6.25 percent) and expected to be approximately $230,000.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose to not adopt the MND and the MMP, and not approve the project as described. This project could not proceed without the approval of these documents, as it would not be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

MEETING DATE: October 18, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(f)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(f)--Approval of the Lake Redding Park Culvert and Storm Damage Repairs Project
Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 442
Report to Redding City Council October 11, 2022
Re: 4.11(f)-- Approve Lake Redding Park Culvert & Storm Damage Repairs Project Page 2 Background/Analysis
In January 2017, heavy rains and severe flooding caused water to overtop embankments along the Sacramento River, which damaged various parks and trails. The City sought funding assistance from FEMA and developed multiple projects to repair the storm damage.

The proposed project includes work on two existing culverts at Lake Redding Park. At the first location, the project would permanently remove the culvert and restore the culverted area to reestablish and enhance aquatic resources, including riverine and riparian habitat. Work involves removing walkway embankment material, stone headwalls, log rails and barricades, conduit, and the culvert. Restoration involves grading the area to match existing stream contours and applying erosion control seed. The second location would be repaired by removing the damaged portion of the existing culvert, replacing it with a new section of culvert, lining the culvert, constructing a new concrete headwall, and filling a scour hole with rock. The existing log guard rails will be temporarily removed to access the culverts and will be reinstalled as required.

Work will include minor vegetation disturbance; demolition; excavation; grading; sediment removal; culvert removal, replacement, and lining; headwall installation; rock slope protection installation; and hydro-seed application. Construction is anticipated to take one season and will be completed in the fall of 2023. The project is located in Lake Redding Park, on the north side of the River Trail between Benton Drive and Rio Drive. The project is necessary to continue providing pedestrians and bicyclists access for use of the park and trail areas for recreation purposes.

An Initial Study (IS) was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It describes why the project is being proposed and the potential impacts to the existing environment. The IS shows that the proposed project could have a significant effect on biological resources, but with implementation of mitigation measures, those impacts will be reduced to a level considered less than significant. The mitigation measures and conservation measures to be implemented are common practices and include, but are not limited to, biological pre-construction surveys, in-water work windows, water quality monitoring, impact minimization, exclusionary fencing, and erosion control.

Based on the conclusions made in the IS, an MND was prepared. The MND describes the project, including mitigation measures, and makes the determination that there will be no significant effect on the environment provided that the defined mitigation measures are implemented as part of the project. In addition, an MMP has been written and incorporated into the MND (CEQA Section 21081.6). The MMP will be used by City staff, contractors, agencies, and monitoring personnel during and after the project to ensure effective implementation of the adopted mitigation measures outlined in the MND.

The IS/MND/MMP documents were sent to the State Clearinghouse for a 30-day public review period and distribution to pertinent state agencies. They were sent to local resource agencies, the Shasta County Clerk, and posted on the Public Works Department website. A public notice was also sent to landowners in the vicinity of the project and posted in the local newspaper. No comment letters were received during the public review period.

Packet Pg. 443
Report to Redding City Council October 11, 2022
Re: 4.11(f)-- Approve Lake Redding Park Culvert & Storm Damage Repairs Project Page 3 Environmental Review
The City of Redding is the lead agency for the project pursuant to CEQA. As the lead CEQA agency, the Council is authorized to adopt the MND per Redding Municipal Code Section §18.24.070.E and State law. Upon adoption of the MND and approval of the project by the Council, a Notice of Determination will be filed with the Shasta County Clerk’s Office and the State Clearinghouse, completing the environmental review process. The IS/MND is available in the Public Works Department and is currently available online at https://www.cityofredding.org/departments/public-works/environmental-management.

On September 29, 2020, FEMA determined that the project activities are Categorically Excluded pursuant to Category Code N7 (Federal Assistance for Structure and Facility Upgrades) as it relates to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.

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

Attachments
^Location Map
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Monitoring and Environmental Commitment Program FEMA Record of Environmental Consideration
Packet Pg. 444
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: ^Location Map (4.11(f)-- Approve Lake Redding Park Culvert & Storm Damage Repairs Project) Lake Redding Park Culvert and Storm Damage Repairs Project Page 1 October 2022

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

LAKE REDDING PARK CULVERT AND

STORM DAMAGE REPAIRS PROJECT
FEMA-PA-09-CA-4301-PW-00937
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2022080410

SUBJECT
Lake Redding Park Culvert and Storm Damage Repairs Project

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Redding (City) proposes a storm damage repair project at Lake Redding Park, Shasta County, California. In January 2017, heavy rains and severe flooding caused water to overtop embankments along the Sacramento River, damaging various parks and trails. The purpose of the project is to repair and restore flood-damage, so that pre-flood design, function, and capacity (in-kind) is achieved within the existing footprint. The project is needed so that pedestrians and bicyclists can continue to use the park for recreation purposes. The project is led by the City of Redding and has received funding assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA No. PA-09-CA-4301-PW-00937) to complete the project.

The project includes work on two existing culverts at Lake Redding Park. At Location AA, the project would permanently remove the culvert and restore the culverted area to re-establish and enhance aquatic resources, including riverine and riparian habitat. Work involves removing walkway embankment material, stone headwalls, log rails and barricades, conduit, and the culvert. Restoration involves grading the area to match existing stream contours and applying erosion control seed. Location Z will be repaired by removing the damaged portion of the existing culvert, replacing it with a new section of culvert, lining the culvert, constructing a new concrete headwall, and filling a scour hole with rock. The existing log guard rails will be temporarily removed to access the culverts and will be reinstalled as required.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is located within Lake Redding Park on Rio Drive, just southeast of the intersection of Benton Drive and Quartz Hill Road. The park is situated just north of the Sacramento River. It is bound by Quartz Hill Road to the north, the Union Pacific Railroad alignment to the east, the Sacramento River to the south, and Benton Drive to the west. The park is surrounded by residential and commercial properties to the east, north, and west. There are several paved roads, parking areas, as well as paved and unpaved paths throughout the park. Vegetation in the park is composed primarily of cultivated lawns, planted native trees, and ornamental trees.

Location AA is located in the center of the park and features a dry-laid rock headwall on its south elevation. Cobblestone retaining walls border Dix Creek adjacent to the culvert on its north elevation. Log guardrails and a pedestrian pathway are located above the culverts. Location Z is located in the southwest corner of the park and features a cobblestone headwall and wingwall on its southwest elevation.

Cobblestone retaining walls border Dix Creek adjacent to the culvert.

Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Mitigated Negative Declaration (4.11(f)-- Approve Lake Redding Park Culvert & Storm Damage Repairs Project) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 2 ends

October 2022

FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
The City of Redding conducted an Initial Study (attached) that determined that the proposed project could have significant environmental effects on biological resources. Implementation of specific mitigation measures identified below will avoid or mitigate the potentially significant environmental effects identified, and the preparation of an environmental impact report will not be required. If there are substantial changes that alter the character or impacts of the proposed project, another environmental impact determination will be necessary.

Prior to approval of the project, the lead agency may conclude, at a public hearing, that certain mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration are infeasible or undesirable. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15074.1, the lead agency may delete those mitigation measures and substitute other measures that it determines are equivalent or more effective. The lead agency would adopt written findings that the new measure(s) is(are) equivalent or more effective in mitigating or avoiding potential significant effects and that it would not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment.
1) Based on the whole record (including the Initial Study and any supporting documentation) and the mitigation measures incorporated into the project, the City of Redding has determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 2) The Mitigated Negative Declaration, with its supporting documentation, reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the lead agency, which is the City of Redding.

DOCUMENTATION
The attached Initial Study documents the reasons to support the above determination.

MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project to minimize potential effects on biological resources:

MM-1. Prior to the onset of construction activities, a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys for foothill yellow-legged frog. If the species are observed during the preconstruction survey or during construction, CDFW will be contacted, and work within that area will be avoided until an appropriate course of action is established. If construction is delayed or halted for more than 7 days, another preconstruction survey will be conducted.

MM-2. If construction occurs during the bat non-volant season (March 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the study area to locate maternity colonies. The preconstruction survey will be performed no more than 7 days prior to the implementation of construction activities. If a maternity colony is located within or adjacent to the study area, a disturbance free buffer shall be established by a qualified biologist, in consultation with CDFW, to ensure the colony is protected from project activities. If construction activities cease for a period greater than 7 days, additional preconstruction surveys will be required.

MM-3. If vegetation removal or construction activities will occur during the nesting season for birds (February 1 through August 31) or raptors (November 1 through July 1), a qualified biologist will conduct Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Mitigated Negative Declaration (4.11(f)-- Approve Lake Redding Park Culvert & Storm Damage Repairs Project) City of Redding
Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Works Department, Engineering Division Lake Redding Park Culvert and Storm Damage Repairs Project Page 3 October 2022
a preconstruction survey seven (7) days before construction activities begin. If nesting birds or raptors are found, CDFW will be notified and consulted. An appropriate buffer, as determined by CDFW and the qualified biologist, will be placed around the nest until the young have fledged. If construction activities cease for a period greater than 7 days, additional preconstruction surveys will be required.

If an active raptor nest is found, no construction activities will occur within 300-feet of the nest for raptors and 450-feet of the nest for special-status raptors unless a smaller buffer zone is approved by the CDFW. Construction may resume once the young have left the nest or as approved by a qualified biologist.

PUBLIC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
Draft copies or notice of this Mitigated Negative Declaration were distributed to:
 State Clearinghouse
 Shasta County Clerk
 California Department of Transportation District 2
 California Department of Fish and Wildlife District 1  Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
 California Native Plant Society
 California Highway Patrol
 Native American Heritage Commission
 State Office of Historic Preservation
 All property owners within 300 feet of the property boundary

PUBLIC REVIEW
(X) Draft document referred for comments August 19, 2022 – September 19, 2022 Date
( ) No comments were received during the public review period. ( ) Comments were received but did not address the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration findings or the accuracy/completeness of the Initial Study. No response is necessary. The letters are attached. ( ) Comments addressing the findings of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and/or accuracy or completeness of the Initial Study were received during the public review period. The letters and responses follow (see Attachment D, Response to Comments).

X
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Mitigated Negative Declaration (4.11(f)-- Approve Lake Redding Park Culvert & Storm Damage Repairs Project) Packet Pg. 449
Attachment: Mitigated Negative Declaration (4.11(f)-- Approve Lake Redding Park Culvert & Storm Damage Repairs Project) Lake Redding Park Culvert and Storm Damage Repairs Project Page 1 October 2022

MITIGATION MONITORING AND

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT PROGRAM

LAKE REDDING PARK CULVERT AND

STORM DAMAGE REPAIRS PROJECT
(FEMA-PA-09-CA-4301-PW-00937)
State Clearinghouse No. 2022080410

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CONTENTS
This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Environmental Commitment Program (MMP/ECP) for the Lake Redding Park Culvert Project (project). The MMP/ECP includes a brief discussion of the legal basis for, and the purpose of, the program, discussion, and direction regarding complaints about noncompliance; a key to understanding the monitoring matrix; and the monitoring matrix.

LEGAL BASIS OF AND PURPOSE FOR THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires public agencies to adopt mitigation monitoring or reporting programs whenever certifying an environmental impact report (EIR) or a mitigated negative declaration (MND). This requirement facilitates implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process.

The MMP contained herein is intended to satisfy the requirements of CEQA as they relate to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. It is intended to be used by City of Redding (City) staff, participating agencies, project contractors, and mitigation monitoring personnel during implementation of the project.

Mitigation is defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15370 as a measure that does any of the following:
 Avoids impacts altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.  Minimizes impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.  Rectifies impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.  Reduces or eliminates impacts over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the project.
 Compensates for impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

The intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of adopted mitigation measures and permit conditions. The MMP will provide for monitoring of construction activities as necessary, onsite identification and resolution of environmental problems, and proper reporting to City staff.

In addition to meeting the CEQA MMP requirements, this document incorporates environmental commitments, standard practices, conservation measures, and best management practices (BMPs). The environmental commitments may be part of the project design, standard contract specifications, City Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Mitigation Monitoring and Environmental Commitment Program (4.11(f)-- Approve Lake Redding Park Culvert & Storm Damage City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Mitigation Monitoring Program

Page 2 ends

October 2022
requirements, or conservation measures. These commitments are part of the project, but they do not constitute mitigation under CEQA as they have not been incorporated to reduce a potentially significant impact.

MITIGATION MONITORING/ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT PROGRAM TABLE The MMP/ECP Table identifies the mitigation measures and commitments proposed for the project. The tables have the following columns:
 Mitigation Measure: Lists the mitigation measures identified within the Initial Study for a specific potentially significant impact, along with the number for each measure as enumerated in the Initial Study.
 Environmental Commitment: Lists the commitments identified within the project that are not related to a potentially significant CEQA impact, but further ensure environmental resource protection.
 Timing: Identifies at what point in time, review process, or phase the mitigation measure will be completed.
 Agency/Department Consultation: References the City department or any other public agency with which coordination is required to satisfy the identified mitigation measure.  Verification: Spaces to be initialed and dated by the individual designated to verify adherence to a specific mitigation measure.

NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLAINTS
Any person or agency may file a complaint asserting noncompliance with the mitigation measures and commitments associated with the project. The complaint shall be directed to the City in written form, providing specific information on the asserted violation. The City shall investigate and determine the validity of the complaint. If noncompliance with a mitigation measure has occurred, the City shall take appropriate action to remedy any violation. The compliant shall receive written confirmation indicating the results of the investigation or the final action corresponding to the particular noncompliance issue.

Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Mitigation Monitoring and Environmental Commitment Program (4.11(f)-- Approve Lake Redding Park Culvert & Storm Damage Lake Redding Park Culvert and Storm Damage Repairs Project Page 3 October 2022

MITIGATION MONITORING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT PROGRAM TABLE

FOR THE LAKE REDDING PARK CULVERT AND STORM DAMAGE REPAIRS PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
(FEMA-PA-09-CA-4301-PW-00937)
State Clearinghouse No. 2022080410

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
The following environmental commitments will be incorporated into the project to further protect environmental and biological resources:

Best Management Practices
Timing/
Implementation
Enforcement/
Monitoring
Verification
(Date and Initials)
Air Quality (AQ)
AQ-1. Nontoxic soil stabilizers will be applied according to manufacturer’s specification to all inactive construction areas.

Construction Construction
Management
AQ-2. All grading operations will be suspended when winds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 20 miles per hour.

Construction Construction
Management
AQ-3. Water all stockpiles, access roads, and disturbed or exposed areas, as necessary, to prevent airborne dust.

Construction Construction
Management
AQ-4. Pursuant to the California Vehicle Code (Section 23114(e)(4)) (California Legislative Information 2016), all trucks hauling soil and other loose material to and from the construction site will be covered or will maintain at least 6 inches of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of load and the trailer).

Construction Construction
Management
AQ-5. All public roadways used by the project contractor will be maintained free from dust, dirt, and debris caused by construction activities. Streets will be swept at the end of the day if visible soil materials are carried onto adjacent public paved roads.

Construction Construction
Management
Biological Resources (BIO)
BIO-1. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as required by the City of Redding Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, will be prepared to address BMPs that will be used to prevent erosion and sediment loss within the project site. BMPs such as silt fence, mulching and seeding, and straw wattles will be placed where needed to prevent sediment from leaving the site during and after construction.

Preconstruction/
Construction
City/ Construction
Management
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Mitigation Monitoring and Environmental Commitment Program (4.11(f)-- Approve Lake City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Mitigation Monitoring Program

Page 4 ends

October 2022
Best Management Practices
Timing/
Implementation
Enforcement/
Monitoring
Verification
(Date and Initials)
BIO-2. Appropriate sediment control measures (e.g., silt fences, straw wattles) will be in place prior to the onset of construction activities near waters of the United States and in project areas where there is a potential for surface runoff to drain into jurisdictional waters. Sediment control measures will be monitored and maintained until construction activities have ceased.

Preconstruction/
Construction
City/ Construction
Management
BIO-3. High visibility fencing, flagging, or markers will be installed along the edges of the work zone near avoided waters and riparian areas. In addition, equipment entry and exit points; and staging, storage, and stockpile areas must be clearly marked prior to the entry of mechanized equipment or vehicles into the construction area.

Preconstruction/
Construction
Construction
Management
Cultural Resources (CR)
CR-1. If previously unidentified cultural materials are unearthed during construction, it is City policy that work be halted in that area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find.

Construction City/ Construction
Management
CR-2. If human remains are discovered during project activities, all activities near the find will be stopped, and the Shasta County Sheriff-Coroner’s Office will be notified. If the coroner determines that the remains may be those of a Native American, the coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Treatment of the remains will be conducted in accordance with further direction of the County Coroner or NAHC, as appropriate.

Construction City/NAHC/
County Coroner
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (HAZ)
HAZ-1. Hazardous materials, including fuels, oils, cement, and solvents will be stored and contained in an area protected from direct runoff and away from areas where they could enter waters of the United States.

Construction City/ Construction
Management
HAZ-2. Construction equipment will be inspected daily for leaks. Leaking fluids will be contained upon detection, and equipment repairs will be made as soon as practicable, or the leaking equipment will be moved offsite.

Construction City/ Construction
Management
HAZ-3. Secondary containment such as drip pans or absorbent materials will be used to catch spills or leaks when removing or changing fluids. Secondary containment will be used for storage of all hazardous materials.

Construction City/ Construction
Management
HAZ-4. Spill containment and clean-up materials will be kept onsite at all times for use in the event of an accidental spill.

Construction City/ Construction
Management
HAZ-5. Absorbent materials will be used on small spills rather than hosing down or burying the spill. The absorbent material will be promptly removed and disposed of properly.

Construction City/ Construction
Management
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Mitigation Monitoring and Environmental Commitment Program (4.11(f)-- Approve Lake City of Redding
Mitigation Monitoring Program Public Works Department, Engineering Division Lake Redding Park Culvert and Storm Damage Repairs Project Page 5 October 2022
Best Management Practices
Timing/
Implementation
Enforcement/
Monitoring
Verification
(Date and Initials)
HAZ-6. With the exception of vegetation clearing equipment, no vehicles or construction equipment may be operated in areas of tall, dry vegetation.

Construction Construction
Management
HAZ-7. A Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan would be developed for any maintenance and repair activities that require welding or otherwise carry a higher risk of starting a wildfire.

Preconstruction/
Construction
City/ Construction
Management
Hydrology and Water Quality (WQ)
WQ-1. All construction work and stockpiling of materials will be confined to the project disturbance area.

Construction City/ Construction
Management
WQ-2. Temporary stockpiling of excavated or imported material will be placed in upland areas. Construction City/ Construction Management
WQ-3. Excess soil will be used onsite or disposed of at a regional landfill or other appropriate facility.

Construction City/ Construction
Management
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Mitigation Monitoring and Environmental Commitment Program (4.11(f)-- Approve Lake City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Mitigation Monitoring Program

Page 6 ends

October 2022

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT MITIGATION MEASURES Resource-specific mitigation measures that will be used during project implementation include the following:

Mitigation Measure (MM)
Timing/
Implementation
Enforcement/
Monitoring
Verification
(Date and Initials)
Biological Resources (BIO)
MM-1. Prior to the onset of construction activities, a qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys for foothill yellow-legged frog. If the species are observed during the preconstruction survey or during construction, CDFW will be contacted, and work within that area will be avoided until an appropriate course of action is established. If construction is delayed or halted for more than 7 days, another preconstruction survey will be conducted.

Preconstruction/
Construction
City/ Construction
Management
MM-2. If construction occurs during the bat non-volant season (March 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the study area to locate maternity colonies. The preconstruction survey will be performed no more than 7 days prior to the implementation of construction activities. If a maternity colony is located within or adjacent to the study area, a disturbance free buffer shall be established by a qualified biologist, in consultation with CDFW, to ensure the colony is protected from project activities. If construction activities cease for a period greater than 7 days, additional preconstruction surveys will be required.

Preconstruction/
Construction
Construction
Management
MM-3. If vegetation removal or construction activities will occur during the nesting season for birds (February 1 through August 31) or raptors (November 1 through July 1), a qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey seven (7) days before construction activities begin. If nesting birds or raptors are found, CDFW will be notified and consulted. An appropriate buffer, as determined by CDFW and the qualified biologist, will be placed around the nest until the young have fledged. If construction activities cease for a period greater than 7 days, additional preconstruction surveys will be required.

Preconstruction/
Construction
Construction
Management
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Mitigation Monitoring and Environmental Commitment Program (4.11(f)-- Approve Lake 09/29/2020 REC-01 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
16:45:05

RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC)
Project
Title:

PA-09-CA-4301-PW-00937
SHCRG05 City of Redding Parks & Trails
Non Compliant Flag:

Level:

EA Draft Date: EA Final Date:

EA Public Notice Date: EA Fonsi
EIS Notice of Intent EIS ROD Date:

No
CATEX
Comment CAT C, 85% complete, County of Monterey, CA. (Meridian Road at Dyer Road, 36.788350, - 121.683023). Utilize contract services to remove damaged 18-inch culvert and replace with an 18-inch HDPE, remove and replace, approximately 8.8 CY of aggregate base, 3.3 CY of asphalt concrete, and 40 CY of sub base. All repairs to pre-disaster conditions and using in-kind materials. No mitigation is proposed.

This project has been determined to be Statutorily Excluded from NEPA review in accordance with Section 316 of the Stafford Act. Particular attention should be given to the project conditions before and during project implementation. Failure to comply with these conditions may jeopardize federal assistance including funding.
- tnewson - 02/14/2018 23:33:53 GMT
***COMMENT ABOVE IS VOID AND NO LONGER APPLICABLE*** - tnewson - 04/30/2018 18:24:10 GMT
CAT G, 0% complete, City of Redding Parks & Trails, Shasta County, CA. (Site 3AA: 40.5951, - 122.4001, Site - 3Z: 40.5946, -122.4010).

Utilized contract services, at Site 3AA, remove and replace a 50 LF, 60-inch CMP culvert, walkway material consisting of 482 CY of unclassified fill, remove and re-install the existing 90 LF log rails; at Site 3Z, remove and replace a 45 LF, 60-inch CMP culvert, remove and re-install 15 LF log rails, place & compact 85.86 CY of unclassified fill, 6.11 CY of aggregate base, place 3.6 CY of asphalt concrete surface.

The following hazard mitigation is proposed; at Site 3Z, to install headwalls (6 CY) to the inlet and outlet at the culvert sleeve; at Site 3 AA, install 113 CY of ¼ TN rip rap for culvert bottom, 50 CY of RSP light for culvert walls, and 170 SY of Geo-tech filter fabric.

This project has been determined to be Categorically Excluded from the need to prepare either an Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment in accordance with FEMA Instruction 108-1-1 and DHS Instruction 023-01-001-01: Categorical Exclusion(s) N7 has been applied. Particular attention should be given to the project conditions before and during project implementation. Failure to comply with these conditions may jeopardize federal assistance including funding. - tnewson - 04/30/2018 18:26:11 GMT

NEPA DETERMINATION
Catex Category Code Description Selected
(*n7) Federal Assistance for Structure and Facility Upgrades. Federal assistance for the reconstruction, elevation, retrofitting, upgrading to current codes and standards, and improvements of pre-existing facilities in existing developed areas with substantially completed infrastructure, when the immediate project area has already been disturbed, and when those actions do not alter basic functions, do not exceed capacity of other system components, or modify intended land use. This category does not include actions within or affecting streams or stream banks or actions seaward of the limit of moderate wave action (or V zone when the limit of moderate wave action has not been identified).
*n7 Yes

CATEX CATEGORIES
Extraordinary Circumstance Code Description Selected ?
No Extraordinary Circumstances were selected

EXTRAORDINARY
NOTE: All times are GMT using a 24-hour clock. Page 1 of 5 Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: FEMA Record of Environmental Consideration (4.11(f)-- Approve Lake Redding Park Culvert & Storm Damage Repairs Project) 09/29/2020 REC-01 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
16:45:05

RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC)
Project
Title:

PA-09-CA-4301-PW-00937
SHCRG05 City of Redding Parks & Trails
Environmental Law/
Executive Order Status Description Comment
Clean Air Act (CAA) Project is located in an attainment area - Review concluded
The project is located in Monterey County that is
within an attainment area for all criteria pollutants
according to the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA): https://www.epa.gov/greenbook updated January 31, 2018. The SOW associated with this undertaking is exempt from
a conformity determination under the General
Conformity Rule. - tnewson - 02/14/2018
23:34:51 GMT***ABOVE COMMENT IS VOID
AND NO LONGER VALID**The project is
located in Shasta County that is within an
attainment area for all criteria pollutants
according to the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA): https://www.epa.gov/greenbook updated March 31, 2018. The SOW associated with this undertaking is exempt from
a conformity determination under the General
Conformity Rule. - tnewson - 04/30/2018
18:28:11 GMT
Completed
Coastal Barrier Resources Act
(CBRA)
Project is not on or connected to CBRA Unit
or otherwise protected area - Review
concluded
Completed
Clean Water Act (CWA) Project would not affect any water of the U.S. - Review concluded
Completed
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)
Project is not located in a coastal zone area
and does not affect a coastal zone area -
Review concluded
The Undertaking, utilize contract services to
repair and replace culvert and fill material,
occurs within the coastal zone. The San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission has determined that the
Undertaking will not have a reasonably
foreseeable effect on a coastal use or resource,
and a Federal Consistency Certification is not
required. See Condition and attached
documentation. - tnewson - 02/14/2018 23:35:50
GMT***COMMENT ABOVE IS VOID AND NO
LONGER APPLICABLE*** - tnewson -
04/30/2018 18:28:51 GMT
Completed
Executive Order 11988 -
Floodplains
No effect on floodplain/flood levels and
project outside floodplain - Review concluded
The project is located within the Moderate Flood
Hazard Areas (0.2-percent-annual-chance, 500-
year floodplain), per Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) panel 06089C 1537G, dated March 17,
2011. (non-critical facility)The proposed action is
not likely to result in any potential direct impacts
that will adversely affect the natural values and
function of floodplains, nor is it likely to increase
the risk of flood loss. See condition. Sub-Grantee
must coordinate with the local floodplain
administrator and obtain required permits prior to
initiating work. All coordination pertaining to
these activities and Sub-Grantee compliance
with any conditions should be documented
Completed

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW / EXECUTIVE ORDER
NOTE: All times are GMT using a 24-hour clock. Page 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: FEMA Record of Environmental Consideration (4.11(f)-- Approve Lake Redding Park Culvert & Storm Damage Repairs Project) 09/29/2020 REC-01 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
16:45:05

RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC)
Project
Title:

PA-09-CA-4301-PW-00937
SHCRG05 City of Redding Parks & Trails
Environmental Law/
Executive Order Status Description Comment
and copies forwarded to the State and FEMA for
inclusion in the permanent project files. -
nmorale3 - 02/09/2018 23:06:52 GMT
Executive Order 11990 -
Wetlands
No effects on wetlands and project outside
wetlands - Review concluded
Per the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland
Mapper viewed on 2/14/2018, the project is
located outside of wetlands and not likely to
result in any potential direct impacts that will
adversely affect wetland. - tnewson - 02/14/2018
23:38:11 GMT***Correction***Per the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Wetland Mapper viewed on
4/30/2018, the project is located outside of
wetlands and not likely to result in any potential
direct impacts that will adversely affect wetlands.
- tnewson - 04/30/2018 18:31:48 GMT
Completed
Executive Order 12898 -
Environmental Justice for Low
Income and Minority Populations
No Low income or minority population in,
near or affected by the project - Review
concluded
Completed
Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listed species and/or designated critical habitat present in areas affected directly or
indirectly by the federal action
Based on the type of activities as described in
the scope of work, this project has been
determined to have no effect on Federally listed
threatened and endangered species or critical
habitat. - tnewson - 02/14/2018 23:35:10
GMTBased on the type of activities as described
in the scope of work, this project has been
determined to have no effect on Federally listed
threatened and endangered species or critical
habitat. - tnewson - 04/30/2018 18:33:35 GMT
Completed
No effect to species or designated critical
habitat (See comments for justification) -
Review concluded
Completed
Farmland Protection Policy Act
(FPPA)
Project does not affect designated prime or
unique farmland - Review concluded
Completed
Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (FWCA)
Project does not affect, control, or modify a
waterway/body of water - Review concluded
Completed
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Completed Project located within a flyway zone Project does not have potential to take
migratory birds - Review concluded
Completed
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management
Act (MSA)
Project not located in or near Essential Fish
Habitat - Review concluded
Completed
NOTE: All times are GMT using a 24-hour clock. Page 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: FEMA Record of Environmental Consideration (4.11(f)-- Approve Lake Redding Park Culvert & Storm Damage Repairs Project) 09/29/2020 REC-01 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
16:45:05

RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC)
Project
Title:

PA-09-CA-4301-PW-00937
SHCRG05 City of Redding Parks & Trails
Environmental Law/
Executive Order Status Description Comment
National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA)
Applicable executed Programmatic
Agreement. Activity meets Programmatic
Allowance (enter date and # in comments) -
Review concluded
The Undertaking was reviewed by Cindy
Thomack, who meets the applicable Secretary of
the Interior Professional Qualifications in
accordance with Stipulation I.B.1.a. of the
Programmatic Agreement among the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and
California Office of Emergency Services (Cal
OES) signed October 30, 2014. The Undertaking
complies with Second Tier Programmatic
Allowance II.B.3.(a) (In-kind repair or
replacement, or limited upgrading of interior
utility systems including heating systems),
II.B.4.(c) (In-kind replacement of exterior,
utilitarian, non-character-defining metal doors),
and II.B.6.(b) (In-kind repair, replacement or
strengthening of roofing) (Appendix B) of the
Agreement. Thus, the Undertaking does not
require SHPO review or notification per
Stipulation II.A.1. of the Agreement. - asaunde7 -
02/13/2018 19:06:12 GMT***ABOVE COMMENT
IS VOID AND NO LONGER VALID*** The
Undertaking was reviewed by Anthony Saunders
who meets the applicable Secretary of the
Interior Professional Qualifications in accordance
with Stipulation I.B.1.a. of the Programmatic
Agreement among the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) and California Office
of Emergency Services (Cal OES) signed
October 30, 2014. The Undertaking complies
with Second Tier Programmatic Allowance
II.A.2.(a) (In-kind repairs or replacement, and
minor upgrades to recreational facilities and
features (e.g. trails) and II.C.1.(c) (In-kind
replacement or minor upgrade of culvert
systems) (Appendix B) of the Agreement. Thus,
the Undertaking does not require SHPO review
or notification per Stipulation II.A.1. of the
Agreement. See Condition. ***ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION*** A historic wall is present on
site. Applicant has provided plans
demonstrating how the undertaking shall avoid
impacts to this historic landscaping element.

See attachments. - asaunde7 - 04/27/2018
16:16:57 GMT
Completed
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
(WSR)
Project is not along and does not affect Wild
and Scenic River - Review concluded
Completed

CONDITIONS
NOTE: All times are GMT using a 24-hour clock. Page 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: FEMA Record of Environmental Consideration (4.11(f)-- Approve Lake Redding Park Culvert & Storm Damage Repairs Project) 09/29/2020 REC-01 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
16:45:06

RECORD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION (REC)
Project
Title:

PA-09-CA-4301-PW-00937
SHCRG05 City of Redding Parks & Trails
Special Conditions required on implementation of Projects:

Executive Order 11988 - Floodplains
Sub-Grantee must coordinate with the local floodplain administrator and obtain required permits prior to initiating work.

All coordination pertaining to these activities and Sub-Grantee compliance with any conditions should be documented and copies forwarded to the State and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project files.

Source of condition: Monitoring Required: No
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
If borrow material for this project is not disaster-displaced material reclaimed from the immediate area, not obtained from a standard commercial borrow source, not obtained from a permitted borrow-pit (and a permit number is provided), or not obtained from a SubGrantee owned pre-existing stockpile (and the coordinates provided), the Sub-Grantee must notify FEMA and the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) prior to commencing borrow extraction, so that compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act can be accomplished. Non-compliance with this requirement may jeopardize the receipt of federal funding.

Source of condition: Monitoring Required: Yes
Standard Conditions:

Any change to the approved scope of work will require re-evaluation for compliance with NEPA and other Laws and Executive Orders.

This review does not address all federal, state and local requirements. Acceptance of federal funding requires recipient to comply with all federal, state and local laws. Failure to obtain all appropriate federal, state and local environmental permits and clearances may jeopardize federal funding.

If ground disturbing activities occur during construction, applicant will monitor ground disturbance and if any potential archeological resources are discovered, will immediately cease construction in that area and notify the State and FEMA.

NOTE: All times are GMT using a 24-hour clock. Page 5 of 5 Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: FEMA Record of Environmental Consideration (4.11(f)-- Approve Lake Redding Park Culvert & Storm Damage Repairs Project)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to Silverstone Subdivision, Unit 2, (AMND-2020- 01135, S-2019-00280) and Shastina Ranch Subdivision, Unit 5 (S-7-03/PD-5-04):
(1) Approve the final maps and authorize the Mayor to execute a Subdivision Agreement with Sierra Pacific Land and Timber Company; and direct the City Clerk to file the maps with the Shasta County Recorder;
(2) Adopt Resolution approving and adopting the 63rd Amendment to the City Budget Resolution No. 2021-078 appropriating $160,730 from Park In-Lieu/Southeast Quadrant to purchase 3.56 acres of land; and
(3) Authorize payment of $160,730 to the Sierra Pacific Land and Timber Company (Developer) for 3.56 acres of land, described as Parcel A of the Silverstone Unit 2 final map, upon recordation of the final subdivision map.

Fiscal Impact
Approval of the final map for Silverstone, Unit 2, and Shastina Ranch, Unit 5, will have a cumulative impact to the Public Works Department due to the increase in public-street infrastructure requiring annual maintenance, especially the asphalt pavement. The project will generate an incremental increase in state gas-tax funds based on population and point-of-origin sales; however, the increase in these revenues falls short of the anticipated annualized maintenance cost.

In addition, there will be an incremental increase in the City of Redding (City) utilities costs due to the additional infrastructure. Generally, except for the Storm Drain Utility, sufficient revenue is generated by monthly use charges to offset any increase in annual maintenance costs. The Storm Drain Utility is challenged with increasing requirements that current rates do not cover.

MEETING DATE: October 18, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.11(g)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(g)--Approve Final Maps and Execute Subdivision Agreements for Silverstone Subdivision, Unit 2 (AMND-2020-01135, S-2019-00280) and Shastina Ranch, Unit 5 (S-7-03/PD-5-04); and Adopt Budget Resolution Appropriating Funds Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 461
Report to Redding City Council October 11, 2022
Re: 4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution Page 2 The recommended budget resolution allocates $160,730 of Park In-Lieu funds (Southeast Quadrant), leaving a remaining fund balance of $472,576 (Southeast Quadrant) and $1,846,201 respectively in the overall Park In-Lieu fund. There will be no impact to the General Fund.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose not to approve staff recommendations which will require a finding that the subdivision is not being developed in accordance with the conditions of the approved tentative map or in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act. In addition, it would not allow the transfer and purchase of 3.56 acres of property to the existing subdivision parkland. The Council could then provide staff alternative direction.

Background/Analysis
Silverstone Subdivision, Unit 2
The Silverstone Subdivision, Unit 2 (AMND-2020-01135, S-2019-00280), was approved by the Planning Commission on September 22, 2020. Attached is a map showing the subdivision, which is located south of Rancho Road and Shasta View Drive.

The developer, Sierra Pacific Land and Timber Company, has submitted the final map and all other required data, which has been checked and approved by various City departments.

Relevant subdivision map conditions of approval have been met with the exception of some portions of the roadway conditions (arterial wall, pouring curb/gutter/sidewalk, centerline monument survey, street name signs, utility manhole, street lights and valve grade adjustments).

The developer has agreed to the execution of a subdivision agreement, has committed to completing these conditions, and has submitted a related security in the amount of $391,758 for the remaining work. The developer has been informed that no occupancy permits will be granted for residences constructed on lots until all related subdivision agreement conditions have been met.

Shastina Ranch Subdivision, Unit 5
The Shastina Ranch Subdivision, Unit 2 (S-7-03/PD-5-04), was approved by the Planning Commission on July 16, 2005. Attached is a map showing the subdivision, which is located south of Rancho Road and Shasta View Drive.

The developer, Sierra Pacific Land and Timber Company, has submitted the final map and all other required data, which has been checked and approved by various City departments.

The developer has agreed to the execution of a subdivision agreement, has committed to completing these conditions, and has submitted a related security in the amount of $430,191 for the remaining work. The developer has been informed that no occupancy permits will be granted for residences constructed on lots until all related subdivision agreement conditions have been met.

Packet Pg. 462
Report to Redding City Council October 11, 2022
Re: 4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution Page 3 Park Resolution
The Shastina Ranch Master Plan includes land dedications and land reservations to form a park facility at the location identified as Parcel A on the Silverstone Unit 2 final map. The park land includes 7.88 acres of land, of which 4.32 is land dedication. This was dedicated per the California Quimby Act, Subdivision Map Act (SMA) Section 66477, that allows a City to require dedication of land at 510 square feet per lot. Acreage in excess of that amount must be reserved through the entitlement process and purchased following the map recordation. As such,

3.56 acres of land will be purchased from the developer at $160,730 following the final map recordation. The valuation of the property is also outlined in the Quimby Act. The City Attorney has reviewed this arrangement.

Environmental Review
On June 15, 2005, the Council held a public hearing and adopted a resolution approving the Tentative Subdivision Map Application (S-7-03) and Planned Development Application (PD-5- 04) for the Shastina Ranch Subdivision Project after adopting a resolution certifying the completeness and adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report, EIR-1-03, on April 15, 2005.

On March 11, 2008, after a public hearing was held, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the Tentative Subdivision Map Application (S-9- 05) Stonesfair Subdivision.

Condition 61 of the Stonesfair Subdivision Map and Condition 45a of the Silverstone (formerly Stonescreek) Subdivision Map (S-2019-0280) require the developer to make an irrevocable offer of dedication (minimum 7.55 acres) to the City in fee simple absolute. The Stonescreek Subdivision Application was approved and a mitigated negative declaration was adopted after a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 22, 2019. No further action is required at this time.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• This agenda item is a routine operational item.
c: Ryan Masterson, Fire Marshal
Ken Iwamura, Public Works Department
Kyle Jones, Public Works Department
Kim Niemer, Community Services Department
Joseph Forseth-Deshais, Parks Division
Attachments
^Resolution
^Location Map Silverstone Unit 2
^Location Map Shastina Ranch Unit 5
^Final Map Silverstone Unit 2
^Final Map Shastina Ranch Unit 5
Subdivision Agreement Silverstone Unit 2
Silverstone Unit 2 Letter of Credit
Subdivision Agreement Shastina Ranch Unit 5
Shastina Ranch Unit 5 Letter of Credit
Packet Pg. 463
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 63
rd AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2021-078
APPROPRIATING $160,730 FOR THE PURCHASE OF 3.56 ACRES OF PARK

LAND RELATED TO SILVERSTONE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP
REQUIREMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING THAT Budget Resolution No. 2021-078 be and is hereby amended as follows:

FUND DIVISION DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE
128 618 Parks In-Lieu $160,730
THAT account titles and numbers requiring adjustments by this Resolution are as follows:

USE SOURCE

OF FUNDS OF FUNDS
Decrease (Increase) Revenue
128-618-1-0001-01 Parks In-Lieu Division Balance $ 160,730 Increase Expenditures
128-618-4747-03 Shastina Ranch Park Land $ 160,730
Total $ 160,730 $ 160,730
THAT the purpose is to appropriate $160,730 for the purchase 3.56 acres park land related to Silverstone Final subdivision map requirements for fiscal year 2022-23.

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

KRISTEN SCHREDER, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVAL:

PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk BARRY E. DeWALT, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: ^Resolution (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: ^Location Map Silverstone Unit 2 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: ^Location Map Shastina Ranch Unit 5 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: ^Final Map Silverstone Unit 2 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: ^Final Map Silverstone Unit 2 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: ^Final Map Silverstone Unit 2 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: ^Final Map Silverstone Unit 2 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: ^Final Map Silverstone Unit 2 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: ^Final Map Silverstone Unit 2 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: ^Final Map Shastina Ranch Unit 5 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: ^Final Map Shastina Ranch Unit 5 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: ^Final Map Shastina Ranch Unit 5 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: ^Final Map Shastina Ranch Unit 5 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: ^Final Map Shastina Ranch Unit 5 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: ^Final Map Shastina Ranch Unit 5 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: ^Final Map Shastina Ranch Unit 5 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 480
Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Silverstone Unit 2 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 481
Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Silverstone Unit 2 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 482
Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Silverstone Unit 2 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 483
Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Silverstone Unit 2 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 484
Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Silverstone Unit 2 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 485
Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Silverstone Unit 2 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 486
Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Silverstone Unit 2 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 487
Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Silverstone Unit 2 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 488
Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Silverstone Unit 2 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Silverstone U2 Security Calcs Page 1
Estimated Amount of Final Map Security
FOR
Silverstone, Unit 2

ENGINEERING DIVISION
P.O. Box 496071
REDDING, CA 96049-6071
(530) 225-4170
Date: 9/19/2022
Original Construction Estimate: Did not receive
Performance Security: Remaining work (provided by engineer) $ 231,125 (work remaining to be completed) 10% CONTINGENCY $ 23,113

3.0% INFLATION $ 6,934
Performance Security $ 261,171
Payment Security: Payment Security $ 130,586
(50% of Perf. Security)
TOTAL SECURITY $ 391,757
Calc'd By: Kyle A. Jones
Construction Manager
(530) 225-4181
[email protected]
EXHIBIT "A"
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Silverstone Unit 2 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 490
Attachment: Silverstone Unit 2 Letter of Credit (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 491
Attachment: Silverstone Unit 2 Letter of Credit (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 492
Attachment: Silverstone Unit 2 Letter of Credit (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 493
Attachment: Silverstone Unit 2 Letter of Credit (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 494
Attachment: Silverstone Unit 2 Letter of Credit (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 495
Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Shastina Ranch Unit 5 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 496
Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Shastina Ranch Unit 5 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 497
Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Shastina Ranch Unit 5 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 498
Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Shastina Ranch Unit 5 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 499
Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Shastina Ranch Unit 5 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 500
Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Shastina Ranch Unit 5 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 501
Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Shastina Ranch Unit 5 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 502
Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Shastina Ranch Unit 5 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 503
Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Shastina Ranch Unit 5 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Shastina Ranch U5 Security Calcs Page 1
Estimated Amount of Final Map Security
FOR
Shastina Ranch, Unit 5

ENGINEERING DIVISION
P.O. Box 496071
REDDING, CA 96049-6071
(530) 225-4170
Date: 9/19/2022
Original Construction Estimate: $ 2,324,400
Performance Security: Remaining work (provided by engineer) $ 253,800 (work remaining to be completed) 10% CONTINGENCY $ 25,380

3.0% INFLATION $ 7,614
Performance Security $ 286,794
Payment Security: Payment Security $ 143,397
(50% of Perf. Security)
TOTAL SECURITY $ 430,191
Calc'd By: Kyle A. Jones
Construction Manager
(530) 225-4181
[email protected]
EXHIBIT "A"
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Subdivision Agreement Shastina Ranch Unit 5 (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 505
Attachment: Shastina Ranch Unit 5 Letter of Credit (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 506
Attachment: Shastina Ranch Unit 5 Letter of Credit (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 507
Attachment: Shastina Ranch Unit 5 Letter of Credit (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 508
Attachment: Shastina Ranch Unit 5 Letter of Credit (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 509
Attachment: Shastina Ranch Unit 5 Letter of Credit (4.11(g)--Final Map-Silverstone Unit 2; Shastina Ranch Unit 5 & Budget Resolution)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution approving revisions to City Council Policy No. 221 (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), to update the Complaint Procedure Form, increase the amount of time the City of Redding (City) has to investigate claims, and revise the demographic information found within the City’s Title VI Comprehensive Program Manual.

Fiscal Impact
There is no immediate fiscal impact to approve revisions to City Council Policy 221, including the Title VI Comprehensive Program Manual.

Alternative Action
The City Council could choose to not approve the recommended revisions to City Council Policy 221, including the Title VI Comprehensive Program Manual, or provide staff with alternative direction
Background/Analysis
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. All persons, regardless of their citizenship are covered under this regulation.

City Council Policy 221 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Related Statutes has been in place since 2017, and it is required to be reviewed and revised every three to five years, or as needed. Based on recent review, staff is recommending the following updates be made to the Title VI Policy and Title VI Comprehensive Program Manual:

MEETING DATE: October 18, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.15(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.15(a)--Resolution adopting revised City Council Policy No. 221 - Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Related Statutes.

Sheri DeMaagd, Assistant
City Manager
Packet Pg. 510
Report to Redding City Council October 11, 2022
Re: 4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221 Page 2 • Revise Complaint Form;
• Change 90 days to 180 days to investigate complaints to ensure adequate time is provided to thoroughly review the matter; and
• Revise demographic table within the Title VI Program Manual relative to the primary languages spoken at home to reflect most recent demographics.

Environmental Review
This is not a project as defined under California Environmental Quality Act, therefore, no further action is required at this time.

City Manager Goals/Objectives
• Government of the 21st Century – “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
Attachments
^Resolution
^City Council Policy 221 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rev 10.22 Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22
Packet Pg. 511
RESOLUTION NO. 2022 - ____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDDING ADOPTING REVISIONS TO COUNCIL POLICY 221 TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AND RELATED STATUTES.

WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council that the City of Redding take a proactive leadership role to achieve non-discriminatory practices in serving all citizens of Redding and recipients of City programs and service offerings as afforded by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) and related statutes; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council to ensure that the City of Redding is in compliance with the Department of Justice requirement to adopt and publish a comprehensive policy and program manual to resolve complaints which arise under Title VI and related statutes that relate to City projects, activities, services or business opportunities and provide fair and prompt resolution; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council to ensure that the City of Redding review and revise Council Policy 221 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) and Related Statutes every three to five years, or as needed: and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City to adopt such revisions to the policy;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council that the City Council Policy 221, hereinafter entitled “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Related Statutes” is hereby adopted in the form attached hereto.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 18th day of October, 2022 and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

KRISTEN SCHREDER, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVAL:

PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk BARRY E. DEWALT, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: ^Resolution (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221)

CITY OF REDDING, CALIFORNIA

COUNCIL POLICY

SUBJECT
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
Related Statutes.

RESOLUTION
NUMBER
POLICY
NUMBER

EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
2017-086 221 09-19-17 1

BACKGROUND
The City of Redding (City) will ensure that no person is excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination under any of its projects, activities, or services and business opportunities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex or disability as afforded by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) and related statutes, as amended. All persons, regardless of their citizenship, are covered under this regulation.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to affirm the City’s commitment to non-discrimination under Title VI. The City strives to ensure non-discrimination in all of its projects, activities, or services and business opportunities whether or not they are federally funded. Any person who believes they have been aggrieved by any unlawful discriminatory practice may file a complaint as outlined in the City of Redding’s Title VI Program Manual. In addition, the City’s Personnel Policy – Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation further addresses policy and complaint procedures and is available to employees online and in the Personnel office.

A) It is the intent of the City Council (Council), that as a far-reaching organization, the City take a proactive leadership role in good faith efforts to achieve non-discriminatory practicesin serving all citizens of Redding and recipients of City programs and service offerings, inclusive of minority populations and low-income populations, as provided herein. In addition, it is the intent of the Council to ensure the City provides equal employment and business opportunities to individuals with Limited English Proficiency (LEP).

B) As a recipient of federal funds, the City ensures that its projects, activities, and services comply with the Title VI Regulations, as amended.

C) To designate the coordinators of the City’s efforts to comply with and carry out the requirements of the Title VI Regulations, as amended.

POLICY
It shall be the policy of the Council to ensure the City provides LEP individuals access to the City’s projects, activities, and services and to maintain compliance with the Title VI Regulations.

The City endorses the goals of Title VI, ensuring equal participation of LEP individuals. The major principles of mainstreaming which the City of Redding endorses are:
1) LEP Individuals shall be integrated to the maximum extent appropriate. 2) The City’s Title VI Policy is posted in high volume areas such as websites and administrative offices of the City. This regulation shall be maintained in English and Spanish.

Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: ^City Council Policy 221 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council

CITY OF REDDING, CALIFORNIA

COUNCIL POLICY

SUBJECT
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
Related Statutes.

RESOLUTION
NUMBER
POLICY
NUMBER

EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
2017-086 221 09-19-17 2
3) LEP individuals shall not be excluded from the regular programs of the City, or required to accept special services or benefits.
4) The City will not impose eligibility criteria for participation in its projects, activities, or services that either screen out or tend to screen out LEP individuals, unless it can show that such requirements are necessary for the provision of the service, program, or activity.

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION AND TITLE VI COORDINATOR DESIGNATIONS Title VI requires public entities to designate at least one employee to coordinate the investigation of complaints from LEP individuals.
1) Employees. Each Department Director is responsible for ensuring that there is no discrimination against LEP persons by: 1) ensuring that all employees under their direction are informed of this City policy; and 2) ensuring that any instances or allegations of discrimination are immediately reported to the Personnel Director. The Personnel Department will ensure that each employee receives a copy of this policy.

The Personnel Director will ensure that all complaints are investigated and will attempt resolution of complaints filed in the Personnel Department. Individuals are encouraged to immediately report any act of discrimination to their supervisor, department director, or the Personnel Director. Staff receiving complaints should fully inform the individual of their rights, take appropriate and timely steps to investigate, and, when merited, take prompt and effective remedial action.

Title VI Coordinator
Personnel Director (or his/her designee)
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, CA 96001
(530) 225-4065
2) Public Works. The Title VI Coordinator for the public services provisions of Title VI, covering program accessibility, communications, architectural barrier, and transportation issues.

Title VI Coordinator
Director of Public Works (or his/her designee)
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, CA 96001
(530) 245-7156
3) Housing. The Title VI Coordinator for Housing is as follows:

Title VI Coordinator
Housing Manager (or his/her designee)
777 Cypress Avenue
Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: ^City Council Policy 221 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council

CITY OF REDDING, CALIFORNIA

COUNCIL POLICY

SUBJECT
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
Related Statutes.

RESOLUTION
NUMBER
POLICY
NUMBER

EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
2017-086 221 09-19-17 3
Redding, CA 96001
(530) 245-7136
4) Public Complaint Procedure. The Title VI Coordinator shall be responsible for investigating any complaint or communication to the City alleging non-compliance with Title VI. The Title VI Coordinator for the general public is as follows:

Title VI Coordinator
City Attorney
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, CA 96001
(530) 225-4385

PROCEDURE
1) Who May File a Complaint. Any person who believes that he or she or a specific class of individuals has been subjected to unlawful discriminatory practice under Title VI by the City may, on his/her own behalf or by an authorized representative, file a complaint under this procedure with one of the aforementioned Title VI coordinators. 2) Non-Retaliation. No person who files a complaint, nor any person who cooperates in the investigation of a complaint, shall be subjected to retaliation, and the City shall take reasonable steps to protect such persons from retaliatory actions. 3) Complaint. Persons having a complaint are encouraged to first contact, by telephone or in person, the appropriate Title VI Coordinator to attempt to informally resolve the complaint. If this does not yield a satisfactory resolution, a complaint form may be filed. 4) Filing. The Title VI Complaint Form shall be filed with the appropriate Title VI Coordinator; however, it may be filed orally.
5) Complainants may submit their complaint form to the City or to an external federal agency, such as FAA, FHWA, or FTA. However, should a complaint be filed with the City and one the federal agency simultaneously, the federal complaint will supersede City’s complaint and the City’s complaint procedures will be suspended pending the federal agency’s findings. Every effort will be made to obtain a timely resolution of complaints. The following procedures will be followed to investigate formal Title VI Complaints:

5.1 The formal complaint must meet the following requirements:
a. Complaint shall be in writing and signed by the complainant(s). In cases where complainant is unable or incapable of providing written statement, a verbal complaint may be made. The investigator assigned to the case will interview the complainant and assist the person in converting verbal complaints to writing. All complaints must, however, be signed by the complainant or his/her representative.

Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: ^City Council Policy 221 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council

CITY OF REDDING, CALIFORNIA

COUNCIL POLICY

SUBJECT
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
Related Statutes.

RESOLUTION
NUMBER
POLICY
NUMBER

EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
2017-086 221 09-19-17 4
b. Include the date of the alleged act of discrimination, date when the complainant became aware of the alleged discrimination, date on which the conduct was discontinued, or the latest instance of conduct.
c. Present a detailed description of the issues, including names and job titles of those individuals perceived as parties in the complaint.
d. Federal and State law requires complaints to be filed within 180 calendar days of the alleged incident.

5.2 Within 14 business days of receiving the complaint, the Title VI Coordinator will determine
its jurisdiction, sufficiency, need for additional information, and investigate the merit of the
complaint. The complainant will receive an acknowledgment letter informing him/her whether the City’s Title VI Coordinator has accepted or rejected the complaint.

5.3 Once the Title VI Coordinator approves the complaint for investigation, the complaint will
receive a complaint number and the complaint will be logged identifying: complainant’s name; factual allegations; and alleged harm, race, color, and national origin.

5.4 If more information is needed to evaluate the claim, the Title VI Coordinator may contact the complainant. The complainant has 10 business days from the date of the letter to send
requested information to the Title VI Coordinator. If the Title VI Coordinator is not contacted by the complainant or does not receive additional information within 10 business days, the Title VI Coordinator may terminate the investigation and close the complaint.

5.5 In cases where the City investigates the complaint, within 90 180 calendar days of the complaint, the investigator will issue either: 1) a closure letter or 2) a letter of finding (LOF).

A closure letter summarizes the allegations and states that there was not a Title VI violation
and that the complaint will be closed. A LOF summarizes the allegations, and informs the complainant that the Title VI Coordinator found the complaint to have merit and it will take
appropriate corrective action to remedy the matter.

5.6 If the complainant is unsatisfied with the decision, he/she may file an appeal with the appropriate federal agency for their decision.

Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: ^City Council Policy 221 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council

CITY OF REDDING, CALIFORNIA

COUNCIL POLICY

SUBJECT
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
Related Statutes.

RESOLUTION
NUMBER
POLICY
NUMBER

EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
2017-086 221 09-19-17 5

THE TITLE VI COMPLAINT FORM
A complaint form can be obtained from any of the Title VI Coordinators or online at www.cityofredding.org/titleVI . A copy is attached to this policy.

Amended 10-18-2022, by Resolution No. 2022-XX.

Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: ^City Council Policy 221 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council

!"!#$%&''#"()$*(')$)"&'+,%($)-!.!-*(')
/012!))34%5$)($65!789:;9:<
:$3=()>*')8?&@10A1

BCDEFGHCIDEBJFKDELGDCMIKFK
CNOFKCBGPEBNCQGDECB

BCDEFCNCQOPGEBGBDGB
EBDFJEFRFFELSDKGB
OEJEPFLFK

TUVV
VWWWXV
Y
Z

U[\V[V[
V
]U\
Z[[W]
\[V\
Z
WXZ[W^_
[UV\T[
`aX
Z[b
CacV\[V``
\W[WZ[\V\
VWU\
[Z

dD

^\[`W[
Z\U
YU\
W[_
XYV
[\[Y
`[
[\
VWU\
[Z

d

eG\[ZU[TV_
`
\Z[
[TU
_[[

^[\[U\[
[[W^_[\[ZU[f
Z
X
[

\TV_TWV[]\[V[]Z
[\Z[
\W
Z\TV[VV
V_[TU
_[[Y
\[`X
[

\[[V
[\[ZU[[Z
[
`V[\[YdG[TU
_[[W
[
]
Y[[\]V[[\

\[U\[
[V
WX\V[\[YY
CadD[\[U\[
[V[TV_^[[\[ZU[f

Z
X
[][[TU
_[[f
U\V[Z
X
[]
\V_
[[
[[[\[Y[[VX
\g[

^[
U\[
[d

eD[JE
`[
GZ
`hijk]klIdKddmmlnnnWolnnnWp]VW

TU[T[\[XV

]lqdNddmkldknh[
[rd]
[\
Caf
Z
TUVZ[VW
[`
\Z[T[VX
\_dD[
[U\

U\
W[V
\[ZU[
\
[\U[\

V
TWV[]\[V[]Z
[\Z[]
\W
Z\TV[VV
V_WWXV^[ZVX
[[s
[V
TVW[V
Z
TUV][
`[W]V

[W]
\UV\ZUV[WV_TV[\V[
V
]U\
Z[[W]
\
[V\Z
WXZ[WXW[\
Caf
tX\
WZ
]
\V
V

[\[W\
U\
[Z[W^_
VX[

Ca
[`
\Z[
d

eE`
\TV

^V[W`\
T[Z
TUVV
\
[\WWXVTVV[W
Caf

[
V[`[
TV_^[[u[TU`\
TW
Z

X\[XW[\[O\VZ_GZ
\XW[\[N\[[W
T
`E`
\TV
GZ`[\[[V
[
`
XZ`
\TV
Y
XWZ

X[VXYV\\V[WV

`U[\

VU\VZ_

v=!#!$#!*w'%$w3>'5!#)()>,!#3')$%()x'#+$*(')3yz+(**!"*'$)4x!"!#$%$>!)-48()-%y"()> *=!?{|}v=!2#(5$-46-*'x~/07.7&700@$8$)"*=! #!!"'+'x )x'#+$*(')6-*0
7.7&700@7
DSFOEJGMGDU\
[Z
WWXV

`\
TT
X
[
`U[\

V`
\TV
[W^_
[`[W[\V
[\T[dD[VYVUU[

\[Z
\W
VV\[[UVWVZV^[
ZV[W
^_[WWXVf
VT[
\

ZV
[ZX\_
XT^[\
\
[\U[\

VW[`ZV

_
[TdO[\

Y

X^T`
\TV

[
[\T[

XW
YV
e
Ca
\[rX\[W
[
V[
Z
TUV

`W
Z\TV

[^V

`
\VZ[]Z

\]V
V
\]
[u]W
V^_]
V[]VW]

T[
VZ[
]\[
VV

\[ZU[

`N[W[\V`VZVV

VZ[d

CaV

VX
\g[W
Z
WXZ\[[Y

`
`[W[\V_`XW[W\[ZU[

V

[

[\
Z
TUVZ[YZ\
VY
d
Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: ^City Council Policy 221 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council

#
&'(

%
)''*&

#
,-./&'(

%
)''*

01123445678951:;885<<:=27:=7>4?@@A426B4@AC
?@AD?:26B

&
EF
%
G

#
*H%
"
I

)/J
*G

I #

K !

$
!

M
&

!

&

%

N

MO"IOO
F"K"IF#
K
#%

#
&

P
#& "
!

&

&

R
FSK
,,-JJJJH
ON
ETUV,U*J*T
Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: ^City Council Policy 221 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council

!"!#$%&''#"()$*(')$)"&'+,%($)-!.!-*(')
/012!))34%5$)($65!789 9$3:();*')7<&=10>1
?@ABCDEFGH@IA JKLMNL

K
O
O
NP

Q

R
MOQS
PLQTKUKVKNQ

NVQ
QV

PLQSKWKS
XUWYZ[
MQNK
NK\MNKV
M
K
O
NP]QKKNTK
QPK
O
NPQ

MOOSKZ^
TKKN_KO
NPQ
NK\MK
KVKKP
PQN`KVTQ
QNXaY
PM
bKLN
VKVOR
M
MbP

PK
KNQ
O
NPZ
cZa[
MNQPKQVQVVNK

Z
dQPKe
fVVNK

e
gL
JKKL
Ke^
PKeXhY i
N`
NKeXY
jZakKN

X
YV
SNPQKVQQ
_OVOOKNKON
PQb
Ke
dQPKe
fVVNK

e
gL
JKKL
Ke^
PKeXhY i
N`
NKeXY
kKQ
KKlLQR
MNNKQ

L

LKN

X
YZ
mZafKSRQVVKLQNPK
NLN
NQPQV
SNPQKVe
dQPKe
fVVNK

e
gL
JKKL
Ke^
PKeXhY i
N`
NKeXY
nfZad
oKPL
RPKe

K
R
MNS
PLQS
SKNV
SNPQ
KVKKNR
O
KNSK

N
KNV
SNPQ
NRQS

OKVKLQNPK
NQKSR
NKQPK
OR
M
N
KN
p
qO

_LKQ
KVSQKbK
TKbQ
KX
Y
TSR
MbKKKK
KV
SNPQ
NRQS

TKNK
Q`KZ
QSKrsSRe
dQ
Q
Ne
WKle
K
e
fKe

QbRe
tuvd
Zccwxoxxxy
slLNK
ez{|}~|}z}{
Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: ^City Council Policy 221 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council

$
%

&

'
(
$

)

*+

%

"

&

-

.

/! +
#
0
!
1

&

)

2
-

.

/! +
#
0
!
3-

637

8
"

(

90'
"

(

"

:4&
6657;7773
(
<=>?@>?<?=
Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: ^City Council Policy 221 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council

!
"
#
$

%

&
'())*+,$--*.*/

0

$
$ , ,
&'(1*1
+,$-2/1' !

3
4

07 8'91
:

;<=>?@>?<?=
Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: ^City Council Policy 221 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council

!"

#$

&
'(

%

%

&
)*

%
,

% -

.
/

-
%

&
0

&
(
%

1
2
"

1
$

-

%1 -

%

1 ,3.

4565557
89
1 :;<=><=:=;
Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: ^City Council Policy 221 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council

!"
!
#

$
%

$
)

./
0 /
1
/
$
12
3/
1 4
(

/
5

0
($
/
3 +

$
/
$
/
6

2

%

2

1

7

#8 39:;:::6
!</ =>?@A?@=@>
Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: ^City Council Policy 221 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council

#
"#

"

$

%
#

&
$

"
)

"

"

+
)

,

$-
$

.(/
01

"$
2$

# 31041
%
.5

% +
666676.0418
5 +
313419.3333
% +
313419.3896
31:
"

;
3&"

"

<,

#

+
(

"$ <=/

$
$

<=/(
1.1116
?!
+@ABCDBC@CA
Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: ^City Council Policy 221 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council

!"!#$%&''#"()$*(')$)"&'+,%($)-!.!-*(')
/012!))34%5$)($65!789 9$3:();*')7<&=10>1
?@ABCDECEF?EGHEFIHBHCGHJ?@ K
LMENOPQ
CRRMP

Q

OSNLOTPMU
VQUWX
YV
2%!$3!#!$"*:!()Z'#+$*(')[!%'\7-:!-]*:!$,,#',#($*!['^7$)"3(;)*:(3Z'#+_ DNPMPNRPE
`P
WDP
N
Mab
P

WAPM

NDW
MON
TaP
PSNMOP
WcL
`P
U
?cVdC
N`
OSNNeDLRPM
NRNP`
LM
P
WNP
N
ONaTP`
OPP`P

NMaW
M

?c
MPPNOaRPa
SPM

NP
MNfN

M
L
LRPMP
N
dDNON

NYNMP

WP
TN

W
?c

MMPgLP

LRPMPJMPPR
O
WDW
MON
C`dDLRPM
NRN
ONaTPP`P

NMaW
M
?c
R
`

PW
MON
e`LRSPM

NaRPWaRPN
eNN

NPMPRN
NSNM
W
P
N

WOa`
OSNdDNRR
eDLRPM
NRNN
N`
OSNND
NOSM
P`PRTa
?ch
MPLN

WM
OORN

MMPNN
W
MNNXPN`

MSNM`SNPR
N`

P`LMPM
SM
P`PRTa
R
`MON

NLP
PW
M`PRTa
?cd
?EGHEFIHBHCGH
?EGHEFiDNPMPNRNRLRPM
NRPNT
PW
MON
NRNL
MfP
?c
MPPNOa
RPa
SPM

NP
MNfN

M
L
LRPMP
N
dDPMPTaNL
MfPP

PSNMOP
WcL
`PU
?cV
MP`PPONPMNNRW
MON
NT
LOPSPMP
PP
N

WOa`
OSNdF
MPPN
P`LRP
eTL

OPR
eSPM

NMP`
MR
NROPR`NMP`
MR
dD
LRPM
NRNPONPMNNRW
MON
YTPL
PRW
MNL
MfPR`M
`
OSN`PNR
PW
M`POPN`P
dDWLMPMLRPM
NRNDNO
MPgLMPR
NL
MfP
MPPN
PeNRR

LNMad
?EGHEF
HEDH
iDNPMPNRNRLRPM
NRPNT
PW
MON
NRR

YN

?c
MPPNOaRPa
P
MNfN

M
L
LRPMP
N
e
M
MPPYe
MP`PP`
SP

We
MR
`L

ONPMNNRW
MON
NT
LOPeSPMP
PP
N

WOa
`
OSNdDLRPM
NR

XPa
OSPRPPP
N

WOa`
OSNNRONaMP
LP
`

LMP
WPP
N
d
GDjECFbH
CFH
?@kE
dllmninnno
HpSMP
Qqrstustqtr
Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: ^City Council Policy 221 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council TITLE VI – CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

COMPREHENSIVE

PROGRAM MANUAL
City of Redding
Personnel Department
777 Cypress Ave
Redding, CA 96001
(530) 225-4406
This program was prepared for the Federal Highway Administration and the California Department of Transportation Adopted 9/19/2017
Revised 9/26/2022
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221) Table of Contents
City of Redding Equal Employment Opportunity Non-Discrimination Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 City of Redding Nondiscrimination Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 II. Policies and Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 III. City of Redding Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 IV. Demographics.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 V. Title VI Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Title VI Coordinator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Title VI Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Notice of Rights.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Complaint Procedures.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Public Participation Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 a. Goals & Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 b. Environmental Justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 c. Limited English Proficiency Populations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 d. Low-Income Populations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 e. Public Comment Process Offered by the City Council. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 f. Outreach Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Limited English Proficiency Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Training.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Title VI Construction Contract Provisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Goals and Accomplishments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix A1 - Notice to the Public
Appendix A2 - Public Notice Federal Aviation Administration Appendix B - Example of Complaint Form
1 Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221) 2 City of Redding - City Council
Equal Employment Opportunity Non-Discrimination Policy
It is the policy of the City of Redding to provide equal employment opportunity for all qualified persons, regardless of sex, race, color, ancestry, religion, national origin, ethnicity, age, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, medical condition, or any other category protected by state or federal employment law. Our commitment includes ensuring a nondiscriminatory workplace where individuals are valued for their differences, as well as their similarities.

Every City employee, and every person engaged in business with the City, have an ongoing responsibility to create a nondiscriminatory work environment through their personal conduct.

Responsibility for the implementation of the City of Redding’s Equal Employment Opportunity NonDiscrimination Policy rest with the Director of Personnel. However, all department heads are responsible for carrying out this policy within their departments. The City Council expects each department head, manager, and supervisor to ensure compliance with this policy.

Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221) 3 City of Redding
Nondiscrimination Statement
The City of Redding, will ensure that no person shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any of its projects, activities, or services, and business opportunities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability as afforded by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes, as amended.

All persons, regardless of their citizenship status, are covered under this regulation.

Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221) 4 I. Introduction
The City of Redding’s (City) mission is to provided public infrastructure and municipal services to protect and enrich the daily lives of residents in the City.

The City receives a wide array of federal funding from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). As a recipient for such federal aid, the City is required to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI).

Title VI states that:
"No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
The City is committed to complying with Title VI requirements for all programs and services delivered to the public. The Title VI Program (Program) serves as a guide and reflection of the City’s commitment to preserving the civil rights for all individual and group benefactors of City programs and services.

The Program includes a general overview of how the City will:
• Handle a Title VI Compliant.
• Engage public participation.
• Provide services to Limited English Proficiency populations. • Train employees and managers in recognizing Title VI situations. • Increase local and small business partnerships, and more.

II. Policies and Regulations
In accordance with Title VI and City Council Policy No. 221, the City will ensure that no person shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any of its projects, activities, or services, and business opportunities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability as afforded by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes, as amended. All persons, regardless of their citizenship status, are covered under this regulation.

III. City Overview
The City is governed by an elected Council of five members. The City is a full service city with over 1,100 employees and 13 departments.

Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221) 5 IV. Demographics
The following table details the primary languages spoken at home among the residents that reside in the City.

Primary Language
Speaks English
Very Well Less than Well %*
English Only 157,895 0
Spanish 3,341 595 0.38%
Indo-European 1,084 444 0.28%
Asian & Pacific Island 943 122 0.08%
Other 406 0 0.00%
Resource: United States Census American Community Survey (5-year estimates, 2016-2020) *% based on those that speak less than well.

V. Title VI Program
Title VI Coordinator
The City has four Title VI Coordinators that are responsible for the overall Title VI Program. They perform lead roles in the development and implementation of Title VI Program and coordinating compliance across each division within the City. The Title VI Coordinators provide guidance and technical assistance on Title VI matters and have overall program responsibility for preparing reports and developing program procedures, which include:
• Promptly processing and resolving Title VI complaints. • Collecting demographic data (race, color, national origin, sex, age, and disability) of participants in the beneficiaries of the City’s Federal-aid programs, activities, and services. • Promptly resolving areas of deficiency.
• Conducting periodic Title VI audits.
• Ensuring that Title VI requirements are included in policy directives and that the procedures used have built-in safeguards to prevent discrimination. • Providing an annual report of City Title VI accomplishments and goals. • Coordinating Title VI information for public dissemination.

Title VI Requirements
The City developed a wide range of procedures to meet the general requirements of Title VI. They include the following:
• Posting Title VI notifications at public counters, Internet, etc. • Publishing brochures.
• Address and filing Title VI discrimination complaints. • Training staff on Title VI law and requirements.
• Providing access to LEP populations.
• Providing information and outreach to ensure Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) involvement.

Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221) 6 • Providing contract opportunities to minority businesses. • Meeting environmental justice regulations.
• Adhering to service standards.

This Title VI Program includes guidelines for meeting FAA, FHWA, and FTA requirements.

Notice of Rights
City of Redding will display the "Notice of Rights" for public view at all locations within City facilities with customer counters, and on the public website. The notice states that the City will comply with Title VI and ensures that no person on the grounds of race, color, age, sex, disability, gender, or national origin be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any of our programs, activities, or services.

Examples of City of Redding’s Notice to the Public are in Appendices A1, A2 and C.

Complaint Procedures
Any person who believes that he or she or a specific class of individuals has been subjected to unlawful discriminatory practice under Title VI by the City may, on his/her own behalf or by an authorized representative, file a complaint under this procedure.

No person who files a complaint, nor any person who cooperates in the investigation of the complaint, shall be subjected to retaliation, and the City shall take reasonable steps to protect such persons from retaliatory actions.

Persons having a complaint are encouraged to first contact, by telephone or in person, the Title VI Coordinator to attempt to informally resolve the complaint. If this does not yield a satisfactory resolution, a complaint form may be filed.

Complaint forms are available at Public Works public counters, City Administrative Offices, and online. Examples of the complaint form are included under Appendix B. Complaints must be filed in writing and should be directed to:

City of Redding Personnel Department -Title IV Coordinator 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001
Website: www.cityofredding.org/TitleVI
Complainants may submit their complaint form to the City or to an external federal agency, such as FAA, FHWA, or FTA. However, should a complaint be filed with the City and one the federal agency simultaneously, the federal complaint will supersede City’s complaint and the City’s complaint procedures will be suspended pending the federal agency’s findings. Every effort will be made to obtain a timely resolution of complaints.

The following procedures will be followed to investigate formal Title VI Complaints:

1. The complaint must meet the following requirements:
a. Complaint shall be in writing and signed by the complainant(s). In cases where complainant is unable or incapable of providing written statement, a verbal complaint may be made. The investigator assigned to the case will interview the complainant and Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221) assist the person in converting verbal complaints to writing. All complaints must; however, be signed by the complainant or his/her representative. b. Include the date of the alleged act of discrimination, date when the complainant became aware of the alleged discrimination, date on which the conduct was discontinued, or the latest instance of conduct.
c. Present a detailed description of the issues, including names and job titles of those individuals perceived as parties in the complaint.
d. Federal and State law requires complaints to be filed within 180 calendar days of the alleged incident.

2. Within 14 business days of receiving the complaint, the Title VI Coordinator will determine its jurisdiction, sufficiency, need for additional information, and investigate the merit of the complaint. The complainant will receive an acknowledgment letter informing him/her whether the City’s Title VI Coordinator has accepted or rejected the complaint.

3. Once the Title VI Coordinator approves the complaint for investigation, the complaint will receive a complaint number and the complaint will be logged identifying: complainant’s name; factual allegations; and alleged harm, race, color, and national origin.

4. If more information is needed to evaluate the claim, the Title VI Coordinator may contact the complainant. The complainant has 10 business days from the date of the letter to send requested information to the Title VI Coordinator. If the Title VI Coordinator is not contacted by the complainant or does not receive additional information within 10 business days, the Title VI Coordinator may terminate the investigation and close the complaint.

5. In cases where the City investigates the complaint, within 180 calendar days of the complaint, the investigator will issue either: 1) a closure letter or 2) a letter of finding (LOF).

A closure letter summarizes the allegations and states that there was not a Title VI violation and that the complaint will be closed. A LOF summarizes the allegations, and informs the complainant that the Title VI Coordinator found the complaint to have merit and it will take appropriate corrective action to remedy the matter.

6. If the complainant is unsatisfied with the decision, he/she may file an appeal with one of the following appropriate federal agency for their decision.

California Department of Transportation (CalTrans)
Compliance/Title VI Program Branch
1823 14
th Street, MS-79
Sacramento, CA 95811
U.S. Department of Transportation
Office of Civil Rights
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
8 th Floor E81-105
Washington, DC 20590
7 Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221) 8 Federal Aviation Administration
Office of Civil Rights
800 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, D.C. 20591
Federal Transit Administration
Office of Civil Rights, Region IX
201 Mission St., Suite 1650
San Francisco, CA 94105-1839
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
P.O. Box 36025
San Francisco, CA 94102-3661
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

7. The Title VI Coordinator will maintain a list of Title VI Complaints it receives.

Examples of Title VI Complaint Form are in Appendix B.

Public Participation Plan
The City is committed to ensuring that projects, programs, and services delivered by the City are sensitive to the various demographic backgrounds within the City. The City Public Participation Plan (PPP) for use by any division to promote public involvement in the planning and decisionmaking process of projects, programs, and services.

As a recipient of Federal funding, the City is required to adhere to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and to integrate the PPP into its Title VI Program. This plan provides guidelines for involving the public to ensure that all groups are represented and their needs considered. The City is committed to ensuring it serves the residents and businesses of the City fairly, consistently, and in the most cost-efficient and appropriate manner within available resources. a. Goals and Objectives
The goal of the City’s PPP is to offer a variety of opportunities for the public to engage in planning and decision-making activities.

The objectives of the PPP are as follows:
• To determine what non-English languages and/or other barriers may exist to public participation within the City service area.
• To provide a general notification of meetings for public input, in a manner that is understandable to all populations in the unincorporated service area. • To hold meetings in locations that are accessible and reasonably welcoming to all area residents, including, but not limited to minority, Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and low-income members of the public.
• To utilize a variety of communication methods to capture public input from populations that are not likely to attend or engage in public meetings.

Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221) 9 b. Environmental Justice
In accordance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), the City will identify and address the environmental effects of programs, policies, and activities on minority and lowincome populations. The City will consider demographic data into their project design and involve the public in the planning and development process to assess the environmental impacts of projects on the community. The public’s input and data analysis enable the City to develop measures to mitigate any potential adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. The City is not required to conduct environmental justice analyses of projects where NEPA documentation is not required.
c. Limited English Proficiency Populations
A LEP individual is someone with limited ability to read, write, speak, or comprehend English. Reasonable efforts will be made to engage LEP populations utilizing techniques, such as the development of public notices in appropriate non-English Languages that will provide contact information where individuals can be informed of the affected project or services to provide input and comments. Other efforts may include conducting focus groups in areas with high concentrations of LEP populations for the purpose of gaining input from a particular defined portion of the community. In addition, non-profit organizations and other advocacy groups can be utilized to disseminate and provide insight into the needs of LEP populations.
d. Low-Income Populations
The City will identify low-income populations within the service area. The low-income threshold will be defined as households with a per capita income of 80 percent or less of the national average. Low-income populations in the City will be given reasonable opportunity to provide input on plans and programs to avoid disproportionate harm or lack of benefit.
e. Public Comment Process Offered by the City Council
The public has a right to express their opinion during the regular Council meetings held the first and third Tuesday of every month at 6 p.m. The meetings are held in the Council chambers at 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding. Information about City Council is available on the City website at:
www.cityofredding.org/city-council/city-council-information f. Outreach Efforts
The City will also provide the public an opportunity to comment to community meetings via online platforms. The City will engage the community through the City’s website, social media, and brochures placed at the library, community centers, public parks, and recreation areas within the communities. The City staff and/or a contracted non-English interpreter for LEP will attend community meetings to inform residents of the City’s services and provide them an opportunity to express their input in a language they are comfortable communicating in upon request.

Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221) 10 Appropriate techniques among the following will be used to inform, educate, and gain input from the public about the City’s projects, services, or activities:
• Surveys or questionnaires - mail-in, online, telephone, personal interview and/or door-to-door
• Comment cards at all public meetings, presentations, workshops, etc. • Articles or press releases in the appropriate publications • Timely consultation with advisory committees and councils • Distribution of informal reports, flyers, or brochures • Informal presentation at regional sites, open houses, or other community forums • Formal presentations to various service clubs and civic and professional groups • Information about meetings, public hearings, and special events on the City’s website
• Direct mailings to those expressing interest in or commenting about certain topics • General mailings with posters and flyers to area post offices and appropriate agencies, offices, and organizations for distribution to citizens Limited English Proficiency Plan
To comply with Title VI, it is important to identify the demographics and specific language needs of the City’s residents and businesses. This information is set forth in the demographics table on page 5.

The City developed a general LEP Plan for use by any division to address the public’s language needs. The LEP Plan outlines how to identify reasonable steps for providing language assistance to LEP persons who wish to access services provided by the City of Redding. The LEP Plan also identifies language assistance needs, the ways in which assistance may be provided, staff training that may be required, and how to notify LEP persons that assistance is available.

To prepare the LEP Plan the City referenced the U.S. Department of Transportation’s four-factor LEP analysis, which considers the following factors:

1. Number and proportion of LEP person served or encountered in the eligible service population.

2. Frequency with which LEP persons come in contact with City of Redding programs, activities, or services.

3. Nature and importance of services provided by the City of Redding to the LEP population.

4. Resources available to the City of Redding and overall cost to provide LEP assistance.

The figures on page 5 under Demographics detailed the breakdown of English fluency for people who speak another language and what the top primary languages are in the City.

Training
The City will provide Title VI training to employees of the City. These trainings are offered at minimum every two years. Trainings will be offered online or through an instructor-led class.

Additional resources are provided on the City’s website to enhance the learning objectives. The following components will be covered to ensure compliance.

Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221) 11 1. Review of the City’s Title VI Policy, PPP and LEP Plans.

2. Types of language assistance services offered to the public.

3. How to handle a potential complaint.

4. Where to seek assistance for Title VI questions and concerns.

5. Some employees will be provided training on DBE and Americans with Disabilities Act compliance, as necessary.

Title VI Construction Contract Provisions
The City Public Works Department will include the provisions indicated in the "Administering Agency-State Agreement for Federal-Aid Projects Master Agreement" (Appendix A of Exhibit B) in the Local Assistance Program Manual (LAPM) in contracts and agreements, where applicable, between the City and contractors.

Federal-aid construction contracts currently include provisions, which require compliance with Title VI. The specific contract provision language is included in the FHWA From 1273 that is physically inserted in the federal-aid construction contract.

The "Local Agency Construction Contract Administration Checklist" (Exhibit 15A of the LAPM), confirms that DBE and labor/Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) compliance requirements are performed and documented in the project files. Exhibit 15 A of the LAPM documents that the local agency will meet all the requirements prior to the award of a construction contract.

The "Resident Engineer’s Construction Contract Administration Checklist" (Exhibit 15-B of the LAPM) is completed by the Resident Engineer. The checklist assists in administering federal-aid highway construction projects. It also provides a record that the EEO/Wage Rate/False Statements posters are being posted at specific locations that employee interviews will be conducted in accordance with the Labor Compliance/EEO interview form, and that DBE requirements are met. Public Works will continue to submit Exhibit 15-B, along with the Award Package shortly after award of the construction contract (See Chapter 15, " Advertise and Award Project," of the LAPM).

Data Collection
Demographic and related data collected and used by the City comes from governmental sources responsible for collecting and vetting the information for consistency and accuracy. These sources include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statics, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, California Department of Finance, California Department of Labor, and the California Employment Development Department.

The City may also collect project specific demographic data utilizing data collection forums as appropriate in conjunction with the PPP.

Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221) 12 Goals and Accomplishments
Public Works will annually establish and monitor program goals and accomplishments. The Title VI Coordinator will ensure that employee training is conducted, language translation services continue to be available, public participation is optimal, and appropriate Title VI signage is posted.

This also includes updating community statistic and corresponding with the federal agency as necessary.

APPENDICES
Appendix A1 Notice to the Public
Appendix A2 Notice to the Public - Federal Aviation Administration Appendix B Complaint Form
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221) 13 APPENDIX A1
Your Rights Under Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requiring that, "No person in the United States shall on the grounds of race, color, age, disability, gender, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination against discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.’ In addition, related statues provided protection against discrimination on the grounds of age, sex, or disability.

Any person who feels that he or she, individually or as a member of any class of persons, on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability has been excluded from or denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination caused by a City of Redding employee may file written complaint with the City’s Title VI Coordinator. Federal and State law requires complaints be filed within 180 calendar days of the alleged discrimination.

To request addition information regarding the City’s non-discrimination obligations or to file a Title VI complaint, please submit your request to:

City of Redding Title VI Coordinator
Personnel Department
777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001
(530) 225-4065
Website: www.cityofredding.org/TitleVI
If information is needed in another language, contract (530) 225-4065 Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221) 14 APPENDIX A2
Federal Aviation Administration
Unlawful Discrimination
It is unlawful for airport operators and their lessees, tenants, concessionaires and contractors to discriminate against any person because of race, color, national origin, sex, creed, or handicap in public services and employment opportunities. Allegations of discrimination should be promptly reported to the Airport Manager or:

Federal Aviation Administration
Office of Civil Rights, ACR-1
800 Independence Avenue, SW.

Washington, D.C. 20591
Federal regulations on unlawful discrimination are available for review in the Airport Manager’s Office.

Se prohibe a los empresarios de aeropuertos y a sus arrendatarios, inquilinos, concesionarios y contratistas discriminar contra culaquier persona por motivo de raza, color, origen nacional, sexo, creencias religiosas o impedimentos, en lo que respecta a servicios público y oportunidaes de empleo. Las alegaciones de discriminación deberán diregirse inmediatamente al Administrador del Aeropuerto o a:

Federal Aviation Administration
Office of Civil Rights, SW.
800 Independence Avenue, SW.

Washington, D.C. 20591
Los reglamentos sobre discriminación ilegal están a la disponsición de los interesados para su examen en la oficina del Administrador del Aeropuerto.

NOTE: The reference to handicap in this notice stems from the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (PL 93-112) and 49 CFR Par t27. Both require nondiscrimination based on disability in the participation or denial of benefits. Although not discussed in this tool kit, FAA placed the handicap reference in this notice for ease of posting all nondiscrimination requirements in one location.

Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221)

!"!#$%&''#"()$*(')$)"&'+,%($)-!.!-*(') /012!))34%5$)($65!789:;9:< :$3=()>*')8?&@10A1
BCDEFGHCIDEBJFKDELGDCMIKFK CNOFKCBGPEBNCQGDECB BCDEFCNCQOPGEBGBDGB
EBDFJEFRFFELSDKGB
OEJEPFLFK

TUVV
VWWWXV
Y
Z

U[\V[V[
V
]U\
Z[[W]
\[V\ Z
WXZ[W^_
[UV\T[
`aX
Z[b
CacV\[V``
\W[WZ[\V\
VWU\
[Z

dD
^\[`W[
Z\U
YU\
W[_
XYV
[\[Y
`[
[\
VWU\
[Z

d
eG\[ZU[TV_
`
\Z[
[TU
_[[

^[\[U\[
[[W^_[\[ZU[f
Z
X
[
\TV_TWV[]\[V[]Z
[\Z[
\W
Z\TV[VV
V_[TU
_[[Y
\[`X
[

\[[V
[\[ZU[[Z
[
`V[\[YdG[TU
_[[W
[
]
Y[[\]V[[\
\[U\[
[V
WX\V[\[YY
CadD[\[U\[
[V[TV_^[[\[ZU[f
Z
X
[][[TU
_[[f
U\V[Z
X
[]
\V_
[[
[[[\[Y[[VX
\g[

^[ U\[
[d
eD[JE
`[
GZ
`hijk]klIdKddmmlnnnWolnnnWp]VW
TU[T[\[XV

]lqdNddmkldknh[
[rd]
[\
Caf
Z
TUVZ[VW [`
\Z[T[VX
\_dD[
[U\

U\
W[V
\[ZU[
\
[\U[\

V TWV[]\[V[]Z
[\Z[]
\W
Z\TV[VV
V_WWXV^[ZVX
[[s
[V
TVW[V Z
TUV][
`[W]V

[W]
\UV\ZUV[WV_TV[\V[
V
]U\
Z[[W]
\ [V\Z
WXZ[WXW[\
Caf
tX\
WZ
]
\V
V

[\[W\
U\
[Z[W^_
VX[

Ca [`
\Z[
d
eE`
\TV

^V[W`\
T[Z
TUVV
\
[\WWXVTVV[W
Caf
[
V[`[
TV_^[[u[TU`\
TW
Z

X\[XW[\[O\VZ_GZ
\XW[\[N\[[W
T
`E`
\TV
GZ`[\[[V
[
`
XZ`
\TV
Y
XWZ

X[VXYV\\V[WV

`U[\

VU\VZ_
v=!#!$#!*w'%$w3>'5!#)()>,!#3')$%()x'#+$*(')3yz+(**!"*'$)4x!"!#$%$>!)-48()-%y"()> *=!?{|}v=!2#(5$-46-*'x~/07.7&700@$8$)"*=! #!!"'+'x )x'#+$*(')6-*0 7.7&700@7
DSFOEJGMGDU\
[Z
WWXV
`\
TT
X
[
`U[\

V`
\TV
[W^_ [`[W[\V
[\T[dD[VYVUU[

\[Z
\W
VV\[[UVWVZV^[
ZV[W ^_[WWXVf
VT[
\

ZV
[ZX\_ XT^[\
\
[\U[\

VW[`ZV

_
[TdO[\

Y

X^T`
\TV

[
[\T[

XW
YV e
Ca
\[rX\[W
[
V[ Z
TUV

`W
Z\TV

[^V

` \VZ[]Z

\]V
V
\]
[u]W
V^_] V[]VW]

T[
VZ[
]\[
VV
\[ZU[

`N[W[\V`VZVV

VZ[d
CaV

VX
\g[W
Z
WXZ\[[Y

` `[W[\V_`XW[W\[ZU[

V

[

[\ Z
TUVZ[YZ\
VY
d Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221)

#
&'(

%
)''*&

#
,-./&'(

%
)''*
01123445678951:;885<<:=27:=7>4?@@A426B4@AC ?@AD?:26B

&
EF %
G

#
*H%
"
I
)/J
*G

I #

K !

$ !

M
&

!

&

%

N

MO"IOO
F"K"IF#
K #%

#
&

P
#& " !

&

&

R FSK
,,-JJJJH ON
ETUV,U*J*T Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221)

!"!#$%&''#"()$*(')$)"&'+,%($)-!.!-*(') /012!))34%5$)($65!789 9$3:();*')7<&=10>1 ?@ABCDEFGH@IA JKLMNL

K
O
O
NP

Q

R
MOQS
PLQTKUKVKNQ

NVQ
QV
PLQSKWKS
XUWYZ[
MQNK
NK\MNKV
M
K
O
NP]QKKNTK
QPK
O
NPQ

MOOSKZ^
TKKN_KO
NPQ
NK\MK
KVKKP
PQN`KVTQ
QNXaY PM
bKLN
VKVOR
M
MbP

PK
KNQ
O
NPZ
cZa[
MNQPKQVQVVNK

Z dQPKe
fVVNK

e gL JKKL
Ke^
PKeXhY i
N`
NKeXY
jZakKN

X
YV
SNPQKVQQ
_OVOOKNKON
PQb
Ke dQPKe
fVVNK

e gL JKKL
Ke^
PKeXhY i
N`
NKeXY kKQ
KKlLQR
MNNKQ

L

LKN

X
YZ mZafKSRQVVKLQNPK
NLN
NQPQV
SNPQKVe dQPKe
fVVNK

e gL JKKL
Ke^
PKeXhY i
N`
NKeXY
nfZad
oKPL
RPKe

K
R
MNS
PLQS
SKNV
SNPQ
KVKKNR
O
KNSK

N
KNV
SNPQ
NRQS

OKVKLQNPK
NQKSR
NKQPK
OR
M
N
KN
p qO

_LKQ
KVSQKbK
TKbQ
KX
Y
TSR
MbKKKK
KV
SNPQ
NRQS

TKNK Q`KZQSKrsSRe dQ
Q
Ne WKle K
e fKe

QbRe tuvd
Zccwxoxxxy slLNK
ez{|}~|}z}{ Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221)

$
%

&

'
( $

)

*+

%

"

&
-

.

/! +
#
0
!
1

&

)
2 -

.

/! +
#
0
!
3-

637

8
"

(

90'
"

(

"

:4&
6657;7773 (
<=>?@>?<?= Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221)

!
"
#
$

%

&
'())*+,$--*.*/

0

$
$ , ,
&'(1*1 +,$-2/1' !

3
4

07 8'91 :

;<=>?@>?<?= Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221)

!"
#$

&
'(

%

%

& )*

%
,

% -
.
/

-
%

& 0

& (
%

1 2
"

1
$

-

%1 -

%

1 ,3.

4565557 89
1 :;<=><=:=; Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221)

!"
!
#

$ %

$
&

$ )

./ 0
/ 1

/ $
12
3/ 1

4
(

/ 5

0
($
/ 3
+

$
/ $
/ 6

2

%

2

1

7

#8 39:;:::6 !</ =>?@A?@=@>
Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221)

#
"#

"
$

%
#

&
$

" )

"

"

+ )

,

$-
$

.(/
01

"$
2$

# 31041 %
.5

% +
666676.0418 5
+
313419.3333 % +
313419.3896 31:
"

; 3&"

"

<,

#

+ (

"$ <=/

$
$

<=/(
1.1116 ?!
+@ABCDBC@CA Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221)

!"!#$%&''#"()$*(')$)"&'+,%($)-!.!-*(') /012!))34%5$)($65!789 9$3:();*')7<&=10>1 ?@ABCDECEF?EGHEFIHBHCGHJ?@ K LMENOPQ CRRMP

Q

OSNLOTPMU
VQUWX
YV 2%!$3!#!$"*:!()Z'#+$*(')[!%'\7-:!-]*:!$,,#',#($*!['^7$)"3(;)*:(3Z'#+_ DNPMPNRPE `P
WDP
N
Mab
P

WAPM

NDW
MON
TaP
PSNMOP
WcL
`P U
?cVdC
N`
OSNNeDLRPM
NRNP`
LM
P
WNP
N
ONaTP`
OPP`P

NMaW
M
?c
MPPNOaRPa
SPM

NP
MNfN

M
L
LRPMP
N
dDNON

NYNMP
WP
TN

W
?c

MMPgLP

LRPMPJMPPR
O
WDW
MON
C`dDLRPM
NRN ONaTPP`P

NMaW
M
?c
R
`

PW
MON
e`LRSPM

NaRPWaRPN
eNN
NPMPRN
NSNM
W
P
N

WOa`
OSNdDNRR
eDLRPM
NRNN
N`
OSNND NOSM
P`PRTa
?ch
MPLN

WM
OORN

MMPNN
W
MNNXPN`

MSNM`SNPR N`

P`LMPM
SM
P`PRTa
R
`MON

NLP
PW
M`PRTa
?cd ?EGHEFIHBHCGH ?EGHEFiDNPMPNRNRLRPM
NRPNT
PW
MON
NRNL
MfP
?c
MPPNOa
RPa
SPM

NP
MNfN

M
L
LRPMP
N
dDPMPTaNL
MfPP
PSNMOP
WcL
`PU
?cV
MP`PPONPMNNRW
MON
NT
LOPSPMP
PP
N

WOa`
OSNdF
MPPN
P`LRP
eTL

OPR
eSPM

NMP`
MR
NROPR`NMP`
MR
dD LRPM
NRNPONPMNNRW
MON
YTPL
PRW
MNL
MfPR`M
`
OSN`PNR PW
M`POPN`P
dDWLMPMLRPM
NRNDNO
MPgLMPR
NL
MfP
MPPN
PeNRR

LNMad ?EGHEF
HEDH
iDNPMPNRNRLRPM
NRPNT
PW
MON
NRR

YN
?c
MPPNOaRPa
P
MNfN

M
L
LRPMP
N
e
M
MPPYe MP`PP`
SP

We
MR
`L

ONPMNNRW
MON
NT
LOPeSPMP
PP
N

WOa
`
OSNdDLRPM
NR

XPa
OSPRPPP
N

WOa`
OSNNRONaMP
LP `

LMP
WPP
N
d GDjECFbH
CFH ?@kE
dllmninnno HpSMP
Qqrstustqtr Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Title VI Program Manual rev 10.22 (4.15(a)--Resolution Adopting Revised Title VI Council Policy 221)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Accept report recognizing City of Redding employees who have achieved or will achieve 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 years of service with the City of Redding as of December 31, 2022.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with the approval of this report.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) could choose to not accept the report recognizing City of Redding (City) employees who have achieved service milestones.

Background/Analysis
The City has recognized employees who have achieved or will achieve service milestones every year during the mid-October Council Meeting. This is our way of recognizing employees for their dedication and service to the City and the community we serve.

Recognizing employees for their service and commitment to the City, as well as the community that they serve, is extremely important. City employees are essential to this organization and the services we provide to the community. Without dedicated staff, we would be unable to serve our community efficiently and effectively.

Environmental Review
This is not a project defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and no further action is required.

MEETING DATE: October 18, 2022
ITEM NO. 4.15(b)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.15(b)--City of Redding Employee Service Recognition Sheri DeMaagd, Assistant
City Manager
Packet Pg. 551
Report to Redding City Council October 11, 2022
Re: 4.15(b)--City of Redding Employee Service Recognition Page 2 City Manager Goals/Objectives
This agenda item is a routine operational item.

Attachments
^Internal Memo for Service Recognition 2022
Packet Pg. 552
DATE: October 3, 2022
TO: Pam Mize, City Clerk
FROM: Sheri DeMaagd, Personnel Director/Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Employee Service Recognition, City Council Meeting – October 18, 2022 The City of Redding would like to recognize the following employees who have achieved or will achieve 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 years of service with the City of Redding as of December 31, 2022. 5 year employees 5 year employees
(continued)
10 year employees 10 year employees
(continued)
Kenneth Bailey Bernard Shaw Brett Baer Heston Rigsby
Richard Barrera Elaina Short Norman Bailey Dave Scheckla Christopher Bryant Julio Silva Brandon Bishop Paul Slagle Kenneth Chandler Eva Smith Joanna Bland Justin Smith
Damon Cole Dezzy Spracklin Cody Buick Theodore Snyder
Timothy Conley Kurtis Standerup Fiero Callegari Nicholas Visconti John Daines Mark Stratton Allyn Clark Daniel Webster
Danielle Davis Kevin Tackett Thomas Crackel David Williams Christopher Fallen Christopher Thomas Eric Davis Sharon Zanni Luke Frandsen Shaun Vega Sanchez Nicholas Day
Janelle Galbraith Kyle Foott
Anthony Green Jeff Geraci
Lynn Herreid Eric Halpenny
Scott Hibbard Joseph Hansen
Joseph Janda Brandon Huff
Christopher McCarty Jacob Ingels
Thomas McCollum William Ivey
Patrick McKenna Stephen Jennings
Lauren Meyer Christian Martinusen
Joseph Mifsud Robert Marvin
Brody Morganstern Garett Maxwell
Joshua Newman Shonte McDonald
Charles Pearson Brett Morris
Jason Pebley Donald Myers
Sean Price Richard Myers
Tyler Putt Matthew Peterson
Khae Saelee David Phillips
Samuel Sanderson Kenneth Reed
Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: ^Internal Memo for Service Recognition 2022 (4.15(b)--City of Redding Employee Service Recognition) 15 year employees 20 year employees 25 year employees 30 year employees Gunnar Baseley Barbara Crumrine Brian Barner Sonja McKinney Jesse Colia Richard Cutforth Eric McMurtrey Angela Peacock Duane Cook Jennifer Hui Sandra Mickelson Erin Wion
Sheri DeMaagd Ronald Icely Jr. Shawn Plummer
Trevor Denham Stephanie McCollum Andrew Rucklos
Michael Ham Dennis Russo John Uronen
John Houston Alisa Sanborn
Timothy Huggins Timothy Smith
William Hunt Kevin Steele
Corinne Jeffery David Straub
Andrew Kofford Lily Toy
Joseph Labbe
Matthew Madison
Neil Maxey
Mark Montgomery
Douglas Moore
Travis Orner
Glen Pine
David Pitta
Jonathan Sheldon
Daniel Smetak
Kirtis Vanderbeck
Marty Wayne
Roger Wilson
Jason Wishard
Tracy Wyhlidko
Kevin Young
Terrance Zalesny
Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: ^Internal Memo for Service Recognition 2022 (4.15(b)--City of Redding Employee Service Recognition)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Conduct a Public Hearing and, upon conclusion, approve the following actions relative to modifying the parking zones and rates within Downtown Redding:
(1) Adopt Resolution to:
a. Amend the Traffic Control Map to modify paid parking zones, loading zones, time limited parking zones, no parking zones, and employee parking areas; b. Amend the parking rates for on-street and off-street parking areas; c. Establish the Employee Parking program, including the employee parking permit rate and the number of employee parking permits available; and (2) Find that the action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) – Common Sense Exemption.

Fiscal Impact
At its regular meeting on April 5, 2022, the City Council (Council) received financial information on the proposed paid parking system. The City’s parking consultant, Dixon Consulting and staff have estimated that if modified, revenues from parking payment devices and increased enforcement efforts are projected to be sufficient to fund the elements of the parking program without impact to the General Fund.

Alternative Action
The Council may choose not to adopt this resolution. In this case, the businesses located within the Paid Parking Zones Downtown would have reduced parking available for their clients and/or customers as the spaces are regularly taken by other individuals who park in this area for extended periods of time. Additionally, the City of Redding (City) will need to identify an alternative funding source for parking leases, equipment, maintenance, and management.

MEETING DATE: October 18, 2022
ITEM NO. 6.1
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 6.1--Public Hearing to consider adopting a Resolution amending the City of Redding Traffic Control Map to modify the parking zones and rates within Downtown Redding.

Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 555
Report to Redding City Council October 13, 2022
Re: 6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate Page 2 Background/Analysis
On April 5, 2022, the Council approved recommendations that were included in the Operational Needs Assessment (Assessment) for the Parking Strategy in Downtown Redding. The Assessment provided a series of recommendations to be implemented in a phased approach to procure the equipment and resources needed for the operations of a new parking compliance program. An update to the parking zones is necessary to clarify loading zones, no parking areas, and time-limited parking zones in order for the parking system to operate efficiently. The following modifications are recommended:

1. Paid Parking Zones – Redding Municipal Code (RMC) 11.28.020 requires modifications to the paid parking zones be designated through resolution of the Council.

The proposed changes require an update to the City’s current Traffic Control Map to identify the Paid Parking Zones as shown on the attached Exhibit B. Paid parking areas within this zone may be added or removed by the approval of the City Engineer per RMC

11.28.030. For example; it is anticipated that as the new street sections of Butte Street and Yuba Street are completed, the additional spaces constructed will be added to the paid parking inventory. It should be noted that areas within this larger zone, but outside of the Downtown core’s more high demand locations will remain free to users at this time.

2. Time-Limited Zones - RMC 11.24.170 requires modifications to the time-limited zones be designated through resolution of the Council. Currently, the majority of Downtown area is already designated as two-hour time limited parking. However, there are several different time periods designated. In order to be consistent, all of the on-street areas within the Paid Parking Zones will be designated as two-hour Parking Zones, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Exceptions to the on-street designation will be marked with either, Loading Zones, 30 Minute Parking Zones, Residential Permit Parking or No Parking, as defined below and depicted on the Traffic Control Map. a. Loading Zones – as defined by RMC 11.24.120, loading zones are designated through Council resolution. The proposed map shown in Exhibit A reflects the effort to keep the loading zones consistent with the current conditions. RMC 11.24.230 identifies alleys as loading zones if signed appropriately and shown on the Traffic Control Map.

Exhibit A identifies the alleyways as loading zones, as intended in the Downtown core.
b. Short-Term Parking Zones – The newly revised RMC 11.24.170 regulates all time limited zones including 12-minute or 30-minute short-term parking areas. These areas are located at high turn-over locations such as coffee or donut shops. A few spaces were located in areas that held a high turn-over use but are no longer necessary.

Exhibit A retains most short-term zones except the intersection of Pine Street and Yuba Street where the number of spaces will be reduced from four spaces to two spaces. The only two existing 12-minute zone spaces located at the intersection of California and Placer Street will be converted to 30-minute zones, in order to be more compatible with the new payment system.
c. No Parking – RMC 11.24.040 addresses No Parking zones within Downtown. Spaces within 15-feet of an intersection corner and 15-feet on each side of a fire hydrant are designated as No Parking by the RMC. Any No Parking areas not within one of these regulated zones are required to be established by resolution. The No Parking areas Packet Pg. 556
Report to Redding City Council October 13, 2022
Re: 6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate Page 3 shown on Exhibit A are existing No Parking zones for various reasons including limited sight distance. The Resolution would maintain the majority of these existing designated areas, and eliminate a few areas where there is no need to maintain the red curb or where it had already been physically removed.
d. Residential Parking Permits – In June 2020, RMC 11.24.340 was amended by the Council. The adopted Resolution updated the residential permit parking areas and the rates. The residential parking areas are shown on Exhibit A for reference. The current Resolution will not amend this program and the permits will remain in effect. The current adopted rate for the Residential parking permits is $75 per quarter or $25 a month.
e. Employee Parking Permits – Newly adopted RMC 11.28.075, requires employee parking areas be designated through Council resolution. Areas proposed for employee parking permit use are depicted on Exhibit A and include six off-street lots and one on-street parking area. These areas will be designated as 10-hour parking zones. The employee program will allow Downtown business owners and their employees to obtain all day parking permits in areas with sufficient parking supply and less on-street demand. The reduced monthly rate is designed to incentivize employees to park in these designated areas, thereby increasing the availability of parking for customers near business storefronts. There are approximately 350 parking spaces in the designated areas and the employee permits will be limited to 175 initially to gauge interest and manage capacity. The number of permits sold will be closely monitored to help maintain the ideal rate of 85 percent utilization in the Downtown core. The City’s parking consultant recommends the reduced employee parking rate of $25 per month to encourage employees to modify parking behavior and move to the designated lots with the additional capacity. This will vacate parking spaces in the downtown core without overly impacting the free parking areas outside of the paid parking zones or surrounding neighborhoods.

3. Parking Rates - RMC 11.28.060 requires parking rates be modified or established through resolution of the Council. At its regular meeting on April 5, 2022, the Council received a presentation regarding parking rates and it was recommended that the rate be set at one dollar ($1.00) per hour to ensure the most efficient management of parking system to provide capacity where the demand exists. The one dollar ($1.00) per hour rate is proposed for all on-street parking and off-street lots within the Paid Parking Zone. In addition, the rate of $25 per month for an employee parking permit noted above is recommended. These rates will be closely monitored in order to maintain the ideal rate of 85 percent parking utilization in the Downtown core. Parking rates are just one tool to manage demand along with enforcement, education and data analysis. As data is collected in the initial months of implementation, the consultant and staff will be reviewing the data to determine what aspects of the parking system may need to be modified which may include the number and location of leased parking lots, the location and number of employee parking permits, parking rates, the paid parking zone limits and parking time limits and other parking needs. Balancing of these elements will be monitored block by block, and as new businesses open in Downtown which will require continual modification. Recommendations for amendments to these elements will be brought back to Council for periodic modifications.

Packet Pg. 557
Report to Redding City Council October 13, 2022
Re: 6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate Page 4 Environmental Review
Staff has reviewed this action and determined that it is exempt from review under CEQA, per Section 15061(b)(3) – Common Sense Exemption. CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The City has an existing paid parking zone that is being modified, the minor modifications to the zones will not have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed modifications will affect the locations of parked vehicles and may encourage mode shift, carpooling and transit use. The proposed changes, while not significant, will assist in the City’s goals of increasing parking availability to Downtown Redding while also helping to reach environmental goals.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Economic Development – “Facilitate and become a catalyst for economic development in Redding to create jobs, retain current businesses and attract new ones, and encourage investment in the community.”
• Government of the 21st Century - “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
Attachments
^Resolution
^Exhibit A Parking Zones
^Exhibit B Paid Parking Zone
^NOE Traffic Control Map Update (2)
Previous Staff Report 4-5-22
Packet Pg. 558
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING

MODIFING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PAID PARKING ZONE,

MODIFING THE TIME LIMITED ZONES DOWNTOWN WITHIN THE

PAID PARKING ZONE, MODIFING THE PARKING RATE, AND

ESTABLISHING EMPLOYEE PERMIT PARKING AREAS
WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code section 22507 provides that a local government may, by ordinance or resolution, restrict the stopping, parking, or standing of vehicles on certain streets or highways, or portions thereof, during all or certain hours of the day; and WHEREAS, Redding Municipal Code 11.24.040 provides that the City Council may, by resolution, establish areas that are unsuitable, dangerous or inconvenient for parking and wherein parking is therefore prohibited; and
WHEREAS, Redding Municipal Code 11.24.120 provides that the City Council may, by resolution, establish loading zones; and
WHEREAS, Redding Municipal Code 11.24.170 provides that the City Council may, by resolution, establish time limited parking zones for such days and periods of time deemed necessary as shown on the Traffic Control Map established pursuant to the provisions of Section

11.04.020; and
WHEREAS, Redding Municipal Code 11.28.020 provides that the City Council may, as traffic conditions require, designate, modify or eliminate by resolution paid parking zones upon such streets or portions of streets of the City. The areas, streets and portions of streets designated as paid parking zones shall be depicted on the Traffic Control Map adopted pursuant to Section

11.04.020; and
WHEREAS, Redding Municipal Code 11.28.060 provides that the City Council may by resolution, establish, or modify rates, as they relate to paid parking devices and their hours; and WHEREAS, Redding Municipal Code 11.28.075 provides that the City Council may, by resolution, establish employee parking permit areas and pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 22507(b), an employee parking permit program may be utilized to designate employee parking permit zones that will improve parking availability for customers if the use of the permits will not adversely impact parking conditions for residents and merchants in the area.

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

1. The recitals set forth herein are true and correct.

2. Pursuant to Redding Municipal Code 11.24.040 the City Council establishes no parking zones as shown on Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein. These areas shall be delineated by red curb markings and/or signage.

Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: ^Resolution (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate)

3. Pursuant to Redding Municipal Code 11.24.120 the City Council establishes Loading Zones as shown on Exhibit A.

4. Pursuant to Redding Municipal Code 11.24.170, the City Council modifies the time limited zones within the Paid Parking Zones and declares it unlawful for any person to allow any vehicle under control or in custody to remain, stand, or park for longer than the signed time limits between the hours of 8AM and 6PM on any day except Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, at the locations shown on Exhibit A, and shall be properly signed per the Redding Municipal code.

5. Pursuant to Redding Municipal Code 11.28.020, the City Council declares that the areas in Downtown Redding shown on the attached Exhibit B labeled Paid Parking Zone Map are paid parking zones.

6. Pursuant to Redding Municipal Code 11.28.060, the City Council declares that the standard rate within the Paid Parking Zone in Downtown Redding is set at $1.00 per hour within on-street locations and off-street locations except for allowances made by the Redding Municipal Code for employee and residential parking permits.

7. Pursuant to Redding Municipal Code 11.28.075, and CVC 22507 the City Council establishes the Employee Parking Program and finds that:
a. After an audit of available parking spaces, the average utilization of the Downtown area is consistently approximately 65%. The City of Redding Municipal Code sets a goal of 85% occupancy, thus leaving 20% of spaces available for additional parking to reach the goal.
b. The parking spaces designated as 10 hour parking areas totals approximately 350 spaces. These spaces will provide allowances for long term parking options surrounding the vicinity of the downtown core.
c. Of the 350 spaces available for longer term parking, 175 spaces shall be offered at a discounted monthly rate for qualified Downtown employees in certain designated lots based on the goal of 85% occupancy.
d. The provision of an Employee Parking Program will encourage employees to utilize underutilized lots around the core of Downtown, without negatively impacting parking beyond these lots that would otherwise be overwhelmed. e. The development of the Employee Parking Program will encourage employees to move out of the Downtown core on-street parking and utilize the off-street parking areas thereby not adversely affecting parking conditions for merchants within close proximity. The provision of adequate customer parking and employee permit parking will thereby not adversely affect residential areas surrounding the Paid Parking Zone.

Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: ^Resolution (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate)

8. Pursuant to the findings above that the employee parking areas have approximately 350 off-street parking spaces, 175 shall be made available for employee parking permits in the areas so designated, as shown on Exhibit A. and that, based on the findings set forth in Section 7, above, the employee parking zones so designated will not adversely impact parking conditions for residents and merchants in the area.

9. Pursuant to Redding Municipal Code 11.28.075, the City Council declares that the Employee Parking Program shall establish a standard rate of $25.00 per month.

10. The City Engineer shall cause to be signed and marked all areas noted on Exhibit A in accordance with the Redding Municipal Code and amend the Traffic Control Map adopted pursuant to Redding Municipal Code 11.04.020 to account for the change in parking established herein.

11. Amendment of the Traffic Control Map is exempt from review under CEQA, per Section 15601(b)(3) – Common Sense Exemption. CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the actions may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, the activities are not subject to CEQA.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 18th day of October, 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. 561 Attachment: ^Resolution (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: ^Exhibit A Parking Zones (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: ^Exhibit B Paid Parking Zone (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Packet Pg. 564
Attachment: ^NOE Traffic Control Map Update (2) (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to the City of Redding (City) Downtown Parking Strategy as outlined in the Operational Needs Assessment (Assessment) and summarized below:
(1) Accept the Assessment outlining the status of parking in Downtown Redding and providing recommendations for parking solutions;
(2) Approve the implementation of the Assessment recommendations, including the userpaid parking system in Downtown Redding utilizing multi-space pay stations and rates up to $1.00 per hour depending on location and demand. Staff will return to the City Council for subsequent specific actions to amend parking ordinances and establish increased parking rates as needed to complete implementation of the Assessment; and (3) Adopt a Resolution approving and adopting the 37th Amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 2021-078 re-establishing one full-time Parking Enforcement Officer position within the Redding Police Department utilizing capital funds from the Traffic Mitigation fund.

Fiscal Impact
In September 2019, as part of the Block 7 Project’s Purchase and Sale Agreement, $680,000 was collected to assist with parking mitigation efforts that included the following: signage, parking management equipment, offsite parking lot improvements, the cost of off-street lease agreements, and costs associated with marketing efforts. The $680,000 was added to the Public Works Traffic Mitigation Fund which had a beginning balance of $800,000. To date, approximately $250,000 has been expended from the Parking Mitigation Fund to hire Dixon Resources Unlimited (Dixon), the City of Redding’s (City) parking consultant, and to pay for City-leased downtown parking lots.

MEETING DATE: April 5, 2022
ITEM NO. 9.11(b)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.11(b)--Consider the Operational Needs Assessment for the City of Redding's parking needs, and adoption of a Resolution re-establishing the Redding Police Department's parking enforcement personnel in Downtown Redding.

Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Report to Redding City Council March 31, 2022
Re: 9.11(b)--Downtown Parking Implementation Strategy Page 2 Staff anticipates utilizing the remaining funds to initially implement the proposed parking strategy as recommended in the Operational Needs Assessment. This includes continuing to lease private lots, establishing a modern enforcement program, purchasing new technology and equipment for enforcement, funding a Parking Enforcement Officer, data collection, and completing City-owned parking lot improvements at two locations on Pine Street. The initial one-time costs are projected to be approximately $327,000 to get the system up and running not including personnel costs that are already budgeted or the lot improvements. To fully implement the recommended strategy, approximately $678,500 is needed annually. The costs include funding for enforcement personal and equipment, lot maintenance and signage, adjudication/collection of fines/appeals, capital replacement funds, lease and utility expenses, maintenance of new collection equipment, transaction fees, and administration.

The source of on-going funding is proposed to be generated from user-paid parking fares and fines. Currently, the City annually collects approximately $30,000-$45,000 from meters and an additional $30,000-$40,000 from parking fines that are highly influenced by the amount of enforcement employed throughout the year.

Dixon provided program cost estimates, and collected data from other jurisdictions, and recommends a user-funded system that utilizes modern revenue collection techniques, including mobile applications and pay-stations as well as new enforcement tools and technology. It estimates the rates required to fully fund the recommended system may be up to $1.00 per hour.

This rate would be consistent with the two newly constructed private parking garages downtown.

The current meter rate is $0.20 per hour. Dixon also indicates that the parking fine rates are outof-date and should be updated.

Assuming a 60 percent compliance rate and 75 percent utilization rate, sufficient revenue should be generated by the proposed collection system at the proposed new rate to cover the cost of the technology and equipment as well as the administration and maintenance of the system. Costs to provide the personnel, administration, and adjudication of the enforcement system will derive from the associated fines generated. Rates, demands, and revenues will be evaluated as the program matures and some adjustment will likely be needed.

Alternative Action
The Council may choose not to accept the Operational Needs Assessment and/or the proposed parking strategy. This action would require staff to develop an alternative plan and return to the Council at a later date, as parking in the Downtown Core requires refocusing to manage the redevelopment activities that are underway. The Council should consider the following when considering an alternative action.
• The City partnered with the private sector to obtain an Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities Program grant to assist with the development of the new Block 7 California Street (Block 7) parking structure. The Block 7 parking structure is a private parking structure available to the public and will be a user-paid parking facility to ensure sustained operations and replacement revenues. The parking strategy recommendations made in the Operational Needs Assessment are designed to be consistent with and support this facility without undermining its use by providing free or reduced parking nearby.

Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Report to Redding City Council March 31, 2022
Re: 9.11(b)--Downtown Parking Implementation Strategy Page 3 • The City of Redding General Fund currently subsidizes the Parking Fund which has been underfunded for many years. Depletion of the parking mitigation funds noted above will necessitate dedicating annual resources once again including sustainment of leased private lots. These lots are critical to support the parking demand. It is estimated that $392,000 in on-going annual costs will be needed to support a sustainable model if a user-paid system is not implemented. In addition, the remaining older parking meters will continue to decline resulting in a loss of approximately $30,000-$45,000 in annual revenue which could further exacerbate the funding deficit.

The Council may also provide alternative direction to staff.

Background/Analysis
The City’s metered parking system was first implemented in 1947. The single space parking meter rate was set at $0.01 per 12-minutes or $0.05 per hour. Off-street parking lots were $0.25 per 10 hours. Over the subsequent 25 plus years, the City added 12 off-street parking lots and by the mid-1970s the system had grown to over 1,300 metered spaces in a combination of on-street and off-street public parking spaces.

The construction of the Downtown Mall in the mid-1970s launched a series of events in the Downtown area that precipitated the eventual decline of the parking system. Over time, in an effort to encourage downtown development and activity, the City removed parking meters in several prime locations, sold City-owned parking lots for redevelopment, reduced maintenance obligations, and provided free parking on the off-street parking lots.

In 1989, the City increased parking rates to $0.20 per hour to curb the growing deficit and deferred maintenance backlog. By 2005, the City’s General Fund was again subsidizing the Parking Fund and funding for enforcement personnel, capital, rolling stock, and maintenance was removed. Staff recommended raising parking rates to $0.75 per hour to cover the minimum costs of operating the system and replace/repair the existing City owned parking lots. However, downtown business owners and organizations requested the City not raise rates citing the lack of activity and redevelopment concerns. The Council took no action. Since that time and prior to the recent revitalization efforts, the City sold the Pine Street Parking Lot #3 leaving 1,002 offstreet public parking spaces (including Lots 4, 11, and the California Street Parking Structure) and 552 on-street parking spaces for a total of 1,554 spaces. Of those, 430 are designated meter locations with just 189 active meters in operation today due to the lack of replacement parts for the aged mechanical meters.

The City is experiencing significant growth with major investments of both private and public funds in the downtown area. To ensure the City is well-positioned to manage the parking needed for the significantly changed landscape in the downtown core, including the demolition of the 640 space California Street parking garage, the City engaged a consultant team to prepare the community-based Downtown Redding Parking Strategy (Parking Strategy). On September 3, 2019, the Council accepted the Parking Strategy and directed staff to: (1) acquire additional parking supply to manage demand during the construction activities; and (2) work with the downtown business/property owners and other stakeholders to develop a sustainable parking system in Downtown including funding sources and implementation needs.

Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Report to Redding City Council March 31, 2022
Re: 9.11(b)--Downtown Parking Implementation Strategy Page 4 In line with that direction, staff increased the parking supply by 628 spaces through private leases, additional on-street angled spaces, construction of the Downtown Streets Circulation and Market Center projects, and partnerships with both the Redding Area Bus Authority (RABA) and The McConnell Foundation. Prior to the demolition of the former California Street parking structure, the utilization rate of public spaces in the Downtown Core was approximately 65 percent. With the added supply, and demolition of the former parking structure, recent counts indicate parking utilization is still hovering around 65 percent. The new Block 7 parking structure is nearing completion and will add an additional 398 spaces. The parking supply is clearly meeting the demand. However, parking location, turnover rates, enforcement, maintenance, and how the system is funded remain significant challenges.

To develop a sustainable and funded parking system, staff engaged the downtown businesses, property owners, and the general public to develop an implementation plan to meet the long-term recommendations identified in the Parking Strategy. Dixon was retained to work with staff and the stakeholders to develop recommendations for implementation. The resulting Operational Needs Assessment summarizes the stakeholder feedback, assesses the current state of the parking system, and provides a recommended implementation strategy for an efficient and sustainable parking system tailored to the City’s needs.

One of the foundational goals of the Operational Needs Assessment is the generally accepted strategy to manage parking in a method that maintains an 85 percent parking utilization rate throughout the system. This utilization rate maintains a good mix of open parking spaces near businesses and storefronts, with an effective turnover rate, and moves longer term parkers to areas of lower demand. While the overall usage of available public parking spaces in the downtown area seems to remain between 60 and 65 percent, over multiple years of analysis, there are areas in the main Downtown Core and near the courthouse that tend to have a higher than the 85 percent ideal utilization rate with little to no turnover during the day and only a 30 percent meter compliance rate. Expectedly, the outlying public spaces have utilization rates well below 50 percent, with some leased lots seeing little use throughout the day. To effectively manage the parking system and distribute parking to underutilized spaces, the Operational Needs Assessment provides a series of recommendations in order to achieve a balanced 85 percent utilization rate.

Managing the parking system takes resources. Through analysis and stakeholder input, it was determined that the downtown business community is reluctant to fund a parking system, and the General Fund has other obligations and priorities that keep it from being able to absorb the added cost of subsidized parking. Therefore, a user-paid parking system is the City’s best option. The Operational Needs Assessment provides a path to implement a fully self-funded system. It requires purchasing new equipment and implementing a suite of technologies including software for data collection and enforcement as well as collection systems. In addition, costs for administration, maintenance, capital replacement, enforcement/adjudication, lease, and utility expenses are captured – most of which is required with or without the user-paid collection and data management/enforcement systems. Providing a parking system free of user-paid charges will cost the General Fund roughly $392,000 annually and adding the user-paid collection equipment and data management/enforcement systems for an effective system will add an additional $286,500 annually in equipment, software, transaction fees, and administrative costs.

Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Report to Redding City Council March 31, 2022
Re: 9.11(b)--Downtown Parking Implementation Strategy Page 5 The overall recommendations will be implemented in various phases as the system adapts to the demands sparked by development. Should the Council approve the Operational Needs Assessment recommendations for an overall user-paid parking strategy, staff will implement the recommendations in a phased approach by fulfilling near term (next six months) needs to procure equipment and resources to get the program up and running coupled with longer term strategies (next year or two) based on data analysis to adapt to the changing parking demands as the Downtown continues to develop.

Near Term Needs – Recommendations
Enforcement - One of most common complaints of the current parking system is the inconsistent parking enforcement that allows vehicles to remain in parking spaces for longer than the two-hour maximum. The Operational Needs Assessment recommends at least one and possibly two full-time parking enforcement personnel, or ambassadors, to fully cover Downtown during the regulated hours. The City has not funded a parking enforcement position since 2009.

As part of the overall recommendation, a resolution is attached that would amend the Redding Police Department budget to allow the re-establishment of the “Parking Enforcement Officer” position.

Data Management - To effectively manage the system, parking data must be obtained and analyzed. The Operational Needs Assessment recommends procuring an automated Citation and Permit Management System (CPMS) in concert with license plate recognition technology. The CPMS will provide a resource to gather data and would be integrated into City financial systems to automate notifications, citation payment, and other functions. This system would significantly streamline and modernize operations for the new Parking Enforcement Officers by automating tickets and notifications. The system will also provide data on utilization rates to understand where long term parking demands are located versus shorter duration needs and provide necessary information to make informed decisions on rates, enforcement, and resources.

Payment Collection Systems – The existing inventory of mechanical meters are depleted, unable to modify rates, and unsustainable. The Operational Needs Assessment recommends procuring multi-space meters (pay stations) and mobile payment systems. These systems are required to have a robust back end management software, that collects credit card payments, provides data, and can implement parking management tools such as temporary, residential, and employee permits. This software requires annual costs and will require payment of credit card transaction fees. It is recommended to start with 40 pay-stations to provide adequate coverage in the near term.

Rates – To create a sustainable infrastructure cost model, rates paid by users should cover the minimum costs to operate the system. Based upon 40 pay-stations, Dixon recommends rates up to $1.00 per hour are needed depending on utilization and demand. As data is collected, the number of pay-stations necessary to meet the ideal utilization rate of 85 percent will be evaluated. As part of the overall inventory, the two new private parking garages need to be factored into the rates to ensure consistency with the overall system. Consistent rates will level the playing field and distribute parking availability to user demand. In the first year, there will likely be a need to adjust as new facilities open which may require the addition or relocation of metered areas, adjustment of time limited parking zones, or the reduction of rates charged for perimeter spaces to incentivize usage. Monthly employee or residential parking permits issued at reduced rates will also be evaluated in the longer-term that may also incentivize parking in areas of lower demand.

Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Report to Redding City Council March 31, 2022
Re: 9.11(b)--Downtown Parking Implementation Strategy Page 6 Municipal Code Update – In order to allow the use of multi-space meter stations, the use of credit cards or mobile payment tools and CPMS software, the City of Redding Municipal Code will require updates. These updates will modernize the ordinance to allow for alternative payment methods, streamline modifications, and clarify various aspects of the parking management system. A revised ordinance that lists a variety of changes to Chapter 11 of the Redding Municipal Code will require the Council’s approval in a follow-up action.

Longer Term Recommendations
Should the Council authorize the near-term recommendations and user-paid strategy, the first actions noted above will be implemented to get a consistent enforcement program initiated. This process could take three to six months to get up and functioning. As the system matures and adjustments/improvements are identified, staff will begin to address additional programs and/or agreements including:
• Continued interactive communication with the Downtown Community. Initially staff and the consultants will need to work with business owners to address individual concerns and foster relationships to leverage shared parking agreements and/or obtain additional or remove leased lots from the inventory. This may also include the development of a validation program with the business owners.
• Perimeter lot evaluation to be utilized as long-term parking and analyzed for development of an employee parking program. The employee parking permit system may address lowincome workers, students, elderly, and any other group that may need reduced rate permit parking.
• The residential permit system will be re-assessed and may be moved to the automated system consistent with the overall parking strategy.
• A Downtown parking wayfinding sign program will be developed, and may be in conjunction with overall marketing and branding efforts for Downtown. • A concerted effort will be made to develop multi-modal transportation connections with the Shasta Bike Depot, RABA, and other modes of transportation such as the Downtown Area Shuttle (DASH). The program will also address Transportation Network Companies (TNC) which are “ride hailing” or “ridesharing” organizations that use mobile applications, enabling people to secure individual and carpooling rides from drivers who use their own vehicles.

Throughout this process, staff maintained a robust website providing parking maps of available lots, posting materials from the parking outreach and links to the many public workshops and presentations completed by staff and the consultants. Over the last six months, five public workshops on the topic were held both online and in-person. In recent weeks, a parking survey was conducted which gathered over 200 responses that include a range of comments. The most common complaints noted refer to the mix of enforcement levels, non-functioning parking meters, fear of paid parking damaging the economic vitality of downtown, and the inability to find an open parking space. Overall, however, there was strong sentiment that now is the time for action. The proposed implementation plan will provide a flexible and adaptable strategy to manage the parking demands and ensure the most efficient operation and customer service for the community.

Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Report to Redding City Council March 31, 2022
Re: 9.11(b)--Downtown Parking Implementation Strategy Page 7 Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Budget and Financial Management – “Achieve balanced and stable 10-year Financial Plans for all funds.”
• Communication and Transparency - “Improve the quality of communication with the public and City employees to enhance knowledge and increase transparency to improve public trust.”
• Government of the 21st Century – “Be relevant and proactive to the opportunities and challenges of today’s residents and workforce. Anticipate the future to make better decisions today.”
• Economic Development – “Facilitate and become a catalyst for economic development in Redding to create jobs, retain current businesses and attract new ones, and encourage investment in the community.”
Attachments
Resolution
Cost Breakdown (available online)
Operational Needs Assessment Outline (available online) Interim Parking Plan Timeline (available online)
Current Parking Map (available online)
Parking Supply and Demand (available online)
Downtown Parking Survey Results (available online)
09-03-19 Staff Report (available online)
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Resolution No. 2022 - ____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 37TH AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2021-078
APPROPRIATING $0 FOR THE CREATION OF ONE FULL TIME PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER POSITION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING THAT Budget Resolution No. 2021-078 be and is hereby amended as follows:

FUND DIVISION DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE
122 742 PARKING $0
THAT account titles and numbers requiring adjustments by this Resolution are as follows:

FISCAL YEAR 2022-23

USE SOURCE

OF FUNDS OF FUNDS
Increase(Decrease) Expenditures
122-742-0111-01 Full Time Regular $ 44,600
122-742-0171-01 Worker's Comp 1,570
122-742-0173-01 Group Insurance 20,100
122-742-0175-01 Retirement Program 15,160
122-742-0177-01 Medicare 650
122-742-1848-01 Parking Systems (82,080)
Total $ - $ -
PERSONNEL FY 2022-23
Parking Enforcement Officer 1 FTE
THAT the purpose is to appropriate $0 for the creation of one full time Parking Enforcement Officer position fiscal year 2022-23.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the _________ day of ___________, 2022 and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:

Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

KRISTEN SCHREDER, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVAL:

PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk BARRY E. DeWALT, City Attorney
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate)

ANNUAL ESTIMATED PARKING BUDGET

COMARISONS
*Bold indicates new items or additional expenses
Current ANNUAL Parking Budget
Parking Ambassador Personnel Enforcement Personnel $0
Parking citation adjudication
hearings/review personnel
Additional duty for Engineers and RPD $6,500
Parking Maintenance personnel
Enforce, Collection, Sweeping,
Cleaning

0.8 Full time equivalent $85,000
Utilities, Equipment and
Administration
Utilities, fixed charges, tools and
equipment for maintenance.
$29,500
Rolling Stock annual costs Upkeep and replacement of rolling stock $0 Major repair/replacement costs of Lot
#4 and Lot #11
Periodically Repaving, landscaping and
lighting of City owned facilities
$0
Leasing parking lots The amount is currently funded by the parking mitigation fund.
$72,000
Total On-going Parking Expenses $193,000
Minimum ANNUAL Parking Budget Required
Parking Ambassador Personnel 1.0 Full time equivalent $95,000 Parking citation adjudication
hearings/review personnel
A portion of Public Works staff time for
this duty. Added with increased enforce.
$10,000
Parking Maintenance personnel
Enforce, Collection, Sweeping,
Cleaning

0.8 Full time equivalent $85,000
Utilities, Equipment and
Administration
Add 0.25 Full time equivalent plus
utilities and equipment
$80,000
Rolling Stock annual costs Upkeep and replacement of rolling stock $15,000 Major repair/replacement costs of Lot
#4 and Lot #11
Periodically Repaving, landscaping and
general maintenance costs of City owned
facilities
$35,000
Leasing parking lots Costs to continue leasing the existing private lots
$72,000
Total On-going Parking Expenses $392,000
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) *Bold indicates new items or additional expenses
Estimated Annual Operational Costs of the Proposed Self-funded Parking Strategy
Operations of the Mobile
applications and Pay stations
On-going Annual Costs for Credit card
transactions
$160,000
Operations of the Enforcement
Technology
On-going Annual Costs $41,500
Parking Ambassador Personnel Increase to 1.5 Full time equivalent - Staff redirected or new staff hired
$140,000
Parking citation adjudication
hearings/review personnel
Part Time - A portion of a Public Works
staff members time is allocated to this task
$10,000
Parking Maintenance personnel
Enforce, Collection, Sweeping,
Cleaning

0.8 Full time equivalent $85,000
Utilities, Equipment and
Administration
Increase to 0.5 Full time equivalent plus
Consultant Services
$120,000
Rolling Stock annual costs Upkeep and replacement of rolling stock $15,000 Major repair/replacement costs of Lot
#4 and Lot #11
Periodically Repaving, landscaping and
general maintenance costs of City owned
facilities
$35,000
Leasing parking lots Continue to lease the existing private lots $72,000 Total On-going Estimated Expenses for a Self-funded System $678,500 Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Estimated First Year Expenses to Develop the Parking Strategy Funded with Parking Mitigation Fund
Expense Amount Type Cost
Citation Permit Management
System (CPMS)
1 Purchase software to handle permit and
citations and coordinate with finance.
$30,000
Purchase License Plate
Recognition (LPR)
Technology
1 Purchase equipment for efficient
parking enforcement
$30,000
Parking Ambassador Vehicle
for LPR Installation
1 Reallocate existing electric vehicles to
parking
$0
Pay Stations - Pay by Plate
model
40 Operating and Hardware Costs – in a
lease model
$150,000
Installation of Pay Stations 40 Installation by Vendor $10,000 Sign agreement with Parking
mobile application
1 Fees are paid through the use of the
application
$0
Operations, Data Collection,
Administration Personnel
1 Dixon Resources has provided a
contract amendment to manage for the
first year
$107,000
Total Expenses to Initiate Program $327,000
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 1
Operational
Needs
Assessment
Outline
City of Redding, CA
FINAL
November 2021
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 2
City of Redding
Operational Needs Assessment Outline
Prepared by Dixon Resources Unlimited
on behalf of the City of Redding, CA
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 3
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Assets, Technology, and Policies ............................................................................................................................... 7 Parking Management and Enforcement..................................................................................................................14 Wayfinding and Parking Guidance ..........................................................................................................................17 Alternative Modes of Transportation .......................................................................................................................19 Walkability...................................................................................................................................................................21 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................25 Appendix A. Comparable Cities Analysis................................................................................................................33 Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 4
Introduction
The City of Redding (City) retained Dixon Resources Unlimited (DIXON) in July 2021 to provide an Operational Needs Assessment of the City’s parking program. The assessment also included a review of the City’s Municipal Code to identify opportunities to enhance flexibility and enable the use of optimized parking technology.

The project team defined the following project objectives:
• Evaluate the City’s current parking operation, including on- and off‐street parking, parking meter revenue collection and reconciliation processes, enforcement practices, citation processing, and current parking meter technology.
• Review best practices for both on- and off‐street parking, and asset security of the entire parking program, including meter collection, parking enforcement, and permitting. • Review current parking management policies and strategies. • Gather operational information and feedback during interviews with key City staff and community members.

Evaluation of the above resulted in the development of this Operational Needs Assessment Outline.

Recommendations contained in this outline are intended to serve as the foundation that is needed to establish an effective and efficient parking program in Downtown Redding.

About Redding
Redding is a northern California city located on the
Sacramento River in Shasta County. Downtown
Redding is a developing hot spot with new
residential developments, commercial buildings,
mixed-use complexes, and office space. Downtown
Redding is also home to Shasta County’s new Court
House, County Jail, and other County public offices.

This influx of new and planned development
anticipates an ongoing increase in parking demand.

In preparation, the City is seeking opportunities to
optimize parking management to meet present and
future parking demand.

Guiding Principles
The 2018 Downtown Redding Specific Plan Update identified the following guiding principles that define the vision for Downtown Redding. The parking management recommendations throughout this outline will contribute to these priorities by enhancing the parking experience and streamlining operations. • Identity – Provide Downtown with a distinct identity, personality, and coherent image. • Aesthetics – Create a Downtown with an attractive urban design that appeals to the community and its visitors.
1 Figure 1: Mural in Redding
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 5
• Land Use – Develop a mix of Downtown land uses that attracts visitors and meets the needs of the community.
• Community – Develop Downtown as a gathering place and heart of the community. • Active Transportation – Encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel throughout Downtown and strike a balance with the auto-oriented environment.
• Historic Preservation – Protect and enhance the historic character of the Downtown. • Relationships – Create connections between existing positive features around Downtown. • Natural Environment – Protect and increase the trees lining the streets, Downtown’s sustainability, and connections to natural resources.
• Management – Establish a well-managed, committed Downtown community that attracts, retains, and expands businesses.

Stakeholder Feedback
During an August 2021 site visit, the DIXON team met with City staff and stakeholders, including community organization representatives, business owners, employees, and residents, to identify challenges and areas for improvement related to parking in Downtown Redding.

Feedback from interviews highlighted interest in improving the Downtown core to transform Downtown Redding into a
vibrant and popular destination. Various stakeholder groups identified that there may not be a parking shortage or
availability issue; rather, there may be a “walking and enforcement issue.” Stakeholders expressed that community members have become accustomed to ignoring parking
limitations as a result of rarely receiving parking citations. Of those who were interviewed, most agreed that a common
expectation is that parking should ideally be available within one block of a destination. When asked what a reasonable walking distance was, a common answer was less than three or four blocks.

The following table provides a summary of the feedback
received, organized by topic. Stakeholders were excited overall about upcoming developments and the opportunity for parking management improvements.

Table 1. Summary of Stakeholder Feedback
Topic Summary of Stakeholder Feedback
Development
• The upcoming development in Downtown is exciting but may impact parking availability.
• Additional underground parking could be considered for future development projects.
• After the demolition of the California Street garage, some stakeholders do not know where to park.
• The new Shasta County courthouse will not provide additional parking and will likely impact surrounding streets.

Figure 2: Downtown Signage on Market St.

Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 6
Topic Summary of Stakeholder Feedback
Parking Guidance • The process of finding parking in Downtown should be simplified. Residents and visitors should not have to circle the block to find a parking space.

Enforcement • Parking enforcement coverage is inconsistent.

Parking Supply
• Some stakeholders are of the opinion that there is not enough parking in Downtown Redding.
• Some stakeholders think there are too many off-street parking lots in Downtown Redding.

Paid Parking
• Some stakeholders noted that parking should be free while others believe that charging for parking is necessary.
• The paid parking rate structure should not discourage customers from staying Downtown throughout the day to patronize multiple businesses. • Customers should have the option to validate their parking. • A mobile payment application would be a convenient payment option for paid parking locations.
• On-street paid parking may impact the private parking facilities that do not charge for parking.

Employee Parking
• Sometimes, employees park immediately outside of storefronts, which displaces availability for customers.
• An employee parking permit program would be helpful.
• Business owners should have the option of purchasing permits for their employees in bulk.

Loading Zones • Loading zones in certain alleys may be helpful for deliveries.

Overnight Parking • Parking should be prohibited overnight on Downtown streets.

Electric Vehicles • Additional electric vehicle (EV) charging stations would be helpful.

Walkability
• Some drivers expect that parking should be available immediately outside of their destination and are unwilling to walk to/from parking. • Walking more than one block from a parking space to a destination may be too far for some.
• Making Downtown more pedestrian friendly is a priority for some stakeholders.
• Pedestrian safety and accessibility could be enhanced by increased lighting and mitigating sidewalk closures during construction.

Alternative Modes of
Transportation
• Alternative modes of transportation such as busses or shuttles could be leveraged to enhance access to and from off-street parking locations. • The Downtown Area Shuttle (DASH) is infrequent, unreliable, and does not operate late enough into the evening.

Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 7
Assets, Technology, and Policies
This section outlines findings from a review of existing parking program assets, technology, and associated policies. The recommendations consider opportunities to optimize the operation by leveraging existing assets, making strategic investments, and modernizing policies.

A. Parking Supply
Summary:
• In 2018, the City’s Parking Strategy Plan estimated that Downtown Redding had a total of 4,651 spaces with an average demand of 2,506 spaces.
• The parking supply consists of on-street parking spaces, parking lots, and parking garages. • Most parking spaces were in good condition. Some parking lots, however, were missing lane striping and ADA-compliant parking stalls.
• There is a mixture of time limited and metered parking . • Since the 2018 study, parking demand fluxes have been tied to the construction of new developments. • The Parking Strategy Plan estimated that after all planned developments are completed (including two mixed-used developments and the Shasta County Superior Court house) peak demand would rise to 3,001 spaces with a net loss of 260 spaces.
• The underground private parking facility below the Market Center project recently opened and can be accessed from the Yuba Street connection to Pine Street Alley. The 2018 Parking Strategy Plan estimated that there would be a net zero impact on parking supply with the construction of this garage. • The new parking facility provides 83 parking spaces to Downtown with an additional private 18 spaces on the ground floor of Market Center. The parking rate is $1.00 per hour and the facility is open to the public 24/7.

Assessment:
• According to the 2018 data collection, Downtown Redding appears to have sufficient parking to meet demand. However, during stakeholder interviews, the opinion on parking supply varied. It was reported by some that they believe Downtown Redding does not have a parking problem, they have a
“walking” problem as residents and visitors do not wish to walk further than one block to their destination. However, others reported that Downtown Redding does not have
enough parking and some stakeholders believed additional parking supply is needed. The variation in opinion indicates that the City is facing a parking management challenge, not a parking supply shortage. Examples include:
o The perception that parking lots are frequently full
could be due to parking demand clustering in prime
locations.
o Some drivers may be unaware of where to find available parking due to a lack of signage and messaging.
2 Figure 3: 1551 Market St Garage Parking
Rates
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 8
o Inconsistent time limit enforcement may be contributing to low turnover rates, which decreases availability.
o Employees may be parking outside of businesses, potentially displacing the convenient parking from customers.
o There could be an imbalance in short-term and long-term parking supply that is not meeting the demands of the community.
• Development projects could impact parking demand patterns in Downtown Redding. o For example, it was a common concern that the new Shasta County Superior Court building would increase parking demand dramatically without increasing any supply. ▪ It was reported that this new building would triple the number of court rooms without providing any additional parking for employees, visitors, and jurors. ▪ This could cause a strain on the existing on-street parking and parking lots near the County building, potentially causing spillover parking into prime Downtown locations. o The City’s inventory of parking will increase when the Block 7 garage is completed. o The City is encouraged to collect ongoing parking data to evaluate evolving parking impacts, future parking management strategies and whether additional parking supply is needed to meet developing demand (see Section 2-B).
• It is important that parking be easy, convenient, and accessible in Downtown Redding, which is why the City is encouraged to pursue the parking management strategies identified throughout this outline.

B. Time Limits and Paid Parking Policies
Summary:
• Some streets in Downtown Redding are time limited. These are designated through the City’s Traffic Control Map and identified by posted signage.
• Time limit operating hours are from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. except holidays and Sundays. • There are six different types of time limited parking zones:
o 3 Hours
o 2 Hours
o 1 Hour
o 45 Minutes
o 30 Minutes
o 12 Minutes
• No vehicle may be parked on any street or alley for more than 120 consecutive hours. • Downtown Redding has 414 single-space parking meters in various on-street locations. o In 2009, the City removed parking meters from the off street (surface) parking lots providing all day and some time limited locations at no charge.
• The current rate structure is $0.20 per hour with a maximum of 2 hours.

Assessment:
• The City would benefit from a demand-based parking program where policies are adjusted based on the actual occupancy and utilization of the curb space. o The occupancy rate for a location is the percentage of parking spaces utilized (vehicles counted ÷ total supply of spaces). Policy changes should be made with the intent of reaching the 85 percent parking industry-standard target occupancy rate for on-street parking. ▪ Based upon the 85 percent target occupancy rate, there should be enough vacant parking spaces to mitigate congestion from drivers searching for spaces and to Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 9
minimize oversupply concerns, which is an inefficient and costly use of valuable land. ▪ Parking management and policy decisions should be made with the 85 percent occupancy target in mind.
▪ Peak periods resulting from special events or holidays are typically managed by exception.
o Ongoing parking data collection would allow the City to measure the impact of policies and make data-driven decisions.
o Specifically, the consistent collection of parking occupancy and duration data would enable the transition to a demand-based parking program.
o A demand-based program would transform how time limits and paid parking rates are defined. o To support this approach, parking policies must be consistently enforced in order to measure their true impact.
• Modern parking technology provides ongoing data that allows for the evaluation of parking demand.

Many municipalities leverage this data to both increase and decrease paid parking rates as needed to influence parking behavior.
• Typically, the highest demand locations should be priced a premium while underutilized areas are incentivized with a discounted rate.
• As a result, parking demand would be less likely to cluster in high-demand locations, which improves access and eases congestion.
• Time limits are also effective at encouraging turnover, but only when consistently enforced.
• To support a demand-based parking program, the City should consider reintroducing paid parking and incorporating a monthly permit parking program within the off-street parking lots.
o The initial rate structure could be set at market rate incorporating what comparable cities charge in addition to local private operators but then adjusted over time incrementally based on ongoing data. • The City should introduce a no re-parking ordinance in their municipal code.

This ordinance would prohibit a vehicle that has been parked longer than the posted time limit to be moved and re-parked within a designated distance like the same block face, parking lot, or garage after the expiration of the maximum posted time limit.
o A vehicle may not return with a designated distance to the initial block face, parking lot, or parking garage sooner than a designated time, i.e., two hours, following the expiration of the initial time period. o Existing time limits can be strengthened using a no re-parking ordinance, which will ensure that time limited areas are only used for the posted time. Longer parking sessions should ideally be accommodated by off-street parking. • There is also an opportunity to expand paid parking to other areas. o Paid parking is inconsistently located throughout the Downtown. ▪ Introducing paid parking in high demand areas encourages turnover and enhances parking availability. As the community becomes more familiar with the updated program, they will recognize the opportunity to find more affordable options at fringe locations if they are willing to walk.
• The City should consider implementing employee permit parking zones that would help mitigate the issue of employees utilizing high-demand customer parking spaces. o Employee parking zones can be implemented in off-street parking lots or garages that are Figure 4: Two Hour
Parking Limit Sign
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 10
located on the perimeter of the Downtown core area. This will increase the customer parking availability in high demand locations.
o Increasing on-street enforcement will also expand the need and demand for employees to utilize the employee permit parking zones.
• Offering low-cost employee parking permits will incentivize employees to utilize the off-street permit parking locations. To enable data-driven decisions, there are a variety of Municipal Code updates that should be considered to enhance flexibility for policy changes. o For example, rather than defining the specific length of time limits and operating times within the Municipal code, the City has the opportunity to designate these details based upon posted signage alone. This would streamline the process for future policy adjustments and enable the City to transition to a data-driven policy approach.
o Similarly, a range of paid parking rates could be established within the Municipal Code that would allow the City to adjust hourly rates based on data with the intent of reaching a desired occupancy rate.
• The City should also reduce the 120-hour rule to 72-hours in order to align with the California Vehicle Code (CVC).

C. Parking Meters, Collections, and Maintenance
Summary:
• There are approximately 200 Duncan electromechanical single space meters, and the remaining are mechanical.
o These parking meters are outdated, and some of the spare parts are no longer sold by the vendor. As a result, not all meters are functioning, which impacts not only revenue but also the ability to effectively manage parking demand.
o Meter rates and hours of operation are not clearly posted. • Public Works maintains and collects the meters.
o Meter maintenance is primarily compliant driven and addressed when meter monies are collected.
▪ When the Public Works department receives a report that a meter is inoperable, the information is inputted into the Cartograph work order system.
▪ Public Works reported that the majority of work orders are for jammed coin slots.
▪ If a meter cannot be repaired, the meter has been removed from its location and typically not replaced due to limited resources which is the cause for the infrastructure gaps throughout the downtown.
• Meters are typically collected on a weekly basis. Many of the meter poles include a dual meter head.

Both single and dual space meters include an open coin receptacle, the dual meter shares a single coin receptable.

Assessment:
• Mechanical and electromechanical meters are outdated and not adaptable to rate changes, special event rates, or dynamic rate structures. Replacing on-street meters with digital single-space meters or multi-space pay stations would be advantageous. Parking rates would need to be significantly changed in order to create a sustainable infrastructure cost model. • Ideally, the City would replace existing single-space parking meters with multi-space meters (pay Figure 5: Existing Meters
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 11
stations) and mobile payment.
o There are three main operational configurations for multi-space pay stations:
▪ Pay and Display: The driver parks, purchases parking session time at the pay station, and then returns to the vehicle to display the dashboard receipt. ▪ Pay by Space: The driver parks in a numbered space, then pays at the pay station using the parking space number. The driver is not required to return to the vehicle because payment is electronically tied to a space number. Parking enforcement uses a web application to verify payment status by parking space number. ▪ Pay by Plate: This configuration is similar to pay by space, but the driver enters the license plate number at the pay station to record payment. This method does not require drivers to return to their cars. Parking enforcement verifies payment status by license plate using a web application.
• The City should implement a Pay by Plate configuration due to the efficiencies and flexibility that plate-based systems incorporated with mobile payment options. Ideally, the City will leverage license plate recognition (LPR) technology for enforcement purposes (LPR explained in the next section). o If paid parking is reintroduced into the off-street parking lots, the same pay station/mobile payment solution can be utilized.
• Currently the Municipal Codes specifically refer to the use of single-space meters and coins. Municipal Code language will need to be updated and expanded to enable multiple parking payment devices and payment methods.
• Payment methods should be expanded to enhance customer convenience and minimize the frequency of coin collections and counting.
o In addition to coin, pay stations should accept payment via credit card combined with a mobile payment application.
▪ Continuing to accept coins at pay stations will comply with the Coin Act of 1928 and offer an equitable solution for those who may not have a credit card or mobile device. ▪ This would streamline pay station collections, counting, and maintenance processes as well.
• By encouraging payment via credit card or mobile payment application, the frequency of coin collections can likely be reduced.
• The use of bills is discouraged because bill note acceptors tend to require the most maintenance.
▪ The City’s current paid parking rate is much lower than most municipalities in California of similar size, and the ongoing fees associated with credit card transactions cannot be sustained by the current rate. Therefore, in order to update the paid parking infrastructure, the City must consider a rate increase along with the transition to pay stations and mobile payment. This will help make the program sustainable. • Meter maintenance should be established on a reoccurring schedule in order to sufficiently maintain all paid parking equipment.
• With the implementation of pay stations, meter monies will be contained in a secure closed-canister system which provides a level of financial reconciliation that does not currently exist. o Pay stations provide payment transaction data that can be verified against coin counting and bank deposit receipts. Revenue trends should be tracked over time to check for anomalies, and any variances in the collections and counting process should be investigated.

Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 12
D. Parking Permits
Summary:
• There is no employee parking permit option provided by the City for employees that work in Downtown Redding.
• In order to aid residents living Downtown, the City Council may designate a residential parking permit area if it is found that the area is predominantly residential, but parking is limited by streets that are congested by non-residents.
• There is a dated Municipal Code that provides convention attendees courtesy parking privileges throughout Redding (stickers on windshield) issued by the City Clerk and approved by the Police Department.
• Vehicles cannot be parked in an alley for more than 15 minutes without a permit. o Temporary permits for loading and unloading lasting more than 15 minutes can be obtained in writing from the City Clerk.
• These permit programs are outdated and, when applicable, have been managed using physical permits and tracked using manual methods.

Assessment:
• The introduction on LPR (License Plate Recognition) technology, permits by plate (virtual), and a parking permit management system would improve the permit and enforcement processes of the City.
o The City should consider moving towards permits by plate. This type of permit identifies a vehicle’s license plate number as the vehicle permit. With LPR technology, it can be efficiently determined if a vehicle has permission to park within a designated area or parking zone. ▪ The LPR system can automate the permit enforcement process by using the license plate number as the permit number and verifying permit status using a database with real-time information.
o The implementation of an automated permit management system would streamline operations and improve convenience for customers with a self-managed online portal where they can purchase, update, and manage permits.
• The introduction of perimeter lots for long-term parking and potentially an employee permit program would be beneficial to increase turnover rates in high demand areas. o Perimeter lots are located away from business fronts and prime parking locations. These lots are usually on the perimeter of core areas. Perimeter lots can be located on streets such as East Street, South Street, Oregon Street, and Shasta Street near the Downtown core. o Designating these lots for long-term parking, especially for employees, can greatly increase turnover and leave prime parking spaces for customers and short-term parking. Providing transportation to these perimeter lots can encourage their use. • The City should introduce an Employee Parking Permit Program that allows employees of Downtown businesses to obtain parking permits employee permit parking zones. o Some of the perimeter lots can be designated only for employees of Downtown. Creating an employee parking permit program with incentives such as low permit rates, free transportation, or guaranteed parking could encourage the use of the parking lot and open spaces near businesses for customers to park storefront.
o To introduce an employee parking program, the Municipal Code will need to be updated to address permit parking polices and the opportunity for virtual permits. o If an employee parking program is introduced, the City should determine permit rates based upon stakeholder feedback and demand.

Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 13
o To encourage employee participation, it is important to price permits lower than the cost for daily parking to encourage compliance and ensure that permit holders have an affordable and convenient option.
• The Residential Parking Permit Program needs to be updated. Permit policies need to be specific in how residential permits are to be obtained and used. There are currently no policy regulations on how residential parking permits are to be enforced or used. o Determining these regulations will create a more understandable and easily enforceable program.
▪ From discussion with City staff, it was determined that residential parking permits are yellow hangtags. However, it was reported by those who enforce parking that hangtags are rarely seen on vehicles parked in “R” parking spaces. “R” parking spaces were identified to be parking for those who have residential permits only. Through community connections, enforcers know that vehicles parked in “R” spaces belong to residents. This method of enforcement is unreliable and can be inefficient. o The City should consider converting to residential parking permits to virtual parking permits that can be enforced through automated technology like LPR or parking enforcement handhelds. The enforcement process of these permit zones would become simplified and more efficient.
o The City should also change the process of how residential parking permit areas are designated. Currently, a residential permit parking area is designated by City Council.

Adjusting the designation to allow for a petition process would be beneficial in creating policy based on community needs. The petition process would require at least 65% of residents living in the area to agree with the implementation of a residential parking permit area in their neighborhood.
o To prevent to use of on-street resident parking in high-demand commercial areas, the residential parking permit areas should be limited to only residential zones and should not be allowed in any zone with a mixed-use neighborhood overlay. o The City should update the Municipal Code and eliminate outdated permit codes like courtesy parking for convention and alley parking permits If the City retained this policy, transitioning to virtual permits will provide a more efficient enforcement opportunity.

Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 14
Parking Management and Enforcement
This section outlines findings from a review of the City’s parking operation as it relates to the overall management and enforcement. The recommendations consider opportunities to optimize the operation with changes to the organization structure, staffing, and technology.

A. Parking Management Structure
Summary:
• Parking operation duties are distributed amongst multiple departments. o The Public Works Department is responsible for meter maintenance, repairs, collection, and parking enforcement.
o The Police Department is responsible for some parking enforcement, shuttle drivers, and processing parking citation information.
o The Finance Department is responsible for collecting parking citation payments and noticing violators.

Assessment:
• Centralizing parking management support and incorporating automated parking technology systems can be beneficial to the City’s internal processes.
o The current parking management processes are inefficient. The City should leverage an established parking citation and permit management system (CPMS) to automate the existing operation.
▪ A CPMS can provide the hardware and infrastructure required to be efficient in the field which will provide an automated system that can be integrated with the Finance Department to minimize manual processes and automate notifications and fee escalations.
o This update will provide the foundational tools necessary to provide ongoing assessment and data resources to ensure optimized operations and future updates.

B. Enforcement
Summary:
• Within the Public Works department, there is one full-time employee who is responsible for all parking enforcement. However, this employee begins work at 4:00am and ends their shift at 11:30am. o This means that there is no parking enforcement in Downtown past 11:30am. This time frame does not align with their current parking operation times for paid parking or time limited parking spaces.
• LPR technology has been previously utilized for parking by Police Department Cadets. Police Cadets have been assigned to shuttle driver duties and the LPR technology has not been used since the shuttle program support was initiated.
• Hand-written parking citations are issued, and the City does not use an automated citation management system or handheld device.
o The Police Department manually inputs all parking citations including those issued by Public Works personnel.
3 Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 15
o The Finance Department manages parking citation payments and delinquent noticing. ▪ Twenty-one days after arriving at the Finance Department, if citations are not paid, the offender will receive a notice letter and a hold will be placed on their vehicle with the DMV.
▪ The DMV hold restricts the renewal of a vehicle registration until citations are paid. All parking citations are $24.50, and a $20 late fee is applied after fourteen days without payment, but the late fee does not increase with further delay of payment. ▪ Late fees typically increase linearly if a citation is not paid. This fee continues to escalate until the citation is paid.
• The City rarely tows vehicles. After four to five days of a vehicle being parked without moving, a warning notice is typically issued to the vehicle.
• The City is able to enforce parking on behalf of private parking facility owners if they sign a “consent to enforcement” form. The form authorizes the Police Department to enforce parking restrictions at the designated location (Code 11.24.260B).
o This policy is beneficial in support of public-private partnerships; however, consistent enforcement resources are necessary to ensure compliance similar to the need to support City parking locations.

Assessment:
• Designating one employee as the single parking enforcement resource is an ineffective management policy, especially considering the current staffing schedule. The community has become accustomed to the lack of enforcement resources which is prevalently apparent throughout the downtown. Parking enforcement personnel should be consistently available during posted hours of operation to promote occupancy and utilization throughout the downtown by increasing compliance. • Use of paper citations and manual record-keeping of citation information are inefficient processes.

The City should procure an automated citation and permit management system (CPMS). o Automated citation management systems allow for direct input of citation information into the City’s database. The system also allows enforcement officers to upload photos of offenses, and the City can manage and track citations with ease. This citation management system can also be connected to the LPR technology so that information collected will be automatically transcribed into a citation and uploaded to the City’s database. o The City has an opportunity to enhance the parking operation and prepare for downtown growth and expansion by acquiring a CPMS. The hardware/software solution increases the City’s ability to focus on customer service and education, while demonstrating trends and data related to behavioral patterns in parking. This information will help guide the City in making any future changes to the parking program.
• The City’s mobile LPR technology is a valuable resource that needs to be utilized for parking enforcement. The City’s LPR technology is currently underutilized. The City’s LPR technology will greatly improve the ability to enforce time limits and parking meters and mitigate any concerns about the use of tire chalking. The increased efficiency of enforcement will also be beneficial in maintaining high turnover rates and increasing time limit and meter compliance. The increase in compliance will contribute to an increase in paid parking revenue for the City. o LPR technology is a necessary asset for the transition to improved paid parking technology, mobile application payments, and pay by plate (virtual) permits. • Time limits needs to be efficiently managed. This includes an update to the City’s vehicle abatement program. The Municipal Code should be updated to be consistent with the California Vehicle Code.

Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 16
Rather than 120 hours, a vehicle should be parked for longer than 72 consecutive hours on street or within a City facility. LPR technology can aid in tracking these noncompliant vehicles and ensure that vehicles are not stored long term or abandoned on street. • The City should leverage the opportunity to create shared parking agreements with private parking lot owners that will allow the City to enforce parking regulations and increase compliance throughout Downtown. Creating these public-private parking partnerships can help limit the abuse of long-term parking in impacted locations. This will create a cohesive enforcement map throughout the Downtown area.

Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 17
Wayfinding and Parking Guidance
This section outlines findings from a review of existing wayfinding and parking guidance. The recommendations consider opportunities to improve and increase wayfinding signage for the overall improvement of navigation throughout Downtown Redding.

Parking Signage
Summary:
• Static signage is being used to identify public parking, location amenities, attractions, and provide Downtown history. These static signs are distributed sporadically throughout the Downtown area. • City operated parking lots are identified by green “Parking” branding.

The logo has a “P” in a navigation pin and is clean and easy to understand. Some private lot owners have requested to have similar signage placed on their properties.
o Despite the Downtown parking branding, the 1551 Market Street garage does not have prevalent signage that would alert a driver of the location and amenities.
• The 2018 Downtown Specific Plan designates that public signage requires maintenance and upkeep.
o Some wayfinding signage is faded and outdated.
• Two-hour time limit signs are consistent in the core of Downtown. The signage includes the days and hours of operation. In residential parking permit areas, these signs have an exception for R permits. The courthouse area includes “Permit Parking OK” signs with no indication of hours or the type of permits that are allowed.

Assessment:
• The City should update and increase wayfinding signage. Signage systems are important to the success of Downtown revitalization. An effective wayfinding and parking guidance solution is important to:
o Mitigate spillover parking impacts.
o Encourage remote or perimeter parking locations, especially in instances where convenient parking is at or near capacity.
o Reduce congestion and time spent by vehicles searching for parking. o Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from excess driving while looking for parking. o Properly communicate parking options to access various destinations. o Improve the overall experience of parking in Downtown. • An opportunity also exists to enhance “breadcrumbing” in Downtown Redding by increasing wayfinding signage. Breadcrumbing signage will lead drivers and pedestrians to different destinations throughout Downtown. Additional signage will make it easier for motorists, particularly visitors, to find available parking and understand where they are allowed to park. o Enhanced signage will effectively direct visitors to available parking areas and provide 4 Figure 6: Pedestrian Wayfinding
Signage
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 18
information regarding parking restrictions.
o Increase wayfinding signage in locations that have high visitor volumes such as the Amtrack Train Station and RABA Passenger Terminal.
o In addition to static wayfinding signage, the City can deliver real-time parking availability information through digital signage or a vehicle messaging system. o As parking management improves throughout the City, there could be an opportunity to provide real-time parking availability data through digital signage. The first opportunity could be to leverage the new garage and promote occupancy and availability to mitigate congestion and potential circling.
▪ Vehicle counting systems coupled with automated wayfinding systems are helping to revolutionize how the public utilizes parking resources. Automated Parking Guidance System (APGS) signs can promote parking availability and mitigate congestion the throughout the city. APGS integrates communication network systems implemented in parking facilities to provide information to the automated signage. Parking availability information can also inform drivers about parking availability before they enter into a parking facility.

Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 19
Alternative Modes of Transportation
Encouraging alternative modes of transportation supports a healthy transportation system that reduces congestion and mitigates parking demand. As it pertains to parking, the goal is to ensure that those who must drive and those who require parking have the availability to do so, even during the busiest of times. Creating alternative modes of transportation for all residents and visitors will be key in developing a sustainable transportation system.

Busses and Shuttles
Summary:
• Currently, the City has two forms of alternative transportation. These are RABA (Redding Area Bus Authority) and the DASH (Downtown Area Shuttle). RABA is funded by the City while the DASH is funded by the McConnell Foundation.
o RABA offers fourteen fixed bus routes and three commuter bus services (including a School Express). There are approximately ten to fourteen bus routes that service the Downtown area.

RABA provides an effective way to get around the City. Offering many routes to the Downtown area will be beneficial when incentivizing alternative modes of transportation. o DASH, a Downtown Area Micro Shuttle, is
run by police cadets throughout the week.

There are two main routes with 11 stops
total. The DASH serves the Downtown area
and maintains an eight-to-ten-minute
frequency. Despite this consistent
schedule, stakeholder feedback
recognizes that the DASH is rarely used.

Subsequently, cadets reported an
inconsistency when it comes to ridership.

Some days the DASH serves eight people,
while on other days there is zero DASH
ridership. The DASH is a great asset to
Downtown, but it should be utilized more. Finding ways to promote and encourage ridership should be a priority.
▪ The DASH runs Monday – Friday
• Mornings (6:45 a.m. – 9:30 a.m.)
• Mid-Day (10:30 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.)
• Afternoon (3:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.)
• The City has an Amtrack train station near the intersection of Yuba Street and California Street in Downtown. This can be an effective method in bringing in visitors and tourists. Adjacent to the station is the RABA Downtown passenger terminal. Having an alternative mode of transit near the train station is key to moving visitors around the city. Additional wayfinding near the station would also be beneficial.
• The biking community within Downtown Redding is large and bike lane infrastructure has been developing well throughout the past couple of years. Some stakeholders say they prefer biking into the Downtown area compared to driving. Biking can also be an efficient alternative mode of 5 Figure 7: DASH Shuttle
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 20
transportation. (See Section 6)
• The downtown block lengths are walkable. However, it was reported by stakeholders that continuous construction has made walking downtown challenging and dangerous due to closed sidewalks.

Prioritizing pedestrians and their ability to safely navigate downtown should be considered by the City and developers during construction.

Assessment:
• Redding has the backbone of a complete transportation system. Improved mobility throughout Downtown can be achieved through additions to the DASH program, bike network improvements, and increased walkability during construction.
o It was reported through stakeholder feedback that the DASH program, while well known, is not well utilized. Stakeholders claimed they did not know how the DASH program worked or how to use the shuttles. The DASH is currently being promoted through signs and occasionally through social media outlets. Increasing education and information transparency would be beneficial and may increase ridership. Education may include mailing flyers to residents, emailing residents, hosting DASH information sessions, increased signage, and online outreach including social media posts.
▪ The potential of deploying or utilizing a DASH app would be advantageous. App users would be able to see the DASH schedule, locate DASH stops, and know in real time where the DASH is. Although currently not a program aspect of DASH, having the capability to alert or “call” the DASH when one needs service could be a beneficial tool in the app. This functionality could be utilized by those who need an ADA accessible shuttle.
▪ An additional consideration is the DASH should run on a continuous loop which can establish a designated expectation for the DASH and the consistent route would provide a reliable and locatable resource for downtown visitors and employees. • Employee parking permit zones should be added to any potential DASH route to provide a reliable and accessible transportation source from perimeter parking locations.
o The City should continue to improve bikeway connectivity throughout Downtown to ensure the safety of bicyclists. These improvements can encourage the use of biking as an alternative mode of transportation (see section 6).
• The City has the opportunity to incorporate new trends seen in other communities. o The emergence of Transportation Network Companies (TNC) throughout California has changed patterns of behavior for travelers and residents ( e.g., Uber, Lyft). o Increasingly, professionals are choosing to travel by TNC, as opposed to single occupancy vehicles. In many small cities, the TNC base has disrupted well-established franchise regulations and taxis have become obsolete. Whether or not TNC will become popular in Redding, they will become a part of the Downtown ecosystem and will require consideration for standing, loading, and enforcement of active violations.

Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 21
Microbi Mobility
A. Walkability
Summary:
• Opinions revolving around walking within Downtown Redding vary. Some stakeholders expressed they wish to park and walk directly into the business they are patronizing. Others wish to park once and be able to walk around Downtown and patronize multiple businesses in one trip. • Despite opinion, stakeholders have expressed concern over the walkability within Downtown Redding.
o A request among some stakeholders was increased lighting for better visibility in the evenings and night. Stakeholders expressed that there is a lack of lighting in key locations such as the parking facilities near the Cascade Theater.
▪ The City announced a lighting plan that will increase lighting in the Market Street Promenade.
o Walkability concerns regarding construction were brought up during stakeholder meetings as well. Stakeholders noticed that during the on-going construction of many building sites in Downtown Redding, sidewalks were often closed or blocked off. Pedestrians were pushed onto the streets which created a dangerous environment. The City has many construction projects that limit the availability of sidewalks, some without accommodations.

Assessment:
• Parking resources need to be better managed and provide short term parking in front of business to promote turnover and push long-term parking options to parking facilities. This approach would be helpful in addressing the varying needs of walking in Downtown Redding. • In order to address concerns over lighting issues, the City should implement a Downtown lighting plan. Safety is an important factor to consider and a possible deterrent for Downtown visitors and residents if they feel unsafe due to lighting. Ensuring there are safe, lighted paths throughout Downtown with encourage visitors to visit or stay past evening hours. o Those parking a vehicle Downtown will seek well-lit areas where threats feel minimal.

Increasing lighting in all Downtown parking facilities would be advantageous. o Employee parking permit locations should be taken into priority consideration. Employees who arrive in the early mornings and leave in the late evenings must safely travel to and from the employee permit lots. Without safe commuting options or well-lit parking facilities, employees may avoid utilizing the permit lots or purchasing employee permits. o New construction sites and corresponding operational plans should budget for safety related items such as lighting and safe sidewalk passage near these locations. • To increase safety and provide ongoing compliance support, the City could appoint Downtown Ambassadors which will increase visibility and parking enforcement support throughout Downtown Redding. An increased presence would provide the consistent compliance to promote turnover and parking occupancy along with the added benefit of visibility and Downtown safety. • The City should work with developers to ensure the safety of pedestrians during construction. 6 Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 22
Prioritizing pedestrian safety should be a main concern during the construction period. The City can hold developers responsible by requiring a pedestrian safety plan in their construction plan submittals. If a construction site needs to block a portion of the sidewalk, ensuring there is an alternative route that does not reroute pedestrians dramatically is necessary. For example, moving the sidewalk temporarily onto the street could be possible by using concrete blocks to protect pedestrians from vehicles.

B. Bikes
Summary:
• The biking network in Redding is currently in the
developing stage. While there are bike lanes on some
streets in Downtown, including California Street, there are many streets without them. This creates an incomplete and unsafe bike network. Stakeholders expressed concern over bike safety and requested the installation of protected bike lanes throughout Downtown.
o In July 2021, a new two-way protected bike path
named “Diestelhorst to Downtown” was opened
that connects the Downtown Redding to the
Diestelhorst bridge near the Sacramento River trail.

This is one of the first protected bike lanes in
Downtown Redding.
• Bike storage is scattered inconsistently throughout
Downtown Redding with only a few sidewalk bike racks.
o The 1551 Market Street garage has public bike
storage; however, it is not easily accessible. To
access these bike storage facilities, bicyclists must
enter the parking garage from a street level
entrance and take an elevator down to the
underground storage. However, to gain access to
the entrance, a resident keycard or valid parking
ticket is required to enter. This forces bicyclists to
enter through the vehicle ingress/egress ramp.
o The Shasta Living Streets organization is currently constructing a bike depot next to the Redding Transit Center. This bike depot will include bike storage and trail services. The goal is to provide the community with options to travel car-free, educate the community on bike safety and access, implement a bike match program, host community activities, and eventually host bike tours.

Assessment:
• In order to increase safety, mobility, and access for bicyclists in Downtown Redding, the City should consider increasing bike lane infrastructure. Connecting bikeways throughout Downtown will ensure the safety of bicyclists and can also be encouraged as an alternative form of transportation. o Increasing different classifications for all streets Downtown Redding would be beneficial. ▪ Wider and more congested streets can be accompanied by a buffered or delineated Figure 8: Bicycle Storage in 1551 Market St
Garage
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 23
Class II bike lane. A class II bike lane is defined as a portion of the roadway that has been designated by striping, signage, and pavement markings for one-way bicycle travel on either side of a street or highway. Implementing a buffer or delineators would increase the safety of bicyclist on these congested streets as more distance is created between the vehicles.
▪ Streets with less congestion but still frequently used can be accompanied by Class II bike lanes without delineators or buffers.
▪ Streets that are narrower and the least congested can be accompanied by a Class III bike lane. Class III facilities are to be shared with motorists on roadways and is identified by signage and shared bike lane markings.
o In the City of Redding’s 2010 Bikeway Action Plan, a highlight was the prioritization of route improvements including bicycle infrastructure, bike lane striping, signage, and bicycle parking.

The plan envisioned a bicycle installation program for developers and businesses to monetarily contribute to the safety and needs of bicyclists.
o Expanding the bike system by upgrading to protected bike lanes, prioritizing bicyclists at intersections, and increasing bicycle accommodation will ensure safer and increased bicycle usership. Biking can become a top alternative transportation method with these improvements.
• The City can leverage the new Shasta Bike Depot as a hub for bike routes. The location of the new bike depot can encourage residents and visitors to arrive to Downtown with an alternative transportation method. The webbing of bike routes from the Shasta Bike Depot will allow people to navigate Downtown via bicycle and also provide safe bicycle storage. • The City should work with developers to ensure all public bicycle accommodations on private property are easily accessible in the planning process. o The 1551 Market Street bicycle parking experience is an example of an unsafe and inaccessible bike parking facility. Having bicyclists use the vehicle ingress and egress point to access the public bike parking can cause issues and is extremely unsafe for bicyclists. Before approving construction plans, the City should do an additional review to ensure that developments are accommodating bicyclists and providing safe and accessible bike parking facilities. o Bicycle parking facility standards can be introduced and required within the Municipal code.

These requirements will ensure that developers meet the standards that should be applied to bicycle parking.
▪ Bicycle parking standards can include minimum space widths, accessibility standards, security standards, safety standards, and minimum required parking space standards.

C. Shared Mobility Programs
Summary:
• Shared mobility devices, such as scooters, are currently used within Downtown Redding. In 2019, an entrepreneur donated 100 electric “Wolf” scooters to the City. o Some stakeholders claimed that they knew the City had Wolf scooters, but they did not have much knowledge on the details revolving the scooters.
o During a site visit, the Wolf scooters were rarely seen but were being used by young adults and teenagers.
• The Shasta Bike Depot has planned on accommodating shared mobility devices including storage space for e-bikes and Wolf scooters.

Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 24
Assessment:
• While shared mobility devices such as have not become an issue within Downtown Redding, many cities have experienced congestion, safety, and liability issues due to the lack of regulations revolving shared mobility devices.
• The City should update their municipal codes and implement a shared mobility device program in order to prevent any future problems that may come with an increase in shared mobility devices such as dock-less bikes and scooters.
o The code updates and program regulations can include:
▪ Operators must apply for a shared mobility device permit ▪ Shared mobility device requirements such as geofencing, maximum fleet numbers, signage, and location of deployment.
▪ City impoundment authorization
o The City should also have the right to revoke any permits in the case operator violates rules and regulations.
• The City can encourage the use of shared mobility devices as an alternative mode of transit and offer low-cost monthly permits or vouchers to those who meet income qualifications to receive free or reduced-price trips.
• The shared mobility program and regulations will encourage the use of shared mobility devices as well as enable to City to keep shared mobility devices under control.

Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 25
Conclusion
The City can optimize parking management and improve the Downtown Redding parking experience by using the strategies described in this Operational Needs Assessment Outline. The recommendations were based upon findings during the site visit, stakeholder feedback, and industry best practices. The feasibility and prioritization of the recommendations will ultimately be dependent on the City Council’s priorities, budget, staffing and resources, stakeholder feedback, and ongoing data collection.

Below are three strategies that could be considered by the City. The strategy chosen will fundamentally influence the City’s next steps. The following table provides an overview of the three options along with their analysis. This table is then followed by a list of recommendations associated with the recommended strategy. 7 Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 26
Strategy Analysis Recommendation
Option 1:

Remove all
paid parking
and rely on
time limits.

Option 1 is not recommended at this time. With current
operations, such as a lack of consistent enforcement, eliminating paid parking in Downtown would decrease compliance of
posted time limits.

However, with changes to the City’s operations, such as hiring additional enforcement staff and beginning consistent
enforcement, parking could become a compliance-based
program. Option 1 could be a viable option if current operations were adjusted.

X
Not recommended at
this time.

Option 2:

Introduce a
pay-to-stay
model.

Option 2 is not recommended at this time but should be
considered for future evaluation. A pay-to-stay model is a customer service based paid parking model. Ultimately, the customer pays for time they would like to stay. Some cities offer this program where the first hour is free and every hour after is an escalated rate. This is not recommended at this time as the City’s current rate structure is very low and the increase in pricing and pay structure may discourage people from coming Downtown.

Option 2 should be considered for future evaluation when the City transitions to a demand-based paid parking structure. With data, the City can evaluate the feasibility of introducing a pay-tostay parking model. The transition to Option 2 should only be made when there is sufficient parking occupancy and turnover data to support this change.

X
Not recommended at
this time. Consider
for future evaluation.

Option 3:

Continue
paid parking.

Option 3 is recommended at this time. With the increase of new development and additional paid parking options, it is
recommended that the City continue paid parking in order to ensure a consistent parking system Downtown. The paid parking program would require some operational changes such as
increasing enforcement, transitioning to multi-space meters, and increasing parking rates. However, these changes would
ultimately provide additional revenue to the City as compliance increases. A consistently enforced paid parking program would also ensure high turnover rates at prime on-street locations. Data collected from enforcement also allows the City to make datadriven decisions and transition to a demand-based parking program. Option 3 allows the City to easily regulate parking, increases revenue and compliance, and contributes to an overall unified parking operation Downtown.

Recommended
strategy
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 27
List of Recommendations:
# Recommendation
Operational
Needs
Assessment
Section
1 Adopt municipal code updates to “future-proof” city policies.

Updates include:
- Time limit standards
- No re-parking ordinance
- Vehicle removal period
- Angled parking standards
- Loading zone standards
- Residential permit parking designation and standards
- Paid parking standards
- Employee parking program
- Temporary parking permit program
- Enforcement regulations
- Bicycle parking facility standards
- Shared mobility device standards
2 Designate one or two employees as the City’s parking enforcement resource. 3-B:

Enforcement
3 Ensure parking enforcement personnel is consistently monitoring downtown parking regulations during posted hours of operation.
3-B:

Enforcement
4 Procure an automated citation and permit management system (CPMS) to avoid manual record-keeping of paper citations and permits. A CPMS can provide the hardware and infrastructure required to be efficient in the field which will provide an automated system that can be integrated with the Finance Department to minimize manual processes and automate notifications and fee escalations. The City should introduce LPR (License Plate Recognition) technology for enforcement and data collection when procuring the CPMS. LPR technology is a necessary asset to transition to improved paid parking technology, mobile application payments, and pay by plate (virtual) permits. 2-C: Parking
Meters,
Collections, and
Maintenance
2-D: Parking
Permits
3-A: Parking
Management
Structure
3-B:

Enforcement
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 28
# Recommendation
Operational
Needs
Assessment
Section
5 Continue paid parking on-street and replace existing single-space parking meters with multi-space meters (pay stations) and mobile payment. Payment methods should also be expanded to enhance customer convenience and minimize the frequency of coin collections and counting, such as Mobile Payment. 2-C: Parking
Meters,
Collections, and
Maintenance
2-B: Time Limits
and Paid
Parking Policies
6 Implement a Pay-by-Plate pay station configuration for the efficiencies and flexibility that plate-based systems offer. 2-C: Parking Meters,
Collections, and
Maintenance
7 The City should consider increasing parking rates. Parking rates would need to be significantly changed in order to create a sustainable infrastructure cost model.

Typically, the highest demand locations should be priced a premium while underutilized areas are incentivized with a discounted rate. 2-C: Parking
Meters,
Collections, and
Maintenance
8 Collect on-going, consistent parking occupancy and turnover data to enable the transition to a demand-based parking program.
2-A: Parking
Supply
2-B: Time Limits
and Paid
Parking Policies
9 Transition to a demand-based parking program where policies are adjusted based on the actual occupancy and utilization of the curb space. 2-B: Time Limits
and Paid
Parking Policies
10 Reintroduce paid parking into the off-street parking lots and utilize the same pay station/mobile payment solution as on-street parking.
2-C: Parking
Meters,
Collections, and
Maintenance
11 Leverage the opportunity to create shared parking agreements with private parking lot owners that will allow the City to enforce parking regulations and increase compliance throughout Downtown. Creating these public-private parking partnerships can help limit the abuse of long-term parking in impacted locations.
3-B:

Enforcement
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 29
# Recommendation
Operational
Needs
Assessment
Section
12 Introduce perimeter lots for long-term parking and potentially an employee permit program. This is beneficial to increase turnover rates in high demand areas.
2-B: Time Limits
and Paid
Parking Policies
2-D: Parking
Permits
13 Transition to permits by license plate. This type of permit identifies a vehicle’s license plate number as the vehicle permit. LPR system can automate the permit enforcement process by using the license plate number as the permit number and verifying permit status using a database with real-time information. 2-D: Parking
Permits
14 Designate employee permit parking zones that would help mitigate the issue of employees utilizing high-demand customer parking spaces. Employee parking zones can be implemented in off-street parking lots or garages that are located on the perimeter of the Downtown core area.
2-B: Time Limits
and Paid
Parking Policies
15 Introduce an Employee Parking Permit Program that allow employees of Downtown businesses to obtain parking permits in employee permit parking zones.
2-B: Time Limits
and Paid
Parking Policies
16 Determine permit rates based upon stakeholder feedback and demand. 2-D: Parking Permits
17 Offer cost affordable employee parking permits. This will incentivize employees to utilize the off-street permit parking locations.
2-D: Parking
Permits
18 Develop additional incentives such as cost affordable permit rates, alternative transportation options, or guaranteed parking locations. These incentives could encourage the use of the employee permit parking lots and open parking spaces near businesses for customers to park storefront.
2-D: Parking
Permits
19 Prioritize increasing lighting in employee permit parking locations. Employees who arrive in the early mornings and leave late in the evenings must safely travel to and from the employee permit lots. Without safe commuting options or well-lit parking facilities, employees may avoid utilizing the permit lots or purchasing employee permits.
6-A: Walkability
20 Add employee parking permit areas to any potential DASH route to provide a reliable and accessible transportation source from perimeter parking locations. 5: Busses and
Shuttles
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 30
# Recommendation
Operational
Needs
Assessment
Section
21 Transition physical residential parking permits to virtual parking permits that can be enforced through automated technology like LPR or parking enforcement handhelds.
2-D: Parking
Permits
22 Update the process to designate residential parking permit areas. This would be beneficial in creating policy based on community needs. Establish a petition process requiring at least 65% of residents living in the area to agree with the implementation of a residential parking permit area in their neighborhood. 2-D: Parking
Permits
23 Update and increase wayfinding signage. Signage systems are important to the success of Downtown revitalization.
4: Parking
Signage
24 Increase education and information transparency about the DASH program. This would be beneficial in increasing awareness of the DASH and may increase ridership. Education may include mailing flyers to residents and businesses, posting flyers on business windows, emailing residents, hosting DASH information sessions, increased signage, and online outreach including social media posts.
5: Busses and
Shuttles
25 Evaluate establishing the DASH running on a continuous loop. This can establish a designated expectation for the DASH and the consistent route would provide a reliable and locatable resource for downtown visitors and employees. 5: Busses and
Shuttles
26 Implement a Downtown lighting plan to address concerns over lighting issues.

Safety is an important factor to consider and a possible deterrent for Downtown visitors and residents if they feel unsafe due to lighting. Ensuring there are safe, lighted paths throughout Downtown with encourage visitors to visit or stay past evening hours.
6-A: Walkability
27 New construction sites and corresponding operational plans should budget for safety related items such as lighting and safe sidewalk passage. Prioritizing pedestrian safety should be a main concern during the construction period and the City should work with developers to ensure the safety of pedestrians during construction. The City can hold developers responsible by requiring a pedestrian safety plan in their construction plan submittals. If a construction site needs to block a portion of the sidewalk, ensuring there is an alternative route that does not reroute pedestrians dramatically is necessary.
6-A: Walkability
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 31
# Recommendation
Operational
Needs
Assessment
Section
28 , the City could Appoint Downtown Ambassadors to increase safety and provide ongoing compliance support. This can increase visibility and parking enforcement support throughout Downtown Redding. An increased presence would provide the consistent compliance to promote turnover and parking occupancy along with the added benefit of visibility and Downtown safety. 6-A: Walkability
29 Implement real-time parking availability information through digital signage or a vehicle messaging system. Vehicle counting systems coupled with automated wayfinding systems are helping to revolutionize how the public utilizes parking resources. Automated Parking Guidance System (APGS) signs can promote parking availability and mitigate congestion the throughout the city. 4: Parking
Signage
30 Deploy a DASH app. App users would be able to see the DASH schedule, locate DASH stops, and know in real time where the DASH is. Although currently not a program aspect of DASH, having the capability to alert or “call” the DASH when one needs service could be a beneficial tool in the app. This functionality could be utilized by those who need an ADA accessible shuttle. 5: Busses and
Shuttles
31 Increase bike lane infrastructure to increase safety, mobility, and access for bicyclists in Downtown Redding. Connecting bikeways throughout Downtown will ensure the safety of bicyclists and can also be encouraged as an alternative form of transportation.
6-B: Bikes
32 Expand the bike system by upgrading to protected bike lanes, prioritizing bicyclists at intersections, and increasing bicycle accommodation. 6-B: Bikes
33 Leverage the new Shasta Bike Depot as a hub for bike routes. The location of the new bike depot can encourage residents and visitors to arrive to Downtown with an alternative transportation method. The webbing of bike routes from the Shasta Bike Depot will allow people to navigate Downtown via bicycle and also provide safe bicycle storage.
6-B: Bikes
34 Evaluate policies for the potential impact of Transportation Network Companies (TNCs). In many small cities, the emergence of TNC base has disrupted wellestablished franchise regulations and taxis have become obsolete. Whether or not TNC will become popular in Redding, they will become a part of the Downtown ecosystem and will require consideration for standing, loading, and enforcement of active violations.
5: Busses and
Shuttles
35 Encourage the use of shared mobility devices as an alternative mode of transit and offer low-cost monthly permits or vouchers to those who meet income qualifications to receive free or reduced-price trips.
6-C: Shared
Mobility
Programs
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 32
# Recommendation
Operational
Needs
Assessment
Section
36 Track revenue trends over time to check for anomalies, and any variances in the collections and counting process.
2-C: Parking
Meters,
Collections, and
Maintenance
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) DIXON RESOURCES UNLIMITED 33
Appendix A. Comparable Cities Analysis
Paid Parking Rates
City On-Street Hourly Off-Street
City of Redding $0.20/hr. n/a
City of Chico $0.50/hr. $78.00 per month
City of Eureka N/A Mostly free / $0.15/hr.

City of Paso Robles 2 hours free, $1.00/hr.
thereafter n/a
City of Santa Rosa* $1.00 - $1.50/hour
Mixed - 1st hour free,
$0.50/hour; & $0.75 -
$1.00/hour
City of Stockton $0.50 - $3.00/hour $1.50 - $3.00/hour / $12 daily
Parking Citation Penalties
City Meter Violation
Red Curb
Violation
Double Parking
Violation
Time Limit
Violation
City of Redding $24.50 $39.50 $24.50 $24.50
City of Chico $29.00 $48.00 $33.00 $24.00
City of Eureka $43 - $38* $53.00 $43.00 $38.00
City of Paso Robles^ $33.00 $33.00 $139.00 $33.00
City of Santa Rosa $35.00 $70.00 $70.00 $40.00
City of Stockton $44.00 $78.00 $66.00 $44.00
*Penalty based on time limit (e.g., 20 min vs 1 hr.)
^Paso Robles penalty increases in process ($50)
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Downtown Parking
Online Parking Survey Results
Presentation Date
Name of Presenter
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Parking Survey Results • 253 Completed Surveys • 3,029 Questions Answered • 85% Completion Rate Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) How would you describe yourself as it relates
to Downtown Redding?
Work Downtown - 35%
Live Downtown – 7%
Own a business – 6.5%
I’m a student - .5%
I’m a visitor – 45%
I rarely go downtown – 6%
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) How often do you visit Downtown?
Daily- 33%
Multiple times a week– 31.5%
Multiple times a month– 23%
Multiple times a year - 7.5%
Rarely – 5%
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) How do you typically access Downtown
Redding?
Car- 75%
Taxi, Lift, Uber, etc.– .5%
Public Transit– .3%
Bike- 10%
Walk– 14%
Other– .2%
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) If you drive, where do you park?
On-street- 46%
Public Parking– 37%
Private Parking– 15%
Other – 2%
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) How long does it take to find a parking space?
Right away - 10%
2 min or less– 22%
5 min or less– 39%
10 min or less- 20%
More than 10 min– 9%
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) What is a reasonable walking distance from a
parking space to a downtown destination?
1 block- 21%
2 blocks– 44%
3 blocks– 20%
4 blocks – 11%
Other – 4%
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Is 2 hour on-street parking generally enough
time for you?
Yes- 27%
Sometimes– 35%
No– 32%
I visit on weekends - 4%
Other– 2%
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) What Parking Priorities
are most important?
#1 Cleanliness, security & lighting
#2 enhanced wayfinding
#3 easier paid parking options
#4 invest in bikeways and shuttles
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Is it important to have 2-hour parking in front
of shops and restaurants?
Yes- 68%
No– 14%
Not sure- 15%
Other– 3%
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Comment Summary:
• Make Downtown more bike and pedestrian friendly. Pedestrian walk signs take too long to turn green and traffic is moving too fast.
• Many had safety concerns about walking long distances downtown, particularly at night.
• Need more modern ways of paying for parking – credit card, app, etc. • 2 hour parking needs to be enforced otherwise cars park all day. • Not enough ADA parking available.
• Downtown business customers complain about the lack of parking. • Many thought downtown parking should be free.
• Employees that work downtown should have more dedicated parking.

Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Thank You
Questions?
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize the following actions relative to the Downtown Redding Parking Strategy:
(1) Accept the Downtown Redding Parking Strategy;
(2) Authorize staff to identify potential funding sources, negotiate lease agreements with private owners for additional public parking supply, and return to the City Council (Council) for lease execution; and
(3) Direct staff to engage Downtown businesses/property owners to analyze and determine the viability of a long term funding source (user paid or business/property based improvement district) to provide a sustainable parking system in Downtown.

Fiscal Impact
Consultant costs to prepare the Downtown Redding Parking Strategy (Strategy) are estimated to be $76,000. The City of Redding (City) staff time supporting planning efforts, document review, and public engagement has incurred value estimated at roughly $20,000. Funding for the consultant effort was provided through a combination of grants from the State of California ($12,000) and the Shasta Regional Transportation Agency ($64,000). The remaining funding was provided by the Streets Division.

Short-term funding of the Strategy recommendations are yet to be determined, but will likely come from a combination of one-time revenue generated from the sale of Downtown property associated with the Block 7 Project partnership (California Street Parking Structure redevelopment), parking enforcement revenue, and some General Fund investment. Staff expects the Council will consider the Block 7 Project at its regular meeting on September 17, 2019, including the associated property transaction.

MEETING DATE: September 3, 2019
ITEM NO. 9.11(a)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 9.11(a)--Consider the Downtown Redding Parking Strategy.

Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Report to Redding City Council August 28, 2019
Re: 9.11(a)--Downtown Redding Parking Strategy Page 2
Alternative Action
The Council may choose not to accept the Downtown Redding Parking Strategy and provide alternative direction to staff. The Council could also choose to not authorize staff to negotiate lease agreements with neighboring businesses.

Background/Analysis
For decades, the City and its community partners have invested significant time and resources to encourage development, activity and improvements in the City’s downtown area (Downtown).

These deliberate, formal planning efforts along with persistence and community partnerships have proved successful resulting in the investment of over $250 million in both public grant funding and private funding over the next few years. These planning efforts include the recently updated Downtown Specific Plan, The Downtown Transportation and Circulation Plan, and the Regional Transportation Plan with its associated Sustainable Communities Strategy. In fact, the 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 that 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 to name a few.

Along with these new developments will come necessary changes to the availability, location, enforcement, administration, and maintenance of public and private parking facilities to support the needs of Downtown patrons, property owners and businesses. Each one of the planning efforts noted above identified the need to develop a parking strategy to accommodate these needs. As such, the City received grant funding and contracted with the consultant team of Placeworks/Watry Design to prepare the attached Downtown Parking Strategy. The Strategy analyzes the current and proposed demand and supply for 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.

Current System
The current City-maintained public parking system includes just over 1,200 on-street parking stalls and another 1,002 off-street stalls in five lots with the majority (640) in the California Street Parking Structure. Through various Council-approved actions and community initiatives over the years, the system has become a heavily General Fund subsidized assortment of facilities with insufficient revenue to provide for maintenance, improvements or replacement. The offstreet parking is offered free of charge, and on-street is a mixture of roughly 230 metered parking stallsat $0.20 per hour while the remaining stalls are free of charge with various time limitations.

Due to the lack of revenue, enforcement is inconsistent and insufficient and there is a large backlog of deferred maintenance and replacement costs. The California Street Parking Structure alone is nearing the end of its useful life and in need of major repairs or replacement that would cost millions. The small amount of revenue generated from meters and fines goes to general cleaning of the lots, maintenance of sump pumps, utility costs, and some limited time for meter collection/repair and enforcement. The annual General Fund subsidy is roughly $60,000- $80,000.

Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Report to Redding City Council August 28, 2019
Re: 9.11(a)--Downtown Redding Parking Strategy Page 3
Parking Supply and Demand
The Strategy reveals that the existing parking system is underutilized with significant surplus capacity. Of the over 4,600 public and private parking spaces available in the Downtown, fewer than 60 percent are currently being utilized on average. Pockets of higher demand areas within the Downtown Core see utilization rates over 80 percent. The consultant modeled future parking demand based on predicted business type and size. The model conservatively assumed much lower vacancy rates than exist today to account for a revitalized and vibrant Downtown.

Following completion of all planned demolition and construction improvements, the model predicts there will be sufficient supply to meet parking demands. However, during construction and following demolition of the California Street Parking Structure, there will be a tight supply of available parking, particularly in the Downtown Core area, as shown in the following chart depicting predicted supply and demand in the Downtown Core. Note the various phases relate to the timing of planned developments over the next several years with Phase III being the longer term (5-10 year) needs.

To alleviate this temporary reduction in supply, several measures have already been taken to increase supply in both the core area and throughout Downtown. Two new parking lots -will soon be available for public use adding approximately 200 spaces to the supply. These new lots include the Bell Rooms Lot (RABA owned) located just west of the Shasta/California and Tehama California intersections and the old Redding Police Building which has been demolished and will be converted into a parking lot.

Recommended Strategy
Additional Supply: To increase supply, the Strategy recommends the City consider leasing underutilized private parking lots at various identified locations Downtown. The recommendation is to add up to 200 spaces in strategic locations at least during the construction period of the next few years and review demand needs once construction is complete. The anticipated parking landscape will adapt from a large centralized lot to smaller lots dispersed throughout Downtown to meet user needs. This strategy limits overinvestment in parking facilities which can reach $30,000-$40,000 or more per stall for structures and provides Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Report to Redding City Council August 28, 2019
Re: 9.11(a)--Downtown Redding Parking Strategy Page 4
flexibility to meet fluctuating parking demands and locations. To ease the transition and inconvenience during construction, staff suggests the off-street parking supply, both owned and leased, remain free of charge until construction winds down and new parking facilities are completed. This will encourage long-term all-day parking (employees and students) in off-street lots, thereby freeing up convenient on-street spaces for business turnover. It is estimated that an additional 200 spaces can be obtained at an annual cost of $75,000-$125,000 depending on location and condition.

Replenish Broken/Missing On Street Meters: To ensure turnover of on-street spaces, a consistent enforcement strategy must be implemented for both the paid metered spaces and the unmetered timed zones. The City has roughly 230 active meters in Downtown. However, there are hundreds more locations where meters were once active but removed due to vandalism or insufficient revenue for repair/replacement parts. To be consistent throughout the on-street system, it is recommended that the City invest in replacement meters for these locations. The proposed rate will remain $0.20 per hour to be consistent with the existing mechanical meters that cannot be altered. This will also provide some interim revenue to pay back the investment and fund enforcement. An additional 200 meters is estimated to cost roughly $180,000.

Estimated meter revenue is approximately $300 per meter per year at the $0.20 per hour rate.

Marketing/Signage: With significant changes to parking location, availability, and procedures, it is important to provide a convenient forum for communication and ensure simple and clear information. Staff proposes to add wayfinding signage throughout Downtown to all off-street public parking lots (leased and owned). There is also a need to simplify the various enforcement zones for consistency and familiarity. Staff will return to the Council at a future meeting to request reducing the parking zones to two-hour time limits in most locations. Finally, the City will maintain a Downtown website with frequent updates and user friendly diagrams and information to clearly keep the public informed of various parking availability, procedures, and overall progress of Downtown developments.

Longer Term Financing: When construction of the larger projects is complete and the transition to a different parking landscape begins to settle, there will be a need to consider longer term parking sustainability. In order to provide a healthy supply, leased space, enforcement, maintenance, capital replacement reserves, administration and any equipment costs, there is a need for both ongoing and one-time revenue. There are three basic options for consideration to fund these program elements; the City’s General Fund; a user paid system that may include meters, pay stations or mobile applications; business/owner paid system through a Business Improvement District or something similar; or some combination of all three. Staff recommends the City engage the business/owner community to gauge their interest in investing in parking facilities for their customers/patrons and the associated management, maintenance and repair costs. Should the community decline investing in the system, staff will provide options for the Council’s consideration to develop a user paid system that can generate sufficient revenue to pay for the resources needed. As demonstrated in the Strategy, an estimated $400,000-$600,000 per year is needed to provide sufficient revenue for on-going operations, maintenance and repair, regardless of the payment method. User-paid options will require additional investment in collection equipment.

Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Report to Redding City Council August 28, 2019
Re: 9.11(a)--Downtown Redding Parking Strategy Page 5
Public Engagement
To ensure a comprehensive engagement for this important topic, numerous outlets and opportunities for input in developing this parking strategy were made available to the community; both formal and informal. The various formal planning efforts noted above included community workshops where parking was a topic. Staff met several times with an advisory group of Downtown property and business owners, property managers, government officials, Shasta College officials and community advocates during the preparation of the Strategy to gather input and direction. Staff also met with several individual businesses and stakeholders to seek their concerns and suggestions. In addition, a separate Public Workshop was conducted on August 26, 2019, to provide a forum for the community to consider the Strategy elements and provide feedback.

Council Priority/City Manager Goals
• Budget and financial Management – “Achieve balanced and stable 10-year Financial Plans for all funds.”
• Communication and Transparency – “Improve the quality of communication with the public and City Employees to enhance knowledge and increase transparency to improve public trust.”
• Economic Development – “Facilitate and become a catalyst for economic development in Redding to create jobs, retain current businesses and attract new ones, and encourage investment in the community.”
Attachments
Downtown Redding Parking Strategy (available online)
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) AUGUST 2019

DOWNTOWN

REDDING

PARKING

STRATEGY
for the
City of Redding
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) City of Redding Page 1 of 62
WDI 15061 August, 2019
Irvine, CA | San Jose, CA | Dallas, TX
watrydesign.com

Downtown Redding
Parking Strategy
August 2019
Submitted by Watry Design and PlaceWorks
Submitted to City of Redding
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 4-5-22 (6.1--Reso to Amend Parking Zones and the Parking Rate) City of Redding

Page 2 of 62 ends

Redding City CouncilOctober 18, 2022

Redding City Council
October 18, 2022