Agenda Packet — Redding City Council, March 19, 2024 (part 3 of 5)

18. STANDARD PROVISIONS AND INTEGRATION. This Grant Agreement is complete and is the final Agreement between the parties. The following Exhibits are attached and made a part of this Grant Agreement by this reference:

Exhibit A– Work Plan
Exhibit B– Budget
Exhibit C– Schedule
Exhibit D– Standard Conditions
Exhibit E– Authorizing Resolution Accepting Funds
Exhibit F– Report Formats and Requirements
Exhibit G– Requirements for Data Submittal
Exhibit H– State Audit Document Requirements
Exhibit I– Project Location
Exhibit J– Monitoring and Maintenance Plan Components
Exhibit K– Appraisal Specifications
Exhibit L– Information Needed for Escrow Process and Closure Exhibit M– Invoice Guidance for Administrative and Overhead Charges DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 10 of 43 ends

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Grant Agreement.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
______________________________
Arthur Hinojosa
Manager, Division of Regional Assistance

CITY OF REDDING (ON BEHALF OF THE EAGSA)
______________________________
Josh Watkins
Water Utility Manager
Date__________________________ Date__________________________ Approved as to Legal Form and Sufficiency
______________________________for
Robin Brewer
Assistant General Counsel,
Office of the General Counsel
Date__________________________
DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 2/9/2024
2/14/2024
2/14/2024
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 11 of 43 ends

Exhibit A

WORK PLAN
Project Title: EAGSA Sustainable Groundwater Management Grant Project Project Description: The Work Plan includes activities associated with planning, development, and preparation of a GSP for the EAGSA. The resulting GSP will incorporate appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) as developed by DWR and will result in a more complete understanding of the groundwater subbasin to support long-term sustainable groundwater management. The Project also consists of installing a minimum of fourteen monitoring wells for identifying data gaps in optimizing the existing monitoring network in relation to development of the GSP. The Work Plan includes three Components:

Component 1: Grant Agreement Administration
Component 2: GSP Implementation and Planning
Component 3: Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (HCM) Improvements COMPONENT 1: GRANT ADMINISTRATION
Category (a): Grant Agreement Administration
Prepare reports detailing work completed during reporting period as outlined in Exhibit F, “Report Formats and Requirements” of this Agreement. Progress Reports will include sufficient information for the DWR Grant Manager to understand and review backup documentation submitted with invoices. Quarterly invoices will accompany the Quarterly Progress Reports and should be submitted to the DWR Grant Manager for review to receive reimbursement of Eligible Project Costs. Collect and organize backup documentation by component, budget category, and task and prepare a summary Excel document detailing contents of the backup documentation organized by component, budget category, and task.

Prepare and submit the Environmental Information Form (EIF) within 30 days of the execution date of the Grant Agreement. No invoices will be reviewed or processed until the EIF has been received by the DWR Grant Manager. Submit a deliverable due date schedule within 30 days of the execution date of the Grant Agreement to be reviewed and approved by the DWR Grant Manager. Any edits to the schedule must be approved by the DWR Grant Manager and the revised schedule saved in the appropriate project files.

Prepare the Draft Grant Completion Report and submit to the DWR Grant Manager for comment and review 90 days before the work completion date. DWR’s Grant Manager will review the Draft Grant Completion Report and provide comments and edits within 30 days of receipt, when possible. Submit a Final Grant Completion Report addressing the DWR Grant Manager’s comments prior to the work completion date. The report shall be prepared and presented in accordance with the provisions of Exhibit F, “Report Formats and Requirements” and approved by the DWR Grant Manager within 30 days after the work completion date. All deliverables listed within the Work Plan shall be submitted with the Final Grant Completion Report unless a new deliverable due date was approved by the DWR Grant Manager.

Deliverables:
• EIF
• Deliverable due date schedule
• Quarterly Progress Reports, Quarterly Invoices, and all required backup documentation • Draft and Final Grant Completion Reports
COMPONENT 2: GSP IMPLEMENTATION AND PLANNING
Component 2 includes activities associated with the planning, development, and construction of GSP Implementation and Planning.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 12 of 43 ends

Category (a): Component Administration
Prepare reports detailing component work completed during reporting period as outlined in Exhibit F, “Report Formats and Requirements” of this Agreement, for inclusion in Component 1 Quarterly Progress Reports.

Quarterly Progress Reports will include sufficient information for the DWR Grant Manager to understand and review backup documentation submitted with invoices. Quarterly invoices will accompany the Quarterly Progress Reports. Collect and organize backup documentation by the Component 2 budget category and task and prepare a summary Excel document detailing contents of the backup documentation organized by task.

Prepare the Draft Component Completion Report and submit it to the DWR Grant Manager for comment and review 90 days before the work completion date for the component. DWR’s Grant Manager will review the Draft Component Completion Report and provide comments and edits within 30 days of receipt, when possible. Submit a Final Component Completion Report addressing the DWR Grant Manager’s comments within 30 days before the work completion date. The report shall be prepared and presented in accordance with the provisions of Exhibit F, “Report Formats and Requirements” and approved by the DWR Grant Manager within 30 days after the work completion date. All deliverables listed within the Work Plan shall be submitted with the Final Component Completion Report unless a new deliverable due date was approved by the DWR Grant Manager.

Deliverables:
• Component reporting to be included in Quarterly Progress Reports and Invoices • Draft and Final Component Completion Reports
• Post-performance Report
Category (b): Environmental / Engineering / Design
Prepare Annual Reports for water years 2023 through 2025 to include the following elements consistent with Article 7 of the GSP regulations. Prepare the draft 5-Year Update of the GSP. Update the GSP and/or address comments for years 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, as necessary or required by DWR.

Deliverables:
• Annual Reports for Water Years 2023, 2024, and 2025
• Draft GSP 5-Year Update
• Updates and/or address comments for GSP
Category (c): Implementation / Construction
Not applicable to this Project.

Category (d): Monitoring / Assessment
Not applicable to this Project.

Category (e): Engagement / Outreach
Task 1: Local Coordination
Coordinate with public regarding outreach, including opportunities for engagement during GSP implementation.

Maintain the EAGSA website as the primary communication tool for SGMA-related content, monitoring data, reports, and meeting information. Distribute announcements of GSA Board meetings, other GSP-related meetings, and SGP-related workshops via email to recipients included in the interested parties list, which will be maintained and updated as needed during GSP implementation. Host annual public workshops to present findings from each annual report. Encourage nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations, and state and federal agencies to participate in public meetings to discuss opportunities to improve the understanding of the saltwater-freshwater interface study, groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs), and potential depletions of interconnected surface water.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 13 of 43 ends

Deliverables:
• Screen shots of updates to EAGSA website
• Outreach materials / Workshop material(s)
• Meeting notes from board meeting(s)
Task 2: Regional Coordination
Coordinate at the regional level and perform technical work toward refining the Sustainable Management Criteria (SMCs) for Undesirable Result Six (UR 6) – Depletion of interconnected surface water. Collaborate with GSAs within the larger Sacramento Valley Basin to address UR 6 for annual reporting and five-year updates. Address expected DWR comments on Sacramento Valley GSPs related to the technical support for the use of groundwater levels as proxies for measurable objectives and minimum thresholds in GSPs.

Deliverables:
• Technical Memo – Refining SMCs for UR 6
COMPONENT 3: HCM IMPROVEMENTS
Work under this component includes activities associated with the planning, development, and construction of HCM improvements.

Quarterly Progress Reports will include sufficient information for the DWR Grant Manager to understand and review backup documentation submitted with invoices. Quarterly invoices will accompany the Quarterly Progress Reports. Collect and organize backup documentation by the Component 3 budget category and task and prepare a summary Excel document detailing contents of the backup documentation organized by task.

Deliverables:
• Component reporting to be included in Quarterly Progress Reports and Invoices • Draft and Final Component Completion Reports
• Post-performance Report
Category (b): Environmental / Engineering / Design
Task 1: Estimated saltwater-freshwater interface depth for Redding Area Groundwater Basin (RAGB) Refine the estimated depths to the saltwater-freshwater interface at the bottom of the RAGB. Acquire and process available information for wells that penetrate the bedrock surface beneath the RAGB. Process the DWR airborne electromagnetic (AEM) data as an additional source of information on the base of the primary aquifer within the RAGB, once it becomes available. Review groundwater modeling data as an additional source of information on the base of the primary aquifer within the RAGB.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 14 of 43 ends

Deliverables:
• Technical memorandum describing results of freshwater/saltwater interface study.

Task 2: Update EAGSA Model
Perform model-related activities to support GSP implementation, that includes, but is not limited to: update modeling software as new versions and/or platforms become available; update the interpreted base of the primary aquifer within the RAGB; replace projected model input values for water years 2019 through 2025 (e.g., precipitation, groundwater pumping, stream inflows, reservoir releases, and diversions) with measured values; update projected precipitation and reference evapotranspiration using appropriate global climate models that become available during GSP implementation; incorporate monitoring data (i.e., groundwater levels and stream flows) that will have become available since the last model update into the model calibration process; recalibrate the model; and evaluate sustainable management criteria and projects and management actions, as needed. Provide updated historical, current, and projected water budgets to include in each 5-year GSP update report.

Deliverables:
• Technical memorandum documenting re-calibration of RAGB groundwater model.

Category (c): Implementation / Construction
Task 1: Install shallow/deep monitoring well clusters
Install two shallow/deep monitoring well clusters located at the confluence of the major trunk streams in the Subbasin(s) and the Sacramento River, including stilling wells or other stage recording devices. Obtain groundwater level and Sacramento River stage data continuously from the four new monitoring wells and the stilling wells. Collected data at these two new monitoring sites will be valuable in better characterizing the nature and magnitude of surface water/groundwater interaction and how it changes seasonally.

Deliverables:
• Technical memorandum describing installation of shallow/deep monitoring wells and stage recording devices.
• Boring logs, well construction logs and associated hydrologic information (water levels, etc.) • Updated well construction and groundwater elevation data on the SGMA portal monitoring network module.

Task 2: Install shallow monitoring wells
Install ten shallow monitoring wells, a minimum of five in each subbasin, to improve characterization of hydrogeologic conditions in areas where GDEs have been identified in the GSPs. Collect the depth to water to provide valuable information to determine where GDEs are present, and how groundwater production in these areas may be impacting GDEs seasonally.

Deliverables:
• Technical memorandum describing installation of shallow monitoring wells. • Boring logs, well construction logs and associated hydrologic information (water levels, etc.). • Updated well construction and groundwater elevation data on the SGMA portal monitoring network module.

Category (d): Monitoring / Assessment
Collect groundwater elevation data and Sacramento River stage data continuously to better characterize the nature and magnitude of surface water/groundwater interaction and how it changes seasonally. The depth to water will provide valuable information to determine where GDEs are present, and how groundwater production in these areas may be impacting GDEs seasonally. Estimate the quantity of surface water and groundwater DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 15 of 43 ends

leaving the Enterprise and Anderson subbasins, improving our characterization of the overall water budgets of these subbasins by using the calibration target data for the EAGSA Model.

Deliverables:
• Technical memorandum describing surface water/groundwater interaction and GDEs • Proof of data submittal on the SGMA portal monitoring network module.

Category (e): Engagement / Outreach
Not applicable to this Project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 16 of 43 ends

Exhibit B
BUDGET
Grant Title: EAGSA Sustainable Groundwater Management Grant Project Grantee: City of Redding (on behalf of the EAGSA)
Components Grant Amount
Component 1: Grant Administration $216,700
Component 2: GSP Implementation and Planning $1,260,000 Component 3: HCM Improvements $907,000
Total: $2,383,700
Component 1: Grant Administration
Component serves a need of a DAC, SDAC, Tribe and/or Underrepresented Community? (check all that apply): ☒DAC, ☒SDAC, ☐Tribe, and/or ☒Underrepresented Community Budget Categories Grant Amount
(a) Grant Agreement Administration $216,700
(b) Environmental / Engineering / Design $0
(c) Implementation / Construction $0
(d) Monitoring / Assessment $0
(e) Engagement / Outreach $0
Total: $216,700
DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 17 of 43 ends

Component 2: GSP Implementation and Planning
Component 2 serves a need of a DAC, SDAC, Tribe and/or Underrepresented Community? (check all that apply): ☒DAC, ☒SDAC, ☐Tribe, and/or ☒Underrepresented Community Budget Categories Grant Amount
(a) Component Administration $110,000
(b) Environmental / Engineering / Design $700,000
(c) Implementation / Construction $0
(d) Monitoring / Assessment $0
(e) Engagement / Outreach $450,000
Total: $1,260,000
Component 3: HCM Improvements
Component 3 serves a need of a DAC, SDAC, Tribe and/or Underrepresented Community? (check all that apply): ☒DAC, ☒SDAC, ☐Tribe, and/or ☒Underrepresented Community Budget Categories Grant Amount
(a) Component Administration $87,000
(b) Environmental / Engineering / Design $150,000
(c) Implementation / Construction $630,000
(d) Monitoring / Assessment $40,000
(e) Engagement / Outreach $0
Total: $907,000
DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 18 of 43 ends

Exhibit C
Grant Title: EAGSA Sustainable Groundwater Management Grant Project Categories Start Date End Date
Component 1: Grant Administration January 1, 2024 April 15, 2026 (a) Component Administration 01/01/2024 04/15/2026
(b) Environmental / Engineering / Design N/A N/A
(c) Implementation / Construction N/A N/A
(d) Monitoring / Assessment N/A N/A
(e) Engagement / Outreach N/A N/A
Component 2: GSP Planning and Implementation January 1, 2023 March 31, 2026 (a) Component Administration 01/01/2023 03/31/2026
(b) Environmental / Engineering / Design 01/01/2023 03/31/2026 (c) Implementation / Construction N/A N/A
(d) Monitoring / Assessment N/A N/A
(e) Engagement / Outreach 01/01/2023 03/31/2026
Component 3: HCM Improvements January 1, 2023 March 31, 2026 (a) Component Administration 01/01/2023 03/31/2026
(b) Environmental / Engineering / Design 01/01/2023 01/30/2026 (c) Implementation / Construction 04/01/2023 11/01/2025 (d) Monitoring / Assessment 04/01/2023 03/31/2026
(e) Engagement / Outreach N/A N/A
NOTES:
1Exhibit C Schedule only dictates the work start date and the work end date for the Budget Category listed. The Grantee must adhere to the Deliverable Due Date Schedule that has been approved by the DWR Grant Manager.

The dates listed in Exhibit C Schedule are date ranges that correlates to the Deliverable Due Date Schedule.

Eligible costs for each line item will only be approved if the work completed falls within the date ranges listed in Exhibit C.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 19 of 43 ends

Exhibit D

STANDARD CONDITIONS
D.1. ACCOUNTING AND DEPOSIT OF FUNDING DISBURSEMENT:

A. Separate Accounting of Funding Disbursements: the Grantee shall account for the money disbursed pursuant to this Grant Agreement separately from all other Grantee funds. The Grantee shall maintain audit and accounting procedures that are in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices, consistently applied. The Grantee shall keep complete and accurate records of all receipts and disbursements on expenditures of such funds. The Grantee shall require its contractors or subcontractors to maintain books, records, and other documents pertinent to their work in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices.

Records are subject to inspection by the State at any and all reasonable times.

B. Disposition of Money Disbursed: All money disbursed pursuant to this Grant Agreement shall be deposited in a non-interest bearing account, administered, and accounted for pursuant to the provisions of applicable law.

C. Remittance of Unexpended Funds: The Grantee shall remit to the State any unexpended funds that were disbursed to the Grantee under this Grant Agreement and were not used to pay Eligible Project Costs within a period of sixty (60) calendar days from the final disbursement from the State to the Grantee of funds or, within thirty (30) calendar days of the expiration of the Grant Agreement, whichever comes first.

D.2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CREDIT AND SIGNAGE: The Grantee shall include appropriate acknowledgement of credit to the State for its support when promoting the Project or using any data and/or information developed under this Grant Agreement. Signage shall be posted in a prominent location at Project site(s) (if applicable) or at the Grantee’s headquarters and shall include the Department of Water Resources color logo and the following disclosure statement: “Funding for this project has been provided in full or in part from The California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018 and through an agreement with the State Department of Water Resources.” The Grantee shall also include in each of its contracts for work under this Agreement a provision that incorporates the requirements stated within this paragraph.

D.3. AMENDMENT: This Grant Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the Parties, except insofar as any proposed amendments are in any way contrary to applicable law.

Requests by the Grantee for amendments must be in writing stating the amendment request and the reason for the request. Requests solely for a time extension must be submitted at least 90 days prior to the work completion date set forth in Paragraph 2, “Term of Grant Agreement.” Any other request for an amendment must be submitted at least 180 days prior to the work completion date set forth in Paragraph 2, “Term of Grant Agreement.” The State shall have no obligation to agree to an amendment.

D.4. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: By signing this Grant Agreement, the Grantee assures the State that it complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA.

D.5. AUDITS: The State reserves the right to conduct an audit at any time between the execution of this Grant Agreement and the completion of the Project, with the costs of such audit borne by the State.

After completion of the Project, the State may require the Grantee to conduct a final audit to the State’s specifications, at the Grantee’s expense, such audit to be conducted by and a report prepared by an independent Certified Public Accountant. Failure or refusal by the Grantee to comply with this provision shall be considered a breach of this Grant Agreement, and the State may elect to pursue any remedies provided in Paragraph 9, “Default Provisions” or take any other action it deems necessary to protect its interests. The Grantee agrees it shall return any audit disallowances to the State.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 20 of 43 ends

Pursuant to Government Code section 8546.7, the Grantee shall be subject to the examination and audit by the State for a period of three (3) years after final payment under this Grant Agreement with respect of all matters connected with this Grant Agreement, including but not limited to, the cost of administering this Grant Agreement. All records of the Grantee or its contractor or subcontractors shall be preserved for this purpose for at least three (3) years after receipt of the final disbursement under this Agreement. If an audit reveals any impropriety, the Bureau of State Audits or the State Controller’s Office may conduct a full audit of any or all of the Grantee’s activities. (Pub. Resources Code, § 80012, subd. (b).)
D.6. BUDGET CONTINGENCY: If the Budget Act of the current year covered under this Grant Agreement does not appropriate sufficient funds for this program, this Grant Agreement shall be of no force and effect. This provision shall be construed as a condition precedent to the obligation of the State to make any payments under this Grant Agreement. In this event, the State shall have no liability to pay any funds whatsoever to the Grantee or to furnish any other considerations under this Grant Agreement and the Grantee shall not be obligated to perform any provisions of this Grant Agreement. Nothing in this Grant Agreement shall be construed to provide the Grantee with a right of priority for payment over any other Grantee. If funding for any fiscal year after the current year covered by this Grant Agreement is reduced or deleted by the Budget Act, by Executive Order, or by order of the Department of Finance, the State shall have the option to either cancel this Grant Agreement with no liability occurring to the State, or offer a Grant Agreement amendment to the Grantee to reflect the reduced amount.

D.7. CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS: The Grantee may use the services of the California Conservation Corps or other community conservation corps as defined in Public Resources Code section 14507.5.

D.8. CEQA: Activities funded under this Grant Agreement, regardless of funding source, must be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) Any work that is subject to CEQA and funded under this Agreement shall not proceed until documents that satisfy the CEQA process are received by the DWR Grant Manager and the State has completed its CEQA compliance. Work funded under this Agreement that is subject to a CEQA document shall not proceed until and unless approved by the Department of Water Resources. Such approval is fully discretionary and shall constitute a condition precedent to any work for which it is required. If CEQA compliance by the Grantee is not complete at the time the State signs this Agreement, once the State has considered the environmental documents, it may decide to require changes, alterations, or other mitigation to the Project; or to not fund the Project. Should the State decide to not fund the Project, this Agreement shall be terminated in accordance with Paragraph 9, “Default Provisions.”
D.9. CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE ACT: The Grantee acknowledges in accordance with Public Contract Code section 7110, that:

A. The Grantee recognizes the importance of child and family support obligations and shall fully comply with all applicable state and federal laws relating to child and family support enforcement, including, but not limited to, disclosure of information and compliance with earnings assignment orders, as provided in Family Code section 5200 et seq.; and B. The Grantee, to the best of its knowledge is fully complying with the earnings assignment orders of all employees and is providing the names of all new employees to the New Hire Registry maintained by the California Employment Development Department.

D.10. CLAIMS DISPUTE: Any claim that the Grantee may have regarding performance of this Agreement including, but not limited to, claims for additional compensation or extension of time, shall be submitted to the DWR Project Representative, within thirty (30) days of the Grantee’s knowledge of the claim. The State and the Grantee shall then attempt to negotiate a resolution of such claim and process an amendment to this Agreement to implement the terms of any such resolution.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 21 of 43 ends

D.11. COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND PROCUREMENTS: The Grantee’s contracts with other entities for the acquisition of goods and services and construction of public works with funds provided by the State under this Grant Agreement must be in writing and shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding the securing of competitive bids and undertaking competitive negotiations. If the Grantee does not have a written policy to award contracts through a competitive bidding or sole source process, the Department of General Services’ State Contracting Manual rules must be followed and are available at: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OLS/Resources/Page-Content/Office-of-Legal-ServicesResources-List-Folder/State-Contracting.

D.12. COMPUTER SOFTWARE: The Grantee certifies that it has appropriate systems and controls in place to ensure that state funds will not be used in the performance of this Grant Agreement for the acquisition, operation, or maintenance of computer software in violation of copyright laws.

D.13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: All participants are subject to State and Federal conflict of interest laws.

Failure to comply with these laws, including business and financial disclosure provisions, will result in the application being rejected and any subsequent contract being declared void. Other legal action may also be taken. Applicable statutes include, but are not limited to, Government Code section 1090 and Public Contract Code sections 10410 and 10411, for State conflict of interest requirements.

A. Current State Employees: No State officer or employee shall engage in any employment, activity, or enterprise from which the officer or employee receives compensation or has a financial interest and which is sponsored or funded by any State agency, unless the employment, activity, or enterprise is required as a condition of regular State employment. No State officer or employee shall contract on his or her own behalf as an independent contractor with any State agency to provide goods or services.

B. Former State Employees: For the two-year period from the date he or she left State employment, no former State officer or employee may enter into a contract in which he or she engaged in any of the negotiations, transactions, planning, arrangements, or any part of the decision-making process relevant to the contract while employed in any capacity by any State agency. For the twelve-month period from the date he or she left State employment, no former State officer or employee may enter into a contract with any State agency if he or she was employed by that State agency in a policy-making position in the same general subject area as the proposed contract within the twelvemonth period prior to his or her leaving State service.

C. Employees of the Grantee: Employees of the Grantee shall comply with all applicable provisions of law pertaining to conflicts of interest, including but not limited to any applicable conflict of interest provisions of the California Political Reform Act. (Gov. Code, § 87100 et seq.) D. Employees and Consultants to the Grantee: Individuals working on behalf of a Grantee may be required by the Department to file a Statement of Economic Interests (Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700) if it is determined that an individual is a consultant for Political Reform Act purposes.

D.14. DELIVERY OF INFORMATION, REPORTS, AND DATA: The Grantee agrees to expeditiously provide throughout the term of this Grant Agreement, such reports, data, information, and certifications as may be reasonably required by the State.

D.15. DISPOSITION OF EQUIPMENT: The Grantee shall provide to the State, not less than 30 calendar days prior to submission of the final invoice, an itemized inventory of equipment purchased with funds provided by the State. The inventory shall include all items with a current estimated fair market value of more than $5,000.00 per item. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of such inventory the State shall provide the Grantee with a list of the items on the inventory that the State will take title to. All other items shall become the property of the Grantee. The State shall arrange for delivery from the Grantee of items that it takes title to. Cost of transportation, if any, shall be borne by the State.

D.16. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE CERTIFICATION: Certification of Compliance: By signing this Grant Agreement, the Grantee, its contractors or subcontractors hereby certify, under penalty of perjury under DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 22 of 43 ends

the laws of the State of California, compliance with the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1990 (Gov. Code, § 8350 et seq.) and have or will provide a drug-free workplace by taking the following actions:

A. Publish a statement notifying employees, contractors, and subcontractors that unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited and specifying actions to be taken against employees, contractors, or subcontractors for violations, as required by Government Code section 8355.

B. Establish a Drug-Free Awareness Program, as required by Government Code section 8355 to inform employees, contractors, or subcontractors about all of the following:
i. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace,
ii. The Grantee’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace, iii. Any available counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs, and iv. Penalties that may be imposed upon employees, contractors, and subcontractors for drug abuse violations.

C. Provide, as required by Government Code section 8355, that every employee, contractor, and/or subcontractor who works under this Grant Agreement:
i. Will receive a copy of the Grantee’s drug-free policy statement, and ii. Will agree to abide by terms of the Grantee’s condition of employment, contract or subcontract.

D.17. EASEMENTS: Where the Grantee acquires property in fee title or funds improvements to real property already owned in fee by the Grantee using State funds provided through this Grant Agreement, an appropriate easement or other title restriction shall be provided and approved by the State. The easement or other title restriction must be in first position ahead of any recorded mortgage or lien on the property unless this requirement is waived by the State.

Where the Grantee acquires an easement under this Agreement, the Grantee agrees to monitor and enforce the terms of the easement, unless the easement is subsequently transferred to another land management or conservation organization or entity with State permission, at which time monitoring and enforcement responsibilities will transfer to the new easement owner.

Failure to provide an easement or other title restriction acceptable to the State may result in termination of this Agreement.

D.18. FINAL INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATION OF REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER: Upon completion of the Project, the Grantee shall provide for a final inspection and certification by a California Registered Civil Engineer that the Project has been completed in accordance with submitted final plans and specifications and any modifications thereto and in accordance with this Grant Agreement.

D.19. GRANTEE'S RESPONSIBILITIES: The Grantee and its representatives shall:

A. Faithfully and expeditiously perform or cause to be performed all project work as described in Exhibit A, “Work Plan” and in accordance with Project Exhibit B, “Budget” and Exhibit C, “Schedule.” B. Must maintain eligibility requirements as outlined in the 2021 Guidelines, amended April 2023, and 2021 PSP and pursuant to Paragraph 10.

C. Accept and agree to comply with all terms, provisions, conditions, and written commitments of this Grant Agreement, including all incorporated documents, and to fulfill all assurances, declarations, representations, and statements made by the Grantee in the application, documents, amendments, and communications filed in support of its request for funding.

D. Comply with all applicable California, federal, and local laws and regulations.

E. Implement the Project in accordance with applicable provisions of the law.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 23 of 43 ends

F. Fulfill its obligations under the Grant Agreement and be responsible for the performance of the Project.

G. Obtain any and all permits, licenses, and approvals required for performing any work under this Grant Agreement, including those necessary to perform design, construction, or operation and maintenance of the Project. The Grantee shall provide copies of permits and approvals to the State.

H. Be solely responsible for design, construction, and operation and maintenance of projects within the work plan. Review or approval of plans, specifications, bid documents, or other construction documents by the State is solely for the purpose of proper administration of funds by the State and shall not be deemed to relieve or restrict responsibilities of the Grantee under this Agreement.

I. Be solely responsible for all work and for persons or entities engaged in work performed pursuant to this Agreement, including, but not limited to, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and providers of services. The Grantee shall be responsible for any and all disputes arising out of its contracts for work on the Project, including but not limited to payment disputes with contractors and subcontractors. The State will not mediate disputes between the Grantee and any other entity concerning responsibility for performance of work.

D.20. GOVERNING LAW: This Grant Agreement is governed by and shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

D.21. INCOME RESTRICTIONS: The Grantee agrees that any refunds, rebates, credits, or other amounts (including any interest thereon) accruing to or received by the Grantee under this Agreement shall be paid by the Grantee to the State, to the extent that they are properly allocable to costs for which the Grantee has been reimbursed by the State under this Agreement. The Grantee shall also include in each of its contracts for work under this Agreement a provision that incorporates the requirements stated within this paragraph.

D.22. INDEMNIFICATION: The Grantee shall indemnify and hold and save the State, its officers, agents, and employees, free and harmless from any and all liabilities for any claims and damages (including inverse condemnation) that may arise out of the Project and this Agreement, and any breach of this Agreement.

The Grantee shall require its contractors or subcontractors to name the State, its officers, agents and employees as additional insureds on their liability insurance for activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement.

D.23. INDEPENDENT CAPACITY: The Grantee, and the agents and employees of the Grantees, in the performance of the Grant Agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers, employees, or agents of the State.

D.24. INSPECTION OF BOOKS, RECORDS, AND REPORTS: During regular office hours, each of the parties hereto and their duly authorized representatives shall have the right to inspect and to make copies of any books, records, or reports of either party pertaining to this Grant Agreement or matters related hereto. Each of the parties hereto shall maintain and shall make available at all times for such inspection accurate records of all its costs, disbursements, and receipts with respect to its activities under this Grant Agreement. Failure or refusal by the Grantee to comply with this provision shall be considered a breach of this Grant Agreement, and the State may withhold disbursements to the Grantee or take any other action it deems necessary to protect its interests.

D.25. INSPECTIONS OF PROJECT BY STATE: The State shall have the right to inspect the work being performed at any and all reasonable times during the term of the Grant Agreement. This right shall extend to any subcontracts, and the Grantee shall include provisions ensuring such access in all its contracts or subcontracts entered into pursuant to its Grant Agreement with the State.

D.26. LABOR CODE COMPLIANCE: The Grantee agrees to be bound by all the provisions of the Labor Code regarding prevailing wages and shall monitor all contracts subject to reimbursement from this Agreement to assure that the prevailing wage provisions of the Labor Code are being met. Current Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) requirements may be found at: http://www.dir.ca.gov/ lcp.asp.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 24 of 43 ends

For more information, please refer to DIR’s Public Works Manual at: http://www.dir.ca.gov/ dlse/PWManualCombined.pdf. The Grantee affirms that it is aware of the provisions of section 3700 of the Labor Code, which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance, and the Grantee affirms that it will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work under this Agreement and will make its contractors and subcontractors aware of this provision.

D.27. MODIFICATION OF OVERALL WORK PLAN: At the request of the Funding Recipient, the State may at its sole discretion approve non-material changes to the portions of Exhibits A, B, and C which concern the budget and schedule without formally amending this Funding Agreement. Non-material changes with respect to work plan are changes that help clarify the original language, addition of task without deleting others, and minor edits that will not result in change to the original scope. Non-material changes with respect to the budget are changes that only result in reallocation of the budget and will not result in an increase in the amount of the State Funding Agreement. Non-material changes with respect to the Project schedule are changes that will not extend the term of this Funding Agreement.

Requests for non-material changes to the budget and schedule must be submitted by the Funding Recipient to the State in writing and are not effective unless and until specifically approved by the State’s Program Manager in writing.

D.28. NONDISCRIMINATION: During the performance of this Grant Agreement, the Grantee and its contractors or subcontractors shall not unlawfully discriminate, harass, or allow harassment against any employee or applicant for employment because of sex (gender), sexual orientation, race, color, ancestry, religion, creed, national origin (including language use restriction), pregnancy, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, medical condition (cancer/genetic characteristics), age (over 40), marital status, and denial of medial and family care leave or pregnancy disability leave.

The Grantee and its contractors or subcontractors shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of their employees and applicants for employment are free from such discrimination and harassment. The Grantee and its contractors or subcontractors shall comply with the provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12990) and the applicable regulations promulgated there under (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11000 et seq.). The applicable regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing are incorporated into this Agreement by reference. The Grantee and its contractors or subcontractors shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement.

The Grantee shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all subcontracts to perform work under the Grant Agreement.

D.29. OPINIONS AND DETERMINATIONS: Where the terms of this Grant Agreement provide for action to be based upon, judgment, approval, review, or determination of either party hereto, such terms are not intended to be and shall never be construed as permitting such opinion, judgment, approval, review, or determination to be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

D.30. PERFORMANCE BOND: Where contractors are used, the Grantee shall not authorize construction to begin until each contractor has furnished a performance bond in favor of the Grantee in the following amounts: faithful performance (100%) of contract value, and labor and materials (100%) of contract value. This requirement shall not apply to any contract for less than $25,000.00. Any bond issued pursuant to this paragraph must be issued by a California-admitted surety. (Pub. Contract Code, § 7103; Code Civ. Proc., § 995.311.)
D.31. PRIORITY HIRING CONSIDERATIONS: If this Grant Agreement includes services in excess of $200,000, the Grantee shall give priority consideration in filling vacancies in positions funded by the Grant Agreement to qualified recipients of aid under Welfare and Institutions Code section 11200 in accordance with Public Contract Code section 10353.

D.32. PROHIBITION AGAINST DISPOSAL OF PROJECT WITHOUT STATE PERMISSION: The Grantee shall not sell, abandon, lease, transfer, exchange, mortgage, hypothecate, or encumber in any manner DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 25 of 43 ends

whatsoever all or any portion of any real or other property necessarily connected or used in conjunction with the Project, or with the Grantee’s service of water, without prior permission of the State. The Grantee shall not take any action, including but not limited to actions relating to user fees, charges, and assessments that could adversely affect the ability of the Grantee meet its obligations under this Grant Agreement, without prior written permission of the State. The State may require that the proceeds from the disposition of any real or personal property be remitted to the State.

D.33. PROJECT ACCESS: The Grantee shall ensure that the State, the Governor of the State, or any authorized representative of the foregoing, will have safe and suitable access to the Project site at all reasonable times during Project construction and thereafter for the term of this Agreement.

D.34. REMAINING BALANCE: In the event the Grantee does not submit invoices requesting all of the funds encumbered under this Grant Agreement, any remaining funds revert to the State. The State will notify the Grantee stating that the Project file is closed and any remaining balance will be disencumbered and unavailable for further use under this Grant Agreement.

D.35. REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE: The use by either party of any remedy specified herein for the enforcement of this Grant Agreement is not exclusive and shall not deprive the party using such remedy of, or limit the application of, any other remedy provided by law.

D.36. RETENTION: The State shall withhold ten percent (10%) of the funds requested by the Grantee for reimbursement of Eligible Project Costs until the Project is completed and Final Report is approved.

Any retained amounts due to the Grantee will be promptly disbursed to the Grantee, without interest, upon completion of the Project.

D.37. RIGHTS IN DATA: The Grantee agrees that all data, plans, drawings, specifications, reports, computer programs, operating manuals, notes and other written or graphic work produced in the performance of this Grant Agreement shall be made available to the State and shall be in the public domain to the extent to which release of such materials is required under the California Public Records Act. (Gov.

Code, § 6250 et seq.) The Grantee may disclose, disseminate and use in whole or in part, any final form data and information received, collected and developed under this Grant Agreement, subject to appropriate acknowledgement of credit to the State for financial support. The Grantee shall not utilize the materials for any profit-making venture or sell or grant rights to a third party who intends to do so.

The State shall have the right to use any data described in this paragraph for any public purpose.

D.38. SEVERABILITY: Should any portion of this Grant Agreement be determined to be void or unenforceable, such shall be severed from the whole and the Grant Agreement shall continue as modified.

D.39. SUSPENSION OF PAYMENTS: This Grant Agreement may be subject to suspension of payments or termination, or both if the State determines that:

A. The Grantee, its contractors, or subcontractors have made a false certification, or B. The Grantee, its contractors, or subcontractors violates the certification by failing to carry out the requirements noted in this Grant Agreement.

D.40. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: This Grant Agreement and all of its provisions shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties. No assignment or transfer of this Grant Agreement or any part thereof, rights hereunder, or interest herein by the Grantee shall be valid unless and until it is approved by the State and made subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as the State may impose.

D.41. TERMINATION BY THE GRANTEE: Subject to State approval which may be reasonably withheld, the Grantee may terminate this Agreement and be relieved of contractual obligations. In doing so, the Grantee must provide a reason(s) for termination. The Grantee must submit all progress reports summarizing accomplishments up until termination date.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 26 of 43 ends

D.42. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE: Subject to the right to cure under Paragraph 9, “Default Provisions,” the State may terminate this Grant Agreement and be relieved of any payments should the Grantee fail to perform the requirements of this Grant Agreement at the time and in the manner herein, provided including but not limited to reasons of default under Paragraph 9, “Default Provisions.” D.43. TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE: The State may terminate this Agreement without cause on 30 days’ advance written notice. The Grantee shall be reimbursed for all reasonable expenses incurred up to the date of termination.

D.44. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES: The parties to this Agreement do not intend to create rights in, or grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary of this Agreement, or any duty, covenant, obligation or understanding established herein.

D.45. TIMELINESS: Time is of the essence in this Grant Agreement.

D.46. UNION ORGANIZING: The Grantee, by signing this Grant Agreement, hereby acknowledges the applicability of Government Code sections 16645 through 16649 to this Grant Agreement. Furthermore, the Grantee, by signing this Grant Agreement, hereby certifies that:

A. No State funds disbursed by this Grant Agreement will be used to assist, promote, or deter union organizing.

B. The Grantee shall account for State funds disbursed for a specific expenditure by this Grant Agreement to show those funds were allocated to that expenditure.

C. The Grantee shall, where State funds are not designated as described in (b) above, allocate, on a pro rata basis, all disbursements that support the program.

D. If the Grantee makes expenditures to assist, promote, or deter union organizing, the Grantee will maintain records sufficient to show that no State funds were used for those expenditures and that the Grantee shall provide those records to the Attorney General upon request.

D.47. VENUE: The State and the Grantee hereby agree that any action arising out of this Agreement shall be filed and maintained in the Superior Court in and for the County of Sacramento, California, or in the United States District Court in and for the Eastern District of California. The Grantee hereby waives any existing sovereign immunity for the purposes of this Agreement.

D.48. WAIVER OF RIGHTS: None of the provisions of this Grant Agreement shall be deemed waived unless expressly waived in writing. It is the intention of the parties here to that from time to time either party may waive any of its rights under this Grant Agreement unless contrary to law. Any waiver by either party of rights arising in connection with the Grant Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver with respect to any other rights or matters, and such provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 27 of 43 ends

Exhibit E

AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FUNDS
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-03

A RESOLUTION OF THE ENTERPRISE-ANDERSON GROUNDWATER
SUSTAJNABILITY AGENCY AUTHORIZlNG THE CITY OF REDDING TO SUBMIT A

GRANT APPLICATION AND EXECUTE A GRANT AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF

THE AGENCY
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2014, Governor Brown signed three bills (SB 1168, SB 1319, and AB 1739) into law creating the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of2014 ("SGMA") codified at Water Code section ,ono et seq.; and
WHEREAS, SGMA requires the fonnation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency ("GSA") that will be responsible for implementing provisions of SGMA as to the medium and high priority groundwater basins, as defined by the California Department of Water Resources ("DWR"); and WHEREAS, the overlying members of the Redding Area Groundwater Basin (the City of Anderson, AndersonCottonwood IITigation Distric~ ll<:lla Vista Water District, Clear Creek Community Services Distri~ the City of Redding and the County of Shasta) formed the Enterprise-Anderson Groundwater Sustainability Agency ("EAGSA"), and designated the City of Redding as the fisc,,I agent; and WHEREAS, the DWR is administering the Sustainable Groundwater Management Grant Program to provide funds to GSAs to promote healthy and sustainable groundwater basins, to reduce and eliminate undesirable effects, and to promote projects that provide benefits while also improving groundwater supply and quality.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE EAGSA BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

I. That an application be made to the Department of Water Resources to obtain a grant under the 2021 Sustainable Groundwater Management (SGM) Grant Program SGMA Implementation Grant pursuant to the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of20l8 (Pub. Resources Code,§ 80000, ct seq.) and the Budgel Acts of 2021 and 2022. Be it further resolved that the City of Redding has the authority and shall enter into a funding agreement with the Department of Water Resources to receive a grant for the: EAGSA Sustainable Groundwater Management Grant Project.

2. The Director of Public Works of the City of Redding. or designce, is hereby authoriud and directed to prepare the necessary data, conduct investigations, file such application, execule a funding agreement and any future amendments thereto. submit invoices. and submit any reporting requirements with the Department of Water Resources.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced, read, and adopted at a regular mee1ing of the EAGSA Board of Directors on the 16~ day ofNovember, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

BOARD MEMllERS: Hunt, Smith, Fust, Hayaes, ud Res er
BOARD MEMBERS: Noae
BOARD MEMBERS: Ganna■
BOARD MEMBERS: Noae
JAMF$SMJTB, Chair
DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 28 of 43 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-124

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING

AUTHORIZING THE GRANT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL AND

EXECUTION FOR THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER

MANAGEMENT GRANT PROGRAM WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF

WATER RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF THE ENTERPRISE-ANDERSON

GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2014, Governor Brown signed three bills (SB 1168, SB 1319, and AB 1739) into law creating the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 ("SGMA") codified at Water Code section 10720 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, SOMA requires the formation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency ("GSA") that will be responsible for implementing provisions of SOMA as to the medium and high priority groundwater basins, as defined by the California Department of Water Resources ("DWR"); and WHEREAS, the overlying members of the Redding Area Groundwater Basin (the City of Anderson, Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District, Bella Vista Water District, Clear Creek Community Services District, the City of Redding and the County of Shasta) formed the Enterprise-Anderson Groundwater Sustainability Agency ("EAGSA"), and designated the City of Redding as the fiscal agent; and
WHEREAS, the DWR is administering the Sustainable Groundwater Management Grant Program to provide funds to GSAs to promote healthy and sustainable groundwater basins, to reduce and eliminate undesirable effects, and to promote projects that provide benefits while also improving groundwater supply and quality;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF • REDDING:

1. That an application be made to the Department of Water Resources to obtain a grant under the 2021 Sustainable Groundwater Management (SGM) Grant Program SOMA Implementation Grant pursuant to the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018 (Pub. Resources Code, § 80000, et seq.) and the Budget Acts of2021 and 2022. Be it further resolved that the City of Redding has the authority and shall enter into a funding agreement with the Department of Water Resources to receive a grant for the: EA GSA Sustainable Groundwater Management Grant Project.

2. The Director of Public Works of the City of Redding, or designee, is hereby authorized and directed to prepare the necessary data, conduct investigations, file such application, execute a funding agreement and any future amendments thereto, submit invoices, and submit any reporting requirements with the Department of Water Resources.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 29 of 43 ends

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a reg,uar meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the IS"' day of November, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

COUNCIL MEMBERS: 0-acquisto, Mezzano, Winter, and Schreder COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Re,nei·
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
KRISTEN S~, Mayor
FORM APPROVED:

BARRY .E. DeWALT, City Alforney
DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 30 of 43 ends

Exhibit F

REPORT FORMATS AND REQUIREMENTS
The following reporting formats should be utilized. Please obtain State approval prior to submitting a report in an alternative format.

1. QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORTS
A Quarterly Progress Report template will be provided by the DWR Grant Manager. Grantees must use the template provided for all Quarterly Progress Reports to obtain reimbursement reported. The Quarterly Progress Report must accompany an Invoice and be numbered the same for ease of reference for auditing purposes. In addition, the reporting period for the Quarterly Progress Report must also align with the corresponding quarterly Invoice.

2. COMPONENT COMPLETION REPORT
Component Completion Reports shall generally use the following format. This report should summarize all work completed as part of this grant.. This is standalone document and should not reference other documents or websites. Web links are edited or removed over time. These grants can be audited several years after they are closed. Therefore, links are not appropriate to include in the close out reports.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – Should include a brief summary of project information and include the following items:
• Brief description of work proposed to be done in the original application • Description of actual work completed and any deviations from the work plan identified in the Grant Agreement
REPORTS AND/OR PRODUCTS – The following items should be provided • Final Evaluation report
• Electronic copies of any data collected, not previously submitted • As-built drawings
• Final geodetic survey information
• Self-Certification that the Project meets the stated goal of the Grant Agreement (e.g. 100-year level of flood protection, HMP standard, PI-84-99, etc.) • Project photos
• Discussion of problems that occurred during the work and how those problems were resolved • A final project schedule showing actual progress versus planned progress COSTS AND DISPOSITION OF FUNDS – A list of showing:
• The date each invoice was submitted to the State
• The amount of the invoice
• The date the check was received
• The amount of the check (If a check has not been received for the final invoice, then state this in this section.)
• A summary of the payments made by the Grantee for meeting its cost sharing obligations under this Grant Agreement.
• A summary of final funds disbursement including:
o Labor cost of personnel of agency/ major consultant /sub-consultants. Indicate personnel, hours, rates, type of profession and reason for consultant, i.e., design, CEQA work, etc. o Evaluation cost information, shown by material, equipment, labor costs, and any change orders
DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 31 of 43 ends

o Any other incurred cost detail
o A statement verifying separate accounting of funding disbursements • Summary of project cost including the following items:
o Accounting of the cost of project expenditure;
o Include all internal and external costs not previously disclosed; and o A discussion of factors that positively or negatively affected the project cost and any deviation from the original project cost estimate.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – Any relevant additional Information should be included.

3. GRANT COMPLETION REPORT
The Grant Completion Report shall generally use the following format. This report should summarize all work completed as part of this grant.. This is standalone document and should not reference other documents or websites. Web links are edited or removed over time. These grants can be audited several years after they are closed. Therefore, links are not appropriate to include in the close out reports. • Executive Summary: consisting of a maximum of ten (10) pages summarizing information for the grant as well as the individual projects.
• Brief discussion whether the level, type, or magnitude of benefits of each project are comparable to the original project proposal; any remaining work to be completed and mechanism for their implementation; and a summary of final funds disbursement for each project.

Additional Information: Summary of the submittal schedule for the Post Performance Reports applicable for the projects in this Grant Agreement.

4. POST-PERFORMANCE REPORT
The Post Performance Report (PPR) should be concise and focus on how each project is performing compared to its expected performance. The PPR should be following the Methodology Report for the specific project type(s) provided by the DWR Grant Manager. The PPR should identify whether the project is being operated and maintained. DWR requirements is for all funded projects should be maintained and operated for a minimum of 15 years. If the project is not being maintained and operated, justification must be provided. A PPR template may be provided by the assigned DWR Grant Manager upon request. The PPR should follow the general format of the template and provide requested information as applicable. The following information, at a minimum, shall be provided:

Reports and/or products
• Header including the following:
o Grantee Name
o Implementing Agency (if different from Grantee)
o Grant Agreement Number
o Project Name
o Funding grant source
o Report number
• Post Performance Report schedule
• Time period of the annual report (e.g., January 2018 through December 2018) • Project Description Summary
• Discussion of the project benefits
• An assessment of any differences between the expected versus actual project benefits as stated in the original application. Where applicable, the reporting should include quantitative metrics (e.g., new acre-feet of water produced that year, etc.).
• Summary of any additional costs and/or benefits deriving from the project since its completion, if applicable.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 32 of 43 ends

• Any additional information relevant to or generated by the continued operation of the project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 33 of 43 ends

Exhibit G

REQUIREMENTS FOR DATA SUBMITTAL
Surface and Groundwater Quality Data:

Groundwater quality and ambient surface water quality monitoring data that include chemical, physical, or biological data shall be submitted to the State as described below, with a narrative description of data submittal activities included in project reports, as described in Exhibit G, “Requirements for Data Submittal.”
Surface water quality monitoring data shall be prepared for submission to the California Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN). The CEDEN data templates are available on the CEDEN website.

Inclusion of additional data elements described on the data templates is desirable. Data ready for submission should be uploaded to your CEDEN Regional Data Center via the CEDEN website. CEDEN website: http://www.ceden.org.

If a project’s Work Plan contains a groundwater ambient monitoring element, groundwater quality monitoring data shall be submitted to the State for inclusion in the State Water Resources Control Board’s Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program Information on the GAMA Program can be obtained at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gama/. If further information is required, the Grantee can contact the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GAMA Program. A listing of SWRCB staff involved in the GAMA program can be found at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gama/contact.shtml.

Groundwater Level Data
For each project that collects groundwater level data, the Grantee will need to submit this data to DWR’s Water Data Library (WDL), with a narrative description of data submittal activities included in project reports, as described in Exhibit F, “Report Formats and Requirements.” Information regarding the WDL and in what format to submit data in can be found at: http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 34 of 43 ends

Exhibit H

STATE AUDIT DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS
The following provides a list of documents typically required by State Auditors and general guidelines for Grantees. List of documents pertains to both State funding and the Grantee’s Local Cost Share and details the documents/records that State Auditors would need to review in the event of this Grant Agreement is audited.

Grantees should ensure that such records are maintained for each funded project.

State Audit Document Requirements
Internal Controls

1. Organization chart (e.g., Agency’s overall organization chart and organization chart for the State funded Program/Project).

2. Written internal procedures and flowcharts for the following:
a) Receipts and deposits
b) Disbursements
c) State reimbursement requests
d) Expenditure tracking of State funds
e) Guidelines, policy, and procedures on State funded Program/Project

3. Audit reports of the Agency internal control structure and/or financial statements within the last two years.

4. Prior audit reports on the State funded Program/Project.

State Funding:

1. Original Grant Agreement, any amendment(s) and budget modification documents.

2. A listing of all bond-funded grants, loans, or subventions received from the State.

3. A listing of all other funding sources for each Program/Project.

Contracts:

1. All subcontractor and consultant contracts and related or partners’ documents, if applicable.

2. Contracts between the Agency and member agencies as related to the State funded Program/Project.

Invoices:

1. Invoices from vendors and subcontractors for expenditures submitted to the State for payments under the Grant Agreement.

2. Documentation linking subcontractor invoices to State reimbursement, requests and related Grant Agreement budget line items.

3. Reimbursement requests submitted to the State for the Grant Agreement.

Cash Documents:

1. Receipts (copies of warrants) showing payments received from the State.

2. Deposit slips (or bank statements) showing deposit of the payments received from the State.

3. Cancelled checks or disbursement documents showing payments made to vendors, subcontractors, consultants, and/or agents under the grants or loans.

4. Bank statements showing the deposit of the receipts.

Accounting Records:

1. Ledgers showing entries for funding receipts and cash disbursements.

2. Ledgers showing receipts and cash disbursement entries of other funding sources.

3. Bridging documents that tie the general ledger to requests for Grant Agreement reimbursement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 35 of 43 ends

Administration Costs:

1. Supporting documents showing the calculation of administration costs.

Personnel:

1. List of all contractors and Agency staff that worked on the State funded Program/Project.

2. Payroll records including timesheets for contractor staff and the Agency personnel who provided services charged to the program
Project Files:

1. All supporting documentation maintained in the project files.

2. All Grant Agreement related correspondence.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 36 of 43 ends

Exhibit I

PROJECT LOCATION
DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 37 of 43 ends

Figure 1-1

ENTERPRISE ANDERSON GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY LOCATION

ROSEWOOD BOWMAN

MILLVILLE
i
r
j
I
i
I'

SOUTH I

BATTLE J

CREEK I
l
• l
~
~
'--------------,r:;;c'------------------''--~-------~a,::_____J.,.., , Project Area Map
Underrep.msented Community
ANDERSON AJ\ID ENfTERPRISE SUB BASINS
~0-, ~ t ~ :31:2
• •
-=-..... Q , 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 38 of 43 ends

Figure 1-2
Project Location/Underrepresented Communities Map
Wh1skeytown-Shasta~Trinity
National Recreation Area

ROSEWOOD
ANDERS0 N
BOWMAN

MILLVILLE
!
i
J
!
L _______ _.t_~ _________ _L____.,.._ _ _ ___:;.,, ~ ,..~ . ... ~ .• ~J c:::I Orounct,.,ate1 S-.t>be&lns - SeverlyOlsadvMtage<l Arldet'&On and Communi1y (SOAC)
c:::a Emerprise Subb!lisins - Oi-=IY'9nla,god
lrt~•Ba,in Porcel, Comm~ ky (OAC)
- MJ1io1Roads
EAGSA Project Area Map
DAC/SDAC Areas

ANDERSON ANO ENTERPRISE SUBBASINS
-=-loll':,
• • 2
DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 39 of 43 ends

Figure 1-3
Project Location/DAC/SDAC Areas Map
Whtskeytown-Shasta-Trinity
National ReCteation Area

ROSEWOOD
- ~ ' '" 3l.tlb;a~~ r:iZ::1 1.(lW roput,OO(l l)Efl"~
- ~ooard f,liJ Pf\lject~~Mil
~--SubbMitWI _ I.I~ Ro.ldS

ANDERSON
EAGSA Project Area Map
Economically Distressed Areas

ANDERSON ANO ENTERPRISE SUBBASINS
BOWMAN

MILLVILLE
l

SOUTH II
BATTL

CREEK I
DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 40 of 43 ends

Exhibit J

MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE PLAN COMPONENTS AND GUIDANCE Introduction
• Goals and objectives of project
• Site location and history
• Improvements implemented
• Monitoring and Reporting Plan
For each construction Component or Project contained in Exhibit A, a post-performance monitoring and reporting plan shall be submitted according to the Monitoring Method(s) developed by DWR. The Monitoring Methods are designed to provide the necessary steps needed to monitor Components or Project within the grant to DWR’s monitoring standards. The detailed Monitoring Methods and protocols specific to the Components or Project listed in Exhibit A will be provided by the Grant Manager. The full monitoring method report is available on the SGM Grant Program website at: www.water.ca.gov/sgmgrants.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 41 of 43 ends

Exhibit K

APPRAISAL SPECIFICATIONS
“NOT APPLICABLE”
.

DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 42 of 43 ends

Exhibit L

INFORMATION NEEDED FOR ESCROW PROCESSING AND CLOSURE
“NOT APPLICABLE”
DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds) Grant Agreement No. 4600015648

Page 43 of 43 ends

EXHIBIT M

INVOICE GUIDANCE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND OVERHEAD CHARGES The funds provided pursuant to this Agreement may only be used for costs that are directly related to the funded Project. The following provides a list of typical requirements for invoicing, specifically providing guidance on the appropriate methods for invoicing administrative and direct overhead charges.

Administration Charges
Indirect and General Overhead (i.e., indirect overhead) charges are not an allowable expense for reimbursement. However, administrative expenses that are apportioned directly to the project are eligible for reimbursement. Cost such as rent, office supplies, fringe benefits, etc. can be “Direct Costs” and are eligible expenses as long as:
• There is a consistent, articulated method for how the costs are allocated that is submitted and approved by the Grant Manager. The allocation method must be fully documented for auditors. • A “fully-burdened labor rate” can be used to capture allowable administrative costs. • The administrative/overhead costs can never include:
o Non-project specific personnel and accounting services performed within the Grantee or an LPS’ organization
o Generic markup
o Tuition
o Conference fees
o Building and equipment depreciation or use allowances • Using a general overhead percentage is never allowed
Labor Rates
The Grantee must provide DWR with supporting documentation for personnel hours (see personnel billing rates letter in example invoice packet). The personnel rate letter should be submitted to the DWR Grant Manager prior to submittal of the first invoice. The supporting documentation must include, at a minimum, employee classifications that will reimbursed by grant funds and the corresponding hourly rate range. These rates should be “burdened”; the burdened rate must be consistent with the Grantee’s/Local Project Sponsors standardized allocation methodology. The supporting documentation should also provide an explanation of what costs make up the burdened rate and how those costs were determined. This information will be used to compare against personnel hours summary table invoice back up documentation. Periodic updates may be needed during the life of the grant which would be handled through a revised billing rate letter DocuSign Envelope ID: B94CD9D3-390C-4200-9184-316C249ECC52 Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: SGMA Implementation Grant Agreement (4.11(a)--Adopt Budget Resolution to Appropriate EAGSA Grant Funds)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Authorize and approve the following actions regarding State of California Department of Transportation Highway Bridge Program grant funding:
(1) Accept additional grant funds awarded to the City of Redding for the Westside Road Bridge over Canyon Hollow Creek Replacement Project; and (2) Adopt Resolution approving and adopting the 37th Amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 2023-060 appropriating $2,633,760 for the Project.

Fiscal Impact
Funding for the Westside Road Bridge over Canyon Hollow Creek Replacement Project (Project) is from the Highway Bridge Program (HBP) at 88.53 percent, while the remaining funds, 11.47 percent, will be matched with City or Redding (City) Traffic Impact Fees (TIF). An additional $2,633,760 in HBP grant funds have been allocated to the City for the Project.

However, no additional TIF funds need to be allocated at this time. These additional grant funds will allow staff to complete the project design and advertise for construction. Previously allocated HBP funds in the amount of $1,447,470 were insufficient to complete the project.

The total bridge project (including design, environmental, right-of-way, and construction) is estimated to be approximately $4,651,446, with $4,081,231 funded by the HBP program and the remaining $570,215 coming from Citywide TIF.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) may choose not to accept the additional grant funding. In this case, the City would lose $2,633,760 in grant funding for the project and additional City funds would need to be used to complete the project. Alternatively, the Council could choose not to proceed with the project and the City would need to reimburse the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for costs incurred to date.

MEETING DATE: March 19, 2024
ITEM NO. 4.11(b)
FROM:
***APPROVED BY***
[email protected] [email protected]
SUBJECT: 4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds from State of California Department of Transportation and Adopt Budget Resolution Appropriating Funds Michael Webb, Public Works
Director
Packet Pg. 319
Report to Redding City Council March 11, 2024
Re: 4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution Page 2 Background/Analysis
On August 5, 2015, the Council appropriated HBP funds in the amount of $1,270,410 to hire a consultant to support staff in the preparation of design and construction documents for the project. In addition, $177,060 in HBP funds were previously appropriated on March 6, 2012 for the initial request for the proposal process and project scoping. As the project has proceeded through the various stages of design, environmental review, and right-of-way, the estimates and plans have become more refined and detailed. Staff submitted the required documentation to Caltrans, the agency that administers the HBP Program, to request additional HBP funds to fully fund the project. On January 4, 2024, Caltrans approved the City’s request.

Construction for the bridge is anticipated to begin in Summer 2024 and continue through Fall 2025.

Environmental Review
This action, accepting additional grant funding, is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act. On June 16, 2020, the Council approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and approved the Project. No further action is required.

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

Attachments
^Resolution
^Location Map
Previous Staff Report 8-5-15
Previous staff report 06-16-20
Packet Pg. 320
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 37TH AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2023-060
APPROPRIATING $2,633,760 IN FEDERAL GRANT FUNDING FOR THE WESTSIDE

ROAD BRIDGE OVER CANYON HOLLOW CREEK REPLACEMENT PROJECT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING THAT Budget Resolution No. 2023-060 be and is hereby amended as follows:

FUND DIVISION DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE
151 1671 Transportation Grant Projects $2,633,760
THAT account titles and numbers requiring adjustments by this Resolution are as follows:

USE SOURCE

OF FUNDS OF FUNDS
Increase (Decrease) Revenue
151-1671-3608001-00000
Federal Grant Capital -
Public Works $ 2,633,760
Increase Expenditures
151-1671-7700010-00000 Bridges $ 2,633,760
Total $ 2,633,760 $ 2,633,760
THAT the purpose is to appropriate $2,633,760 in Federal grant funding for the Westside Road Bridge Over Canyon Hollow Creek Replacement project for the fiscal year 2023-2024.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Redding on the 19th day of March, 2024, and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

TENESSA AUDETTE, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVAL:

SHARLENE TIPTON, City Clerk CHRISTIAN M. CURTIS, City Attorney Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: ^Resolution (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) X:\Projects\Westside Rd at Canyon Hollow Bridge_2475\Design\Plans\Drawings\Location Map.dwg, CC 8x11 Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: ^Location Map (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO REDDING CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Accept $ 11,210,707 in federal funding from the Highway Bridge Program ( HBP); and adopt a resolution approving the 4th Amendment to City Budget Resolution No. 2015-057 appropriating 12,376, 456 ($ 11,210, 707 in HBP grant funds and $ 1,165,749 in City Traffic Impact Fee ( TIF) match funds) for the rehabilitation (one bridge) and replacement (five bridges) of various bridges throughout the City of Redding.

Background
On September 7, 2010, the City Council ( Council) authorized staff to submit several applications for federal funding for the rehabilitation or replacement of local bridge structures. Caltrans accepted the City’s applications and programmed funding for each bridge in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program ( FTIP). On March 6, 2012, Council accepted the HBP funding to allow staff to begin preliminary engineering on these various bridges. At this time, staff is continuing with the design phase of the bridges and will then move into right- of-way acquisition and construction. Funding to be accepted and adopted by budget resolution is as follows:

Sacramento Drive at Olney Creek - $ 2,213, 000 ( HBP)
Old Alturas at Churn Creek - $2,453,569 (HBP) and $317,886 (TIF) Eastside Road at Canyon Hollow Creek - $1,355,394 (HBP) and $175,606 (TIF) Girvan Road at Olney Creek - $2,239,809 (HBP) and $290,191 (TIF) Westside Road at Canyon Hollow Creek - $1,270,406 (HBP) and $164,595 (TIF) Canyon Road at ACID - $1,678,529 (HBP) and $217,471 (TIF) MEETING DATE: August 5, 2015
ITEM NO. 4.11(b)
B-050-100/S-070-050]
FROM:

SUBJECT: 4.11(b)--Accept Federal Highway Bridge Program Funding and Adopt Budget Resolution Appropriating HBP and TIF Funds for Rehabilitation or Replacement of Various Bridges
APPROVED BY***
Department Director: City Manager:

Brian Crane, Public Works
Director
Packet Packet Pg. 323 Pg. 175 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 8-5-15 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) Report to Redding City Council July 26, 2015
Re: 4.11(b)--Accept Federal Highway Bridge Program Funding Page 2 All but one of the bridge sites requires an 11.47 percent match with local funds, while the remaining 88.53 percent is funded by the HBP. The Sacramento Drive at Olney Creek Bridge is an off-system bridge which is also 88.5 HBP funding but the local match is picked up by the State’ s toll credit program.

Issue
Should Council accept Federal Highway Bridge Program funding for the design and construction of various bridges in the City of Redding and adopt the attached budget resolution appropriating 11,210, 707 in HBP grant funds and $ 1,165, 749 in City TIF match funds? Alternatives; Implication of Alternatives
The Council has the option of selecting one of the following alternatives:

1. Accept $11,210,707 in HBP funds and adopt the attached budget resolution appropriating the $ 11,210, 707 in HBP grant funds and $ 1,165, 749 in City Traffic Impact Fee ( TIF) match funds. This will make additional funds available so that work may continue on these various bridge projects. ( Staff Recommendation)

2. Do not accept the HBP funds or adopt the budget resolution and provide alternate direction to staff. This could delay the bridge rehabilitation or replacements and risk the loss of $11,210,707 in HBP funds.

Fiscal Impact
The majority of the funding for these projects will come from the Federal HBP , with the remaining funding coming from Traffic Impact Fees. The FTIP has programmed all necessary funds for the various bridges, and the remaining TIF portion funding has been approved within the current City budget.

Conclusion
Accepting the HBP funds and adopting the budget resolution will allow staff to continue working on the design of these projects, which, when completed, will replace several old bridges that have been designated as either " structurally deficient" or “ functionally obsolete,” per Caltrans Bridge Inspection Reports.
c: Chuck Aukland, Public Works Assistant Director
James Triantafyllou, Project Coordinator
Corri Vandiver, Associate Civil Engineer
Attachments:

Resolution
Bridge Exhibit
Packet Packet Pg. 324 Pg. 176 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 8-5-15 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) Resolution No. 2015 - ____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF REDDING APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 4TH AMENDMENT TO CITY BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2015-057 APPROPRIATING 12,376,456 IN HIGHWAY BRIDGE PROGRAM FUNDING FOR VARIOUS REDDING BRIDGE PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 AS REFERENCED IN AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE SHASTA COUNTY 2015 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (FTIP) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-16.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING THAT Budget Resolution No. 2015-057 be and is hereby amended as follows:

FUND DIVISION DESCRIPTION INCREASE DECREASE
128 563 Traffic Impact Fees $ 1,165,749
128 566 Transportation Grant Projects $ 11,210,707
THAT account titles and numbers requiring adjustments by this Resolution are as follows:

USE OF
FUNDS
SOURCE

OF FUNDS
Decrease Fund Balance
128-563-1-0001-01 Beginning Balance $ 1,165,749
Increase Revenue
128-566-6-2650-18 Federal Grant Capital Public Work $ 11,210,707 Increase Expenditures
128-563-0-4908-04
128-566-0-4908-04
128-566-0-3572-03
128-566-0-4908-05
128-566-0-3572-03
128-563-0-4908-06
128-566-0-4908-06
128-563-0-4908-07
128-566-0-4908-07
128-563-0-4908-08
128-566-0-4908-08
128-563-0-4908-09
128-566-0-4908-09
Old Alturas Bridge
Old Alturas Bridge
Old Alturas Bridge
Sacramento/Olney Bridge
Sacramento/Olney Bridge
Eastside/Canyon Bridge
Eastside/Canyon Bridge
Girvan/Olney Bridge
Girvan/Olney Bridge
Railroad(Westside)/Canyon Bridge
Railroad(Westside)/Canyon Bridge
Canyon/ACID Bridge
Canyon/ACID Bridge
317,886
2,253,491
200,078
2,113,000
100,000
175,606
1,355,394
290,191
2,239,809
164,595
1,270,406
217,471
1,678,529
12,376,456 $ 12,376,456
THAT the purpose is to appropriate an additional $12,376,456 in Highway Bridge Program funding for various Redding bridge projects for Fiscal Year 2015-16 as referenced in Amendment No. 3 to the Shasta County 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP).

Packet Packet Pg. 325 Pg. 177 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 8-5-15 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) 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 21st day of July 2015 and was duly adopted at said meeting by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

FRANCIE SULLIVAN, Mayor
ATTEST: FORM APPROVAL:

PAMELA MIZE, City Clerk BARRY E. DeWALT, City Attorney
Packet Packet Pg. 326 Pg. 178 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 8-5-15 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution)

SACRAMENTO DR AT OLNEY CREEK

OLD ALTURAS AT CHURN CREEK

EASTSIDE ROAD AT CANYON HOLLOW CREEK

GIRVAN RD AT OLNEY CREEK

WESTSIDE ROAD AT CANYON HOLLOW CREEK

CANYON ROAD AT ACID
Packet Packet Pg. 327 Pg. 179 Attachment: Previous Staff Report 8-5-15 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution)

CITY OF REDDING

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Recommendation
Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration ( MND), the Mitigation Monitoring Program ( MMP), and approve the Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project ( Project) as described, thereby satisfying the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines §15074).

Fiscal Impact
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 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program.

The Eastside Road bridge replacement is estimated to cost $ 2,683, 200, and the Westside Road bridge replacement is estimated to cost $2,985,612. Approximately 88 percent of the cost for the Project will be funded through a grant from the Federal Highway Bridge Program. The remaining $650,000 will be a local match from the Traffic Impact Fee Program.

Alternative Action
The City Council (Council) can choose to not adopt the MND and the MMP. Without approval, the project would not proceed, as it would not be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Future opportunities for Highway Bridge Program grant funding would also be jeopardized.

MEETING DATE: June 16, 2020
ITEM NO. 4.11(b)
FROM:

APPROVED BY***
[email protected] btippin@cityofredding. org
SUBJECT: 4.11(b)--Adoption of the Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Mitigation and Monitoring Program Chuck Aukland, Public
Works Director
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) Report to Redding City Council June 8, 2020
Re: 4.11( b)--Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project Page 2 Background/Analysis
The project is located on the east side and west side of State Route 273, respectively, approximately 650 feet south of the intersection of State Route 273 and Buenaventura Boulevard. The project will replace the existing Eastside Road Bridge with a new two-lane, twospan cast- in-place reinforced concrete slab- bridge. The proposed structure will provide two 12- foot travel lanes, 8-foot shoulders, one 6-foot wide sidewalk, and concrete barriers.

Approximately 300 feet of roadway will be reconstructed at both approaches to conform to the new bridge.

The Westside Road Bridge will be replaced with a new two- lane, three- span cast- in-place reinforced concrete slab-bridge. The proposed bridge will provide two 12-foot travel lanes, 4- foot shoulders, one 6-foot wide sidewalk, and barriers. The roadway will be reconstructed approximately 175 feet to the south and 325 feet to the north to conform to the new bridge.

Construction of both bridges will be staged to allow a single lane of alternating traffic, controlled by temporary signals.

The in-channel work area extends approximately 25 feet upstream and downstream of the new bridges to allow access into the channel during construction and underground utility relocations.

Additional project work includes extending the sidewalk along select approaches, storm drain modification, paving, striping, and sign installation. Specifically, Pacific Gas and Electric PG& E) gas lines, City of Redding (City) water lines, and AT&T underground phone and fiber lines would require relocation at the proposed Eastside Road Bridge and Westside Road Bridge.

The PG&E gas line relocations and AT&T underground will require trench excavation depths up to approximately 12 feet deep.

Two staging areas are proposed for the project. The first staging area is within a disturbed dirt area located at the northeast quadrant of the Eastside Road Bridge. The second staging area is a paved section of abandoned roadway located 130 feet north of the Westside Road Bridge.

Roadway and structure improvements fall within City and private right -of-way. It is anticipated the project will require temporary construction easements, and encroachment permits/agreements will be obtained from California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) and the Union Pacific Railroad for construction access. The Westside Road Bridge is anticipated to be built in 2021 , and would require two seasons of construction. The Eastside Road Bridge is anticipated to be constructed in 2022, and would also require two seasons of construction.

An Initial Study ( IS) was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the 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, impact minimization, exclusionary fencing, and erosion control.

Based on the conclusions made in the IS, a MND was prepared. The MND describes the project, including mitigation measures, and makes the determination that there will be no significant effect on the environment provided that the defined mitigation measures are implemented as part of the project. In addition, a 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.

Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) Report to Redding City Council June 8, 2020
Re: 4.11( b)--Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project Page 3 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. Two comment letters were received during the public comment period. Responses to the comment letters have been prepared and are attached to the final MND.

The City is the lead agency for the project pursuant to CEQA. As the lead CEQA agency, the Council is authorized to adopt the MND per Redding Municipal Code Section §18.24.070.E and state law. Upon adoption of the MND and approval of the project by the Council, a Notice of Determination will be filed with the Shasta County Clerk’ s Office and the State Clearinghouse, completing the environmental review process.

The IS/MND is available in the City Clerk’ s office for review and is also available online at https://www.cityofredding.org/departments/public-works/environmental-management.

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

Attachments
Location Map
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Monitoring Program ( available online)
Eastside & Westside Bridges Initial Study May 2020 ( available online) Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution)

BUENAVENTURA BLVD

RADIOLN

ELRENOLN
PRAYRD

PROGRESS DRTECHNOLOGYWAYCANYON CREEK RDWESTSIDE RDRAILR O ADAVESTATE HWY273EASTSIDE

RDBRESLA
U
E
ITEM:

Y
ATTACHMENT:

WMTG.

A
DATE: R

LOCATION MAPGIS

DIVISIONINFORMATION TECHNOLOGYDEPARTMENT
DATEPRODUCED:
0400200Feet- EASTSIDE ROAD & WESTSIDEROAD BRIDGES
REPLACEMENTP:\Environmental
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project Page 1 May 2020

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

EASTSIDE ROAD AND WESTSIDE ROAD BRIDGES REPLACEMENT

PROJECT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2020049034)

SUBJECT
Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Redding proposes to replace the Eastside Road Bridge (Bridge No. 06C0085) and the Westside Road Bridge (Bridge No. 06C0071) over Canyon Hollow Creek in the City of Redding, Shasta County, California. The project will replace the existing Eastside Road Bridge with a new two-lane, twospan cast-in-place reinforced concrete slab bridge. The proposed structure will provide two 12-foot travel lanes, 8-foot shoulders, one 6-foot wide sidewalk, and concrete barriers. Approximately 300-feet of road will be reconstructed at both approaches to conform to the new bridge. The Westside Road Bridge will be replaced with a new two-lane, three-span cast-in-place reinforced concrete slab bridge. The proposed bridge will provide two 12-foot travel lanes, 4-ft shoulders, one 6-foot wide sidewalk, and barriers. The road will be reconstructed approximately 175 to the south and 325 feet to the north to conform to the new bridge. Construction of both bridges will be staged to allow a single lane of alternating traffic, controlled by temporary signals.

The in-channel work area extends approximately 25-feet upstream and downstream of the new bridges to allow access into the channel during construction and underground utility relocations. Additional Project work includes extending the sidewalk along some approaches, storm drain modification, paving, striping, and sign installation. Specifically, PG& E gas lines, City of Redding water lines, and AT&T underground phone and fiber lines would require relocation at the proposed Eastside Road Bridge and Westside Road Bridge. The PG& E gas line relocations and AT&T underground will require trench excavation depths up to approximately 12 feet deep.

Two staging areas are proposed for the Project. The first staging area is within in a disturbed dirt area located at the northeast quadrant of the Eastside Road Bridge. The second staging area is a paved section of abandoned roadway located 130-feet north of the Westside Road Bridge. Roadway and structure improvements fall within City and private right-of-way. It is anticipated the Project will require sliver strips of right-of-way to be acquired for the proposed bridge replacements, and an encroachment permit will be obtained from Caltrans for construction access.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Eastside and Westside Road Bridges are located on the east side and west side of State Route 273, respectively, approximately 650 feet south of the intersection of State Route 273 and Buenaventura Boulevard. The bridges are located on major urban collectors that serve various commercial businesses.

Eastside Road and Westside Road are located in an urban area, are bordered by commercial and industrial Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 2 ends

May 2020
businesses, and are separated by the Union Pacific Railroad and State Route 273. Canyon Hollow Creek runs beneath the two bridges, from the west toward the east.

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. Use of specific mitigation measures identified below will avoid or mitigate the potentially significant environmental effects identified, and the preparation of an environmental impact report will not be required. Ifthere 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 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 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 start of construction, a focused botanical survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist during the blooming period for silky cryptantha within the BSA. If silky cryptantha is not found during the botanical survey no other measures will be required. If silky cryptantha is discovered during the focused botanical surveys, the plants will be marked by a qualified biologist. Ifthe area can be avoided, exclusionary fencing will be placed around the plants and no pedestrian or vehicular entry shall be allowed. Ifthe area cannot be avoided, the City will coordinate with CDFW to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the species. Potential measures for reducing project impacts on special status plants include limiting ground disturbance until annual special status plants have gone to seed and stockpiling top soil during the initial excavation to be replaced as the top layer during the final site rehabilitation. If listed species are found and cannot be avoided an Incidental Take Permit may be needed.

MM-2: Work within Canyon Hollow Creek shall be restricted to the dry season (June 1 to October 15).

Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Works Department, Engineering Division Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project Page 3 May 2020
MM-3: Any new gravel material placed in the channel shall meet Caltrans’ cleanness test (California Test No. 227) with a value of 85 or higher.

MM-4: Riparian vegetation disturbed inthe temporary use areas on the west side of Westside Road Bridge and on the east side of Eastside Road Bridge shall be restored both by revegetation and by promoting regrowth of plants that were pruned and protected prior to work. Where feasible, revegetated areas shall be planted at a ratio of 3 new plants for every large (>3 inches) woody riparian plant removed (3:1 ratio). In areas of regrowth of large woody riparian vegetation, all regrowth will be monitored and maintained, and counted at a 1:1 ratio. These replanting ratios will help ensure successful establishment of at least one vigorous plant for each plant removed to accommodate the project.

MM-5: To the extent practicable, removal of large trees with cavities shall occur before bat maternity colonies form (i.e., prior to March 1) or after young are volant (i.e., after August 31). If construction including the removal of large trees) occurs during the bat non-volant season ( March 1 through August 31), a qualified professional shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the study area to locate maternity colonies and identify measures to protect colonies from disturbance. 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 professional, in consultation with CDFW, to ensure the colony is protected from project activities.

MM-6: If vegetation removal or construction activities will occur during the nesting season for migratory birds or raptors (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey no more than 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.

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

PUBLICREVIEW
X) Draft document referred for comments 04/15/2020–05/15/2020 Date
No comments were received during the public review period.

Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 4 ends

May 2020
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.

X ) 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).

Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Initial Study, documentation materials, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program may be obtained at the Planning Division Public Works Department, City of Redding, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001. Contact: Amber Kelley, Environmental Compliance Manager, (530) 225-4046 or [email protected].

Date of
Draft Report: April 6, 2020 By:

Name/ Title: Amber Kelley
Environmental Compliance Manager
Date of
Final Report May 30, 2020
Attachments:

A. Project Location Map
B. Initial Study
C. Mitigation Monitoring and Environmental Commitment Program D. Comments and Response to Comments (if any)
Amber Kelley
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project Response to Public Comments Received on CEQA Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration, State Clearinghouse # 2020049034
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ( IS/MND) for the Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project was made available to the public and interested agencies for a minimum 30-day review period. The agency review period was managed by the State Clearinghouse ( SCH) and closed on May 14, 2020. The public review period was managed by staff and closed on May 15, 2020. All written comments received during the public and agency review period are attached, along with written responses to environmental issues raised by commenters on the IS/MND. Comments received on the public draft IS/MND do not identify new significant impacts or significant new information that would require recirculation of the draft IS/MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073. 5. This technical memorandum is being used to summarize comments and support adoption of the public draft IS/MND.

Response to Comments
In addition to confirmation from the State Clearinghouse that the 30-day posting requirement was met, a total of two comment letters were received regarding the IS/MND. The confirmation notice and comment letters are attached to this technical memorandum in the order indicated:

State Clearinghouse Compliance Notification ( Letter A) California Department of Toxic Substances Control ( Letter B) California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( Letter C)

1. Letter A confirms project compliance with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to CEQA. No response is needed for this letter.

2. Letter B was submitted by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and includes six comments.

Comment B1. Release of Hazardous Waste/ Substances
Response: Hazardous waste is addressed in Section IX. “Hazards and Hazardous Waste” of the Initial Study. The threat to public health and the environment was evaluated and it was determined that the project would have a less than significant impact.

Comment B2. Aerially Deposited Lead
Response: Caltrans contract specifications are being used for the project and soils will be characterized and managed in accordance with the June 2016 Soil Management Agreement for Aerially Deposited Lead- Contaminated Soils ( DTSC, 2016) or subsequent updates.

Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) 2 Comment B3. Mining Activities
Response: There have been no known mining activities within the project area or vicinity.

Comment B4. Lead Contamination
Response: Caltrans contract specifications are being used for the project, including Caltrans Standard Special Provision 36-4 ( Residue Containing High Lead Concentration Paints).

Comment B5. Imported Soil
Response: In accordance with the contract specifications, the contractor is required to provide clean fill material.

Comment B6. Pesticides
Response: The project area has not been used for agriculture or weed abatement activities.

3. Letter C was submitted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( CDFW) and includes three comments.

Comment C1. Bats
Response: Slab bridge structures are not bat friendly as they rarely provide habitat value unless there are deterioration hollows, expansion joints, or other similar features that provide day roost crevices or hollows. The existing bridges are continuous reinforced concrete slab bridges with no joints and they do not provide bat habitat. Numerous engineering and biological bridge inspections have confirmed the lack of habitat and lack of bat presence at the project location.

Comment C2. Permit and Vegetation Replanting Concurrence Response: Comment noted.

Comment C3. Trenching
Response: The City of Redding construction standards require all trenches be covered securely at the end of each work day to ensure safety, and pipes are inspected prior to modification or movement.

Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) From: Justin Le
To: Kelley, Amber
Subject: SCH# 2020049034
Date: Thursday, May 14, 2020 2: 14: 11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Redding; please be careful with links or attachments.

The State Clearinghouse would like to inform you that our office will be transitioning from providing a hard copy of acknowledging the close of review period on your project to electronic mail system.

Please visit: https:// ceqanet. opr.ca.gov/ 2020049034 for full details about your project and if any state agencies submitted comments by close of review period (note: any state agencies in bold, submitted comments and are available).

This email acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

Please email the State Clearinghouse at [email protected] for any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above- named project, please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.

Justin Le | Student Assistant
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse Unit
1400 10th Street, Room 113
Sacramento, CA 95814
916) 445-0613
Letter A
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) Printed on Recycled Paper
April 22, 2020
Ms. Amber Kelly
City of Redding
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, California 96001
akelley@cityofredding. org

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR EASTSIDE ROAD AND WESTSIDE ROAD BRIDGES REPLACEMENT PROJECT – DATED APRIL 2020 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2020049034)
Dear Ms. Kelley:

The Department of Toxic Substances Control ( DTSC) received a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( MND) for Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project. The proposed Project would replace the existing bridges over Canyon Hollow Creek with two new two-lane cast-in-place concrete slab bridges. The proposed structures will provide two 12-foot travel lanes, 4 to 8-foot shoulders, and a 6-foot wide sidewalk. The approach roadways will be reconstructed to conform to the new bridges.

The Project also includes underground utility relocation, sidewalk extension, storm drain modification, paving, striping, and sign installation. Construction of both bridges will be staged to allow a single lane of alternating traffic, controlled by temporary signals. Most work would occur within the City right of way; however, sliver acquisitions and easements may be required.

DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the MND Hazards and Hazardous Materials section:

1. The MND should acknowledge the potential for historic or future activities on or near the project site to result in the release of hazardous wastes/ substances on the project site. In instances in which releases have occurred or may occur, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. The MND should also identify the mechanism( s) to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight.

Letter B
Comment B1
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) Ms. Amber Kelly
April 22, 2020

Page 2 ends

2. Refiners in the United States started adding lead compounds to gasoline in the 1920s in order to boost octane levels and improve engine performance. This practice did not officially end until 1992 when lead was banned as a fuel additive in California. Tailpipe emissions from automobiles using leaded gasoline contained lead and resulted in aerially deposited lead (ADL) being deposited in and along roadways throughout the state. ADL-contaminated soils still exist along roadsides and medians and can also be found underneath some existing road surfaces due to past construction activities. Due to the potential for ADL-contaminated soil DTSC, recommends collecting soil samples for lead analysis prior to performing any intrusive activities for the project described in the MND.

3. If any sites within the project area or sites located within the vicinity of the project have been used or are suspected of having been used for mining activities, proper investigation for mine waste should be discussed in the MND. DTSC recommends that any project sites with current and/or former mining operations onsite or in the project site area should be evaluated for mine waste according to DTSC’ s 1998 Abandoned Mine Land Mines Preliminary Assessment Handbook https:// dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/ uploads/ sites/31/2018/11/aml_handbook. pdf).

4. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition and disposal of any of the above- mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’ s 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead Based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers
https://dtsc.ca.gov/wpcontent/ uploads/ sites/31/2018/09/Guidance_ Lead_ Contamination_ 050118. pdf).

5. If any projects initiated as part of the proposed project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the imported materials be characterized according to DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material (https://dtsc.ca.gov/wpcontent/ uploads/ sites/31/2018/09/SMP_FS_Cleanfill- Schools. pdf).

6. If any sites included as part of the proposed project have been used for agricultural, weed abatement or related activities, proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides should be discussed in the MND. DTSC recommends the current and former agricultural lands be evaluated in accordance with DTSC’ s 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision) (https://dtsc.ca.gov/wpcontent/ uploads/ sites/31/2018/09/Ag-Guidance- Rev-3-August- 7-2008-2.pdf).

Comment B2
Comment B3
Comment B4
Comment B5
Comment B6
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) Ms. Amber Kelly
April 22, 2020

Page 3 ends

DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND. Should you need any assistance with an environmental investigation, please submit a request for Lead Agency Oversight Application, which can be found at: https://dtsc.ca.gov/wpcontent/ uploads/ sites/31/2018/09/VCP_App-1460.doc. Additional information regarding voluntary agreements with DTSC can be found at: https://dtsc.ca.gov/brownfields/.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 255-3710 or via email at Gavin. McCreary@dtsc. ca.gov.

Sincerely,
Gavin McCreary
Project Manager
Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit
Site Mitigation and Restoration Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
cc: ( via email)
Governor’ s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
State.Clearinghouse@opr. ca.gov
Ms. Lora Jameson, Chief
Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Lora.Jameson@dtsc. ca.gov
Mr. Dave Kereazis
Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Dave.Kereazis@dtsc. ca.gov
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Northern Region
601 Locust Street
Redding, CA 96001
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’ s Wildlife Since 1870
May 13, 2020
Amber Kelley, Environmental Compliance Manager
City of Redding
Public Works Department
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, CA 96001
Subject: Review of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridge Replacement Project, State Clearinghouse Number 2020049034, Anderson, Shasta County
Dear Amber Kelley:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) dated April 2020, for the above-referenced project Project). As a trustee for the State’ s fish and wildlife resources, the Department has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and their habitat. As a responsible agency, the Department administers the California Endangered Species Act and other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that conserve the State’ s fish and wildlife public trust resources. The Department offers the following comments and recommendations on this Project in our role as a trustee and responsible agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.

Project Description
The Project as proposed is to replace the Eastside Road Bridge (Bridge No. 06C0085) and the Westside Road Bridge (Bridge No. 06C0071) over Canyon Hollow Creek. The existing Eastside Road Bridge will be replaced with a new two-lane, two-span cast-inplace reinforced concrete slab bridge. The existing Westside Road Bridge will be replaced with a new two-lane, three-span cast-in-place reinforced concrete slab bridge.

In addition to replacing the bridges, work will also include extending the sidewalk along some approaches, storm drain modification, paving, striping, and sign installation. PG&E gas lines, City of Redding water lines, and AT&T underground phone and fiber optic lines will require relocation with trench excavation depths up to 12 feet deep. Two staging areas will be used, the first within a disturbed dirt area located at the northeast quadrant of the Eastside Road Bridge and the second in a paved section of abandoned roadway located 130-feet north of the Westside Road Bridge.

Letter C
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) Amber Kelley, Environmental Compliance Manager
May 13, 2020

Page 2 ends

Comments and Recommendations
The Department has the following recommendations and comments as they pertain to biological resources.

Bats
The Natural Environment Study dated January 2020 and prepared by Dokken Engineering, states that no western red bats (Lasiurus blossevillii) were observed during the site visit on November 30, 2017, and there was no habitat for other special status bat species present onsite. A focused bat survey was not conducted.

Mitigation Measure MM-5 states that bat surveys will be conducted within seven days prior to the start of Project activity if large trees will be removed during the bat maternity season. It goes on to state if the species is discovered during pre-construction surveys, the City will contact the Department to develop avoidance and minimization measures.

There is no discussion about surveying the bridge structures.

Bridges are well documented as providing important maternity and hibernacula roost habitat. According to Caltrans’ Bat and Bridges Technical Bulletin, 93 percent of California’ s rare bat species either use or are likely to use bridges, and 18 of California’ s 24 bat species are documented as using bridges1.

In addition to protecting bats as discussed in MM-5, both the maternity and hibernacula season must be considered. Removal or disturbance of a roost structure during either of these seasons could cause significant impacts to bats as a colony could consist of the entire local population of a species and impacts may lead to high mortality. The availability of suitable roosting habitat is considered a limiting factor for western bat populations. Roost site suitability is often based on a narrow range of suitable temperatures, relative humidity, physical dimensions, etc., and many species exhibit high roost site fidelity.

In order to minimize impacts to roosting bats, the Department recommends the completion of habitat assessments of impacted bridges and large trees to determine if roosting habitat is present well in advance of the start of Project activities. These assessments should be conducted by a biologist with experience surveying for bat roost habitat and knowledge of the ecology of local bat species. Different species may require different mitigation strategies and factors beyond the roost type, such as the rarity of the species and the sensitivity of the species to disturbance, must be considered.

Presence of roosting bats may require additional focused surveys to determine species use, seasonal use patterns, and roost type. Habitat assessments conducted prior to the start of Project activities will allow for time to determine potential impacts to roosting 1Erickson, G.A., et al. 2002. Bat and Bridges Technical Bulletin (Hitchhiker Guide to Bat Roosts).

California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.

Comment
C1
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) Amber Kelley, Environmental Compliance Manager
May 13, 2020

Page 3 ends

bats and develop effective avoidance or mitigation measures and will also reduce the chance for Project delays.

Permitting and Mitigation
The MND states that the project applicant will obtain a 1602 Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement along with other necessary permits. The MND also states that riparian vegetation will be replanted at a 3:1 ratio. The Department concurs with this mitigation ratio for impacts to riparian vegetation. A revegetation plan should be developed and include success criteria and a list of native plants proposed to be used.

The revegetation plan should be reviewed and approved by the Department.

Trenching
According to the MND, trenching to a depth of 12 feet will be required to relocate PG&E gas lines, City of Redding water lines, and AT&T underground phone and fiber optic lines. If the trench remains open at the end of the workday, it should be covered securely, or a ramp should be provided in the trench to prevent wildlife entrapment. If pipes are left out onsite, they should be inspected for animals prior to burying, capping, moving or filling. The Department recommends a mitigation measure be developed and included in the final MND.

If you have any questions, please contact Amy Henderson, Senior Environmental Scientist, at (530) 225-2779, or by e-mail at Amy.Henderson@wildlife. ca.gov.

Sincerely,
Curt Babcock
Habitat Conservation Program Manager
ec: Amber Kelley
City of Redding
[email protected]
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Amy Henderson
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
[email protected]
Comment
C2
Comment
C3
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project Page 1 May 2020

MITIGATION MONITORING AND

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT PROGRAM

EASTSIDE ROAD AND WESTSIDE ROAD BRIDGES REPLACEMENT

PROJECT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2020049034

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CONTENTS
This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Environmental Commitment Program ( MMP/ ECP) for the Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement 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 itself.

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, on-site identification and resolution of environmental problems, and proper reporting to City staff.

Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Mitigation Monitoring Program

Page 2 ends

May 2020
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 of Redding requirements, or conservation measures. These commitments are part of the project, but do not constitute mitigation under CEQA as they have not been incorporated to reduce a potentially significant impact.

MITIGATION MONITORING/ ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT 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 measures.

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. 346 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Mitigation Monitoring Program Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project Page 3 May 2020

MITIGATION MONITORING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT TABLE

FOR THE HOLLOW LANE CULVERT REPLACEMENT PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.)

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

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

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

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

Construction City/
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 shall be covered or shall maintain at least 6 inches of freeboard ( i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of load and the trailer).

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

Construction City/
Construction
Management
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Mitigation Monitoring Program Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project Page 4 May 2020
Best Management Practices ( BMPs)
Timing/
Implementation
Enforcement/
Monitoring
Verification
Date and
Initials
Biological Resources ( BIO)
BIO-1. As required by the City of Redding Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) 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
BIO-2. Appropriate sediment control measures ( e.g., silt fences, straw wattles) shall be in place prior to the onset of construction activities near jurisdictional waters and in project areas where there is a potential for surface runoff to drain into jurisdictional waters. Sediment control measures shall be monitored and maintained until construction activities have ceased.

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 avoided riparian areas.

Construction City/
Construction
Management
BIO-4. Riparian vegetation within temporary construction zones shall be cleanly cut to ground level and then covered with a layer of clean gravel or topsoil as necessary to protect plant viability and prevent damage to remaining root structures during construction.

Construction City/
Construction
Management
BIO-5. All riparian areas and streambanks temporarily disturbed during Project construction will be re-contoured to pre-construction conditions and seeded with a native seed mix.

Construction City/
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
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Mitigation Monitoring Program Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project Page 5 May 2020
Best Management Practices ( BMPs)
Timing/
Implementation
Enforcement/
Monitoring
Verification
Date and
Initials
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 shall 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 shall be conducted in accordance with further direction of the County Coroner or the 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 off site.

Construction City/
Construction
Management
HAZ-3. Secondary containment such as drip pans or absorbent materials shall 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 shall be kept on site at all times for use in the event of an accidental spills.

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

Construction City/
Construction
Management

NOISE ( NOI)
NOI-1. The Contractor shall follow Caltrans Section 14-8.02 of the Standard Specifications.

Construction noise shall not exceed 86 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the job site from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.

Construction City/
Construction
Management
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Mitigation Monitoring Program Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project Page 6 May 2020

CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES
Resource- specific mitigation measures to be used during project implementation include:

Mitigation Measure ( MM)
Timing/
Implementation
Enforcement/
Monitoring
Verification
Date and
Initials
MM-1: Prior to the start of construction, a focused botanical survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist during the blooming period for silky cryptantha within the BSA. If silky cryptantha is not found during the botanical survey no other measures will be required. If silky cryptantha is discovered during the focused botanical surveys, the plants will be marked by a qualified biologist. If the area can be avoided, exclusionary fencing will be placed around the plants and no pedestrian or vehicular entry shall be allowed. If the area cannot be avoided, the City will coordinate with CDFW to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the species.

Potential measures for reducing project impacts on special status plants include limiting ground disturbance until annual special status plants have gone to seed and stockpiling top soil during the initial excavation to be replaced as the top layer during the final site rehabilitation. If listed species are found and cannot be avoided an Incidental Take Permit may be needed.

Preconstruction/
Construction
City/
Construction
Management
MM-2: Work within Canyon Hollow Creek shall be restricted to the dry season ( June 1 to October 15).

Preconstruction/
Construction
City/
Construction
Management
MM-3: Any new gravel material placed in the channel shall meet Caltrans’ cleanness test California Test No. 227) with a value of 85 or higher.

Preconstruction/
Construction
City/
Construction
Management
MM-4: Riparian vegetation disturbed in the temporary use areas on the west side of Westside Road Bridge and on the east side of Eastside Road Bridge shall be restored both by revegetation and by promoting regrowth of plants that were pruned and protected prior to work. Where feasible, revegetated areas shall be planted at a ratio of 3 new plants for every large (> 3 inches) woody riparian plant removed ( 3:1 ratio). In areas of regrowth of large woody riparian vegetation, all regrowth will be monitored and maintained, and counted at a 1:1 ratio. These replanting ratios will help ensure successful establishment of at least one vigorous plant for each plant removed to accommodate the project.

Preconstruction/
Construction
City/
Construction
Management
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Mitigation Monitoring Program Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project Page 7 May 2020
Mitigation Measure ( MM)
Timing/
Implementation
Enforcement/
Monitoring
Verification
Date and
Initials
MM-5: To the extent practicable, removal of large trees with cavities shall occur before bat maternity colonies form (i.e., prior to March 1) or after young are volant ( i.e., after August 31).

If construction ( including the removal of large trees) occurs during the bat non-volant season March 1 through August 31), a qualified professional shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the study area to locate maternity colonies and identify measures to protect colonies from disturbance. 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 professional, in consultation with CDFW, to ensure the colony is protected from project activities.

Preconstruction/
Construction
City/
Construction
Management
MM-6: If vegetation removal or construction activities will occur during the nesting season for migratory birds or raptors ( February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey no more than 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
City/
Construction
Management
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project Page 1 May 2020

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

EASTSIDE ROAD AND WESTSIDE ROAD BRIDGES REPLACEMENT

PROJECT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2020049034)

SUBJECT
Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Redding proposes to replace the Eastside Road Bridge ( Bridge No. 06C0085) and the Westside Road Bridge ( Bridge No. 06C0071) over Canyon Hollow Creek in the City of Redding, Shasta County, California. The project will replace the existing Eastside Road Bridge with a new two-lane, twospan cast- in-place reinforced concrete slab bridge. The proposed structure will provide two 12-foot travel lanes, 8-foot shoulders, one 6-foot wide sidewalk, and concrete barriers. Approximately 300-feet of road will be reconstructed at both approaches to conform to the new bridge. The Westside Road Bridge will be replaced with a new two-lane, three- span cast- in-place reinforced concrete slab bridge. The proposed bridge will provide two 12-foot travel lanes, 4-ft shoulders, one 6-foot wide sidewalk, and barriers. The road will be reconstructed approximately 175 to the south and 325 feet to the north to conform to the new bridge. Construction of both bridges will be staged to allow a single lane of alternating traffic, controlled by temporary signals.

The in-channel work area extends approximately 25-feet upstream and downstream of the new bridges to allow access into the channel during construction and underground utility relocations. Additional Project work includes extending the sidewalk along some approaches, storm drain modification, paving, striping, and sign installation. Specifically, PG& E gas lines, City of Redding water lines, and AT& T underground phone and fiber lines would require relocation at the proposed Eastside Road Bridge and Westside Road Bridge. The PG& E gas line relocations and AT& T underground will require trench excavation depths up to approximately 12 feet deep.

Eastside Road and Westside Road are located in an urban area, are bordered by commercial and industrial Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 2 ends

May 2020
businesses, and are separated by the Union Pacific Railroad and State Route 273. Canyon Hollow Creek runs beneath the two bridges, from the west toward the east.

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. Use of specific mitigation measures identified below will avoid or mitigate the potentially significant environmental effects identified, and the preparation of an environmental impact report will not be required. If there are 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 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 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 start of construction, a focused botanical survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist during the blooming period for silky cryptantha within the BSA. If silky cryptantha is not found during the botanical survey no other measures will be required. If silky cryptantha is discovered during the focused botanical surveys, the plants will be marked by a qualified biologist. If the area can be avoided, exclusionary fencing will be placed around the plants and no pedestrian or vehicular entry shall be allowed. If the area cannot be avoided, the City will coordinate with CDFW to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the species. Potential measures for reducing project impacts on special status plants include limiting ground disturbance until annual special status plants have gone to seed and stockpiling top soil during the initial excavation to be replaced as the top layer during the final site rehabilitation. If listed species are found and cannot be avoided an Incidental Take Permit may be needed.

MM-2: Work within Canyon Hollow Creek shall be restricted to the dry season ( June 1 to October 15).

Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Works Department, Engineering Division Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project Page 3 May 2020
MM-3: Any new gravel material placed in the channel shall meet Caltrans’ cleanness test ( California Test No. 227) with a value of 85 or higher.

MM-4: Riparian vegetation disturbed in the temporary use areas on the west side of Westside Road Bridge and on the east side of Eastside Road Bridge shall be restored both by revegetation and by promoting regrowth of plants that were pruned and protected prior to work. Where feasible, revegetated areas shall be planted at a ratio of 3 new plants for every large (> 3 inches) woody riparian plant removed ( 3:1 ratio). In areas of regrowth of large woody riparian vegetation, all regrowth will be monitored and maintained, and counted at a 1:1 ratio. These replanting ratios will help ensure successful establishment of at least one vigorous plant for each plant removed to accommodate the project.

MM-5: To the extent practicable, removal of large trees with cavities shall occur before bat maternity colonies form ( i.e., prior to March 1) or after young are volant ( i.e., after August 31). If construction including the removal of large trees) occurs during the bat non- volant season ( March 1 through August 31), a qualified professional shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the study area to locate maternity colonies and identify measures to protect colonies from disturbance. 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 professional, in consultation with CDFW, to ensure the colony is protected from project activities.

MM-6: If vegetation removal or construction activities will occur during the nesting season for migratory birds or raptors ( February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey no more than 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.

PUBLIC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
Draft copies or notice of this Mitigated Negative Declaration were distributed to:

PUBLIC REVIEW
X) Draft document referred for comments 04/15/2020– 05/15/2020 Date
No comments were received during the public review period.

Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 4 ends

May 2020
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.

X ) 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).

Date of
Draft Report: April 6, 2020 By:

Name/ Title: Amber Kelley
Environmental Compliance Manager
Date of
Final Report May 30, 2020
Attachments:

A. Project Location Map
B. Initial Study
C. Mitigation Monitoring and Environmental Commitment Program D. Comments and Response to Comments ( if any)
Amber Kelley
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution)

ATTACHMENT
A
Figure 1 – Project Location Map
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution)

BUENAVENTURA BLVD

RADIOLN

ELRENOLN
PRAYRD

PROGRESS DRTECHNOLOGYWAYCANYON CREEK RDWESTSIDE RDRAILR O ADAVESTATE HWY273EASTSIDE

RDBRESLA
U
E
ITEM:

Y
ATTACHMENT:

WMTG.

A
DATE: R

LOCATION MAPGIS

DIVISIONINFORMATION TECHNOLOGYDEPARTMENT
DATEPRODUCED:
0400200Feet- EASTSIDE ROAD & WESTSIDEROAD BRIDGES
REPLACEMENTP:\Environmental
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution)

ATTACHMENT
B
Initial Study
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution)

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

INITIAL STUDY
Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges
Replacement Project
Prepared by:

CITY OF REDDING
Public Works Department
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, California 96001
May 2020
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution)

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 1 ends

May 2020

CITY OF REDDING

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

1. Project Title: Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project

2. Lead agency name and address:

CITY OF REDDING
Public Works Department
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, CA 96001

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Amber Kelley, Environmental Compliance Manager, ( 530) 225-4046

4. Project Location:

The Project is located on the east side and west side of State Route 273, approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of State Route 273 and Buenaventura Boulevard, within the City of Redding, Shasta County, California within the Redding U.S. Geological Survey ( USGS) 7 ½ minute quadrangle.

5. Applicant’ s Name and Address: Representative’ s Name and Address:

CITY OF REDDING Amber Kelley, CITY OF REDDING
Public Works Department Public Works Department
777 Cypress Avenue 777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, CA 96001 Redding, CA 96001

6. General Plan Designation:

General Plan land use designations within the Project area consist of Industrial ( I), Office ( O), and Commercial ( C).

7. Zoning:

Land use designations within the Project area consist of General Industrial ( GI), General Commercial ( GC), and Open Space ( OS).

8. Description of Project:

The City of Redding, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans), is proposing to replace the Eastside Road Bridge ( Bridge No. 06C0085) and Westside Road Bridge Bridge No. 06C0071) over Canyon Hollow Creek with wider concrete slab bridges in the City of Redding, Shasta County, California. The Eastside and Westside Road Bridges are located on the east side and west side of State Route 273, respectively, approximately 650 feet south of the intersection of State Route 273 and Buenaventura Boulevard. The bridges are located on major urban collectors that serve various commercial businesses as well as residents and visitors to the area ( Figure 1. Project Vicinity; Figure 2. Project Location).

Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 2 ends

May 2020
The purpose of the project is to provide crossings over Canyon Hollow Creek that can withstand modern traffic loading demands and meet modern safety standards. Constructed in the 1950s, both of the existing Canyon Hollow Creek bridges have deficient structure widths that match neither the roadway shoulder or sidewalk widths on the approach roadways. As a result, they have both been listed as functionally obsolete. The proposed Project will replace the existing bridges with structures that meet current state and federal bridge standards.

The Project will replace the existing Eastside Road Bridge with a new two-lane two-span bridge.

The proposed bridge will be a cast-in-place, reinforced concrete slab bridge. The proposed structure will provide two 12-foot travel lanes, 8-foot shoulders, and concrete barriers. A 6-foot wide sidewalk will be constructed on the east side of the bridge to accommodate pedestrian traffic, and the new bridge will have a width of 48’- 11” between edges of deck. The overall superstructure depth is 1’- 5”, with a total length of 63 feet. The longer replacement bridge will decrease the restriction in the channel at the bridge and will provide a smoother transition between the wide upstream channel and the narrow channel downstream. The soffit elevation of the proposed bridge will be raised approximately two feet to pass the 100-year flood event with no freeboard.

Approximately 300 feet of road will be reconstructed at both approaches to raise the road to the higher bridge elevation and conform to the new bridge width. Construction will be staged over two construction seasons to allow a single lane of alternating traffic controlled by temporary signals.

In addition to the replacement of the Eastside Road Bridge, the Project will replace the existing Westside Road Bridge with a new two-lane, three- span cast- in-place reinforced concrete slab bridge. The new bridge will be supported on concrete piles and columns at the piers and reinforced concrete diaphragm type abutments supported on concrete spread footings. The proposed bridge will provide two 12-foot travel lanes, 4-ft shoulders, and barriers. A 6-foot wide sidewalk will be constructed on the west side of the bridge to accommodate pedestrian traffic. The bridge will have a width of 40’- 11” between edges of deck. The overall superstructure depth is 1’- 3.5”, with a total length of 84 feet, which matches the existing bridge length. The soffit elevation of the proposed bridge will approximately match the existing bridge and will be set to pass the 100- year flood event with no freeboard. The road will be reconstructed approximately 175 to the south and 325 feet to the north to accommodate the bridge width. Construction will be staged to allow a single lane of alternating traffic, controlled by temporary signals.

Existing utilities in conflict with the proposed Project will be relocated. Specifically, PG& E gas lines, City of Redding water lines, and AT& T underground phone and fiber lines would require relocation at the proposed Eastside Road Bridge and Westside Road Bridge. The PG& E gas line relocations and AT& T underground will require trench excavation depths up to approximately 12 feet deep, and approximately 20 to 25 feet downstream or upstream of the proposed bridge. The proposed method of relocation would be open trenching with excavators or other similar excavation equipment.

The in-channel work area extends approximately 25-feet upstream and downstream of the new bridges to allow access into the channel during construction and underground utility relocations.

Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 3 ends

May 2020
Additional Project work includes extending the sidewalk along some approaches, storm drain modification, paving, striping, and sign installation.

Roadway and structure improvements fall within City and private right-of-way. It is anticipated the Project will require sliver strips of right-of-way to be acquired for the proposed bridge replacements, and an encroachment permit will be obtained from Caltrans for construction access Figure 3. Project Features).

Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) I
0102030
Miles
Source: ESRI 2008; Dokken Engineering10/ 31/ 2017; Created By: brianm SHASTA

SISKIYOU
TEHAMA

TRINITY
MODOC

PLUMASLASSEN BUTTE
5 5
97 UV89
UV299
UV3
UV36
UV44
UV32
UV99
UV273
UV99W
UV3
UV299
UV89
UV299
UV36
UV273
Trinity National Forest
Lassen National Forest
Lassen Volcanic Natl Park
Mendocino National Forest
Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Are
Lava Beds Natl Mon
Plumas National Forest
Six Rivers National Forest
SPAhjumawi Ahjumawi Lava Springs SP
ParkCastle Castle Crags State Park
ParkAnderson Anderson River Park
SPMcArthur- McArthur-Burney FallsSP
ParkEtna Etna City Park
ParkShasta Shasta State Historic Park
ParkJohn John RR Trainor Park
ParkVolonte Volonte Park
V:\2392
Westside bridge\
F1_Vicinity_ 20171031. mxdFIGURE 1 Project Vicinity
BRLS-5068(035) and BRLS-5068(038)
Eastside and Westside Road Bridge Replacement
Projects
City
of
Redding,
Shasta County,
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) ReddingRedding
ST273
Eastside Rd Bechelli Ln Westside Rd Cedars Rd
B
r
a n s t e t
terLnRailroad Ave S
Bon
ny
v
i
e
w
R
dCy p r e s
s
A
v
e
Airp a
r
kD
A
r
Hartnell
ve Parkview
Ave
E Cypress Ave Ellis St Court FreebridgeSt
St
St
Kenyon
Dr
Riviera
Dr
H
o
w
a
r d
D
rBuena
v
e
n
t
u
ra
Blvd
West St Henderson Rd
E
Bonnyview Rd S onomaS tS Wixon
Ln Loc
us tS t Veda St St arlight
Blvd Pionee r
LnW
ilsh
ire
D
r
Cheryl
Dr Radio Ln
L
i
n d e
n A
v
e
Lowden Ln Nicolet L nSta teS t Milo Ave
Gold StElm Ln
BechelliLnW
yndham
L
n
NBon
n
y
vie
w R d Ca n
y
o
n C r
ee
kRd
Bl
u
eBell
D r PolkStLaurel Ave South St Fell St DoveStCalifornia
St H
e m st ed
D rA u b
urn D
r
Bidwell Rd
Leland Ave Fleet St E agle P ky Breslauer W
a
y SummitDrReno Ln
Da
wn r
id g e D rHeller
Ln Mark
St
Greenwo
o
d
St
Rey
A
v
e
M
oore
Rd
Valentine
Ln Sunglow
Dr BellRdR
i
v
e
lla V
is
ta D
r
Grandview
A
v
e
Altamont
Ln
Inez
St Grove St P ray Rd Mahan St A c
ron
LnLagoon Dr
Cliff Dr
Octavia
St Harrison Ave RiversideDrFrances Dr Enchanted Way Aspen Glow
Ln
G rantL ine D r Leila Ave Emily
Way Wolverine
Dr Concord
LnEl
Reno Ln Melo dyLn Wixon Ln
Glory St TerrillStKellyLnWildwood
Dr Vandiver Ln Meairs Ln Chantilly
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) Eastside RoadWestside uenaventura Blvd.·|}þ273·|}
þ273Eastside Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 7 ends

May 2020

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The majority of the Project area is comprised of highly urbanized, industrial land uses including Pacific Supply building materials storage yard, Redding Lumber Transport storage yard, and Fife Metal Fabricating storage yard. Adjacent land uses include commercial uses including Redding Veterinary Clinic, River City Auto, and American Appliance. Canyon Hollow Creek flows through the Project area in a west to east orientation and confluences with the Sacramento River approximately 0.56-mile east of the Project area. The Union Pacific Railroad ( UPRR) train tracks also run through the Project area in a north/ south orientation. This area of Canyon Hollow Creek corridor to the east of Eastside Road is zoned as Open Space. The elevation within the Project area is approximately 495 feet above mean sea level. The City of Redding has annual temperatures ranging from a high of 75 degrees Fahrenheit to a low of 49 degrees Fahrenheit. The average annual rainfall is 34.61 inches, and topography within the Project area is flat.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required ( e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( CDFW)
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB) National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS)
Union Pacific Railroad ( UPRR)
Caltrans

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Consultation letters were sent to the Redding Rancheria, the Wintu Tribe of Northern California, and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe on December 18, 2017 to invite their participation in the Project development process and to request their assistance in the identification of sites of religious and cultural significance or the identification of historic properties that may be affected by the proposed Project.

Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 8 ends

May 2020

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “ Potentially Significant Impact” or “ Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry
Resources Air Quality
X Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/ Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/ Water
Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population/ Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/ Service
Systems Wildfire X
Mandatory Findings of
Significance

DETERMINATION ( TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY)
Based on the initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “ potentially significant impact” or “ potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 9 ends

May 2020
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially significant effects ( a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and ( b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Copies of the Initial Study and related materials and documentation may be obtained at the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001. Contact Amber Kelley at (530) 225- 4046 or akelley@cityofredding. org.

Amber Kelley
Environmental Compliance Manager
Public Works – Engineering
Date
Amber Kelley May 30, 2020
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 10 ends

May 2020

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project.

The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include:

Aesthetics
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology/ Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/ Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Noise
Population/ Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/ Service Systems
Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of Significance
The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the State CEQA Guidelines and used by the City of Redding in its environmental review process.

For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study' s preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the development’ s impacts and to identify mitigation.

For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question, there are four possible responses:

No Impact. The development will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment.

Less Than Significant Impact. The development will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below established thresholds that are significant.

Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The development will have the potential to generate impacts which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the development’ s physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant.

Potentially Significant Impact. The development will have impacts which are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.

Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, so that impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels.

Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 11 ends

May 2020
Prior environmental evaluations applicable to all or part of the project site:

City of Redding General Plan, 2000
City of Redding General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, 2000, SCH # 1998072103

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS/REFERENCES
Appendix A. Natural Environment Study - Minimal Impacts, Dokken Engineering, January 2020 ( on file in the Public Works, Engineering Division)
Appendix B. Biological Assessment, Dokken Engineering, October 2019 ( on file in the Public Works, Engineering Division)
Appendix C. Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Dokken Engineering, July 2019 ( on file in the Public Works, Engineering Division)
Appendix D. Historic Property Survey Report & Archaeological Survey Report, Dokken Engineering, October 2019 ( on file in the Public Works, Engineering Division) Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 12 ends

May 2020
I. AESTHETICS:

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the project: Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views
the site and its surroundings ( public views are those
that are experience from publicly accessible
vantage point).? If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Discussion
a) No Impact. No designated state scenic vistas or highways are within or near the Project area Caltrans 2019); therefore, there would be no impact.
b) No Impact. No designated state scenic vistas or highways are within or near the Project area Caltrans 2019); therefore, no scenic resources within a state scenic highway would be damaged, and there would be no impact.
c) No Impact. The Project is within a heavily urbanized area consisting of industrial and commercial uses. The Project would be consistent with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and no scenic resources would be impacted by the Project; therefore, there would be no impact.
d) No Impact. The Project is within a heavily urbanized area consisting of industrial and commercial uses with many substantial sources of light throughout the Project area. The Project would not create a new substantial source of light or glare which would affect day or nighttime views in the area; therefore, there would be no impact.

Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 13 ends

May 2020
Documentation
The California Department of Transportation “ State Scenic Highways Program” webpage was visited on December 19, 2019. The website can be visited here:
https:// dot.ca.gov/programs/ design/ lap-landscape- architecture- and- community- livability/ lapliv-i-scenic- highways.

City of Redding General Plan, Natural Resources Element, 2000 Mitigation
None necessary.

II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES:

In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural, Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Mode ( 1997) prepared
by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’ s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment
project; and forest carbon measurement methodology
provided bin Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Statewide Importance ( Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act Contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land ( as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220( g)), timberland ( as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production ( as defined by Government
Code section 51104( g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 14 ends

May 2020
In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural, Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Mode ( 1997) prepared
by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’ s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment
project; and forest carbon measurement methodology
provided bin Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use
or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion
a) No Impact. The Project area is within a highly urbanized area and the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program ( FMMP 2016) designates the entire Project area as “ Urban and Built-Up Land”. No designated Prime, Unique, or Statewide Importance farmlands are within the Project area; therefore, the Project would not convert farmlands to non-agricultural use, and there would be no impact.
b) No Impact. The Project is within a heavily urbanized area consisting of industrial and commercial uses. Land use designations within the Project area consist of General Industrial ( GI), General Commercial ( GC), and Open Space ( OS). The Project area does not have any zoning for agricultural use, or Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use and there would be no impact. c) No Impact. The Project is within a heavily urbanized area consisting of industrial and commercial uses. Land use designations within the Project area consist of General Industrial ( GI), General Commercial ( GC), and Open Space ( OS). The Project area does not have any zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with zoning for forest lands or timberlands and there would be no impact. d) No Impact. The Project is within a heavily urbanized area consisting of industrial and commercial uses. Land use designations within the Project area consist of General Industrial ( GI), General Commercial ( GC), and Open Space ( OS). Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of forest land, or conversion of forest land to non-forest use and there would be no impact. e) No Impact. The Project area is within a highly urbanized area and the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program ( FMMP 2016) designates the entire Project area as “ Urban and Built-Up Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 15 ends

May 2020
Land”. No designated Prime, Unique, or Statewide Importance farmlands are within the Project area; therefore, the Project would not convert farmlands to non-agricultural use, and there would be no impact.

Documentation
The California Department of Conservation. 2016. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Map: 2016 Edition. Available at:
https:// www.conservation. ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/ Pages/ Shasta. aspx ( accessed January 7, 2020).

Mitigation
None necessary.

Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 16 ends

May 2020
III. AIR QUALITY:

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions ( such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
Discussion
a) No Impact. A project is considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of regional air quality plans if it would be inconsistent with the emissions inventories contained in the regional air quality plans. Emission inventories are developed based on projected increases in population growth and vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) within the region. The Project would not result in an increase in population or VMT. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is within the City of Redding, Shasta County, which is at the northern end of the Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin ( NSVAB).

The NSVAB is bounded on the north and west by the Coastal Mountain Range and on the east by the southern portion of the Cascade Mountain Range and the northern portion of the Sierra Nevada range. These mountain ranges form a substantial physical barrier to locally created pollution as well as that transported northward on prevailing winds from the Sacramento metropolitan area.

In 1994, the air districts in the Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area ( NSVPA), which includes the SCAQMD jurisdiction, prepared an Air Quality Attainment Plan for ozone. This plan was updated in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, and again in 2015. Like the preceding plans, the 2015 plan focuses on the adoption and implementation of control measures for stationary sources, area- wide sources, indirect sources, and public information and education programs. The 2015 plan also addresses the effect that pollutant transport has on the NSVPA’ s ability to meet and attain the state standards. The Air Quality Attainment Plan provides local guidance for air basins to achieve attainment of ambient air quality standards. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 17 ends

May 2020
standards are classified as nonattainment areas. Areas for which there is insufficient data available are designated unclassified. The attainment status for the Shasta County portion of the NSVAB is included in the table below. The region is nonattainment for state ozone and PM10 standards.

NAAQS and CAAQS Attainment Status for Shasta County
Criteria Pollutants State Designation Federal Designation Ozone Nonattainment Unclassified/ Attainment
PM10 Nonattainment Unclassified
PM2.5 Attainment Unclassified/ Attainment
Carbon Monoxide Unclassified Unclassified/ Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Unclassified/ Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Unclassified
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2018
https:// www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm
The proposed Project has the ability to release gaseous emissions of criteria pollutants and dust into the ambient air; therefore, construction activities under the proposed Project fall under the ambient air quality standards promulgated at the local, state, and federal levels. The federal Clean Air Act of 1971 and the Clean Air Act Amendments ( 1977) established the national ambient air quality standards ( NAAQS), which are promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). The State of California has also adopted its own California ambient air quality standards ( CAAQS), which are promulgated by the California Air Resource Board ( CARB).

Implementation of the Project would occur in the Shasta County portion of the NSVAB, which is under the air quality regulatory jurisdiction of the Shasta County Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) and is subject to the rules and regulations adopted by the air district to achieve the NAAQS and CAAQS. As shown in the table below, these pollutants include O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility- reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety.

Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 18 ends

May 2020
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 19 ends

May 2020
Source: CARB 2019
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 20 ends

May 2020
The proposed Project will replace the Eastside Road Bridge and Westside Road Bridge over Canyon Hollow Creek with wider concrete slab bridges to enhance safety and efficiency for motorized vehicles and improve non-motorized transportation. Though he proposed Project operation would not result in the increased population, VMT or capacity, the operation of Project construction would result in temporary construction emissions of Reactive Organic Gases ( ROG) and oxides of nitrogen ( NOx).

Emission thresholds within the City’ s General Plan Air Quality Element are based on the SCAQMD thresholds as listed in the table below.

City of Redding and SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance
Threshold Emissions (pounds per day)
NOx ROG PM10
Level A Thresholds 25 25 80
Level B Thresholds 137 137 137
Source: City of Redding General Plan, SCAQMD
To determine if thresholds of significance would be exceeded, a Road Construction Emission Model ( Version 9.0.0) was prepared. The model found that construction emissions from the proposed Project are under the City of Redding / SCAQMD Level “ A” thresholds of significance for NOx, ROG, and PM10. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact. The project will incorporate the following standard conservation measures and best management practices during construction to limit dust and PM10 during construction:

AQ-1. Nontoxic soil stabilizers shall be applied according to manufacturer’ s specification to all inactive construction areas.

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

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

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 shall be covered or shall maintain at least 6 inches of freeboard ( i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of load and the trailer).

AQ-5. All public roadways used by the project contractor shall be maintained free from dust, dirt, and debris caused by construction activities. Streets shall be swept at the end of the day if visible soil materials are carried onto adjacent public paved roads. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project site is the Reddingwood Mobile Home and RV Park, approximately 550 feet from the Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 21 ends

May 2020
Westside Road Bridge. Construction activities are anticipated to involve the operation of diesel- powered equipment. In 1998, the CARB identified diesel exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant ( TAC). Cancer health risks associated with exposures to diesel exhaust typically are associated with chronic exposure, in which a 70-year exposure period often is assumed. Although elevated cancer rates can result from exposure periods of less than 70 years, acute exposure ( i.e., exposure periods of 2 to 3 years) to diesel exhaust typically are not anticipated to result in an increased health risk because acute exposure typically does not result in exposure concentrations that would represent a health risk. Health impacts associated with exposure to diesel exhaust from Project construction are anticipated to be less than significant because construction activities are expected to occur well below the 70- year exposure period used in health risk assessments. Additionally, emissions would be shortterm and intermittent in nature, and therefore would not generate TAC emissions at high enough exposure concentrations to represent a health hazard. Therefore, overall exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations from the proposed Project would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. d) Less Than Significant Impact. While offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, they can be unpleasant, leading to considerable annoyance and distress among the public and can generate citizen complaints to local governments and air districts. Project- related odor emissions would be limited to times when equipment would be utilized for construction and emission from equipment may be evident in the immediate surrounding area. Construction activities would be short-term and would not result in the creation of long-term objectionable odor because they would be quickly dispersed after equipment utilization. Therefore, due to the short- term nature of the construction activities, combined with limited exposure to sensitive receptors, impacts associated with development of the Project are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Documentation
City of Redding. 2000. City of Redding General Plan – Air Quality Element. Available at:
https:// www.cityofredding. org/departments/ development- services/ planning/ general- plan- anddevelopment- guidelines ( accessed January 20, 2020).

Shasta County. 2004. Shasta County General Plan. Chapter 6, Section 6.5 “Air Quality”. Shasta County Department of Resource Management.

Mitigation
None necessary.

Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 22 ends

May 2020
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local of regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands ( including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community,
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
The analysis of biological resources presented in this section is based on the Natural Environment Study, Biological Assessment, and Aquatic Resources Delineation prepared for the Project ( Dokken Engineering).
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

Special Status Plant Species
Prior to field surveys, a list of regional special status plant species with potential to occur within the Project vicinity was compiled from database searches. After a comparison of habitat Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 23 ends

May 2020
requirements and available habitat in the biological study area ( BSA), one special status plant was determined to have a low to moderate potential to occur: silky cryptantha ( Cryptantha crinita). Silky cryptantha is not listed as a federal or state protected species, but is listed in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants on list 1B.2. Silky cryptantha is an annual herb inhabiting gravelly streambeds within cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, riparian forest, riparian woodland, and valley/foothill grassland. The blooming period for the species is April – May and is typically found at an elevation range of 200 – 3,986 feet.

Based on the presence of potentially suitable habitat, the species is considered to have a low to moderate potential to occur within the BSA. Field surveys conducted on November 30, 2017 included a habitat assessment, and focused surveys for special- status plant species. During the survey no silky cryptantha was observed; however, the survey was not conducted during the species blooming period.

Construction activities ( e.g., grading cut and fill) could affect local populations or individuals if they are present. Potential direct effects include injury, mortality, and permanent loss of habitat resulting from Project construction. Indirect effects could occur if construction activities result in degradation of habitat or water quality due to erosion and sedimentation, accidental fuel leaks, and spills. Standard conservation measures and BMPs HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 ( included in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) and BIO-1 through BIO-3 are included for all projects requiring earthwork, equipment use, and work near stream channels. These BMPs limit the potential for erosion, sediment transport, and spills, as well as prevent work from occurring in undesignated areas.

BIO-1. As required by the City of Redding Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) 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.

BIO-2. Appropriate sediment control measures ( e.g., silt fences, straw wattles) shall be in place prior to the onset of construction activities near jurisdictional waters and in Project areas where there is a potential for surface runoff to drain into jurisdictional waters. Sediment control measures shall be monitored and maintained until construction activities have ceased.

BIO-3. High visibility fencing, flagging, or markers will be installed along the edges of the work zone near avoided waters and avoided riparian areas.

The Project has been designed to minimize removal of native vegetation and protect water quality to the greatest extent practicable; however, protocol level surveys and avoidance measures are needed. With incorporation of mitigation measure MM-1, the Project’ s impact on silky cryptantha would be less than significant.

Special Status Wildlife Species
Four special status wildlife species have a low to moderate potential to occur within the BSA:

Central Valley spring- run Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawystscha pop. 6) Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawystscha pop. 7) Central Valley steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) Western red bat ( Lasiurus blossevilli)
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 24 ends

May 2020
The proposed Project has the potential to cause take of special- status anadromous salmonids if it results in any one of the following: direct mortality; temporary impacts on habitats such that special- status species suffer from injury, lowered reproductive success, increased stress, lessened fitness, or mortality; permanent loss of habitat critical to a special- status fish species; or a substantial reduction in the quantity or value of fish habitat in which a special- status population occurs. However, NMFS recently issued a letter ( WCRO- 2019- 03759) in response to Caltrans’ request to initiate informal consultation. The letter states that NMFS’ determined that with the use of BMPs and avoidance/ mitigation measures the Project would not be likely to adversely affect Central Valley spring- run ESU Chinook salmon, Sacramento River winter- run Chinook salmon, and Central Valley steelhead. No designated critical habitat is present within the action area. While the Project would not be likely to adversely affect the species, NMFS determined that the Project would adversely affect essential fish habitat ( EFH) for Pacific salmonids and that conservation measures should be used to reduce impacts.

Canyon Hollow Creek does exhibit potentially suitable rocky and gravelly stream bottom used by the species. Canyon Hollow Creek is approximately 0.5 miles from the Sacramento River, and during fall and winter flows, Canyon Hollow Creek could provide potentially suitable spawning and fry rearing habitat. However, the Project’ s in-channel construction activities will be restricted to the dry season ( June 1 to October 15) of Canyon Hollow Creek, when Canyon Hollow Creek is dry, and these species would be absent. Canyon Hollow Creek dries up as early as April, and is entirely dry throughout the summer months, thereby removing connectivity with the Sacramento River and preventing fish from occurring within the Project area. The Project is not anticipated to directly impact anadromous fish species individuals.

Temporary construction impacts in Canyon Hollow Creek would be limited to temporary ground disturbance associated with construction activities. Permanent impacts would be limited to rock slope protection and cut and fill slopes. The Project will have approximately 0.158 acres of temporary impacts and approximately 0.021 acres of permanent impacts to Canyon Hollow Creek and approximately 0.143 acres of temporary impacts and approximately 0.028 acres of permanent impacts to riparian habitat.

With implementation of mitigation measures MM-2, MM-3, and MM-4, Project- related impacts to anadromous fish and EFH would be less- than significant. In addition to the mitigation measures, standard conservation measures and BMPs HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 and BIO 1 through BIO-5 have been incorporated into the Project.

BIO-4. Riparian vegetation within temporary construction zones shall be cleanly cut to ground level and then covered with a layer of clean gravel or topsoil as necessary to protect plant viability and prevent damage to remaining root structures during construction.

BIO-5. All riparian areas and streambanks temporarily disturbed during Project construction will be re-contoured to pre- construction conditions and seeded with a native seed mix.

Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 25 ends

May 2020
Western Red Bat
The nearest recent occurrence of the species is approximately 7.5 miles from the BSA, within the Whiskeytown National Recreation Area. The species is considered to have a low to moderate potential to occur within the BSA.

Western red bats may roost individually or in small groups in the riparian trees. If a tree is removed that contains a western red bat nursery colony, the removal could result in mortality or injury of individuals. Indirect impacts may occur from construction disturbance if a bat with pups is present in or adjacent to the study area. Significant noise disturbance could result in mothers temporarily or permanently leaving their pups. The BSA does contain potentially suitable open foraging habitat within the Canyon Hollow Creek corridor east of Eastside Road.

The BSA also contains potential day roosting tree habitat with the Canyon Hollow Creek riparian corridor east of Eastside Road.

Due to the ability of individual bats to move away from disturbance, direct impacts on bats are not expected; however, the Project will require the removal of two large trees; one cottonwood and one willow. With incorporation of MM-5 (pre-construction surveys), potentially significant impacts to Western red bat would be less than significant.

Migratory Birds and Raptors
Construction activities would occur during the avian breeding season ( generally February through August, depending on the species) and could disturb nesting birds in or adjacent to the project area. Construction- related disturbance could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or nest abandonment. Impacts could also result from tree removal or noise from construction activities.

Construction of the new bridges would result in a permanent loss of approximately 0.028 acre of riparian habitat and two large trees would be removed. All other trees greater than 6-inches diameter at breast height ( DBH) will be retained within the Project area. Abundant avian nesting and foraging habitat would be retained within the Project area, and similarly suitable habitat occurs in the Project vicinity. Foraging birds and birds present in, or adjacent to the Project area would not be adversely impacted by construction activities due to their high mobility and available habitat outside of the Project area. However, due to the proximity of potential nesting habitat, MM-6 will be used to ensure impacts on migratory bird species and raptors are minimized by requiring pre-construction surveys and use of protection measures for any potential nests found within the Project area. With incorporation of MM-6 the Project impact on migratory birds and raptors would be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The natural communities of special concern within the BSA are Riverine ( Canyon Hollow Creek) and Valley Foothill Riparian ( the associated riparian habitat of Canyon Hollow Creek).

Riparian
The BSA contains 0.49 acre of riparian habitat ( valley foothill riparian). In addition to providing habitat for many wildlife species, riparian areas may provide shade, nutrient or chemical Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 26 ends

May 2020
regulation, stream bank stability, and input for large woody debris or organic matter to the channel, which are necessary habitat elements for fish and other aquatic species.

Eastside Road Bridge: The valley foothill riparian community is not well developed on the upstream ( west) side of the bridge as the Union Pacific Railroad ( UPRR) tracks run parallel to the bridge and UPRR removes all vegetation within their right of way for safety purposes. This riparian area is composed of herbaceous plants and sapling tree species. The valley foothill riparian community is more developed on the downstream ( east) side of the bridge and occurs as a dense narrow strip on each side of Canyon Hollow Creek.

Westside Road Bridge: The valley foothill riparian community is not well developed on the upstream ( west) side of the bridge as this area is bordered by an industrial area and Westside Road. The riparian vegetation on the north and south banks is composed of herbaceous plants and sapling trees. The valley foothill riparian community is also not well developed on the downstream ( east) side of the bridge. This area is bordered by concrete fill on the north side where no riparian habitat exists) and State Route ( SR) 273 to the east. A small strip of sparse riparian vegetation between SR 273 and Westside Road exists on the south bank of Canyon Hollow Creek. This area is highly disturbed from transient activity and may be a factor for the disturbed nature of the riparian area.

Construction of the new bridges would result in permanent and temporary impacts on riparian vegetation. The proposed Project would temporarily impact 0.143 acre and permanently impact

0.028 acre of valley foothill riparian. Permanent impacts would be the result of new abutments and placement of Rock Slope Protection ( RSP) approximately 6 feet from the new abutments.

Temporary impacts would occur during ground disturbance, excavation for construction of the new bridge abutments, and channel access. Two large trees ( Fremont cottonwood and Goodding’ s black willow) within the valley foothill riparian east of the Eastside Road Bridge would require removal for construction access. No other trees over 6-inch DBH are anticipated to be removed.

Anticipated Tree Removal
Species # of Stems Stem 1 DBH Stem 2 DBH
Fremont Cottonwood
Populus fremontii) 2 21 14
Goodding’ s black willow
Salix gooddingii) 2 12 12
Riparian Impacts
Riparian Within
Project Area (acre)
Proposed Permanent
Impact To Riparian
acre)
Percent of Riparian Permanently
Impacted Within The Project
Area (%)

0.49 acre 0.028 acre 5.71%
The Project was designed, and will be constructed, to avoid and minimize removal of riparian vegetation to the maximum extent practicable. Permanent impacts to riparian vegetation equate to a very small percentage of the habitat within the BSA, and temporary impact areas are Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 27 ends

May 2020
anticipated to revegetate naturally; therefore, the Project impact on riparian vegetation would be less than significant. Standard conservation measures and BMPs HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 and BIO- 1 through BIO-5 will be used during construction.

Riverine
A jurisdictional delineation was conducted on November 30th, 2017 to identify jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and State within the BSA. The results of this delineation were used to determine potential temporary and permanent impacts to identified water features. Canyon Hollow Creek is the only hydrological feature within the BSA. The creek is an intermittent tributary water of the Sacramento River, flowing west to east through the BSA. Delineation results found that approximately 0.61 acres of Canyon Hollow Creek are within the BSA.

Temporary fill associated with construction on the new bridge structures would be limited to gravel for the access ramps and a temporary gravel work pad within the channel. In addition, minimal permanent fills would occur for installation of permanent rock slope protection and cut and fill slopes. The Project will have approximately 0.158 acres of temporary impacts and approximately 0.021 acres of permanent impacts to Canyon Hollow Creek, which is very small percentage of waters within the Project area. The Project would have no substantial adverse effect to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities and impacts would be less than significant.

Prior to construction, regulatory permits will be obtained from USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB.

In addition to standard conservation measures and BMPs HAZ-1 through HAZ-5, BIO-1 through BIO-5 have been incorporated into the Project.

Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters
c) No Impact. A PJD was conducted on November 30th, 2017 to identify jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and State within the BSA. Canyon Hollow Creek is the only hydrological feature within the BSA. No federally or state protected wetlands exist within or adjacent to the BSA; therefore, no adverse effect( s) to federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) would occur, and the Project would have no impact. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The Canyon Hollow Creek corridor may serve as an east- west movement corridor for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife through a heavily developed portion of the City. Although wildlife may avoid the active construction area, the Project would not permanently interfere with the movement of native wildlife. Construction will be short in duration and would occur when fish have no potential to be present. The Project is not anticipated to have any lasting effects to the habitat connectivity for birds, fish, or wildlife.

Intermittent
Stream Within
Project Area
acre)
Proposed Permanent
Impact To Intermittent
Stream (acre)
Percent of Intermittent
Stream Permanently
Impacted Within The
Project Area (%)

0.61 acre 0.021 acre 3.4%
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 28 ends

May 2020
e) No Impact. There is no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan covering the proposed Project area. The City has adopted a Tree Management Ordinance ( Chapter 18.45 of the RMC) that promotes the conservation of mature, healthy trees in the design of new development. The ordinance also recognizes that the preservation of trees sometimes conflicts with necessary landdevelopment requirements. There are no conflicts associated with the Project that would prevent implementation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance or other resource protection ordinances. The Project would have no impact on any habitat conservation plans. f) No Impact. There are no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan covering the proposed Project area. The City has adopted a Tree Management Ordinance ( Chapter 18.45 of the RMC) that promotes the conservation of mature, healthy trees in the design of new development. The ordinance also recognizes that the preservation of trees sometimes conflicts with necessary landdevelopment requirements. There are no conflicts associated with the Project that would prevent implementation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance or other resource protection ordinances. The Project would have no impact on any habitat conservation plans.

Documentation
Dokken Engineering, Natural Environment Study - Minimal Impacts, 2019 Dokken Engineering, Biological Assessment, 2019
Dokken Engineering, Aquatic Resource Delineation Report, 2019 California Department of Fish and Wildlife: California Natural Diversity Database, 2019 City of Redding General Plan, Natural Resources Element, 2000 City of Redding Municipal Code, Chapter 18.45, Tree Management Ordinance Mitigation
MM-1: Prior to the start of construction, a focused botanical survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist during the blooming period for silky cryptantha within the BSA. If silky cryptantha is not found during the botanical survey no other measures will be required. If silky cryptantha is discovered during the focused botanical surveys, the plants will be marked by a qualified biologist. If the area can be avoided, exclusionary fencing will be placed around the plants and no pedestrian or vehicular entry shall be allowed. If the area cannot be avoided, the City will coordinate with CDFW to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the species. Potential measures for reducing project impacts on special status plants include limiting ground disturbance until annual special status plants have gone to seed and stockpiling top soil during the initial excavation to be replaced as the top layer during the final site rehabilitation. If listed species are found and cannot be avoided an Incidental Take Permit may be needed.

MM-2: Work within Canyon Hollow Creek shall be restricted to the dry season ( June 1 to October 15).

MM-3: Any new gravel material placed in the channel shall meet Caltrans’ cleanness test ( California Test No. 227) with a value of 85 or higher.

Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 29 ends

May 2020
MM-4. Riparian vegetation disturbed in the temporary use areas on the west side of Westside Road Bridge and on the east side of Eastside Road Bridge shall be restored both by revegetation and by promoting regrowth of plants that were pruned and protected prior to work. Where feasible, revegetated areas shall be planted at a ratio of 3 new plants for every large (> 3 inches) woody riparian plant removed 3:1 ratio). In areas of regrowth of large woody riparian vegetation, all regrowth will be monitored and maintained, and counted at a 1:1 ratio. These replanting ratios will help ensure successful establishment of at least one vigorous plant for each plant removed to accommodate the project.

MM-5: To the extent practicable, removal of large trees with cavities shall occur before bat maternity colonies form (i.e., prior to March 1) or after young are volant ( i.e., after August 31). If construction including the removal of large trees) occurs during the bat non- volant season ( March 1 through August 31), a qualified professional shall conduct a pre- construction survey of the study area to locate maternity colonies and identify measures to protect colonies from disturbance. 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 professional, in consultation with CDFW, to ensure the colony is protected from project activities.

MM-6: If vegetation removal or construction activities will occur during the nesting season for migratory birds or raptors ( February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey no more than 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.

Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 30 ends

May 2020
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES:

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064. 5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The records search, consultation with Native American organizations and governments, and the field survey did not identify any historical resources, as defined in §15064.5. With any Project, there is always the possibility that unknown cultural resources may be encountered during construction; therefore, standard conservation measures CR-1 and CR-2 have been incorporated into the Project.
b,c) Less Than Significant Impact. The records search, consultation with Native American organizations and governments, and the field survey did not identify any cultural resources within or immediately adjacent the Project area. The buried cultural resource analysis concluded that given the extensive ground disturbances which have occurred throughout the study area, the potential for the area to have buried cultural resources is considered low. With any Project, there is always the possibility that unknown cultural resources may be encountered during construction; therefore, standard conservation measures CR-1 and CR-2 have been incorporated into the Project.

CR-1. If previously unidentified cultural materials are unearthed during construction, it is the City’ s policy that work be halted in that area until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find.

CR-2. If human remains are discovered during project activities, all activities in the vicinity of the find will be stopped and the Shasta County Sheriff- Coroner’ s Office shall 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 shall be conducted in accordance with further direction of the County Coroner or the NAHC, as appropriate.

Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 31 ends

May 2020
Documentation
Dokken Engineering. 2019. Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project.

Archaeological Survey Report ( Confidential).

Dokken Engineering. 2019. Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project.

Historic Property Survey Report ( Confidential).

Mitigation
None necessary.

Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 32 ends

May 2020
VI. ENERGY:

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Discussion
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would replace the existing bridges with newer and more reliable facilities for local area access. The Project would not permanently alter energy use, as it would not increase the number of vehicle travel lanes or increase carbon emissions; therefore, direct energy use would involve the short- term use of energy for construction activities.

Project construction would primarily consume diesel and gasoline through operation of construction equipment, material deliveries, and debris hauling. Construction is estimated to result in a short- term consumption of energy, representing a small demand on local and regional fuel supplies that would be easily accommodated and would be temporary.

Indirect energy use includes the long-term activities required to maintain the completed Project.

The roadway and crossing are City owned and currently require staff to travel to the site for maintenance and monitoring. Construction of the new facility would not increase the number of maintenance and monitoring visits, and may decrease the number of visits as the aging structures would be replaced with a new and more reliable crossings. The Project would not result in an inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy, and the Project’ s impact on energy would be less than significant.
b) No Impact. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy, and no impact would occur.

Documentation
City of Redding. 2000. City of Redding General Plan – Natural Resources Element.

City of Redding. 2000. City of Redding General Plan – Public Facilities and Services Element.

Mitigation
None necessary.

Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 33 ends

May 2020
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS:

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake, fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publications 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ( 1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Discussion
a,c,d) No Impact. The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic- related ground failure, or landslides. The Project is not located within an Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest seismic sources are the Hoadley Fault, a Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 34 ends

May 2020
pre-quaternary fault ( older than 1.6 million years) approximately 4.5 miles west of the Project site, Bear Creek Fault, also a pre-quaternary fault approximately 11 miles southeast of the Project site, and Battle Creek Fault, a quaternary fault ( age undifferentiated), approximately 14 miles south of the Project site.

Landslides usually occur in locations with steep slopes and unstable soils. According to the California Department of Conservation ( CDC) California Geological Survey Seismic Hazards Zonation Program ( CDC 2020) the Project area is not within a known area of landslide concern.

The majority of the Project area is situated on flat or very gently sloping topography where the potential for slope failure is low. The Project would also have no impact related to seismic- related failure, including liquefaction, because the potential is believed to be slight at this predominantly flat, low-seismicity site. Design and construction in accordance with Caltrans’ seismic design criteria will ensure that substantial impacts due to seismic forces and displacements are avoided or minimized to the extent feasible. The Project is not on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the Project. On- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse is not anticipated. The Project would result in no impact.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The NRCS Web Soil Survey was used to identify soils within the BSA ( NRCS 2017). Specific soil units within the BSA include: Anderson gravelly sandy loam ( 72.2% of the BSA) and Churn gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ( 27.8% of the BSA).

Construction of the bridges and ground disturbance for construction access could result in a small amount of soil erosion or loss of topsoil; however, it would not result in substantial erosion or soil loss and the impact would be less than significant. The Project is also subject to certain erosion- control requirements and BMPs, mandated by existing City regulations which include:

City of Redding Grading Ordinance. This ordinance requires preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan for projects affecting more than one acre. The erosion and sediment control plan requires preparation and description of any BMPs that will be used during construction and post- construction, if needed.

City of Redding Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. This ordinance requires preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) For projects affecting greater than 1 acre. The objectives of the SWPPP are to identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect water quality associated with stormwater discharges and to describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce those sources of sediment and other pollutants in stormwater discharges.
e) No Impact. The Project will not utilize septic tanks or an alternative waste water disposal system on the site. Therefore, the Project would have no impact due to soils incapable of adequately supporting septic systems.
f) No Impact. A literature review was performed to determine whether paleontological resources have been previously identified in the Project area and to identify the overall paleontological Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 35 ends

May 2020
sensitivity of the Project area. No unique geologic features, fossil- bearing strata, or paleontological sites are known to exist on the Project site.

Documentation
CDC. 2020. California Geological Survey Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps.

Available at: https:// maps. conservation. ca.gov/cgs/ informationwarehouse/ regulatorymaps/ accessed January 23, 2020).

CDC. 2010. Fault Activity Map of California ( 2010). Available at:
https:// maps. conservation. ca.gov/cgs/ fam/ ( accessed January 23, 2020).

NRCS. 2017. Custom Soil Resource Report: Eastside/ Westside Bridges Replacement Project.

Shasta County. 2004. Shasta County General Plan. Chapter 6, Section 6.3 “ Minerals”. Shasta County Department of Resource Management.

Mitigation
None necessary.

Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 36 ends

May 2020
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion
While climate change has been a concern since at least 1988, as evidenced by the establishment of the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization’ s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC), the efforts devoted to greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions reduction and climate change research and policy have increased dramatically in recent years. These efforts are primarily concerned with the emissions of GHG related to human activity that include CO2, CH4, NOX, nitrous oxide, tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride, HFC-23 (fluoroform), HFC- 134a ( s, s, s, 2 tetrafluoroethane), and HFC-152a ( difluoroethane).

In 2002, with the passage of Assembly Bill 1493 ( AB 1493), California launched an innovative and pro-active approach to dealing with GHG emissions and climate change at the state level. AB 1493 requires the CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce automobile and light truck GHG emissions. These stricter emissions standards were designed to apply to automobiles and light trucks beginning with the 2009- model year; however, in order to enact the standards California needed a waiver from the EPA. The waiver was denied by the EPA in December 2007 and efforts to overturn the decision had been unsuccessful. See California v. Environmental Protection Agency, 9th Cir. Jul. 25, 2008, No. 08-70011. On January 26, 2009, it was announced that the EPA would reconsider their decision regarding the denial of California’ s waiver. On May 18, 2009, President Obama announced the enactment of a 35.5 mpg fuel economy standard for automobiles and light duty trucks. On June 30, 2009 EPA granted California the waiver. The granting of the waiver has allowed California to implement even stronger standards. In 2013 CARB adopted new Phase 1 regulation for GHG emissions, establishing GHG emission limits on truck and engine manufacturers that harmonizes with the EPA rule. In 2016, the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA), adopted federal Phase 2 standards that built on the Phase I standards to achieve additional GHG reductions.

California aligned with these federal Phase 2 standards in 2018.

On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05. The goal of this Executive Order is to reduce California’ s GHG emissions to: 1) 2000 levels by 2010, 2) 1990 levels by the 2020 and 3) 80 percent below the 1990 levels by the year 2050. In 2006, this goal was further reinforced with the passage of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 37 ends

May 2020
AB 32 sets the same overall GHG emissions reduction goals while further mandating that CARB create a plan, which includes market mechanisms, and implement rules to achieve “ real, quantifiable, costeffective reductions of greenhouse gases.” Executive Order S-20-06 further directs state agencies to begin implementing AB 32, including the recommendations made by the state’ s Climate Action Team.

With Executive Order S-01-07, Governor Schwarzenegger set forth the low carbon fuel standard for California. Under this executive order, the carbon intensity of California’ s transportation fuels is to be reduced by at least 10 percent by 2020.

Climate change and GHG reduction is also a concern at the federal level; however, at this time, no legislation or regulations have been enacted specifically addressing GHG emissions reductions and climate change. California, in conjunction with several environmental organizations and several other states, sued to force the EPA to regulate GHG as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act (Massachusetts vs. [ EPA] et al., 549 U.S. 497 ( 2007). The court ruled that GHG does fit within the Clean Air Act’ s definition of a pollutant, and that the EPA does have the authority to regulate GHG. Despite the Supreme Court ruling, there are no promulgated federal regulations to date limiting GHG emissions. 1] On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202( a) of the Clean Air Act:

Endangerment Finding: The Administrator found that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases-- carbon dioxide ( CO2), methane ( CH4), nitrous oxide ( N2O), hydrofluorocarbons ( HFCs), perfluorocarbons ( PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride ( SF6) in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator found that the combined emissions of these wellmixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action is a prerequisite to finalizing the EPA’ s greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles, which were jointly by EPA and the Department of Transportation’ s National Highway Safety Administration on September 15, 2009.

According to Recommendations by the Association of Environmental Professionals on How to Analyze GHG Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents ( March 5, 2007), an individual project does not generate enough GHG emissions to significantly influence global climate change.

Rather, global climate change is a cumulative impact. This means that a project may participate in a potential impact through its incremental contribution combined with the contributions of all other sources of GHG. In assessing cumulative impacts, it must be determined if a project’ s incremental effect is “ cumulatively considerable.” See CEQA Guidelines sections 15064( i)(1) and 15130. To gather sufficient information on a global scale of all past, current, and future projects in order to make this determination is a difficult if not impossible task. As part of its supporting documentation for the Draft Climate Change Scoping Plan, CARB recently released an updated version of the GHG inventory for California ( June 26, 2008).

Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 38 ends

May 2020
a) Less Than Significant Impact. GHG emissions for transportation projects can be divided into those produced during construction and those produced during operations. For the Project, construction GHG emissions would include emissions produced by onsite construction equipment. As discussed in Section 3, “ Air Quality”, construction emission would be below threshold’ s established by CARB, as well as the City’ s air quality threshold, and would be further reduced through implementation of BMPs AQ-1.

GHG emissions produced during operations are those that result from potentially increased traffic volumes or changes in automobile speeds. The proposed Project will replace the existing Eastside Road and Westside Road bridges with structures that meet current state and federal bridge standards. The Project would not be capacity increasing and the Project would not increase the number of automobiles in the traffic system; therefore, no impact to greenhouse gas emissions or climate change would result from operations. The proposed Project contribution to global climate change through GHG emissions are considered less than significant. b) No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. As noted in discussion “ a” above, and in Section 3, the Project is in conformance with the City’ s air quality policies and thresholds, and consistent with County and state guidelines and regulations. Therefore, the Project would have no impact.

Documentation
City of Redding. 2000. City of Redding General Plan – Natural Resources Element.

Shasta County. 2004. Shasta County General Plan. Chapter 6, Section 6.3 “ Minerals”. Shasta County Department of Resource Management.

Mitigation
None necessary.

Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 39 ends

May 2020
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962. 5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires?
Discussion
a,b,d) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would involve the use of heavy equipment for grading, hauling, and materials handling. Use of this equipment may require the use of fuels and other common materials that have hazardous properties ( e.g., fuels are flammable). As a part of the Clean Water Act Section 402, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, and conservation measure BIO-1 ( described in Section IV, Biological Resources), a SWPPP is required when obtaining a general construction permit. Compliance under water quality Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 40 ends

May 2020
regulations and the SWPPP would require use of the following standard conservation measures and BMPs to avoid or minimize the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials from spills or fuel leaks during Project construction:

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.

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 off site.

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

HAZ-4. Spill containment and clean- up materials shall be kept on site at all times for use in the event of an accidental spills.

HAZ-5. Absorbent materials shall be used on small spills rather than hosing down or burying the spill. The absorbent material shall be promptly removed and properly disposed.

The potential for Project construction and operation to create a hazard to the public or the environment through the accidental spill or pollutants would be less than significant.

A search for hazardous wastes within 1 mile of the Project area was conducted using the California State Water Resource Control Board ( SWRCB) GeoTracker website and California Department of Toxic Substances Control ( DTSC) EnviroStor website. The table below provides a list of known hazardous waste sites within 1-mile of the Project. Twenty- six known sites were identified by the GeoTracker database within 1-mile of the Project area. One site is located within the defined Project area: Fisher J W Logging Co. The site is a LUST Cleanup Site and the cleanup status is listed as “ Completed – Case Closed”. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated due to the proximity of the LUST Cleanup Site.

GeoTracker and EnviroStor Search Results
SITE NAME GLOBAL ID SITE_ TYPE STATUS
AMERICAN STEEL T0608900143 LUST CLEANUP SITE COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED
ANDERSON PETROLEUM T0608900128 LUST CLEANUP SITE COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED
ANDERSON PETROLEUM SL375332882 CLEANUP PROGRAM
SITE
COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED
BEACON # 549 (FORMER) T0608900087 LUST CLEANUP SITE COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED

BROWN PLUMBING/ REDDING

INDUSTRIAL ELECTR
T0608900293 LUST CLEANUP SITE COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 41 ends

May 2020
SITE NAME GLOBAL ID SITE_ TYPE STATUS

CONOCOPHILLIPS ( SEE ALSO SCP
CASE # 2050090)
T0608900270 LUST CLEANUP SITE COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED

CONOCOPHILLIPS BULK PLANT
0629 - REDDING
SL375322881 CLEANUP PROGRAM
SITE

OPEN - REMEDIATION
CROSS PETROLEUM SLT5R9102886 CLEANUP PROGRAM
SITE
COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED
DEE LUMBER COMPANY T0608900060 LUST CLEANUP SITE COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED
FISHER J W LOGGING CO T0608900159 LUST CLEANUP SITE COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED
HOGUE EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC T0608900173 LUST CLEANUP SITE COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED
KENNIE KNOWLES TRUCKING INC T0608900209 LUST CLEANUP SITE COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED
MOBIL SS B& M T0608900085 LUST CLEANUP SITE COMPLETED -

CASE CLOSED
OSBORN PROPERTY T0608991941 LUST CLEANUP SITE COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED
PAYLESS GAS T0608900058 LUST CLEANUP SITE COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED
PAYLESS GAS & FOOD MART T0608900234 LUST CLEANUP SITE OPEN - VERIFICATION

MONITORING
RAM AUTO SALES T10000003476 LUST CLEANUP SITE OPEN - SITE

ASSESSMENT
REDDING CORP YARD T0608900043 LUST CLEANUP SITE COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED
REDDING LUMBER TRANSPORT T10000010253 CLEANUP PROGRAM
SITE

OPEN - ASSESSMENT

INTERIM REMEDIAL
ACTION
ROCHLITZ DON INC T0608900131 LUST CLEANUP SITE COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED
SHASTA CO JUVENILE HALL T0608900044 LUST CLEANUP SITE COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED
SHASTA CO SOCIAL SERVICES T0608900180 LUST CLEANUP SITE COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED
SHASTA HEALTH CLUB T0608900039 LUST CLEANUP SITE COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED
SOUTH CITY SHELL T0608900301 LUST CLEANUP SITE COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED
SST OIL INC. SL375312880 CLEANUP PROGRAM
SITE

OPEN - VERIFICATION

MONITORING
UPS HIGHWAY 273 VEHICLE

COLLISION
T10000004633 CLEANUP PROGRAM
SITE
COMPLETED –

CASE CLOSED
c) No Impact. There are no existing or currently proposed schools within 0.25-mile of the Project area. Therefore, no hazardous waste emissions or handling of hazardous materials would occur within 0.25-mile of an existing or currently proposed school, and no impact would occur. e) No Impact. The Project area is within approximately 1.75 miles of the Benton Airpark. However, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area as the Project is not within the direct vicinity or flight path of the Benton Airpark. Therefore, there would be no impact related to safety of the public in the Project area. f) Less Than Significant Impact. Although temporary, short duration disruptions to normal traffic operations would occur during construction. Temporary traffic control and lane reduction may Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 42 ends

May 2020
be used during construction. Temporary signage would be used to alert motorists and nonmotorized travelers to any Project detour, decreased speeds, uneven pavement, etc. throughout the Project alignment and controlled through- traffic would be allowed to pass during construction. Emergency response vehicles would be given priority access through the Project site. Operation of the completed Project would have no impact on traffic operations. The Project would have a less- than- significant impact on emergency response and evacuation plans during construction.
g) Less Than Significant Impact. The use of construction equipment in and around vegetated areas increases the potential for wildfire ignition. Operation of the Project would not increase the existing wildfire potential; however, the standard specifications require internal combustion engines to be equipped with an operational spark arrester, or the engine must be equipped for the prevention of fire. The potential for wildfire ignition would be less than significant.

Documentation
DTSC. 2020. EnviroStor Site / Facility Search. Available at:
https:// www.envirostor. dtsc.ca.gov/public/ search? basic= True ( accessed January 25, 2020).

SWRCB. 2020. GeoTracker. Available at: https:// geotracker. waterboards. ca.gov/ ( accessed January 25, 2020).

Mitigation
None necessary.

Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 43 ends

May 2020
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY:

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Discussion
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project will disturb greater than one acre, therefore a Construction Storm Water General Permit ( CGP) is required to address storm water runoff. The permit will address clearing, grading, grubbing, and disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation. The permit also requires the City and the Contractor to prepare and Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 44 ends

May 2020
implement a SWPPP with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off site into receiving waters. The SWPPP includes BMPs to prevent construction pollutants from entering storm water runoff. The Project would not involve any discharges of waste material into ground or surface waters and would be subject to the terms and conditions included in permit authorizations anticipated to be required from the Central Valley RWQCB, CDFW, and the Corps. In addition to the CGP, SWPPP, and City Construction Standards, these permits will condition the Project to implement measures that will prevent degradation of water quality. In addition, construction and operation of the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements established by the Central Valley RWQCB in its Basin Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not directly or indirectly result in the construction of uses that would utilize groundwater supplies. The Project design will include a minor increase in impervious surface for the replacement of the Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges; however, this is not anticipated to alter the drainage patterns in such a way that would interfere with groundwater recharge. Additionally, the proposed Project would not be constructed immediately above a preexisting well, nor would areas known to contain wells be disturbed by construction of the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project consists of the replacement of the Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges. Minor loss of vegetation and general disturbance to the soil for construction of the proposed Project would occur within the Project footprint. Removal of vegetation and soil can accelerate erosion processes and increase the potential for sediment to enter into Canyon Hollow Creek. The Project design will include a minor increase in impervious surface for the replacement of the Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges, however, the increase is minor and surface water would flow into the vegetated area. A portion of the Project area is located within a Zone AE of the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA) Special Flood Hazard Area; however, replacement of the Eastside Road Bridge would remove an existing pier within Canyon Hollow Creek, increasing flood capacity of the creek.

Additionally, the soffit elevation of both of the proposed bridges will approximately match the existing bridge and will be set to pass the 100- year flood event.

Although construction activities are expected to alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, these activities are not anticipated to alter the drainage pattern in a way that would result in substantial erosion, surface runoff, flooding on or off site, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Minor increases in impervious surfaces resulting from the slightly wider new bridges would not create run-off that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. To support adherence with federal, state, and local regulations/ policies conservation measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 and HAZ- 1 through HAZ-5 have been incorporated into the Project.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. A portion of the Project area is located within a Zone AE of the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area; however, replacement of the Eastside Road Bridge would remove an existing pier within Canyon Hollow Creek, increasing flood capacity. The new bridges Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 45 ends

May 2020
would be constructed to adequately pass flows associated with a 100-year storm event, and would not increase risk in release of pollutants due to Project inundation. The threat of a tsunami wave is not applicable to inland communities such as Redding. Seiches could potentially be generated in either Shasta or Whiskeytown Lakes during an earthquake; however, as identified in the Health and Safety Element of the General Plan, if a seiche over 65 feet in height were to overtop Shasta Dam, or in the event of dam failure, the proposed Project area would be outside of the inundation zone.
e) No Impact. Construction and operation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Documentation
Dokken Engineering. 2019. Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project.

Natural Environment Study ( Minimal Impacts).

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2011. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Panel 1545G. Map Number 06089C1545G. Effective Date: March 17, 2011.

Central Valley RWQCB. 2018. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Central Valley Region. Fifth Edition. Revised May 2018.

Mitigation
None necessary.

Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 46 ends

May 2020
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING:

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Discussion
a) No Impact. The Project would have no potential to divide an established community. b) No Impact. The Project is consistent with the City’ s General Plan. The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environment effect.

Documentation
City of Redding General Plan, Community Development Element, 2000 City of Redding General Plan, Natural Resources Element, 2000 Mitigation
None necessary.

Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 47 ends

May 2020
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES:

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
Discussion
a) No Impact. The proposed Project would not result in the use or extraction of any mineral or energy resources and would not restrict access to known mineral resource areas. Furthermore, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. b) No Impact. The proposed Project would have no impact on mineral resources.

Documentation
CDC. 1997. DMG Open- File Report 97-03.

City of Redding. 2000. City of Redding General Plan – Natural Resources Element.

Mitigation
None necessary.

Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 48 ends

May 2020
XIII. NOISE:

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the project in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project area is most similar to that of “ noisy urban residential.” Noisy urban residential areas have a typical noise level of 60-65 dBA. The Project would take place within and adjacent to areas primarily zoned as General Commercial ( GC), General Industrial ( GI), Open Space ( OS), and Public Facility ( PF) ( City of Redding General Plan). Commercial and industrial businesses operate within the Project area.

Typical noise- sensitive land uses include receptors such as residences, parks, schools, and/ or hospitals and there is one mobile home park located approximately 550 feet from the Westside Road Bridge. Residents within the Reddingwood Mobile Home & RV Park currently experience outside noise levels from local traffic, including State Route 273, located approximately 300 feet east of the community, and the railroad, located approximately 430 feet east of the community.

Freight trains, on average, generate approximately 88 dBA at a distance of 50 feet while passing by, which decreases to approximately 70 dBA at the closest residence. The typical sound level due to passing vehicles is estimated to be approximately 60 dBA in 2020, per Table 5-2 of the Noise Element within the City of Redding’ s General Plan.

Generally, noise levels at construction sites can vary from 55 dBA to a maximum of nearly 96 dBA when heavy equipment is used. Construction noise during this Project would be intermittent, and noise levels would vary depending on the type of construction activity. The lowest construction equipment- related noise levels would be 55 dBA at a distance of 50 feet for sound from a pick-up truck. The highest noise levels for this Project are anticipated to be up to 101 dBA at a distance of 50 feet for an impact pile driver. Noise volumes at the closest residence approximately 550 feet from the impact pile driver are anticipated to temporarily experience Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 49 ends

May 2020
noise volumes at approximately 80 dBA, which is lower than the existing ambient 88 dBA freight train noise.

While the impact pile driver will be the dominant noise source during construction, it will be intermittent and temporary, and received at a volume lower than other existing intermittent ambient noise. The Project will have a less than significant impact; however, BMP NOI-1 has been incorporated into the Project.

NOI-1. The Contractor shall follow Caltrans Section 14-8.02 of the Standard Specifications.

Construction noise shall not exceed 86 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the job site from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. Some groundborne vibration and noise would be generated during construction of the Project. Pile driving or other activities commonly associated with vibration are anticipated to occur; however, the vibration would be minor, intermittent, and temporary in nature. Operation of the Project would not generate groundborne vibration or noise.

Project impacts would be less than significant.
c) No Impact. The Project area is within approximately 1.75 miles of the Benton Airpark. However, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels as the Project is not within the direct vicinity or flight path of the Benton Airpark.

Documentation
City of Redding. 2019. Title 18. Development and Site Regulations: 18.40.100 – Noise Standards.

City of Redding. 2000. City of Redding General Plan – Noise Element.

Caltrans Standard Specifications, 2018.

Mitigation
None necessary.

Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 50 ends

May 2020
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING:

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly ( for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly ( for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion
a) No Impact. The proposed Project does not include the construction of new homes or businesses, nor does it include extension or construction of new roadways which could potentially induce growth. Therefore, the Project would have no potential to induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. No impact would occur. b) No Impact. The Project will not displace any number of existing housing or necessitate the construction of replacement housing. No impact would occur.

Documentation
City of Redding. 2000. City of Redding General Plan – Housing Element 2014.

City of Redding. 2000. City of Redding General Plan – Transportation Element.

Mitigation
None necessary.

Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 51 ends

May 2020
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
Fire Protection?
Police Protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Discussion
a) No Impact. The proposed Project does not include new development for habitation, nor does it include development of new businesses. Therefore, the proposed Project would not induce population growth and furthermore, does not include any components that would result in an increased demand for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public services.

Establishment of additional facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios for the public would not be necessary. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Documentation
City of Redding. 2000. City of Redding General Plan – Public Facilities Element.

Mitigation
None necessary.

Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 52 ends

May 2020
XVI. RECREATION:

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Discussion
a) No Impact. The proposed Project does not include new development for habitation, nor does it include development of new businesses. Therefore, the proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) No Impact. The Project area does not include nor does the Project include any recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Documentation
City of Redding. 2000. City of Redding General Plan – Public Facilities Element.

City of Redding. 2000. City of Redding General Plan – Recreation Element.

Mitigation
None necessary.

Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 53 ends

May 2020
XVII. TRANSPORTATION:

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064. 3, subdivision ( b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards to a geometric
design feature ( e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses ( e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion
a) No Impact. The Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The proposed Project involves replacement of the Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges and roadway approaches. No new public roadways or significant physical alteration of an existing roadway would occur. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) No Impact. The proposed Project does not involve construction of a new public roadway or significant physical alteration of an existing roadway and would have no impact on an established vehicle miles traveled threshold. Therefore, the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064. 3, subdivision ( b), and no impact would occur. c) No Impact. The proposed Project would be designed in accordance with the City and Caltrans design standards and guidelines. The proposed Project involves replacement of the Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges and roadway approaches. The Project would not substantially increase hazards to geometric design features or include incompatible uses. Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would include construction activities at the Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges requiring single lane closures at each bridge location. Construction will be staged over two construction seasons to allow a single lane of alternating traffic controlled by temporary signals. During construction, emergency vehicles would have a limited access route through single lane traffic conditions; however, single lane traffic controls would be temporary and intermittent. Upon completion of construction, Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 54 ends

May 2020
emergency vehicles would regain full access abilities through the Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.

Documentation
City of Redding. 2010. Bikeway Action Plan. Community Services Department. April 2010.

City of Redding. 2018. Parks, Trails, Open Space Master Plan.

City of Redding. 2000. City of Redding General Plan – Transportation Element.

Mitigation
None necessary.

Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 55 ends

May 2020
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES:

Would the project: cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020. 1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision ( c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision ( c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Discussion
a,b) Less Than Significant Impact. No Tribal Cultural Resources were identified during the cultural studies and consultation efforts conducted for the Project. No impacts are anticipated for the Project related to TCRs; however, with any project there is always the possibility that unknown resources may be encountered during construction; therefore, standard conservation measures CR-1 and CR-2 have been incorporated into the Project ( Refer to Section V “ Cultural Resources”).

Documentation
Dokken Engineering. 2019. Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project.

Archaeological Survey Report ( Confidential).

Dokken Engineering. 2019. Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges Replacement Project.

Historic Property Survey Report ( Confidential).

Mitigation
None necessary.

Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 56 ends

May 2020
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas,
or telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’ s projected demand in addition to the
provider’ s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
Discussion
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project consists of the replacement of the Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges. The Project would require relocation of existing utilities, but would not increase population in the Project vicinity and there would be no new or expanded utility facilities. Relocation of the existing utilities would not cause a significant environmental effect and the Project impact would be less than significant. b) No Impact. The Project would not result in the need for new or expanded water supplies. There may be a temporary need for water during construction to control dust; however, it is not anticipated to result in the need for water supply beyond what is currently available, and no increase in demand for long-term water supply would be generated by the Project. No impact would occur.

Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 57 ends

May 2020
c) No Impact. The Project would not include the construction of any wastewater- generating uses.

No impact would occur.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not generate solid waste during operation.

Solid waste would be generated during construction; however, the amount will not exceed landfill capacities. Solid waste generated by the proposed Project would be transported to West Central Landfill or an appropriate solid waste facility. Therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant.
e) No Impact. The Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste including the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 ( AB 939) and the California Solid Waste Re-Use and Recycling Access Act of 1991 42900- 42911 of the Public Resources Code). No impact would occur.

Documentation
City of Redding. 2020. Solid Waste Utility Department Website. Available at:
https:// www.cityofredding. org/departments/ solid- waste ( accessed January 30, 2020).

Mitigation
None necessary.

Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 58 ends

May 2020
XX. WILDFIRE:

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure ( such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Discussion
a) No Impact. The Project area is not located within a very high severity fire zone and would not impair or alter any existing emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; therefore, no impact would occur.
b) No Impact. The Project is located in a topographically flat, urban area of the City, adjacent to industrial and commercial land uses. Emergency access would be maintained throughout construction and, in the event of a fire, the Redding Fire Department provides emergency fire services to the Project Area. The Redding Fire Hall #3 is adjacent to the Project area. No impact would occur.
c) No impact. The proposed Project consists of the replacement of the Eastside Road and Westside Road Bridges. However, construction and replacement activities would not exacerbate fire risk and, according to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ( 2020) the proposed Project corridor is located in an area of Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone; therefore, no impact would occur.
d) No impact. The Project is located in a topographically flat, urban area of the City, adjacent to industrial and commercial land uses. The proposed Project corridor is not designated as a wildland and vegetation removal would be minimal and temporary. The Project would not expose Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 59 ends

May 2020
people or structures to significant risks, including flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post fire slope instability or drainage changes; therefore, no impacts would occur.

Documentation
State of California. 2020. Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Redding – Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. As Recommended by CAL FIRE. Available at:
https:// osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/ 5992/redding. pdf ( accessed January 30, 2020).

Mitigation
None necessary.

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below the self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have potential environmental
effects which may cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed Project would have minimal potential to degrade the quality of the environment, affect wildlife populations or their habitats, or reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant and animal species.

Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 60 ends

May 2020
Although special- status species may be impacted by implementation of the proposed Project, standard conservation measures and BMPs, as well as mitigation measures, will be used to avoid adverse impacts on these species. Implementation of the proposed Project would not eliminate examples of history or prehistory.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Section III, the proposed Project could temporarily contribute to region- wide cumulative air quality impacts. However, these impacts would be considered less than significant and under policy of the City’ s General Plan, application of standard BMPs would eliminate the potential for air quality impacts during Project implementation. Upon project completion the Project has the potential to reduce air quality impacts by providing safe and efficient routes for transportation. The Project’ s potential cumulative traffic impacts would be less than significant. c) No Impact. The proposed Project does not include any activities that could cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Documentation
Determinations for Section XXI have been made based on all documentation as part of this Initial Study Environmental Checklist sections listed above.

Mitigation
MM-1: Prior to the start of construction, a focused botanical survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist during the blooming period for silky cryptantha within the BSA. If silky cryptantha is not found during the botanical survey no other measures will be required. If silky cryptantha is discovered during the focused botanical surveys, the plants will be marked by a qualified biologist. If the area can be avoided, exclusionary fencing will be placed around the plants and no pedestrian or vehicular entry shall be allowed. If the area cannot be avoided, the City will coordinate with CDFW to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the species. Potential measures for reducing project impacts on special status plants include limiting ground disturbance until annual special status plants have gone to seed and stockpiling top soil during the initial excavation to be replaced as the top layer during the final site rehabilitation. If listed species are found and cannot be avoided an Incidental Take Permit may be needed.

MM-2: Work within Canyon Hollow Creek shall be restricted to the dry season ( June 1 to October 15).

MM-3: Any new gravel material placed in the channel shall meet Caltrans’ cleanness test ( California Test No. 227) with a value of 85 or higher.

MM-4: Riparian vegetation disturbed in the temporary use areas on the west side of Westside Road Bridge and on the east side of Eastside Road Bridge shall be restored both by revegetation and by promoting regrowth of plants that were pruned and protected prior to work. Where feasible, revegetated areas shall be planted at a ratio of 3 new plants for every large (> 3 inches) woody riparian plant removed 3:1 ratio). In areas of regrowth of large woody riparian vegetation, all regrowth will be monitored and maintained, and counted at a 1:1 ratio. These replanting ratios will help ensure successful establishment of at least one vigorous plant for each plant removed to accommodate the project.

Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Previous staff report 06-16-20 (4.11(b)--Accept Grant Funds and Adopt Budget Resolution) City of Redding
Public Works Department, Engineering Division Initial Study

Page 61 ends

Redding City CouncilMarch 19, 2024

Redding City Council
March 19, 2024